Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 October 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 4 October 6 >

Purge server cache

October 5[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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete per G7 (deleted by User:Neutrality). -Nameneko 05:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cecil Dreeme[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC and also Vanity one of its links is a MySpace Page and playen in restarants are no big deal Delete --JAranda | yeah 00:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • While it seems that the group is only a few steps away from notoriety, they have none as of yet. Delete. But don't be surprised to see them again. --CastAStone 00:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The criterion for a band to appear on wikipedia is at WP:MUSIC. The regular posters to the site agreed on this in January, and although they do change it occasionally, it is pretty close to a consensus at this point. Oh, and about JAranda - don't take his post personally, the Articles for Deletion page is meant for very, very frank discussion. --CastAStone 01:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Please will an admin Speedy Delete as per G7 - blanked and deletion requested by author.--CastAStone 01:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to wiktionary article List of decades.. Alphax τεχ 01:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Decennium[edit]

Is this a real word in practical use?? Everybody uses decade. Delete. 66.32.192.253 00:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nominator. NickBush24 00:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a) the definition is flat out wrong - Decennium:Ten Years::Annual:One Year - but the noun form of annual (think flowers). b) Wiki is not a dictionary --CastAStone 00:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. Yes the word is used, but it's rare. As CastAStone said, the definition also needs work (though I would have equated annual with decennial rather than decennium). Grutness...wha? 00:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC) (getting fed up with edit conflicts)[reply]
    • Annual (adjective) also works for decennial, when it is being used to describe something. Decennium or annual (noun) is when it is something, such as the Presbyterian Youth Triennium. It has virtually no practical use in modern English. But then again, I'm not an English scholar... --CastAStone 01:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah - you must have added that bit about the "noun form only" during one of our two edit conflicts! :) Grutness...wha?
    • Transwiki. In Merriam-Webster on-line. It and Oxford are my standards and I have heard the word. I'm having a hard time understanding Cast's comment: if your implication is it is an incidental or unused noun so it shouldn't be sent to Wikitionary I definitely disagree. People use dictionaries for the obscure not the obvious. Marskell 01:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It was more an explanation of why the definition of the word is so hard to flush out. I agree that the word needs to be in Wiktionary. CastAStone 02:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki. WordNet has it. utcursch | talk 07:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it's used. Transwiki a definition to wikitionary and leave a redirect to List of decades where decade redirects to. - Mgm|(talk) 08:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki and redirect per Mgm. Punkmorten 17:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not really worth the bother of transwikifying this article. This is barely a stub as far as Wiktionary is concerned, and Wiktionary can almost certainly come up with a better decennium article from scratch. Simply redirect as per MacGyverMagic. Uncle G 17:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • TRANSWIKI' to Wiktionary and REDIRECT to decade 132.205.45.148 18:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trasnswiki to Wiktionary and redirect to List of decades. --Optichan 19:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just redirect, Uncle G has written a much better dictdef at wikt:decennium. —Cryptic (talk) 11:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

T.L.C. With The C.A.T.[edit]

Rancid has not set T.L.C. With The C.A.T. as the official title for their new album due out next year. -- Mike Garcia | talk 00:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as WP is not a crystal ball or merge with Rancid if reputable source (e.g., formal announcement) can be cited for this info. Qaz (talk) 08:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge if reputable source can be cited otherwise delete as unverifiable. - Mgm|(talk) 08:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom CLW 12:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have researched for this name on Google and it's not found anywhere, so "T.L.C. With The C.A.T." can't be the official title of Rancid's new album (if that means deleting the article). If it has been confirmed before, then I must have missed it. -- Mike Garcia | talk 13:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom --Daniel Lotspeich 20:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 03:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Protein Lizard[edit]

Apart from accidental juxtapositions, "Protein Lizard" registers two google hits. As someone who was involved in the NZ music industry during the 1990s, I've certainly never heard of them (and by way of comparison, my own extremely nn band from that time garners about 25 google hits). Grutness...wha? 00:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. NN As per WP:MUSIC, Vainity.--inksT 01:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. utcursch | talk 07:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia seems to need another sister project for all the bands that fail WP:Music but who are dying to get into some reference! Qaz (talk) 08:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom CLW 12:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep.  BD2412 talk 23:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Thebroken[edit]

Not notable. Delete. brenneman(t)(c) 01:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Kevin Rose. Kertrats | Talk 03:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you specify for the clarity of the closing admin: A bare redirect leaves the article in place in history, and thus counts as a keep. Delete and redirect would not. - brenneman(t)(c) 04:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see that it matters one way or the other except for GFDL reasons perhaps (not certain how that works), but I'll specify to Delete and redirect as above. Kertrats | Talk 16:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Geez, Brenneman, you're really determined to see this thing go, eh? Wandering oojah 19:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn CLW 12:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If any content is merged it cannot be deleted (GFDL attribution requirement). Just redirect, deletion not needed. - Mgm|(talk) 18:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's slightly incorrect. The history can be pasted into the talk page, or I believe an admin can perform a history merge. Either one or the other will satisfy GFDL. - brenneman(t)(c) 22:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Very notable, it was one of the first popular web shows. --Hoovernj 18:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Popular videozine, from what I gather. Google search (thebroken + "kevin rose") returns 18,000 hits. Wandering oojah 19:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect per Brenneman. Just barely non-notable for me. Johntex\talk 19:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable. Eliot 22:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No independent, verifiable evidence of encyclopedic notability presented. Gamaliel 00:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nonnotable 482 unique google hits (rather than 18,000), nonverifiable. mikka (t) 02:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Popular videozine with a well known host. bbx 17:06, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep [1]  Grue  12:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very popular videozine, definitely keep! Salvag 18:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedily deleted. Friday (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fearclan[edit]

Non-notable gaming clan. Cnwb 01:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy as empty, contextless. Jkelly 02:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It's been done. Can an admin close this afd, please? Thanks. Jkelly 15:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 03:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joka[edit]

neologism Cnwb 01:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Probably an attack on some unspecified person. Jkelly 02:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I dont think the author is trying to slam someone, rather I think the author is using the article to define something from African American Vernacular English. I'll let others debate the merits of Transwiking this to the Wiktionary, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary.
  • Delete. Probably written by some 12 year old that goes to a bad school in an urban area. Dante 03:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The style can always be cleaned up, which I've now done. May I politely request that we not insult our contributors no matter how unhelpful or grammatically incorrect their contributions are? --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 04:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The term does not appear in the Urban Dictionary which accepts substantially everything, nor in the Rap Dictionary, and a Usenet search turns up mostly uses of a Finnish word spelled the same way. If the author can verify that this word exists in slang, the author should submit this entry to Wiktionary instead. In the absence of evidence I am voting to delete. --Metropolitan90 06:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete. Neologism. utcursch | talk 07:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are all a just a bunch of UberJoka! ... umm... rather, I mean Delete actually, as per Metropolitan90 Qaz (talk) 08:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a neologism. — JIP | Talk 10:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "joka" as a Finnish word means approximate "which" but it can also be a short form of "jokainen" "everybody" - Skysmith 13:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you Finnish? I've never seen anyone who was not Finnish or had not lived in Finland for several years understand a word of Finnish. — JIP | Talk 18:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Joka is also an Austrian company producing furniture which had a lot of advertising on TV when I was a kid. See [3]. Martg76 22:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then you could turn this entry into an article about the comapny in question - Skysmith 11:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nnn. Klonimus 07:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 03:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guerrillafinga[edit]

Advertise of nn band. 202.156.6.61 01:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A lot of Google hits ~1300, but no evidence that they meet WP:MUSIC. Jkelly 02:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak Keep. -- Under WP:MUSIC #6. Their album was described as "one of the area's best" [4] by the Fairfield County Weekly and StarPolish.com says they're the first group to perform "rasta gangsta" [5]. Ben D. 02:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per Ben D. Kappa 04:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep as per Ben D, seems this one just makes it. Mallocks 21:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advertising. Gamaliel 00:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Barely fails WP:MUSIC but still fails. --JAranda | yeah 02:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nonnotable. Abot 190 unique google hits. Mentioned references nonnotable themselves. mikka (t) 02:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn.  Grue  12:28, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 03:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KORNET Jazz Club[edit]

Advertise of nn club. 202.156.6.61 01:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Ad --JAranda | yeah 02:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 03:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Modelmotion[edit]

nn site. 202.156.6.61 01:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Google search on what links to "modelmotion.com" gave 0 hits. Jkelly 02:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 06:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. utcursch | talk 07:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP is not a promotional tool Qaz (talk) 08:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. *drew 13:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was to delete the copyvio. In order to save the article a /temp version was created, and moved to Apeejay School (Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi), that article is kept due to no consensus. I am not sure if there are any more schools with this name in India (I'm rather inclined to think that there are), and if this is so a disambig should probably be placed at Apeejay Public School. But for now, I will place a redirect there. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apeejay Public School[edit]

This page seems to have no more merit than a personal page. The school should probably have its own website for this info, which is irrelevant to the general public LadyAphelion 01:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable .Dudtz 10/7/05 3:05 PM EST

  • Keep the rewrite. Good stub about a top-performing school. --Tony SidawayTalk 22:12, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all schools. Klonimus 07:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and redirect to the well done rewrite. Unfocused 06:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Carbonite | Talk 12:11, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kool Neon Rod Productions[edit]

Delete- Non-notable vanity page. MakeRocketGoNow 02:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Note: An article for Sixth Grade Secrets does not exist at time of closing. Carbonite | Talk 12:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pig City[edit]

A club from a book does not warrant it's own entry. It could be included in a possible entry for the book itself. Cpaliga 02:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom Justin Bacon 06:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the book if that's created during the Afd. Else *Delete Dlyons493 Talk 06:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete assuming that no article for the book is created before the AfD is finished, otherwise redirect to the book per WP:FICT. --Metropolitan90 06:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. utcursch | talk 07:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect if book is created, otherwise delete. - Mgm|(talk) 08:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless an article for the book pops up. In which case it should be merged. --Optichan 19:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Are you literary critics? Lol. Go read a bit before sending non authoritative opinions. Acheronovich 19:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've read the book. Cpaliga 21:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect if book is created, otherwise delete. Hard to buy the notability of the club if the book is not even noted yet. Once that is in place, may warrant resubmission.--Daniel Lotspeich 20:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as blatant hoax. - Mgm|(talk) 08:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BIBU[edit]

hoax NeilN 02:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, Googling Insect and Bibu returns no relevant hits. Possible speedy:A1 --CastAStone 02:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • scrubs the snatches with his brucks counts as Speedy for me. Dlyons493 Talk 06:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hoax. utcursch | talk 07:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Carbonite | Talk 12:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alcibiades Jones[edit]

This page was reporrted as a copyvio, howver the author owns the copyright. The article is a puff piece for a band that does not meet WP:MUSIC, delete. --nixie 03:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The first line says it all "Alcibiades Jones is a band that likes to take off." In other words it hasn't taken off yet and is no different from millions of other bands. The article continues with irreperable POV promotional language and ends in extensive linking. Delete as band promotion advert. - Mgm|(talk) 08:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's textbook band vanity. Scimitar parley 18:05, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep and cleanup. I'm not sure they don't meet WP:MUSIC standards. The article is cruft, sure - it can be cleaned up though (and those dreadful downloads removed!) The band itself may well be (barely) N. Their one cd has a review by Keith 'MuzikMan' Hannaleck at [Evolving Artist] which is repeated on at least 6 other sites, verbatim - not good, that - but the key word is guidelines on wp:music, yes? and they have a strong review on [Kweevak] also. As in, not quite Noteable by wp:music but almost... and as they're planning another cd and not breaking up, perhaps would be best to clean the article so its not advert? KillerChihuahua 18:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. Wouldn't be surprised to find that it's a copyvio from somewhere. --Carnildo 20:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:MUSIC guidelines. Mallocks 21:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; does not meet WP:MUSIC to my mind, nor have any overriding notability not reflected in those tests. MCB 23:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 03:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Writing articles[edit]

Non-notable university student organisation (Filipino American Student Association at Virginia Tech)? --Mysidia (talk) 03:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nn. Way to have a title with nothing to do with your content. --CastAStone 03:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 06:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom, assuming that the topic of the article is the student organization. Student organizations that exist at a single institution are generally non-notable. I don't know what the article would be like if it really was about "writing articles." --Metropolitan90 06:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. utcursch | talk 07:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn CLW 12:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as nonsense, with that title. Eliot 22:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to Moose (dog actor).  BD2412 talk 23:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Enzo (dog actor)[edit]

This is totally unencyclopaedic. No one really wants or needs to know about a certain dog-stunt double. If anything, this stub should be added to the Frasier article. Dante 03:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because someone thought Wikipedia was a place to gather every single bit of knowledge available, however useless.
  • Waffling on save or redirectSave. There are 7 articles that link to it, so it's not completely inconsequential. Although every one of them seems to mention Moose in the same sentence, see Quill's argument following. Also, just because you have no interest in prominent dog actors doesn't mean that other people aren't very interested in them, their trainers, and their credits. Elf | Talk 16:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save; perhaps redirect, but I would give it a chance first. Dante's point can't be taken. No one needs to know about a dog stunt double because it’s not encyclopedic? On the other hand, everyone needs to know about each and every mythological creature in the Harry Potter series, which is of vital encyclopaedic significance. No one’s interested in this? As opposed to what? Gurg?
Someone pointed out at one of the TALK pages in a dog breed article, probably the Jack Russell Terrier, that Enzo has actually done more work than Moose in the films in which they were both credited, My Dog Skip e.g.. Enzo will also outlive Moose; it’s anyone’s guess as to what he’ll do post Frasier. I’d say just give it time; we’ve given grace to stubs of more esoteric nature than this. Some expert on dog actors is going to come along eventually. For that matter, someone looking for dog actors is going to come along….
This is a Wikipedic failing. Every damned soap opera character gets a mention, but someone wanted Martin Luther King Sr axed because he wasn’t significant; on the other hand, we really need Sarah Winthrop. And I don’t know about you, but my life would not be complete without having read the encyclopedic entry on Todd Grimshaw. Have some patience, people.
And for whoever wrote this, since I'm the undiscriminating 'someone' who thought 'Wikipedia was a place to gather every single bit of knowledge available, however useless', feel free to delete some of my other ideas, butler, great house, suffix (name), fox terrier or anything else with my signature that most others would not be interested in. Think first, type second.
Quill 21:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save. I am not no-one, I think that dog actors are interesting. I'd like more information, who trained them, what they are trained to do, what shows they have performed in. THis is all interesting to me. It's very hard to find this sort of information on dogs that perform in movies and television. So, you may call me inclusionist, but Wikipedia is not paper - while I would like this article to have more information, it's certainly notable enough to merit an article. - Trysha (talk) 05:43, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 03:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kerrbot[edit]

Conspiracy Theory, Hoax; No Google references Cpaliga 03:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • (speedy) delete. The Siberia part makes it patent nonsense. Kappa 04:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable. Dlyons493 Talk 06:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hoax. utcursch | talk 07:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - hoax CLW 12:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Note: Anon IP and new accounts not counted. Carbonite | Talk 12:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Widget[edit]

Podcast started this summer. Probably vanity--Shanel 03:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Its Novel, let them have it. Mike 06:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - It's not notable, don't let them have it. CLW 12:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete podcruft.--Isotope23 14:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's an awsome podcast and those interested should be given a way to gather information on it so they can know more about it. Keep it, please think of the children!-Katong Katong

I say that given the amount of people affected by it, and the absence of anything else with this title, it should be kept. It's sure to be editied more in the future.--John

There are other podcasts on the Wikipedia, and The Widgets rating broke the top 100 on iTunes a few weeks ago. I say keep it. -Shawn

Thats right, they were #46. TWiT has an entry, and there are no conflicting entries for this. Let them have it. - Ken

I am not involved with The Widget, I am not trying to promote the show or any of the people in it, I am merely telling people that want to know about The Widget. The Widget is a podcast that brings it's material to a broad range of listeners and thrives off telling the news of Technology in a way that is somewhat different that the convential.--Scoopula 01:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

for the pure fact that the widget is quite well known, i think it should stay. It's meaningless, but so it the game and petals aroudn the rose. Slimy earthworm 19:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you delete it? Its not doing anything bad to anyone, and its just a nice thing so some people can have their fun! I mean, there are over 1000 listeners, so it has a big enough fan base. Whats wrong with keeping it? BTW, I am not involved with the creation of The Widget etc, I am just a fan who has listened to every episode and thinks it is one of the best Podcasts out there! BTW, I was mentioned at the end of Episode 6, the email about why a Pirate would own a Ninja. :-) Dshban 8:29pm, 10th October 2005 (Eastern Australia Standard Time, whatever that is)

First, to all you sockpuppets out there, you should know that that votes from users who have little or nothing besides their vote carry no weight here. Wikipedia has been dealing with this ploy for years. --A D Monroe III 01:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Spam. No claim to notability. Unverifiable. --A D Monroe III 01:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Widget Show is a great addition to the ever growing podcast nation. Tim Ryan and Zane are great to listen to and have lots if usefull information mixed with good comedy. I have tried to listen to many other podcasts dealing with tech and similar topics and the widget is one of the best out today. Keep this podcast up and running and tell your friends and others to tune in. Go and check out the show instead of complaining about it's entry. LordStandley // 2005

This needs to be kept to help expand our knowledge of what else is out there in the world around us. You may hear a reference to the widget as you pass by two people having a conversation about the show and by using this wonderful site you can look it up to see what they are talking about. Twit has one...why not The Widget Show?--eventHorizon 12:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It! - Interesting way to find my details about a good pod cast, don t shoot it down just because you don t listen to it! - Matt, Melbourne Australia

KEEP IT! - For the love of 3 inches, keep this it is on itunes and a very good and funny podcast, check it out if you dont believe me. - Josh H. Mt morris, IL US

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

The result of the debate was Merge to Ben Weasel. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 17:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Black And Blue[edit]

This article is about a non-notable band that broke up immeadiately after their first performance [6]. No allmusic listing. To be fair there is some web presence, although it looks like a lot of them are duplicates. [7] --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 04:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was: no result; deleted by admin due to nn-bio CSD criterion. Ingoolemo talk 04:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Randy aldrich[edit]

Problem: n-n bio. Molotov (talk) 04:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I speedy deleted it, since nn-bio is an official speedy deletion criterion. For reference: the only content was a birthdate, so I was hardly out of bounds in deleting it. Ingoolemo talk 04:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Carbonite | Talk 12:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Morte cerebral[edit]

Appears to be non-notable. The presence of a link to a MySpace (with only 369 profile views) seems to confirm this. Delete. Joel7687 04:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 03:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Punkki[edit]

Current contents is this: "Punkki means tick in Finnish. Also called Flått in Norwegian.". WP:NOT a dictionary. Already in wiktionary. Kappa 04:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 06:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. whoa - nominated by Kappa too! Ryan Norton T | @ | C 07:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - Qaz (talk) 07:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. utcursch | talk 07:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dic def. - Mgm|(talk) 08:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if it's already in Wiktionary, then this article is useless. — JIP | Talk 10:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 03:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Either Oregon[edit]

Band fails WP:MUSIC criteria. As stated in the article, it was created "mid to late 2005." And yields no Google results. — Kjammer ⌂ 04:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Please see www.myspace.com/eitheroregon for web results and verification as to the existence of this band. As it is now October, the time frame of 'mid to late 2005' is still applicable, referring most specifically to the months of August and September.

Just because an article is about something new doesn't mean it should be ignored or removed! While this band has yet to exceed your wp:music criteria, shouldn't there be some time given to allow them to carve out their own notability before outright rejecting them from Wikipedia? As the article states, they are merely a few months old at best. Is newness an automatic prejudice of worthlessness?

Should not Wikipedia contain articles which document the emergence of an event, pheonomena, cultural idea, or, in this case, a group of musicians attempting to cut through a slew of cheap commercializm to create -- not for itself but for its principles, aesthetic and ideals -- an element of notibility in a field which, at its heart, shares nothing with the instances of corporatized vagary which meet your wp: music standards?

-- posted and edited by the anonymous creator of the article, who did not know at the time that registering his email address with Wikipedia would automatically elevate him to a higher class, but is nevertheless attempting to break through that ceiling by reputably and honorably posting his thoughts regarding the deletion of said article."

  • Delete. The Myspace web site reveals almost nothing about the band except that they have one concert scheduled in their hometown next month. The band has all the time it needs to carve out its own notability and then have an article about them accepted into Wikipedia, whether they need one month, one year, or ten years to meet the WP:MUSIC criteria -- the article can be created at that time once there is evidence they are notable; they are not being rejected permanently, just for now since they are not notable yet. A musical artist can qualify under the WP:MUSIC criteria without necessarily succumbing to commercialism. Finally, comments such as "Either Oregon is a musical group that originated in Portland sometime in mid to late 2005, though the exact date and location is a much debated topic in some intellectual circles. The exact lineup is unknown ...." (emphasis added) may be intended to create an aura of mystery, but they mostly make it look like the group is unverifiable and that the writer of the article doesn't know much about the topic. --Metropolitan90 06:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry dude, Wikipedia is a reference for things already notable, and while plenty of people agree with your arguement, more people do not. We go over this with pretty much every band on the site. Delete until they become notable, at which point I would hope they aren't too bitter to recreate their page. --CastAStone 06:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for all the same reasons as above but good job stating your case plainly and calmly. I look forward to when the band is able to be included here. Qaz (talk) 07:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. utcursch | talk 07:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn CLW 12:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete When you're famous, you'll be back! Marcus22 14:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted under criterion A7 of the speedy deletion policy. This 15-year old individual is not notable and uses Wikipedia as a personal webspace. - Mgm|(talk) 08:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Torres León[edit]

Problem: Definite delete, reasons (1) a non notable bio about a 15 year old written personally by that user (2) in Spanish on an English site. Molotov (talk) 05:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: From what I can read in Spanish, it appears to be a nn bio. Solarusdude 05:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. The autobio reveals that he is a Mexican fan of heavy metal and Harry Potter who is learning to play guitar. --Metropolitan90 06:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom even though his favourite book is Lord of the Rings Dlyons493 Talk 06:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A7 Speedy Delete as no assertion of notability made in either English or Spanish. Capitalistroadster 07:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Great company perhaps but not enough for an encyclopedia entry. Qaz (talk) 07:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. utcursch | talk 07:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Coffee 12:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel McLaughlin[edit]

Non-notable musician. Cnwb 05:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per WP:music. Article states "Daniel (alternately, Dan or Danny) McLaughlin born November 26th, 1984 at Parma General Hospital outside of Cleveland, Ohio is an American pop-rock musician of relative obscurity." He is either unemployed or a student at Kent State University with both descriptions being used. Unfortunately, he does not seem to be notable as yet. Capitalistroadster 05:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete A7 --CastAStone 06:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - as per CastAStone. Qaz (talk) 07:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. utcursch | talk 07:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Carbonite | Talk 12:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kazennye[edit]

  • Del a foreign dicdef, false and misleading too. This Russian word has adequate translations into English. mikka (t) 06:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Delete http://www.google.com/search?q=Kazennye&hl=en&lr=lang_en&c2coff=1&as_qdr=all&start=30&sa=N gives 39 references, approx 20 real English (not transliterated Russian). It looks like some historians thinks it is an English term abakharev 06:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So what? The term in all cases has a perfectly adequate translation, and it is quite normal in academic texts to accompany some terms with rendering in native language. mikka (t) 06:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, You both have made me change my mind. abakharev 10:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original creation comment says definition of 'kazennye' according to James Cracraft. That suggests it's not going to become an article. Dlyons493 Talk 06:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. KNewman 08:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would much rather prefer to see this article expanded re-written and moved to a better title (Government-owned lands in Imperial Russia, maybe?), but since it is unlikely that it is going to happen, and since the article in its present form is unacceptable, delete it is.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 12:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per referrer. --Ghirlandajo 14:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above.--Gaff 07:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was TRANSWIKI. [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 04:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Dominance training[edit]

How-to article on dog training, transwiki or delete. -- Kjkolb 06:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or Transwiki as per nom. Qaz (talk) 07:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikibooks where it belongs. - Mgm|(talk) 08:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki, but leave factual stub derived from intro as article. -- Arthur Frayn 11:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and transwiki per Arthur Frayn. Kappa 11:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki this to Wikibooks, then rewrite this to encyclopedic style and tone. It could possibly be merged with dog training. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 14:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki and something in dog training if someone wants to add it seems reasonable. This article probably should be used as a DAB since this is only one use of the title. There is also a version for horses and it is used by the Air Force. Vegaswikian 05:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Wikibofh 14:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Snowcastle[edit]

Ad? If not, than its NN, and "Snow castle" can never hope to be more than a dicdef. Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The searching I did on google about this place seems pretty impressive to me. They have a good number of visitors and they keep on rebuilding the thing every year, not to mention the size of it. It could stand to be made less like an ad but I vote to keep overall. Qaz (talk) 07:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • De-addify and keep. The bloody thing has been rebuilt repeatedly and it's quite famous. I've seen documentaries and items on television shows about the place. It can certainly be expanded past dic. def status. By the way, is this different from the Ice Hotel? - Mgm|(talk) 08:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename to Kemi snow castle or something. The Kemi snow castle is certainlty notable. — JIP | Talk 10:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's rather famous and has been featured on many television shows. -- Kjkolb 13:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought it was talking about the ice hotel, but it looks like this isn't it. I change my vote to abstain. -- Kjkolb 15:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I made it a finland-stub to hopefully get some attention... --Daedalus-Prime 23:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: this is not the well-known Ice Hotel, which is in Sweden, not Finland, nor the well-known Ice Hotel Canada, which is in Quebec. MCB 23:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep Wikibofh 15:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Snakes on a plane[edit]

Unencyclopedic. 202.156.6.61 07:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Accurate title of movie, plus small time internet sensation.
  • It totally lacks encyclopedic tone, but the film is real, so I'll do a quick rewrite. Keep. - Mgm|(talk) 08:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not the best of articles, but I think my rewrite is keepable. - Mgm|(talk) 08:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Snakes on a Plane as listed on IMDb. *drew 13:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename as per drew. -- Kjkolb 13:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep MacGyver Magic's rewritten stub and rename as per Drew. Capitalistroadster 18:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've renamed the article.--Scimitar parley 18:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Real movie, apparently. tregoweth 19:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It isn't exactly Citizen Kane, but it's real--Rogerd 06:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Snakes on a Kane! Kane on a Plane! Snakes on Kane's Plane! And keep. — mendel ☎ 16:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Uhm, it's Snakes on a Plane. Keep it. 128.206.229.182 20:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Uhm, it's Snakes on a Plane. Keep it.
  • Keep and rename as per *drew. -- Ipsenaut 17:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Not only is it a real movie, it's turning into a bona-fide Internet meme, including an entry in the Urban Dictionary. Extreme Unction 13:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Carbonite | Talk 12:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Game Orbital[edit]

NN "game". Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not encyclopedic. - Mgm|(talk) 08:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no need to mention a particular one of any number of "on occurance X, hit nearest person" games. Mallocks 22:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 01:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 12:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"I am disinclined to acquiesce to your request."[edit]

Not notable. Delete. utcursch | talk 07:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 17:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aayan Gunasingam[edit]

Non notable. Fails Google test. Delete. utcursch | talk 07:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not notable. MONGO 10:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Not surprising that he is not in google. He works in Sri Lanka taking care of sick people and working for peace. How is that not notable??? Keep this up and wikipedia becomes a "best of google." -Daniel Lotspeich MD --Daniel Lotspeich 23:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, In Wikipedia, notability means 'name recognition'. Wikipedia is not necessarily a good or accurate reflection of the real world. It just presents what history recorded and what the elites (in the sociology sense) want us to think. If you can find his name in a journal of medicine (google doesn't search academic journals) or something then he might stand a chance. --maclean25 01:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteI searched for the name in OVID Medline (a medical database) and nothing came up. Could be the next Mother Theresa, but apparently will be working in obscurity.--Daniel Lotspeich 20:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless further notability can be established. There is very little claim to his notability in the article and without some other evidence of notability, I don't see much to merit keeping... --Daedalus-Prime 23:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While I'm sure Gunasingam is a very inspiring man, like it or not, Google is an arbiter of notability on a web-based project such as this. Zero hits is not at all encouraging; I would expect at least a few if he were a notable peace activist. Is it possible a Hindi or Tamil search might be more fruitful? Denni☯ 01:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Denni.--Kross 07:07, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 03:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Solution bound[edit]

Blatant ad. Delete with haste. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 17:32, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

River Bandits[edit]

Topic is non-notable and/or un-verifiable, or a hoax Clay Collier 08:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The text of this article (the 'Beliefs' section, for instance) smacks of being a joke. Google search returns no reference to any organization called the River Bandits other than a minor-league baseball team. All links to this article within Wikipedia were created by the initial author of the article. --Clay Collier 08:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per nom. Qaz (talk) 08:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep- this is a real organization. I researched it for my senior project in highschool. The information in the belief secton comes from a pamplet the group distributed circa 2003. It smacks of a joke, but that is what the society is about: being goofy and, to some extent, relishing in their high IQ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.253.186.118 (talk • contribs) 2005-10-05 20:33:52 UTC
  • Do not deleteThis group is, surprising, legit. I spent the past weekend in Deland, and came across bills posted throughout Downtown promoting group events. Many contained silly, nonsensical phrases. Not every organization has a website...that a google search didn't return any results about the organization isn't sufficent cause to delete the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.213.111 (talk • contribs) 2005-10-05 20:41:10 UTC
    • ... but the facts that the article cites no sources, and that no sources can be found, are. This article is unverifiable. If you want to change editors' opinions cite sources, as the edit screen asks you to. Delete. Uncle G 21:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I'm going for hoax. I find it dificult to believe that Hontoon Island has more than 3 people, even during the tourist season, who would meet the IQ requirements for this purported organization. I live on Merritt Island, south of there... any Merritt Island IQ club would have to do something extremely noteworthy (hence at least meriting an entry in Florida Today) to be noteable enough for an entry to Wikipedia. KillerChihuahua 22:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless verifiable from reliable sources (i.e. not sock puppets). --Daedalus-Prime 23:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete i didn't know wikipedia required sources, so, since at the time no one can produce any, delete it. the organization does, however, exist. Killerchiuaha--1st, the organization is based in hontoon, but open to all residents in volusia county, second, hontoon has well over 500 people, so, well, do the math. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.253.186.118 (talk • contribs) 2005-10-05
  • keep This site is verifiable: the River Bandits are a registered as a not for profit organization in Volusia County. Read up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.253.117.70 (talk • contribs) 2005-10-06
    • Is there somewhere that we can verify the fact that they're listed as a non-profit org? Also, even if the org can be verified, that doesn't really speak to the notability of the organization. --Clay Collier 22:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 17:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Renegades of funk[edit]

complete nonsense by a reknown vandal

  • Delete - complete nonsense Aldux 09:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean renowned. :) - Mgm|(talk) 10:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fake lyrics are unverifiable. Real lyrics are copyrighted. Neither makes a good article. - Mgm|(talk) 10:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Should be deleted as copyvio but article could be written about this song. Originally performed by Afrika Bambaataa and covered by Rage Against the Machine. Capitalistroadster 11:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyvio--if someone wants to write an article about the song, he can do so at Renegades of Funk. Nateji77 13:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as copyvio. In fact, shouldn't the article be blanked and taken to Copyright Violations rather than AfD? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. My impression is that what is on that page is, um, "inspired by" the song "Renegades of Funk". Jkelly 21:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--Rogerd 01:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete, Ëvilphoenix Burn! 17:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ham run[edit]

Nonsense

  • Delete Nonsense...there is no such sport, anywhere, except as a joke.--MONGO 10:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and should have been speedy as nonsense. CambridgeBayWeather 10:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. Town called Hamrun on Malta and a Bulgarian inventing it cannot possibly be true. - Mgm|(talk) 11:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--Rogerd 01:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirected to Psychothymia. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 17:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Psychothemia[edit]

Reason why the page should be deleted - I spelt the subject wrong. It should be Psychothymia not Psychothemia. Oops! Kevincolyer 10:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article now changed to redirect. CambridgeBayWeather 10:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Hermione1980My RfA 22:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Jeffries[edit]

Delete Not notable Adcruft DutchSeduction 10:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, advertising. — JIP | Talk 10:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: he does get a lot of Google results, though the article is pretty terrible. Also, was there an AfD recently that concerned him or his work? I didn't see one in the edit history. -- Kjkolb 13:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Compare to the article Seduction Community that recently went AfD and was removed. It is now WP:VfU at VfU. Another terribly written article is David DeAngelo, another commercial seduction community guy. There should be one NPOV article to explain the social phenomenon which is kept linkspam and adcruft free. DutchSeduction 15:05, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, cleanup, and copyedit. This figure is notable as well. I'm not sure why this collection of articles receives so many deletion votes based on poor editing when many other articles on Wikipedia have been sitting in cleanup for years. Jeffries is notable. Let's fix some of the errors without resorting to an unnecessary deletion. --Quintin3265 16:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep only if edited into an NPOV article. If it remains objectionable adcruft Delete Dlyons493 Talk 20:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. The guy the Tom Cruise character in Magnolia was based on should have a Wikipedia article. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 22:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and continue to develop. Does not garner the same amount of attention on Google as David DeAngelo does, but this person still appears to be more than reasonably notable within his field. Hall Monitor 22:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Take note: In 'The Game' by Neill Strauss, Paul Thomas Anderson is said to have studied Ross Jeffries while writing Magnolia. 24.22.189.60 04:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ross Jeffries is definitely a notable person. Article needs to be redacted though. Intersofia 14:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep very notable Klonimus 07:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Ëvilphoenix Burn! 17:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ninefish[edit]

Non-notable graphics designer. Gets 510 Google hits. Page is written from the first person and reads like an advertisement. Delete. — JIP | Talk 10:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete ditto above. MONGO 10:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, delete. --A bit iffy 10:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, delete got a bit carried away with looping links, should be a user page. --ninefish
    • Yes, I was wondering if that was the case, ninefish. Thanks for saying so, as it makes the necessary action more clear-cut. Oh, and welcome to Wikipedia.--A bit iffy 11:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, feel free to take any content you need for your userpage before it is deleted. - Mgm|(talk) 11:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Rogerd 01:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete Ëvilphoenix Burn! 17:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Psychological murder[edit]

This seems to be more a figure of speech than a well-defined term. Delete -- Arthur Frayn 10:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Off-the-top-of-the-head addition. Marskell 14:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism not in wide use. MCB 23:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Rogerd 01:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No Consensus, Kept. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 17:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Images of castles, Images of Crystal Palace[edit]

From WP:NOT: Wikipedia articles are not collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles. Coffee 10:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for both, perhaps one or two of the best Crystal Palace images should be merged into The Crystal Palace Keithlard 15:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Images of castles. I once had a picture of a castle in my mind but no other information. I was able to use this page to find it, identify the name, and go to the page for more information. It worked out really well and without this page I would have had a hard time finding the name. Think of the pictoral listing as a visual index which has a great deal power in terms of locating the appropriate wikipedia page when the name is not known. Also, I do not see the lack of text in the article as a problem since the raw list of images serves the purpose very well. Hilmar 17:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are these all already located at Wikimedia Commons? It seems a shame to waste them, but clearly they aren't in accord with Wikipedia policy. Delete, with regrets.--Scimitar parley 18:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the problem identified by the nominator is not that the creator of the article put the castle pictures in Wikipedia, but that the article contains only pictures, no text. Crypticfirefly 04:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the pages: Wikipedia is not an image gallery. Any images that are under a free license should be moved to Commons. --Carnildo 21:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Some very well-known castles here, and some excellent pictures. This is a nice resource, and serves Wikipedia far better than pages and pages of nonsensical school articles. Denni☯ 01:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I disagree that this is a "collection of photographs or media files" as contemplated by WP:NOT. It is a visual index of castles as Hilmar noted, and it is catagorized by country. Crypticfirefly 04:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC) I should add, my vote for Keep particularly applies to the Images of Castles article. The Images of Crystal Palace do seem to fall more into the "collection of photographs" description. They should be moved to Commons as suggested by Carnildo. These articles really are very different and it only causes confusion to vote on both of them in the same vote. Crypticfirefly 04:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I contributed several of the photos of castles and would have no regrets if this were moved to Commons. Provided the licenses are appropriate, Commons is the best place for collections like these, and has an article, commons:Castle, that is very similar. Castle already links to it. Fg2 05:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Commons is a Wikimedia project, just as Wikipedia is, and Wikimedia has identified Commons as the place to put photos and galleries. WP can link to Commons and Commons can link to WP. Additionally, Commons can have captions in multiple languages. So, an article like this can serve a wider audience than the English Wikipedia's article. Fg2 05:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no one is suggesting deleting the images, but a page that just contains images clearly falls into WP:NOT, make Category:Images of Castles and tag all the images like that if need be.--nixie 05:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Indeed, I think there's little doubt that these article are clearly contradictory to the guidelines in WP:NOT. If anyone wants these to serve as a "visual index", they could include pictures in List of castles. Coffee 05:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment; One issue in moving/adding images to the List of castles is page load time. If someone has slow Internet access they will not want all those images embedded with the list of names so there is some utility in maintaining two separate pages. Both pages serve as pointers to the individual castle pages each of which employ a different search strategy to find the information you need. Hilmar 10:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or move The pages are useful as they are. I'm against losing the images. I'd support a sensible renaming to List or Category. --Johntex\talk 09:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, moving anything that needs it to the Commons. Tuf-Kat 16:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, the commons cannot deal with things that are 'fair use' (not applicable here, but applicable in some cases) so it isn't an end all and be all. As well, articles like this are useful for people wanting to research castles instead of having to comb though the commons. --ShaunMacPherson 12:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since, as you said, 'fair use' is not an issue in this case, I wonder what advantage this Wikipedia article has over commons:Castle, which has more photos in one article than this one does. Commons also has commons:Category:Castles. Fg2 12:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Eventually a caption under each image can be produced, such as the general architecture, location, age etc. Wikicommons is a dump of GFDL files, it provides no organized context or interpretation. Useful, but I think not a replacement for a list or gallery article such at these. As addition, I do not see the harm in having an article like this on *Wikipedia* even though one maybe on Wikicommons, Wikipedia is not paper. Contact me if you want me to vote to save a visual or list gallery, I will happily cast my vote in favor. --ShaunMacPherson 11:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a visual list. Klonimus 08:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both, smacks of an inability to choose a good image and put it in the relevant article. --redstucco 08:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Hermione1980My RfA 22:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Quinn (disambiguation)[edit]

David Quinn is now a redirect to Quinn, where most (all?) Wikipedia's Quinns are listed alphabetically, including both of these names Wetman 10:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • David Quinn should, and does, redirect to here. (For the relationship between disambiguations for the family name and individual disambiguations for specific family+given names, see Johnson and its relationship with Bob Johnson, David Johnson, Jack Johnson, and so forth.) This is a quite normal disambiguation article for two articles that each, if the other did not exist, would have the title David Quinn. Keep. Uncle G 21:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, disambiguation page. Hall Monitor 20:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per above --New Progressive 20:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Discussion consolidated into Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. P. McManus Scholarship Award winnners 2 --Allen3 talk 12:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Leamy[edit]

I have heard of this award, but not of this person (I follow Limerick news). Lots of people get awards, and the only claim to notability appears to be the granting of this award. A bit iffy 11:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep, withdrawn by nominator after a substantial rewrite Pilatus 13:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Death rattle[edit]

There's an article to be written about this. This isn't it. Inaccurate is putting it mildly. Delete -- Karada 11:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have substantially rewritten the article which, as Karada and others observe, was a load of old cobblers. Please now keep it. The Land 11:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it now, thanks The Land. Kappa 11:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is much better: changing my vote to keep the new version, and rescinding my nomination. Can someone please close this afd ASAP? -- Karada 11:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 02:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You Give Good Love[edit]

Fails notability guidelines — was never a number one, and the article offers no reason to think it notable for any other reason. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (or make redirect to relevant album article). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak delete (or make redirect to relevant album article). I'm still unsure about this; the Music WikiProject guidelines rule it out, I think, and the pop-music business is so vast that articles on singles could overwhelm Wikipedia if there were no limits); I'm still of the opinion that a number-one position on some major chart should be the normal minimum requirement (possibly overridden by other facts in special circumstances) – reaching number three doesn't strike me as making a single "a notable hit" – and I certainly think that the fact that a singer is notable doesn't make everything she does worthy of an article. The article itself is much better than it was, thanks to [User:Capitalistroadster|Capitalistroadster]], but it wasn't the content that worried me before. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Whitney Houston singles are notable, this reached #3 in the charts. Kappa 15:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Significant hit by significant singer. Capitalistroadster 18:05, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to relevant album, as per WP:MUSIC. Jkelly 18:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Gamaliel 00:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Capitalistroadster asked me to have a look at the new article, and it's a pretty solid keep now. The problem here is that this album has four lengthy (perhaps overly lengthy, but then I hate WH so I'm no judge) articles on individual songs and a bare stub of an article on the album which gives no trace of the significance and popularity of this album. In principle I think that people should work on the album and break out articles from there instead of starting with the song, and had I found this stub I would have merged it into the album article myself. Song stubs are just clutter; centralized information at the album level is more useful for the reader, but I guess its easier just to toss out a stub on a song and forget all about it. With that said, I can't ignore Capitalistroadster's work on the article and no doubt the article will be kept, as it should be, but I'm still voting merge as an impotent protest against song stubs. Gamaliel 06:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have now expanded the article from a stub. Capitalistroadster 10:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment (Cross-posted from User talk:Capitalistroadster) It is a vastly improved article now. But my merge vote wasn't due to the article's quality, it was because of the guidelines at WP:MUSIC. Now that the article is a bit more informative, I get that this is the single that launched Houston's career. Maybe that's, um, "notable" enough to deserve its own article. If one takes a look at Whitney Houston (album), though, it's just this enormously long article of tables. There's no text in it whatsoever. That suggests to me that if one pushes all of the informative text into articles on singles, what's left is album articles that look like that. I think that the guidelines at WP:MUSIC make sense, but I am not at all opposed to discussing them, and, especially, trying to establish some clearer consensus about what singles deserve articles. Right now we have a situation in which people are ignoring the guidelines and making articles on singles, compilation albums, and even individual album track recordings. This may suggest that consensus about what deserves an article has changed since those guidelines were written. I think that discussion needs to happen, but not at AfD, nor by individuals creating articles on singles that are good enough that it would be a shame to delete them. Jkelly 16:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep appears to be a notable single, too big to merge. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable hit from Houston. OmegaWikipedia 06:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as Whitney Houston's first notable hit. But, for God's sake, do not make it any longer than it currently is now. As it stands, it is direct and to-the-point without unnneccessary detail. --FuriousFreddy 08:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have no problem with this article, singles infobox would improve it without adding verbiage. Alf melmac 09:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Kemp[edit]

not notable

  • Delete not notable.--MONGO 11:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Key character on hit national TV show for multiple years. --rob 18:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Actress on popular Australian program during the 1980's. Notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 18:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this person appears to be a notable television actress. Hall Monitor 22:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Rogerd 01:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete All. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 17:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

J. P. McManus Scholarship Award winnners[edit]

See Also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. P. McManus Scholarship Award winnners

Articles: Padraig Cullinan, Patrick McInerney, Michael Kiely, Richard Meany, Eamonn Dillon, Timmy Houlihan, Brian Hartigan, James Clifford, Brian Coleman (II), Jonathan Flynn, Frank Hoare, Brendan McCarthy, Simon Leamy, Henry Foster (II), Jamie Sheahan.

Another batch of students who appear to have no claim to fame other than winning a J. P. McManus Scholarship Award, an award only available to graduates of a particular secondary school. --Allen3 talk 11:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as nn-bio would have been my choice. --DrTorstenHenning 11:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just like the others. (I was thinking about speedy delete, but that would then be making a judgement about the prestigiousness of the award which does have its own page.) --A bit iffy 12:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. per nom. Good work with the sizeable nomination Allen3! -feydey 12:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the award doesn't seem to be notable either. There are a huge number of scholarships in the world and this one is only awarded to students of one school. I think it should be put on the school's page. -- Kjkolb 13:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. Mushroom 16:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, with the exception of Brendan McCarthy, which can be retooled into an article on the British comics artist (several links already).Bjones 17:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Barely passes CSD criteria.--Scimitar parley 18:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 18:05, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of the books: “A narrative of the life of Frederick Douglas, an American slave” and “Uncle Tom’s cabin”[edit]

If I can't write a comparative essay, then neither can this user. =)
What I mean is, this is original research. Userfy. — JIP | Talk 12:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Userfy or Delete. As per Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. --Allen3 talk 12:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete idiosyncratic personal essay, original research ➥the Epopt 12:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. -- Francs2000 15:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy or delete. Arvandor, this is a fairly good essay, but Wikipedia does not publish essays. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If some respected literary critic or historian had written a book comparing and contrasting writings about black life in the 1800s, you could write an article about that book. "Userfy" means that you can put this essay, or almost anything you want within reason, onto your Wikipedia user page. But it can't go into the main section as an encyclopedia article. By the way, do not try to edit out the tag saying the article is being considered for deletion. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or prepare for the onslaught - there are millions of books, and trillions of comparison articles (e.g. "Comparison of the books My Pet Goat and The Bible). -- BD2412 talk 03:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Rogerd 01:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 18:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Smoking Mirror[edit]

Sorry, but a band which is less than a year old, has not released anything and "intends to record a demo during the winter of 2005-06." does not pass WP:MUSIC guidelines for inclusion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; You beat me to it Lectonar 12:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marskell 14:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom... with so many band vanity pages springing up, I'd really like to see a speedy for bands that don't meet WP:MUSIC.--Isotope23 15:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually I voted against the band vanity speedy proposal because I felt that a band could perhaps be notable even if it didn't meet the guidelines of WP:MUSIC. Also, I have seen some deletion debates which have been branded "band vanity" by the nominator, and then wound up being kept simply because the original author (usually a newbie) didn't know that it's a good idea to list all the releases, jot down their awards, etc. Yes, such pages which wind up on AFD are a bit time consuming, but if it means we save some articles which, after some investigation, definitely should not be deleted, I think it's worth it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, I'm not sure that they're springing up so much as being found, and with some of them being so borderline I think a speedy might over-simplify some of the cases. Mallocks 22:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Rogerd 01:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 02:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ray English Club[edit]

Article provides no evidence of encyclopedic notability. It appears to be a regular run-of-the-mill club in Japan. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. it's not nova or aeon, it's <8 non-employees. the work-for-board payment method makes it less than regular for a school. it seems to lack lots of the superlative compliments and excessive insertion of contact details that normally permeate an ad posing as an article, which makes me wonder if maybe it wasnt submitted in good on the grounds that the visa-less system makes it unique (ive actually heard of the schoo before and associate it with that). Nateji77 14:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. These sort of places are a dime a dozen. Wikipedia is not an advertising medium. --Calton | Talk 01:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
places that admit up front they won't pay you are actually pretty rare. Nateji77 06:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 18:09, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

De jure Charles VIII[edit]

And identical article at De jure Charles VIII of The Holy Roman Empire. An unwikified text dump that has little, if anything, to do with the title. R. fiend 13:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very weak keep. There is a crank who calls himself that and an article about him might be worth having. This one however is nowhere near good enough. If somebody who knows more about it could do a re-write or even verify his notability then it is worth saving. Otherwise, get rid of it. Keresaspa 13:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've called your vote a keep, but you really described a delete, as we're voting on the contents, not the title. True, there is probably potential for an article under this title, but not one remotely like this. Since if it's completely rewritten the vote will be void anyway, might you not change your vote to delete? -R. fiend 13:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was hoping somebody might come along and salvage it before it is deleted, as it does have potential. That being said, I've no objections to deleting the current contents. Keresaspa 14:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: at least part of this article is a copyright violation. It may have been taken from multiple sources. -- Kjkolb 13:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I strongly doubt it's a copyvio. I would imagine that the person who inserted it is the copyright owner. john k 03:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Two articles with the same text means that regardless of merits, one must go. Maybe do a redirect on one article so only one AfD vote needs to be tracked for this? Kjkolb, if this is a copyvio could you slap a tag on it or on (De jure Charles VIII of The Holy Roman Empire? Beyond the fact this is a mirror of De jure Charles VIII of The Holy Roman Empire I'd probably lean delete on the text alone unless someone can establish a Joshua A. Norton level of notability.--Isotope23 15:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete maybe there is an interesting article to be written about the topic, but this isn't it. Keithlard 15:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The information is copied from [8], itself a spurious website. Olessi 16:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The text as it is (was?) is a complete mess, and the subject is not notable - we shouldn't have articles about every nut with a web page. john k 03:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Misleading (one might say intentionally deceptive) article title, amounting to one crank's "original research" (read: personal essay) justifying his pretentions. Not even a notable crank. - Nunh-huh 04:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate wasCopyvio, All Deleted under CSD A8. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 03:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adeptia BPM Server[edit]

Also similar articles at Adeptia Inc, Adeptia Integration Server, Adeptia XML Mapper. All were tagged for speedy, but don't seem to qualify, though they should be deleted as spam. R. fiend 13:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - sorry, I'm not quite familiar with the AfD process yet so I tagged these as speedy hoping that someone would know the right thing to do :) *goes and reads up on deletion process* Keithlard 13:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyvio from [9] I'd put that on the articles but don't want to complicate the Afd further. Dlyons493 Talk 20:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen, please keep in mind that we now have CSD A8, which is speedy for copyvios. All of these articles are copyvios and could have been tagged as such. Please don't hesitate to add a copyvio and speedy tag for articles that are in violation, it's much easier and faster than full AfD. Even if something is already on AfD, we can get rid of it that much faster if you go ahead and speedy it. Thanks for the vigilance, keep up the good work. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 03:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy (by User:Brookie) as blanked by author. Lupo 07:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bortolotto Design Architect[edit]

Blatant advertisement, vanity. Delete Lupo 13:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Advertisement --Wetman 18:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Adcruft.--Isotope23 18:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity Rules[edit]

This article is an essay on racism. I don't think there's anything that can be salvaged, valid points are covered in better articles, and a redirect wouldn't make much sense. -- Kjkolb 13:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a neologism. As pointed out in the nom, most if not all of the valid arguments in this article are covered elsewhere (and if there are any that are not they should be cleaned up and added to the existing article on Racism. I will give the author some kudos for at least sourcing the article... even if it is poorly written.--Isotope23 15:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as personal POV essay. It's probably OR as well, given that the inline sources are simply dicdefs of the phrases used, rather than actual sources. The sources at the bottom are not referred to directly to support the arguments. MCB 23:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 18:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Faran-web[edit]

Non-notable web site that, according to the article is still under construction. A Google search returns 95 hits. Rob Church Talk 13:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. Notability is not asserted. Delete, not notable. See comment below. --Ashenai (talk) 14:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless there was a change in CSD that I missed, not-assertion of notability is only permitted for people. I hope there was a change in CSD that I missed, but barring that, delete as a non-notable webpage. Lord Bob 14:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Blargh. I can't believe website articles don't have to assert notability. I feel this is an oversight, but criteria are criteria. I'll go remove the speedy template. Thank you! --Ashenai (talk) 14:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree with you, it is a bit weird, especially considering all the webcruft articles we get these days. But expanding CSD is a tricky thing to do, and perhaps that's best. Lord Bob 17:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Everything has to assert notability, even if that assertion is merely a part of its nature. (What constitutes notability varies from editor to editor, of course.) It's just that the rules for speedy deletion are very narrow, to cover only the most obvious cases, to keep legitimate articles from accidentally being speedied. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 17:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Userfied, redirect deleted. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 03:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Eaglesfield[edit]

Probable vanity page with few Google hits outside of Eaglesfield's own posts on forums. Userfy or delete. Dvyost 14:05, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 03:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Generification[edit]

Dicdef and a personal essay. DS 14:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • ...And original research. Delete.--Isotope23 15:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FDA Statistics on Prozac’s Side Effects[edit]

Incidences of side effects has just been dumped into this article with no introduction. I don't think an encyclopedia is the place for this data. A paragraph or two about side effects would be appropriate in the Prozac article, but this is just long list. I don't think a redirect would be useful as it is an unlikely search. -- Kjkolb 15:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-encyclopedic... maybe move to wikisource, but I'm not sure this would pass a fair use test.--Isotope23 15:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Side comment: FDA reports are a U.S. government product and are in the public domain. MCB 00:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unencyclopedic. Alex.tan 15:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An interesting list, to be sure, but entirely unsuited in its present form for use here. There may be some information which can be merged into the Prozac article though. Denni☯ 01:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge to article on Prozac--could simply be a link at the bottom of the article to the FDA site where originally published. --Daniel Lotspeich 20:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • acutally, such a link already exists on prozac page. therefore just delete.--Daniel Lotspeich 20:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Pointing to the arguments section on WP:SCHOOL seems slightly irrelevant here, since the article was not about a school but a list of schools. Arguments for deletion have been based on the list's maintainability and outnumber the keep votes by more than 2:1. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_schools_for_gifted_children[edit]

Just a list, can never be comprehensive, currently malformed 168.12.253.82 15:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unmaintainable list. —Wahoofive (talk) 15:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, helps wikipedia users find information about schools for gifted children. No need to be comprehensive, and easily maintainable, as schools for gifted children don't stop being schools for gifted children very often. Kappa 15:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The list is without criteria for inclusion (and this matters, since there are different ways of accrediting such schools), likely to cause confusion (what is the status of magnet schools regarding this list?), woefully short, and unlikely ever to be anything close to complete. Xoloz 16:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since there are so few schools on the list, there is no need yet to refine criteria for inclusion. Why would it need to be complete to be useful? Kappa 16:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • With it 'this' short, it could be counter productive for anyone who was looking for gifted schools. And there will be school rivalries leading to 'gifted' vandalism :D --Spankthecrumpet 18:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lists of schools.--Nicodemus75 20:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Kappa and Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Silensor 20:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Impossible to maintain: public school gifted programs come and go all the time, as school board makeups change. --Carnildo 21:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an ultimately unmaintainable list.Gateman1997 22:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this list of schools is verifiable and npov if we were to call something a list of schools that suck that would not really be npov so we probably could not do that wahoofive but this is just fine Yuckfoo 23:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unmaintainable. Pilatus 23:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unmaintainable, potentially infinite, impossible to make comprehensive or useful, no standards for inclusion or exclusion. Gamaliel 00:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Note that this list was started in December 2003 and until it was listed for deletion 22 months later had only two entries. It now has five. The entry ought to be put out of its misery. Pilatus 00:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unmaintainable list of massive beadth that could be well-served by a category if such a thing were useful, which it's not, and not inherently POV, which it is. Lord Bob 01:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unmaintainble most schools has gifted programs --JAranda | yeah 02:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Xoloz. Denni☯ 03:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Gamaliel and Lord Bob - I would support keeping it if it were modified to include a notability bar E.g. "List of schools for gifted children top ranked by US Department of Education" or some such. --Johntex\talk 09:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Either it's vague, because technically any mainstream school is 'for' gifted (or as we say in English, 'clever') children, since I doubt very many throw them out. Or it's umaintainable, if we narrow it down to those who operate special programmes, as those change from year to year. --Last Malthusian 10:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. most schools have gifted programs, and this sounds like a candidate for POV problems. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 09:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete inherently POV.  Grue  12:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Education systems do designate some schools specifically for gifted children, who in those systems are described as gifted either as a result of assessment usually by an educational psychologist or by competitive examination. There aren't many of them, and this list is thus highly maintainable and useful. --Tony SidawayTalk 22:14, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • SOME educated systems designate these kind of schools, but most schools in the US are required to have gifted programs of one kind and the other kind comes and goes. Which illustrates the whole problem with this list, both the inherit double-meaning of "gifted" and the POV problems with saying one school is more able to handle gifted children then another. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 22:52, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as Xoloz --redstucco 08:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep useful list. Borisblue 19:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. None of the suggested redirects seem particularily feasible to me, so I won't make them. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

February 31[edit]

Did this actually happen? Google doesn't seem to think so. Francs2000 15:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unverifiable hoax. I love The Onion but the second you are using anything outside the A.V. Club as a source your argument is shot.--Isotope23 15:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but then redirect to February as aid to the confused and the drunk. :) Xoloz 16:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect as hoax. There was a February 30 once, though. --Carnildo 21:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but if it's going to redirect should it not go to 3 April except in leap years when it should go to 2 April? CambridgeBayWeather 21:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why? It's March that comes after February... -- Francs2000 21:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh! Must be a special Canadian thing where Feb becomes April.
  • Delete We don't have articles for individual months in the 1st century. The earliest year we currently split by month is 2000. If we're going to start doing this, I suggest we start with the 20th century instead, rather than February 31.Caerwine 04:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirected to Geek. I personally don't think there's enough there to bother with merging, but if someone wants to, feel free. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 03:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Girl Geek[edit]

We don't need articles to explain that a compound word "A B" means "A B that is an A". Unfortunately, this article doesn't even reach that standard, instead going on an unsupported path of "girl geeks have people skills". Of course, to be fair, I don't see how this article could be objective beyond "A girl geek is a geek who lacks Y chromosomes", so delete. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 15:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Merge with Geek Make alot more sense really theres not enough information here to make merging hard. User:Redconverse
  • Delete non-notable, quasi-dicdef. Xoloz 16:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neologism. No evidence this term is ever used in a general sense particularly in a manner consistent with the "definition" provided here.--Isotope23 18:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC) -[reply]
  • KeepUsed widely for organising Geek Dinners for Women. see http://thehughpage/London_girl_geek_dinner
  • Merge with Geek - hey, I could see someone looking it up. -- BD2412 talk 03:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Geek - I agree 71.69.130.255
  • Delete I think this entry's unnecessary and stereotypical. It only shoves all real girl geeks (which are really called "Geek Girls" or "Geek Grrls", by the way) into a little category. sarysa 02:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • change update the details to accurately reflect the true meaning of girl geek in todays society. The phrase has been coined amongst the IT industry & marketing industry, particularly after blogHer and London Girl Geek Dinner.
  • Delete sloppily written, stereotypical! A pointless entry. As Lomn notes, no need for articles explaining compound terms such as these, especially when they are so poorly explained and based on no evidence whatsoever.
  • Merge with Geek, redirect "Girl Geek" to the merged page. Bryce 18:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect. There is nothing to merge but original research and POV. mikka (t) 01:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


-- Don't even bother merging it, please. Why do we need a "female" definition to a unisex word? That this even exists strikes me as sexist and even offensive, being both female and a geek. I don't label my fellow male geeks as "boy geeks." Please delete this article.

Never heard of pregnant boys in a "unisex world". there is something of brain damage to consider the word "female" as offensive.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sticky crumble[edit]

Probably a joke; it certainly doesn't seem to be verifiable. Even if it were, this would be at best a one-line addition to Nicky Gumbel, and not an article to itself. — Matt Crypto 15:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete borderline nonsense that doesn't deserve it's own article.--Isotope23 18:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Alf melmac 09:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedied.  Grue  12:40, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

goth.net[edit]

a place for goths to talk --130.111.98.131 15:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Abstain Isn't a one-line entry simply promoting a website link a speedy delete? If not, why isn't it? --Wetman 16:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ad, nn. Xoloz 16:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in a dark and macabre fashion!--Isotope23 18:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete alexa ranking 252,000+ [10] and only 122 pages linking in [11] --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 21:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect to Pure Pwnage. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 03:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FPS Doug[edit]

Basically a not notable bio, but to be sure I AfD:d it. Some internet based character. Go figure. feydey 16:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not an nn-bio so much because it's really about the character. It's a completely nn character though who's been featured on some web videos and the article borders on adcruft. Delete.
Forgot to sign my comment above.--Isotope23 20:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 18:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eurphan[edit]

Seems to be a hoax or joke page; nothing from the Google test; maybe a private joke? In any case, not encyclopedic. Keithlard 16:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Greenspoon[edit]

Non-notable, lack of meaningful content (possibly should be userfied) Dvyost 12:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just delete - nn CLW 12:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no verifiability or significance. Friday (talk) 14:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as per WP:CSD A7. Hall Monitor 18:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy per CSD:A7--Isotope23 21:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per CSD A7.--Sean Jelly Baby? 22:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've speedied this per the consensus of votes AND because Mr. Greenspoon's two partners in his endevor have already been speedied as CSD:A7.--Isotope23 00:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Greenspoon, Round Two This article has been recreated, still non-notably; a request to have it speedied was declined, so I'm reposting it here. The film "Milk" gets no Google hits when combined with Greenspoon's name, nor does the Ogden-Nash film festival. Unverifiable, non-notable. I'd still suggest speedy but at the very least delete. --Dvyost 17:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I originaly rejected this as a speedy - the article states that he's the co-editor of a magazine and stared in a film. Those claims may well be bogus, or notabilty may not be established by them, but can someone explain to me how that is not an assertion of notability per WP:CSD? --Doc (?) 18:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'd argue that without any explanation of why this magazine or film is notable, there's still no explanation of notability; many of us have worked on small college publications or starred in a friend's film for a local film festival, and that's really not notability. Still, since I suspect you know the guidelines better than me, I've followed your advice and am perfectly happy to wait it out here. For clarity's sake I'll set this discussion off from the previous one.--Dvyost 19:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable enough for Wikipedia. Johntex\talk 19:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY KEEP. The original article was replaced with a useful disambig, and the nomination was withdrawn. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lee High School[edit]

Non-notable highschool, no context, doesn't even say where the school is (city, state) --W.marsh 17:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is currently a speedy delete candidate, under CSD criterion A1, unless it is expanded to establish context. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 17:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It currently has no context, but it isn't short :) Kappa 17:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • While your update is interesting and more coherent, do we really need a disambig page linking to 2 nonexistant pages? --W.marsh 18:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well it has inbound links too, so yes. Kappa 18:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Two sentences and the fight song is short in my book. In any case, keep the disambig. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 19:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, useful disambig, and per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep Kappa 18:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the new disambig page, which really has nothing to do with the original article. I assume (but don't know) the author was thinking of the one in Michigan (based on their IP). But the original version is now unimportant. The new disambig is useful given the commonality of the name, and existence of a couple blue-links. --rob 18:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes I must agree that the new disambig page is okay... it even links to existing articles. Nice work. --W.marsh 19:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and withdraw AfD nomination ASAP.--Nicodemus75 20:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • How do I withdraw a nomination? I'll be looking around the 500 deletion guideline pages and hopefully will figure out before too long... --W.marsh 00:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Like that; just say you want to withdraw the nomination, and if there are no objections, an admin (or any editor, really) will close it for you. I'm going to do that right now. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and delist from Articles for deletion as per Nicodemus75. Silensor 20:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep CalJW 22:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep useful disambig page.Gateman1997 22:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Was speedied. Wikibofh 15:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sachin fulpagare[edit]

Vanity, no real argument for notability. Recommend userfy. Dvyost 17:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Userfy as another college grad with a job...--Isotope23 18:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Tintin 22:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No Consensus. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 03:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Insurance Investigations[edit]

Aside from the need for cleanup, I wouldn't consider this encyclopedic. Maybe appropriate for Wiktionary, but I'm not sure about that either. Soultaco 17:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 03:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

“Video compression system and method using time”, “Self Implementing Multicast Protocol Level Escalation” (SIMPLE). and “Self adapting frame intervals”[edit]

Is Wikipedia an encyclopedia for releasing patent (like this United States Patent) information? If anyone could point out any previous AfD/VfD over this, would be helpful as I didn't find any. feydey 18:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 03:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Echoradio[edit]

nn podcast, delete — Lomn | Talk / RfC 18:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chilimi[edit]

Unverifiable. 202.156.6.54 18:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless verified. a google didn't produce much of value that I could see. Friday (talk) 19:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. There may be some transliteration issue from Russian (users other articles refer to Georgia) but still I can't find anything. Dlyons493 Talk 20:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. *drew 06:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whiteley Film Co[edit]

an "amateur film company". They have a website, but there's nothing to suggest they've made any significant films. I can't confirm existance of them, other than by their own website and their myspace page. Friday (talk) 16:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. An "amateur film company" really needs to show why it is notable. Vegaswikian 06:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Everyone has to start somewhere.Plus we get, on average, 1,000 hits a month. Nuff said WFCO 11:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not use Wikipedia to promote yourself. Friday (talk) 20:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You need help. Wikipedia is meant to be a useful resource for people to find out anything they want to know and yet people like you are going round unnecessarily deleting articles for no other reason than to exert some sort of power over people. Wikipedia aren't exactly short on server space, Get a life. WFCO (talk) 20:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Wfco (improperly signed above) appears to be a primary maintainer of this article. I doubt it's coincidence that the initials in his username happen to be the same of those of this film company. Friday (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm re-listing this to get more input. Friday (talk) 18:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as there's no claim of notability. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 19:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence given of notability such as films distributed or participation in film festivals. Capitalistroadster 19:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no independent news coverage, no company history, no books, and no articles relating to this company. The only things that research turns up are Wikipedia, its mirrors, and self-promotion by the company itself. Wikipedia is not an advertising billboard, and this company fails to satisfy any of the WP:CORP criteria. Delete. Uncle G 21:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Contrary to User:Wfco's claims, Wikipedia is not "for people to find out anything they want to know"; there is a whole list of information that Wikipedia is not here to provide at WP:WIN. It is also not the correct place for people who "have to start somewhere" to start; Wikipedia is here to reflect notability, not to create it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Uncle G. As far as the web site, 1000 hits/month is pretty much immeasurably small. My (totally non-notable) home page gets about 4x that. MCB 00:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Anteus. Wikipedia is about writing articles about notable people, things and concepts. It is not about advertising for non-notable things to help them become notable. --Johntex\talk 09:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 18:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sandpunk[edit]

Neologism, in the vein of Cyberpunk and Steampunk, only not actually in use. This article doesn't provide any citations of the term in use (or even much of a definition, as far as I can tell), Whatlinkshere is a wasteland, and Google turns up 46 unique uses of the term, most of which seem to be someone using "Sandpunk" as a user name. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 19:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 19:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I'm at least a mild fan of this stuff, and I subscribe to Locus, and have never seen or heard the term used. MCB 00:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Me too, but I didn't want to nominate it with the exceedingly lame reason of "I've never heard of it." Bonus lack of notability note: Steampunk, which includes such silly "subgenres" as sandalpunk and stonepunk doesn't mention this. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As the author of the article, I thought I should step up to the plate on this. The term is a neologism and in very small usage, but it still exists. It was coined in order to discuss a certain genre of fiction during classes in English at Memorial University of Newfoundland. I'm not sure if being in very small circulation is included in the criteria for deletion. There is no substitute word to describe the particular genre. It's not just a rewording of steam/cyberpunk and is more closely related to post-apocalyptic fiction, but isn't that either.

What may lead the article to deletion is the fact that it is simply a definition, and for this I apologise. I was intending on adding an exploration of the history of sandpunk, as well as a list of properties and stories that fall under term, but thought I'd start with a simple definition and see how people took it, particularly in discussion on the somewhat related steampunk entry. Whether the article should be expanded upon or moved to wiktionary, I don't know. --Spectre general 23:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. DES (talk) 03:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Falconar[edit]

Ad. nn site. possible copyvio. 202.156.6.54 19:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold Park[edit]

Delete. Non-notable park, not even mentioned in the article Arnold, Maryland. No other article links to it. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 19:05, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. There isn't anything worth merging. Dlyons493 Talk 20:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen John Sutton[edit]

an article on thsi subject was previously deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen John Sutton), but this version seems noticeably different. It isn't as obvious of an attempt to plead this guy's case, but that's still what it is. R. fiend 19:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Please - it is not said that he was arrested. Molotov (talk) 23:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable (rather than on the appeal from Kate Gibbons on User_talk:Andrevan; if the subject were in fact notable, I would vote to keep and protect). MCB 00:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep if a more independent source of information can be provided within the article for the purposes of neutrality. Hall Monitor 20:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sutton is notable for several reasons. It appears he was taken advantage of by drug traffickers due to his mental impairment. It's always remarkable when a person is arrested for trafficking drugs but has no drugs in their possession at the time of arrest. This nomination for deletion is coming from some people who are trying to bully and harass Cluse and Gibbons into using a particular foreign prisoner advocacy service, that being Foreign Prisoner Support Service. This is the same outfit which has been spamming their URL (http://foreignprisoners.com) all over the List of Australians in international prisons entry. It should also be noted that the person posting defamatory material about Kate Gibbons, while using the pseudonym "Robert Frost," and who claims to be from a UK based prisoner advocacy organisation, is posting from 144.131.198.139 (see http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=144.131.198.139). This IP is in a block assigned to Telstra in Brisbane, Australia, which unremarkably is the location of Kay Danes & Tony Fox of FPSS. FPSS are a fully unethical mob who will do anything to smear and defame prisoners and their families. The mere fact that anyone is trying to have this article pulled off of Wikipedia on any basis other than the facts related to Sutton's case should tell you that there's very good cause to keep it. --Diana Elgar 00:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep has (as pointed out elsewhere) had media attention and although maybe minor is notable. CambridgeBayWeather 00:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence of notability. --fvw* 01:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • fvw, What is the Wikipedia standard for notability? --Diana Elgar 02:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Notability and he would seem to fit under these rules. CambridgeBayWeather 06:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi CambridgeBayWeather, thanks for that. If notabilty in Wikipedia is synonymous with newsworthy then it appears that the issue at very least meets that test. Thanks, --Diana Elgar 08:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the article as I have written it is very thin. How much detail should be included? The main source of information available at this moment is http://stephensutton.com which was put online by Stephen's sister, Ann Cluse. Admittedly, it will be hard to get NPOV info from such a site, but at least the basic facts as they are known are covered in that site. Thanks, --Diana Elgar 08:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Should this article be labelled as a stub in its current form? --Diana Elgar 10:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Current article does not establish encyclopedic notability. Gamaliel 08:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Someone appealed to me on my talk page about this, but I have nothing to do with it and I have not taken a stance either way. Andre (talk) 05:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Would prefer year of birth instead of 41 year old, for obvious reasons. Alf melmac 10:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep one could argue that this article/bio is just as notable as Schapelle Corby, Michelle Leslie or all those other dumb asses who brought drugs in another country and expect to get away scat - free. Molotov (talk) 23:01, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 03:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rothacher[edit]

Was tagged for CSD, but doesn't qualify, as an EU diplomat is a claim of notability. Still, this is just a CV. If it's to be kept it needs a move (to the guy's full name) and a rewrite. If it doesn't get the rewrite (and perhaps even if it does) it should be deleted. R. fiend 19:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Iaforums[edit]

Admitted NN net community. 202.156.6.54 19:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm... sure? Not many sites have the privilege of having no Alexa ranking and only one hit at Google ;-) That makes them noteworthy enough not to delete it. -- ReyBrujo 20:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. feydey 22:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. *drew 05:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom Dlyons493 Talk 21:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and ReyBrujo. --W.marsh 03:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AJ Smith[edit]

Vanity page - should be userfied Johntex\talk 19:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Nomination withdrawn. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 03:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Morris[edit]

Non notable musician. 202.156.6.54 19:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn. He seems to be notable. 202.156.6.54 19:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus Ëvilphoenix Burn! 03:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Political landscaping and urban design in Ireland[edit]

Was tagged for speedy but doesn't qualify. It's basically a POV essay though, and I don't see any encyclopedic merit. "Political landscaping" doesn't seem to be a term used often, and when it is used I don't think this is what it means. Also vandalism in Ireland is a redirect here, which is certainly questionable. I'm pretty sure most of it is covered elsewhere anyway. R. fiend 19:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

New proposal[edit]

  • Delete. --Mal 18:00, 3 April 2006 (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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 18:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Johnson (webmaster)[edit]

Non-notable stub needing major cleanup about an unofficial website creator. It's... Thelb4! 19:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this even qualifies as speedy (nn-bio). And he even spelt his own name wrong in the article... Keithlard 20:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as per WP:CSD A7. Hall Monitor 20:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity --redstucco 08:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spare Change (food)[edit]

substub of questionable veracity from a user who specializes in abandoning substubs. I can't find any relevant reference, though I'll grant that "spare change" as a title makes it hard to weed out hits (particularly when "you can buy a burrito with your spare change" is both common and true). Delete unless verified. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 20:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nothing on the Google test; if it could be sourced and expanded I might vote keep Keithlard 20:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As for the writer, I think this explains why I have little faith it'll ever be cleaned up.--Scimitar parley 20:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to the thinness of the content and the commonness of the words used - this amounts to a non-verifiable subject, which means it is unencyclopedic, which means it should be deleted. I'll revise my vote if valid sources are found. Johntex\talk 20:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-verifiable neologism.--Isotope23 20:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I should probably assume good faith, but frankly I suspect this of being a racist hoax. MCB 00:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence online that this exists. Article provides no citations to the contrary. ESkog 02:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but I could sure use one right about now.--Nicodemus75 02:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons stated, especially those of Scimitar. Maoririder has been using sockpuppets as well as his main user name to go on a rampage of nanostubs like this one. FWIW, I live a whopping 100 miles/160km from Baja California. I have never heard this term used either where I live, which is predominantly Hispanic, nor anywhere in Mexico proper. - Lucky 6.9 20:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete CanadianCaesar 23:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep Ëvilphoenix Burn! 03:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Designs in Machine Embroidery[edit]

Adcopy. 202.156.6.59 20:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete Keep... maybe it's just the fact that this magazine actually exists. I would have sworn it was a hoax. If someone replaced the current adcruft with an article, I could be convinced to go keep.--Isotope23 20:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have removed the most gratuitous excesses of advertising, but as a consequence there isn't much of an article left. Mallocks 22:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Legitimate magazine, though I don't know the circulation rate. The editor is fairly well known in "machine embroidery" circles. 68.20.28.234 03:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are "machine embroidery" circles? Changing vote based on Mallocks edit.--Isotope23 15:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wearables though - is that clothing - would a woolly hat be clothing or a wearable? : ) Alf melmac 10:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Death by potatoes[edit]

Unencyclopedic. 202.156.6.59 20:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - simply rubbish. --Snalwibma 20:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and pretty close to a speedy as nonsense.--Isotope23 20:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Potato! er... I mean delete. -- BD2412 talk 03:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment 'The whole plan hinged on the natural curiosity of potatoes' -Stanislaw Lem. (--Tony SidawayTalk 08:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment Really funny, but it doesn't belong here. User:XYaAsehShalomX 12:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the risk of incurring multiple vegetative attacks and reprisals - Del-eat tatticide. Alf melmac 10:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No Consensus. I'm calling it 5-3 in favor of Deletion, which in my judgement is not consensus. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 04:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ninth Day of Creation[edit]

Vanity page for book

  • Delete per nomination. - Daemon8666 20:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This one is close for me, but I don't think its notable enough (yet). A web search turns up about 500 hits [13], its Amazon sales rank is 206,000+ [14], and it has no google news results. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 21:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteI think this is inappropriate for wikipedia. If this sort of shameless self-promotion disguised as information isn't nipped severely and immediately in the bud, the wikipedia will be about as informative as FOX news.
  • Don't Delete- It gives a good plot summary of the book
  • Don't Delete- It gives a good idea of the what the book is all about more so that it inferences a historical event of world history, sanitized the article so that it doesn't do any promotional thing. - xmagix (10-7-05)
  • Do not delete - state run internet police should not be allowed to censor free societies media. There is nothing wrong with the posting it is accurate and informative. This is cutting edge SF topic with the combination of both emerging economic shifts and biotech advancements. It is deserving of its placement not because of its demand but because of its relevancy, no different than the copy of "The Coming Plague by Laurie Garrett" has a place in the public library though it has only been signed out once. It is precisely this kind of self promotion that makes WIKI so powerful. Detailed essays criticizing the book can be posted and linked. Thus creating a much more informative reading choice than you would get by simply browsing to Amazon or even the public Library. Again large state run internet police organizations, posing as students, should not be allowed to censor or even make suggestions as to what is or is not appropriate material for WIKI. (preceding unsigned comment by Gmeek (talk · contribs) )
  • Do not delete -- the 1918 flu pandemic needs to be remembered, before it is repeated. Very topical with the threat of new bird flus crossing over and is being linked to from news sites already. Attention to this issue may help focus research dollars in the near future.
  • Delete. And remind people that keep votes from no-contribution anons should be deleted as well. Bushytails 06:48, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's an informative and legitimate article on the book, therefore there is absolutely no reason to delete the page whatsoever. -- OldRight 11:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clear vanity, probably written by Leonard Crane, the book's author. Quale 23:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, Connection Books, the publisher, seems to have published only this single novel and no other books at all. This seems suspiciously like a vanity publisher as well. Quale 23:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Totally a vanity page, or otherwise a desperate marketing effort by the book's publishers/author Bwithh 23:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are various descriptions of books in this encyclopedia and this one is very detailed, which is the reason it especially should stay. -- Radicalsubversiv2 03:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The accusation that this article is a vanity page is one of the silliest things I've ever read. As mentioned above, there are many book description in Wikipedia. -- AndrewBartlett 17:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - My argument is not that no book articles belong on Wikipedia, or that all book articles on here are vanity. This particular article is the only target of my ire at all, particularly for the reasons that it is a NON-NOTABLE book, by a NON-NOTABLE publisher, and the user who created it decided to link from articles with scientific validity to this non-notable work of Fiction
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 04:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fielding House[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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 04:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Club Xanadu[edit]

non notable club. 202.156.6.59 20:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Particularly since there are about 50 clubs with the same name...Delete.--Isotope23 20:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN club, agree with Isotope23. -feydey 22:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Carbonite | Talk 12:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Customize.org[edit]

Looks like spam, unless there's something really notable about this site (in which case, let's hear what it is).Keithlard 21:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Keithlard 20:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Never heard of them myself but Find web pages that contain the term Customize.org i.e. [15] throws up a lot of hits. Dlyons493 Talk 21:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it has an alexa ranking of 36,000+ [16], without other claim to notability this doesn't seem like a keeper. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 21:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; added link to skin (computing) Anetode 21:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. Ral315 WS 04:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Learson[edit]

Article about a substitute teacher. Would be nn-bio, but it claims he is the CEO of a major company, JL Enterprises. Searching on the company name returns too many different companies to verify this. However, searching on its "major subsidiary", Jack Learson Online, returns no results. Searching on "Jack Learson" alone returns five unique hits, none of which seem to be relevant.-- GraemeL (talk) 21:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Possible hoax, possible attack, nonverifiable. Dlyons493 Talk 21:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, yeah, lots of corporate CEOs moonlight as substitute teachers. Delete —Wahoofive (talk) 21:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What rubbish. CambridgeBayWeather 21:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete As per CSD:A1 and A7 - the assertion of notability is demonstratably false as shown by GraemeL, and no one is disputing that it's false. I'm placing the tag.--inksT 21:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete A7 as above. --CastAStone 22:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is legit. The SAU-39 District website is www.sprise.com, you may beable to specifically find him somewhere on the site, or at www.sprise.com/shs (the Souhegan website). The part about CEO may be false (unsure), which would justify for deletion, but not whole article. inksT 23:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Who's this guy pretending (badly) to be me?--inksT 04:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. The CEO stuff was edited out, leaving a simple CSD:A7 nn-bio. MCB 00:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. See closing remarks at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hospitality in the Odyssey. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Customs in the Odyssey[edit]

This material is covered in the Odyssey, which is where most of the text comes from. It looks like the Odyssey article could use some cleaning up, too. Some of it is written in the first person. -- Kjkolb 23:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Odyssey, where this text does not currently exist. However, it should be in a separate section with this title, not under "Book 7". Kj, the only first person text I see is a quote from the Odyssey itself, with Odysseus speaking. Bikeable 15:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I removed it from the Odyssey because it was added by the same user, but I only noticed that later. Here's an example of the first person text: "Alcinous’ treatment of Odysseus, who is concealed as a beggar, reminded me of an example of a modern attitude: ‘No Angels’ by Robert Swindells." Here's another one: "The combination of the Odyssey and ‘No Angels’ gives me this message: Overcome fear, give as much hospitality as possible to single strangers..." I don't think this content should be merged into the Odyssey article. It's not very high quality and it is out of place in the current Odyssey article. Only short summaries of the books are given. If this is put in, there will be a large entry for book 7 that talks about customs. If this text is saved at all, it should stay as a separate article. Here's what it looks like with the text added to the Odyssey article. -- Kjkolb 19:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Needs more eyeballs. Relisting. · Katefan0(scribble) 21:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. I combined the remarks here with those at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Customs in the Odyssey, since they are about the same topic. I see Kjkolb nominating the aritcle, Andrew pmk, Daniel Lotspeich, and Rd232 arguing for deletion, and Bikeable, CastAStone, and an anonymous editor arguing that it be kept. A tough decision, but considering all arguments, I made this into a delete. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hospitality in the Odyssey[edit]

Material is copied from the Odyssey article, just like Customs in the Odyssey. Okay, I just noticed that the same person added the text to the Odyssey article. It should still be deleted, though. I used the find function, otherwise it would have been more obvious. -- Kjkolb 23:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Please do not cut and paste between Wikipedia articles. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Odyssey, where this text does not currently exist. However, it should be in a separate section with this title, not under "Book 7". Bikeable 15:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Needs more eyeballs. Relisting. · Katefan0(scribble) 21:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge As per Bikable --CastAStone 22:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge However, someone needs to remove the shoddy first-person writing.
  • Delete. -_Daniel Lotspeich 20:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The content is currently innapropriate for the Odyssey article, as that article only gives short summaries of the books and this would go into book 7 because it is specifically about book 7. Here is what is what it looks like unedited. The other books are discussed in short paragraphs. If you think there should be a separate section on hospitality, that's okay, but then the content would need to be rewritten to include the other books and to remove the first person writing. I don't think it's good enough material to justify all that effort, but if someone wants to do it, go for it. :-) -- Kjkolb 06:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Take the time to read it properly, and it's evident the text is nearly worthless as analysis, and as a result the few points that might be salvageable (eg references to usage of xenos/xenia) would need independent verification and are worth little on their own anyway, so I see no point in keeping this.Rd232 18:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Three want it deleted and the only dissenting voice is from the author of the article. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pura vida[edit]

Dictionary definition of a slang term. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 16:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • del. Foreign dicdef. Every language in the world has myriads of non-translatable idiomatic expressions. Idiomapedia, is due, I guess. But definitely no wiokipedia for them. Mikkalai 16:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Costa Rica under culture. Excuse me, I'm a newbie here, but perhaps instead of merging, we could expand the Tico page to include Pura vida? Also, I know something of the formation of the phrase, it's history. Maybe this could be it's own page and we mark it as stub? Should I expand this out to include the history too? Jeffkin 19:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The question is: does the pura vida have any circulation in English language? mikka (t) 19:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, I'd have to admit that 'Pura vida' in English is mostly only used by those who have visited Costa Rica, or want to. But if that's not sufficient for it's own page, I still think it should still be mentioned in the culture section or one of the related pages. (With or without the history). Jeffkin 20:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Needs more eyeballs. Relisting. · Katefan0(scribble) 21:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. Mallocks 22:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 18:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lake retention time[edit]

Seems to be a dicdef with no real potential for expansion. Should probably be transwikied to Wiktionary. --PacknCanes 18:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Could be expanded with examples of retention times, descriptions of the effects of depth, number/size of outlets, pollution concentration, water diversion, etc. Rmhermen 18:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This seems to be a topic that should already be covered in another article. The fact that it happens in a lake does not require an article. Maybe someone can figure out where to redirect rather then keeping. Vegaswikian 06:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Needs more eyeballs. Relisting. · Katefan0(scribble) 21:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per Rmhermen, if the pollution bit in particular could be expanded on, I think it's a workable topic. Mallocks 22:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, encyclopedic, and thus not really suitable for wiktionary. Kappa 23:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Alf melmac 11:40, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 01:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rockwood (webcomic)[edit]

A webcomic, which can be found here. An ongoing webcomic with an alexa rank of 1 million+, ie this comic is still running and yet the readership is tiny. Longevity of a webcomic does not equal notability, no matter what WP:COMIC suggests, just because it has been running for a few years does not mean it automatically deserves an article. A google search reveals nothing to lift it from every other website out there. - Hahnchen 18:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more eyeballs. Relisting. · Katefan0(scribble) 21:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no claim of notability. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 21:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. Mallocks 22:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I've never heard that any other webcomics that were really notable. Maybe we should delete those articles too ;-) Guthrie 12:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets Proposal B and C, which is sufficient as far as I'm concerned. -Abe Dashiell 18:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only ways I know of that a webcomic could be notable is if a lot of people read it, it's won some awards, or it's groundbreaking in some way. No assertion of any of that here. -- SCZenz 19:16, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. -Sean Curtin 19:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A website whose only claim to 'notability' is that it has existed for and been updated for a long time is plainly not notable. --Aquillion 22:26, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 05:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Naff[edit]

This article defines a word that is already defined in Wiktionary. 63.149.110.206 19:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more eyeballs. Relisting. · Katefan0(scribble) 21:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hahnchen, linguistic controversies are encyclopedic. Kappa 23:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article doesn't just define the word, but also tells its history etc., and that's a job that wiktionary (or most dictionaries) won't do. regards, High on a tree 00:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article not a dicdef; term is of cultural/historical significance in the UK. MCB 00:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep reasonable enough article. Alf melmac 11:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. You would lose the paragraphs about history and etymology, if you would move the page to Wiktionary. -Hapsiainen 22:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 04:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Misa[edit]

Little or no context... borderline speedy probably. Delete. · Katefan0(scribble) 20:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete little content either. Dlyons493 Talk 01:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems rather ambiguous, just google test it and disambiguate. --69.209.134.152 21:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Needs more eyeballs. Relisting. · Katefan0(scribble) 21:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 04:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sharing Machine[edit]

None notable distribution company, who's website is here. Not many clients, the only one I have heard of is KOMPRESSOR, from an obscure blog. Hahnchen 21:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The clients for Sharing Machine (check www.sharingmachine.com for the list) include White_Ninja_Comics, Quantz, Toothpaste_for_dinner, and KOMPRESSOR, all of which are major/notable webcomics or websites. It's interesting to know that all of these websites are affiliated.

  • Wait, if it were say a non web based record company with the amount of clients as this company, it would be deleted. I don't think it should be given any extra credence just because it's on the web. - Hahnchen 02:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Needs more eyeballs. Relisting. · Katefan0(scribble) 21:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Carbonite | Talk 12:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fra'ghgh'boush[edit]

With all due respect to H.P. Lovecraft, this really isn't necessary. --Tothebarricades 21:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as xenologism cruft. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 21:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge → R'lyeh  ?--Mysidia (talk) 22:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I would say merge if I could find any references. There's a lot of Lovecraft stuff on the web, but no mention of "Fra'ghgh'boush" outside of WP and mirrors. Shub-Niggurath, The Black Goat of the Woods With a Thousand Young, take it. --GraemeL (talk) 22:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete HPL is one my favourite authors, but this is not necessary. Alf melmac 11:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's no such passage in "Shadow over Innsmouth"; this could actually be speedied as patent nonsense. Choess 22:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete both articles. Carbonite | Talk 12:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Www.geocities.com\starzoneken and Starzoneken[edit]

WP:NOT a free host or webspace provider. --Mysidia (talk) 21:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, also linkspam. feydey 22:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. This is linkspam, the article is even named after a geocities URL. Silensor 22:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I don't understand these articles and they don't appear to be encyclopedic. --Metropolitan90 05:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ailinel[edit]

Non-notable band, local shows only, no CDs —Wahoofive (talk) 15:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

:Insufficient contributions - relisting --Doc (?) 21:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • deletereeks of self-advertisement, notability not established --Isolani 22:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, band vanity, reads like an ad. Mallocks 22:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Carbonite | Talk 12:05, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Authority[edit]

Not notable group, no info in allmusic. Could not find anything with google eighter. Releases? feydey 22:05, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, self-admitted failing WP:MUSIC "never properly released", "not many shows were played". Mallocks 22:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nomination. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Carbonite | Talk 12:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OpenGameBasic[edit]

nn and unfinished software project vanity. — brighterorange (talk) 22:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Still not much discussion, but has the two-thirds and no-one has made any effort to defend it, apart from Jaysuchris (who only has 35 edits, with 17 in Wikipedia: space). -Splashtalk 00:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beantown productions[edit]

Non-notable company, advertisement, no context, only contribution by this user. Maybe speedy as A1? Ilmari Karonen 21:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

not enough eyes, relisting --Doc (?) 22:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Carbonite | Talk 11:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bedini SG[edit]

Looks like advertising. CJCurrie 22:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, almost tempted to speedy it as link spam. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as adspam. Almost, but not quite, a speedy. --GraemeL (talk) 12:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy keep --Doc (?) 00:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Treo 650[edit]

I found a malformed VFD for this article that never seemed to have made it to the main VFD page, then got abandoned in the VFD/AFD switchover. This is no vote, as the original VFD had few non-sock/anon voters; this relist is just to honor the original nominator's intentions. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 22:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as an influential and popular smartphone, whose flaws made national news in the US. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 22:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep -- Nowhere do I see any reasoning to delete the article, a past nomination that failed for some reason is not in itself a reason to delete an article. Nor do I see anyone actually voting for delete in the past nomination, or this one, why should the article have to go through vfd again, and get yet another unanimous keep? --Mysidia (talk) 22:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The past nomination didn't fail; it received a handful of legitimate votes going both ways and a pile of sock/anon votes, and didn't get listed on the main VFD page in the first place. It was malformed, not failed.
      As for why I listed it, I didn't feel comfortable just removing the AFD notice without testing consensus, closing the screwed up VFD as keep, or sticking the month-old malformed VFD straight on the day's AFD page, so I posted this. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 22:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - Nevermind. I went through the history, and it turns out the person who added the original {{vfd}} tag didn't even make a VFD subpage, and all of the delete votes are invalid anyway as "Delete but combine with (another article)" or such. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 23:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When a phone like the Norwegian Magcom is allowed an article, I fail to see why this one isn't! bjelleklang 23:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:06, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberbulk[edit]

Non-notable marketing company? --Mysidia (talk) 22:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No Alexa rank for their homepage, 514 Google hits, does not meet the proposed criterion of WP:CORP.--CastAStone 23:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per nom. Pete.Hurd 23:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (but move to Eva Kwok).  BD2412 talk 00:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Eva L. Kwok[edit]

This looks like a non-notable biography, please correct me if I am wrong. Austrian 22:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete very good. Molotov (talk) 23:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: would want some more facts, but Dean of a College within a Canadian provincial university seems notable to me, in addition to her other accomplishments. MCB 01:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Eva Kwok is a notable businesswoman, even without her husband's influence. Crypticfirefly 03:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a figure of borderline notability. It is conceivable that people will want to look up this person and find the information they were searching for on Wikipedia. Hall Monitor 20:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but move to Eva Kwok unless she's always known as Eva L. Kwok. Alf melmac 11:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Wouldn't normally close something I voted on, but, save for the article's author, the vote from established Wikipedians is universally for deletion. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 08:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eire Shamrock/ Prodigal Fenian[edit]

A vanity article about a Jennifer Government: NationStates player. Goobergunch|? 22:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD has been vandalized several times by Celtic1 and 65.185.150.237. Before making edits, please check the recent page history to make sure you are not editing a vandalized version.
  • Delete per nomination. As a note, I've learned as NSwiki administrator that ES tends to forceably resist having his material deleted, so be aware. --Goobergunch|? 22:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, I am not ES. I am from the same region as he is. You know full well that many people edit the ES articles.

This mod is biased, read the personal note. I move for this page to be kept as it is pertinent to Nationstates as this is a famous plaer. There is no reason to have this removed aside from a personal vendetta. Thank you Celtic1

  • I don't see how this is a "vanity" article, or merits deletion. It makes for interesting history, and at the most needs some editing, but definetly not deletion. The pursuing of this case by the game moderators only seem to justify this player's arguments. unsigned edit by User:66.65.171.126
  • Cheers -- thanks for the comment, and I agree. It's not a vanity article or whatever that even means. Goobergunch needs to chill a bit, it's mean that he would abuse power like this. If he wants, we can get 50 or so people to come in here and explain how this article is fine for wikipedia. I don't really understand his problem, as one was never clearly stated other than a personal dislike. Celtic1


  • Articles on NationStates subgroups are non-notable. See precedent Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/European Affairsl if ES is more notable than the Europe region, I'm going for VfU immediately on European Affairs. As a side note, the article was vanity because it was created by User:Celtic1, who is either ES/PF or a close ally and friend. See Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines#Policy regarding vanity articles. And to address Celtic1's flooding threat, I could quite easily get most of the NationStates IRC channel to support deletion, but I'm not going to make that request because it's a violation of the spirit of Wikipedia policy. --Goobergunch|? 23:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it's not a vanity article and you know it -- stretching the guidelines EXTREMELY there. It can be edited by anyone that sees a fault with it, and it was not written by the person him/herself. You know for a fact from NSWiki that many people edit ES/PF articles, not just him.

As for the article being non-notable, the parallel between the European Affairs article and this one are tenous at best. This is an article about a figure, not a region. Your extreme bias is clouding your judgment, as the two reasons you just thought up to back up your bias do not hold up to further inspection. You go to Harvey Mudd, which is a good school. Could you not think of anything better to try to push your obvious agenda?

I could quite easily get all of the Irish and allied nations to come on here, but it's a violation of the spirit of Wikipedia policy, and don't want to be as clearly personally involved and biased as you. Celtic1

  • Delete. This is material for Encyclopedia Dramatica, not Wikipedia. And Celtic1, even if you followed through on your threat to bring sockpuppets here to vote for the article to be kept, it wouldn't make a difference; such votes are discounted. All you'd do is waste everyone's time and convince people who might be on the fence that the article should be deleted. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is silly. You're claiming Goobergunch is biased, when you created an article about how you feel your friend got screwed by some moderators in an online game? And then you spit 'biased' in his face cause he disagrees with you, and seems to understand the spirit of Wikipedia policy. I like how you made the threat, and then, later, after Goobergunch mentioned that such mass spammage of voting was against Wikipedia policy, you claimed basically that would be the 'bigger man' and not do something you had already threatened to do. Which, at a guess, you had no idea was a violation of policy when you first threatened to do it. Go home, Celtic.--129.59.26.71 00:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you are clearly a sockpuppet of Goobergunch's from your dramatic and aggressive tone. Goobergunch has been hostile from the start, and so I remarked that I would bring in others to back up my case. Then he stated he would bring in sockpuppets, "NationStates IRC channel to support deletion", and you show up soon after, even though he stated he wouldn't resort to that! There has been two favorable votes for this article, and two against, so it's tied. I don't think that the hostile tone that you and Goobergunch are using is going to persuade those on the fence about this article. It's clear there is a cabal against this article, as Goobergunch's NSwiki many attacks against the ES/PF article will prove.

Bringing you here really doesn't do his deletion case any good, and in the spirit of Wikipedia I'd like it if you were just a tad neutral. Celtic1

Celtic1, I am going to tell you about two Wikipedia policies which you should read immediately: Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I am going to tell you about these policies so that you have no possible excuse to pretend you didn't know about them. Desist immediately from accusing other people of being sockpuppets based purely on the fact that they agree with Goobergunch and disagree with you. I don't know who Goobergunch is, but I can read the article myself and tell that there is no notability to this subject. I can also read this AfD and see that you have twisted the truth abominably ("twisted the truth" is in fact shading the facts in your favor; I'm really more inclined to use the word "lie".) You claimed, falsely, that Goobergunch "stated he would bring in sockpuppets". The truth, of course, is that you said you could "get 50 or so people to come in here and explain how this article is fine for wikipedia"; Goobergunch pointed out that this was neither an ethical tactic nor a practical one, since even if sockpuppets/meatpuppets of the kind you threatened were taken seriously, he could simply do the same as you were threatening just as effectively. For you to publicly lie and claim that a) Goobergunch threatened to "bring in sockpuppets", and that b) you are entitled to declare anyone you disagree with as one of those sockpuppets based on their "tone", is shameless effrontery. You are doing your cause more harm than good with this behavior. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs to be changed, then change it -- that is what Wikipedia is about. In my POV it's non biased -- fans of all things write articles on Wikipedia and you know it! People then change them. The logic you are using here is appalling, and there is plainly a goobergunch inspired agenda here. If this article were about Nirvana, and a fan wrote it, another fan would change it.

Same with this article -- if there are problems change it, but don't act like a facist goon squad just because Goobergunch called you in here. The facts are not on your side, and the comments here are extremely anti Wikipedia in nature. Go home user .--[[User:129.59.26.71|129.59.26.71 Celtic1

  • Nyeeeeeargh. Delete as subtrivial kerfluffle on Nationstates, the worst source of lame drama since Livejournal. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Celtic1, curb your paranoia. I've never heard of Goobergunch, you, or the subject of this article; I found it by looking at WP:AFD/Today, a list of all the articles that have been nominated for deletion today. (It's currently on WP:AFD/Yesterday now, though.) If you delete my vote or anyone else's again, though, you will be blocked for vandalism. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Textbook vanity. This shouldn't be deleted, it should be nuked from orbit (it's the only way to be sure). --Calton | Talk 00:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your "vote" was deleted as it shouldn't be here. Goober asked you to come here, and it's not fair and very anti-Wiki.

I've emailed Goober directly, and hopefully this will be sorted out. I ask those interested in helping balance the article. It plainly should not be deleted, and Wikipedia should not be a battleground like NSwiki was! This is a silly debate, and those voting for deletion have not even made valid points! Comments like "clearly vanity" don't really cut it. Anyhow, I agree it is biased, as it's cut and paste from that site ES had -- just help fix it. Definitely an interesting human interest story, like many other similiar wikipedia entries not put up for deletion by someone with a history with the person.

Hopefully Goobergunch will help contribute to the article, and not just attempt to delete it. It will be a sad day for Wikipedia if this is deleted. Celtic1

UPdate: Email to Goobergunch bounced back, here is full text.

Hi Goober,

Hope Freshman year is going well, for me it was a great time! :)

I am Celtic1, and have played NS for just over two years. I've been in and a few other regions, and am one of the people that sticks up for ES. Why? He was a good leader for many of us when we first came to ireland, and we're loyal to him. I don't know what history you two have, but I also see what happened on the NSwiki.

Wanted to discuss what is going on in Wikipedia. It seems like the same fight has broken out there, and before it escalated to the NSwiki type of argument, I wanted to write to you directly.

There is no doubt in my mind that that article should stand, but I agree with you that it needs to be edited. I'd like you to help me edit it so there is more balance. It is an interesting story and there are loads of articles that are human interest like this on wikipedia. I was lazy in cutting and pasting from the es/pf site, so it will have to be changed.

As a more experience wikipedian, I'd like you to guide me a bit with this. I don't think this deletion battle will be good for anyone, just a waste of everyones time and it will be as silly as the nswiki episode. It's a zero sum game, and I ask for your patient, expert help in this matter.

We definitely got off on the wrong foot there, but it's important that we not inject personal feelings into wikipedia, as it's such an amazing tool.

Look forward to your reply, and hopefully help with the article. Best, Renny

P.S. How can a page that states, "to his detractors he's a delusional lunatic that spouts nonsense" be considered a "vanity" page??? :)

  • Delete. Even if this article was verifiable, people's video game characters are not encyclopedic. And, please, this isn't a message board. Jkelly 01:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable gamecruft. And send the controversy back to the game's own wiki; we don't need it here. MCB 06:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We don't really need an article on NationStates users/nations/regions/what have you here, do we? (Rhetorical, by the way.) Seconded on the request from MCB, too, this can take place on NSWiki if anything. -- NSLE | Talk 09:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT - As a side note, I'd like to point out to this Celtic1 that Goobergunch is NOT a NationStates moderator, and has never been one.... -- NSLE | Talk 10:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on the grounds that this is the kind of article that goes into NSWiki rather than here. That's why we've got NSWiki after all. KP 09:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and if it has to be up, let it be so on NSwiki. This United State 09:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC) User's only edit so far.[reply]
  • Delete non-notable NationStatescruft. --Johntex\talk 09:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Oy, non-notable and puppet limit exceeded. Xoloz 13:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny to us. Like this vote counts for anything, as you know what is going to happen anyway. This vote was not accepted by the people. C'est la vie. Celtic1

"Not accepted by the people"? Beg to differ, I can't see but one keep vote. -- NSLE | Talk 07:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beg to differ, I can't see one delete vote that counts. Celtic1

However, you aren't the one doing the counting. If your "you know what is going to happen anyway" is a veiled threat that you will come back and re-create it, sorry to let you know that that will be considered vandalism and earn you a block. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Why some people have to satisfy their pityful egos with this kind of, ah... sad... so sad... Errr, yes. Delete. Aka Hoshi Rezo 14:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So the vote is 7 to keep, 4 to delete. Looks like it is staying. Celtic1

  • Delete. I can't see an article like this being accepted on NSwiki, let alone here. Its sheer propagandist nature is exceeded only by its utter lack of notability. Famous player? Does anyone outside NS care? Does anyone inside NS care? I have my doubts. Please, someone, just kill it. --Sirithil 17:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone cares except for you, since you're clearly delusional. It's sad that the freaks have come out of the woodwork for this.

The vote is now 7 to keep, 5 to delete. Still looks like it is staying. Celtic1

  • "The vote is now 7 to keep, 5 to delete." Right. Glad counting is one of your strong suits. Okay, as a member of the NS IRC channel, let me make clear what did occur. Goober mentioned that another article about NS was up for deletion on Wikipedia proper, at no point mentioning (to my knowledge) that he was the one who placed it there. Links were demanded from him. I know that I personally read the article in question, the debate, and the referenced Wikipedia policy articles before casting my vote. Now, assuming the support Goober did not request counted as sockpuppets (which as far as I can tell, it would not, based on my understanding of Wikipedia policy, since he didn't ask for it), you could eliminate, by my count, six of the 14 deletion votes. As for keep votes, I don't actually see the word "keep" in bold in anywhere in this discussion. Based off reading the discussion itself, I'll give you two votes. Which makes it 8 (14) to 2 for deletion.

Further, based on an unscientific straw poll of the NS IRC channel (~45 people at any given time), only 1 (other than the moderators that had dealt with the situation and the NSWiki Moderators) had actually heard of Eire Shamrock before. Most of those people have been playing nationstates for nearly two years, I myself for over two and a half, and a good percentage of those people have played since the very beginning of the game in November/December 2002. I think that's a good reason to fail at notability, even if anyone outside NS cared. It means that other than the people directly involved, it affected no one. Even more, verifiablity is a joke, based off the definition Wiki uses. The only way to verify this would be through original research, which eliminates "encyclopedic" as well.. It is not published anywhere by a reputable publisher. And yeah, the vanity thing too. Now, I've already voted so don't count this as another vote if my IP is different. And wow, what a nice personal attack on Sirithil while I was writing this. --129.59.26.71 19:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete There is no point to this article other than to satisfy the ego of ES's creator, who is not nearly as important to the game of NationStates as he seems to think himself (as stated previously in much more succinct terms). Rulesbreaking and egomania are not, in my opinion, viable criteria for 'immortalization' on a Wiki article. Nor should Wiki be used as a tool for 'sticking it to the man' when one has been rightfully denied in other more appropriate venues. If one wants to go on about themselves at length, rant about the supposed injustice they've suffered etc., one can do so on their online journal or blog. --Nathi's Player

I'm starting to wonder, Celtic1 seems a prime candidate for a block due to vandalism. -- NSLE | Talk 03:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no longer wondering -- it's fact that all of those vandalising this page should be blocked. This is our page, and your evil comments are not welcome here. Celtic1

  • If you want to get pedantic, I created this page. --Goobergunch|? 21:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I'm a freak from the woodwork... the woodwork is a pretty darn busy place. Nobody has voted to keep this article. --Sirithil 04:07, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First, I never asked anyone to come here to vote to keep this, unlike Goobergunch who has used terrorist tactics like he threatened above. "I could quite easily get most of the NationStates IRC channel to support deletion". The proof is all there.

To say that your votes against this article do not count in reality is putting it mildly. Criminals, felons, cannot vote in elections, so this vote is a farce and is not accepted by anyone other than a few demented criminals. Celtic1

  • Goober never asked anyone else to come here either. Such blatantly false accusations do you no favours. Had he actually done what you so blythely accuse him of, there would not be simply a few interested parties posting their opinions here, but dozens. I believe he has in fact asked that people NOT bombard the page so as to give it a more fair shake. So much for 'criminal' behaviour. The only farce I see in action here is the fact that you are allowed to continue posting such drivel after having proved yourself to be a vandal with no interest in meaningful contribution to Wikipedia aside from slandering others and drawing undue attention to yourself with an inaccurate vanity article. You have a personal site where you can post whatever fantasies you please - use it. This is not the place for personal vendetta against those you feel have treated you unfairly. Truth will out, they say. It would seem you're proving their point for them with all these ridiculous antics. (Admins - how long must the character attacks continue?) --Nathi's Player

Such ridiculous assertions do his cause no good. It is clear to all and sundry that this is an evil, albeit well planned smear campaign designed by Goobergunch.

One look at his comments here, the very fact that he is the one that took the time to start this deletion campaign, as well as his threat to garner external support point to only one thing -- and that is plainly the wicked and disturbing plot hatched by Goobergunch. Clearly he has succeeded in his threat of gathering lunatics to support his demented campaign, and that is sad as it is against the spirit of Wikipedia.

Look at other articles that are up for deletion -- do they have as many comments? Nowwhere close, so the overwhelming evidence that this is a planned, premeditated campaign by a gang of criminals and brigands is plain to see. If Wikipedia were truly for freedom, this article would be kept. If this article is taken down due to this demonic campaign, then all hope is lost for the world. Shame on all those that have voted for deletion, you are partially at fault for all other problems in the universe we can only assume.

It is more than safe to assume that most of the people writing here are doing so from prison, as they are brigands and criminals of the highest order. Truth has already outed your sick cause -- and stop the deceit, as everyone here knows the truth. We posted a nice little article here, and Goobergunch, to settle an old vendetta, decided to launch this bizarre and unfounded campaign against it. Truly insane, and shame on you for propagandizing on his behalf. Celtic1

  • I'm glad to know that I'm responsible for all evil in the universe. Please take a look at Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Also, most of the comments on this page have been your own, and I've seen far worse VfD/AfD debates - this doesn't even come close to the level of contention on the most vicious debates. Most AfD debates are short because it's a noncontroversial yet nonspeedy deletion. --Goobergunch|? 19:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is more than safe to assume that most of the people writing here are doing so from prison, as they are brigands and criminals of the highest order.
    Heeheeheeheeheeheehee! Editing from prison, I love it! This is the best AFD troll ever. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 19:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Grrr. As if all this wasn't bad enough, Celtic1 has since taken to vandalising the Jennifer Government: NationStates page with this same business, too. This United State 05:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Me and Goobergunch ad a few helpful anonymous users have been reverting it. I'm starting to wonder if it needs a lock. -- NSLE | Talk 09:39, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's time to report Celtic1 on WP:VIP. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedied as recreation of afd'd article [17] --Doc (?) 00:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Stewart (Inventor IP Multicast and Music)[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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Was speedied. Wikibofh 15:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VTL escalation contact list[edit]

A company confidential phone list for Network Appliance customer support, including home phone numbers. Someone's cruel joke? Delete before this gets copied by mirror sites! Owen× ☎ 23:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus Ëvilphoenix Burn! 04:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mombojó[edit]

They are not notable. The article contents is purportedly from a press release.

  • Keep only if ypu volunteer to write a real article. Otherwise Delete; — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abu badali (talk • contribs) 15:21, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Cut and pasted from the talk page:
    • Even if it's decided that an article about this virtually unknown brazilian independent band belongs here, this is simple cut-and-paste from their PR release and it serves just as cheap advertising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.12.101.99 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 12 September 2005 (UTC), who tagged the article[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 22:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Since it's corrected listing, there is far too little discussion here to work out what might be done. Relisting for 5 more days. -Splashtalk 23:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although tentatively since I'm not up on Brazilian music. But my research makes me doubtful (one album on AllMusic, the fact that the whole article is a friggin' press release). Google test says 37,900, which isn't bad, but I can't read Portugese and WP:MUSIC satisfaction seems doubtful. Lord Bob 01:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. They won an award as Best Popular Music Group of 2004 from the Associação Paulista de Críticos de Artes (Sao Paulo Arts Critics Association) [18]. I don't think that alone qualifies them under WP:MUSIC, but keeping in mind that Sao Paulo is the fourth-largest city in the world, this is a sign that they may qualify on some other grounds. This should not be interpreted as a precedent that winning an award from any city's critics association qualifies a band for a Wikipedia article. --Metropolitan90 05:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Metropolitan90. PMLF 23:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Doc (?) 01:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Coregistration[edit]

Problem: not notable. Molotov (talk) 23:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 04:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thunderbolt (band)[edit]

Not notable band yet, with 1 album allmusic. Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. feydey 23:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: They are (or were) apparently somewhat popular in Norway. For what it's worth, the article on the Norwegian wiki has more detail. I'm not sure that that article is worth much, either, though. I cleaned up this one a little, but I would not be sad to see it go. Maybe if there were some sign that they are still active; their label only shows one record and doesn't suggest that we should expect anything more. —HorsePunchKid→龜 02:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Comment: Although the norwegian wiki article is poor (its even mainly a rip of from a festival presentation from 2004), the english version has now been made proper (the initial entry was abrupted, hence not finished) and as an entry comment I would like to point out that Thunderbolt actually achieve the WP:MUSIC by the following points:

  • 2: International tour / gigs (they comply to both)
  • 3: Two albums on 'major' labels (the second album is finished and even printed, but shipment/release was postponed by the label due to marketing reasons... however, to my knowledge it will be released within few weeks from now)
  • (4: Even if 'prominently' can be discussed, they're one of the very few metal bands besides Satyricon, Dimmu Borgir and Pagan's Mind that are frequently mentioned in the mainstream press in addtion to the music press)

Hence, please do not delete this article :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.161.140 (talk • contribs)

  • Keep. Based upon the info above, plus the rewrite. BlankVerse ∅ 10:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • What, still open? Clearly a keep, per 85.164.161.140's note; we need to delete people's articles about their local bands that have never played outside school gigs, but this looks like rather more than that. Haeleth 22:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Doc (?) 00:58, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Androgynist Feminists[edit]

POV, borderline speedy for no useful content --Trovatore 23:55, 5 October 2005

  • Delete per nom. Jkelly 01:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's such a thing as androgynist feminism, but it has nothing to do with the straw figure set up in this article. Doctor Whom 01:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Doc (?) 00:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

111,111,111 (number)[edit]

Yet another one of the infinite set of integers got an article. Not much info either.

  • Delete Oleg Alexandrov 23:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete for sure. Marskell 00:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a mathematically notable integer that has unique and special properties, as shown in the article. When squared, the number produces the following number: "12345678987654321" which is all of the integers (except 0) in ascending and descending order. Mathematically speaking, this is a totally unique occurrance in the infinite set of integers.--Nicodemus75 02:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you mean digits, not integers. Yes, it is a unique occurrance, but not a particularly interesting one. We could find something unique about every integer. JPD 09:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find three different mathematically interesting and seemingly unrelated properties of the number, then Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers can endorse this article. Being the square root of a pandigital number is a base-dependent property, and as such, it is not that interesting mathematically. PrimeFan 17:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-Still an Number --JAranda | yeah 03:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as just another integer. The one minor mathematical trick ties it to a number that isn't particularly important, either. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 03:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It does a cute trick, but it's just an integer. MCB
  • Delete. All postive integers are interesting, so they have to be more than interesting to get an article. JPD 09:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Every number is interesting, but it is policy that every number is not article-worthy, because even not paper is finite. Xoloz 13:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the interesting factoid into Orders of magnitude (numbers), then delete this page. Interestiong facts about numbers over 100 can always be merged somewhere... — RJH 15:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is already mentioned at 100000000 (number). If anything else interesting about 111111111 turns up, it can be added there. And if enough interesting things are written there (which I doubt) then and only then would this number warrant its own article. Today it doesn't. PrimeFan 19:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Silliness. linas 00:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to 100000000 (number). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 20:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above. -- Egil 07:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not encyclopaedic --redstucco 08:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn -- Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Complete nonesense.Rhetoricalwater 23:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Real Number with interesting properties. Klonimus 02:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • REDIRECT to 100000000 (number) since the only point of substance is already in the latter article. —Phil | Talk 06:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_October_5&oldid=1081093558"