Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 October 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 7 October 9 >

Purge server cache

October 8[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. — JIP | Talk 09:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

4.16 Enoch[edit]

  • Delete Does anyone apart from your own classmates actually bother about a single class, especially when it is insignificant and is about to break up? This is a public domain and not your school domain. Maybe get your school to host your class website instead? 11:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC) - Lowzeewee

A page about a school class. Not even a school, just a class. JoanneB 17:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for obvious vanity. [[User:Consequencefree|Ardent†∈]] 11:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A class that apparently doesn't even exist any more? Flapdragon 12:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Keep this site! It rocks! 4.16 is easily the best class in our school! bucksuck 11:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity. --GraemeL (talk) 12:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. One man's poison is another man's wine. My intention was not to establish this as a "look at me" wiki but i guess it ended up the same. A class. Yes indeed a class, a class not known to you per say but known to a great many else. Perhaps it is beyond you to realise that i have no intent in arguing with you over the existence of this wiki. frankly, it matters not to me but members of my class, school and even country. if, of course, you still feel that your opinion matters more then let it be,--Loke253 12:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Above comment was posted blanking all other comments on this page again. --GraemeL (talk) 12:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 13:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a class of Wikipedia vandals is not notable. -- Egil 15:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- (☺drini♫|☎) 15:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete NN junk--Rogerd 19:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Biblical verses Delete. Grutness...wha? 23:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Look, Kappa, a new challenge!! And wouldn't it be nice if even one in a hundred school articles had this much information? (BTW, this vote is entirely facetious, and intended only to provoke. Sorry.) Delete, and I pray that Wikipedia has not come to the point where articles on individual school classes are deemed worthy of inclusion. Denni☯ 00:43, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Junk Extensive SchoolCruft --JAranda | yeah 04:27, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article cites no sources, and I can find no sources to back up anything at all in the article, even the very existence of its subject. This article is unverifiable. Presuming that such a class actually exists nonetheless, Wikipedia requires that knowledge about it (such as a detailed history like the one given here) be published elsewhere, other than Wikipedia, first, and be subject to peer review and acceptance by others. The place for this article is the school's own web site or the author's own web site. Wikipedia is not a primary source, nor is it a free wiki host. Delete. Uncle G 04:43, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In what way is this encylopedic? Vegaswikian 05:29, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A class in the school is not an encyclopedic topic. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:59, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable; nevertheless, I am impressed with the amount of content here! If only people would write this much on notable topics.... --Jacquelyn Marie 23:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A particular class is surely unencylopedic. I consider it to be nonsense and vanity. *drew 10:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity Masterhatch 10:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nonsense, not NPOV, and not notable. Also see 2L 2005 for similar article, also vfd'ed. bjelleklang 17:45, 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 speedy deleted.  Grue  17:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

88face[edit]

Article is for a neosmileyface. Non-notable, newly created, article fails to assert any notability, yet a tragic oversight in WP:CSD forces this to be an AFD. CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The 88face is a valid symbol and has been in wide use for a considerable amount of time. Therefore, this article should not be deleted, as it is extremely relevant and accurate. - Unsigned by 69.248.86.170

  • Delete per the nomination Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 05:25, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. MCB 06:58, 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. — JIP | Talk 09:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron shier[edit]

  • Delete - Questionable notablity. MakeRocketGoNow 04:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 04:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability not established, more info about producer function needed to change vote. Also, has anybody seen a source confirming this person's death (or otherwise know)? Without a source, I don't think the content should last even five days. I see no reference to his death here. --rob 06:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:Music even if it is all true. Qaz (talk) 07:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think this is a straight-forward delete now, but in case others wish to vote, please read the history of the article, as it's gone through radical revisions, and the current one is devoid of facts, due to lack of verifiability (not necessarily falsehoods). I honestly can't tell if the original article was a well intentioned memorial to a gay man who died or a bad joke against somebody who is very much alive (I tilt to the latter). --rob 09:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sadly, dead or alive, I don't think he meets WP:MUSIC. MCB 06:57, 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. — JIP | Talk 09:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abstract (Java)[edit]

Essentially non-informative article whose information is put forth much better in Abstract class. The only article that links (or rather: linked, I changed that) here was Abstract. The Abstract page lacked link to Abstract class so I replaced the link to Abstract (Java) with that one. As such, this article here has outlived its usfulness. --J-Star 14:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Abstract class. Note that the information in this stub is incorrect. Pburka 15:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why redirect? Nothing links here anyway plus that it's hard to find. The only reason I found it was because I took a peek at the Too Technical-page. The article's name pattern is unique among the category articles so there is no real pattern to be broken. Let's just waste it. --J-Star 15:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because redirects are cheap and easy and don't clutter up AfD. The number of articles on Afd every day could be reduced if editors are WP:BOLD and redirect articles (where appropriate) instead of listing them here. Pburka 15:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Valid point... but 1) it's too late for that argument since the page is already on the AfD page ;) 2) it's useless anyway and as such clutters up Wikipedia as a whole. So better to take the pain now and be done with it. --J-Star 16:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redirects may be cheap, but this one would be useless. -- Kjkolb 03:35, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per J-Star and Kjkolb. Quale 06:37, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no redirect. Wikipedia isn't SW tutorial, I hope. Pavel Vozenilek 00:32, 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 Result: Keep -- (drini's page|☎) 01:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aicha[edit]

del. Nonnotable, nonverifiable. only 380 unique google hits is just too small for an "internet phenomenon" as it is claimed to be. mikka (t) 22:03, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The Aicha video is quite well-known. "aicha gellieman" might not be the best search, try "aicha video" or "jelle buelens" or "gellieman". This article could also be expanded, e.g., talk about the claims of a suicide video and who gellieman is. SpuriousQ 00:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of the searches you suggest gives any confirmation who the heck gellieman is and why it is notable. mikka (t) 00:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Aicha is also a song. Mike H (Talking is hot) 01:25, 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. — JIP | Talk 08:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anatta Wiseism[edit]

Personal essay, OR, no Googles Dlyons493 Talk 21:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Vsion 09:01, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
September 30th was an exceptionally busy AfD day. So this debate among several got almost no attention. Relisting in hope of some tender, loving debate this time around. -Splashtalk 00:00, 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. Hermione1980 23:35, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Bishop[edit]

I wanted to go for sure with afd as I'm not 100% positive this would be A7 CSD. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 15:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Playing for The Ospreys seems good enough for me. The original version was a bit gushing, the next edit wasn't an improvement, but I don't see a reason to delete the whole thing. JPD 15:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Pburka 17:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup as professional sportsperson. Capitalistroadster 17:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Capitalistroadster, notable sports figure. Hall Monitor 18:08, 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 RESULT: DELETE -- (drini's page|☎) 00:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anime Sekai[edit]

(WCFrancis tagged the article and started the afd, but apparently forgot to add it to the log. Adding it now.) Joyous (talk) 23:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Starcraft Clan downloaded page. nn WCFrancis 03:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this page up for deletion?-a[s]elk

  • delete. While the concept of gaming clans is significant, I don't believe that the individual clans are. Joyous (talk) 23:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Userfy. Not sufficiently notable for Wikipedia. Pburka 03:04, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:NOT/A free web host --Mysidia (talk) 07:41, 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. — JIP | Talk 09:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aramaic Latin alphabet[edit]

This is exactly the same as Aramaic Latin Alphabet (see Articles for deletion/Aramaic Latin Alphabet). The article was moved here from that latter article by a user due to the policy on capitalisation of titles. However, the original author continued to work on the article under its old title, leaving this unfinished. Both articles are nonsense created by someone playing around with the Aramaic alphabet. Gareth Hughes 15:37, 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 DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aramaic Latin Alphabet[edit]

To the non-specialist this article might look like it has substance: it doesn't. The article does not cite sources and does not claim which Aramaic language this alphabet might be used for (see Aramaic language for the diverse history of the language). The fact is that the system as laid out does not make sense in itself, and it looks like the work of someone who knows a little of the language, but has not studied it properly. Thus, it is original research. The authors, Sargonious and 12.15.7.70, have previously contributed nonsense about Aramaic to Wikipedia. I also note that the article Aramaic Latin alphabet, to which a user moved this article at an early stage, also exists. It seems that the authors didn't realise where it had gone! Gareth Hughes 15:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. — Gareth Hughes 15:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There appears to be a bit of an edit war going on. As far as I can see, Sargonious's edits are very recent and my Aramaic is too rusty (ie nonexistent) to sort this out. Should there be some discussion elsewhere? Dlyons493 Talk 16:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment My Aramaic is good and this article is nonsense. If there is no attempt to add references and supporting comments to the article, it remains nonsense and should be deleted. --Gareth Hughes 17:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I toyed with the idea of voting for a redirect to Aramaic alphabet, but there's not really any point, is there? --Angr/tɔk tə mi 21:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I moved it and tried cleaning it up thinking it seemed like nonsense but giving it the benefit of the doubt. Unless good soures for this can be found it shold be deleted with some deterrent from recreation added (either redirect or deletepage template) gren グレン 00:07, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this being put up for deletion on the basis that none of you are Aramaic speakers to argue about what I am.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 09:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Audic rizk[edit]

Vanity article (author is Audic rizk); does not appear to be notable (25 unique Google hits); images have copyright notice. MCB 22:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: They try to make themselves sound like a big deal with this sentence: "Represented by the Christine Colas gallery in Paris, they exhibit regularly in Europe, the Middle East and Japan." I don't have the expertise to know whether this, if true, would make them significant in any way or not. Friday (talk) 22:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Very easy to check the truth of the information. Try Google!! pictures and links to the names of galleries and exhibitions are proof of their activity. As for the vanity article. It is not the quantity of google pages but the quality of the work and the possibility to create links from it which should be the question. It is preferable to be transparent and show the author as user than useless misleading by creating another Author. Wikipedia is surely not a place where someone puts adds on himself, nevertheless it is one way of getting into the wiki world and starting to collaborate.(Audic Rizk)
  • The question is not proof of "activity", which is manifest, nor the quality of the work (which I find quite appealing); it is whether it is well-known, widely written about, or the subject of media interest and art criticism, and so forth, and thus appropriate for an encyclopedia article. So yes, to some extent quantity is important. Writing and posting a article about yourself or your business creates the appearance of a "vanity" or self-promotional article. I would recommend moving this to User space ("userfy"). MCB 06:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
September 30th was an exceptionally busy AfD day. So this debate among several got almost no attention. Relisting in hope of some tender, loving debate this time around. -Splashtalk 00:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Good art, exhibits may be real, but there's not enough notability to make any of the article verifiable. Almost notable is still non-notable. Perhaps with some published critical reviews... --A D Monroe III 01:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN, reads like an ad. --Rogerd 02:08, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The authors of this page have had plenty of time now to cite independent sources for the facts on the page and have not. The information isn't therefore verifiable. (Frequently happens with non-notable topics, yeah?) The quality of the artwork is absolutely not a criteria here. Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too much like an ad. I would just say cleanup but the notability question looms too. Qaz (talk) 08:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable photographers, advertising. It is verifiable, however. Andrew pmk | Talk 16:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Show me how to verify "Their photos [...] carry within them delirious derivatives going from painting to oneirism which nonetheless embody a tangible reality." Without the nonverifiable fluff, this page is one or two sentenses long. Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Userfy, as above. MCB 06:33, 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 -- (drini's page|☎) 02:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bawbag[edit]

Nonsense. WP does not need one page for every existing insult. About 17200 hits in Google [1] -- ReyBrujo 15:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Dictdef (if that). Flapdragon 16:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to the Wictionary, surely? 17200 Google hits is quite good, really (it's not only a small group of people using it). --Oppolo 17:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article is rubbish as a dictionary article. Wiktionary can do better than this from a standing start. See Wiktionary:bawbag. Uncle G 19:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it is of course a Scottish word for scrotum (used as an insult), just on case anyone doesn't realise. Whether that's the kind of term they have in Wiktionary I don't know, though somehow doubt it. Flapdragon 17:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why do you doubt that Wiktionary will take Scottish words? If a word is well attested as being a word, Wiktionary will take it, insult, Scottish, or otherwise. Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion are neutral with respect to the meanings of words. Uncle G 19:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is just a synonym for scrotum. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Synonyms don't warrant separate articles in Wikipedia as they do in Wiktionary. At the very most, this would be a redirect. Delete. Uncle G 19:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki --Rogerd 07:31, 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. — JIP | Talk 09:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beer looter dude[edit]

Last month's forum fads are not notable.

  • Delete. -- Gazpacho 01:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN.--Kross 02:25, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Like so many of the Fantastically Famous Forum Frenzies, it gets, ooh, about 145 non-repetitive Googles. Any kind of internet fad that was at all encyclopedic would have vastly more than that. The article also contains a large number of unreferenced assertions, the truths of which are uniformly indeterminable. Even the existence of the speculation surrounding them is largely unverifiable, especially on the scale the article claims. There is nowhere to merge it to that would benefit from the additional material (this is hardly a "minor branch of a subject"), and nothing that bears such a relation as to redirect to. There, all without using the letter 'n' twice in a row. -Splashtalk 03:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -- non-notable four-week fads on a forum do not make encyclopedia articles. --Mysidia (talk) 07:04, 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. — JIP | Talk 09:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Book the Forteenth[edit]

  • Delete. This page should be deleted because there is no proof that there will be a fourteenth book, and there is evidence that shows that there will only be 13. Also, if we have a page for book the fourteenth it should be SPELLED CORRECTLY Pacaman 02:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the 14th book of what? -- Kjkolb 03:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it links to a Lemony Snicket book, but nothing notable established --Rogerd 03:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The page should be reconstituted (under the proper title of Book the Fourteenth (A Series of Unfortunate Events) only when notable information is available regarding its potential existence. Justin Bacon 03:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT a crystal ball (Oh, and I've booked the fourteenth, and I've also pencilled in the seventeenth in case not everyone can make it next Friday). Grutness...wha? 06:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there's strong reasoning for believing there will be thirteen books in the series (see Book the Thirteenth (A Series of Unfortunate Events)), and nothing to suggest otherwise. CLW 07:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT crystal ball Qaz (talk) 07:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Do not regard this as true, as it is only a rumor that there will be this many books says it all, really. Sonic Mew | talk to me 15:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Justin Bacon. --Jacquelyn Marie 22:55, 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 Result: Delete -- (drini's page|☎) 01:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brainkabob[edit]

Non-notable studio. 202.156.6.60 23:01, 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 – Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 09:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brodrick road[edit]

Roadcruft. DS 13:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete there's hundreds of roads with Victorian houses - see:[2] . The house prices seem more notable than the street! Dlyons493 Talk 14:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Rogerd 19:28, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another article that was probaly written by a very bored person --JAranda | yeah 04:25, 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 Result: Delete -- (drini's page|☎) 01:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bystander[edit]

This is a dicdef that has already been transwikied to Wiktioanry. Delete Angr/tɔk tə mi 21:27, 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 BJAODN and DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Capade[edit]

The article sounds sensible, but turns out to be a neologism coined as an experiment. It refuses to cite sources, although it states that some capades (pranks) received media coverage. Delete. JFW | T@lk 19:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The only things that turn up in research are the ice capades, which are entirely unrelated. This is a concept (with a name that is a pun on "escapade") coined by one person that has not been accepted by by reliable sources and the world at large. The article hyperlinked to above indicates that this is also an attempt to use Wikipedia by that person and one or more associates to promulgate that concept. This is original research. Moreover, the article tells us outright in its closing paragraph that it is unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G 19:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. and exterminate just in case that doesn't work. Sasquatcht|c 20:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN and delete' Author's blog admits hoax, but it is an excellent piece of writing nonetheless and should not be lost. BJAODN contains way less amusing stuff than this. Denni☯ 01:14, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN --Mysidia (talk) 08:07, 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 Result: Delete under CSD A7 -- (drini's page|☎) 01:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Stabbin[edit]

I know it has a bunch of Google hits, but is this website really notable? --Hottentot

  • keep (and expand). Alexa rank of 4,194! — brighterorange (talk) 23:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep unfortunately. Notable within the field of nautical pornography. Pburka 01:46, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: can something be done about the link (no wiki, or that thing where it isn't followed)? -- Kjkolb 04:06, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn Porncruft --JAranda | yeah 04:23, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Popular web site and performer; the article is pretty useless but can be expanded. MCB 19:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 Result: delete -- (drini's page|☎) 01:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cartifact[edit]

This is a neologism that has already been transwikied to Wiktionary. Delete Angr/tɔk tə mi 21:30, 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. Wikibofh 17:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cat Tale[edit]

Unreleased movie still in production (Yes, I know it has an imdb entry!).Delete and submit a proper article when (or if) movie is released. Eddie.willers 01:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I cleaned it up some, still a stub --Rogerd 02:31, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Rogerd's rewrite and cleanup. Animated feature with notable actors doing the voice roles with verifiable information. Capitalistroadster 03:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- film currently in production. Appears to be notable. --Mysidia (talk) 07:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable film. Amren (talk) 13:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - why delete it if you plan to just recreate the article when the film is released? --Loopy 00:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've cleaned it up, and added the basic plot. Notable film, this is a silly nomination! — Wackymacs 13:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - i agree that it does not seem to fall under non-notable category, but when film is released, will need expansion or removal then. - --Sstabeler (talk) 13:09, 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 RESULT: Delete -- (drini's page|☎) 01:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

C'DiX[edit]

Almost contentless, advertising Dlyons493 Talk 22:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete not a very good ad if it is one, but no assertion of notability and almost no content. — brighterorange (talk) 23:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Possibly speedy because it lacks context. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:28, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No Consensus Karmafist 21:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC) Explanation on Talk Page [reply]

Ceraphite[edit]

This sounds bogus to me. If anyone can provide solid evidence that this material actually exists, then by all means keep it, but a Google search yields very little except Wikipedia mirrors, so I'm doubtful. —Keenan Pepper 01:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Found on usenet:

Newsgroups: sci.chem.electrochem From: [email protected] - Date: 30 Sep 2005 08:09:10 -0700 Local: Fri, Sep 30 2005 11:09 am Subject: Re: Looking for more info on Ceraphite "aka white carbon" tia sal

Searching the Science Citation Index brings up exactly 1 result for 'ceraphite' from a 1977 meeting abstract in the obscure journal 'Carbon'. The title of the abstract is "Ceraphite, a hard and high-strength new carbon material". The abstract is cited all of zero times. Unless it has another common name, sounds like a case of wikipedia syndrome to me.

    • This makes me suspicious. The radiochemistry.org cite seems good evidence that there is such a materiel, but not that Ceraphite is the proper name for that substance. DES (talk) 01:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the material seems to originate from the Los Alamos National Laboratory. I suspect that this is just a misspelling of "graphite" (which is, indeed, a very soft substance) that has propagated due to other sites copying the LANL page. Kirill Lokshin 01:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No I think not. The following sites all list it as a separate form of carbon, and do not seem to be wikipedia mirrors or derived from wikipedia: [3], [4], [5], and [6]. However none of them discuss its properties or confirm the description in the current article in any way. The only site i could find that does, other than obvious wikipedia mirors, is [7] but this may still be dereived from wikipedia info. By the way, mirrors are everywhere. After excluding from a google search "wqikipedia" "GFDL" "GNU" "stub" and a phrase from the current article, there are nearly 400 hits, the vast majority of which are derived from the wikipedia article or the usenet post that questions the wikipedia article. DES (talk) 02:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: DOE laboratories are managed by contractors and the source may be copyrighted. -- Kjkolb 03:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although there doesn't seem to be much information on ceraphite, Carbon and several external sites on carbon allotropes list it. Andrew pmk | Talk 17:40, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you hear that anyone can edit Wikipedia? Pilatus 18:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless supported by primary literature. Please note that some phases of carbon are formed only under extreme conditions, and that is why not all reports are trustworthy. I don't particularly feel like scouring Gmelin's Handbook for a reliable reference. Pilatus 18:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: No hits on PubMed or sciencedirect.com (sources of primary literature), however one seemingly authoritative hit from Google Scholar [8] (Hazardous Materials Chemistry for Emergency Responders , p. 52). The above comment was made by Btm.
    • That Hazmat book is a secondary reference. The Scientific Citation Index lists the substance just once, in a 1977 conference abstract, as the usenet posting quoted above says. It was never followed up with a full paper as far as I can tell. Pilatus 21:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Wikipedia is suppsoed to be a tertiary reference. Secondary sources are perfectly acceptable to support articles here, indeed there is some suspicion of an article with only primary sources. A demand for primary refernces is not acceptable. DES (talk) 17:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment That Hazmat entry look like the probable source for the current version of the entry -- indeed the wrding is clsoe enough for one paragehp to be almost a copyvio. DES (talk) 17:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: I'm not sure if this is the same article as the 1977 conference—it was presented at a conference in 1979 and published in the journal Wear in 1980 (I wish I could provide a link instead of quoting the abstract here; unfortunately I cannot). Btm 05:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Surface wear characteristics of some hard carbons*1
H. M. Hawthorne
National Research Council of Canada, Mechanical Engineering Division, Western Laboratory, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Received 15 October 1979. Available online 10 February 2003.
Abstract: The surface resistance to damage of homogeneous hard carbons such as glassy low temperature isotropic pyrolytic (LTI) and Ceraphite carbons have been determined by the falling abrasive particle test using SiC grit. Surfaces prepared from within the bulk of the glassy carbon specimens exhibit wear resistance proportional to their microindentation hardness but material near their virgin surfaces shows a lower resistance to this low velocity impact wear. Both pure and silicon-alloyed LTI carbons and Ceraphite material show considerably greater wear than the bulk glassy carbons of the same hardness. However, all of the hard carbons exhibit much greater surface damage resistance than other materials of comparable hardness such as mild steel or soda-lime glass. Microscopic surface examination indicates that brittle fracture is the main wear mode of the hard carbons in this test and the results are interpreted in terms of the microstructural features and characteristic elasticity properties of these solids.
*1 Paper presented at the International Conference on Wear of Materials 1979, Dearborn, Michigan, April 1979.
Surface wear characteristics of some hard carbons
Wear, Volume 60, Issue 1, April 1980, Pages 167-182
H. M. Hawthorne
  • Delete. Um, nn allotrope? No, I suppose that won't do. How's this - the article is doomed to remain non-encyclopedic, because all sources repeat the same few short sentences about it. My fear is that it is bogus, and the wikipedia syndrome is just spreading it far and wide. Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:28, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The above does not sound like a description of the "supersoft" substance described in the current article. DES (talk) 17:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article was started in Dec. 2004, so it seems pretty clear (at least to me) that the Wikipedia article was derived from one of these sources and not vice versa. It also seems pretty clear that this is not a hoax, as the Los Alamos National Laboratory uses the term here (pdf) and UC Berkeley does so here (giving the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics and the American Chemical Society as the sources for the page). I agree that there is little in the primary literature, but we must remember that most of the databases of scientific articles only include articles dating back to the early '90s and there is no quick way to do thorough search on such an obscure topic. So, I vote to keep, because although obscure, an allotrope of carbon is quite notable and encyclopedic. Btm 05:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both Carbon and Wear are awfully obscure Elsevier journals. Also note that the papers that go into Wear don't deal with the difficult subject of metastable phases in the phase diagram of carbon. The word isn't mentioned once in an ACS journal. As the editor who put the article up still hasn't put a source to back up his claim the entry ought to go; too many people have already wasted their time with it. Pilatus 14:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have done some more digging, which should settle the question. Annu. Rev. Mater. Sci. 1973, 3, 195 mentions the mineral chaoite as a recently discovered carbon allotrope. The article then continues to say claims were made than an identical material is prepared by subliming graphite at high temperature and low pressure. "In spite of these seemingly definitive reports ... several other groups have tried unsuccessfully to reproduce these experiments. Independent confirmatory work is obviously needed in this area, and at the present time white graphite appears to be the carbon analog of polywater. Delete and redirect to chaoite, or get rid of the spurious phase altogether. Pilatus 14:31, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redir to Chaoite w/ mention of possible alt. name in chaoite. Vsmith 15:20, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rewrite to cite the sources listed above, and document the confused nature of the primary literature, adn the absence of a clear source for the current description. DES (talk) 17:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, definately. This was the article that lead me to learning of Ceraphite and if we delete this page we may as well remove it completely from the Carbon page as well. Also, with advancing scientific research we should soon be able identify a mollecular structure for it and maybe even get some pictures of it. Also there is no proof that ceraphite is chaoite. It says chaoite is grey or white whereas ceraphite is white, no mention of gray. User:Rickem
    • There is no proof that ceraphite even exists. It is mentioned in two conference abstracts, and the review cited in the chaoite entry cautions that those reports were not reproducible at all. IIRC, chaoite is a carbyne phase. Pilatus 00:21, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 09:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Coding Theory from an Artistic Viewpoint[edit]

Original research. JoanneB 10:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hello from singapore.

The article is intended to be general and rather loose. Can you tell me what you feel is not good about it? I can edit it according to your preference.

Someone might object that i am printing original research in the paragraph: "A possible solution: neural networks". I'm almost certain this has been done before. Nueral networks are like wild animals in the sense that they dont obey rules very well. The method may have worked many times in the past but might not work in the future. Also they are difficult to tame. I really feel that in some cases this can be done and in other cases it cannot. How do you feel about this?

Another problem might be the repetition of the concept of a "geodesic". Yet the article on that subject is full of equations. I think my article says it from a different, more simple point of view.

The gentle political satires were removed.

(preceding unsigned comment by 203.120.68.68 (talk · contribs) ). Please see WP:NOR. --GraemeL (talk) 12:28, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research. --GraemeL (talk) 12:28, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's quite interesting but is really a personal essay rather than an encyclopedia article in my view - so unfortunately not really wikipedia material. Perhaps the author could create an user account and place it on their User page? Dlyons493 Talk 13:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unfortunately, though the author has clearly put thought into this material, said thought has clearly involved thinking up new ideas, rather than organizing and reporting upon pre-existing ones. Personal essays, no matter how interesting the topics they cover, do not belong on the WP. (Sections trying to justify why the article "definitely belongs on Wikipedia", I must add, are counterproductive.) I suggest that the author create a user account and move this material there. Also, I suggest reading through what modern semiotics people have said about communication as "encoding" and "decoding". While much of this structuralist, post-structuralist or whatever material is interesting, I find that large chunks of it are simply indigestable — the sort of bad writing Alan Sokal lampooned in the Sokal Affair. Anyone working on WP articles in this area and making them comprehensible would be performing a great service. Anville 14:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic material, but (perhaps good) original research. Not sure where this could belong, perhaps on wikibooks? -- Egil 15:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Possible contains some interesting thoughts, but not appropriate as an encyclopedia. –Mulligatawny 16:32, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR --Rogerd 18:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems to fall into the common trap of failing to distinguish between Coding Theory and Cryptography (the former is for accuracy, the latter for secrecy). But I couldn't make much sense of it, and I'm writing a Ph.D. thesis on Coding Theory. --RFBailey 21:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Confused, rambling OR that cannpt be salvaged or sourced. MCB 18:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikibooks and delete. Jkelly 01:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • O.K., delete Thank you all for your excellent thoughts on the subject. I'm delighted that so many people read it. Will try to transmit it to somewhere else. RFBailey has chosen a good thesis and will make much money if he stays with it. It's true that cryptography and coding theory are different and that people confuse them. Will try to be more analytical and so on in the future. Kirk out. 13 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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 Wikibofh 15:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Council of Fourteen Minus Ten[edit]

Nonsense

  • Delete. No meaningful content. It is however amusing patent nonsense. ----sp00n17:talk Octoboer Q, 2005
  • Delete. Gazpacho 07:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    and protect against reposting. Gazpacho 02:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete patent nonsense --Anetode 09:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted as patent nonsense --Doc (?) 11:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The author keeps re-posting, so I have reopened this afd to get a binding result. Gazpacho 02:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please stop trying to delete my page, it is not vandalism and it contains factual truth. I did not make it up. I just wanted to improve wikipedia by adding an article about the council. I have a question for you all: Why is it bad to keep this entry on the site? It is not made up of lies, its not a hoax and its not vandalism. Please understand that I think you are being silly by trying to delete something where there is no problem to leave it up. If you want to talk with me on aim about this, my screen name is "persept0", Thank You for your understanding. Persept 02:31, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I've requested references for the material in this article but have received no response (Talk:Council of Fourteen Minus Ten). My opinion is that no significant portion of the article has a legitimate source and it is unsalvageable. Moreover, the author has added redirects to this site from Council of Four and Council of Fourteen. The former was a legitimate article that the author moved, renamed and made into a disambiguation page (see histories for the two pages). Walter Siegmund 02:54, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article basicly has no source because it is for a club type thing. It is something I am in. I am trying to put it on wikipedia becuse it is basicly undocument. I dont think that is a crime to come up with your own information! Other people dont always have to do all the reasearch! As I said before, IM me at persept0 on aim if you want to talk about this. Persept 03:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, it was not me who wrote about Tolkien and Marvel comics and the Council of fourteen. I have no clue who put that there since it only showed an ip address. It seems entirely made up to me. And i put a disambiguation page to disinguish from The Council of Four Minus Ten(which equals 4) the council of four from india, and the council of four lands. I thought this was nessisary. If i didnt think it was nessisary I wouldnt have gone to the trouble of changing all the links so there would be no redirects! Persept 03:48, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like you to carefully read the requirements for patent nonsense:
    1. Total nonsense - i.e. text or random characters that have no assignable meaning at all. This includes things like ".lz nbl[909nvn[904wv[90am[0vm43[ eiov", where random keys of the keyboard have been pressed.
    2. Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to make sense of it.

It is neither!! Stop making false accusations! And Someone answer my question: Why is it bad to keep this entry on the site? It is not false and it is not patent nonsence, its not a hoax, and its not vandalism. Why cant you people see that there is nothing against my site!!! Persept 03:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To quote from Wikipedia:Alternative outlets:

Material is deleted from Wikipedia for a variety of reasons.

Among them is that Wikipedia is a project whose goal is to build an encyclopedia, within a broad understanding of the word. Sometimes material is submitted that is perfectly factual, but does not fall within the scope of Wikipedia or any of its sister projects.

You might find a better location for your article at one of the links listed. However, it seems to me that your fellow Wikipedeans don't think it belongs in an encyclopedia. -Walter Siegmund 04:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable club. Eric119 04:52, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. This is indeed patent nonsense, to wit, "Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to make sense of it." MCB 07:14, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If editors had not once again abused the "patent nonsense" speedy deletion criterion, which this article does not come under (it being quite comprehensible), but had instead provided an applicable rationale for deleting this article, we perhaps wouldn't be having this discussion; because the original author would be looking at the policies that quite clearly explain why this article does not belong here, rather than looking at Wikipedia:patent nonsense, which is irrelevant here. The original author, Persept (talk · contribs), has handed us the rationale for deletion on a platter in the discussion above: I am trying to put it on wikipedia becuse it is basicly undocument. I dont think that is a crime to come up with your own information! Other people dont always have to do all the reasearch! By the original author's admission, this is unverifiable original research. Delete. Uncle G 07:46, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
comment: I was the editor responsible for adding the nonsense tag. In defense of this choice, I believe that (as MCB noted) this article is purposely absurd and an example of some weird sort of contrived incomprehensibility. Going strictly by the patent nonsense policy page, I didn't think that this article was merely poorly written or immature, but appeared to be completely meaningless at the time of nomination. I'm sorry if listing it for speedy deletion was too brash, but after re-examining the article and the author's comments concerning its creation, I still think it qualifies as nonsense. Anetode 18:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I wouldn't have even known about this had Persept not vandalized the entry on Batman. This is nonsensical, non-notable, pretentious and any other adjective you want to put there. I'm a member of "Purple Monkey Dishwashers", but you don't see me trying to create an article on it. - DrachenFyre 15:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Due to the many many requests for deletion, I agree to have this page deleted by a moderator, since i am the creator of the page. In addion I think there should be another criteria for deletion that might apply to this article. Could someone please bring the topic up somewhere on the site? Thank you. Persept 18:04, 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 as angry frothing-at-the-mouth rant about how evil the iPod is, the iPod is evil evil evil EVIL EVIL EVIL EVIL EVIL EVIL (head explodes) DS 00:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of the Apple iPod[edit]

stream-of-consciousness rant, OR, POV --Trovatore 05:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. There's nothing worth salvaging; and if there were, it would properly be merged with the main iPod article. Justin Bacon 05:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Justin Bacon. Qaz (talk) 06:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Engadget's comment section Delete as stream-of-consciousness rambling. No reason not to leave a redirect to iPod in its place. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 11:08, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What Justin Bacon said.--Rogerd 17:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without redirect. Btm 20:32, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete MEGO Denni☯ 00:31, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; much as I agree with this tirade, a tirade is all it is -- not an encyclopedic article, and it doesn't much have a chance of ever becoming one. --Jacquelyn Marie 22:57, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as attack page: "If Apple continues to belittle its consumer, then it is in the best interest of consumers to ulimately boycott the entire Apple iPod as an alternative for MP3 players." WP:NOT a soapbox. --Idont Havaname 05:31, 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. — JIP | Talk 09:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Source Code Show Notes Wiki[edit]

wikipedia is not a free hosting service Dlyons493 Talk 15:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • If you read the post it is not a hosting as the wiki is hosted at http://dailysourcecode.secretelite.com/Main_Page the intention here is to make a distinction of this ite from the daily source code site. I intend to place more details here but it will never be a hosting service as the hosting service at dailysourcecode.secretlite.com is well supported. I intend the posting to become more of a descriptiono f the site in the same manner as the Daily Source Code wiki entry describes dailysourcecode.com as a growing phenomena Ian Stanley 15:51, 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 Delete with extreme bigotry. Maru (talk) 20:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dara Jade[edit]

Ooh, close one, but as the article says, she's never mentioned in the actual Star Wars material, and Google shows that she's mentioned on the Star Wars Wikicities page as a fanon character. I'd like it if Connie Hirsch's "Kid Dynamo" fic made it into Marvel canon, but it ain't gonna happen either. --DS 16:33, 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 redirect to List of internet slang. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dilligaf[edit]

An internet slang that is already listed in List of internet slang -- ReyBrujo 15:54, 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 02:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doyle publishing[edit]

nn company. Reads like an ad. Jasonuhl 09:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--Delete - non notable. --Sgkay 09:21, 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. — JIP | Talk 15:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Live Code[edit]

hoax? about a movie(?) to be released in 2009, but there is no IMDB entry. WP:NOT a crystal ball, etc. — brighterorange (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--Delete - not even a single hit for the film on google. --Sgkay 16:16, 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 02:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dying Breed[edit]

Delete. Seems like a local nonnotable band and this reads like a vanity page. Elf | Talk 01:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails WP:Music, non-notable. --W.marsh 02:32, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 02:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although if anyone can provide substantiation of the claim that local town officials have actually condemned the band's "cult-like followers", I'd switch my vote to keep. Justin Bacon 03:28, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Allmusic does not mention this band, although it has a substub about another by the same name. That page has no information and lists only a single album without comment. The artists are unknown to allmusic entirely as well as to Google, save for Wikimirrors. There's no sensible means to verify any of the article's claims, since Google doesn't find even a website for them for things like "Jimmesworth K. Velenka" + "Dying Breed". -Splashtalk 03:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failing wp:music. Make Dying Breed extinct (har har). I wish we could keep all the bands which want so much to be included but that is not how the consensus came out. Qaz (talk) 07:28, 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 02:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

E-space[edit]

Weak delete, close to being nn fancruft, but not completely sure it cannot be expanded. Titoxd(?!?) 05:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy This is patent nonsense. Qaz (talk) 06:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete either way, be it as nn fancruft or nonsene. -- Egil 15:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonesense --Rogerd 17:53, 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 02:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Gauthier[edit]

Article doesn't assert sufficient notability. Note this article is duplicated at User:Ed Gauthier. dbenbenn | talk 07:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn/not ready for prime time. Qaz (talk) 07:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have been trying to protect this page for the last few weeks. I don't see article will be improved in the future. No notability is asserted and it is a target of multiple vandalism. --Hurricane111 13:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Probably not quite a speedy, but still below the bar. -R. fiend 17:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Rogerd 18:30, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN. -R. S. Shaw 04:59, 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 Result: Delete -- (drini's page|☎) 01:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Energy technology[edit]

Original Research Rich Farmbrough 21:59, 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 DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprises-Nexus[edit]

This ad agency may or may not be notable. However, the current article is half substub, half self-promotion; as a Wikipedia article, it is pretty much useless. Ashenai 11:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - advertisement JoJan 14:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
September 30th was an exceptionally busy AfD day. So this debate among several got almost no attention. Relisting in hope of some tender, loving debate this time around. -Splashtalk 00:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Justin Bacon 00:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ad --Rogerd 01:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete self-promotion advertisment, no support for claims, closest is Indian actor John Abraham who worked as a media planner.-Blue520 06:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an ad Qaz (talk) 08:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Banes 09:26, 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 02:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Esker Melchior[edit]

This was tagged for an A7, I (perhaps hastily) deleted it as an attack page. The creator has objected, so I'm listing it here for a transparent debate (no vote). --Doc (?) 10:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete VERY narrow scope. NN Qaz (talk) 11:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Qaz (talk) Dlyons493 Talk 13:28, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete first of all due to lack of notability. It may have helped slightly if it was actually funny, but this is not. -- Egil 15:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Un-encyclopedic; sure looks like an attack page. (I was the person who nominated this as a speedy). While I despise the tactics of SCO, and am general a fan of including borderline-notable articles, articles on unremarkable posters on message boards don't belong on Wikipedia. Regardless of whether this is an attack, someone wanting to give credit to a rather funny troll, or vanity--this isn't appropriate for here. --EngineerScotty 18:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 19:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The answer can only be to delete, however fond of Esker I am. However, the material could be re-sourced to a yahoo trolls page, like Slashdot_trolling_phenomena. Vryl 13:46, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Actually a pity, since I think Esker has the potential to become a phenomenon throughout forum boards all over the internet, but I agree that at this point, this is too narrow in scope. Note that it's not an attack though, everybody loves the guy as far as I can tell. --195.216.66.1 07:16, 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 Result:Delete -- (drini's page|☎) 01:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Far From Words[edit]

Doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC. 202.156.6.60 23:11, 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 -- (drini's page|☎) 01:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Faux Fetus Collective[edit]

Group of limited fame or reknown; 29 Google hits. tregoweth 21:06, 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 Ryan Norton T | @ | C 22:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fishing for pike[edit]

Wikipedia is not an instruction manual Comatose51 03:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. - Comatose51 03:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with angling --Rogerd 04:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Qaz (talk) 07:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm sure it's a well-meaning article but it's too general in nature and not particularly well-written. At best I can see it being rewritten and merged with either an article on the Pike or an article on lure fishing. Marcus22 08:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, possibly first transwiki to a wikibook if valuable enough. -- Egil 15:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with pike Jtmichcock 17:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikibooks. -- Natalinasmpf 14:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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 09:39, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Frivolous[edit]

dictdef Dlyons493 Talk 14:42, 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 02:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fúsíjama Basketball Club International and its players Guðni Þór Sigurjónsson, Ágúst Ívar Vilhjálmsson, Sturla Stígsson, Jakob Einar Úlfarsson[edit]

Icelandic amateur Basketball Club playing in ?? league (not in the premier or 1st at least). After a long search in google I couldn't establish any notability. Wikipedia is not a homepage for amateur sports clubs.

Also the players articles for deletion since the club is not notable. Players like:

Guðni Þór Sigurjónsson - greatest Icelandic basketball villain of all time
Sturla Stígsson - Nicknames; The Bulldozer, McNasty
Jakob Einar Úlfarsson - one of the most notorious thugs in basketball history etc.

See also the player Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tómas_Michael_Reynisson. feydey 12:25, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete to all. NN. -- Egil 14:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Greatest Icelandic Delete of All Time per nom. Karmafist 14:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per feydey. -- Kjkolb 03:28, 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. — JIP | Talk 08:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fuz Fon[edit]

Band stub, no claim to notability. Bordering on A1 speedy. Ilmari Karonen 20:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 30th was an exceptionally busy AfD day. So this debate among several got almost no attention. Relisting in hope of some tender, loving debate this time around. -Splashtalk 00:00, 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

George Getty[edit]

not sufficiently notable [[User:Consequencefree|Ardent†∈]] 11:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He is the start of a historial line (preceding comment by 195.137.71.61, the creator of the article under debate) --Ashenai (talk) 11:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Think it should stay as part of a project to clean up the Getty dynasty articles + flag for cleanup itself. --mervyn 12:30, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and cleanup This is the father of J. Paul Getty --Rogerd 19:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I would delete a notability by proxy article, but as part founder and owner of Getty Oil, he seems to be notable by himself. -- Kjkolb 03:26, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kjkolb -- though I agree that notability-by-proxy would not have been enough otherwise. --Jacquelyn Marie 23:10, 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 Result: delete

Gillette (singer)[edit]

No Google hits, either for the artist or the song. Probable hoax. A "ski-by shooting"? Heh. Quicksandish τκ 21:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - not a hoax see here [10] --MacRusgail 22:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC) p.s. Ski-by-shooting is real James Bond stuff.[reply]
  • Keep. Real rap singer with entry on allmusic.com. I don't know about the ski-by shooting or the chocolate but she recorded several albums on a major German label (ZYX) and had a hit single "Mr. Personality". Depending upon what search term I combined with Gillette (e.g., ZYX, "Mr. Personality" or 20 Fingers), I got in the range of 1,000 Google hits. Delete, then per 23skidoo. -- DS1953 15:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is NOT the American singer who recorded "Mr. Personality" or "Short D*ck Man" who is cited in the two votes above and I cannot find anything to back up the information given in the article as it now stands. The American singer deserves an article, however. 23skidoo 22:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - how come I can only find info on her on a Swiss German site? --MacRusgail 20:37, 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 Keep -- (drini's page|☎) 01:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Goget[edit]

delete, blatant commercial advertising. Shouldn't there be a speedy category for such egregious cases? --Trovatore 21:03, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • What, you mean like this one? Flexcar unsigned comment by 218.214.34.243, 21:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC); same IP address as author of Goget
  • Im new to wikipedia: do i simply need to make it more factual? Search 'carshare' in google and Newtopwn carshare, our sister site, comes up 6th - i think its relevant. - Nic, author of page
  • I came across this: "Articles about companies and products are fine if they are written in an objective and unbiased style" - so if I change it will it be acceptable?
    • I'll let someone else take this; I'm not sure where the boundaries are. The fact that you're writing about your own company, while probably not per se forbidden, raises strong suspicions that you mainly want to use the article as free publicity for a commercial venture. There must be someone who has more experience with this issue who can comment more authoritatively. --Trovatore 21:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your time on this - as I said, I am new to Wikipedia - and I have dual motivations. I saw an article about the US companies (contributed by unknown persons) so I figured I could contribute one on what we've done in Australia, seeing as how we were the first ones to do it here. Anyway, I guess I have to leave this one up to the community!
    • Appreciate your honesty, in any case. --Trovatore 21:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep An interesting and informative article on a cutting-edge and valuable service. Denni☯ 01:20, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should every business providing a trendy, valuable service, get an ad on WP? Give them a sentence or two in car sharing, and an external link to their website; if they make some money off of that, great. But we shouldn't have articles promoting particular commercial interests. It reflects badly on the impartiality of the whole encyclopedia. --Trovatore 05:40, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Considering that the author is new to Wikipedia, it seems only fair to ask for some specific changes to be made rather than deleting the article. My suggestion is that the article be rejigged to focus on the generic benefits of carsharing within major Australian cities and a comparison of the Australian approach with precursors in other countries. This approach could readily satisfy the requirements for articles to be written in an objective and unbiased style. It would be a pity if information about this socially-beneficial approach (did I hear anyone mention petroleum crisis?) was excluded because of a suspicion about 'free publicity' being the major motivation for submission. Maybe as suggested, it could be included in the car sharing section under a heading of car sharing in Australia. I'm sure that the material could be revised somewhat by the author to prevent the unfortunate impression of a lack of impartiality. The fact that the author has dual motivations should not prevent him/her being able to produce a revision that focuses upon the social good aspect. Or do we assume that any submission by someone who has mixed motives is intrinsically tainted? That would seem a bit rich. Surely we should judge on the nature of what's finally actually submitted rather than taking an 'original sin' approach - I vote that we ask for the article to be edited so that it is 'balanced' in a manner analogous to that found in the Flexcar article. unsigned comment by 134.7.248.129, 01:06, 10 October 2005
  • Keep. I was bold and rewrote it, stripping it down to a brief and factual article and taking out as much of the advertising as I could. It was certainly pretty advertising-heavy, but it appears to be a notable service in its area, and car sharing services are becoming much more prominent recently, so I think it's important to have an article on this one. Bikeable 01:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The revised version from Bikeable seems fine to me - it does a great job of informing about the basic idea without the former problem of the advertising overlay. I'd like the original author to expand the article along these lines (without advertising!) as suggested above to point out how the general car sharing approach has been 'tailored' to the specifics of the Australian context. I think this would be very useful for people in countries where such schemes do not yet exist.Albertus Pictor 00:04, 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 MERGE to National University of Ireland, Galway. Obviously not deleting, but all but two editors would not have the content stay in this article. -Splashtalk 22:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gort Na Coiribe[edit]

Student accommodation with no special notability. The partying may well be true but is unverifiable. Dlyons493 Talk 19:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 30th was an exceptionally busy AfD day. So this debate among several got almost no attention. Relisting in hope of some tender, loving debate this time around. -Splashtalk 00:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep It's notorius amongts Students past & present (~15,000) --[User:Barker84|Barker84]]\talk 17:29, 18 October 2005
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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 02:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hemp lounge bar and grill[edit]

nn lounge bar and impossible cleanup Delete --JAranda | yeah 00:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn Corma 01:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Probable hoax, but NN and unverifiable anyway. --A D Monroe III 02:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 02:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wishful thinking/hoax Qaz (talk) 07:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn/unverifiable. Andrew pmk | Talk 17:26, 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 Redirect -- (drini's page|☎) 01:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

House of Pomegranates[edit]

This is a really long and really weird work of fiction. I thought of speedying it, but I wasn't sure which CSD it might fit, and I also thought it might amuse you all. Chick Bowen 17:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, it's by Oscar Wilde, and as such public domain - and if anyone wants to read it, it's available free online in lots of places. We don't need it here; speedy delete. DS 17:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is an encyclopedia, not a library --Rogerd 08:04, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create an article about the work instead. --Jacquelyn Marie 23:14, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is one, Jacquelyn, albeit a stub, at The House of Pomegranates. Chick Bowen 01:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good call. Well then, why not just redirect there? --Jacquelyn Marie 13:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Mostly because I didn't notice the stub until DS pointed out this was a Wilde story. I'd have no problem with that, of course. Chick Bowen 00:49, 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 02:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How to make a transformer[edit]

  • Delete. How-to article transwikied to Wikibooks. -- Egil 11:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Rogerd 19:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Transwikied. Bushytails 06:12, 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 02:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Husswha[edit]

Neologism. Jasonuhl 09:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Agree with nominator. Anville 14:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 18:44, 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. Hermione1980 23:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I. V. Sasi[edit]

This seems to be some kind of a Bollywood filmography, but the author doesn't seem to be interested at all in complying the layout convention and its encyclopedic notability is questionable. It's been tagged as speedy but I don't think it belongs to CSD, so I bring here for discussion. 202.156.6.59 17:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC) Ok I withdraw my nn claim. After a cursory web search, he does appear to be a well-known director in India, and at least one page [11] calls him a veteran director. Keep -202.156.6.62 01:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unless it is rewritten before the nomination is closed. I'd say keep if it could be cleaned up, but besides a list of films without Wikipedia articles, it has no content. -- Kjkolb 03:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep cleaned up version. -- Kjkolb 07:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, same reasons as already mentioned. Peruvianllama 07:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After seeing the cleanup, I've changed my vote. Peruvianllama 04:28, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Add cleanup tag. He was a major movie director in Malayalam and definitely notable Tintin 13:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Cleaned up a bit. Tintin 13:50, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I. V. Sasi is an important film director. The present state of the article is not very satisfactory, but that does not merit a deletion. Italo 17:37, 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 Merge to PIE root words, oh boy... Redwolf24 (talk) 23:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keu-3, Keu-2, Kéu-, Yu-2, Yu-1, Yós-, Yewo-2, Yewo-1, Yeug-, Keu-1, Kes-2, Kes-1, Ker-4, Ker-5, Kerd-1, Kerd-2, Kerdh-, Kerem-, Kerə-, Kerp-, Kers-1, Kers-2, Kert-, Ker-1, Ker-2, Ker-3, Kentho-, Kent-[edit]

Are all these articles really Encyclopedic? It seems to me that they aren't. --Hottentot

  • Delete as dicdefs. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 01:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki --Rogerd 02:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into a general article about PIE root words. There is no place in Wiktionary for hypothetical words. There is also no uniform system for "spelling these. Eclecticology 21:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • American Heritage Dictionary has them. [12]--JWB 20:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Eclecticology. Could be a really interesting article when done. Denni☯ 00:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • How would the merger differ from an article on Proto-Indo-European? —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 01:30, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would hope it would be less technical than the PIE article, which, quite frankly, is beyond me as a layman. These articles are much more illustrative, and can give me a better feel of how language is shaped. Denni☯ 01:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, I want to read the resulting article on PIE root words / hypothetical words. Andreww 08:03, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Eclecticology. Wiktionary can afford to make this into an appendix, but this is not the best choice; Wikipedia is far better equipped for discussing the various systems and academic wrangling and heckling that results from these POV-laden roots. Main articles on Wikt: are frankly out of the question; were they to be transwikied, RFD there would smash them to bits. --Wytukaze 15:49, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Eclecticology and Wytukaze. I am not sure how useful the leftover page names would be as search terms. At any rate, certainly do not lose this valuable information. --Jacquelyn Marie 22:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete foreign dictdefs.  Grue  17:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • My view is that these don't meet our criteria for inclusion at Wiktionary, as they simply are not attested words, by their very natures as hypotheses, and that therefore transwikification is not an option. I asked editors at Wiktionary to contribute to this discussion, stating that view but also pointing out that the AHD has an appendix listing such words. As you can see above, other Wiktionary editors agree that Wiktionary will not take these as main namespace articles. It's worth noting that, unlike many other of our language articles, Proto-Indo-European language has no "vocabulary" section or breakout vocabulary article. (Compare Esperanto language and its Esperanto vocabulary article.) The merger suggested above would create a "roots" article paralleling such a breakout vocabulary article. Uncle G 03:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As of the above.Rhetoricalwater 18:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it I like it. I mean, I know it's a little sparse, and obviously hypothetical, but it does say that, doesn't it? If its author can finish it, I think it could be very helpful for a lot of people. If he/she can finish it.
  • Merge I don't know what these are, but whole bunch of new ones just appeared today and they are a bit of a mess. They need to be condensed somehow. rydia 21:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well it looks like this is going to end with the listed articles being merged into some kind of "roots" article. As a vote is not needed to merge articles, the new ones could be merged too. Andreww 22:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge looks a reasonable option - there is useful information here, but the articles can;t really stand alone. Rd232 18:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 15:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Information object[edit]

Definition - at best uninformation Dlyons493 Talk 18:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Currently, it appears to meet CSD A1, so possibly speedy. If expanded, may reconsider. Andrew pmk | Talk 18:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete CanadianCaesar 20:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. short article, no context. --Mysidia (talk) 08:08, 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. — JIP | Talk 15:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Irannbc[edit]

Advertising. tregoweth 21:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. tregoweth 21:08, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Advertising. Dlyons493 Talk 22:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - spam as evidenced by how the article starts: "We are proud to offer you the quickest design solutions, speciall..." --Mysidia (talk) 07:51, 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. — JIP | Talk 15:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ISBN 1593880472[edit]

  • Very short, weirdly formatted article, about a book that does not appear to be notable abakharev 23:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless notability of this book is demonstrated. If it is kept, move to Revolucion de 1933 en Cuba (perhaps with more accents). Pburka 03:06, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is wise if you read at least part of the book first, Enrique Ros had a relative also called Enrique Ros, who was one of officers in Cuba's elite marksman squad at the Hotel National in 1933 which held of the mutiny of the enlisted ranks lead by Batista and others. This Enrique Ros has written extensively and well on Cuba. And he, the author Enrique Ros is an accredited historian to the National Archives of the United State. he is also closely related to to a US Congress person, and extremely well informed. While I am sure that is not your intent; one might well consider that to demand the omission of this reference might well be considered a bias that would violate Wikipedia rules and ethics (El Jigüe, 10/8/2005)

  • Delete. Useless. (and I just put the AFD tag back in, since the author removed it). Bushytails 06:18, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete At best this deserves moving to the title of the book and then deleting the redirect. Caerwine 06:33, 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 Result: Delete -- (drini's page|☎) 01:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jammin java[edit]

Article about a cafe with no assertion or evidence of notability paul klenk talk 22:30, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete local businesses are too plentiful to include unless particularly notable. — brighterorange (talk) 23:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:28, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy keep. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 21:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jascha Heifetz[edit]

Delete. Vanity article and anecdotes. Jake013 14:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep This is the Heifetz! Dlyons493 Talk 14:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is hardly a vanity page. just do a google search. this article should not have been nominated for deletion.--Alhutch 15:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - Egil 15:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong speedy keep per Alhutch. — ceejayoz ★ 15:40, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong speedy keep. Shome mishtake shurely. Flapdragon 16:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep ... uh ... merely the most famous violinist who ever lived. Except for maybe Paganini. Antandrus (talk) 16:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as per WP:music. Article establishes notability. The article states he recorded for RCA Victor and cites recordings that he made as well as concert tours he performed. By the way, how can an article on a man who died in 1987 be considered vanity. Capitalistroadster 17:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS. Is there an admin in the house? So far there has been seven speedy keeps and one delete and I can't see much prospect of more delete votes being added? Capitalistroadster 18:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Possibly bad faith nom --Rogerd 19:25, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 02:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Malley[edit]

Tagged for speedy as nn-bio, but it certainly makes an assertion of note. I've also redirect "Keith Mally" here. -Splashtalk 00:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete NN --Rogerd 02:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Self promotion, misinformation, unverifiable. --A D Monroe III 02:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete vanity w/ misrepresentation --Anetode 03:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per A D Monroe III Qaz (talk) 07:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity page/misinformation. The websites mentioned in the article (shite.com, keithmalley.com and keithandthegirl.com) have Alexa ranks of 776 146, No Data and 216 588 respectively. Most downloaded book in history? Not a chance.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 -- (drini's page|☎) 20:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

L. P. Fisher Public Library[edit]

Looks like a nn library Delete --JAranda | yeah 00:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom Justin Bacon 00:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The main library of a sizeable town, and the building is a historic and well known landmark as well. - SimonP 01:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • And you would know it is a well-known landmark how? Denni☯ 23:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because I've spent a fair amount of time in the town of Woodstock, New Brunswick. - SimonP 01:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Good answer. Full points. Denni☯ 06:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Barely notable --Rogerd 02:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the city's article and redirect. -- Kjkolb 03:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this public institution which has significant influence in its community. Pburka 03:08, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • And you would know it has a significant influence how? Denni☯ 23:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge to Woodstock. We don't need articles on every public institution in every minor town; there are 10,000 cities Woodstock's size in the US alone and each and every one of them has a library. Nobody cares what type of wood their interior is decorated in.--Prosfilaes 03:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Interesting architectural article. -- Decumanus 04:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge some of the information. It's more valuable in context - people reading about the town can learn that the library is a historic and well-known landmark. (At least they could if someone edits the material to establish either of those points). Not ALL of it needs merging; listings of the library's holding are pure bibliocruft. Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge worth having the information somewhere, although I don't think it matters much where. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 04:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge as per Prosfilaes--inksT 05:32, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not of sufficient importance to exist on its own, if the current article is anything to go by. The useful information (i.e not the list of holdings) should be merged into the Woodstock, New Brunswick article. Average Earthman 13:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Amren (talk) 13:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This library is notable to its community. Andrew pmk | Talk 17:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Remember that in New Brunswick, everything is much smaller and more isolated than in the urbanized areas of the United States and even Canada. Therefore, a small town is much more important there than in other parts of Canada.
      • Comment: That's an argument to keep? Just to be clear, you are saying that instututions that would be non-notable elsewhere are notable if they are in small towns in isolated areas? Doesn't that mean fewer people are interested in them? Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge with the town. Get rid of the examples of holdings section. -R. fiend 17:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to Woodstock. Appears to be relevant to the local community based on the person it's named after. What about the architect? - Mgm|(talk) 20:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge. Not notable enough for its own article; "holdings" section should be dumped and after that it's a stub with little potential to be more. TomTheHand 23:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per Average Earthman. Denni☯ 23:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. I think it establishes notability and belongs. However without a good cleanup, its hard to tell. IF no cleanup, them merge as above. Vegaswikian 05:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • An honest question: how does it establish notability? What is notable about this library?--Prosfilaes 16:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Public Libraries are inherently notable.--Nicodemus75 18:52, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. A historic public library, with important holdings. --Vsion 19:57, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. The information is worth keeping around. And if the information finds its way to the city's article, this remains a good search term. --Jacquelyn Marie 22:40, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable. Logophile 15:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Articles about notable structures are valuable information for a non-paper encyclopedia. Dystopos 16:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No one is arguing that articles about notable structures belong in any encyclopedia; the subject under debate is whether or not this is a notable library.--Prosfilaes 22:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I consider the structure itself, built as a free-library at the bequest of the first mayor of Woodstock, handsomely designed by an architect of regional note (G L Fairweather) and in continuous use since 1912 to be a structure of sufficient significance to merit an article in an encyclopedia alongside such institutions as "Every time you masturbate… God kills a kitten". Dystopos 23:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • It was built by an architect who doesn't have an article, and normally painters and authors (and by extension architects) don't have articles for each and every creation, especially not for a creator of "regional note". 1912 is positively new by some standards; I understand in Hamburg the new town hall dates from the 13th century. --Prosfilaes 00:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • You're absolutely right. And Amsterdam's Niewe Kerk is very very old. However the context for this structure is Woodstock, not Hamburg and the context for this article is Wikipedia, not Encarta. We've got an episode-by-episode guide to "Sex and the City", detailed descriptions of minor characters from The Simpsons, and we can afford articles about significant structures in medium-sized towns. Hey and listen, if you want to merge and redirect, that's fine. But AfD isn't the place to do that. Dystopos 13:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • When I said "normally painters and authors (and by extension architects) don't have articles for each and every creation", I was speaking in the context of Wikipedia. Even great authors don't typically have all their books wikified.--Prosfilaes 17:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • That's also true (unless the author happens to set their novels in the Star Wars universe, of course). This building is more than an example of an architect's capability, however. It is also a local institution and landmark, an example of an important style of architecture, a keeper of locally significant archival collections, and, above all, verifiable and NPOV. Notability is a disputed criterion for deletion. Dystopos 19:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • The fish and chips shop outside my house is a "local institution and landmark", the building is ex-government built housing, so it was designed by a famous and well paid architect, a provider of nutrition, a place for the community to meet and exchange information on local events, verifiable (features in the University Student Magazine, which has an online edition), and is totally unsuitable for Wikipedia. Given that the criteria you mention above can qualify an otherwise unsuitable fish and chips shop for inclusion, perhaps they are flawed?--inksT 22:55, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • It sounds like the housing estate itself is probably worthy of an article, with perhaps some mention of the policy regarding the mix of retail and housing that was current at the time and a link to the famous and well-paid architect's biographical article. Wouldn't it be nice if we could all keep busy with constructive additions to the encyclopedia rather than going around deleting everything that isn't of any importance to you. Dystopos 23:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                    • It'd be nice we all kept busy with constructive additions that filled spots in the encyclopedia that were of comparable notability to articles in the encyclopedia, thus creating an encyclopedia that is comprehensive in what it handles, instead of creating articles about things that are just like thousands of others that aren't getting articles.--Prosfilaes 23:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I assure you, the housing estate is not at all article worthy either :) And I'm sure we can agree that removing material from Wikipedia that shouldn't be there is just as constructive as putting stuff in that should be there.--inksT 01:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Perhaps I can agree with that statement, but I feel that my threshold for inclusion supports an optimistic view of Wikipedia's potential for growth while some of these votes betray an attitude that seems contrary to an "encyclopedia that anyone can edit." It presumes that we should try to "manage" contributions so that the most notable topics are fully covered before we stray into more trivial matters. Of course we can agree that many more notable libraries have yet to be written about, but we do not agree that we should therefore delete what HAS been written about this one. Dystopos 03:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • very weak keep If secondary schools are notable by default, why not libraries? Roodog2k (Hello there!) 15:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Best rationale I've heard all day.--Nicodemus75 06:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Careful with that argument. The logical extension is "If secondary schools are notable by default, why not playschools?" It goes downhill from there. Denni☯ 06:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Woodstock, New Brunswick and remove Significant holdings section. The building seems notable but there is not enough content to constitute its own article. If more information is added and becomes a significant size, it can be moved back to this branch article. Zhatt 20:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, those are editorial actions, not arguments to delete. (Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages). Go ahead and do it. Dystopos 21:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, don't go ahead and do it. You shouldn't move or redirect a page linked to AfD. Merge is a standard answer to AfD; there's no reason to snap at everyone who offers it.--Prosfilaes 23:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't mean to snap. If people feel like the content should be merged, or that particular sections of the article are unencyclopedic, there's no reason not to do it, saving the redirect for the outcome of this discussion. Dystopos 23:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • If the article is kept, there is no reason to merge it, just link to the article. I also don't like going around deleteing anything I think is unencyclopedic; I like to get a consensus first. Maybe that should be done in the talk page, but few check the talk page while the article has a VfD. Zhatt 17:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a historic building in a small town which makes it fairly significant in the local area. Also its link to an important Confederation-era family makes it interesting and an article worthy of inclusion. --NormanEinstein 21:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia is not paper [13]. Architecturally and historically notable building. Luigizanasi 03:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for above reasons. --rob 04:42, 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. — JIP | Talk 09:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Leng Jai Boyz[edit]

Not encyclopedic. I put a suggestion on the author's talk page to userfy this several days ago, but received no response. Delete or Userfy Pburka 02:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete NN --Rogerd 03:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as vanity Qaz (talk) 07:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable, unverifiable, unencyclopedic, etc. Gets 0 Google hits. Note to closing admin: please remember to delete the pictures as well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:15, 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 -- (drini's page|☎) 01:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Levels of celebrity[edit]

Appears to be original research. tregoweth 21:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. tregoweth
  • Delete as per nom. maybe they should have listed the sex symbols and teen idols Dlyons493 Talk 22:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite, citing sources, so that it's not original research. --Mysidia (talk) 07:56, 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 NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 09:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

list of Jewish historians[edit]

Unmaintainable, useless listcruft. Everything has been said about this already. Just, delete! Graham/pianoman87 talk 06:30, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per the arguments in all the other List of Jewish xx above. Just add categories to any appropriate atricles. Dlyons493 Talk 09:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is utterly unwieldy to have just one list of Jews, so makes eminent sense to spin off sub-lists to separate articles. RachelBrown 13:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE
  • Comment Doesn't this just come down to whether you like lists or not, rather than the worth of this particular article (which on the face of it seems far from worthless)? No-one seems to have explicitly stated a formal reason for deletion yet. Flapdragon 17:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is what categories are for. Grutness...wha? 23:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and make a category. -- Kjkolb 03:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and create a category. Flowerparty■ 03:57, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorize. --Jacquelyn Marie 23:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - no Valid reason to delete.--Irishpunktom\talk 14:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yet another attempt to stereotype people .--CltFn 04:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yuber(talk) 04:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - if you delete this, how many other lists need deleting? Categories can't be used to list people who don't have areticles yet (a very useful feature to encourage people to write articles). And why is it unmaintainable? - Poetlister 16:44, 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. — JIP | Talk 15:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of moustached footballers[edit]

Too specific to be encylopedaic. Why not List of Jewish moustached footballers in the 4th Division of the Mongolian lady's league? It's midnight here, I'm going to bed now. Hope I haven't offended anyone! Dlyons493 Talk 23:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I doubt it that there's a correlation between presence of a moustache and the performance of a football (soccer) player. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:25, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yet another pointless article. Denni☯ 01:22, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Trivial, and not all moustaches are permanent. Flowerparty■ 04:01, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ListCruft at its worst --JAranda | yeah 04:21, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pointless, hopelessly incomplete and John Jensen was usually clean-shaven anyway! Keresaspa 13:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the very definition of listcruft. MCB 19:39, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless backed up with pictures :{o the wub "?!" 16:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What an absolutely silly list. I laughed, though. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 03:09, 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 -- (drini's page|☎) 20:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of prominent Jewish women[edit]

For exactly the same reasons as list of Jewish heads of High Schools and list of Jewish engineers. It has no hope of being complete, and "prominent" is also hard to define. Graham/pianoman87 talk 06:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom --JAranda | yeah 06:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteJust a list nothing more.---Dakota 07:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 18:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, to me this just means a list of Jewish women that have articles on wikipedia. That will be the definition of prominence and therefore the list will reflect the completeness of wikipedia's articles on Jewish women. gren グレン 00:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Graham/pianoman87. -- Kjkolb 03:14, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Gren. If prominent is hard to define, wikipedia should give up trying and just allow entries for any human being. Kappa 13:18, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Kappa, you give new meaning to the word inclusionist. Do we get to include pets when we start making articles for every human being? Marskell 15:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not the one who think "prominent" is impossible to define. Kappa 19:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to List of notable Jewish women and keep. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:08, 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 Result: Redirect -- (drini's page|☎) 01:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. state forests[edit]

Comment A soft re-direct to the Cat? Marskell 00:07, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Redirect (necessarily "softly") to the Category if I'm unclear. Marskell 01:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. See all those redlinks? Categories can't have them. --SPUI (talk) 05:49, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This page has no redlinks. Are you looking at the right page? Grutness...wha? 00:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and explain why there aren't 50 links. CalJW 07:09, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are fifty links - actually, 51 (Puerto Rico's there, too). They are all to articles which are already in a category. Are you looking at the right page? Skip that, I miscounted. But the category explains why there are only 41 clearly enough. Grutness...wha? 00:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC) (updated 10:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep. Useful for the structure of these lists. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:57, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No more useful than the category which currently exists. Grutness...wha? 05:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Grutness. The cat covers this ground better. Quale 03:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For once, a useful list! --redstucco 08:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I agree with quale BL kiss the lizard 01:05, 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 Redirect to Balrog -- (drini's page|☎) 01:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lungorthin[edit]

This material already exists in a better form under Balrog Dlyons493 Talk 19:35, 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. — JIP | Talk 09:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Malachy Mc Dermott[edit]

nn, crystal ball Dlyons493 Talk 14:49, 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.

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article.

Malaysian Hindu Sangam[edit]

Non-encyclopedic. Looks like an appeal for money. josh 14:06, 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. — JIP | Talk 15:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Market development[edit]

dictdef Dlyons493 Talk 17:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or develop. CanadianCaesar 20:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Develop it - it's one (weak) article on the 4 parts of Igor Ansoff's strategic management/ growth strategys. The other 3 are Diversification , Market penetration, Product Development. 220.101.76.254 02:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless anyone cares enough to develop it. --Rogerd 08:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as dicdef or unsourced trivia. (No reference to any "Igor Ansoff"; term is generic, in any case, as are "market penetration", "diversification", and "product development".) MCB 18:36, 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 -- (drini's page|☎) 01:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MediaMOO[edit]

nn 172.216.62.139 18:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. - 172.216.62.139 18:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, A Google search shows plenty of interest in this, including references to papers in academic journals about this MOO. Perhaps I'm being overly paranoid here, but I'm wondering about 172.216.62.139's motives in proposing this for deletion. The user's contribution history show that the only edits he/she has ever made was to add external links to several other entries on MOO and propose this article for deletion. There has been a history of link spamming with other MOOs, and I wonder if this is just one MOO owner trying to increase the relative importance Wikipedia gives his own site. My apologies in advance to 172.216.62.139 if I'm off base here. --RoySmith 21:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I remembered that name from memory without being ever involved and that must mean they are at least somewhat notable. Besides it's pretty old. --Shaddack 19:43, 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 SPEEDY DELETED. There was no assertion of notability, and the blog itself is not inherently notable, particularly without claiming to be. -Splashtalk 03:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Dylan Brennan[edit]

Someone with a blog and some opinions. Impact seems minimal. Joyous (talk) 02:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, perhaps speedily. No indicia of notability. Pburka 02:58, 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 sppedy deleted.  Grue  17:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Moffatt[edit]

attack page --Trovatore 07:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. Author keeps removing speedy tag. Created as an insult page; see [14]. --Trovatore 07:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC) (nominator)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. -Splashtalk 22:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MOTOS[edit]

Pointless article expanding on an abbreviation. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. —Cleared as filed. 05:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless there's somewhere to redirect. --Trovatore 05:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are commonly-used initialisms used in sexuality research and GLBT publications. Several times people see these abbreviations on places like imdb.com, sexuality.org and thousands of other web sites and use FAQ's or search engines to discover the answer as to what the acronyms stand for, so Wickipedia could serve as source for such answers. To delete these entries, demonstrates ignorance and prejudice. [Unsigned comment by TednAZ 06:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)][reply]
  • Merge with sexology. Qaz (talk) 06:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • These initialisms are most commonly used in sexuality research and GLBT publications and the GLBT community. In fact, I have actually overheard the phonetically-pronounced words "motts" (s/l pots) and "motos" (s/l photos) in casual speak at bisexual rallies. Several times people see these initialisms appear on places like imdb.com, sexuality.org and thousands of other web sites and use FAQ's or search engines to discover the answer as to what the acronyms/designations stand for, so Wickipedia could serve as source for such answers. To delete these entries, clearly demonstrates prejudice, intolerance and ignorance. [Unsigned comment by TednAZ 06:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)][reply]
    • No, it demonstrates our Wikipedia is not a dictionary official policy. The place to go to look up what words mean and what initialisms expand to is a dictionary, not an encyclopaedia. There is a 90,000-word dictionary over there that is ready and waiting for all of the (attested) initialisms that editors care to give it. Wikipedia articles are encyclopaedia articles, and are about the people/places/concepts/events/things that the initialisms represent. Our article entitled NASA is about the space agency, for example. Similarly, our NASDAQ article is about the stock exchange. Our articles about MOTSS and MOTOS would be about members of the same/opposite sex. But there is nothing to say beyond the title in such articles. At best, they should be redirects to an article on sexual orientation (which deals with how it is classified and by whom). Uncle G 13:40, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am bisexual and actively involved in the bisexual community. The arguments by Trovotore here and at the MOTSS entry sound to me as nothing more than bigotry and bisexuals experience enough of that from both the hetero and gay communities. If you delete these, then you should delete similar NBA, NFL, NASCAR, CBS, NBC and GLBT/LGBT entries. [Unsigned comment by TednAZ 06:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)][reply]
    • That is a a reductio ad absurdum that is entirely spurious for being based upon a false premise. As above, those articles are about the people/places/concepts/events/things. For examples: CBS is about the broadcaster and NFL is about the sporting organization. Uncle G 13:40, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Qaz. CambridgeBayWeather 08:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Rogerd 18:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Qaz. 68.99.129.188
  • Strong Keep. Terms in wide use, on the Internet and elsewhere. (Google search: "motss" 138,000; "motss -soc.motss" 75,300.) I edited MOTSS to add the Usenet connection (naming of newsgroup soc.motss partially due to desire to obscure the subject of the group, to prevent management scrutiny at Usenet sites as well as closeted subscribers). Not a dicdef; terms have cultural significance. MCB 07:09, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MCB. --Idont Havaname 05:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per MCB. TednAZ 08:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to sexual orientation. The Bearded One 15:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per MCB. Reflex Reaction 19:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Uncle G's comment. Nabla 01:26, 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 NO CONSENSUS. -Splashtalk 22:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MOTSS[edit]

dicdef

  • Maybe there's somewhere this and MOTOS can be redirected, but they shouldn't have whole articles. --Trovatore 05:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC) (nominator)[reply]
  • These are commonly-used abbreviations used in sexuality research and GLBT publications. Several times people see these abbreviations on places like imdb.com, sexuality.org and thousands of other web sites and use FAQ's or search engines to discover the answer as to what the abbreviations stand for, so Wickipedia could serve as source for such answers. To delete these abbreviations, demonstrates ignorance and prejudice. [Unsigned comment by TednAZ 01:06, October 8, 2005 (UTC)]
  • Merge with sexology. Qaz (talk) 06:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MOTOS, redirect to sexual orientation. Uncle G 13:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with sexology.68.99.129.188 21:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This strictly hetero, not especially webwise person recognises this initialism and deems it of sufficient noteworthiness to merit a keep. Denni☯ 00:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Terms (MOTSS and MOTOS) in wide use, on the Internet and elsewhere. (Google search: "motss" 138,000; "motss -soc.motss" 75,300.) I edited to add the Usenet connection (naming of newsgroup soc.motss partially due to desire to obscure the subject of the group, to prevent management scrutiny at Usenet sites as well as closeted subscribers). Not a dicdef; terms have cultural significance. MCB 07:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't get how that makes it "not a dicdef". The article defines the meaning, says in what context the term is used and by whom, and not much else. This is all dictionary stuff. If it were an anthropological article about the phenomenon of people using this term as opposed to another one, that would be different. I might still vote to delete--seems like pretty thin gruel; I'd want to see citations indicating that the phenomenon (rather than the term) was an object of scholarly study. But it wouldn't be on dicdef grounds. --Trovatore 06:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Denni and MCB. --Idont Havaname 05:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the entry! i was glad to have come across it and learn what it meant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.122.32.166 (talk • contribs)
    • Sure, that's why it's often fun to read dictionaries. --Trovatore 18:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per MCB. TednAZ 08:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to sexual orientation. The Bearded One 15:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per MCB. Reflex Reaction 19:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MOTOS. Nabla 01:27, 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 Delete -- (drini's page|☎) 20:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MOTTS[edit]

dicdef --Trovatore 05:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete like MOTOS and MOTSS, except this time not even spelled right. --Trovatore 05:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC) (nominator)[reply]
  • These initialisms are most commonly used in sexuality research and GLBT publications and the GLBT community. In fact, I have actually overheard the phonetically-pronounced words "motts" (s/l pots) and "motos" (s/l photos) in casual speak at bisexual rallies. Several times people see these initialisms appear on places like imdb.com, sexuality.org and thousands of other web sites and use FAQ's or search engines to discover the answer as to what the initialisms/designations stand for, so Wickipedia could serve as source for such answers. To delete these entries, clearly demonstrates prejudice, intolerance and ignorance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TednAZ (talk • contribs) 2005-10-08 06:53:50 UTC
  • Merge with sexology. Qaz (talk) 06:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why merge MOTTS? The other two make sense, but MOTTS seems to be simply a misspelling. --Trovatore 06:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Vote changed to Delete for this one. At first, I thought this was another real abbrev. like the others. Qaz (talk) 09:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are correct... "MOTTS" (with two T's) was a misspelling - I concur with deleting this article, however, I do not believe the correctly-spelled MOTSS (with two S's) or MOTOS should be deleted. TednAZ 09:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then again, maybe MOTTS could stand for "Members of the Transgendered Sex" - hey, we could have created a whole new acronym here... LOL TednAZ 09:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No people/concepts/places/events/things commonly known by this initialism. Delete. Uncle G 13:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this one as a misspelling. --Metropolitan90 02:15, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; it's just a misspelling. MCB 07:12, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MOTOS, plus this is a mispelling. Nabla 01:28, 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 NO CONSENSUS.-Splashtalk 23:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nariman Farvardin[edit]

This page in transliterated Farsi has been on WP:PNT since 24 September. Physchim62 10:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Transfered from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English

I have no idea; possibly transliterated Arabic. Google for "nariman farvardin" gives 9K hits, which indicates that this person is probably notable. Anyone? DS 15:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is transliterated Farsi, not Arabic. I don't understand enough of it to translate, but I do recognize that it is written entirely in the first person (lots of 'I' and 'you' statements, and it ends with "goodbye"). Should be deleted, or at least cleaned up and then translated into English, or transliterated into Farsi characters and then Transwikied. Alexanderj 06:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete -- (drini's page|☎) 01:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

National Ecumenical Centre[edit]

A cut and paste of a newspaper story. The last sentence seems to imply it's used with permission, but I'm unsure if that's sufficient. In any case, if it's to be kept it needs a complete rewrite. A newspaper story is not the same as an encyclopedia article. R. fiend 17:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, it can be recreated when someone is willing to spend the time to write a decent article. -- Kjkolb 03:46, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per R. fiend --redstucco 08:03, 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 KEEP as rewritten by User:Roodog2k. — JIP | Talk 09:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Near Vertical Incidence Skywave[edit]

Looks like it could be an ad for the company described, though it's so hard to read that I can't be sure. Non-encyclopedic in any case. --Trovatore 06:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"it's so hard to read"
debatable bitterness. yawn.

"Non-encyclopedic in any case"
I cannot agree with that.
--Fractal3 07:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as badvertising Qaz (talk) 07:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep improved version and thanks to Roodog2k for caring enough to reach into the abyss to save it. Qaz (talk) 17:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertising bordering on gibberish. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 11:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep the rewrite. I had heard of this principle, but I didn't know it was the name for the technique. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 16:58, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I removed the line (--) below the nomination. It makes it hard to tell them apart. -- Kjkolb 13:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsensical advertising. doesn't belong here.--Alhutch 15:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after rewrite. good job.--Alhutch 17:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Near Vertical Incidence Skywave is an established mode of communication using HF-radio. The article needs a lot of cleanup. Roodog2k (Hello there!) 15:41, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

comment I just cleaned-up the article to make it more encyclopedic and readable, though its still a stub; its a notable method of radio communication, esp. in Ham radio. Roodog2k (Hello there!) 16:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks fine now. Not anything I know anything about, but assuming it's correct, keep the new version. The old advertising version is apparently unrelated to the new version; can we have it removed from the history? --Trovatore 18:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

comment @Roodog2k: ok, cool. thanks. Fractal3 23:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment OK, I added a bit more clarification concerning why you may want to employ NVIS versus VHF radio communications. Roodog2k (Hello there!) 16:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Thanks for the support! I added even more. I was a little suprised that the subject hadn't been covered. Then again, many of the concepts of NVIS are contrary to those in Ham Radio who chase DX. Roodog2k (Hello there!) 20:51, 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. — JIP | Talk 15:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Ross[edit]

NN actor, probably hoax or vanity Cnwb 23:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No claims or evidence of notability. Btm 00:39, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per A7. Pburka 01:01, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. How exactly are we supposed to confirm that he was critically acclaimed for his performance in an untitled film? --Metropolitan90 01:06, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ambi 05:03, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator, possible hoax. Hall Monitor 18:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unverifiable, Delete. Snottygobble | Talk 02:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 13:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - who? --DarbyAsh 08:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --99of9 18:02, 13 October 2005 (EST)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 08:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere Game Project[edit]

A minor game project which has never produced a finished product, and whic according to the article is currently dead in the water. Not notable. Thue | talk 09:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. nn, as per nom. Anville 11:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
September 30th was an exceptionally busy AfD day. So this debate among several got almost no attention. Relisting in hope of some tender, loving debate this time around. -Splashtalk 00:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Justin Bacon 00:08, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 01:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A tender and loving delete - Anetode 02:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Blue520 05:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with List of cancelled video games Qaz (talk) 08:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Per above. Banes 09:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity (aka project promotion). The abovementioned list only includes existing game that for some reason weren't put in the market. A game project which hasn't got a finished game doesn't belong there. - Mgm|(talk) 20:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MacGyverMagic. Quale 06:26, 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 – Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 09:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nucular Power[edit]

(Probable) neologism, inheritely POV and unencyclopedic. Probably counts as original research. —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 01:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 01:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV attack —Wahoofive (talk) 01:30, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 02:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, well said. --W.marsh 02:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Nuclear power. Pburka 03:03, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Do not redirect, it's not a common typo. -Splashtalk 03:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Splash, I don't understand. Even if its never used, whats the harm in the redirect? Furthermore, to me, it seems a likely misspelling. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 05:03, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a common mispronunciation, not a common misspelling —Wahoofive (talk) 23:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • #REDIRECT → Nuclear Power, {{R from misspelling}} --Mysidia (talk) 07:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cute attack and all but make #REDIRECT as per Mysidia. Qaz (talk) 07:32, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Nuclear power. feydey 15:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We can't make every possible misspelling of every word a redirect. -R. fiend 17:30, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without redirect. I agree with nom; inherently POV. Btm 20:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Despite giving me a chuckle, it's not something for an encyclopedia. Bushytails 06:02, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create redirect to Nuclear power. That misspelling is actually somewhat common. --Jacquelyn Marie 22:46, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually no, not so much a misspelling as a satirical one, like lurve or yoof. So a redirect would be a bad idea. But anyway that's all been dealt with already at Nucular. So delete. Flapdragon 01:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know... I go to college and copyedit a lot of papers. That one actually gets thrown around seriously. --Jacquelyn Marie 13:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Nuclear power. Redirects are cheap. Jkelly 01:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN and redirect to nuclear power. Nice POV satire regarding the inability of a lot of people to pronounce "nuclear" as noo-clur rather than noo-clear. Roodog2k (Hello there!) 15:32, 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. — JIP | Talk 09:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oplocromodalization[edit]

New made up word with 6 hits in google [15]. feydey 10:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Might be new, might be obscure, might even be a "made up word" if you like, but doesn't look like a spoof or malicious addition. Flapdragon 12:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC) OK, delete. Dlyons493's more assiduous research convinces me it's NN. Flapdragon 15:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems to be a coinage of one person. Copyvio of [16] except that it's almost certain this is also the article creator. Agree it's not spoof or malicious addition but feel its nn. Dlyons493 Talk 13:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn -- Egil 15:40, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability isn't the issue. This is a concept that has been made up by one person, Stanley Lieber, and which has yet to be accepted by reliable sources, or indeed by anyone else apart from that 1 person. The reason to delete this is because it is original research, plain and simple. Delete. Uncle G 18:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR --Rogerd 19:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not opposed to you deleting this (or perhaps moving it to Wikisource?), if it is found to be an inappropriate addition. I had not read the guidelines on original research at the time I posted it. I cannot find reference to "NN" in the FAQ though -- can someone help me out with that? Note: I have amended the original livejournal post to reflect that I make no intellectual property claim on the process; I did create it, but it is in the public domain. --Stanley Lieber 21:58, 13 October 2005 (CDT)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 08:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Opm3[edit]

Advertisement, partial copyvio too. I already edited part of it, but after re-reading it I don't think it's encyclopedic. JoanneB 11:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 30th was an exceptionally busy AfD day. So this debate among several got almost no attention. Relisting in hope of some tender, loving debate this time around. -Splashtalk 00:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Corporate jibberish tends to make my head hurt, but a quick Google search seems to indicate that this has widespread acknowledgment/use. Needs a complete rewrite, however. And I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. Justin Bacon 00:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete jibberish is an appropriate term. --Rogerd 01:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per justin bacon Anetode 02:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - goes around in circles without actually saying anything encyclopedic. Brisvegas 04:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reads like an ad. Qaz (talk) 07:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: although project management is important in business, and there are alot of websites about opm3, I'm not sure how widespread it really is and if enough to make it encyclopedic - hundreds of customers is probably not sufficient (I think). After all, WIkipedia is not a directory (WP:NOT). Karol 08:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:NOT. Banes 09:25, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, marketing talk. Nothing worth keeping. If the company is indeed worthy of an article, I don't oppose an encyclopedic rewrite. - Mgm|(talk) 20:25, 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 02:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ormgas[edit]

NN internet radio station. 203.120.68.68 01:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and cleanup; seems to be rather well-known. --Merovingian (t) (c) 02:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Should be marked cleanup. Walter Siegmund 02:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. I'm on staff at Ormgas, and generally help with a lot of OverClocked ReMix-related entries, so while I may not be able to clean things up to a higher standard very immediately, I will be around to help significantly. Also, if being involved with this particular site in effect nullifies my vote, that's understandable. Liontamer 19:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Is there something wrong with the fact that the entry is about an internet radio station?
  • Not sure I fully understand what's going on here, I'm not the only person working on this entry, there is someone sorting out the grammar and spelling errors for me, as I'm quite bad at that sort of thig, but is there any problem with the entry itself or is it just the way it is worded? --Omega Xi 02:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The latest edits to Wikipedia articles are publicly viewable on the Recent changes page. The entry just needs work to bring it up to common standards; in other words, all articles here are in progress. --Merovingian (t) (c) 06:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I think I finally get what "NN" means... Not Notable... Thanks for being so clear... So given this fact perhaps it could be tagged on to the entry on Overclocked Remix? --Omega Xi 02:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merovingian says this seems to be pretty well known. Based on what do you say this? Qaz (talk) 07:26, 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 -- (drini's page|☎) 01:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pedantagonism[edit]

Neologism, not in widespread use. Gdr 16:10, 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. android79 03:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Peoplebot[edit]

nn website. Article now is clearly an advertisement, site's alexa rank is 878,530... not much on Google, barely anything actually related to this site. --W.marsh 02:25, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete.--Kross 02:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete --Rogerd 03:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete --Anetode 03:40, 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 DESTROY. — JIP | Talk 15:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix Cult[edit]

NN band. Vanity page. 202.156.6.60 23:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DON'T DESTROY THIS!

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 02:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Porcelain militia[edit]

Band vanity. This band doesn't meet any of the WP:MUSIC criteria JoanneB 11:58, 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. — JIP | Talk 15:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

POW-r[edit]

non-notable algorithm; majority of Google hits are from other uses of the word as a deliberate misspelling of "power". DS 15:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete agreed. basically an advertisement. — brighterorange (talk) 16:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete non-notable, agree re just an advertisement.--Sgkay 16:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Rogerd 08:00, 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 (Close one, there are 8 deletes here [I did count the nominator even though the user forgot to sign] vs. 2 keeps and 2 merges. There was a rather thurough check for socks performed too and everyone checks out) Ryan Norton T | @ | C 22:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quan[edit]

Don't think this guy meets the minimum criteria for Wikipedia listing.

  • No vote, I'm just fixing the formatting of this AfD. --Metropolitan90 01:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Barely notable. But there are lots of articles about less notable people. --Rogerd 02:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's good. Leave it.

September 30th was an exceptionally busy AfD day. So this debate among several got almost no attention. Relisting in hope of some tender, loving debate this time around. -Splashtalk 00:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable, half of the article was copied from a puff-piece[17] --Anetode 02:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Anetode. He doesn't seem to meet the WP:MUSIC guidelines, which are set rather low. -- Kjkolb 03:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Has an Allmusic.com page see [18]

However, it shows one non-charting album from 2002 on the Quan label (indicating self-produced) and confirms the Nas link. However, he may qualify under WP:music in the future given his work with a notable rapper and the piece cited by user Anetode suggests he is attracting some attention. Capitalistroadster 03:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. All notability for this bio is as a musician, therefore WP:MUSIC seems like a very fair test. If he doesn't meet the criteria, easy call. Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reduce to two sentences, and merge and redirect to Ill Will Records. If he ever comes out with his own material, make a new article. --FuriousFreddy 07:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, appeared on a single with a notable rapper. Kappa 09:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • At best Redirect into Nas. Preferrably Delete though, He doesn't currently meet WP:MUSIC. Karmafist 14:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The allmusic.com entry is incomplete, indicating a barely notable artist. Andrew pmk | Talk 16:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect as per FuriousFreddy. Jkelly 01:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Upcoming rapper" = non-notable vanity bio that fails WP:MUSIC. When he has arrived, he can get a wikipedia entry. Quale 03:42, 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 Redirect to Rebab Ryan Norton T | @ | C 22:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rabab[edit]

I created this page under the spelling "rabab" using an old spelling; I later found out that "rubab" is the correct romanization and there was already an article on this instrument there. Thus, this page should be deleted. Thanks. Badagnani 03:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. If this is an old spelling, it should redirect to the modern romanization. Note that it began as a redirect, not to rubab, but to rebab, so it might be better off as a disambig, or those two targets might merit merging if they're the same thing (which is unclear). —Cryptic (talk) 08:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not clear to me these three articles (rabab, rebab, rubab) don't all refer to the same thing. Can someone familiar with the subject comment? Pburka 14:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should be redirected to Rebab, this exactly the same instrument, it's just slightly different and local pronouciation, as it's translated from Arabic where the sound a are e are very close --Khalid hassani 00:55, 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.  Denelson83  05:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbi Naftali Weinberger[edit]

Not notable. ≈ jossi ≈ 03:33, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

  • delete nn vanity, with a whiff of "Wikipedia is not a directory"---CH (talk) 08:19, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete author blanked page to conform with Wikipedia policy4.250.129.132 16:40, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 08:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only 3 google hits for "shaleiach teshalach", 0 if you add Weinberger. Pburka 14:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 18:36, 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 01:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbits (webcomic)[edit]

Short, bad webcomic with little/no notability that died years ago. Vanity? (--Oppolo 17:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. --Oppolo 17:28, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, has Wikipedia become known in the webcomic community as a place for advertising/creator vanity? -- Kjkolb 03:49, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delte per nom. -- SCZenz 19:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as above. Please contribute to the webcomic guideline discussion at WP:COMIC. There are users who are stating "keep" for every comic with over 100 strips. Totally out of order. - Hahnchen 14:48, 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 02:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Radtastic[edit]

slangdef --Trovatore 05:00, 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. Hermione1980 23:32, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow mythology[edit]

POV, Original research. Only link is to website from where entire text has been copied. The subject of rainbows in mythology may be interesting, but its not an actual topic of historical research, that I know of; either way, this article is merely a summary of one author's beliefs regarding rainbows, as indicated by the first line of the article ("The following is adapted from [book] .." If it were 'List: Rainbows in mythology', I might buy it, but not one sentence in this article presents any relevant, cited information. Generally reads like typical "New Age" fare. Also isn't linked from any other article.

  • Delete per nomination.Eaglizard 08:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve, or Userfy. I would say delete due to copyright violation, but the original poster is User:Blakeee and the webpage from which the article is copied belongs to Blake Ebersole. They may be the same person. Three other points: 1) Wikipedia is not a repository for original research, but that doesn't mean that articles cannot cite books of original research by others. Citing just one book doesn't necessarily render an article "original research." 2) It is unclear what is meant in the nomination regarding "rainbows in mythology" not being a topic of "historical research." While article does not cite sources for individual facts, the book the article claims as a source appears to be a legitimate book dealing with the topic of rainbows as depicted in mythology. It was published by Pennsylvania State University Press, which at least implies serious research on the topic. 3) While specific sources for the stories are not cited, several of them are well-known mythological tales that would be reasonably simple to verify. (e.g. bifrost, which has a Wikipedia article.) Perhaps this could have been better titled "Rainbows in mythology." Crypticfirefly 16:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup, most of it is not original research. Gazpacho 19:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am Blake Ebersole, and I had sourced 'Rainbow Mythology' from said PSU Press book, yet however I did not post that on wikipedia. While that excerpt found on my website rainbowlight.net may be copyrighted, as long as the original source by Dr. Lee is referenced, I give permission for it to be posted on wikipedia. Additionally, said referenced book is as legitimate as I have read on the subject, contains over a hundred references itself. IMHO 'original research' is a fuzzy term like 'reasonable doubt' and very subjective. The words in 'rainbow mythology' are mine but the ideas and the 'original research' comes from Dr. Lee's book. -- (presumably a keep - moved from top by Eaglizard) Unsigned edit 02:23, 9 October 2005 by User: 68.58.96.227. Eaglizard 03:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by nominator. By original research in this case, I didn't mean the individual facts mentioned in the article (which only need citation), but rather the concept of a 'Rainbow mythology'. Again, if it were 'Rainbows in mythology', that would be different. But, other than as a book title, there just isn't any actual thing called 'Rainbow mythology'. (BTW, Blake, thanks for contributing. However, your disclaimer above isn't enough: you must list it under the GNU Free Documentation License. But personally I think using COPYVIO to AfD a non-commercial page would be a cheap hack). In any case, my only goal is to help clear the August 2004 cleanup page, so if it gets a thumbs up, I'll rewrite it myself. But it will be Rainbows IN mythology, if I do. Eaglizard 04:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a collection of facts about the occurrence of the rainbow in different mythologies. It's not original research since it is a collection from other researchs. Interesting and useful to people asking how rainbows fit into various mythologies. Does need cleanup. Should be rewritten to clear copyright because we can't guarantee to maintain source reference.RJFJR 16:40, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree with above regarding cleanup, copyvio etc; and possible move to "Rainbows in mythology". Perhaps should be reorganized by ethnic tradition rather than mythological conception. Mashford 11:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up.--Kross 08:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up Though I agree with Eaglizard that this should be Rainbows In Mythology rather than Rainbow Mythology. Hulleye 10:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or rewrite: there's already a brief section on mythology in Rainbow, but if there's too much material to merge in there (which isn't clear to me), this should be rewritten as "Rainbows in mythology" as per developing consensus. Haeleth 16:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. I think there is enough valuable information here to be worth a separate article, with a reference to it in the Rainbow article section on "Rainbows in religion and mythology" stating "Main article:" etc., but it should be titled "Rainbows in mythology" and it should be cleaned up quite a bit, preferably organized by ethnic group/tradition, and all the speculation on cultural belief systems, on why Homer did what he did, and the moral of the story ("myriad of human beliefs...") should be removed as un-encyclopedic. Another reference or two would be nice also.--Cromwellt | Talk 23:21, 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 RESULT: Delete -- (drini's page|☎) 00:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rancidsquid.com[edit]

Possible spam. Delete --AllyUnion (talk) 23:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)}[reply]

  • Delete. Possible spam? More like blatant spam... Bushytails 06:20, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable website --Mysidia (talk) 07:42, 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 02:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rävbur[edit]

Patent nonsense --Nv8200p (talk) 17:04, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Delete neologism, but it doesn't fit our usage of patent nonsense. —Cryptic (talk) 08:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn few Googles [19] (of which some wiki and some unrelated). Possible hoax. Dlyons493 Talk 14:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think I saw one of these at Ikea. Pburka 14:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just nonsense. -- Egil 15:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsense --Rogerd 18:37, 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 Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 02:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Remy Renzullo[edit]

  • Delete. Article does not establish notability and does not quote sources. Possibly a vanity page. All of the few Google hits are Wikipedia mirrors. ♠DanMS 02:59, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Transparent nn vanity adspam ---CH (talk) 06:25, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 08:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 18:38, 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 SPEEDY DELETE as a joke article, per WP:VAND and CSD G3. -Splashtalk 16:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retardidalyarded[edit]

Neologism

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 -- (drini's page|☎) 20:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RGMA Network[edit]

This article is not really encyclopedic information. If it is, then at least say which nation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Royer (talk • contribs) 00:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 07:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless turned into an article from its current List state. It's in the Philippines. Dlyons493 Talk 14:03, 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 02:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ring of Conflict[edit]

Non-notable, neologism.

  • Delete JeremyJX 14:11, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Delete, do not merge to Nethack. Such a minor branch of the subject that it doesn't even deserve a redirect or a mention in its parent article. —Cryptic (talk) 08:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn game item. Dlyons493 Talk 09:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. Martg76 09:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 18:39, 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. — JIP | Talk 09:26, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Slavin[edit]

Dunno who nominated this, but I'll start the voting.

Weak Keep Dlyons493 Talk 09:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, "psychologist" is an assertion of notability, and he's used as a reference in another article. Kappa 09:31, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our Ability grouping article lists him as a leading opponent of that practice. He holds a senior post at Johns Hopkins see [20]. However this article is barely a substub. Keep and expand seems to be the best course of events. Capitalistroadster 10:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably best to keep since, though his notability is certainly borderline, he doesn't seem to be a complete non-entity either [21]. However, the mere description "psychologist" is no more an "assertion of notability" (see comment above) than "bricklayer", "Marxist" or "Wikipedian"! Flapdragon 13:03, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment agree with Flapdragon on all counts. This article shows one of the problems with stubby articles that give no context within which notability can be estimated! Dlyons493 Talk 13:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as per Flapdragon, it is best to err on the side of inclusion on these borderline cases. Hall Monitor 18:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although this is just a stub, following the link to his bio gives information that justifies his inclusion. -- DS1953 13:05, 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.  Grue  17:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel shapiro[edit]

nn --Trovatore 05:32, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete hoax/nonsense/attack... who know what this is except unfit. Qaz (talk) 06:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. __earth 07:15, 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. Hermione1980 23:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Curran (historical)[edit]

Her only claim to notability is that "She was Robert Emmet's big love.", but Emmet's article doesn't mention her. If this is deleted, also delete redirect page Sarah Curran(Historical), and fake disambiguation page Sarah Curran. dbenbenn | talk 22:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Not sure what to do about this, but she's certainly well-known e.g. the pub up the road from me is named after her. I haven't got time right now to add to the article though. Try a Google [22] Dlyons493 Talk 22:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I wasn't familiar with this name before. But, with a little Googling it seems she is an historical name of note, even if by proxy. Two centuries is a long time to be remembered. Wikipedia should be a follower of who has been found to be notable, not a determiner of who should be deemed notable. Also, while the Robert Emmet article doesn't mention her, it links to this, which does. --rob 23:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Robert's letter to Sarah should make everything clear. Uncle G 03:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move the article to Sarah Curran, as Sarah Curran(Pub) just redirects to the city the pub is in. The pub is mentioned in her article and probably doesn't need one of its own. -- Kjkolb 04:16, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the current contents of Sarah Curran (historical) but move to Sarah Curran. I've never seen a less necessary disambiguation page in my life. -R. fiend 05:06, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, undoubtedly, and move to Sarah Curran as per Kjkolb and R. fiend. Palmiro | Talk 13:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the comments above. Hall Monitor 18:09, 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 -- (drini's page|☎) 02:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

School science experiment--Indian rope trick (magnetism)[edit]

Delete. How-to article transwikied to Wikibooks. -- Egil 11:54, 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 02:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sgtbash[edit]

Tagged as patent nonsense but plainly isn't. Since A7 doesn't apply to robots (!) we'll have to delete it as non-notable robotcruft. -Splashtalk 00:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 02:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or possibly userfy to User:Sgtbash, the author (who has no other edits). No claim to notability. --A D Monroe III 02:30, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything in this article is already covered, better and in far more detail, in Robot Wars. The latter also tells us the correct spelling of Sergeant Bash's name. This appears to be a mis-placed user page. If Sgtbash (talk · contribs) had made any contributions to Wikipedia at all, my opinion would be "userfy". But xe hasn't. Delete. Uncle G 03:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Robot Wars has better coverage of this and other robots. Andrew pmk | Talk 17:32, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reasons already given by other voters. Bushytails 05:59, 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 Redirect -- (drini's page|☎) 20:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shadower[edit]

If this term is in fact used, it should be included in List of internet slang, not in its own page. -- ReyBrujo 15:48, 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 DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shawnee Mission East I.B.[edit]

Vanity page for several students in the International Baccalaureate program at a high school in the Kansas City area. As this does not differ from the IB program anywhere else in the world, I don't see this ever becoming a reasonable article, so I have put it here instead of cleanup. ESkog 15:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - nn CLW 15:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
September 30th was an exceptionally busy AfD day. So this debate among several got almost no attention. Relisting in hope of some tender, loving debate this time around. -Splashtalk 00:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete IBassassinatin'. That's cute. But clearly vanity and non-encyclopedic. Justin Bacon 00:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:32, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If this H.S. has an article, move this content there. --Rogerd 01:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete More suitable for a blog. Brisvegas 04:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Userfy if the creator wants it (the creater does have an account). This is probably not appropriate in its current state. However, if the author would like to add something encyclopedic to Shawnee Mission School District about the program, that would be great! --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 04:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It doesn't make much sense to lump the schools together in a district article, but have a separate article for a single (non-unique) program in the HS. Plus, the content is mainly just personal experiences, which are not of interest to others, but more importantly, not verifiable by others. --rob 05:21, 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. — JIP | Talk 15:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article makes claims of notability as world-class soccer player. Google doesn't recognize the name. DS 15:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact, i am the best

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 02:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Skiathos Photographical Archive[edit]

NN. Jwissick(t)(c) 07:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Qaz (talk) 11:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 18:30, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If this website wants to advertise on Wp, then I suggest that they release some of those "copyrighted" photos for us to use for our Skiathos article and thereby get an external reference link. Jkelly 01:11, 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 -- (drini's page|☎) 20:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Smurf Communism[edit]

  • Merge This provides a useful footnote to the Smurf entry. As someone who came in looking for info on Smurf Communism I was disappointed to see that somebody somewhere wants to prevent me from finding out about this from Wikipedia. And I thought this site was about sharing information ...
  • Keep A lot of ideas are considered silly to some, but hold merit with others. Who are we to delete something we don't particularly value?
  • Keep Great information and first thing found in my google searcj. Unsigned vote by 149.142.112.2.
  • Original research; also silly. tregoweth 02:08, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While corny, it does provide a surprisingly useful analysis of communism, and pulls together references to other relevant articles. This is not a new or short-lived analysis, and I have personally used the content in seriousness annually for years.
  • Delete per nomination. tregoweth 02:08, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a long standing rumor and Google says] it has over 12,000 links about Smurfs and Communism. Zach (Sound Off) 02:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not original research. I've seen this brought up in several places before, and there are plenty of websites that cover this, amazingly enough, that can be cited for this article. In fact, this was mentioned on The Smurfs article, and it seems to have been given a main article because it became too long. Toothpaste 02:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, also, this article needs criticism of the theory. Most of the websites where I heard this covered in detail had a criticism to go along with it. Toothpaste 03:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Interesting stuff, but I've never heard of it before this, and it just seems too "corny" to be in an encyclopedia. Private Butcher 03:08, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep insidious communism. Klonimus 03:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yea, it is silly, but does seem to be somewhat notable --Rogerd 03:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable (possibly intentional) metaphor. -- BD2412 talk 04:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep this type of article is one of the things that makes wikipedia special. Just because the article is about a silly topic, doesn't mean it can't be in the encyclopedia. We have a whole collection of this stuff at Wikipedia:Unusual articles. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 05:08, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is pure nonsense. Pretty much every kids show that promotes sharing and inter-dependence could get an article called (show name) communism. Just because a bunch of other web sites cover something, doesn't mean we should go down there with them. --rob 05:30, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the same reason we need an article about the moon landing hoax hypothesis. If something is at least semi-seriously entertained by enough people who do enough rubbing elbows over it and so on, it deserves mention here. However, the article needs to be improved to include the counter view and the good points brought up by rob. Qaz (talk) 07:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I remember when my teacher taught me about Communism, the Smurfs were used as an example :-). Amren (talk) 13:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per rob, or i'll expect Barney Communism or Big Bird Communism articles, at least until the GOP succeeds with its corporate takeover of PBS. "Sharing is good...unless it gets in the way of profit margins!" Karmafist 14:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extreme traffic cone sex keep, this article has references. The basis of the nomination was that it was original research. Alphax τεχ 14:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but Rename to Smurfs (comparisons to communism) or Smurfs in popular culture. Has references so not original research. feydey 15:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, silly. If kept, should be removed from serious categories and placed into a Smurf category.-gadfium 19:28, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable, interesting and has references. No reason for it to be deleted. --Loopy 00:15, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's not original research, and is not too silly - it can be seen as providing evidence of the exposure of children to vaguely socialist ideas through childrens' television. It is therefore potentially useful. --Potemkin100 02:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP I was looking up this topic today (did a google search and clicked on the wikipedia link only to find that people are trying to get it deleted so I had to comment because it was clearly of use to me) and this says many of the same things other sites discuss about the topic. It's interesting and can be backed up by numerous other sites. This is not an idea that's too far fetched and there is clearly research involved. Please keep it!! (Unsigned comment by 24.34.169.228 (talk))
  • Smurf This smurfy article is just what Wikipedia needs! Caerwine 05:30, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia is not a printed encyclopedia, and there's no reason to save space by deleting a well-written article such as this, as unconvential as the topic may be. Bushytails 06:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as insufficiently notable. It's not whether an article is about something wacky or unconventional or silly, it's whether people out in the rest of the world are aware of, or are discussing or recognizing the subject. The Google test above is misleading; if you go a few pages into the Google results, they become pretty random and the "Smurf" and "Communism" references are not necessarily related. "Smurf Communism" (with quotes) yields only 217 results. MCB 06:47, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but if you type "Communist Smurf" (with quotes), you get 1330 results on google. and 761 for "smurfs are communist" and if you google "papa smurf" and "karl marx" together (both in quotes) you get 2020 results.--Kewp (t) 08:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)talk[reply]
  • Keep well known concept, has been around for quite a while. --Kewp (t) 08:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Well, it looks like this will be kept now. I would suggest a new name be thought of. At a minimum "Communism" should not be capitlized, since "Smurf Communism" is not a proper name of anything. Something semi-neutral like Smurfs (comparisons to communism) would be legitimate (as it doesn't imply there is actually such a thing). Unfortunately, we've now set a precident here, and everyone and everything ever called a "communist" might get a comparable serious or silly POV fork-article. --rob 08:57, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep MSTCrow 10:01, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP!!! - This actually came up at my University --24.15.4.5 15:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep why delete ? 203.109.252.196 15:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Interesting in an "urban legends / Art Bell / conspiracy " sort of way.user:Murse
  • Keep. It has references; how is it original research? And silliness is not one of our criteria for deleting articles. --Ashenai (talk) 15:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Very weak. The article as written is nonsensical and too credulous of the idea. Probably spinning on "Smurf rumors" as its own article would suffice. That said there is some justification to this. Scholarly articles on the theory are lacking, but not nonexistent. I did find one article at scholar google that seem to indicate elements of the anti-globalization movement discuss the idea. There seems a small cultural relevance to the notion.--T. Anthony 16:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you think it's "too credulous," you know, you could change it yourself. Add some incredulousness, or whatever. It's the encyclopedia everyone can edit! :) --Jacquelyn Marie 22:54, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I may do that, but I wanted to wait on editing until the delete voting is done.--T. Anthony 06:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've heard university professors discuss this, perhaps it should be moved to a sub-section of Marxism or Communism, but if it's good enough for academia, it belongs here.Rainman420 16:22, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Excellent, well researched article. (preceding comment by 66.58.97.210) --Ashenai (talk) 17:48, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep commonbrick 19:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Keep""
  • Keep. It has references, professors discuss it -- what more do you want? --Jacquelyn Marie 22:49, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it! Are you crazy?! Why on earth would you want to delete something as original yet true as this? Buncha pinkos. (preceding comment by 83.41.183.179) --Ashenai (talk) 01:16, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative Keep I think who ever wrote this should need to add what the official position of the people who make the Smurfs is on them being a possible communist allegory. --User:jsonitsac (talk) 21:25, 9 October, 2005 (EST)"
    • This made me curious to see what, if any, political views Peyo had but there isn't much to find on the issue. Nor does there seem to be much, if any, response by his company on this or any rumor/theory regarding them.--T. Anthony 03:57, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. --cprompt 03:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Neat little tidbit - culturally relevant. :D 24.0.98.29 03:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Popular social(ist) discussion topic - keep it! --Moontorch 06:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I was looking for information on exactly this subject. Thankfully nobody had deleted it... yet :/ --plicease 06:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's well written, it's an interesting take on a form of government, and humourwise I think it's right up there with "Bert is Evil". It'd be a pity to delete this article Saberwyn 08:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but.... It is a very in depth article with good references. It should not, however be under the Communism section. It is a general theory that many people have heard about, and interesting as a fictional representation of a 'communist utopia', whether the creator intended it to be so or not.Hegar 10:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Even though it's never been confirmed by the creator, there are far too many parallels between the ideals of practical socialism and the smurfs for this to be dismissed off-hand. Anyone who's really studied Soviet political history / ideology will agree. But yes, should be under a "socialist" rather than a "communist" heading if you want to split hairs. User:Von_sanchez
  • Keep. This isn't like the postmodern deconstructionism that someone tried to insert into C Is For Cookie. DS 11:57, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ineresting, well-written, and informative on both subjects--Smurfs and Communism. Logophile 16:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sure, it's a troll, but it's still better-written than most of the stuff on here. Twinxor t 04:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the Smurfs page. Simply put, it seems to be a valid area of speculation, albeit silly. However, I think it does not warrant its own page.--ttogreh 07:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's not original research but a theory that has been around for a long time. David Sneek 07:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.AaronSw 21:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep wadehouston 11 October 20:05 (US Central Time)
  • Merge This is a theory that I have been going off about for many, many years to friends when the Smurfs come up in a conversation. Where I first heard it, I have no idea. I'm not sure what shocked me more, the fact that there was a Wikipedia article devoted to the idea, or the fact that it took me this long to even look it up. However, I think it could be merged with the main Smurfs article.
  • Merge Seems relevant, but it's a stretch to have it stand on its own. I think it can be merged with the main article in its own section, and also condensed and cleaned up a bit. Ottamymind 02:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Fastbak77 03:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Interesting and wide-spread cultural phenomenon and debate. Tfine80 05:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Mostly original research, and the few bits that aren't can go in Smurf. Gamaliel 05:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smurfy Keep as per above Roodog2k (Hello there!) 15:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. C'mon guys, this is transparently a personal essay. Sure, it is amusing as hell but is it enyclopedic? No. --Maru (talk) 21:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. My faith in Wikipedia will be sorely tested if this article is kept. Slac speak up! 22:01, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also extreme traffic cone sex keep. Valid and notable basis in that the subject is real and didn't originate here. --Kizor 01:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. But should add it's an Urban Legend, since there's no correlation between Peyo and Marx. Jonah Falcon.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.166.135 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep This article is not original research, as some have claimed, just look at the references at the bottom. Nor dose it claim that Smurf communism is a fact. Read the introduction and you'll see that it's a description of an idea that has been floating on the Internet. Seano1 00:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Of course! It's a cultural artifact, and an amusing one to boot. Are the Wikipedia rules humorless? --Paultopia 13:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The idea sounds absurd at first and many think that this article is therefore a troll or a joke. I disagree with them, I think this link between smurfs and communism is a very credible and a valid theory with historical importance. And if it's deleted, I'm pretty sure some newbie creates a new article from the same subject with a different title within months. Trujillo's Dog 01:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if only for the humor value. :)--Kross | Talk 12:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is probably not original research as some have mentioned, for this meme has been in existence somehow dating back as far as my college years (that would be 1991). There is bound to be some publication somewhere. DomQ, 09:09, 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. — JIP | Talk 09:17, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Socially equitable[edit]

personal essay --Trovatore 06:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete-seems personal advertising---Dakota 07:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' as per nom. Qaz (talk) 07:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Alhutch 15:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 18:07, 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, since it's been transwikied which was what everyone wanted. -Splashtalk 22:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spinescence[edit]

Simple dictdef, and expansion seems unlikely. transwiki to Wiktionary, which does not yet have an entry on this term. DES (talk) 15:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 30th was an exceptionally busy AfD day. So this debate among several got almost no attention. Relisting in hope of some tender, loving debate this time around. -Splashtalk 00:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki per nom. It will never be more than a dicdef. --A D Monroe III 01:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Rogerd 01:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki. -- Kjkolb 02:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki it is a word [23] --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 04:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, likely search/link/categorization term. Listing spinescent organizism is encyclopedic. Kappa 09:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki - no scope for expansion. --Celestianpower hablamé 12:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwikied to spinescence and spinescent. Andrew pmk | Talk 16:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feel free to just transwiki next time. AFD is not the place to discuss it. - Mgm|(talk) 20:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete already-transwikied dictdef. Afd is, in fact, the place to discuss it, if the article's to be deleted afterwards. A redirect to spine (biology) doesn't seem like it would be useful. —Cryptic (talk) 08:47, 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 Deleted. Was speedied. Wikibofh 17:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stages (book)[edit]

Contains only (copyvio?) image of front cover Flapdragon 12:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as article has no context. tagged. --GraemeL (talk) 12:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, no content, and very likely copyvio. Eaglizard 12:53, 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. — JIP | Talk 09:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stay-at-home robots[edit]

Non-notable vanity, bandcruft, and poorly written to boot. No google hits for several variations on page title. Doesn't appear they ever made any recordings. Author's only contribution to date. -- RoySmith 15:03, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'm afraid, despite their claim of being extremely popular and having been allowed to play at some friends Xmas party. -- Egil 15:32, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. — ceejayoz ★ 15:40, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a tough one, but let's steel ourselves. Flapdragon 16:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity before they push us down the stairs. Gazpacho 19:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 07:01, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator Saberwyn 04:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- who cares if it's true or not. Perception IS reality.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 -- (drini's page|☎) 20:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Steezy[edit]

Dictdef of a neologism. delete and transwiki to wiktionary if considered notable, otherwise just delete. This was listed as a speedy delete, but being a distdef is not a speedy criterion. DES (talk) 01:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete NN --Rogerd 02:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)--Rogerd 02:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to wiktionary. Most slang terms are only notable in select circles, this shouldn't preclude them from an online wiktionary. --Anetode 03:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wiktionary has no concept of notability. Its inclusion criteria are based upon attestation, not notability. Uncle G 03:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does not belong on Wiktionary unless it is verifiable. Eclecticology 22:03, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Used as skater/snowboarder jargon on [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]; Listed on the Slang Exchange; many other mentions on various forums, also a popular alias. Anetode 18:33, 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 --Allen3 talk 01:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

String Finger Theatre[edit]

A none notable webcomic, found here, hosted on a site which has zero Alexa stats. Google shows no assertion of notability, apart from a tiny update on a webcomic ranking list saying that it had reached its 400th strip. How hard is it for a stick man to reach 400 strips? Longevity does not equal notability, irrespectable of what WP:COMIC might say. - Hahnchen 01:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki to Comixpedia, that's where it belongs. Ilmari Karonen 00:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure we should be voting to transwiki things to projects totally unrelated to Wikipedia. Snowspinner 04:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I agree that "transwiki" should only apply to sisters, User:Zoe recently got a spanking for making the same statement. - brenneman(t)(c) 13:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the person who most frequently clears out the post-afd transwiki queue, I've got to agree with Snowspinner. If you want to copy an article to another GFDL wiki, go right ahead and do it yourself, but please don't tempt people to close afd with a result like that. —Cryptic (talk) 08:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
With only 2 editors who are more-or-less divergent, I'm relisting this in search of proper participation. -Splashtalk 15:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Again, I do not respect Alexa and favor the other Webcomic inclusion guidelines. It meets Proposals B and C, therefore IMHO it's sufficiently notable. -Abe Dashiell 18:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. WP:COMIC's criteria are all too lenient. -- SCZenz 17:49, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless some proponent can reasonably explain why this subject matters and has truly touched people somehow. Peter S. 22:50, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not meet any reasonable standards of notability. -Sean Curtin 03:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete utterly nn.  Grue  17:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, existing for a few years does not automatically make something notable. --Aquillion 22:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unencyclopedic. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:43, 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 Transwiki. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil Baby Names[edit]

Also Tamil Baby Names Boys A and all other sub-articles.

The beginnings of an index of names that is entirely redundant with Wiktionary:Appendix:Names. Uncle G 00:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment what this list does suggest is the possibility of ethnic categorisation. Maybe that's there already - would one just add a category onto an individual name in Wiktionary:Appendix:Names? What if I wanted to lookup in the other way i.e. give me a list of (stereo)typical Tamil|English|French ... names? Dlyons493 Talk 08:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The question is the answer. If one wants to categorize names in the Wiktionary appendix by language, one simply adds a category. There are a few such categories already. There is the potential for many more. Uncle G 12:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Whatever it is you do, you should be working on the Wiktionary appendix so you keep the names and the categorization together. And Ucle G was right. Just use categories there. - Mgm|(talk) 20:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh... at what age do Tamil's change their names then? Or is this just a list of Tamil names? Average Earthman 13:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to the Wiktionary names appendix mentioned by Dlyons493. Andrew pmk | Talk 17:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki anything new as above. - Mgm|(talk) 20:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki/Delete, there are no other names beside the A category.Rhetoricalwater 23:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Encyclopeadic, and I like the idea. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:11, 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 DELETE. Numerically, I know it's a no consensus so do-nothing. However, it's been demonstrated that the term is actually just wrong, and the deleters point that out, so to merge it would be inherently wrong: we might not be paper but we still don't wilfully carry misinformation. So this time, I'm going to let the more thorough research outweigh the numerics. -Splashtalk 23:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Teeth and tail[edit]

unverifiable. 202.156.6.60 11:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: It does appear from Google to be a bona fide military expression, though not as what the article currently says. No vote yet. The Land 11:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe merge with military logistics or something along those lines? It's basically jargon, but could be worth a mention somewhere I think. I don't think outright delete, in any case. MC MasterChef 13:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
September 30th was an exceptionally busy AfD day. So this debate among several got almost no attention. Relisting in hope of some tender, loving debate this time around. -Splashtalk 00:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Military slang, in my opinion. But I also note, as per The Land, that the definition found in the article doesn't seem to match the usage I'm seeing elsewhere. Justin Bacon 00:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Misinformation with nothing salvageable. I doubt a rewritten article could be more than a dicdef anyway. --A D Monroe III 01:30, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Military slang --Rogerd 01:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The correct military term is Teeth to Tail and is related to military logistics see [29].

It refers to the number of frontline troops (teeth) to the number of support personnel (tail). Capitalistroadster 02:57, 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 Ryan Norton T | @ | C 22:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Band of Thieves[edit]

I think it was placed in as a joke. I can find no reference to this group anywhere, and the page is badly formatted by an anonymous user. Andrewduffell 09:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. - Andrewduffell 09:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obscure as it seems, I actually have seen references to this group before especially relating to music. I think they may have been some sort of actual band that played shows in the Northeast. On sites where band post information and sample songs, I definetly remeber listening to samples from a group that made reference to the Band of Theives. I've never actually seen someone with the wristband, but I am fairly confident that this group actually exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.64.148.141 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC); user's only edit[reply]
    There is a Band of Thieves band (music group) [30] but this appaears to be unconnected. Rd232 18:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I, too, have witnessed people sporting this wristband. Back when I used to live in Northern Massachusetts, there were at least two or three people I distinctly remember wearing this band at nearly all times.--Hoov 22:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I stumbled across this article and I must now debunk this idea that the Band of Thieves does not exist. I am proud to say that I am an actual wristband-wearing member of the Band of Thieves. This is not a myth or a joke, but an actual group of people who are still active today, and if you walk through major northeast cities one can spot these green bracelets from time to time. In response to the first entry, we used to post our music on music posting websites, but I believe most or all of this music has fallen by the wayside in recent years. You may be able to find some old recordings if you scour the internet long enough, however, the band still plays regularly and ideas for a national tour are currently being considered. And, as the article states, the band is about much more than playing music, and in that sense, the group is stronger now than it has ever been. Members are continuously joining as the core ideas and beliefs of the Band spread to the far reaches of the country. Let this thriving community of artists and thinkers be recognized on wikipedia, from one who can speak from experience of the vitality of this unique group. Dprof 23:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unverifiable, and RickK memorial sockpuppet limit has been reached. —Cryptic (talk) 11:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep we may be new users, but we're not sock puppets of the same person. Get an admin to check the IPs, I guarantee I am no one else on this page, and no one else is me (WP:AGF)... Inductive reasoning like that can fail. Also, I've updated the page with a picture of my friend's band. I'd consider that to be enough verification for the bands existence.--Hoov 01:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If this were verifiable, which it currently isn't, it would probably be non-notable. If that ever changes, those who think Wikipedia needs an article on it can try again. Rd232 18:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    remark - the anon appears to be referring to something else, and Dprof and Hoov have not made edits on any other subject before or since. Rd232 18:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 Wikibofh 15:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Borough (poem)[edit]

This article is blank. The inter-wiki link leads to nothing. Banana04131 23:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has page history mostly involveing whole poem which should be on some other wiki project.--Banana04131 23:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under CSD A3, as an article consisting only of an interwiki link. --Mysidia (talk) 07:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought it should definetly be under speedy. Retract Nomination --Banana04131 16:22, 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 -- (drini's page|☎) 02:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Church of Bet-El[edit]

non-notable Nv8200p (talk) 14:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom... and "page under construction" is so 1995. — ceejayoz ★ 15:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN --redstucco 08:01, 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 Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 02:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Foundry in Omaha Nebraska[edit]

nn club/ad Delete --JAranda | yeah 00:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No claim to notability. Should every Starbucks get an article? --A D Monroe III 02:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 02:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete AD Qaz (talk) 08:15, 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. — JIP | Talk 15:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Jean-Luc Picards[edit]

Article about a band formed last month; does not meet guidelines for inclusion. tregoweth 20:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. tregoweth 20:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability not established. CanadianCaesar 21:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - due to the problem establishing notability (being a brand new band). --Mysidia (talk) 07:58, 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. — JIP | Talk 15:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Secret Level[edit]

Non-notable message board. 202.156.6.54 21:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. CambridgeBayWeather 21:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:31, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. (and I even go to it.) Toffile 00:39, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleet24.255.211.121 05:59, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not every GameFAQs message board spinoff will be notable or merit and article, and is not and does not. --Mysidia (talk) 07:49, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. *drew 15:27, 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 Result: redirect -- (drini's page|☎) 01:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The stray cat[edit]

A former business of no consequence. Not even capitalized. R. fiend 22:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Last admin up for the night please leave out the milk bottles and Delete the stray cat. Dlyons493 Talk 22:40, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Actually a sad story if you read. Bankruptcies are not notable, however. Marskell 00:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A small nightclub which existed for only two years does not need to be listed in an encyclopedia. --Metropolitan90 01:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This entry *is* significant. It was the 'Best All Ages Nightclub in Kansas City 2004' and is an important landmark in the history of Kansas City youth culture. It will be expanded in time, just let the dust settle for the historical record to emerge! Unsigned comment from User:64.178.254.154. Pburka 01:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Stray Cats. It's conceivable that someone looking for The Stray Cats could type this in by accident. Pburka 01:34, 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 -- (drini's page|☎) 01:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The UP ADS[edit]

Surprisingly, this doesn't seem to be a copyvio. But it's an unredeemably NPOV bit of puffery for a non-notable campus organization (Google returned 2 hits for their full name). DS 16:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Non-notable university cruft. Delete. -- SoothingR 16:28, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete junk --Rogerd 08:06, 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. — JIP | Talk 09:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Triangle vegetarian society[edit]

Article about local vegetarian group in North Carolina; not notable enough for an encyclopedia entry. tregoweth 04:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete NN --Rogerd 04:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete limited scope/nn. Qaz (talk) 07:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Expand or Rewrite Gets nearly 1000 Google hits, so it isn't exactly not notable. (Pardon the double negative). However, it's poorly written and doesn't provide much background, so I wish to see a little more information added. Acetic'Acid 22:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Tregoweth. -- Kjkolb 03:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unencyclopedic. --redstucco 07:59, 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 Merge to comma-separated values. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

.tsv[edit]

This article should really be a note on the comma-separated values page, and both .tsv and tab-separated values should point there. As supporting evidence, I would point to a small comma-separated values library that I wrote which can handle both comma and tab separated files just with a simple change of a flag. Richard W.M. Jones 08:16, 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. — JIP | Talk 08:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Waldergame[edit]

  • here's the condition, if you delete this article, then empower me to delete all of your surnames. i think would be fair, right? so what that waldergame is played on an open field without restriction? yes, the consequence of this pure adulterated folly does lead to some nonsense, but that is not what the game is about. anyway, i've said pretty much all i have to to say at this juncture. --Camilla Walderhaug 14:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable. And created by User:Waldermaster. DJ Clayworth 14:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - nn, load of rubbish CLW 15:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 01:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I read an article about waldergame in the times newspaper a few weeks ago. It appears to have a dedicated following and is quite popular. Perhaps it should stay. or perhaps not:)
  • Despite the fact that the article is poorly written, I believe the intrinsic intellectual merit of the game itself has some value. The second point I'd like to make is that Amazon.com's Alexa claims to monitor 12million sites and that by their calculations, considering the current trends in the distribution of internet traffic, anything that consistently scores within the top 100,000 ranked sites

is what they term 'meat and potatoes'. As of 2005/October/06, if over 3 internet users in every 1 million over a 3 month average was reached by waldergame, and the general trend in popularity has been exponential since its begininning, is it 'not-notable'? Tough call. I think it's a wait and see. --Charliebobtonysteve 12:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 30th was an exceptionally busy AfD day. So this debate among several got almost no attention. Relisting in hope of some tender, loving debate this time around. -Splashtalk 00:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN. It's not a tough call. If and when it becomes notable, it gets an article. Right now, it has no claims to notability. --A D Monroe III 02:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until it becomes notable. -- Kjkolb 02:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Google gives 9 unique hits for "waldergame", indicating that whatever publicity this might have received hasn't really gained traction. Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nonsense at the moment. Banes 09:28, 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 BJAODN and DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Walle Iceberg[edit]

I think this is a spoof -- "Walle Iceberg" gets zero hits on yahoo or google. I did not speedy it, because it's so long -- it seems like a lot of trouble to go to just as a gag. Brandon39 11:31, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Perhaps "test" would be the kindest term. The man in the pic was clearly not born in 1878, whoever he is, and if so would not still be alive as claimed. The text seems to come from Thomas Jefferson's autobiography rather than the clearly spoof "Sailing and Food Testing Magazine". Some people have a strange sense of humour. Flapdragon 12:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The image name "Pspspsps.GIF" is further evidence of spoofness if any were needed. I've added the requisite "AfD" tag to Walle Iceberg page. Flapdragon 12:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas Jefferson unheard of or entirely fictional?? ;-) Flapdragon 16:28, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete junk --Rogerd 19:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While much of the text appears to be a legitimate biography, it has clearly been misappropriated by the author of this article. If the author can demonstrate otherwise, I will change my vote, but I don't plan on having to hold my breath. Denni☯ 00:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the author would have a hard time claiming that Thomas Jefferson's real name was Iceberg and he was born in 1878, wouldn't s/he? I think your vote is safe. Flapdragon 01:59, 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 02:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wastedhello[edit]

Non notable band. No albums and don't even play their own songs. CambridgeBayWeather 00:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No claim to notability. --A D Monroe III 02:03, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 02:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and post WP:Music in every local club in the lands. Qaz (talk) 08:14, 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 -- (drini's page|☎) 02:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Westminster motor kits[edit]

Delete. How-to article transwikied to Wikibooks. -- Egil 11:54, 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 Wikibofh 22:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Youkhanna[edit]

This is vanity and unencyclopaedic. We do not even have an article on the village in question, yet there is this article on the headman's family. The article is correct in saying that Youkhanna is the name John in some Aramaic dialects, but is not anymore noteworthy than that. Gareth Hughes 16:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. — Gareth Hughes 16:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment is there some hoax going on here? See [31] for an unlikely juxtaposition of Youkhanna+Rayes+Araden. Dlyons493 Talk 16:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Probably the same person as "Youkhanna Reyes ... of the Aradin Society (Detroit, U.S.)" [32] (Google's cache of http://www.atour.com/zenda/previous/19971215.htm, an online magazine). Something slightly odd about it but perhaps just a poor and unclear article; I for one am certainly not informed enough to judge the authenticity & worth of the article and whether it could/should be salvaged. Flapdragon 17:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
...though I don't see that the lack of article on the village (Araden/Aradin) has any relevance. Perhaps it should have one, since it seems to have some notability. Flapdragon 18:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth Hughes has been bashing all of my contributions to Wikipedia. I an Aramaic/Syriac speaking Assyrian according to Gareth Hughes know less about myself and origination than he does. I beg to differ.

I am Gareth Hughes: I speak Syriac. I'm not bashing you: I simply believe that you are writing nonsense. The fact is that this is not an encyclopaedic article. If you want to write something about the name Youkhanna, it should be added to the article on John as an alternative spelling. If you want to write something on Araden, then it should be titled Araden. However, this is really about a bit of both, and is not worthy of being an encyclopaedia entry. --Gareth Hughes 10:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Gareth Hughes, or redirect to John. Rd232 18:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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_8&oldid=1136472618"