Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 September 10

< September 9	September 11 >

September 10[edit]

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 delete. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Morrison Doom Patrol[edit]

Just a bad article overall; there's noting of value here, and it seems to be simply a batch of red links. --Apostrophe 00:20, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete... yeah. --Oppolo 00:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 311 google, very nn, horrible article that gives me no idea what The Morrison Doom Patrol even is. -GregAsche (talk) 01:02, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
- Doom Patrol will tell you. There's a whole section on the subject there. It appears that 82.99.146.34 (talk · contribs) was trying to create a breakout article. Uncle G 01:22:54, 2005-09-10 (UTC)
Delete as above G Clark 01:08, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Useless. Can't tell if it's notable. It's been here for a couple of weeks with nothing being added. ♠ DanMS 01:13, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Apostrophe and DanMS. --IByte 01:37, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Jaxl | talk 02:07, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've nothing against comic book-related articles, but there's nothing here. I can't even suggest merging with Doom Patrol as there's no content. 23skidoo 02:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, total lack of useful content. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:03, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Mgm.
Journalist ^C./ ^{Holla @ me!}
Delete pointless. Vizjim 09:46, 12 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.

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 delete -- Joolz 02:06, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Menlo Park Mall[edit]

Non notable mall Dismas 01:04, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, no vote. The article was posted only today. We might give the author a week or two to see if he fills it out and wikifies it. If not, delete. ♠ DanMS 01:18, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think all malls are notable, and this is not, at least per terms of the article, one of the notable ones (in a cultural, architectural, or historical sense). MCB 01:44, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If there are unique, trend-setting, or sui generis elements to this mall, they're not stated in the article. If the mall is dominant in more than a town setting, it is also not stated. A mall of 170 stores is mid-sized, and the biography of the mall as given is pretty standard. Not properly encyclopedic content, then. Geogre 05:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless expanded. Andrew pmk | Talk 18:04, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~No vote yet~~ Delete - I will leave a note on the talk page of the author and see if s/he can expand on this to make it notable. Nandesuka 01:04, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Article has not been improved, changing my opinion to delete. Nandesuka 16:40, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per MCB and Geogre, no indication of the slightest notability has been added a couple days after nomination. Barno 20:07, 12 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.

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 delete. Grue 13:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You for the Venom[edit]

This article is simple pasted from a My Chemical Romance site and is not only useless, but could be construed as offensive. Makenji-san 01:07, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyright problems is the place for dealing with articles copied & pasted from copyrighted web sites, not AFD. Copyvio. Uncle G 01:35:01, 2005-09-10 (UTC)
- There's a rewrite article that is copyright violation free, by the way. Uncle G 10:13:02, 2005-09-10 (UTC)
Delete as copyvio. Capitalistroadster 04:09, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete copyvio, replace with rewrite. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:05, September 10, 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.

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 delete as resume and self-promotion of a non notable individual. -- Mgm|^(talk) 20:11, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Davies[edit]

Self promotion/vanity... seems to be just his resume'. Dismas 01:16, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete cut'n'paste resumés. — brighterorange (talk) 01:40, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Jaxl | talk 02:07, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete same as above. ErikNY 03:03, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If we had an article on Rhett Davies we could have turned it into a redirect, since I have heard him misnamed in this way. Grutness...wha? 04:24, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete resumes. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:08, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Delete for all the above reasons. -- DS1953 06:14, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as incoherent nonsense passing as resume of non-notable personage ---CH (talk) 01:57, 12 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.

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 delete -- Joolz 23:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bootdryer[edit]

Not really notable. 148.78.243.50 01:36, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional keep pending evidence of non-notability. Kappa 02:17, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article lacks evidence of notability, which is the only possible evidence of non-notability. Also, the term "Thermicair" pushes it into the category of spam. --A D Monroe III 03:06, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's meant to be "thermic air". Kappa 12:55, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Even then, proper English would be "thermal", not "thermic", which stil means nothing more than "warm". "Thermicair" and "Thermic air" are marketing slogans. This article is either spam or a copy of spam. --A D Monroe III 15:12, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Illiterate and self-evident. A boot dryer, not a bootdryer, and a boot dryer is a device to, um, dry boots. Otherwise known as a modified heater. Geogre 05:43, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, boot dryers probably deserve an article, but this is a self-evident dicdef. I'd be happy to reconsider if someone rewrites into a decent stub that does more than state the obvious. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:10, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The burden of proof is on the article's author to supply references that back up their claims. Will change my mind under similar circumstances as Mgm. Fernando Rizo T/C 18:27, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as self-evident obviosity. Thereare notenough spaces in thearticle, either, but Isuppose it couldbe re written. -Splash 21:20, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ADM3 and others. What the heck is "evidence of non-notability", Kappa? Barno 20:10, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- E.g. a failed google test. Kappa 20:21, 12 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.

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 delete. Grue 13:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanne Khan[edit]

NN Dismas 01:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claim to notability except being a relative to someone barely notable. That, by itself, does not make one notable. --A D Monroe III 03:10, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not a proper subject of biography in an encyclopedia, and the article is not a biography. Were her husband very famous in anglophone nations, a redirect to him would take the place of this article. As it is, just delete. Geogre 05:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Ugh systemic bias :( Kappa 07:27, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
India is an Anglophone nation given that English is an official language of India. Given that our Indian English states that approximately 11% of the Indian population spoke English as at 1991 with numbers growing since then, there are well over 100 million English speakers in India which is approximately twice as many as in England. Bollywood films are popular in other nations notably England. Having said that, this article does not establish notability for Ms Khan as opposed to her husband, I vote to Redirect to Hrithik Roshan unless Ms Khan has some record of achievement in her own right. Capitalistroadster 07:51, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, article as is is substub, doesn't establish any notability. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:13, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Delete – at least not notable now. --Bhadani 17:09, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I dislike retaining redirects for nns; it's like saying "you can have an article if you're notable, you can get deleted if you're non-notable, but if you move in the right circles, you can have a redirect". -Splash 21:18, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete patently nn. ---CH (talk) 07:59, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as her husband is very famous in one of the world's largest Anglophone nations. Though I'm tempted to add that if Victoria Beckham can get her own article, any wife should... Vizjim 09:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Victoria Beckham? I'll be the first to say that I'm not a fan of the Spice Girls but she has a bit more notability than just for being David Beckham's wife. Dismas 10:48, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on how notable you feel "Well-Known Spice Girls Video Background Dancers", "Great Vocoder Users" and "Professionally Thin People" are... ;) Vizjim 14:12, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak redirect per Capitalistroadster, mainly because she's mentioned in her husband's article. But I tend to agree with Splash's criticism of the system. Barno 20:14, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree. — flamingspinach | (talk) 18:00, 13 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.

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 delete -- Joolz 23:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MC (mainland China)[edit]

A gaming clan, and borderline nonsense. —Cryptic (talk) 02:55, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. nn clanity. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 03:07, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable G Clark 03:10, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claim to notability, and definite nonsense ("bleach is cool", "origin: 1st after random chemical reactions" and "hes hella smart") --A D Monroe III 03:17, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. unverifiable. --Apyule 06:16, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete any and all gaming clan that hasn't won any major tournaments covered by the media. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:15, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Delete gaming clan, near-nonsense. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:40, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Doesn't look like an article. — Stevey7788 (talk) 18:50, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. and then protect from being recreated... Sasquatcht|c 04:55, September 11, 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.

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 Deleted as copyvio then title redirected to Order of the Stick Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 22:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Burlew[edit]

non-notable person Peyna 02:57, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Bunchofgrapes 04:04, 10 September 2005 (UTC) OK, abstain. My excuse is that the page was so poorly written that the assertion of notability escaped me. Bunchofgrapes 21:46, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Either keep or redirect to his clearly notable webcomic, Order of the Stick. Meelar (talk) 04:08, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

or merge ; but just because his comic is notable, doesn't mean he necessarily is. Peyna 04:15, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article needs plenty of work if it is to be kept. Frankly, who cares if he likes Iron Chef? Unless this work is done, I will vote for a redirect to the webcomic. Capitalistroadster 04:19, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Order of the Stick, which is hilarious, BTW. android 79 04:40, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Delete or redirect. Not a fit subject for a biography in an encyclopedia, as the life and the man are not famous at this point or relevant to multiple contexts. Geogre 05:46, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything salvagable and NPOV into Order of the Stick and redirect. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:16, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect, as per above. Fernando Rizo T/C 18:36, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio: This is a copyvio of Burlew's official bio at http://www.giantitp.com/thegiant.html . That site is down at the moment, but there's a google cache here. I'm not very familiar with the process at this point, so I haven't listed this anywhere. -- Creidieki 01:10, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete copyvio nn vanity ---CH (talk) 06:26, 12 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.

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 delete · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image of the Beast[edit]

Tagged as {{nonsense}}, but doesn't meet the WP definition of such. Doesn't seem to meet any other of the CSD either, so AfD gets to deal with it. No vote from me. -Splash 03:29, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR/Biblecruft. MCB 06:20, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Reserve Possibly convertable into a useful article, but possibly OR. I'll have to think about it. --Apyule 06:25, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless someone is going to clean it up. It's pretty terrible right now. -- Kjkolb 10:53, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Delete without prejudice, probably a valid topic, but mentioning where it appears in the bible only (with over half the entry being quotes) doesn't make it an article. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:19, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Original research, if I understand this correctly. -- llywrch 23:15, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing that isn't OR or already covered in Book of Revelation and Number of the Beast (numerology). Gazpacho 23:28, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I, Chris Nance, yeshua [email protected], created this article.

I am new to Wikipedia and will do whatever necessary to clean this up or make it conform to Wikipedia standards. This is not original research. It is mentioned in Revelation 13. The Mark of the Beast is also mentioned there and you have allowed that entry. The Image of the Beast is different topic than the Mark of the Beast and the Number of the Beast and is a valid topic in Christian eschatology This is not covered in any other entry in Wikipedia. I would like the opportunity to finish this article. Thank you.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 keep -- Joolz 23:34, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Klein[edit]

Tagged as nn-bio (CSD A7). Whilst being a prof isn't an assertion of notability, being Head of a Laboratory possibly is. Needs massive work, but that doesn't make it a speedy. No vote from me, but I found this. -Splash 03:34, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is a notable researcher who deserves a longer article. --Apyule 06:20, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: is there any criteria for determining the notability of college professors? I've come across quite a few that are merely average, if that (no comment on this one). Is being a college professor inherently notable? Given the number of college professors in the world, I don't think it would be possible to maintain that many articles. -- Kjkolb 11:02, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Being the head of a research department at Oxford University makes one notable. If cleanup is needed, I recommend a request being send to the cleanup taskforce or a suitable wikiproject. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:22, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Keep stub and request expansion. He wouldn't have been where he is if he weren't notable in his field. Uppland 16:54, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Done some improvements. Alf ^melmac 20:01, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: someone who knows better than me should check "What links here" on the article. Alf ^melmac 20:07, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

These links obviously refer to one or two other persons of the same name. This article should probably be moved to Jacob Klein (chemist) eventually. Uppland 20:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but author should add references to support notability claim.---CH (talk) 04:22, 12 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.

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 Delete Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 22:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Macvaerk[edit]

There is no evidence that this company is notable. Bcrowell 03:36, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. --GraemeL ^(talk) 11:57, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN - 141.154.205.120 21:54, 10 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.

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 delete -- Joolz 12:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Velocity[edit]

Look... simple mistake. It was my first Wikipedia page and I didn't know self-promotion was illegal. Sombody else named DJ Velocity then dubbed over my name and page with their own information. Please delete this page all together, it is bad publicity to see this page when searching my name in google. It is the first page that comes up. I hope you understand

Self-published musician does not appear to meet criteria in WP:MUSIC. Page created by anon IP; same anon IP recently restored the page's original POV, ad-oriented copy. Bunchofgrapes 03:54, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:music. "Aspiring" to be fulltime producer. Capitalistroadster 04:12, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:MUSIC, uses promotional language and spams 4 additional links to his own site in the discography section. One of them is enough. (I'll delink). - Mgm|^(talk) 14:08, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Delete WP:MUSIC comes to the rescue again. He urges patience, and then writes this article. Uh huh. -Splash 21:15, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per WP:MUSIC.
Journalist ^C./ ^{Holla @ me!}
Doenst matter... some ***hole just took over my page. moved in and deleted all my content to replace it with his own promotion. is that even allowed? (Unsigned comment by DJ Velocity)
- Comment: In general, you or others who care about the page would simply revert such a change as vandalism. Bunchofgrapes 20:30, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per everyone above. As stated above, if he cared, the page would have been reverted. Budgiekiller 08:11, 16 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.

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 Delete Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 22:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kaosu buntai chibi game[edit]

Tagged for speedy as "advertising", but unless it's pure spam it doesn't qualify. (Plus, this doesn't read like an ad to me.) AfD gets to decide if it should stay or not. Abstain. -Splash 04:04, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The page was created only two days ago. May be someone would improve it. On the other hand, the link given is already dead. Google also doesn't seem to be much aware of Kaosu buntai itself, not to mention the game. I say delete if notability cannot be established - Greenleaf 06:31, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Download page is already dead. Not notable. --GraemeL ^(talk) 12:00, 10 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.

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 Delete Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 23:19, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lionel Hall[edit]

Here is another non notable Harvard Dorm Delete --Aranda56 04:11, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Marskell 09:52, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete as above --TimPope 10:19, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. --GraemeL ^(talk) 12:01, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all dormitory pages together. Andrew pmk | Talk 18:07, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the other dorm that was here a few days back into Harvard Dorms/whatever is most correct, per Andrew pmk. Eric the Seagull roosted there. Alf ^melmac 20:15, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Harvard Dormitories or other appropriate article. -- Creidieki 01:16, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is this building individually architecturally notable? If so, merge; if not, delete.---CH (talk) 05:09, 12 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.

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 Delete Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 22:06, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Leiber's Induction[edit]

Tagged as patent nonsense but it isn't, especially as it's an excerpt from a book-thing (e.g. [1]). This might make it a copyvio, but that excerpt seems to be posted at least several times online, so I didn't copyvio it. If someone wants to, that's fine. Otherwise, no vote from me. -Splash 04:13, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete No context, no assertion of notability, possible copyvio. Dlyons493 08:48, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely a copyvio. An excerpt of a book which is not used to support a review or scholarly work definitely does not fall under fair use. Andrew pmk | Talk 18:12, 10 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.

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 keep -- Joolz 23:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dheerasankarabharanam[edit]

Tagged as patent nonsense but I can just about extract meaning so it isn't. I can't work out for myself if this should stay or go, so it comes here instead. -Splash 04:18, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, like C major. To whoever tagged that for speedy, ignorance is no excuse for an encylopedia editor. Kappa 05:17, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Is my music bias showing? Hell, you could've clicked on Raga to find out what Dheerasankarabharanam was. RasputinAXP talk * contribs 05:20, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. By the way, how do you actually say it? --Apyule 06:33, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep you say it very carefully. I prefer A flat - more homely. Alf ^melmac 20:20, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Tintin 01:53, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are many such stub articles on Indian music theory. Maybe they should all be together, but certainly not deleted. —Wahoofive (talk) 03:34, 11 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.

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 delete -- Joolz 23:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Primary Route Destinations in Wiltshire[edit]

Just a collection of links to pages on Wiltshire's larger towns. Not an article, and all of these are linked (logically) from the Wiltshire article anyway. Grutness...wha? 04:21, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this not-an-article. It doesn't even have a sentence! It really is nothing but a list, and a list solely of links at that. Which makes it in violation of WP:NOT Sec. 1.5.2, which explicitly bans this sort of non-article. Even if content did show up in this, it's still redundant to the Wiltshire article, which is closer to The Perfect Article than a list could ever be, and thus would still need to be deleted in favor of the better article. The Literate Engineer 04:58, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOT which explicitly permits this kind of list. Kappa 05:14, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Explicitly permits this kind of list? Would that be in the part I cited, which states "Wikipedia articles are not Mere collections of internal links, except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for structured lists to assist with the organisation of articles," which exception does not apply here? Or are you suggesting that this slip in under the "reference tables and tabular information for quick reference" exception in 1.7.2, about Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics? I disagree with the application of that exception as well, as I feel there's a degree of utility required to qualify as a reference table (for instance, an SI/Imperial conversion table) that this doesn't have. And as this is a loose association of Wiltshire locations, I'd say it qualifies as a 1.7.2 violation. The Literate Engineer 05:34, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - "structured lists to assist with the organisation of articles" Kappa 06:05, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Exactly how does this list of towns that appear as destinations on road signs help organize articles? Pilatus 16:05, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not an encyclopedic article. And what the heck does "primary route destinations" mean? Zoe 05:43, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
- The British Roads FAQ has a paragraph on that. Pilatus 15:01, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I stubbed it, not knowing what to do with it, not having the guts to go for AFD. Now that someone has, though, I support it. Thank you for being bold when I wasn't. Paul 06:00, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- S'alright. Don't be afraid to be bold in circumstances like this! Grutness...wha?
Delete, WP:NOT censored for the protection of minors. Sorry, I misinterpreted WP:NOT. Sdedeo 07:34, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The much more useful List of Primary Route Destinations in the United Kingdom links to this page but is itself being discussed for merging. If that page is merged, then this page is most properly deleted. Even if that page survives, while I take Kappa's point on "structured lists to assist with the organisation of articles", I don't see that this context-free page adds useful structuration potential. Note also that it's one of 47 lists which should presumably be treated similarly to it.Dlyons493 08:57, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very useful list. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 09:24, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete useless list --TimPope 10:20, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original source material (that's what this is) doesn't belong here. Pilatus 13:30, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete already covered in Wiltshire which actually provides context. No need to break out. If you need to find something about Wiltshire, in my opinion the article about the area is the first place to look for it.) - Mgm|^(talk) 14:17, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Duplicated by Category:Towns in Wiltshire.
Delete - and there are about 50 of these centered around List of Primary Route Destinations in the United Kingdom, all of which should be similarly deleted. ESkog 18:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As Mgm said, this seems to duplicate the information found here. If kept, needs to be moved to a less Byzantine and properly capitalized name. Fernando Rizo T/C 18:48, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't an article: it's a contextless list of links to other articles. -Splash 21:13, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Splash. (Was that rude?) Nandesuka 01:10, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. Kappa, where exaclty do you think this policy "explicitly permits" pages which lists five place names, with no context or commentary?---CH (talk) 23:35, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seeing no reason to believe that this list "assists in the organisation of" anything at all. Barno 20:20, 12 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.

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 Transwiki Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 23:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Link's Awakening bosses[edit]

Tagged for speedy as "Wikipedia is not a video game strategy guide. Non-strategic information already exists in the article on The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening.", only that isn't a speedy criterion. Since it was tagged, I brought it here. No notvote from me. -Splash 04:27, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm the one who wanted it speedy deleted. Seems like a waste of time to AfD it, but very well. Hopefully this is one of the things to be addressed in the deletion reform discussion I heard about, but for now the existing policy prevails. I repeat: Wikipedia is not a video game strategy guide. I realize that's not part of the official Wikipedia is not policy, but I'm not the first person to say it, and I doubt I'll be the last. In fact, I think I'll go and suggest the addition of that right now. Non-strategic information on these bosses already exists in the article on The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening, so there's no need to merge it. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 04:50, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Keep Last time I checked, Wikipedia gives out information about different areas of things. It seems to me that Link's Awakening bosses is a thing, and I have given information about it. Please don't delete this article. 24.21.191.65 06:26, 10 September 2005 (UTC) [Note from WikidSmaht: This is DiddyKong1234, I think he forgot to log in.][reply]
- Wikipedia is meant to be informative, yes. But Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Tutorials, guides, and other forms of instruction should be collected into Wikibooks. Most of the information in the article is about how to fight and defeat the bosses, written in the imperative tense. The rest can be, and essentially is, covered in the Link's Awakening article, in a section you inspired me to create with an older article of yours. Look at the edit history to see my example of what the article would be like without the strategy part. Also, some of the few other things in the article as it is are incorrect. For example, none of the dungeons in this game are referred to as temples. And all the bosses are Nightmares, according to the story. I do admire the images you collected or created for the article, though. If you hang on to those, I might have a use for them later. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 07:48, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Keep or merge with something, seems to have extra information. Needs a bit of a rewrite. Kappa 07:25, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said, the information was virtually all covered in the main article for Link's Awakening, and everything important( other than strategy, is there, so I don't think there's any need to merge... WikidSmaht (talk) 07:48, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
The table at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_video_game_strategy_guide may help this discussion. In particular, note the existence of the The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker wikibook and its relationship to the The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker encyclopaedia article. Uncle G 10:44:19, 2005-09-10 (UTC)
- Thank you, that's exactly what I was getting at. The content of the article is good( well, not all of it), but not suitable for Wikipedia.
Transwiki the strategy guide to Wikibooks. The use of "you" in an article is never a good idea. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:20, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki per Mgm. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 09:56, 2005 September 11 (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.

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 delete -- Joolz 02:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lankansoc[edit]

An expat community with nearly 200 members. Home page leads to what looks like a discussion board which requires login. Article text is not very consistent. Greenleaf 04:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. --GraemeL ^(talk) 12:05, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn. Andrew pmk | Talk 18:20, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, websites in themselves don't really need articles. WP:ISNOT a webdirectory.-Splash 21:11, 10 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.

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 delete -- Joolz 02:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Slf[edit]

Tagged for speedy as "totally nn" but regrettably that doesn't apply to websites. Personally, I'd say delete nn website - it has 30 members. -Splash 04:39, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, totally nn :) Punkmorten 10:20, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. --GraemeL ^(talk) 12:07, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All of 30 members! Ashibaka (tock) 16:02, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, very nn! CSD should apply to websites as well. Andrew pmk | Talk 18:20, 10 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.

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 delete -- Joolz 02:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pyramid Dialect[edit]

nn slang lexicon. Zoe 04:43, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

delete. Obviously nn. - Greenleaf
Abstain. Making us vote on it is part of the joke. --Wetman 09:03, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- But keeping it wouldn't be? Zoe 19:52, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per submitter. --GraemeL ^(talk) 12:08, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable or encyclopedic. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 12:41, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I removed the link to it from St. Paul's School (United States). Please re-instate in the unlikely event that this fails AfD. Andrew pmk | Talk 18:25, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain. This appears to be a legitmate bit of information about counter-culture in the United States. It wouldn't be found in Encyclopedia Britannica, but is that what you folks are trying to write?

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 Keep due to no consensus Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 22:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Colombo Dreams[edit]

A College Society drama; money went for a good purpose, but the drama itself doesn't seem to be notable. Participants do not either. Performed only two days. 370 Google hits. Greenleaf 04:52, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain. Well-written, but notability is questionable. Andrew pmk | Talk 18:28, 10 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.

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: keep (nomination withdrawn). - Mike Rosoft 12:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kontroll[edit]

~~Article itself provides reason: Low budget, unclassifiable Hungarian film. Inherently nn. Delete. RasputinAXP talk * contribs 04:54, 10 September 2005 (UTC)~~ Whoop. Sorry. Nomination withdrawn. RasputinAXP talk * contribs 06:02, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Check imdb and the official web site. It's won one or two awards, and appeared in different festivals, in various countries. It's a theatrical release, not a direct-to-video deal (although it's now out on video). By Hollywood standards, its low-budget, but I'm not sure it is actually low-budget by Hungarian standards (I honestly don't know though, as I'm not Hungarian). Anyways, at a minimum, I want to give this article some time, to improve. --rob 05:36, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Very well-known independent film on this year's international festival circuit, plus theatrical release in English-speaking countries (including the U.S.). And hey, I just got it on DVD from Netflix. MCB 06:37, 10 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.

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 delete -- Joolz 02:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Alters[edit]

Delete Non-notable as per [2] PhilipO 05:01, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Delete non-notable and probably vanity. Should have been speedy. CambridgeBayWeather 05:03, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - probably, but I erred on the side of a vote this time. Cheers. --PhilipO 05:06, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Delete per above. 9 google hits. -Greenleaf 05:08, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn-bio. MCB 06:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete nn, apparent vanity, probably adspam ---CH (talk) 04:43, 12 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.

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 keep -- Joolz 02:18, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Middle[edit]

Even if individual songs merit their own articles, "X is a song by Y" isn't appropriate. —Cryptic (talk) 05:14, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have expanded the article so that it is no longer a "X is a song by Y". This song was a top 5 song on the Billboard Hot 100 and one of the most popular emo songs ever. Capitalistroadster 06:55, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Great job with the rewrite. The article explains the notability of the song, on it's own. Normally I don't like including individual songs, but this article seems to have value. --rob 10:19, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the rewrite. It establishes notability right from the first line. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:21, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Keep — Stevey7788 (talk) 18:50, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep another fantastic job by the Capster. Alf ^melmac 20:26, 10 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.

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 delete -- Joolz 02:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Bom-om[edit]

Somebody's madeup game. Can't find anything to verify that this game exists. Zoe 05:18, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Delete As above (I originally put the speedy tag on it ;-))--PhilipO 05:20, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

- I know. I decided to err on the side of caution to see if anybody in the community knows it or can find anything we missed. Zoe 05:25, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Nonsense CambridgeBayWeather 05:27, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Hot Bom-om. The author has indicated it's something played at their high school that hasn't made it to the spotlight. Zoe 05:33, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Delete per both of Zoe's statements. --GraemeL ^(talk) 12:10, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per author's statement. Game is not notable. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:25, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Delete I think I'll write an article for every game I played in high school too . . . - Orioneight 22:02, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless good verifiable evidence is provided for the remark that "the game spread to its current popularity during the nineties, and is a something of a cult subculture at many American High Schools today." Note that the article provides no references or source citations that would even testify to the existence of the game. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:46, 11 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.

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 Keep Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 23:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Boyfriend (song)[edit]

Wikipedia is not Billboard. Zoe 05:23, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Speedy fair enough, feel free to speedy if you want (since I'm the only author) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 05:27, 10 September 2005 (UTC) Keep WHOA there's a review for it already... thanks Kappa Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 07:00, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, single by notable artist. Kappa 06:18, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Stubby yes. But it's a single by a notable artist and a notable producer and has enough room for expansion like other single/album articles. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:24, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, notable everything. Jobe 6 18:14, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

So what are the criteria? Any single by any artist? Any single by any artist which has had x number of sales? This song has just been released. Why not wait to see if it's going to go anywhere on the charts? Zoe 19:40, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

I thought any single by a notable artist was allowed (speaking of which why arn't we using the discussion page? ) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 19:47, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This battle has been fought before, over singles generally and Ashlee singles specifically. La La (song) had a pretty vehement debate but ended up being kept by a fair margin. I don't see why the battle needs to be fought all over again every time a new single comes out. The issue ought to be settled by now. Everyking 04:05, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - So even if this song were to tank and not sell five copies, by the very fact that it's by Ashlee Simpson, it deserves an article? I'm not saying that that is what's happening, I'm just trying to determine where we draw the line. Or is there a line? Zoe 22:48, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
    - The question is academic, but I think the answer is yes: if a song by such a notable artist failed so badly, that would be notable just for so completely confounding expectations. Everyking 23:13, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - OK, so now I'm clear. We have to keep an article on every song ever recorded by every artist who meets the WP:MUSIC requirements. Zoe 04:29, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
        Does every deletionist have to exaggerate every statement ever made by every inclusionist? Kappa 13:03, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Single by notable artist, and the article has increased in size quite a bit since it was put up for deletion. Extraordinary Machine 21:34, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand once we have reliable chart info. There's enough here to warrant an article. Capitalistroadster 00:32, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, of course. Everyking 04:02, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A single is a bit like an episode of a TV show. We don't need articles on every one. Friday (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- "There is no reason why there shouldn't be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly cross-linked and introduced by a shorter central page. Every episode name in the list could link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia. Each of the 100+ poker games can have its own page with rules history, and strategy. Jimbo Wales has agreed: Hard disks are cheap". meta:Wiki_is_not_paper. Kappa 19:48, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since there's no reason to delete it. Right? Kahlen 06:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not every song by a notable musician needs its own article, rather some should be redirected to the album in question (or maybe a list of songs by XXX in some cases, especially prior to the album era). But if this one were folded into the album article, it would overbalance it. So, keep. Tuf-Kat 08:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Do not delete it. Instead, Make the article disputed. It is not released yet and the chart performances and variety of reviews have not yet being released. It is already on disputed so leave it there. It deserves to be there. Zoe needs to shut up. From Anonymous.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 delete Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 22:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Roster of The 155th Regiment, O.V.I.[edit]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. —Cryptic (talk) 05:43, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Maybe Wikisource? Zoe 05:54, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
delete ne --TimPope 10:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikisource, but it needs some info on what year these people served. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:26, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. If I'm not mistaken, the only time in US history that there's been regiments with name schemes such as this one's was the American Civil War. Even still, that's not a specific enough timeframe to be useful for Wikisource. Will absolutely change my vote if a reference can be cited and if a time period can be established. Fernando Rizo T/C 18:52, 10 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.

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 delete. Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 17:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Riverside Boulevard[edit]

nn road Delete --Aranda56 05:43, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete minor road. --TimPope 10:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep major road. Kappa 14:16, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. maybe wikitravel for stuff like this. Nateji77 14:36, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Unless someone expands this, delete Pilatus 16:50, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless expanded; this road starts at the very edge of downtown (at Highway 99) and goes into the suburbs. Roads in the suburbs are not notable. Andrew pmk | Talk 18:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikifying major and road doesn't make it so! -Splash 21:06, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Major road, my ass. --Calton | Talk 15:47, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nothing but a city street.Gateman1997 18:06, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and disambiguate. Streets next to rivers in major cities are "notable". --SPUI (talk) 22:42, 12 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.

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 that it should be handled via the copyvio proccess -- Joolz 02:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Otterdale[edit]

nn summer camp Delete --Aranda56 05:59, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When you see a huge unwikified lump like this with blatantly promotional language, check google to see if it's a copyvio. Tagged and bagged. —Cryptic (talk) 06:37, 10 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.

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 delete -- Joolz 21:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Train the trainer[edit]

Train the Trainer was nominated for deletion on 2005-03-08. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior deletion discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Train the Trainer/2005-03-08.

This has been on cleanup since March, and still only contains an "X=X" type definition. I suggest transwiki'ing to Wiktionary. Grutness...wha? 06:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With so little content, I see no purpose in keeping it, or using it for anything. --rob 06:59, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per rob. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:58, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in March, this isn't a single part of speech. It's not an idiom, either. Uncle G 10:51:54, 2005-09-10 (UTC)
Delete self-evidentiary dicdefs and don't forget about the redirect(s). - Mgm|^(talk) 14:28, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, dicdef. Andrew pmk | Talk 18:36, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, so circular it doesn't even define anything, just restates title. Trend in business might rate an article; this sure ain't it. -WCFrancis 21:49, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per rob. --Apyule 07:56, 11 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.

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 delete -- Joolz 21:17, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Money mike[edit]

Admits to not meeting WP:MUSIC right in the article. Only claim to fame is founding Town Records, which was just deleted for non-notability and barely existing. (I've taken the liberty of <nowiki>ing the linkspam.) —Cryptic (talk) 07:29, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When I saw this, I thought of Money Mark, who worked with the Beastie Boys. However, Money Mike's main claim to fame was "selling" 1,000 mix tapes most of which have not been paid for. As such, he fails WP:music so Delete. Capitalistroadster 07:59, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tonywalton | Talk 12:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Capitalistroadster. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:29, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:music --Apyule 07:59, 11 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.

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 delete -- Joolz 12:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm Tent[edit]

'Delete NN & Vanity. I already removed two external links to a unbuilt website and a non-public Yahoo! Group with all of 11 members. Caerwine 08:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nateji77 14:35, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn, vanity. Andrew pmk | Talk 18:37, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ugh. nnanity. -Splash 21:04, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete innanity ooh, a double pun :-/ ---CH (talk) 05:18, 12 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.

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 delete -- Joolz 21:18, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Sanders[edit]

NN and the mistitled external link makes me suspect that it's nonsense. Caerwine 09:12, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I beleive it's real, and the author, institute, and article creator, all take it seriously. However, notability is not explained. Actually, little is explained. I found this, which indicates Sanders wished/wishes to be anonymous. Let's grant him his wish of anonymity, as most others seem to have (except for one article about him). --rob 10:44, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: When I said "it's real", I meant I think there really is a manuscript made by him (which is downloadable), I didn't mean his ideas are real, as I don't know or care anything about them. --rob 10:51, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn, vanity, Wikipedia not a crystal ball, that should do it--CH (talk) 05:22, 12 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.

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 keep -- Joolz 21:30, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Janelle Pierzina[edit]

This is an unusual case.

This article (concerning a cast member of the television show Big Brother) was originally listed for deletion on 1 September. On 8 September, I closed out a number of AfDs, including the one in question. I interpreted the discussion as a rough consensus to redirect the article to the main Big Brother television series article. Two users took issue with my interpretation of the AfD, so in the interests of total transparency I made a detailed enumeration of my logic on the article's talk page. A number of users continued to express concern over my handling of the matter, and have called the fairness of my actions into question.

I do not believe that I did anything wrong in the closing of this AfD; I stand by my decision. My action, however, has created sufficient consternation that I feel it is necessary to re-list the article here at AfD and allow an opportunity for a clearer consensus to be reached. I will not be closing this AfD, and my nomination here does not constitute any sort of vote. Fernando Rizo T/C 10:35, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - One of the most notable members of a hit show on prime-time nationally broadcast network TV. She was a nationally published model, before even going on the show. National media coverage of her as an individual, including controversies, have beeen covered by the media. Her weekly deeds are followed by millions. She is one of just four remaining contestants on show. She's been on most of the season. She was voted one of two most popular in nationwide pole. A good stable precident is Canadian Idol which typically has 8-10 articles per season for contestants. Strong keep for high notability. --rob 11:09, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother has been going on for several years in several countries. The shows have their entries and until something exceptional can be said about Janelle, please merge into the article for that BB run. Pilatus 13:48, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as per Pilatus. FreplySpang (talk) 14:35, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I'm of the opinion that the decision on whether to merge is an editing matter and should be decided by the consensus of editors on an ongoing basis. Fernando Rizo did a good faith close and his decision was fair, and I affirm his right to exclude the opinions of editors with few edits on the basis of their inexperience. But I've given this a lot of thought myself in the past, and after much reflection I've decided that it's not my business as an AfD closer to go around telling editors that they can't ever make or break a redirect because the outcome of an AfD debate some time in the past supported that redirect. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 15:16, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To those supporting a merge, any and all BB merger discussion should be in one central spot: Talk:Big Brother (USA TV series)#Merge. So far, any suggestion of merger has been rejected by editors of the main article, partly because the article is already to big. Hence, a vote here for a merge, won't result in a merge, but rather (what amounts to) a page blanking. --rob 15:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep please wikipedia is not paper and this is a real long article so why should we redirect it that does not even make sense Yuckfoo 17:39, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Janelle, as I previously said, is The PEOPLE'S favourite to win the show. Having other members on Wikipedia who are not even questioned is found unfair. Keep her.

Gian89 14:36, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, too big to merge. Andrew pmk | Talk 18:41, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- seeing as my last vote was discounted for not crossing the edit threshold (which I understand, although it's a little irritating), I just want to add that my vote would still be Keep- Janelle has been one of the summer's breakout stars on a show that is consistently rated in the top 15 of the Nielsen ratings. I don't advocate a page for every contestant on the show, but for a person as popular as Janelle a page should be created (at least for the wiki-niche of reality nuts). --PatadyBag 18:46, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn participant in not-so-popular reality show. Zoe 20:47, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
- Reply: "CBS's Big Brother 6 premiered well on Thursday, handily winning its 8-9PM ET/PT time period in both total viewers and key demographics and teaming with CSI and Without A Trace repeats to lead CBS to a clean sweep in the night's primetime ratings. " [3]. Note: This same voter has voted against every reality contestant, no matter how famous, but also (initially) voted to keep a non-existent author until I explained why it's wrong to do so. I'm hoping the voter, will once again, realize their mistake, and change the vote, based on the facts, not bias. --rob 22:39, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - "premiered" is not "maintained its audience". Tell me where it ranks now, not what it ranked in the first episode. And I am only voting delete because of all of the POV pushers who insist on keeping these as sepearate articles on the day-to-day eating habits of people who should be merged and redirected to the Big Brother article. And your comments on Katherine Beck are completely inappropriate and as a result, I will change my vote back. Zoe 04:20, September 11,

2005 (UTC)

- - - Well, as of the last week there are published ratings for, it was the 18th most popular show of the week and won it's time period with over 8 million viewers. [4] Not bad for a "not-so-popular" show. --Firedrake 04:54, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, and by the way, I watch this stupid show. So it isn't elitism or anything like that, it's a matter of trying to figure what makes any of these pathetic people notable. And the answer is, nothing. Zoe 04:24, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
    - Comment: On it's sixth season, it opened at 8.5 million and still has 8.2 million; that sounds like a "maintained audience" to me. With only four contestants left, that's over two million per contestant. I'm curious: how many millions of people have to note somebody before they are deemed notable? --rob 06:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep, ~~nationally published models are just as notable as Cyrus Farivar. Kappa 22:11, 10 September 2005 (UTC)~~[reply]
- That is absolute nonsense. Every "model" who has ever appeared in any maagazine is notable? What a crock. Zoe 04:20, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
  - Hmm that's not very civil. However she seems less notable as a model than was my first impression, so I'll vote keep based on the fact she is in the public eye. Kappa 12:44, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets Pikachu standard --JPotter 00:53, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect this to Big Brother (USA TV series), unless there is notability other than the show. I think that this should happen for all contestants in reality TV shows. --Apyule 08:09, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, OK so it looks like we're trying it one more time. For an explanation of my vote, see the last voting page. I'm voting for keep again, but I don't know if my vote will be counted or not. I think the administrator should have explained in the introduction above that some votes are not counted and deciding which ones is up to him. This would prevent people like me from wasting their time, but I'm willing to give another chance, Keep. Paul99 12:14, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The most popular contestant; she is at least as notable as some of the wrestlers and fictional characters that have survided these things. Youngamerican 16:37, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, yet again. Do not redirect. —RaD Man (talk) 21:03, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with article on show itself.---CH (talk) 04:34, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Once more with feeling. Maybe we can get CBS to have the next America's Choice be which houseguest you'd like to have a bio page on Wikipedia. Get a few million votes that way <g>. Seriously though, This deserves to be kept for reasons stated by many. She's notable (especially to Big Brother fans), popular and has achievements outside of this show.

--66.149.92.242 14:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, my vote will be ignored because they consider me an "anon", even though I have been here for a long time and have plenty of edits and I know this subject (BB) very well. If I create an account to vote, it will still be ignored. So I guess I am voting for nothing, but trying anyway. 32.97.110.142 18:04, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep rob and the others here have pretty much listed all the reasons. She's a popular contestant, a model and an actress, which should make her more than notable enough. Heck, she may even win it!--Firedrake 23:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The first time this article was nominated for deletion I had supported this article with a weak keep. [5] Since then I have changed my mind and now believe it should firmly be kept as a stand alone article. This figure meets the criteria set forth by WP:BIO by being a contestant on a nationally broadcast reality television show, engaging in a Playboy photoshoot, garnering the attention of The Smoking Gun, and a playing a minor role in the film Bruce Almighty, amongst other things. Collectively, all of this adds up to individual notability and does not need to be shunted into a parent article. Hall Monitor 23:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Janelle is a major reality TV star (its not like shes one of those random people who left in the first week) OmegaWikipedia 03:46, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't stand the woman personally, and I agree that every person who was on a reality show is not deserving of an entry, but Pierzina has filmed a major television pilot (despite it's not being picked up) and has appeared in several other acting roles. It seems that she is primed for a legitimate career along the lines of Jacinda Barrett, and deleting the article now will only postpone what is very likely to come. Pacian 08:09, 20 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.

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 No Consensus Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 22:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Demarcation[edit]

Dictdef, already on wiktionary apparantly. --fvw * 05:29, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --Alan Au 06:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with border or something? Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 06:40, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more discussion. Relisting on 10 Sep. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 10:30, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Justinc 13:19, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't there something like demarcation lines or zones or somethings in WW1? -Splash 21:02, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because it needs to explain what the demarcation problem is but it shoudn't just be a redirect. Kappa 22:10, 10 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.

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 No Consensus Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 22:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nitro Mega Prayer[edit]

I believe this to be yet another minor band vanity page. Go ahead and prove that this band is notable and worth keeping. Google has several hits, but it looks like enough traffic for a small to moderate independant band. They have their own site (which isn't hard to do), they've done some gigs, and they have a CD put out by an independant label. If they get more notable later, I wouldn't mind seeing this article ressurected. Syrae Faileas 20:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh... I found it. This band does not seem to meet the requirements of WP:MUSIC. If you think I'm wrong, go ahead and keep it. I don't know enough about independant music to really judge (hence the vote for deletion. *wink*). Syrae Faileas 21:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not persuaded they meet any of WP:MUSIC they appear to have a single non-charting albu, (WP:MUSIC wants two), and the stuff about touring Japan on their website seems to have been with a whole bunch of other bands [6], so I'm dubious about its status as a 'tour'. There's nothing in that webpage I just linked that suggests they are notable. -Splash 23:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I'm seeing three albums, and at least two VA compilations. Almost 1000 google hits. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 06:54, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more discussion. Relisting on 10 Sep --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 10:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks notable enough for an article, even though it doesn't meet the WP:MUSIC guideline (which, to my mind, is too narrow, but that's another story). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:04, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. No All Music Guide entry, but they're from Japan, so that doesn't weigh very heavily. My chief concerns are the relatively small number of Google hits and the lack of good references. I'll revisit this one throughout the week as I think about it. Definitely sign me up for any actual religion that incorporates Nitro Mega Praying, though. Fernando Rizo T/C 19:31, 10 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.

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 no consensus so kept. -- Joolz 21:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trufab (UK)[edit]

Tagged for speedy as: "Advertising. Nothing especially notable about the company.". Advertising isn't a speedy criterion. Kappa 18:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have voted keep below Kappa 14:40, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As the one who put the "speedy" on, I just want to say "oops - sorry!" To be honest, I sometimes can't be bothered to pay as close attention to the procedures as I should (and I still can't be bothered right now as there's just half an before the pubs close). Yes - I should have recommended a normal VFD! (NB: see also Trufab.) --Finbarr Saunders 21:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just a fairly uninteresting maker of steel. Their (rather cool) website says they have 100 employees so they're small too. There's no Google evidence of interest outside various advertising listings and they don't appear to have invented any new machining techniques. Their site admits they "...want to become the dominant player" ergo they are not. Nn. -Splash 22:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have listings of other companies , this is a medium sized manufacturer and the article is discreet and to the point. I would remove the address and if possible add the financial data to the entry --Machtzu 22:54, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more discussion. Relisting on 10 Sep. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 10:31, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Companies are not necessarily encyclopedic and IMO this one isn't. Marcus22 10:51, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As Splash says, most of the references to this company that searches turn up are corporate blurbs submitted to business directories by the company itself. However, because of the cited news coverage, this company satisfies the WP:CORP independent published works criterion, albeit very barely. (A brief search didn't turn up any other independent published works except for corporate credit ratings that were tantamount to directory listings.) Keep. Uncle G 12:57:50, 2005-09-10 (UTC)
Keep after Uncle G. Excellent research, and now we can be sure in our minds that the article isn't an advertising puff piece. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 14:34, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now, well done Uncle G for the expansion and Tony for relisting. Kappa 14:40, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Uncle G. Capitalistroadster 15:59, 10 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.

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 delete -- Joolz 12:57, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cchcb[edit]

A group of "around 30 members" doesn't sound notable. Nothing on Google. Finbarr Saunders 10:44, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

its 300 and its needs no google information you see we are not an internet group but we are well known in australia and most bands give us thanks in the thankyou linear notes such as parkway drive and i killed the promqueen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.145.235 (talk • contribs)
i would like to keep it just because i like keeping things, but it doesnt fit the notability standard on wikipedia and its obviously been written by a member so Delete Astrokey44 13:20, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The article cites no sources and a search turns up nothing. unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G 14:35:26, 2005-09-10 (UTC)
Delete unverfiable and if real nn. -Splash 21:01, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn and unverifiable. Zoe 21:03, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not quite meeting the criteria for anything, although the quoted bands exist, I don't own their discography so cannot validate the 'thankyou linear notes'. Budgiekiller 18:49, 15 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.

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 Keep Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 22:26, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Springwood Catholic Church[edit]

I don't see the notability here, especially since it's not on any national registry from what I can see and the church no longer exists. Woohookitty 10:54, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. someone probably wrote it from the link on the Springwood, New South Wales article. Astrokey44 13:25, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup appears to be a former seminary converted into schools and church. At least one book appears to have been written about the former seminary namely Cassocks in the Wilderness by Chris Geraghty. While it needs to be cleaned up, it appears to be notable enough. Capitalistroadster 14:57, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've categorised it. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a directory closure isn't relevant - the Roman Empire has closed down too. CalJW 20:28, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, listed Heritage site. But I don't understand CalJW's comment. Zoe 21:06, September 10, 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.

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 Merge. Ral 315 00:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Set of articles on compilations of Caruso recordings[edit]

These articles each consists of the title and label together with a track listing. because the recordings are out of copyright, there's a large number of similar compilations, with significant overlaps of repertoire and actual recordings, and little if anything interesting or encyclopædic to be said about any of them. They belong in a catalogue or possibly in a guide to available recordings, but not in Wikipedia. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:19, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just to keep things clear. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:21, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go along with a merge to Caruso recordings, as suggested by Alf below. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We do routinely record albums by much lesser artists. Caruso is sui generis, the first and perhaps, in terms of worldwide popularity, the greatest operatic recording star. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 11:19, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Caruso. Agree with Tony Sidaway about routinely recording albums by much lesser artists, but I think a dual standard may be appropriate here. Let's have proper encyclopedia articles for the true greats and recognise that popular pressure is going to lead to lesser articles for lesser contemporary artistes. Incidentally, can anyone add to the surprisingly short Caruso article? Dlyons493 12:46, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, albums by a notable artist. Kappa 14:20, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Tony Sidaway, and Expand. These would be better if somone could include more information on the various tracks. Crypticfirefly 15:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Most of the above votes seem to miss the point. Of course Caruso is notable, and deserves a long and detailed article (I prefer Gigli myself, but that's not the point. I have a couple of these albums myself, and would recommend them — but that's also not the point); the point is that none of these compilation albums is notable. Similarly, the tracks are mostly notable (and often duplicated across articles), but not in terms of these compilations.
I must admit, I didn't expect any opposition to this AfD; the articles are almost speediable, containing virtually no information, and with little or no scope for expansion. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:03, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I considered prior to voting. What I thought was this: Wikipedia is a wiki, these articles aren't much now but the albums are still fairly popular and people in possession of them plus the time and patience to do so can augment them. Compilation albums contain particular recordings, sometimes the sleevenotes are not so good but it's possible to track down the particular recordings, and the sessions in which they were made, from external sources. If I view each of these articles as a template upon which can be hung such external information as exists for each track on the particular album, and link it to a master list of Caruso recording sessions, then we've potentially got something that only high price specialist publications could do a few years ago, and we, the public, are going to get it at zero labor cost, and for the cost to Wikipedia of a few kilobytes of disk storage and a minuscule amount of bandwidth. It's going to be 100% neutral and verifiable and there may well be nothing quite like it in the world up to now. In my opinion I would be crazy to reject that potential. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 21:04, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This stuff belongs on a music database site like MusicBrainz. Andrew pmk | Talk 18:47, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Dlyons493. Owen× ☎ 19:07, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We keep this sort of thing for pop singers. Merging is a very bad idea as it will clutter up the main article. We can have separate articles for detail just a click or two away from a main article and should take advantage of that fact. CalJW 20:34, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Caruso recordings. Alf ^melmac 20:40, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Alf. Zoe 21:09, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Merge into a single article as per Alf. MCB 21:21, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment rule #1 in Wikipedia:WikiProject Music is Unless there's extenuating circumstances, greatest hits and compilation albums don't need an article. OTOH, Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums has a specific color code for greatest-hits albums (perhaps only to be used in those "extenuating circumstances"). —Wahoofive (talk) 23:26, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Caruso recordings per Alf. Nandesuka 01:13, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm in agreement with WikiProject Music's rule about compilation albums. I could see perhaps merging into a list of the recordings, but not a merged list of recordings plus all their tracks, as these articles have. HollyAm 02:04, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
Keep only those albums that contain previously unreleased material. 23skidoo 07:13, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mel Etitis (although not opposed to a mass-merge either)--Doc (?) 18:43, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Wahoofive. Barno 20:27, 12 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.

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 Delete Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 22:26, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Planetary classification nomenclature[edit]

Duplicate of Star_Trek_planet_classifications, which is far more complete and has better presentation (although I cannot attest to its accuracy). I have not suggested merge and redirect because the article title does not indicate that it is about Star Trek and fictional, but could give the initial impression that it was factual. Gloop 10:58, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

I've noticed a couple of pages that link to it, but they could easily be changed to point to the more complete article. OTOH, if no-one has a problem with the article title then a redirect would be the quickest solution.Gloop 11:13, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

delete the articles that point to it should be fixed, but a redirect is inaccurate. There is no suggestion in the title that this doesn't deal with the actual planets. Bandraoi 12:10, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bandraoi. Tonywalton | Talk 12:48, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Planet has a "classification" section, and cites papers written by astronomers on the subject of planetary classification schemes. Maybe the section will one day grow large enough to warrant breaking out into a planetary classification article. However, this article isn't about the actual classification of real planets in the real world, and bears no relation whatever to how astronomers classify planets. It's about a fictional classification scheme for fictional planets — a subject that we already have thoroughly covered under a title that doesn't misleadingly conflate the real world with fiction. Delete. Uncle G 14:25:33, 2005-09-10 (UTC)
Delete and do not redirect, as per above votes. Fernando Rizo T/C 19:00, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Fernando Rizo. Alf ^melmac 20:57, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, duplicate with suggestive name. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:21, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. no redirect to Trek, if redirected should go to Planet. People looking for this info would probably start at Star Trek anyway. - WCFrancis 21:53, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If rediercted, do not redirect to a Star Trek article; redirect to planet or another real-world topic, or just leave it deleted. -Sean Curtin 20:23, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, no redirect, in agreement with Uncle G and WCFrancis. Barno 20:29, 12 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.

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 Keep/Rewrite Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 22:30, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Neanderthal theory of the autism spectrum[edit]

Appears to be original research. Delete unless rewritten. - Mike Rosoft 11:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not even particularly good original research. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite There appears to be a lot of work going on in the area (e.g Googling Neanderthal+autism gives 15,000 hits). That suggests the topic has moved from original research into popular culture and merits an article. Testability is an issue but the article does list predictions. Dlyons493 13:01, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and possibly rewrite The article was original research in 2001, but this research is my own research. Since then it has spread to a large part of the autistic community, and have probably influenced radical sites like AspiesForFreedom. There is also a link from their wikipedia. Even if the theory is considered to be controlversial, I think it does merit an independent article. Originally a link to the theory was part of both the autism page and the Asperger page but was deleted by people not liking the ideas. The theory have several thousand visits each month which means it is quite popular. --Rdos 15:47, 10 September 2005 (UTC
- The AspesForFreedom copy of the article is from a previous version here that had your linkspam Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 18:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not true Ryan. AFFs wikipedia is no longer a copy of the article, but have evolved considerably. The fact they decided to keep the link means it's backed up by them. Also look here if you don't believe me --Rdos 10:44, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Massively rewrite and rename if the conjecture's creator can provide evidence that this is an actual defensible belief. If there is any actual scientific research, it's not apparent within the article. One cannot call this a "theory" as much as a conjecture, as it is a proposed answer unsupported, apparently, by any actual data other than hearsay and self-selected Web site surveys. I tried to remove the blatantly unsourced stuff... which doesn't leave much. FCYTravis 18:30, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research. Asperger's syndrome and Autism are each diagnoses of combinations of a wide range of behaviors with different causes, and are criticised as being vague and overdiagnosed. Both are characteristic of developmental delay. Furthermore, PubMed (a scientific journal search service) lists 0 hits for "autism neanderthal". Therefore, this is almost certainly false.
- Comment Certainly controversial at best and quite likely false (or untestable and I'm an unreconstructed Popperian myself) but nevertheless I feel has achieved a degree of notability in popular culture that may justify an article. Dlyons493 20:33, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment A problem is the testability. It is the large number of traits displayed by autistics that cannot be explained with any other consistent theory that is the best evidences. Somebody claimed above that autism has many causes, but this is not a supported theory at all. This follows more from a lack of a theory that could explain more than one trait at a time than from any supporting evidence. I've added a section with the best of the supportive evidences. --Rdos 20:39, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Until and unless this is thoroughly referenced with authoritative sources, it is original research. Saying "massively rewrite and rename" is the same as saying "delete and start again". -Splash 20:59, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct. FCYTravis 21:01, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Google shows a lot of hits for this strange theory. Zoe 21:12, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
- Many of those "hits" are either mirrors of Wikipedia, someone's personal Web site or pages that have absolutely nothing to do with any such theory and just happen to contain the two words somewhere. FCYTravis 00:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sorry, Travis, but that's just not true. The very first hit is titled "The Neanderthal theory of autism, Asperger and ADHD", the second is "Neanderthal Theory of Autistic Spectrum", the third is a blog copying the second, the fourth is a Wikipedia mirror, the fifth is several letters on the subject, etc. Zoe 04:16, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
    - That very first hit is an original research personal Web site. Thanks for proving my point. FCYTravis 04:54, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Travis, you didn't look very well. The first and second pages are not on the same web-page and wasn't written by the same persons. The first is mine, the second is "entropy".--Rdos 06:16, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - But this article is not original research. Zoe 05:07, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
        Yes it is. The mere fact that someone posted it on a Web site does not constitute published scientific research. I can post something on a Geocities site that says Wikipedia is a tool of the Nazis. That doesn't mean I could go start a Wikipedia page saying "Wikipedia is a tool of the Nazis, because this Geocities site says so." FCYTravis 05:43, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Just because it isn't listen in PublMed doesn't make it OR. Most of the references in the theory goes to secondary sources that are listed in PublMed.--Rdos 06:16, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Undecided- this seems to be a real theory that is at least referenced by secondary sources. See, e.g., here ("The causes and origins of autism and asperger's syndrome is a source of continuing conjecture and debate. Amongst several competing theories are the underconnectivity theory developed by cognitive scientists at Carnegie Mellon University and the University of Pittsburgh, the Neanderthal theory, the extreme male brain theory by Simon Baron Cohen, the lack of theory of mind, and the Preoperational-autism theory, which states that autistic people are those who get neurologically stuck at the pre-operational stage of cognitive development, where much of information processing is at a wholistic-visual level and largely non verbal and musical.") The article desperately needs to be cleaned up to refer to proper sources, but that's not a reason to delete it. Nandesuka 01:23, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Nandesuka - the reference you mention is a copy of a previous version of the autism page here.... Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:37, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Following up to myself, on closer inspection most of the references seem to be riffing off of the original "rdos" site, so this might just be particularly well-promoted original research. The reference in The Doctors' Lounge has me intrigued, though. I'm going to do a pubmed crawl. If I can't find anything at all, I'll probably change my vote to delete. If Pubmed refers to it, I'll stick with keep. Nandesuka 01:30, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't find any pubmed references to this; I've come around to the point of view that it is original research. That being said, it's clearly a theory that has gained traction in some quarters. Is it worth preserving an article on the subject not of a scientifically supported theory, but of the fact that it has become notable as a theory? Thoughts? Consider that Intelligent Design has an article, and has a similar lack of scholarly credentialing. Nandesuka 02:33, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Intelligent design as 50 references. This has basically none. IMO, this present article, being OR is not useful to us and we should hope that someone will create a non-OR article in the future. We shouldn't leave OR lying around "just in case". -Splash 03:48, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Creationism also has several hits with PublMed, but like intelligent design, none of them gives any support for the ideas. Besides, there are many other things that are well-known in the autistic community that does not show up in PublMed. Try searching for autism+homosexuality or autism+culture. The first gives five hits, but none of them talks about a link between autusm and homosexuality. The second gives no support for autism as a culture. Yet there is an article on the autistic culture --Rdos 06:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in addition to above, it is mentioned on the autism article talk page G Clark 01:40, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- So all something needs to do to be included is to be mentioned on an article talk page? FCYTravis 04:54, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah - you should READ the talk page the first time this was decided to be removed from the Autism article -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Autism/History_as_of_2005_August_8#Neanderthal_theory

Choice quote - "I removed the following paragraph since it is not referenced, not encyclopaedic, badly explained, and plain bullshit" Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 17:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- - Ryan, you don't even appear to have read past the first page in the theory. It contains hundreds of references to published material. The only comment you had on the autism talk was "I'm tired but (2) is COMPLETE NONSENSE..." --Rdos 18:07, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- All I've seen are papers etc. TRYING TO BACK YOUR THEORY, not any mention of the theory itself being accepted by anyone - such as a major medical journal, etc.. That is the definition of original research. Not only that but many people have already pointed out holes in your theory that you could drive a truck through Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 18:12, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is accepted by a considerable amount of people in the autistic community. As for the holes, I have no idea what you are talking about. All you told me was that autistics did not communicate better with each others, and I know this is not true from personal experience as I'm self-diagnosed Aspie. --Rdos 18:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This does not appear to be a creditable scientific theory, but only original research. As to Nandesuka's point, I think ID deserves coverage as a popular, if unscientific theory, but this one appears to be neither. I also find nothing at all on PubMed. The Doctors' Lounge mentions the "theory" only once, and almost looks cribbed from Autism. Unless there is evidence that anyone takes this seriously in scientific circles, it's just OR. Bikeable 03:39, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite. This article will need quite a bit of work. This seems to be an actual theory with some, albiet limited, support. The support needs to be explained better, and the intro must be reworked, along with everything else. Better sources can be found as well[7], as this looks a bit like WP:NOR.Voice of All (talk) 06:39, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This article just does not have enough credibility. No secondary research has been done, only OR and blog sites explain it at all. A few other small sites briefly mention it.Voice of All (talk) 18:17, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
- I suppose you mean their claim about autism being more common in Caucasian males? Unfortunately, it does not seem to be backed up by any source. However, this is well-known in the autistic community and have been discussed at various forums. --Rdos 09:38, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - A self-selected group of autistic Internet users is by definition likely to oversample Caucasian males, as they represent a disproportionate number of Internet users. Saying something has "been discussed at various forums" is not scientific evidence. FCYTravis 16:54, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - I know this is not scientific evidence, but since there is no other available study I'm aware of, it is the only available indicator. We are not taling about a tiny overweight here, but perhaps one Aspie Internet user in a hundred or less is black.--Rdos 17:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, according to my link above at World History:

Amongst several competing theories are the underconnectivity theory developed by cognitive scientists at Carnegie Mellon University and the University of Pittsburgh, the Neanderthal theory, the extreme male brain theory by Simon Baron Cohen, the lack of theory of mind, and the Preoperational-autism theory, which states that autistic people are those who get neurologically stuck at the pre-operational stage of cognitive development, where much of information processing is at a wholistic-visual level and largely non verbal and musical. This also addresses the issue of the theory of mind where children at the pre-operational stage of cognitive development have not attained decentralisation from egocentrism.

This is about all I can find on this theory...Voice of All (talk) 18:02, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

- - - - Rdos, the article as it stands reads like a paper arguing for the theory; at least, a paper in dire need of a copyedit. Regarding Travis' complaint, the original wording approximated to "do you know any non-white Aspies? No? Thought not," and although it has improved significantly since then, it's replaced silly wording with weasel wording. "X is widely-known amongst enclosed community Y" is not enough proof for an encyclopaedic article, nor should it be offered as "evidences" for a scientific theory. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 18:45, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        OK, you are right. I removed this again. I suppose the distribution of autistic traits between races could be left as a prediction that can't be confirmed or rejected right now.

Weak delete unless rewritten and fully sourced. -Sean Curtin 20:28, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
Strongest Possible Delete!!!! Original research being pushed by the person behind it. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 17:39, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That said by the person that promotes pseudoscience Sensory Integration Dysfunction on the autism page and not even has the good manner to comment the reversal on the talk page! --Rdos 17:57, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, I did just comment. You removed a vital wikilink that many professionals agree is part of autism. Also, THIS is pseudoscience, not SID, which is backed by many professionals (people with doctorates etc.) and organizations. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 18:08, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think Sensory Integration Dysfunction, which is also nominated for deletion, ranks just as much as pseudoscience and original research as my theory does. There are no meaningful hits in PublMed for it, and thus according to this page, it should be deleted from WP. As for it's acceptance by doctors, if there aren't any meaningful research on SID on PublMed, it shouldn't be accepted. The *treatment* for oversensitivity has some merit. The theory has not --Rdos 18:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please take a look at links like http://ericec.org/faq/sensinte.html, SID has been published in many medical journals already... Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 18:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ryan, you are confusing the *treatment* with the theory of SID. The journal articles you talk about are the treatment and not the theory. The theory is an after-construction to explain why the treament works which most likely is wrong. The idea you support is the pseudoscientific theory of SID when you promote retaining this on the autism page --Rdos 19:03, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original research kookery, free of real science content, topped with nutbar human phyogenetics. Pete.Hurd 04:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research. Few google hits [8]. Also, the fact that the author of this mostly unheardof theory created/wrote the article on Wikipedia should say something. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 05:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems like your search does not find a lot of the occurences that does not include wikipedia for some reason. --Rdos 12:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. An updated reference list for the neanderthal theory:Niburu, A psychologist talk about the theory at mindpixel.com,The Doctors Lounge, Online encyclopedia, Textsheet.com encyclopedia, The best autism news,Autistics.org library article, AS-IF Site, Causes Research section,Aspergian Pride,Neurodiversity site, Autism and computing site article, wrongplanet.net wikipedia, an stub-article on aspiesforfreedom's wiki, Autism / Asperger info, Link on swedish "Neuronätet". As can be seen, it has links to an newpaper article in Holland. It has a link on a professional site mindpixel.com, with some analyzes by a psychologist. It has a link on almost every major autism-site created by autistics (and that are in the reference section of autism). It's part of other wikipedias and not just because it was imported from the autism or Aspergers articles. It has also been discussed from time to time in almost every major autism forum, but it would be to much links to post all those discussions. This would make it widely known in autism advocacy circles. --Rdos 10:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This is a very misleading set of links: some of them are on Neanderthals in general, with no mention of autism or of this "theory"; some of them are on autism and have only a single link to the "theory", most of which are at... rdos.net . Hmph. If this is a "reference list", I am more convinced than ever that this is nonsense promoted by one or two people. Other editors, please take a look at some of these before voting. Bikeable 17:24, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Huh? None of these links are at rdos.net. The articles mentioned are written by various people in the autistic community, some which have come up with similar ideas on their own. The article with the psychology talk has not even visited rdos.net, but refers to the other site with a different perspective of this. --Rdos 18:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite. The page itself needs to summarize the theory at the beginning and then break it down into more detail. I find this theory very interesting and do not think it should be deleted. However, the page should be brought up to a higher standard that will help it appear more credible. Perhaps one day scientists who can test the theory will take an interest in it and do just that. It will be a shame if the people who are most familiar with this theory don't take the time to improve this page and it does get deleted.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 delete both -- Joolz 21:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Public Transport (band), Funky McGroin Presents The Haircut Experience[edit]

Vanity, NN. The "Public Transport" page's author (vandals-cum-schoolmates aside) not only leads the band himself, but he provides a link to his user page on the entry! "Funky McGroin ..." is by the same user, and about the same(ish) band. -- fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:25, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Ambi 12:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Nnandity the pair of them. WP:MUSIC is on different level of reality. -Splash 20:55, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both I agree. I posted my thoughts on the article's dicussion page, and was very much in the same vein as the fuddelmark's original post.[[9]]. Both should be deleted. Jockmonkey 08:56, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. wtf is this? scroogle 09:02, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both I agree. They are really transvestites, and when the well deserving truth is exposed in thier article by editing, it is changed right back. Wikipedia states do not post articles if you dont want them brutally edited!![[10]]. Both should be deleted, Especially Bigheads! UDONTKNOWME 14.24, 12 September 2005 (UTC) (preceding comment actually from User:203.134.71.73)

- Ladies and gentlemen, I give you one of the vandals-cum-schoolmates ... --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 22:29, 12 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.

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 SPEEDY DELETE, either as G3 or A6. -Splash 18:41, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arayaunnelsonitis (Leo's Disease)[edit]

Hoax. Zero Google hits for Arayaunnelsonitis. Article history also lends itself to the idea that this is nonsense. --TheParanoidOne 12:37, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, perhaps speedily, as what looks like simply an attack page. Tonywalton | Talk 12:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Aecis 13:00, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, obviously a prank. GregorB 18:15, September 10, 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.

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 delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:29, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Christian Nesvadba[edit]

This appears to be a non-notable person. When Googled, nothing comes up. maltmomma 13:19, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

speedy A7 vanity or delete slowly. — brighterorange (talk) 16:11, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not transferred by osmosis. -Splash 20:51, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Personal assistants to famous people are not generally notable as such; delete per WP:MUSIC with regard to subject's own musical activities. --Metropolitan90 01:28, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete as absurdly nn vanity ---CH (talk) 04:56, 12 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.

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 Merged to Panty fetishism Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 00:08, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Panty Trust[edit]

It was tagged speedy delete as nonsense, but this doesn't qualify as a speedy delete. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 13:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, NN, ever-so-slightly creepy advertising. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:52, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advert. Nateji77 14:27, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What an utterly wonderful little article about an aspect of sexual services that is seldom written about! Delightful, and brief, too. We should have items like this on our front, not those dull, lifeless FA's. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 14:54, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey Tony, would you be interested if a Panty Trust Football Association were organized? Barno 20:36, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you can find twenty-two men to turn out in duly verified panties and play by FA rules, go for it! Do you think they should swap panties at half time? Must the referee also be panty-trust verified? The linesmen? How much do you think I could get on E-Bay for the panties worn by Bobby Moore during the 1966 World Cup Final at Wembley? A trader is offering me a pair of silk bikinis but I think Bobby was most probably a full bottom cotton man. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 22:41, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with panty fetishists. Article is advertising for a fairly nn company on its own, but there's a natural place to merge it.Dlyons493 15:07, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment that's Panty fetishism. Tonywalton | Talk 16:40, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Thanks for pointing that out. I'll resist the temptation to create a panty fetishists article :-) Dlyons493 20:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was concerned when I saw the latter was blue-linked; fortunately it's just a redirect. This organization may be "relatively unique" per MGM below, but is it significant enough to justify merging any content and keeping a redirect? I doubt it but don't have enough knowledge and really don't care to research it. Barno 20:34, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with panty fetishism. Endorse Tony Sidaway's sentiments. -- RHaworth 17:57:21, 2005-09-10 (UTC)
Keep as per Tony Sidaway. Owen× ☎ 19:11, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Creepy, but notable and informative. Mattley 19:51, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer a merge and redirect to panty fetishism. The article is pretty low on context, but I expect this organization to be relatively unique so I prefer keep over delete, should a merge fail. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:25, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn company ad. Karmafist 21:46, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per Tony. Kappa 22:46, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. — Phil Welch 23:33, 10 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.

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 speedy delete. Coffee 14:37, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No Mutants Allowed[edit]

fan cruft, not encyclopedic Lethe | Talk 14:04, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete Per criteria A1 at WP:CSD -- (☺drini♫|☎) 14:28, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, or, wot 'e sed. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:31, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily deleted. Coffee 14:37, 10 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.

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 speedy delete. Coffee 14:33, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Snow cannommfhakiwufyukdsrhgilegrjdj[edit]

nonsense article

It's been speedied. Coffee 14:33, 10 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.

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 delete -- Joolz 21:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Burger[edit]

Apparently a one-time minor character from King of Queens. Article creator is a persistant vandal (every other edit has been vandalism), so naturally this is highly suspect. Coffee 14:30, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt he was even a character from KoQs; if he was, nn, if he wasn't, vandalism. Either way, delete. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Minor characters definately don't warrant articles. If this is about the differently spelled "Dr. Berger" played by Lenny Wolpe in "Lyin' Hearted" Episode: #4.7 - 5 November 2001" [11], then the actor, not the fictional character, warrants an article. I don't remember the episode, so I can't say if the article is real or a hoax, but either way, it shouldn't be kept. --rob 16:10, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if real I don't watch TV much, so I don't know if it's true. But, minor one-time characters really don't need their own article. --Phroziac ^(talk) 16:10, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn even unto nonexistence ---CH (talk) 04:00, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, possibly even subtrivial fancruft. Thanks,
Luc "Somethingorother" French 11:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, user is a persistent vandal that I just blocked for a week. Ral 315 11:12, 15 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.

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 delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:29, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lilydale Baptist Church[edit]

Wikipedia is not the "religion" listing in the Lilydale newspaper's community section. DS 14:30, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and article is by the creator of the Jarrod Baimbridge vanity stub, which states that (among other things) Lilydale Baptist is where Jarrod worships. DS 14:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete advert. Not quite Landover... Dunc|☺ 16:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This isn't a directory of churches. Pilatus 16:46, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN church --TimPope 18:48, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn church. Apparently only nn churches in Singapore are required to be kept. Zoe 21:14, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, church-promotion. Contains little more than the fact it's a church and a lot of opinion. Tempted to speedy tag it. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:28, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, no claim to notability. --Metropolitan90 01:31, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn --Doc (?) 18:35, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the author actually mentions where the church is located, so that we can determine a valid merge target. JYolkowski // talk 20:39, 11 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.

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 Delete Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 22:34, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Securitized bond[edit]

Delete This is a bit of a no-brainer. The term 'securitized bond' doesn't exist - as someone already suggested in the discussion page. You can securitize assets by issuing bonds asset backed securities, as described in securitization. A 'securitized bond' would be a bond issued, backed by bonds. These are known as CDO's (Collateralized Debt Obligations). Other experts, please back me up on this. All the information in the entry is also in the 2 entries mentioned, so there's no loss deleting this. DocendoDiscimus 14:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think you are right; the aurthor confused two terms: secured bonds (as opposed to debentures), and securitized debt obligations, ie debt turned into a security. I added a more complete explanation on the Talk page. Owen× ☎ 19:31, 10 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.

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 keep, although it could be probably be merged if there are any more articles of this type around. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses Route 11[edit]

This entry describes that Route 11 passes a fair number of London's landmarks. I'd say that metro systems are major feats of civil enginering and have their place here, but individual bus routes somehow pass below the bar unless they have something that makes them stand out from others. Pilatus 14:57, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. LONDON bus routes are different. Buses, especially of the hop-on, hop-off, double decker Routemaster design, are recognised as a symbol of London worldwide. This article is overly chatty and needs to be toned down a little, but it has potential to be encyclopedic. I also found an interesting little snippet about the use of a Number 11 bus as a transport for prisoners during the Queen's Golden Jubilee. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 15:39, 10 September 2005 (UTC) Addendum: I think Grutness's suggestion of a merge is also acceptable. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 03:57, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- London Buses under the umbrella of Transport for London is a strong, well marketed brand. Now Route 11 hasn't been served by a Routemaster bus for a fair while, and the anecdote of a group of protesters being carted away on a requisitioned bus has little to do with the route itself. The entry could possibly find a home in Wikitravel under the heading "Sightseeing by public transport" but lacks distinctiveness. Pilatus 16:01, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Tourism guide. — RJH 18:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I say at that as someone who has used this route. The Routemaster is a symbol yes, but that is for its own article --TimPope 18:51, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep London should have its fair share of bus-cruft --TimPope 17:38, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Routemasters are notable, and I expect we have articles about the pieces of tarmac they ride along. But the imaginary lines that run along the roads at the moment? No. Not encyclopedic - Wikitravelic if anything but this isn't a suggestion to transwiki. -Splash 20:20, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikitravel and delete. Zoe 21:16, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Wikitravel uses a different license so transwikiing may be a problem. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:35, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can see the only interesting bit of info is the bit Tony dug up and that's better served in the article on Queen Elizabeth's Golden Jubilee. Merge and redirect that there. London Bus transport as a whole is quite deserving of an article, but I don't think listing seperate buses is quite useful, the routes and stops are more useful if you see them in context. So I'd like to see that merged somewhere too. Redirect to wherever the info on the stops ends up. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:35, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I assume that Bus routes in London, as in other cities, are moved around, created or abolished on a fairly steady basis. If so, then that would make this a very ephemeral subject, & not appropriate for an encyclopedia. -- llywrch 23:35, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually that would be a false assumption as far as London routes are concerned. For instance the Number 11 route has been in existence at least since 1949. Precise itinerary may be affected by changes in road priorities, and minor changes do occur, but these routes are remarkably constant over the decades. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 04:06, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's also a false assumption with many other cities. Boston for example has many bus routes that are almost exactly the same as the streetcar routes they replaced. Any article on such a bus route can also deal with the streetcar route; it's harder to find such history though. --SPUI (talk) 07:16, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
While I can see the importance of London buses relative to many other bus systems, I feel this would be better served by merging into one or more articles on London bus routes overall (e.g., London Buses routes 1-20, London Buses routes 21-40), linked together by an index page. Problem with that, of course, is that this is currently the only article on a London bus route. Grutness...wha? 23:52, 10 September 2005 (UTC) (134 to Potters Bar, 84 to St. Albans)[reply]
Merge (or move) to London Buses routes 1-20 as per Grutness, or Keep. JYolkowski // talk 23:55, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --SPUI (talk) 22:42, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Most bus routes in London are of historical interest (especially the low numbered ones). I'd like to see more pages like this. jmd 06:28, 15 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.

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 delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joel's Team[edit]

Possible hoax/nonsense. Certainly non-encyclopaedic. --TheParanoidOne 15:35, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete high school club vanity. — brighterorange (talk) 16:10, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whether it exists or not it's just a fad-thing for the sake of making a WP article. -Splash 20:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonsense. "students of unknown size"? Zoe 21:18, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Kinda funny(sad?) how Joel is the only member of his own club. - Orioneight 01:16, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, silly but non-notable and non-verifiable. --Metropolitan90 01:35, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, true, important- Matt Clement (former member of Joel's team, Physics lab partner)
Keep, I've heard of it, and it seems accurate to me
Keep, I am actually the founder of this Team and can verify its existence. While being unheard of by many people outside the California Bay Area, Joel's Team exists and has been descibed more or less accurately. The Team is not a hoax nor is it nonsense, and I have witnessed people cry after having been thrown off the Team. Please allow this article to stay. This is no joke and no club. It is the Team. (Joel, founder of Joel's Team, and I am not the only one on it, actually) Jdironfist 15:00, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Quale 05:38, 15 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.

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 delete -- Joolz 21:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Raveadelaide[edit]

A small low-impact webforum. The site is not currently up, it's down for maintenance. Joyous (talk) 15:47, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Delete — advert; NN. — RJH 18:43, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn webforum ad. Alexa rank is about 235,000th. Nobble the image, too. -Splash 20:48, 10 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.

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 delete -- Joolz 21:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pitfalls of international institutions[edit]

Also Leadership in international institutions by the same anon author. Delete, essays which may contain useful ideas but is not encyclopedic as a whole. FreplySpang (talk) 15:54, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Delete per above Paul 16:52, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Valiantly lacking in sources, this is dealt with by WP:NOR (and 'pitfalls' is a little bit POVy, too). -Splash 20:46, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Splash. --Apyule 08:43, 11 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.

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 a clear no consensus (as usual) -- Joolz 20:59, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

K. P. Manson Public School[edit]

Ugly page. We don't want to encourage this kind of thing. Deletion is the answer. Paul 16:50, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Substub. Nothing but directions. Gamaliel 18:17, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yellow Pages entry. Pilatus 18:19, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — small, rural, non-notable middle school. — RJH 18:35, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is not a requirement for inclusion, and never has been. Nonetheless, the school's involvement in the Canadian National Marsville Program and other robotic programs is interesting and worthy of note. Bahn Mi 19:01, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is most definitely necessary for inclusion and non-notability is absolutely a criteria for deletion. If it wasn't, my grandmother, my local gas station, my individual 2004 Buick Century, and my law office football team would all have articles. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and the notability of the topic goes a long way in determining whether or not it falls into that category. Soltak | Talk 21:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - On a similar note, if notability doesn't matter, I wonder why people went to the trouble of creating a list detailing what is and isn't notable. Soltak | Talk 21:36, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - notability is a sufficient but not a necessary criterion for inclusion. --Vsion 00:53, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Vsion has it right. Non-notability absolutely is not a criterion for deletion from Wikipedia, with the exception of articles about people. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 06:22, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into the town (when it exists) --TimPope 19:28, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable primary school. Never will be either Dunc|☺ 19:56, 10 September 2005 (UTC) (oh and here come the organised keep votes courtesy of Schoolcruftkeep, sorry I mean watch ...[reply]
Keep I want to encourage this sort of thing, and it isn't a bad article. CalJW 20:39, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Soltak/Views#Schools Soltak | Talk 21:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and encourage similar good articles which establish the distinctive nature of the school. Kappa 21:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Soltak's wonderfully worded views. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:40, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I have heard it stated that there is a consensus that secondary schools are considered notable and primary schools not, unless there is some special notability about a particular school. This page clearly fails that test. Also, Bahn Mi's assertion that notability isn't a requirement for inclusion just gave me an aneurysm. Bunchofgrapes 22:08, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kappa and CalJW. Pburka 23:49, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, education is noble, schools are notable. --Vsion 00:53, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep please we should encourage this it is notable too Yuckfoo 01:15, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Education is noble...so is good parenting...my parents have been very good to me, but I'm not about to make an article on them. And every school is "distinctive," including of course this one, but that isn't a reason to keep an article about it. I remember doing "Lego-Logo" in 6th grade, we made Lego robots do stuff using just our Mac IIe computers. We were standing athwart the future with that stuff. My high school had tons of "notable" stuff going on-Intel competition, "National Recognition" from the Education Department...we were like the mack daddies of Model UN. Would my high school deserve an article? Hell no. Delete this article. Paul 03:24, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perfectly good stub. 267 school article deletion debates have completed this year, but only 37 articles have been deleted as a result of deletion debates. With a deletion rate of less than 15%, it's pretty clear that the proposition that schools are not generally notable doesn't command a consensus. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 03:46, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If an article survives the VfD process it means no more that that there was no consensus to delete it. Implying notability is a long stretch, considering there is a vocal minority whose opinion is that "notability is no criterion for inclusion". Also see your own statement further up. Pilatus 13:13, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Well let me take you through it again, slowly:
  1. We don't delete stuff unless there is a consensus to delete.
  2. If there were a consensus that schools are generally not notable, it would follow that there would be a regular consensus to delete school articles, with a few exceptions that were considered notable.
  3. We look at the results--less than 15% of those listed for deletion have been deleted--and we see that this isn't the case.
- My conclusion follows. There is evidently no consensus, at least not over the past eight months, that schools are not generally notable.
- I readily agree there is also no consensus that failure to satisfy various ad hoc ideas of notability is a criterion for deletion, but I don't see how that helps your case. It simply deepens the degree of rejection of the futile project to remove schools from Wikipedia on the grounds of non-notability.
- And I don't know whether you've considered this yet, but I think I should raise the matter: on any three recent days, more completely new school articles are created on Wikipedia, and are not speedy-deleted, than are listed for deletion or deleted as copyright violations in an average month.
- On some days the figure is even higher. Today alone, in just a few hours I have recorded the creation of twenty-two school articles. Twenty-three school articles were listed for deletion during the whole of August, and only four of those were deleted. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 14:32, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is a sufficient criterion for keeping. Implying notability from the fact that an article is kept is faulty logic.
- However, the articles on schools that appear here are not listed because of a lack of notability of the school, they are listed on their own merit (or rather lack of merit) because they typically contain nothing more than basic contact information. I really can't see why the fact that on a sunny day half a dozen such articles are created should prevent anyone from listing them here. There is no counterpart to the "Schoolwatch" project running the "futile project" of expunging school-stubs from Wikipedia, however I can see "Schoolwatch" promoting a degree of very unhealthy factionalism. Wikipedia isn't about fighting a war of attrition. Pilatus 17:23, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You say: "Implying notability from the fact that an article is kept is faulty logic." So it would be. Read what I say: "There is evidently no consensus, at least not over the past eight months, that schools are not generally notable."
- So please address my point, not the point that you wish I had made instead.
- Well it's your opinion that school articles aren't listed on account of non-notability. So let's look at the facts and see if they match. Looking at a randomly chosen lot of deletion listings from August:
  - Notability explicitly mentioned by nominator: Village Preschool of Saratoga, Duveneck School, Palo Alto Montessori School, Netivot Hatorah Day School, York Hill Elementary School, Court Moor School, Jesuit High School (Portland), Widdifield secondary school, North Olmsted High School, Butler school, King Middle School, Sacred Heart School, St. Catherine's School (Twickenham) Charlotte High School
  - Other:
    - Millburn School, Wadsworth, Illinois. Nominator said it was a duplicate of an item in a list at another article (!) Most delete voters mentioned notability.
    - Juanita High School. Invalid speedy, nominator made a formal nomination and voted keep. After the copyvio was fixed, delete voters still mentioned notability.
    - Gleneagle Secondary School. "Little possibility of growing beyond what it is now." Again most delete voters mentioned notability.
    - Elementary School. "Just another non-famous elementary school with 62 students." Sounds like notability to me.
    - Kew School. "This primary school no longer exists". Most delete voters cited non-notability.
    - Portland High School. "Article devoid of content" Actually this was one genuine case in which nobody mentioned notability.
- You say "on a sunny day half a dozen such articles are created". This is simply false. Today it's 46, more like four dozen. If school articles did indeed pose a serious problem for Wikipedia, then pointlessly listing two dozen per month for deletion, and only getting three or four deleted, wouldn't be the way to solve it.
- You say "I can see "Schoolwatch" promoting a degree of very unhealthy factionalism". I think we'll have to differ on that;Schoolwatch lists no school articles for deletion. But I agree completely that "Wikipedia isn't about fighting a war of attrition" which is why I ask all editors engaged in this savage and ultimately losing battle against school articles to consider ceasing it. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 06:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I read "non-notable school" as shorthand for "article fails to make the case for itself". For proof, please compare statements here with statements at a Jews' Free School.
- Consensus is not achieved by asking one party to drop their opinion. Pilatus 09:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed, quit trying to get us to "drop [our] opinion" that all schools are inherently notable--Nicodemus75 00:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. -- DS1953 06:12, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, totally non notable. Few Google hits. This has little or no chance of becoming anything useful. Also per Schools for Deletion. Gateman1997 08:15, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd say merge into the Severn Bridge, Ontario article, but that doesn't exist. BlankVerse ∅ 11:14, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia:Deletion policy, lack of notability is not listed as a valid reason for deletion (people excepted). The deletion policy says that non-notable stuff should be handled by merging it into another, broader, article. So, I've created Severn Bridge, Ontario and merged this stuff into it, so redirect to the above article. JYolkowski // talk 17:26, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - non-notable school--Nicodemus75 21:13, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- What have we here? An obvious contradiction it appears. In the past, you've stated quite clearly your belief that schools are inherently notable, here, however, you state that this school is non-notable. It appears to me then that you don't actually have a valid philosophy, but are simply trying to make a WP:POINT. Soltak | Talk 21:42, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yawn. Anyone who is so obtuse as to not recognize the humor in my vote does not merit a further response.--Nicodemus75 00:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable, per Nicodemus. Jonathunder 22:50, 2005 September 11 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable. See also my comments in similar VfD pages pleading with Nicodemus et al. to create a project with header flags linking to a proper project page where they explain their rationale (I assume they have one) for creating an article on every last primary school in the entire world. (Or so it seems.)---CH (talk) 00:05, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Through Tony Sidaway's home page I finally found an apparently defunct project page, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools. What I find weird is that this page entirely fails to explain up front the rationale for going to all the trouble of creating an article on every single school in the entire world. I can see that some of you are willing to do the work and care passionately, but what I don't understand is why you have (as far as I can see) not bothered to explain to everyone else what you are trying to do and why. It doesn't surprise me at all that puzzled readers continue to routinely nominate articles on nonnotable schools for deletion, and I can see that a band of devotees prevent many of these from passing. But why put us through the agony? Maybe if you try you can convince users like me that there is a point to all your hard work.---CH (talk) 00:31, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- There is no project to create school articles, the idea is to allow them to develop. Kappa 00:36, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- And notice we're back to the stupid "Cabal" accusations again. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 06:45, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I would also like to point out that CH couldn't have found a link to the schools WikiProject from my page because there is no link there. At best he found a link from some other page that I happened to link to. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 23:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Extreme keep. "Ugly page." "We don't want to encourage this kind of thing." "Deletion is the answer." Talk about biting the newbies; the nominator should be reprimanded. Or beaten with a large trout. —RaD Man (talk) 05:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Naturally, I meant it all in the nicest way possible, with no offense intended towards the person/persons involved in this page. However, deletion remains the answer. Especially if the question involves the phrase "article on a school." Paul 06:03, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Says nothing that would make it stand out from the tens of thousands of other primary schools in the world. Isomorphic 06:12, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable Cmadler 14:02, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vote and comment: Delete per Isomorphic, Cmadler, Soltak, et al, for my usual reasons. ~~And I have many times considered beating Rad Man and anyone else who acts like him in school debates over the head with a larger trout for always making such snide remarks about the nominators.~~ I would also like to reiterate Pilatus's point that getting people on one side of an argument to shut up is not the way to achieve consensus. (Unless Wikipedia were Communism, in which case it would be.) I'll be watching this debate for a couple more days in case anyone wants/needs me to elaborate further. --Idont Havaname 19:35, 12 September 2005 (UTC) (I realize that part of my comment violates WP:CIVIL, so that section is now struck. --Idont Havaname 20:41, 13 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]
- Are you seriously suggesting that someone is trying to get deletionists to "shut up"? Oh for heaven's sake, I've handled some weird shit in the five months during which I've engaged in deletion debates, but the idea that the poor deletionists are being intimidated by the nasty inclusionists is frankly incredible. I've endured the most vile accusations for months without any complaint, but this one take the biscuit. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 23:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - See my reply to Gateman below. --Idont Havaname 20:41, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Tony is absolutely correct. The very idea that it is inclusionists who are the party ceaselessly trying to get the other side to "shut up" is simply beyond the pale. Deletionists chronically insist that inclusionists give up their position that all schools are notable (or variations thereof) in order to reach some deletionist-defined concensus (which does not and will not exist). AfD/VfD is and has been chronically abused by deletionists who nominate school stubs for deletion within days of creation, knowing full well that the article will be re-written, expanded and especially in the case of secondary schools, 99.9% likelihood that it will survive the AfD process. The real question in all of this, is why do deletionists continue to prosecute a war on school articles by nominating them in this way, and then insisting that those who vote to keep the school articles are those who are "not compromising" or "not concensus building"?--Nicodemus75 00:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've never nominated a school for deletion, nor do I vote delete on all schools. Please do not attack other editors. --Idont Havaname 20:41, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please stop insisting one side or the other is being the "bad" party in the continuing debate. Both sides have tried shoving their view down the throats of the other side since this began and it has gotten us nowhere. Tony and I tried to find a middle ground... now I wish the rest of you would as well.Gateman1997 00:22, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks, Gateman. That's exactly what I was getting at. Telling people to quit nominating articles for deletion is no way of achieving consensus or anything of the sort. I've seen editors on both sides of the fence that have blatantly broken WP:CIVIL on multiple AfDs for schools; in my original vote, which I admit was not completely civil, I was rephrasing a previous voter's quite uncivil keep vote ("Talk about biting the newbies; the nominator should be reprimanded. Or beaten with a large trout."). I've since struck that part out of my vote to hopefully calm down the controversy. Conlangs and webcomics have had relatively recent polls regarding the inclusion of articles on those topics, and now a good consensus on those has been hammered out by means of polling. Why shouldn't we do that for schools as well? --Idont Havaname 20:41, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this fine stub article. It improves the value of Wikipedia for future researchers by it's inclusion. Not only that, it'd be a great entry point for students of this school to join Wikipedia, and I'm sure they'd add useful information. Un focused 02:41, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep school stub and give it time to grow. Mindmatrix 19:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. WMMartin 21:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this fine stub. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, if you think an article is ugly then be bold and make the changes you feel necessary. Silensor 21:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All verifiable permanent public institutions are notable by definition. As the first attempt at creating an encyclopedia that is actually properly encyclopedic, Wikipedia can and should have articles on every school in the world. --Centauri 03:08, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and stop nominating schools until consensus is reached. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 23:04, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep improving Wikipedia with articles like this. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Page not ugly; it is a stretch to call a school non-notable: next thing you know we will have non-notable cities and non-notable provinces, countries, regions, ... --Mysidia (talk) 21:45, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There already is a consensus on cities. See User talk:Rambot/Delete for a discussion of American cities; this also applies to cities in other countries so that we're not too Americentric around here. --Idont Havaname 14:16, 19 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.

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 Delete Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 22:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SEPTA Route 2[edit]

This is an entry about one of the bus routes that traverses Philadelphia from North to South. The entry merely list the bus stops and contains no further information. Wikipedia isn't a mirror for the SEPTA timetable. Pilatus 17:28, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — NN So what's the notability criteria for bus routes and bus stations? — RJH 18:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 19:10, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would reckon that the make of vehicle can have an article, and in some cases the roads they traverse. The busstops probably already do have article, though I'm not sure they should. But the routes that happen to run along these roads and stops at the moment? No, they're constructs of the local authority and might not last till the end of the year. While they last, they're not encyclopedic anyway, even if they are informative. -Splash 20:25, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikitravel and delete. Only bus terminals and bus routes in Singapore are required to be kept. Zoe 21:21, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
- Wikitravel uses the Creative Commons license, not GFDL, so a transwiki would only be possible with the express cooperation of the author. —Cryptic (talk) 07:45, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Zoe, from what I have read the Singapore bus terminals are major affairs with shopping centers attached, much like 69th Street Terminal in Philadelphia. The fact that the entry on 69th Street Terminal is woefully inadequate doesn't speak against the Singapore stations. Pilatus 17:27, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is merely a list of stops the bus visits and completely useless with a map to visualize it all. If people want to know where the bus goes, you check the time table at a bus stop, not an encyclopedia. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:43, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Keep or merge with the other routes and allow for expansion. JYolkowski // talk 02:13, 15 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.

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 delete -- Joolz 20:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Hobson[edit]

article does not establish notability. Austrian 17:44, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — claims of a book to be published. otherwise little of note. NN :) — RJH 18:30, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It "was reviewed by [a] little known author" who gazed into his notacrystalball and might get it published, maybe. She can come back if/when she is a successful author. -Splash 20:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for nn, possible vanity, Wikipedia not a crystal ball, and possible hoax---CH (talk) 04:10, 12 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.

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 Delete Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 22:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lucinda Lewis Author[edit]

Possible hoax/nonsense. --TheParanoidOne 17:52, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Lucinda Lewis who is, I believe, a notable classic car photographer. But it appears that this is about a different person. Delete — RJH 18:26, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless notability is established. Zoe 21:28, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn. I get the distinct impression she's trying to use us as a free web host, since all she has now is a parked domain. --rob 23:38, 10 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.

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 delete -- Joolz 20:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Planeshift culture[edit]

We have a pretty good article on PlaneShift. This article is similar to other forum-related articles that have turned up lately, with discussions of in-jokes, vanity entries about various members, and not much else. I see no content here to support more than a link from the main article. Joyous (talk) 17:56, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Delete — trivially non-encyclopedic. Thanks for catching it. :) — RJH 18:20, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, forumdross. -Splash 20:40, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, forumity. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:44, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
I've been a long time contrbuter to PlaneShift and to the community and most of the conet of this page has been around weeks on the irc channel. it was made my an outcast who wanted to make fun of the very thing hwe was talking about so, my vote is clear. Delete --Stfrn 03:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, replace with Wikipedia culture ;(- King 11:44, 17 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.

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 delete -- Joolz 20:53, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Internet commandments[edit]

This is a compilation of some of those humorous emails that get circulated from time to time. Not encyclopedic. Joyous (talk) 18:04, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

At best, transwiki to a humor/joke wikibook. Delete — RJH 18:18, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move to Uncyclopedia and BJAODN. — Stevey7788 (talk) 18:51, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not funny. Andrew pmk | Talk 19:12, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- And this is? :) Penelope D 21:09, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and don't burden BJAODN or Uncyclopedia with this chain mail. Ashibaka (tock) 19:49, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with extreme prejudice, as per Ashibaka. Unfunny and unencyclopedic. Penelope D 21:09, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. BJAODN is not a collection of jokes. Zoe 21:29, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, sorry no funny comments from me. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:46, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, don't bother transwiki - they'd be a copyvio, most likely. Shimgray 00:03, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spam Tintin 01:57, 11 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.

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 delete -- Joolz 20:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Ishak[edit]

An autobiography, non-notable at that. GregorB 21:32, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Delete phdresumecruft. Probably a speedy. -Splash 20:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per Splash.---CH (talk) 04:03, 12 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.

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 Delete Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 23:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

George Comics[edit]

Restored during a debate at VfU. Several voters (and Wikipedia:Undeletion policy) suggested it should be returned to AfD. So here it is. There was a previous AfD debate. -Splash 18:18, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet notability standards. Alexa rank barely under 3,000,000. -Sean Curtin 20:34, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Does not meet WP:COMIC, not even the "exceedingly lax" alternate proposal, as the article was written by the comic's author. (Memo to myself: Ifd Image:Cast of George Comics.jpg when the article is deleted.) —Cryptic (talk) 11:50, 19 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.

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 Delete Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 22:41, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Republican Voices[edit]

Web site does not appear to meet WP:WEB with an Alexa ranking of 729,131. The claim of a subscriber base of 30,000 is unverifiable.-- GraemeL ^(talk) 18:58, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. nn website. Andrew pmk | Talk 19:55, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one of 8 billion websites, all but about 5000 of which are nn. By the way, note that WP:WEB is still only formative. -Splash 20:31, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Clean up I disagree with nn threshold here and in proposed WP:WEB; the article NPOV problems are severe (I'm working on that) but may be salvagable. Georgewilliamherbert 19:06, 11 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.

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 delete -- Joolz 20:48, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The last great american novel[edit]

This is just a webpage, not an actual novel, with an author and a publisher, is it? Austrian 19:00, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Advert. Fernando Rizo T/C 19:33, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Amazon doesn't find it in print, and there is so little traffic there is no Alexa rank at all. -Splash 20:36, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He needs to find a real publisher.
Delete. Advert. Dvyost 21:14, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely POV advert that's subject matter isn't notable. -- LGagnon 21:32, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, book review. Books on Wikipedia need at the very least an ISBN, and some sales info or references to back up their existence. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:54, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
- Contemporary books on Wikipedia need at least an ISBN or the like to establish notability, shurely... also, delete. Last Great American Novel was Bonfire of the Vanities, anyhow ;) Shimgray 23:59, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; this article is so incoherent that it is useless even if there is a genuine topic lurking somewhere in there. I can't even tell what book (if any) is being discussed!---CH (talk) 18:17, 11 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.

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 Delete Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 22:42, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gearlust[edit]

Neologism. DS 17:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neologism. Although it picks up some Googles where it is used in this context, they are few. The other hits appear to be related to a forum of this name or to someone's online moniker or to a website of this name. -Splash 20:38, 10 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.

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 delete -- Joolz 20:46, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maciel[edit]

NN Dismas 19:57, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy A7. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:02, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Pburka 23:43, September 10, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge and redirect. Though there is an argument that other Metallica songs exist on their own, this does not actually make this particular song notable enough for it's own article. Perhaps an example might be helpful here. John Keats, a principle poet of the Romantic movement, wrote many amazing poems, however not all deserve their own article. The article La belle dame sans merci is worthwhile having an article for, but it would probably not be reasonable to have an article on his poem "To a Cat", though it might be worthwhile mentioning it in the article John Keats. A similar principle exists in this case - the song is not notable enough for it's own article, but in a wider body of work (the album Kill 'em All) it is quite appropriate to provide information about it. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seek & Destroy[edit]

I prod'ed this on the grounds that there are no sources establishing its notability (aside from the fact that it was performed by Metallica, who are of course themselves notable). The prod was removed with the rationale that "this is one of Metallica's oldest and most frequently performed songs". Given that there are no sources indicating this - or anything else - I'm listing it at AfD. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless sources asserting notability are provided. J Milburn 16:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete Songs which lack independant sources about THEM should be redirected to the relevent albums, per wikipedia guidelines. With only a few exceptions, non-single tracks from albums usually lack the references around which to build an article, and this seems to clearly fit that mold. If enough independant source material can be provided, this may be keepable as an article. But not as it looks now. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm not even a Metallica fan, I just found this page through Recent Changes. Since all of Metallica's songs have their own articles, this one should be no exception. Other artists who have articles for nearly all of their songs include Nirvana, Led Zeppelin, and The Beatles. I'd say that since Metallica has sold enough albums to be in this range, this article should be kept, or, if decided against, a redirect to Kill 'Em All. There is no reason to completely delete this page. -- Floaterfluss ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid arguement. Merely because other substandard articles, which of their own right should also be deleted, exist on wikipedia does NOT mean that external, reliable sources magically appear. Without enough reliable sources, we cannot build a proper encyclopedia article in line with wikipedia policies and guidelines. As such, this article should be deleted. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge and redirect without deleting as this song is relatively well-known and is from a major rock band. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If these songs are important and well known, how come no one has written about them in reliable sources? J Milburn 18:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to album Songs of notable artists which, by themselves, lack reliable sources don't necessarily have to be deleted. They can be redirected to the proper music album for reference, since people might search for them in Wikipedia or in other search engines. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 21:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete or merge/redirect per noms above, this doesn't need its own page.JJJ999 02:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to album per Mtmelendez -- ALLSTAR ECHO 06:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Other stuff exists is a valid argument because it establishes precedence. And this is an acclaimed and popular song ^[1] by one of the most popular bands of our time.

^ Martin Popoff. The Top 500 Heavy Metal Songs of All Time. Ecw Press.

Loom91 06:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- All that other stuff existing establishes is that other stuff exists. It could just as easily show that nobody's AfD'd the other stuff yet. It could also just as easily show that all the other stuff that exists is of a substantially higher standard than the stuff which is being discussed. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with album These song stubs should be merged in with the article about the album. if they get big enough then they should become their own article again. Vandalism destroyer 05:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They play this song all the time on the local station 93X KXXR here and I am sure they do on many other rock radio stations. Metallica probablly plays this live on pretty much all of their shows and by all acounts this song is a heavy metal classic.--138.192.78.248 02:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with "probably" and "by all accounts" is that they need to be backed up by sources. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - In addition, note that the "AMG Top Track Pick" is only in relation to this album. There's no assertion that it's significant in relation to the rest of the band's songs. Just that this one has a tick next to it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the 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 delete -- Joolz 20:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can Bohr's complementarity be tested?[edit]

Looks like pure orginal research, down to the complete lack of sources (other than the paper being critiqued), and being written in the first person Alai 20:07, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obvious original research, and anything that isn't can be stuck into the Afshar experiment or Principle of Complementarity articles. Note also that the userpage of the person who created the article actually redirects to this article, which seems to confirm that it's simply an original essay. Penelope D 20:46, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Afshar experiment or Principle of Complementarity Dlyons493 20:48, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I corresponded at length with the author, on other topics. The author was trying to learn basic, college-level complex analysis, and had no understanding of quantum mechanics beyond what is stated in the pop-sci literature. This is truly pure, unadulaterated speculation. (FWIW, person was an M.D. and/or researcher in neurobiology). linas 21:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research, and it seems to duplicate other articles Salsb 18:21, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as patent vanity page on the author's cranky "research". Among the inaccuracies are implications that the author is a Harvard physicist, but Linas sez author dunno complex analysis! I mean, really! I have been spending some time today with VfD as an exercise in good wikicitizenship, and am beginning to notice some voting patterns. Dlyons493, I notice you tend to vote to keep things like this, but your reasons are too brief to make any sense to me. Can you elaborate on one of these pages why you would want to keep cranky pages like these around?---CH (talk) 23:01, 11 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.

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 moved to Black Aces/temp in preperation for eventual merge to Black Aces Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 00:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Black aces[edit]

Tagged for speedy as "empty" but I can work out what the article means, and the group might even exist. Abstain. -Splash 20:29, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Ace" is not any kind of official designation in baseball, and as a colloquialism it is much more frequently used to describe the best pitcher on a staff and/or the first pitcher in the rotation. If the article cited credible references that established some sort of criteria for determining if a pitcher was an "ace", then maybe we'd have something here. Fernando Rizo T/C 21:39, 10 September 2005 (UTC) changed my vote, see below[reply]
Keep. Kappa 22:44, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ per Kappa. Pburka 23:35, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
- Merge per Aranda56. Pburka 01:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. From the first external link (to the Chicago Tribune), it's clear that this group exits, & that they have a definite criteria for inclusion based on skill. This article just needs more work to make that clear. -- llywrch 23:48, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Aranda56. -- llywrch 18:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Kappa added those links after my original vote. I stand corrected. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:29, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Aranda's new article. Fernando Rizo T/C 23:50, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, allow me to suggest a page move to Black aces (baseball), as the current title could be easily misconstrued to mean fighter pilots and not ballplayers. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes we need to disambiguate with VFA-41 Black Aces Kappa 00:42, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - In case of a move, capitalize "Aces" as part of the group's proper name. --Metropolitan90 06:29, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
    - Merge and redirect per Aranda56 (below). The only content that needs to be merged is the external links. --Metropolitan90 00:37, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Merge. Merge to Black Aces. ~~This really just needs to be expanded a bit~~.Voice of All (talk) 06:31, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ and disambiguate per F Rizo; recapitalize per Met90. This group (which added Dontrelle Willis over the weekend) is noteworthy and serves both to commemorate a meaningful bit of baseball history and to provide education and inspiration to young black people. "Ace" isn't an objectively defined term in baseball, but the group has the specific criterion "twenty wins in a season". (I know WP isn't here for promoting inspiration; that part is just cultural context.) Barno 20:45, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing vote to merge content with correctly-capitalized article [which contains more data such as each member's qualifying season(s)] and disambiguate since the fighter squadron appears to be sufficiently noteworthy to be kept. Barno 00:39, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Black Aces a page in which i created after not knowing this Article was there the same day this was on VFD it is the same thing but with more content --Aranda56 00:14, 16 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.

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 delete -- Joolz 20:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cigar Forum[edit]

appears to have no purpose but to promote Cigarzilla WCFrancis 20:44, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Sheesh. We really do not need to create separate articles noting the fact that every hobby practiced by anyone in the modern world has internet forums. Penelope D 21:04, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. --GraemeL ^(talk) 11:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, veiled advertisement. Please also see Cigar Chat. --Bhadani 13:38, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE! Cigars are very beneficial to the health and should therefore be promoted through every avenue available to mankind. This includes, but is not limited to, advertisement of a forum for cigar consumption on Wikipedia. Long live the cigar revolution! --Fidel Castro Ruz 22:47, 13 September 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.

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 delete -- Joolz 20:40, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cigar Chat[edit]

appears to have no purpose but to promote Cigarzilla WCFrancis 20:46, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Penelope D 21:08, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. --GraemeL ^(talk) 11:48, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, veiled advertisement. Please also see Cigar Forum. --Bhadani 13:42, 11 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.

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 no consensus, with a majority favouring keep. -- Joolz 20:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Calvary Christian High School, Clearwater, Florida[edit]

This entry was tagged for deletion on September 6th but never added to the main page. Completed listing. Pilatus 20:58, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Originally a joke page that was up for vfd, but was heavily edited in favor of being deleted, in hopes that someone would add to it. No additions have been made in over a month, so vfd is back. -Hermes _{Statement left by User:65.32.208.92}

keep and please stop relisting schools to be deleted Yuckfoo 20:33, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, I've never relisted a school to be deleted. Secondly, the moderator stated that if the article wasn't built upon after 28 days, vfd could be implemented again, so it has. -Hermes _{Statement left by User:65.32.208.92}
Keep, neutral school article. Kappa 21:29, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Which fails to provide any info apart from the fact it exists (CSD#A1) and per Soltak's views below. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:08, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Delete per User:Soltak/Views#Schools Soltak | Talk 21:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Yellow Pages entry and hasn't been touched since last time it came up for deletion. Pilatus 22:25, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, education in Clearwater, Florida; its student newsletter is pretty cool! [12]--Vsion 03:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the usual reasons. -- DS1953 06:10, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Litte encyclopedic relavance exists in the article, but it can still be useful. Also, it is not hurting anything by being in there, other than a few kilos of space. It will get almost no hits, but as I said, it does give contact info and a location stub.Voice of All (talk) 06:15, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Nevermind, now that I think about it, including every school is just pointless as they have no encyclopedic value and as any useful info can easily be found through other means.Voice of All (talk) 06:22, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, normally I'm for keeping most highschools, but based on the last VFD this probably should have been deleted then and definitely should be this time. There is no useful information about this school and it's a private religious school to boot. Also per Schools for Deletion. Gateman1997 08:10, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per User:Soltak/Views#Schools. BlankVerse ∅ 11:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — high school. Why would it matter in the least whether it is a private school or religious? — RJH 17:33, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because this is a private, religious school. --Nicodemus75 21:08, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Nicodemus, why not create a project page called something like "Schools of the world" in which you and like minded users explain to the rest of us your rationale for wishing (apparently) to create an individual article on every preschool on up in the entire world. What on earth is the rationale? I really can't imagine, but if these articles were part of a project and had a header pointing puzzled readers like me to a place where we can read about the rationale for the project, I might feel better. E.g. like any good citizen of the world, I favor education, and I know that in the U.S. and other places, many teachers feel undervalued. Is your idea that a forum for boosterism can boost teacher or student morale, or even school budgets? Or what? On another such VfD, I see you complained that everyone's opinions are entrenched. Well, mine is not! I just have no idea what this is all about. If you can make a good case for your school project in a project page (maybe put a draft in your user page?), I'll change my vote on all these school VfDs.---CH (talk) 22:54, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for Nicodemus but in my opinion having articles on schools enables users to better understand the environment in which children grow up and how their lives are shaped. See also Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Incidentally preschools tend to be small, ephemeral and/or unverifiable so they are less of an issue. Kappa 00:18, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kappa, gimme a break! That's the best you can come up with? This is vapid pablum, in fact, this argument is so silly that I find it rather insulting. I take this seriously and you should too. But how the heck is a stub like the one under discussion going to help anyone "better understand the environment in which children grow up and how their lives are shaped"?! C'mon, be serious. If that is your goal, you should be writing good Wikipedia articles exploring (in NPOV fashion) important and widely recognized social issues involving education (I mention some in another comment below).---CH (talk) 23:02, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for him either, but I don't think that he or anyone else has suggested that they want to create an article on every preschool, grade school, etc. in the world. Even people who believe that schools are notable also require the school to be notable enough that someone would bother to write an article about it in the first place. However, if the encyclopedia already contains the information, why not keep it, especially if it's verifiable and NPOV? Merge it somewhere else if need be, but personally I don't think it makes sense to delete the information outright. Oh, and keep; private high schools usually end up being interesting enough. If anyone wants to merge that's okay with me too. JYolkowski // talk 01:57, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links. Alas, these pages fail to provide a coherent rationale for the school articles. I don't spend much time on VfDs (yesterday's wikiservice was very exceptional for me), but I can see a clear problem here and I can suggest a simple and long over-due solution. Specific comments:

There seems to be an ongoing and long-running debate over the suitability of "all the world's schools". JY, I demur: I think it is clear that this is the goal of some editors.
Yuckfoo, don't let the long running debate obscure a more important fact: casual inspection suggests that users like me who are not involved in this debate (except on a temporary basis) regularly nominate these articles for deletion, because to the average users they are likely to appear clearly nn. There is a set of people who watch these VfDs and routinely vote to keep, so the VfDs almost always fail. But the fact that they keep occuring at all is clearly a huge waste of time and wikiresources (at least, of the human CruftPatrol kind).
The solution is for those of you who are creating these articles to band together, reform the Schools Project, write an Explanation For the Rest of Us of the rationale for your project.
Anyone who creates a school article should always add a header to every school article so that casual readers who stumble over one of these will follow the link, find out that you all do have a rationale (actually, right now, it seems that you don't, but if you try I imagine you can come up with something), and on second thought decide not to start a VfD. Failure to do this is the reason for these perennial and proably pointless VfDs.
Rationale: I am saying you should make it easy for casual readers to find out that an apparently nn school article is in fact part of a project which has a well-thought out rationale. Alas, the pro arguments I saw on the page someone cited seem quite incoherent to me. The issue is not whether eduation is important or that teacher/student morale or school budgets and political interference with public education is a serious social concern in many countries. The issue is why the world needs individual Wikipedia articles on every school in the world. So far it seems the best you (plural) can come up with is a vague argument that searching Google for information on your child's school is unlikely to bring up relevant information. That might well be true, but Wikipedia policy specifically states that Wikipedia is not a directory. I can't advise you on rationale for your own project, but I would add that you need to cogently counter arguments like the very elementary argument offered by User:Soltak/Views#Schools And btw, Soltak, well put! I think you've clearly and concisely expressed the gut reaction of the average user who stumbles over a school stub, decides the subject is clearly nn, and starts the ten millionth school VfD.
I am not trying to stop your project, I am suggesting that by not organizing it properly and explaining yourself coherently to other users you are quite unneccessarily wasting everyone's time. I feel that following my suggestions will not only save your own time (since far fewer VfDs), but will improve the quality of whatever articles you come up with in future.---CH (talk) 22:37, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect re-stating the obvious is probably just a waste of my time in your case, since you have already classified yourself as someone who agrees with Soltak and other deletionists by your "gut reaction" (whatever that means) which you project is shared by the "average user". However, the rationale you are seeking is very simple. Those of us who believe that schools as institutions of learning are inherently notable, believe that as such, they should have their own articles on Wikipedia as more and more human knowledge is accrued here. I and others are interested in reading and researching information about schools, just as I am interested in what are arguably equally "obscure" or "non-notable" (whatever that subjective "canard" means) such as battleships, cruisers, destroyers, submarines, small towns, provincial and county governments, natural histories of parishes, differences between different sub-species of butterflies and beetles, contenders of elected public office, etc., etc. etc. What it all boils down to, is whether or not you believe that being a school inherently establishes "notability", "interest", "subject of interest", "knowledge" or whatever term you wish to place on it. Those of us who do believe as such, enjoy reacding, writing and researching articles about various and sundry schools around the world. Any attempt to re-state or argue beyond this point is really just grist for the mill. If you believe that a school is noteworthy or notable by virtue of it's being a school, you probably want to see it have an article. If you don't believe as such, you likely don't see the need to have such articles. It sounds like you don't agree - fine. There is indeed no concensus right now, as I keep on saying. AfD is the only tool we have to resolve this problem at the moment so vote however you want. All previous attempts to build concensus on this matter have utterly and miserably failed - continuing or re-starting that process is inane and redundant. Fortunately, the deletionists are losing this war of attrition that they are waging against schools and school articles are growing, expanding and will eventually become accepted by general concensus as part of Wikipedia. Even the latest elementary schools have survived the AfD process.--Nicodemus75 23:23, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Nicodemus, thanks for your response, but do you see why it is rather insulting to suggest that I am lying when I said that I am responsive to clear and cogent reasoning? I can see that this is a sore point with you, and I am not trying to reopen old wounds, but to prevent this huge time wastage. I still think the school article authors like yourself should give an improved project page and header template idea a try. Simply informing casual readers that an apparently nn school article they happen to stumble over is part of a project pursued by a small but dedicated band is likely to give many pause before starting a VfD. You guys will be the principal benificiaries, I think: wouldn't you rather spend your time writing another school article pursuant to your goals, rather than arguing in pointless and repetitive VfDs? It's strange that I seem to be arguing with an educator (yes?) about the many virtues of educating others about, let us say, why a buncha people are so dedicated to a seemingly mindless task.---CH (talk) 23:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Afterthought: actually, Nicodemus, I think I am arguing that your best argument might indeed be a reformulation of what you said above: you enjoy this so much that others should let you continue even if they don't quite see the point. If you at least had a header template pointing to a project page, at the very least casual readers like me would be alerted to something they would be unlikely to guess without such a hint: you and like minded people spend a lot of time researching and writing articles about obscure grade schools and so forth. I think most users would tend to raise an eyebrow at that, but would probably be inclined to let you alone. I am not unsympathetic to your implicit argument (I think) that while the authors of "all the world's whatever" are certainly pushing the boundaries of what Wikipedia is or should be, perhaps the fact that their activity is so important to them is sufficient to make it acceptable, as long as it does minimal harm to routine use of Wikipedia by others (which I guess is probably true). I am just saying that you could probably avoid 50-75% of these VfDs if you simply had a template header to alert puzzled casual readers to the fact that some school stub is part of an on-going and extremely ambitious project. As I say, even if they don't see the point of this project, I think most causal users are likely to then decide not to complain about said stub. Do you see where I am coming from yet? Anyway, I will have to let this go now, but since I learned something I took the trouble to archive some of my thoughts on all the world's whatever.---CH (talk) 00:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that I implied that you are lying, but rather that the objective in the discussion is most likely futile. Your idea is fine but I seriously doubt that it will make a difference being that the problem isn't whether or not there is a project or a header or anything of the kind. Those who oppose the inclusion of school articles on Wikipedia will undoubtedly see a massive school-writing project as ipso facto illegitimate and "non-notable". I actually think that your suggestion *might* be helpful, but many, many of the AfD nominations (not ALL) for school articles are nominations by the "usual suspects". That is to say, that those who oppose what they consider to be "non-notable" schools generally, intentionally list exeptionally poorly written school articles or school stubs for VfD/AfD hoping to get them deleted (and, I believe, as a way of continuing to try to fight a war of attrition against school articles). They do this with some, minority success (see deletion of Articles for deletion/York Hill Elementary School for a recent example) but generally what occurs, is editors clean up the articles in question and the school survives the AfD process. Templates and Projects are really not the crux of the problem - the problem is whether or not one believes the articles should exist in the first place. Everything else on top of that fundamental question is nothing more than grist for the mill. Now, those who oppose the inclusion of school articles have mounted the mill-grist so high, that they object to being referred to as "deletionist" (those who wish to delete) and have the audacity to co-relate the word to Nigger. Tell me that doesn't clearly demonstrate that the acceptance or concensus you are trying to achieve is beyond Templates and Projects! By way of disclosure, we "usual suspects" of the "inclusionist" camp are at the point now, where very little debate such as this is felt to be necessary. How often do I have to repeat schools are inherently notable as my philosophy before it is pointless to just keep repeating it? The sad truth is, that it all boils down to whether or not schools are notable enough to have articles on/in Wikipedia - I believe that they are. More explanation than that, is to a large extent, facile. --Nicodemus75 01:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Stub started as a joke and never went beyond shallow vanity. Non-notable. Jonathunder 22:55, 2005 September 11 (UTC)
Keep A whole month!? And we only have one more month left before all Wikipedians die if every article in Wikipedia isn't 100% finished. CalJW 00:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL CalJW. —RaD Man (talk) 05:56, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, people. It can and should contain well-written, factual articles on every subject of potential interest throughout recorded history - no matter how allegedly mundane - to satisfy the informational needs of any person who is ever likely to access Wikipedia for the purpose of researching it.--Gene_poole 02:42, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some people can be so shallow. —RaD Man (talk) 05:56, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Soltak/Views#Schools, User:Idont havaname#Wikiphilosophies, and Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Delete... the usual reasons. --Idont Havaname 19:38, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fine stub that improves Wikipedia by its presence. Un focused 02:37, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete crap. Dunc|☺ 19:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is a bit slim, but calling something "crap" is uncalled for. Silensor 19:54, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. WMMartin 21:23, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and stop nominating schools until consensus is reached. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 23:03, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:37, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
KeepLevKamensky
Keep --Mysidia (talk) 21:43, 18 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.

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.

This article was deleted by Splash under CSDG3.

Dave smells[edit]

Could not verify existence of this "game" via google. If not hoax, arguably contravenes WP:NOR and WP:V. Was originally SD tagged (as nonsense). Delete—encephalon έγκέφαλος 21:02:46, 2005-09-10 (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.

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 N/A - Misplaced Categories for deletion entry apparently Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 23:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Excellent_cadavers[edit]

Obscure name, possibly offensive 80.213.162.57 21:36, 10 September 2005 (UTC) I started a Afd for this category based on the title, but then I discovered that the title is an actual term, although somewhat an obscure one. Not quite sure what to do about this, but either a rename to something like "government officials killed by mafia / organized crime", or maybe an article explaining what "excellent cadavers" means, and where it came from.[reply]

I could of course be totally off point here, but seeing the title without knowing the etymology of the expression seems somewhat morbid.

You want to be at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. —Cryptic (talk) 00:39, 11 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.

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 Delete Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 23:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MS R Five[edit]

This article has been on cleanup since January and it still makes no sense (and I can't figure out how to fix). There might be a little information here, but it doesn't belong in this article. Apparently a cruise line went out of business and the ships were renamed. Might be part of an article on the cruise line but not by itself. And definitely not named this. Propose delete. RJFJR 22:24, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

del. a contextless text dump by anon. There is a whole bunch of these nonnonable ships.

MS R Five MS R Four MS R One MS R Seven MS R Six MS R Three MS R Two mikka (t) 18:46, 11 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.

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 delete -- Joolz 20:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

War Club[edit]

Unverifiable, non-notable, non-identified "original fiction", as far as I can determine Alai 22:29, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nonsense. Zoe 22:45, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, article does not mention a single geographical region or country, and dates are obviosuly lacking. Doidimais Brasil 00:48, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Unverifiable. Amren ^(talk) 01:59, 11 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.

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 Delete Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 23:39, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clandestine Mystery[edit]

incoherent original research (maybe)

When the full text of this was Stuff happens, and you know.. its... mysterious., I tagged it speedy delete as nonsense. What is there now was entered and the db tag removed. Article is now bizarre, although some things referenced do exist, such as Sing the Sorrow. WCFrancis 22:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. Pburka 23:30, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
It's a whole load of numerology based upon the contents of the album Sing the Sorrow (and supposedly 336/Now The World as well) and the accompanying paraphernalia. I was going to agree that it was original research, until a Google Web search turned up people analysing this album in just this fashion on web sites and messageboards. Whilst it isn't original research, it is a Copyvio of one of those messageboard posts. Detailed discussion of the albums belongs in the articles on those albums, where there is still plenty of room for expansion. Uncle G 23:43:06, 2005-09-10 (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.

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 Delete Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 22:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Corprate Punishment Records[edit]

Aside from being just a list of a few artists and a POV sentence, the article's title is mispelled; quite frankly, I don't even think the article with the correctly-spelled title is notable enough, getting only a few hundred google hits when spelled properly. - Orioneight 22:36, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Amren ^(talk) 01:58, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — looks like a pretty minor label at the moment. Only one CD, although more supposedly in the pipe. — RJH 17:13, 11 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.

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 Delete Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 23:41, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ekiben (disambiguation page)[edit]

Delete. Since the AfD on the second bullet point reddened the link, we really don't need this page and it's wrongly titled, too so I'm reluctant to make it a non-useful redirect. -Splash 22:39, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, considering the second usage was a nonexistent joke/hoax. MCB 00:17, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Splash --TimPope 10:13, 11 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.

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 Merge Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 00:32, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ancients (Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem)[edit]

no context given, possible gamecruft WCFrancis 22:46, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem (if there's anything worth merging) otherwise Delete Dlyons493 23:51, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Eternal Darkness Amren ^(talk) 01:56, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:09, 2005 September 11 (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.

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 Keep. brenneman ^(t)^(c) 03:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promise[edit]

Former dicdef that is now Old Testament discussion of Promise to Abraham. WCFrancis 22:54, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the biblical discussion. The promises made to Abraham are covered in depth in that article. Vote pending. Uncle G 23:10:18, 2005-09-10 (UTC)
- There's more than a stub to be had here. Keep. Uncle G 12:08:53, 2005-09-11 (UTC)
Keep there is also quantity of philosophical literature that could be placed here. Banno 23:20, September 11, 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.

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 delete -- Joolz 20:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Dumpy Downie Duo[edit]

No vote. AFD notice added to article by User:Ringbang but not followed through, so I've done it. --TheParanoidOne 22:55, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only 5 google hits; one of those is wikipedia, and another appears to be a link farm. 3 legitimate hits indicates non-notability for this topic. Pburka 23:07, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable. Amren ^(talk) 01:53, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ditto — Ringbang 14:08, 11 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.

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 Delete Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 23:42, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow codebase[edit]

nn program, vanity (I deleted the link to the author's User page. He had also created an article about himself, which I userfied.) Zoe 22:57, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

sorry, I didn't know that the creation of articles about one's self was considered vain. I was merely replicated other MUDs informational content to maintain consistancy in information about MUDs. As this codebase was a derivative of SMAUG, I wanted to make sure people knew where it came from. --Natmaster 23:06, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This mud is based off of the SMAUG code. There are many players that play on MUDs that use similar coding. I'm sure that there will be many players that would be interested in seeing what exactly, this person has done to alter the code and make it their own. I'm also sure that there is an online list of the rules and procedures that must be followed on this site, and it's possible to find; however I hope we don't have to do that as I'm sure we can work this out. There are many other MUDs listed on this site, thus this should be permitted. The same rules need to be followed at all times, meaning this listing should be allowed. It's quite informative and may give others the information they need in order to start a MUD of their own, which could bring much pleasure to many --Tirion 23:47, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The web of the sole mud running this codebase has no Alexa ranking at all. Their MOTD says that as of August 1, they haven't yet begun beta testing. "Maximum Number of players this reboot : 7". And I removed an external link to them from MUD. NN. Delete. —Cryptic (talk) 00:48, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We recently expanded to aeonofdarkness.com. Index.php have google pagerank of 4. Not all crawlers have found the new site yet, however the old site url still works: aod.genesismuds.com, which has a pagerank of 5. You might notice that the MOTD has several newer news items above that....and that magically the months flow through a whole year. Wow, August 1st doesn't mean August 1st 2005? How could that be? Everything that's important happened this year. Please stop making such insulting claims with grose misinformation. If you're going to say something like it's NN, at least do proper research.--Natmaster 00:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait - you're arguing that your mud is notable because it's received so little development that announcements stay on the Message of the Day for an entire year'? —Cryptic (talk) 01:13, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as a current player of AOD, I feel that it is necessary to inform the general public as to it's importance in the current gaming community. The creator/s of the game have put much time and effort into the codebase and have made a very enjoyable game for even the newest mudders (opinion based upon simplicity in usage of the interface) and the assistance of the people involved in the game is something I have not seen in a long time on any of the more "popular" MUDs. AOD has been up and running for several years as I understand it and I think that it is wrong for a information site to immediately disclaim a site that they know relatively nothing about. So, as a player, not a coder or builder or person in any wise involved in the creation or upkeep of the game, I feel that it is important for the general populace to know about such sites as these. But then again, maybe some are bigoted against these sites because they have their "favorites" and don't want others to know. Vibe I am getting here is that the uninformed have attempted to make an "informed" decision based upon either personal bias or just general imbecility. Seamus Curragh

Cryptic, I'm so glad that you want to stop this mud from being listed. How do you think muds become popular? How do you think they gain players? They get word out on sites like this. You're being narrowminded and totally ludacris. Go back to your muds and stay there. Bye bye.--Tirion 23:45, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you have mistaken Wikipedia for www.topmudsites.com. —Cryptic (talk) 03:39, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And to use just a small section from your own deletion guide:

"Please remember that the deletion process is about the appropriateness of the article for inclusion in Wikipedia. A deletion nomination is not a rejection of the author or an attack on his/her value as a member of the Wikipedia community. Over time, the Wikipedians have invested a great deal of thought in the question of what should and should not be included. Please take the time to review those standards. Please do not take a nomination personally."

I would think calling someone vain in reference to their article would be a little personal. Seamus Curragh

Delete, wikipedia is not an advertising tool. --fvw * 14:35, 19 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.

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 Delete Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 23:44, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unkept[edit]

This article isn't even really a dictdef: 'Unkept'. Is it a word or not? Most of us would dissect the word to produce the meaning 'not kept'. But the word that should be used for this is 'unkempt'. Though many operate under the assumption that it is real, most dictionaries don't list it. Maybe unkept is one of those words like 'ain't'. It isn't really a legitimate word, but it's so popular that it becomes legitimate over time. Pburka 22:58, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to List of English words with disputed usage, which isn't really a list but a series of little paragraphs like this one. —Wahoofive (talk) 23:18, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vote to ~~Unkeep~~ err, Delete. -WCFrancis 23:19, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a dictionary; the place to discuss what should be given as the meaning of unkept is Wiktionary:Talk:unkept; and the place to discuss whether unkept meets the dictionary criteria for being a word is Wiktionary:Wiktionary:Requests for deletion. Delete. Uncle G 23:52:10, 2005-09-10 (UTC)
Wiktionary. Dictdef. – AxSkov (☏) 09:50, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't useful to Wiktionary as the beginnings of a dictionary article, and Wiktionary already has the beginnings of a dictionary article. Uncle G 12:21:37, 2005-09-11 (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.

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 speedy delete -- Joolz 20:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Goom Scouts Halloween[edit]

Is it nonsense? Gamecruft? WCFrancis 23:00, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Would say Merge to much fuller Camp Mario (also on vfd) but I can't see anything worth merging. Dlyons493 23:56, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate for speedy deletion IMO, it appears to be original research/fanfiction. Nothing "Camp Mario" appears in any Mario canon that I can find. FCYTravis 01:07, 11 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.

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 Delete Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 23:46, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aeon of darkness[edit]

nn MUD, more vanity from User:Natmaster. I deleted his link to himself from the article. Zoe 23:02, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know how you determine what is vain, and what is 'nn', but I was simply trying to get information about MUDs derived from SMAUG. --Natmaster 23:17, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Their website has no Alexa ranking at all. Their MOTD says that as of August 1, they haven't yet begun beta testing. "Maximum Number of players this reboot : 7". And I removed an external link to them from MUD. NN. Delete. —Cryptic (talk) 00:46, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please refer to my comments on shadow codebase's deletion.

So an information site declines information, now that makes sense. To tell you the truth, if it wasn't for you guys deleting stuff I would have never heard of you. It was because of the owner of our mud that I was made aware you even existed. So maybe you should let him post INFORMATION cause he got you another hit on your site. Anyway, I dont see what the big deal is if we aren't the largest mud out there. He posted info and who is to judge if any information is irrelevant? Maybe since you own/operate this site you can decide, but either way, its information on some really cool things he has done. By the way, I am a builder for this mud among many other things and i'd like for us to be known a little more. Maybe our player rating will go higher if we could post info about ourselves on sites and you can "accept" us....Thanks!

Azurik Cahir

Delete, wikipedia is not an advertising tool. --fvw * 14:35, 19 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.

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 no consensus Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 23:48, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Mario[edit]

Gamecruft? Fanfiction! nn WCFrancis 23:12, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Created by same user as The Goom Scouts Halloween but this is a much fuller Super Mario article. The user appears to be working on quite a detailed project - see [13]. Dlyons493 00:05, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing "Camp Mario" appears in any Mario canon that I can find, and the user is adding links to what appears to be his personal Web site. I believe this all may be candidates for speedy deletion as original research/fanfiction. FCYTravis 01:08, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I looked all over the WP:CSD page to find the original research/fanfiction criteria, but it doesn't seem to be there. Which speedy criteria did this article meet? Pburka 02:44, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
  - Same question - didn't seem like a speedy to me. Dlyons493 16:26, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fan fiction was a proposed CSD, but it failed to receive sufficient support. So, I've restored the page so we can see what we're voting on. JYolkowski // talk 20:49, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as patently unencyclopedic. I can't believe this blind insistence on process over common sense. FCYTravis 22:00, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. But process is important. I suggest you stop playing with your deletion button and exercise a bit more restraint and patience, as befits one who has been chosen by his peers to act as an administrator. Pburka 23:06, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
- It seems that cruftpage sockpuppets aren't the only ones who don't get the joke. Perhaps I need to make it more explicit. But I figured people here had enough of a sense of humor to render such a disclaimer superfluous. FCYTravis 01:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy There's a lot of work gone into this and it may end up being notable. Comment I was originally under the mistaken impression that it was part of the Mario canon, which would have made it a Keep, but by the time FCYTravis reported it wasn't, and I went to check, the article had been deleted. I suggest categorising that as blind insistence on process over common sense is uncalled for. Dlyons493 23:20, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is enough stuff there to make it worth keeping. --2mcm 00:35, 12 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.

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 Transwiki to wiktionary Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 23:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cool beans[edit]

WP:NOT a dictionary of slang etymology. If this can be verified, transwiki to Wiktionary. — Phil Welch 23:31, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary. Dictdef. – AxSkov (☏) 09:49, 11 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.

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 delete -- Joolz 20:11, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No More Acne Diet[edit]

Not an encyclopedic article. It's an advertisement for a particular diet. --Fang Aili 23:53, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What makes this diet different from those listed at Category:Diets and List of diets? This diet is as serious as any of those listed there, is entirely non-commercial, and for once has a lot of scientific research behind it. Please see the official external links: Wai Says and Free Acne Book. - Wintran 00:17, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or else cleanup to remove POV and advert/spam/booster tone. Diets themselves are often non-proprietary, but articles like this exist to promote the books that describe the diet, or on occasion, a source of diet food or ingredients. MCB 00:22, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern, but there is no link or connection to any commercial interests as far as I know, which is why I personally got interested in this diet in the first place. The "book" is simply a collection of articles available online and can not be ordered from anywhere I know of. No one owns this diet, which is why it doesn't really have an official name, and it's thus not a "person's diet" as is so common among other diets. That this article needs clean-up, like most of the other diet articles do, is obvious; this was the first version. If diet articles are appropriate to Wikipedia at all is another discussion, and an interesting one I agree. There's certainly a fine boarder between how well-known the subject of an article must be to be published on Wikipedia, but this diet has a large international audience, has appeared in scientific magazines and are being discussed by respected scientists. It's something as unusual as a modern-day diet that is a serious research project, and not a promotion for a product. - Wintran 00:52, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For now I'll just comment, because I'm undecided if it's notable or not: Googling the article name turns up nothing because the name is made-up; "Wai Genriiu" gets 800 hits but only 35 unique. If there are neutral scientific magazine articles that have been written, then please cite them. Also, you asked for folks from a message board related to the subject to come here to join the debate--you may want to read about meatpuppets. HollyAm 01:34, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Wintran may be referring to this article: [14]. The thesis basically states that cooked food is bad for you, and people should eat more raw foods. It doesn't say anything about acne, and in fact I think most of us know that an orange is healthier than a Big Mac. The scientific article does not support Wai's claims that cooked food causes acne, or "cause[s] cancer, dementia, constipation, ADHD and overeating"([15]). Therefore I would categorize that article in support of Raw food diet. If No More Acne Diet proves notable (and thusfar, according to HollyAm it is not), I would suggest giving it a subcategory under Raw food diet, since it seems similar in most respects. I retract my previous accusation of adspam; there is nothing for sale on the listed websites. --Fang Aili 05:07, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In response to HollyAm: The name is made up together with members of the official forum because there was no official name to be found. As far as I know, this is because the research around what food causes acne has lead to many more discoveries than just this diet, as can be seen at Wai Says. I quote: "WaiSays.com was the result of doing research for a book. Originally we were just doing research about the relation between diet and the skin, but the more scientific studies we read (mostly financed by pharmaceutical companies), the more we discovered that ‘they’ very well know the causes of major diseases, which they publicly pretend not to know."[16]. From what I've heard it's mainly her theories about excessive calcium that has gained recognition in scientific magazines and among scientists (some brief comments are mentioned here). I might have been hasty in my judgement in believing this diet would be suitable on Wikipedia in its current state. I got the feeling that it was, being completely non-commercial and with its steady group of followers and growing recognition among fellow scientists. I agree that it could probably be included in alternate views in the acne article and be mentioned in the raw food diet. If you found that my post at Waitalk was urging people to come and vote to keep the article without participating in the discussion, that is not what I intended. I merely wanted to inform those involved that this discussion was taking place, as creating this article was my initiative from the beginning. I'll post a new message there to make that clear. - Wintran 11:09, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then I think I'll say delete; does not seem to clear the notability bar for me. It should already be recongized, not have a "growing" recognition. Not all scientific research is right for an encyclopedia. Also, I surely think you should inform your message board folks about the discussion, and they can participate too; I merely wanted to let you know why their votes of 'keep' may be discarded. HollyAm 17:50, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Weak delete because it seems to fall somewhere in between original research and unverifiable. --Apyule 08:51, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete. original research. Word of auhtors. nonnotable. mikka (t) 18:41, 11 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.

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 keep pending investigation into whether page is copyvio or not Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 23:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Garden Village A.F.C.[edit]

vanity (even written in first person plural WCFrancis 23:54, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is a professional club or not. Even if the 'A' stands for amateur (as I suspect it might), the club does claim to have a long history, which could be an argument in favour of inclusion. Unfortunately, the article is a copyvio of [17]. I will tag and bag it as such. Pburka 02:34, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
- A.F.C. nearly always stands for association football club (as opposed to rugby football club, etc.) - regardless, plenty of amateur football clubs have WP articles. As a club in the second tier of the Welsh football league system, and with a long history I would reckon that it is probably notable enough to warrant inclusion (but only just). Qwghlm 00:18, September 12, 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.

[1] Martin Popoff. The Top 500 Heavy Metal Songs of All Time. Ecw Press.

[1]