Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 September 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 22 September 24 >

Purge server cache

September 23[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 KEEP The Land 09:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dyson tree[edit]

Doesn't seem like it should have its own article. - 203.134.166.99 07:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - why not? Vizjim 08:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Could be a fine article, after some attention, if its verifiable. Jkelly 08:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Jkelly. Proposer hasn't made a case for deletion. Stephen Turner 08:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not only is it a known named idea, it has been extensively used in science fiction. Article should be expanded. --JahJah 08:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Expansion should start with a source on where Dyson first proposed it rather than how Sci-fi has run with the idea. Marskell 12:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Hmmm, an article about a hypothetical genetically modified tree that can grow on a comet? I want some of whatever Dyson is smoking.
No vote, but if this stands, nobody better complain when I post an article about Isotope's Lounger a hypothetical La-Z-Boy that pops into existance due to a Quantum fluctuation... complete with beer and chips.--Isotope23 17:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Somewhat notable in both science and SF. Does Isotope's Lounger include a beverage pocket in the armrest? Barno 19:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep i see no reason to delete this article.--Alhutch 23:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, of course. Needs some more content, but certainly by no means obscure or non-notable. Rsynnott 00:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because Freeman Dyson was da bomb, yo! If he came up with it, it's gold. -- BD2412 talk 02:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand, notable enough. Shauri 19:57, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Dyson is more important than Isotope23 :p ··gracefool |☺ 07:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Expand or Merge with Freeman Dyson, notable enough as it can be already referred to in the Freeman Dyson article as an existing theory. Piecraft 13:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep - if verified. -- Arthur Rubin 01:21, 27 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 ----- 22:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Flash Fire[edit]

Non-notable band. --fvw* 00:02, 23 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. Oleg Alexandrov 04:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CD Technologies[edit]

No evidence of notability. --fvw* 00:02, 23 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. Oleg Alexandrov 04:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Demofonte[edit]

Only claim to notability is being in a band which I'm AfDing after this page. --fvw* 00:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete doesn't seem to meet our WP:MUSIC guidelines. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. IMO this is speediable, but I've not tagged it. Having a band and having a company are not assertions of notability in my book. Having an important band or important company is another story. Friday (talk) 00:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, drummer of a non-notable band. Jaxl | talk 00:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn, vanity CLW 08:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Vanity; tied to article on CD Technologies which is also up for VFD.
  • Delete - i agree completely with the vanity thing. needs to be deleted, not notable at all.--Alhutch 23:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, clear case of vanity. Shauri 20:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obvious vanity. --Blackcap | talk 18:29, 25 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 - default to keep (10 keep, 18 delete) Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 23:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Cultural references in Pokémon[edit]

Went through a AfD already, having a no consensus result. The article hasn't improved any, and in my opinion, continues to be worthless. I also feel that the previous AfD was too muddled by people's preset perceptions about Pokémon articles, fearing that cutting off one head would make it grow back a thousand-fold. Coolkat's accusations of sockpuppetry didn't help the matter any. With that in mind, I threw this back into AfD so we could reach a consensus, hopefully without wrongful impressions or accusations of sockpuppetry. Apostrophe 23:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The previous discussion can be found here.
  • Speedy Keep no reason to AfD again just 2 weeks after the last time. Same reasons for keeping as before. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just explained why I did so in my original text. The first one was such a clusterfuck of Coolkat's accusations and people's implusive reactions to Pokémon articles that it needed a second go to achieve an actual decision bereft of such influences. --Apostrophe 01:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Last time, the AFD went down to no consensus, with a plurality of delete votes. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 00:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, I see a majority; it just wasn't large enough to be taken as consensus on Wikipedia. Plurality isn't possible when people only pick one of two choices. --Apostrophe 19:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN. There are cultural references in every piece of fiction in existence, Wikipedia is not a proper catalogue for such minutiae. (Now if these were "Significant cultural references TO Pokemon"...) Anetode 00:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, Anetode and WP:ISNOT an indiscriminate collection of trivia and information. ♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (Contributions) 00:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Purplefeltangel. Jaxl | talk 00:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Starblind, wikipedia is not paper, and the point of having an encyclopedia at all, which is to help users understand the world. Kappa 01:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't consider a list of cultural refereces in Pokémon all that pertinent to understanding one's world, Kappa. --Apostrophe 01:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn, OR. Kappa apparently cannot understand anything in the world without help from Wikipedia. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey now, I disagree with Kappa too, but NPA, eh? - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 00:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sarcastic but not really a personal attack. The "sum total of human knowledge" or derivatives of to justify a %100 keep-vote ratio (which I assume Kappa has) does wear a little thin. Marskell 13:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • NPA: Kappa has cast a couple of "delete" votes and "merge per (actual policy reference}" votes just in the last week. Not 100 percent "keep", although I suspect there have been months in 2005 where all Kappa's votes were "keep" or "keep or merge somewhere". More bothersome was the way so many were "keep all XXX" or "keep, real YYY" in ways that didn't correspond to WP policies nor precedents. Improvement noted lately. Barno 02:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. -- Kjkolb 04:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is the way this kind of information should be presented, merged together in a list. The presence of this article prevents the creation of articles on individual cultural references. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see the fear of a Pokémon hydra still persists. Sigh. --Apostrophe 17:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • A similar list (by the same author, to boot), Grudges in the Pokémon anime, was recently deleted, and no swarm of stubs took its place. Also, if you look at the history of this article, it isn't a compilation of merged stubs. If this were to be deleted, no swarm of stubs would take its place. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 00:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Pieces of fiction do make cultural references, but the number of cultural references in some of them is staggering enough to warrant their own article, and I believe Pokémon is one of them, after looking through the list. Putting all of them in the Pokémon (anime) article could make that article unnecessarily large and narrow down it's scope by putting too much focus on one part of the subject. A.K.R. 12:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just want to add that I have went ahead and cleaned up the article. Quality of article should no longer be an issue. A.K.R. 10:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lack of "notability" is not a criterion for deletion. -- Reinyday, 13:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Note that the page says "It has been argued that lack of "notability" is not a criterion for deletion." The Cultural References article is also not verifiable. ♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (contribs) 19:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Why not? Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Pokémon may have more cultural references than other series but this is due to the gigantic size of the franchise; its density of cultural references per episode/megabyte/cuddly toy/etc is probably relatively small. --Last Malthusian 15:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Barring the addition to references to, say, cultural studies professors making the connections the article makes, delete as original research. — mendel ☎ 17:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Crufty Original Research. Transwiki this to Cruft-o-pedia. Karmafist 17:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stare Decisis (Keep) per Starblind. Too soon. -- Plutor 17:44, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: What the heck? It is a cultural reference? Any reference is "cultural." The thing is all cultural reference, as is any work of fiction. Pure fancruft: this is known to, enjoyable by, and comprehensible for those who are already fans of the thing. It is a cutting up and repasting of the thing in a hundred patterns merely for their pleasure. Geogre 18:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, pokecruft, original research, not encyclopedic, not verifiable. Fails to help me understand my world which is non-fictional (except for government pronouncements). Barno 19:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pokecruft --Aranda56 21:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It would have been better if this re-nomination had waited, for the simple reason that the niomination would be more likely to go through. This page is, however, absolutely worthless. Statements like Poliwag nearly unable to move on land - For a while after birth, the tadpoles (young frogs/toads) live in and breathe through (with gills) the water, before developing legs that let them move on land, much like Poliwag and Poliwhirl and Ash passes on prune juice - Prunes are said to set off bowel movements, because of its high fiber content, which is why many people don't eat prunes belie the idea that this is remotely worthy. Sabine's Sunbird 22:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Get rid of it. As above. --Carnildo 22:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, again. Most of the references are obvious, and the non-obvious pop-culture or historical references in Pokémon are mentioned in the relevant articles/lists for the character, Pokémon, or place in question. Catch-all lists of random trivia are not encyclopedic material. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 00:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've never seen a Pokemon and probably never will, but this is a well written and harmless article. The legitimacy of the renomination is debatable. CalJW 05:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Starblind and I dislike the use of AfD for cleanup. --Celestianpower hab 12:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While NN seems to be the consensus for the delete vote, I'd actually point to OR. Marskell 13:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just for the record, I included OR in my argument for deletion.  ;) User:Zoe|(talk) 21:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually I guess a few people did. Karmafist even called it "Crufty Original Research." Indeed. Marskell 06:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll claim Delete under the "loosely related collection of trivia" clause, and with a dash of OR. kelvSYC 03:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Loosely related collection of trivia for sure. You keepers really, really disappoint me. / Peter Isotalo 03:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh Lord. Not merely a bad idea, a bad idea badly executed. Delete. --Calton | Talk 20:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Many of the delete reasons given above are reasons for the article to be marked {{cleanup}} or {{attention}}, not {{delete}}. It's verifiable, wiki isn't paper and it doesn't come under any point at What Wikipedia is not. ··gracefool |☺ 07:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • How do you intend to verify the intent of the localization team? - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 08:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I personally frequent a Pokémon fan forum, and many people there who knows a lot about the animé can verify the information. Also, I see that many of the reasons brought up by the pro-deletion camp can be resolved by rewriting and expanding the article, something I'm prepared to do so. There are many other references not mentioned by the author; just go take a look at [1]. This shows that the article has potential for expansion. A.K.R. 09:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Another thing I wish to add: it seems like that Pokémon articles suffer from some sort of prejudice by many Wikipedians around here. Why is it that The Simpsons gets such a large, thorough article, with so many accompanying articles (including one article for each episode), while the similar-sized, if not larger Pokémon franchise gets a considerably smaller article with less accompanying articles to boot? Also, think about the stubs; why is it that sometimes, there are several, countless stubs taking a place of a deleted Pokémon article? I feel that such a phenomon occurs because some useful articles that require only a cleanup or rewrite gets deleted by overzealous Wikipedians who see Pokémon as something triva. Deleting them is as good as dispersing the information into several different stubs, only to be brought together again, and then to go through another deletion process and the cycle repeats until a culture of fear of deletion surrounding Pokémon articles is created (let me stress that the last bit is my own personal observation). Instead, Pokémon articles which are large enough to warrant their own article, while stubs that have the potential to become one, should be expanded if the subject scope is wide enough, or to be merged with other stubs to form one article if it is not. A.K.R. 09:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • "...who see Pokémon as something triva." This is trivia. NN, OR trivia. Do you see that "cultural references in..." can't not be OR (unless perhaps people have started writing theses about it)? Marskell 09:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Then, on the same scale, should The Simpsons be considered "triva" too? I'm also not sure what you are referring to as "triva" - is it Pokémon itself, or is it this article? A.K.R. 10:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a list of loosely associated topics, point #2 under "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." Granted, it's factually debatable if this list fits that description, but if you absolutely need a policy cite, there you go.
      In reply to other comments, the idea of adding information to articles about movies, games, characters, places, etc. to increase their relevance to the real world, including links to pop culture or history, is a great one, and I would love to see (for example) A.K.R. expand the heck out of the Pokémon movie articles; they need it, badly. I welcome any effort to lend greater context to Pokémon (or any other) articles.
      That said, this particular list is forever going to be unhelpful to those who want to learn how the Pokémon anime or movies are localized into English, because inherent to lists of trivia is a lack of description or overview. Most of what's here already should instead be an integrated part of the articles/list entries for the characters in question or movies in question, as examples reinforcing description of the subject. (For example, the fact that Ash turns down prune juice is in and of itself a useless fact, even with an explanation of the joke, but it would make a fine example to support a statement in Pokémon (anime) along the lines of "Much of the humor in the English-language adaptation of the anime is the sort of mild, youth-oriented humor common to childrens' cartoons." (This is a crappy example, but you get my point.)
      This list is an example of why lists of trivia, either as standalone articles or as sections of larger articles, are unencyclopedic; they do not help the reader reach an encyclopedic understanding of the subject, but instead simply arm the reader with bits of data.
      If someone wants to rewrite Pokémon (anime), using examples from this list to explain how the Pokémon anime's English-language localization is Americanized, that would be absolutely fantastic. Barring that, this list is just a list of fannish factoids, un-linked-to, mostly obvious, largely contextless, and almost entirely valueless. The little information of value in this list belongs in (and, by and large, is already in) other articles. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 13:19, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Junk. Dudtz 9/29/05 6:16 Pm EST

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

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 Transwikified and left as redirect Marskell 13:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Idiomatic[edit]

Dicdef —Wahoofive (talk) 00:12, 23 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 - 4 keep/15 delete (78% to delete) Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 23:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Unsolved problems in governance[edit]

  • Irreparably point-of-view and intrinsically useless because none of these problems can be objectively "solved" like in other "unsolved problems" articles. Any material of this type can go to an article on social issues. Neutralitytalk 00:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Originally filed under delete, to clarify
  • The title alone is POV and the content is even more so. Andrew pmk | Talk 01:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Originally filed under delete, to clarify
  • Delete as completely idiosyncratic non-topic. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The degree of development of a subject can be assessed by the list of items which the practitioners admit are unsolved. Thus physics and mathematics have a large and growing list of unsolved problems. Assuming that governance is a proper concept or subject of study, like physics or control theory, then it should be possible to state a list of the objects of study for the subject. If some item of the list currently cannot be solved, as in physics, then a description of that item can be added to this article. It's like the description of an addiction; the first step toward recovery is to admit you have a problem. Even the concepts of physics were once controversial. People have been burned at the stake for stating a principle of physics. So too for this subject. Ancheta Wis 01:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC) This is not to say that the items in the list might not be POV. But that is an agenda for discussion of each item. Note that there has been theoretical progress in this subject. See Nash equilibrium and Iterated prisoner's dilemma for solved problems in this subject.[reply]
Comment, not a vote. I'm not sure if these two solved problems are properly considered part of governance. I think the real concern is that "problems" are not adequately specifiable in this domain that would allow someone to decide if a problem is solved or not. In physics there is experimental data that is either accounted for by the theory or not (yes, yes, I know there are fuzzy boundaries to this problem). In this sense its clear when a problem is solved. But, what exactly is the problem of "war"? And what sorts of things would lead the relevant scientific community to consider the problem solved? If there aren't undisputed answers to these questions, there is some serious worry about POV. I think this is a serious concern here since we don't have a large number of scientists as contributors and so we could easily be the place for one or two scientists to POV push. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 02:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your "solved problems" in governance are really solved problems in psychology, no? Neutralitytalk 02:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
More than anything, they are solved problems in mathematics. Whether the Nash equilibrium and prisoner's dilemma are in fact related to human behavior is itself an unanswered question. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Quotation from Nash equilibrium (NE) article: However, as a theoretical concept in economics, and evolutionary biology the NE has great explanatory power: Ancheta Wis 06:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it's sometimes a useful model for human behovior doesn't answer the fundamental questions of when, where, and to whom it is most applicable. And certainly, for the behaviors modeled under this sort of game theory there are other competing explanations. The point I was trying to make is that the only sense in which Nash equilibria are a "solved problem" is that we have worked out the mathematics. The application of this branch of game theory to political science questions remains at issue. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thus Nash equilibrium is a model (abstract), an idealization which can make scientific reasoning about the subject easier. That is, governance is a subject which can be modelled. That is an advance in the art. Ancheta Wis 07:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, POV but more importantly apparently original research. Looks terrible in comparison with the analogous articles for computer science, mathematics, etc. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the state of development of this subject looks terrible. You have to start somewhere in a wiki. Even the concepts of mathematics were primitive and undeveloped at one time. But the statement of rules of the game is an important part of the subject. The word governance and the root word for cybernetics are part of control theory. Ancheta Wis 06:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who is from a country that has been ravaged by war would see that its occurrence is a problem. You can be on the side of the victor in a war and still lose big-time. Ancheta Wis 06:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, there is a competing POV that war can be good, consider Just war theory, but in any case the main point is that this appears to be original research. I'm happy to change my vote if this turns out not to be the case. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
RAND Corporation, one of the original research corporations in the US, was an employer of John Nash, the Nobel Economics laureate. They currently perform studies in governance and social policy, as well as their original charter as consultants to the US military. They were originally a USAF thinktank which was spun off from the aerospace industry in Southern California after World War II. It is quite rational for a military organization to study war and its mitigation, thus RAND can propose solutions for the problems. The unsolved problems list is the obverse. Ancheta Wis 08:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original research. --fvw* 05:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep there's certainly an article in there somewhere and there quite an edit history to this so maybe it will emerge. Perhaps some references to established and published work would be a good step forward. Dlyons493 07:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but possibly rename List of unsolved problems for Governance or List of unsolved problems in Civics. I have added it to the Civics category where it clearly belongs. As stated above any area of thought benefits from its unsolved problems being clearly stated rather than avoided. The article should remain a list and not become a Forum for discussion of its members ( except perhaps on its discussion page). Where is the research? This is just a list, all lists on Wikipedia could be considered original work. Lumos3 08:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In its current form, the article is devoid of content. Owen× ☎ 12:37, 23 September 2005

(UTC)

  • Delete Lacking content and it seems that it is itself loaded with unsolved problems of its own. Stu 12:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The term problem in the context of social or politics or governance implies unresolvable POV conflicts, as the article itself admits. Thus, the title itself is unresolvable POV, even if renamed. This is different to the definition of problem as used, for example, in mathematics, and the two should not be compared. Groeck 15:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete mish-mash MONGO 17:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hopelessly POV topic and can really never be more than a matter of opinion. Why are cults a problem for governance in a free society? What's to stop me from removing "war" from the article if I believe my government should grind all others into the ground militarily? This article is just going to spawn an endless edit war as people on both sides of an argument attempt to make a WP:POINT.--Isotope23 17:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research, unless convincing sources supplied. Charles Matthews 19:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hopelessly POV. --Carnildo 22:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as OR and intrinsically POV. MCB 01:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Essay topic. / Peter Isotalo 03:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Many of the delete reasons given above are reasons for the article to be marked {{cleanup}} or {{attention}}, not {{afd}} or {{delete}}. ··gracefool |☺ 08:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not an encyclopedia article, no references provided. Quale 07:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete all. Eugene van der Pijll 11:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guinevere Jones episodes[edit]

Hard Rain (Guinevere Jones episode), Psyched, That Old Black Magic (Guinevere Jones episode), Ordinary Evil, Weird Sisters (Guinevere Jones episode), Dybbukkin, First Date (Guinevere Jones episode), Warwe and Mineer, Love Hurts, The Dryad, Solo Act, Shadows (Guinevere Jones episode), Choices and Rebellion (Guinevere Jones episode) -- a series of substubs on episodes of a TV show, all of which are well-covered by the main article, Guinevere Jones. I realize many Saturday Night Live episodes have recently been kept, but Guinevere Jones has left no mark on popular culture and only ran for two seasons. Also see point five of WP:FICT. ♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (Contributions) 00:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per general precedent for keeping TV episode articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I don't think there is a general precedent for keeping TV episode articles for every series. I could be wrong, but I know that over at The Prisoner we debated over whether we should do individual episode articles -- and that was for a series that a) only had 17 episodes total and b) is still highly regarded and frequently referenced over 35 years after it showed. If there's a general precedent that every TV series merits individual articles for each episode, a lot of us missed the memo. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All Of Them TV Cruft --Aranda56 00:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Guinevere Jones article already provides the plot for each episode, and these articles don't. --Metropolitan90 01:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Wikipedia should not be an episode guide. Does the mistake of keeping other episodes mean we have to keep making it over and over? Having an article about a tv series should be enough. -- Kjkolb 04:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator.--nixie 04:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom Dlyons493 07:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Metropolitan90. - Mgm|(talk) 11:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Absolutely no consensus on keeping episode articles on any series, much less the less-than-iconic ones. We battle every day against the cruftism of "every joke a page" and "every character a series of pages" impulse. If it cannot be said in a single article, in this case, it is probably best to wait for a specialist, fan-wiki. Geogre 19:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to two season episode-plot-summary articles, per WP:FICT, or delete entirely. Series is not sufficiently notable to merit many thousands of words of not-paper coverage here. Barno 19:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. Wikipedia is not paper, and TV series episodes are a legitimate topic. However most of these are substubs that haven't been expanded in several months since their creation, and in their current state no real information would be lost by deleting them. However, deletion on this basis shouldn't preclude re-creation later. -- Curps 20:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC) Keep Psyched and Rebellion (not substubs as pointed out by User:Caerwine below) and delete the rest if not de-sub-stubbed before the end of this AfD. -- Curps 04:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except Psyched and Rebellion (Guinevere Jones episode) as abandoned sub-stubs.
Neutral on Psyched and Rebellion (Guinevere Jones episode) Caerwine 01:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect/dab. Rich Farmbrough 11:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator. Shauri 20:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. TV-cruft. Don't merge, just get rid of it. / Peter Isotalo 03:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia should have the abilty to be a place to get episode guide Cruft is not always bad, plus Wikipedia's not paper. Nick Dillinger 07:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 speedied. --Phroziac (talk) 00:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

EfnetM-a-t-h[edit]

One IRC channel out of hundreds of thousands? Wikipedia's not a free host or webspace provider. --Mysidia (talk) 00:55, 23 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 ----- 23:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


NGC 3031 (band), NGC 3031(disambiguation)[edit]

Non-notable band. --fvw* 01:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn. ♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (Contributions) 01:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Fails WP:MUSIC, not notable, I'm afraid. Good formating, though (infobox!)--Sean Jelly Baby? 01:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete I just made this page today, never made a wiki at all, proud of it. You have the right to delete, I just wish you didn't. The0208 01:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Check my note on your talk page --Sean Jelly Baby? 01:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry to hear that you're so attached to the article, but it's Wikipedia policy to delete articles on non-notable bands. If you wish to contribute new articles, you are very welcome to do so as you seem to have a good knowledge of formatting and so on. Welcome to Wikipedia and enjoy your stay. ♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (Contributions) 01:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, what policy is that? ··gracefool |☺ 08:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you The0208 01:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as band vanity, though more gently than usual since the author's taking the AfD reasonably well and did a good job on this article, especially for somebody who's so new here! --Idont Havaname 04:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but look forward to other articles from this user. Dlyons493 07:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. -feydey 11:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lack of "notability" is not a criterion for deletion. -- Reinyday, 13:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Reinyday, WP:N is neither a guideline, nor a proposed guideline, however, WP:MUSIC is and this article does not meet the requirements listed there. --TM (talk) 18:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lack of "notability" is not a criterion for deletion I seemed to overlook this aspect of the deletion process. Notability alone does not appear to be a strong enough reason to delete, though I may be incorrect. The0208 16:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As you will notice as towards the replies to Reinyday every time he tries this crap (I don't bother because I don't feed the trolls), Wikipedia:Notability is not a policy (and is clearly labelled as not being one). Policies are clearly labelled as such, although as a newcomer to the wiki you're excused for an honest mistake in my books, anyway. Lord Bob 23:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Notability isn't a policy but nor is WP:MUSIC. AFAIK current policy says to keep ··gracefool |☺ 08:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:MUSIC is, however, a guideline, which WP:Notability is not. A guideline, to borrow from the template, "illustrates standards or conduct that are generally accepted by consensus to apply in many cases." Good enough for me, although I can't dictate what you believe. Lord Bob 18:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hmm, the guideline template has been completely and unreasonably changed (see the talk page). Up until recently, pages now marked with {{guideline}} used {{proposed}} instead. A guideline that has consensus is a policy, or should become one in short order. If WP:MUSIC really has consensus, there is nothing stopping it from being a policy. It should be submitted to requests for comment or something. ··gracefool |☺ 16:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to The0208's user page if he is agreeable. NGC 3031 (band) doesn't meet the WP:MUSIC criteria, which is no surprise since it looks like they just formed this year. It is however a MUCH better laid out page than 90% of the band vanity pages posted here though and since The0208 has actually participated in the process here, I'd hate to see his hard work get totally blown out. Maybe if they can meet WP:MUSIC in the next few years it could get moved back...
The0208, if you guys have any mp3's posted somewhere on the web, post a link on my user page. I dig noise rock.--Isotope23 17:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy if The0208 wishes. It's really nice looking and I'd love to have this stored for later if notability gets established (i.e. when they meet WP:MUSIC) Hell, I'll store it in my Userspace if need be- I've encouraged this user to start editing other articles, so we'll see. --Sean Jelly Baby? 18:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC or userfy if requested. --TM (talk) 18:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: If the user wants to memorialize on his own page, then glory glory to him. That's no one's business but his: as an article, it fails WP:MUSIC and acts only as an ad. No advertising. Geogre 19:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Sheesh! Userfy is a perfectly valid AFD comment- there's no need to be rude. BTW, most everyone recognized that it didn't meet WP:MUSIC, but that it was a good article too. Focus on the positive and all that...--Sean Jelly Baby? 19:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I'd like to concentrate on the positive, but it takes misunderstanding the whole project to post an article like this and then argue that it should be kept. The beauty of the prose is irrelevant, and some of the people closing VfD's lately have been trying to make it binary. All "userfy" they are dealing with as "remove the tag and leave it alone." Thus, I'm no longer voting anything but keep or delete, with what could be done alternatively after that vote. As for band articles, I'm not the only editor on Wikipedia who was in a band that does have an entry in AMG and other places but not an article on Wikipedia. The fact is that Wikipedia is not Ultimatebandlist.com, not AMG, not "every cool band," and it is not an advertising medium nor a mechanism for legitimizing a subject. Geogre 21:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment:Okay, listen: 1. I already voted to delete, noting that it was not notable. I was merely suggesting that the user save it as an example of their work. 2. Userfy is simply an additional comment. I doubt that an admin would keep an article if there were several reccomendations to userfy. 3. Just because you have decided to always vote 'Keep' of 'Delete' doesn't mean anyone else has too. 4. It was created by a new user who has the ability to make good contributions, and I didn't want to discourage them, that's all.--Sean Jelly Baby? 21:28, 23 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 ----- 23:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Ronald W Reagan Doral High School[edit]

This is schoolcruft at its max. I normally keep High School Articles but this one havent even opened yet and wont even open for another year at least. why write an article about a school that havent even open yet. Delete --Aranda56 01:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The school is notable as an overcrowding reliever for an existing grossly overcrowded school, and what's the point of deleting an article just to have to place it back up when the school opens? Might as well keep it now. Plus, the school building may not be open, but the school is operating with 9th graders only at the Doral Middle School campus. PRueda29 01:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Everybody always says this about "crystal ball" articles. But why not copy it to user space, leave it there, and create the article at a time when it is appropriate? With any corrections necessitated by events? Dpbsmith (talk) 01:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • But it's not a "crystal ball" article. It's something that we know will happen, already exists, and is already in progress. What's the point in copying it to userspace and recreating it later? That's more work than just leaving it alone. ♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (Contributions) 01:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because it is of interest now. CalJW 07:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; will be useful when the time comes. I would probably vote delete if it was a substub or something, but it's a well-written article with context and the potential to be a good article on the school when it opens. ♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (Contributions) 01:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as per comments by Puplefeltangel, well written article at present--User:AYArktos | Talk 01:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, good article, written without use of a crystal ball. Kappa 01:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, well written article, and high schools are notable. -GregAsche (talk) 02:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per above reasons for keep. --Vsion 03:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but I think it's a bit presumptuous to say what it's Athletic Rival will be. delete thtat partFrozenPurpleCube 03:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Its atheltic rival has already been chosen since Miami Springs High School has no official rival and all the students at Regan/Doral will be taken from the Miami Springs Boundaries. But I guess it could be deleted until its official. Let's see what others think.
Um, chosen by who? I can understand a rivalry happening, but it's not something mandatory. My HS didn't care about anybody we played more than anyone else. I'd say leave it off until the statement has some meaning. Like fighting over some trophy or mascot. Preferably in a friendly manner.FrozenPurpleCube 16:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's complicated, I'll just remove it. PRueda29 21:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep well done article. Also, is it ok to have a slash (/) in article name? I thought that was only done for sub-pages, which are used for things like AFDs, user-scratch pages, etc... --rob 06:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The slash is part of the school's name, unfortunately; check the school's website and see. PRueda29 07:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is apart of the official name, no question. But, many articles don't have the *exact* official name as their article name. The exact name must always start the article, but it doesn't have to be the article title. A number of articles even have a message saying the article name is wrong for technical reasons. I just wander if there are potential problems with it. I'm not a wiki expert, but wanted to mention the issue, to get some feedback. --rob 07:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it is a problem. I'll change the name/move the page PRueda29 07:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep of course. Good article. CalJW 07:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bicycle for the usual reasons.--Nicodemus75 11:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:WIN chrystal ball, schoolcruft. Dunc|☺ 13:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pony. I want one. We need to work on criteria for this schoolcruft/schoolvalue problem. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's already been done and the outcome was the high schools should not be nominated. CalJW 16:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • As an observer of that whole discussion, I don't think there was buy-in to that statement from all reasonable parties. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • While I don't accept that "buy in ... from all reasonable parties" is attainable, I strongly agree with User:Hipocrite that further discussion leading to a policy would be very useful. The school issue bogs down AfD almost daily. (I abstain on the deletion vote.)AndyJones 17:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Disagree. Wikipedia:Schools is dead. Requesat In Pace. The fact is, (and clearly demonstrated here and the rest of this week's nominations) that there is indeed no concensus. All of the previous attempts to reach it over the past 2 years have failed - utterly. Deletionists (not necessarily Hipocrite or AndyJones), who have waged an ongoing, destructive, war of attrition against school articles would now like to re-open some sort of negotiations to re-wrangle through previously kicked-to-death-horse issues. I see this as nothing more than a last ditch attempt to stem the tide of two inevitabilities which are ruining their campaign: First, the exponential growth of the rate of creation of new school articles (virtually impossible to AfD them as fast as they are being created). Second, the near 97% rate of survival by school articles at the AfD process. Suggestions have emerged from deletionists that the AfD process is no good, and that a new concensus has to be reached. I submit that gradual and inevitable concensus is indeed being reached - school articles are being created at a never-before-seen rate, and they are surviving the AfD process at 95%+. What this means is that if there is not already a "concensus" (of a sort) that school articles will indeed be part of WP, then there soon will be. As the number of school articles grow and are improved over time, more and more editors will acknowledge their legitimacy, if only because there will be so many articles which will have been a part of WP for so long (by the time this is "over" it will literally be years). AfD is doing it's job (even though it is chronically being abused to launch terrorist strikes against school articles in the form of multi and mass-nominations) - editors are voting on articles, and the articles are surviving the process.
Nicodemus75 forgot to sign. Kappa 23:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Currently under construction so not a crystal ball and verifiable. Good article to boot. Andrew pmk | Talk 17:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I must admit, this listing makes me question the nominator's motives. The article is excellent. Silensor 19:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable school Amren (talk) 20:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There is no school. It does not exist. Write it when it exists, and all those taxoboxes won't do a damn thing to buff up this non-existent school. Geogre 21:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Judging from the picture in the article, it's the largest thing that doesn't exist I've ever seen. Pburka 23:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Please do not misuse WP:NOT. WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball specifically states: Individual scheduled or expected future events, should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event isn't already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include 2008 U.S. presidential election. A schedule of future events may also be appropriate. This article can and should be included as it is about a certain and notable institution, clearly documented as such. Bahn Mi 22:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Carnildo 22:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly does exist. The campus has been topped off and construction ended on September 14th, classes have begun on the Doral Middle School Campus, it has an administration, teachers, and 9th grade students, it will be holding Sports try-outs for Spring and Winter sports for this school year next Tuesday, it has a chosen mascot and colors, has an address, phone numbers, boundaries, feeder schools, and a PTA. I don't think it qualifies as a crystal ball article just because the campus hasn't opened yet.
  • Keep any school named after "9-chloro-6-(2-fluorophenyl)-2-(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl)-2,5-diazabicyclo[5.4.0]undeca-5,8,10,12-tetraene-3-thione" Klonimus 23:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain, although schools are not inherently notable and this one isn't either I accept high schools just so people shut up about them. However, I should note that not-a-crystal-ball doesn't seem to apply in this case, as is detailed above. Which is the real purpose of my comment. Lord Bob 23:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It hasn't even bloody opened. How can it possibly be notable? However, I accept that I am being stampeded by a flock of sheep. Denni☯ 01:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Millions of dollars have already been expended in the construction of this large public institution in a major population centre of Florida. Non-notability not established. Keep. --Centauri 02:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's the other way around, Centauri. An article is assumed to be notable unless the opposite is proven. And what on earth does the monetary value of the school have anything to do with it? Since when is X amount of dollars a sign of notability? / Peter Isotalo 03:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neutralitytalk 22:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this isn't what the crystal ball clause was meant to stop. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only thing more non-notable than your average non-notable high school is a non-notable high school that hasn't even been built yet. / Peter Isotalo 03:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment --But it has been built, and it is functioning, and it's already topped off and it has students and an administration. The building exists, too!!! It's not a like its a drawing on some paper in a folder at the school board office in downtown Miami. PRueda29 04:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. *drew 07:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep this article please the school exists there is even a photo of it here [2] so how can someone say it does not exist Yuckfoo 20:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consensus so far has been to keep schools (see Archive and Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep). ··gracefool |☺ 08:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. It's pretty obvious that this will be completed, and if it's not, it will become even more interesting if stopped at this late point. We should be encouraging this type of participation. Unfocused 21:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonencyclopedic --redstucco 09:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all public schools. Gazpacho 16:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm almost lost for words— the thing is even written in the future tense. This is quite sad; would really like to have seen some evidence of non-partisan, knee-jerk-free commentary, but it's not to be I guess. Clear delete, not only for the usual reasons, but this time also for WP:NOT a crystal ball.

'Delete Just another school. Dudtz 9/29/05 5:45 PM EST

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MFH's Law[edit]

  1. Fine, kill it. Wikipedia is slowly becoming the irrelevant censor's choice anyway.

Slashdot forum humor brought to WP. Not encyclopedic. feydey 01:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Godwin, you have created a monster of unfunny copycat laws and their articles on Wikipedia. Delete with prejudice. ♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (Contributions) 01:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not in significant real use. Not well-known even within the Slashdot community. I've participated on Slashdot for several years now and never seen any reference to it whatsoever. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete strong agreement with Dpbsmith. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not the Encyclopedia of Slashdot. --Metropolitan90 06:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete utterly nn - unlike, for example Cole's Law :-) Dlyons493 07:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. Amusing in context (I admit that I smiled when I first read it) but not even really notable enough to merge with Slashdot. -- Plutor 17:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. Delete. 2. ???? 3. Profit! (That is, delete in full agreement with Dpbsmith.) Barno 19:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn slashdot joke Amren (talk) 20:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, waste of time. Shauri 20:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete useless. *drew 07:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MFH's Law[edit]

  1. Fine, kill it. Wikipedia is slowly becoming the irrelevant censor's choice anyway.

Slashdot forum humor brought to WP. Not encyclopedic. feydey 01:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Godwin, you have created a monster of unfunny copycat laws and their articles on Wikipedia. Delete with prejudice. ♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (Contributions) 01:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not in significant real use. Not well-known even within the Slashdot community. I've participated on Slashdot for several years now and never seen any reference to it whatsoever. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete strong agreement with Dpbsmith. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not the Encyclopedia of Slashdot. --Metropolitan90 06:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete utterly nn - unlike, for example Cole's Law :-) Dlyons493 07:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. Amusing in context (I admit that I smiled when I first read it) but not even really notable enough to merge with Slashdot. -- Plutor 17:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. Delete. 2. ???? 3. Profit! (That is, delete in full agreement with Dpbsmith.) Barno 19:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn slashdot joke Amren (talk) 20:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, waste of time. Shauri 20:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete useless. *drew 07:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 02:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SunRocket[edit]

Press release. --fvw* 02:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete obvious ad, right down to the keywords in the first sentence. Pakaran 02:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; should be speedy for obvious advertising like this. Borders on nonsense. ♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (Contributions) 02:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pure advertising. ♠ DanMS 02:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - advertising CLW 08:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, blatant advert. - Mgm|(talk) 11:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertising Glaurung 12:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I gave de-advertising the old college try. There's not much there now in terms of notability, but I'll leave that to you. (As a side note, since its often possible in cases like this to remove the ad content but leave an article, it would be helpful if people weighed in on notability when voting) --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 18:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • A valiant try, but I'm afraid in my view it was a wasted effort, I'm sticking to my position on the matter. --fvw* 23:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advert Amren (talk) 20:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advertising. Shauri 20:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete, I am not sure why SunRocket should be deleted when Vonage isn't. SunRocket is probably the closest competitor to Vonage for VOIP services right now. I think it just needs a lot of improving. -Jiraiya 01:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 02:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ecclesiastical state[edit]

This article only exists to further the POV-pushing attempts of User:67.124.49.20, User:208.57.91.27, User:Johnski, and User:Samspade. It could be a redirect, but it keeps getting changed back. It should be deleted and protected against recreation for the time being. Jdavidb 02:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This doesn't seem to me to be the place to sort this out. Jkelly 02:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Irrespective of the ongoing content arguments at Dominion of Melchizedek the term "ecclesiastical sovereignty" is a neologism of uncertain meaning used only by supporters of Melchizedek. Delete.--Gene_poole 04:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Britannica uses the term and so do many other notable websites. It should not be a redirect as the Vatican is not the only possible ecclesiastical state, even if it is currently. -- Kjkolb 04:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but remove references to not established or recognized Ecclesiastical states (especially to fake ones, see [3] and [4]) such as the so-called Dominion of Melchizedek. There was, for example, an Ecclesiastical state in Germany from 1007 to 1802, with the city of Bamberg as capital. Groeck 04:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Redirect. Dispute regarding validity should not be resulted in article being AfD. It should be tagged for NPOV/Validity instead. Also, we have a very similar article Ecclesiastical government. Maybe we should merge the two articles together (ie: 1 redirect to the other). --Hurricane111 05:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. as per Hurricane111 Dlyons493 07:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per hurricane. Absolutely no need to have both. Marskell 12:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • MergeRedirect to Ecclesiastical government. Karol 13:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No new information to merge to the other article, unless the Melchizedek thing has much more widespread acceptance than anyone here has indicated. Delete, but agree with Groeck on potential for inclusion of "real" ecclesiastical states vs. bogus ones. Barno 19:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteRedirect... there is nothing in the current article that would be of value to merge. A locked redirect to Ecclesiastical government would be better.--Isotope23 20:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete...utter nonsense. KHM03 20:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Used as propaganda for DoM Shocktm (Talk * Contributions) 01:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree that it is currently for promoting Melchizedek, but it appears to be an actual term. Therefore, I think it should be cleaned up and one of the articles should be redirected to the other. -- Kjkolb 02:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or at least get rid of the irrelevant fraud scheme mentioned there. Pavel Vozenilek 14:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Ecclesiastical government. Alf melmac 08:21, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Ecclesiastical government. I would argue that simply deleting the page is not the best solution. Give it about three days after it is deleted and the same person will readd the page. Trust me, I've been dealing with this page for a month or so and have been deleting the POV information. Anyone is more then welcome to go back and look at my comments on that talk page. Davidpdx 9/25/05 11:18 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fgsfds[edit]

In spite of the title of the article, this is a perfectly good dictdef. It is, however, still a dictdef. Jkelly 02:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was move to Wikipedia:Academic resources. Eugene van der Pijll 11:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Academic resources[edit]

This is not an organised list of academic resources, just a random list of stuff taken from a user page. The first edit comment was "Help me edit this, its a useful list that I saw from User:172" TreveXtalk 02:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, that is a useful list. Organize and move into Wikipedia namespace. ♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (Contributions) 02:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Topic is far too broad and consists of nothing but links. See also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. ♠ DanMS 02:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say Keep, but make a short list of lists, pointing to List of Encyclopedias, List of Academic Journals, etc. Ideally, that would preserve usefulness and make it maintainable. Jkelly 02:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and edit as per Jkelly Dlyons493 07:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Wikipedia namespace. Is useful to encourage the citation of sources. - Mgm|(talk) 11:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge sections as proposed within article, and then delete shell. CLW 11:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Recycled, duplicate material. Duplicate material is deleted. Again, if an author wants to create a namespace helpful list, that's fine, but maybe user:172 could do it. That has nothing to do with this, though. Further, an "article" with nothing but links is a speedy deletion candidate. Geogre 21:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merging the sections as per the merger notices is not particularly useful. The external links to encyclopaedias are not as useful in encyclopaedia as the far larger list of internal links that is already in that article is. The same goes for the other sections. There is nothing useful in Jkelly's proposal that this be edited into list of lists, as the only thing that connects those lists together is the task of building an encyclopaedia, exactly what we have the project namespace for. This may be a useful companion to Wikipedia:cite sources and Wikipedia:reliable sources in the project namespace, best placed as a "resources" sub-page of Wikipedia:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards I think, but it does not belong in the main article namespace. As per MacGyverMagic and Purplefeltangel, rename and delete the redirect. Uncle G 04:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOT a collection of links, and this material is widely available anyway. Also, many of these links are to subscription databases, and I do not think wikipedia pages (particularly in the main namespace!) should link to things that won't be accesible to most readers. Chick Bowen 21:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per nominator. Just copy the links and paste them wherever if you think they're useful. / Peter Isotalo 03:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, certainly, if they're useful to anyone, she's welcome to put them in her own user space. Note that the whole list is available at User:172. Chick Bowen 21:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup (or possibly merge) not delete ··gracefool |☺ 08:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A list of links ia not encyclopedic. Could exist in Wikipedia namespace. Paul August ☎ 02:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 DELETED. — JIP | Talk 05:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

F5 & Company[edit]

Nobility not established. Google search 1 2 comes up empty. Article smells like vanity. Hurricane111 02:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Change my vote to Speedy. History shows article had already been deleted once. --Hurricane111 02:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No reason to delete this article at all. I've seen much smaller stubs then this one, and F5 is authentic.
    • The question is not whether they are real or whether the article is long enough, but rather whether they are notable, which they are not. ♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (Contributions) 02:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the above "no reason to delete" comment was made by the anonymous author of the article 69.142.234.125. His sole contributions to the Wikipedia has been this page. ♠ DanMS 03:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you been to Union, New Jersey? They're name has really spread around there.
  • Have you been to Wikipedia? The Crips are notable as their influence has been seen far from their home city. F5 & Company is not. I would advise you to stop pressing the matter. ♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (Contributions) 03:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Smell like someone's fantasy. ♠ DanMS 03:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • May I ask a question?? Do you get paid to ruin peoples articles or is this just a fun day for you at your desk?
    • This is not "your" article. Please note the huge bold notice on the edit page: "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it.". ♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (Contributions) 03:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am actually from Monmouth County, about 20 mintues from Union County in New Jersey and I've heard of them. They do ninja stuff and often film themselves. --Koala Bala 03:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and please do it is asap. If possible, delete its author in the process. Shauri 03:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The anonymous comments on this page were made by users 69.142.213.87, User:Blanco vato, and User:Koala Bala, who are probably all the same person. This user has also been vandalizing this page by deleting the votes and comments of other persons. The author of this article was 69.142.234.125 ♠ DanMS 03:44, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, enough reasons given above. Groeck 04:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close as per Groeck. -- Kjkolb 04:53, 23 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. Oleg Alexandrov 04:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Benoit Ravier-Bollard[edit]

Non-notable. Vanity. Google search: [5] Barfooz (talk) 02:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more.
He needn't meet this if there is another reason for his having an article. But there is none. Oswax 14:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO Groeck 15:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While non-notability is not an official criterion for deletion, is a de facto one established by years of precedent. This article is non-notable. Andrew pmk | Talk 17:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could go on Yellowikis if the author so wishes. Andrew pmk | Talk 17:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If non-notability was a criterion with consensus, it would be official policy. ··gracefool |☺ 08:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity. Shauri 20:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 14:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kian Modarresi Persian New-age composer[edit]

Non-notable, possible vanity article on an unknown Irani composer. Hits four non-Wikipedia related entries on Google [6], 3 of them from forums where he has posted ads, and his own personal webpage. Shauri 03:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 14:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

13th labour[edit]

Totally non notable webcomic, check out it's website here and its forums here. Sure, effort has been put into this, and it's been around for over 6 months, but just goto their website and flick through their forums and see how many people actually read it. There's so much dreck in the Wikipedia webcomics section, it's almost an advertising board. But even given the massively lax inclusion guidelines at Wikipedia:Web_comics, it still fails to meet it in the keenspace alexa rank here - Hahnchen 03:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 14:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dukedom of New Sealand[edit]

This article is semi-coherent nonsense - not a verifiable micronation. There was no "coup d'etat" in Sealand in 2002, and the claim that its "territory and geography are not exactly known" - despite consisting of a man-made island 300 km² in size in the South Atlantic, speaks volumes. Gene_poole 03:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Most mentions on the 'net of "New Sealand" are actually misspellings of "New Zealand." Among other things, this articleabout a planned reality show makes me strongly suspect that the article is a hoax. The part about David Duke is kind of a giveaway as well. Crypticfirefly 04:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hoax/fantasy/vanity or whatever. CalJW 05:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as absurd. --rob 06:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Gene_poole
  • Delete Hoax, and not very clever at that Stu 13:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsensical hoax. Shauri 20:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was already deleted. — JIP | Talk 14:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Financial Counselors of Virginia[edit]

Wikipedia is not a web directory... --Mysidia (talk) 03:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - advert. Oswax 06:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Advertisement which only exists to give an external link. Dlyons493 07:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn. Is the word "sofistication" a joke? CLW 08:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy deleted as spam. Contents were:
"Financial Counselors of Virginia, Inc. is a registered investment advisor based in Hampton Roads Virginia. The site contains much information of interest to sensible investors at all levels of sofistication. Please click here for access to the web site:[7]

I did the speedy delete. Geogre 21:27, 23 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 Speedied. Please leave the AfD notice intact when adding the CSD notice to an article, so the deleting admin knows to close the relevant discussion. Thanks. android79 12:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Nairn[edit]

No assertion of notability. I think it is speedy/A7 but wanted second opinions. Groeck 04:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Paul August ☎ 02:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Henley Management College moved to Henley Management College, South Africa[edit]

Commercial plug for a non notable "business school". jmd 04:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Business schools are notable. Grace Note 06:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does this mean I can pay $50 to register a business, and in the "Nature of Business" box on the form write "Business School" and then I can have my own WP entry? jmd
  • keep This is an post-graduate level institution and we don't delete high schools. CalJW 07:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep needs expansion and reference back to very well-known UK parent. Dlyons493 07:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - institutes of further education are notable enough IMO. CLW 08:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am sure we will get the usual batch of "NN" and "crap" and "this article sucks" from delete voters.--Nicodemus75 11:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't be so negative! ♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (contribs) 11:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not being negative. When voters repeatedly tag their "delete" votes on school articles as "crap", "NN", etc. it is merely a statement of opinion that we will see more of the same, based upon frequent and long-standing occurance. I have already assumed good-faith, but certain editors clearly do not demonstrate good-faith with commentary of this nature, as well as multi and mass-nominations of schools to AfD. The comments I have made should be assumed to be in good faith, since all they do is predict AfD voting patterns based on previous and extensive history.--Nicodemus75 12:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're getting all bent out of shape for nothing. This is a post-secondary institution, not a high school. android79 12:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Post-secondary educational institutions are generally notable. android79 12:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepas an accredited graduate business school. I am wary of some private business schools, that lack accredition, and just want a plug, but this isn't such a case. --rob 16:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • By whom is it accredited? and what are the credentials of the acrediting body? jmd
  • Keep, business school, notable, needs cleanup and attention but undoubtably salvagable. Andrew pmk | Talk 17:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable Amren (talk) 20:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, in this case, I'd say that it should be deleted, but not because it's a school. Post-secondary schools are all worthy topics and all encyclopedic, but this particular article is written so poorly as to be nearly incomprehensible. It became part of what UK college? It has only offered an MBA? What? The article is a mangled mess, and it would be better to have silence than gibberish on the topic. Geogre 21:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if expanded Im too much of a deletionist I need to vote keep for once. If not Expanded Delete --Aranda56 22:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, NN crap. This article sucks. Keep, although it obviously needs a good, solid cleanup. Lord Bob 23:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nice :-) But your name isn't Dunc. It doesn't quite have the same ring to it.--Nicodemus75 00:02, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Post-secondary schools (particularly graduate schools) have a greater potential for individuality and notability than primary and secondary schools. Weak keep, though, because I don't see how individuality or notability is demonstrated here. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 02:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (past consensus has been to keep schools, see Wikiproject Schools archive and arguments to keep schools ··gracefool |☺ 08:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep institute of higher education so notable enough for me chowells 17:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion: This article should be changed, to mainly cover the "home" school in Britain, and then list/describe the local programs (AACSB accredited and well known). If/when desired, a separate per-country articles can be made. It doesn't make sense to make an article for the this, before the parent. Any per-country article would obviously need to have it's article name qualified, to avoid mistakes like the John Madejski article pointing to the wrong place. --rob 21:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. You cannot force volunteer editors to create articles in the order you dictate. There's nothing wrong with this one as is. We should be encouraging this type of participation. Unfocused 22:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually the creator picked the title, which the content should follow. If they wanted one just for South Africa's campus they should have called it Henley Management College, South Africa. Right now the combination of the content, title, and category is ambiguous at best. Saying "There's nothing wrong with this one as is" makes as little sense as the article. Anyway, I see little point in voting, if there's no agreement as to what's being voted on. I abstain. --rob 23:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Anyone can move the article, even while under AfD, provided the change is noted in the AfD section header and the links to the AfD discussion are double-checked and preserved. Unfocused 02:47, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonencyclopedic --redstucco 09:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 02:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kostantinos Giakoumis[edit]

He doesn't appear to be notable enough for an encyclopedia entry. -- Kjkolb 04:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Junior academic. CalJW 07:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy reluctantly as wiki could do with more information on his field but needs more notability for a personal article. Perhaps he'd contribute some articles on those topics? Dlyons493 08:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Made by an anon, not userfiable. -Splashtalk 14:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd guess that this is a cut-and-paste from somewhere, which is a problem. His book (on Orthodox Christian statuary in Albania) gets three hits on Google, but I cannot what kind of press published it. Jkelly 18:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's from here. I just looked it up, now. I don't think that marking it as a copyvio would be useful because he is not notable and we don't want people wasting their time trying to get permission. Can this be closed quickly instead?-- Kjkolb 22:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: CV. Geogre 21:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems more like someone's personal webpage. doesn't appear to be a really notable figure.--Alhutch 23:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn CV. Shauri 13:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Geogre.—encephalon 11:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 11:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P54C 90 MHz[edit]

Irrelevant. Mention CPU speeds in Pentium article if desired/useful. Groeck 04:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep or merge Wikipedia is not paper. Roodog2k (talk) 15:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Pentium. Andrew pmk | Talk 17:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's no information here, let alone any that's worth keeping, and no one's going to search for it. -- Plutor 17:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No additional necessary info.Amren (talk) 20:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as having no content. It's not an article. It's a single fact. If it's just a predicate nominative, it's not an article. There's nothing to merge. If "merge" voters are saying, "Someone mention that the P54C was a 90 MHz chip in the Pentium article," then, sure, that's good advice, but an article? An article saying that one sentence? No. Geogre 21:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Currently content-free, but this IS the Pentium that had the famous floating point bug, and as such is vaguely notable. Rsynnott 00:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Pentium FDIV bug is fully described in Pentium, and applied to more than just this particular processor; the CPU speeds are already mentioned in Pentium; and this title is one particular clock speed and one particular model of the processor, out of many possibly combinations. There's nothing to merge, Pentium already covering this ground and a whole lot more. I'm not convinced that a redirect would be useful, given the highly specific title. Delete. Uncle G 05:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and don't merge as suggested by Uncle G. Vegaswikian 05:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. CPU-cruft. / Peter Isotalo 03:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Geogre and Uncle G. Quale 07:19, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Uncle G—encephalon 11:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. Paul August ☎ 03:00, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cherokee Moons Ceremonies[edit]

Probably a hoax. Google turns up two hits, both WP, 0 hits for "Cherokee Moon Ceremonies," and 72 for "Cherokee Moon Ceremony," only 7 of which are considered original enough to be displayed. There may be a moon ceremony, but I doubt this is it. --Blackcap | talk 04:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Article was nominated in bad faith. Is not even completed yet. Unsigned post by Gadugi.
    • No, I'm afraid it wasn't. You weren't able to see my reasoning, because you posted before I had finished typing. --Blackcap | talk 04:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sources are cited before the end of this AfD. --fvw* 04:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep now that sources have been provided. --fvw* 14:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above, unless sources are provided. There are moon ceremonies, but I could not find a reference to turtles being 'extremely sacred'. Groeck 04:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sources Provided as Requested. Gadugi 17:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, sources provided. Groeck 15:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: try Cherokee "Moon Ceremony", I don't know if the results are relevant, but there are a lot more of them. -- Kjkolb 05:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually tried "Cherokee moon OR moons ceremony OR ceremonies" and other combinations on Google, and checked several web pages. There are several moon ceremonies at different times of the year, but I found no reference to the importance of 13, nor of its relationship to turtles, nor of turtles being sacred (note that the latter claim has been removed from the article). This is why references were asked for (which would not necessarily have to be web references). Groeck 05:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reference Added as requested. Gadugi 17:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google is not the central repository of all human knowledge and wisdom. When was the last time YOU READ AN ACTUAL BOOK or WENT TO AN ACTUAL LIBRARY. UNBELIEVABLE. Look what TUK-KAT found. Gadugi 05:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NPA. Calm down. There's a good reason the Google test exists, see here for some more information about it. --Blackcap | talk 08:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's too bad you actually never ran a google test before voting. 31,000 hits I think would pass? Gadugi 17:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note the following Ceremonies played an important part in the life of the tribe. The Cherokee celebrated a series of seasonal ceremonies and festivities that corresponded to the food cycle of the tribe. March was the first of thirteen moons and the feast of the deer. April’s celebration focused on strawberries, and the next harvests were “little” corn, watermelon, peaches, mulberries, and then “great” corn. In the eighth moon, our October, the festival featured turkey, followed by ceremonies for bison, bear, ducks, chestnuts, and finally nuts that were used in bread. Most of the seasonal ceremonies declined in importance in the eighteenth century, except the one held in late summer that coincided with the ripening of the late crop of corn. The Green Corn Ceremony lasted several days and had significant cultural and social connotation., which may be about the same thing, from Chattoogariver.org. A search for "Cherokee seasonal ceremony" turns up 31000 hits, including [lewisandclark.outreach.psu.edu/Mankiller.pdf this] pdf from PSU. Tuf-Kat 05:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - yeah it might be easy to simply delete this article, but this article is but 2 hours old right now and while there isn't much context, I highly doubt that it is all made up. Sure there aren't alot of sources, however, google is not the end all and be all of human knowledge. I think this page has a place here on WP, and I think it was nominated just a little too quickly. Malo 06:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I strongly object to the claim that this was nominated too quickly. The majority of deleted articles are speedied or AfDd within a minute of their creation. This is extremely important, as if bad, unverified, information remains on the 'pedia for some duration of time it only serves to lower the general accurateness of WP. There is no time limit for articles. --Blackcap | talk 07:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The majority of deleted articles are speedied or AfDd within a minute of their creation. Yeah, obvious crap like "Johnny Teabag is the greatest guy in the world LOL!!!" or "Bumfuck Nowhere is an up and coming high-school band in Ottumwa, Iowa". This is nowhere near that level. --Calton | Talk 16:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • My point was that just because I nominated the article soon after it was created doesn't make it an invalid or even a bad nomination. There isn't any duration of time that an article has to exist before being eligible for AfD, and keeping this article for such a reason is incorrect. --Blackcap | talk 23:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless verifying sources are added before this AFD is done.Keep (but cleanup) now that sources are provided. Gadugi is certainly right in saying you can't expect to find information on everything in Google, but he hasn't done anything to show us where we can find information about this and verify it. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 06:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC) (vote changed 10:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]
    • Sources provided as requested. Gadugi 17:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- look at the link Kjkolb posted. It is a refined google search that should provide some other sources to backup Gadugi's article. I don't expect you to find many written sources, just because of how large a part oral history plays in this culture. Malo 06:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My credentials can be found on talk:cherokee. Gadugi 06:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Give Gadugi some time to edit. No reason to assume that it is suspect. Sources can be provided in time. Important to include the culture of native North Americans in Wikipedia. At the moment hugely underrepresented. - Unsigned post by 222.95.1.224.

Oh, and agree with Malo about the speed at which this was put up for deletion. Vizjim 08:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least for now, and let's see how it evolves. Dlyons493 12:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now and see how it evolves. Blackcap and Gadugi can play out their personal pschodramas elsewhere, though. --Calton | Talk 16:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article was nominated less that 20 minutes after it was first created.--Kewp 03:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Cherokee-cruft. It's perfectly acceptable to nominate an article for the subject choice alone, so please stop basing your votes by how you perceive the AfD-process. / Peter Isotalo 22:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this article is fine by me. Alf melmac 08:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, maybe it needs cleanup and a new title, but the topic seems reasonable ··gracefool |☺ 15:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Gadugi's attacks[edit]

I would like to draw attention to some of Gadugi's edits of this AfD, which are now buried in the edit history ([8], [9], [10], [11]). I think they certainly qualify as personal attacks, especially the bits about me being an Irish steel worker (never been near a steel foundry in my life), and the bit about me being blocked for disruption. Considering that these posts were made here in response to my listing this article for AfD, I figured it was appropriate to mention this. I've left a message on his talk page here. --Blackcap | talk 08:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my god, I just saw an ILM forming. You posted comments I was a hoax and marked a perfectly valid article for Afd in bad faith. You also bragged on your talk page about being an Irish (Steel) "Blue Collar" worker. Dont post content on Wiki if you dont want it copied and edited. I removed those comments I made because they were inappropriate. I see conduct like this on SCOX all the time but now I see it here. ILM Alert. Gadugi 08:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I never said on my talk page that I was a steel worker. In fact, I've never said that anywhere. --Blackcap | talk 08:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. I've had some sleep, and now can respond fully. First: I have never said that you are a hoax anywhere. If I may draw your attention to the top of this page, I say, "Probably a hoax." This was a guess based on the content of the article, how unverified it is, and the fact that it is appartently not notable enough to exist anywhere in the internet except for Wikipedia, and the internet is a big place. Second: You apparently do not understand WP policies, as evidenced by the edits mentioned above and your immediate assumption that this article was nominated in bad faith. Third: You continue to say that I violated some AfD regulation and that your article is "valid" (and is therefore, I can only presume, immune from AfD), but if you see WP:AfD you'll find that I haven't violated anything and that policy is on my side, at least in terms of nominating the article. I suggest that you relax, re-read this AfD, and read WP:NPA, WP:V, WP:AfD, and WP:DP and see that I haven't done anything wrong here. If, after doing that, you still feel that I have, then at least cite some WP policy that puts me in the wrong. --Blackcap | talk 16:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You called this article a Hoax and me. You probably should actually read the articles before voting Afd. You keep quoting Wiki policy, yet Google shows 31,000 hits on this topic, then you quote NPA policies, while it was you who attacked by posting an Afd to the article accusing the author of being a hoax and a fraud without ever having read it or inquiring. Why don't you just admit, "I was lazy and was attacking Jeff because I do not like him based on the stuff I saw on the internet, and I pounced the moment I saw him post this article and I was in the wrong, AfD withdrawn." Instead you keep justifying your actions when everything you claimed, all of your reasoning, your research (or lack thereof) all indicate you did not even attempt to verify information before voting, and you were in the wrong from the start. Gadugi 17:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention his suggestion that Fvw had been reverting his edits [12], something which the page history shows to be false. - Unsigned post by 82.15.19.128.

Also calling me "SCOX ILM Member" in the previous edit. I'm sure calling someone a member of a lynch mob counts as a personal attack.

Flame bait comment posted above. Also, this person is stalking as they have apparently read Internet Shell Shock. 67.137.28.187 17:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 14:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rory McArdle[edit]

Another possible candidate for speedy/A7. Groeck 04:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Just added a context tag, with an edit summary inviting the orig auth to add some. The sentence seems to refer to a sports figure, loaned out to another team? paul klenk talk 04:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: appears to be an Irish soccer player. -- Kjkolb 05:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly asserts that he is a footballer. Please don't list articles that need cleaning up and expanding here. Grace Note 06:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I did not know that being a footballer asserts notability. One lives and learns. Groeck 13:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It doesn't (or rather, isn't). But being a professional footballer in a major league probably is an assertion of notability.—encephalon 11:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another comment - I don't see how this article passes WP:BIO, especially Athletes who are widely known, widely acclaimed, or highly successful in their sport. I'll stick with delete. Groeck 15:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That needs to be looked at because it is out of line with practice which is that any professional sportsman will be kept. CalJW 15:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's played professional league football and under-19 international football. CalJW 07:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep professional football player. Kappa 16:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Professional football player. Andrew pmk | Talk 17:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, but willing to be persuaded otherwise. How notable is under-19 "international" football? Covered in major media like the FIFA World Cup, or ignored like an international spelling bee? After verifiability is satisfied, this will be at the edge of WP:BIO importance for living athletes. No indication that he would meet the criterion for non-living people after he dies. "Any professional sportsman will be kept" is not policy and is not a standard practice here; it's just an opinion which some voters use as personal voting policy. Barno 19:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Which professional sportsmen have been deleted recently? CalJW 05:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Professional sportsmen are notable enough. Shauri 13:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has appeared in the professional league system in England. Sam Vimes 18:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above comment ··gracefool |☺ 15:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 11:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spora[edit]

Indie band with no entry on allmusic.com; if they actually have a legitimate claim to notability, I don't know what it would be. Delete or prove me wrong. Bearcat 04:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep assuming that the article's assertion that they have achieve Gold album sales in Canada is correct. According to www.phx5.com/news.htm, Homegrown has sold 60,000 units which would qualify for notability. Seem to be a Christian music band rather than mainstream - could that explain absence from allmusic.com? CLW 08:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Commentno it wouldnt. The vast majority of notable Christian rock bands have allmusic entries. Haven't heard of this band before, but it's possible they're popular in Canada without notability in the USA. No vote right now. Kertrats | Talk 14:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Homegrown is a compilation album of local bands; it's not their own album, so it can't be said that they've achieved a gold album of their own. Bearcat 17:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now unless shown to meet WP:MUSIC. The record is a "compilation", this means it's one song by this band and a bunch of songs by other bands, right? This may not help their case much. If they can be shown to be notable in a verifiable way, I could certainly change my mind. Friday (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Something very fishy (and unChristian) about the boast of a gold record that is not theirs. Being on a compilation is a fine thing, and it's a world better than most failing bandity articles, but there is no verifiability for this, and verifiability is one of our minimum requirements. Geogre 21:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vote changed to Delete as per Bearcat CLW 07:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nominated for Candian Gospel Music Association Modern Rock Album of the year in 2004. It's not a Grammy, but it's more notable than much that survives this process. Have also toured Canada, which is at least medium sized.- Jaysus Chris 09:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't even accept WP:MUSIC's overly generous definition of notability as valid. This certainly doesn't pass. / Peter Isotalo 03:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you admit you're more exclusionist than WP:MUSIC, which itself isn't even a policy? That's a good argument o_O Keep as per Jaysus Chris's comment ··gracefool |☺ 15:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Groeck 16:42, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 20:19, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (withdrawn by nominator). Neutralitytalk 22:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

South African School of Motion Picture Medium and Live Performance[edit]

Doesn't seem notable to me, although I invite any South African Wikipedians to vouch for its notability. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 05:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AfD withdrawn. At first, I didn't realize this was a post-secondary institution. My assumption was that it was just an acting school. My mistake. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 20:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Institution of higher education. CalJW 07:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why bother nominating post-secondary institutions?--Nicodemus75 11:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Institution of higher education. --rob 16:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand --MacRusgail 18:28, 23 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 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. Oleg Alexandrov 03:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of acronyms involving the word fuck[edit]

I'm not sure of the point of this list, but it seems to be mainly "think up a phrase containing the word fuck and list its first initial letters". --fvw* 05:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Pointless. Jwissick 06:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Quite worthless, for only about five or so acronyms on it are real, and it is not needed. Oswax 06:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete CalJW 07:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - pointless. And someone spent so much time on this. CLW 08:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN per effort put into article Anetode 10:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DFD - The internal links in the See Also section give many firm examples of its legitimacy --220.238.130.44 10:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Fucking Delete I suppose? How about RTFM. Oswax 10:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fucking where in the fucking manual does it fucking say you can't have a fucking list of of fucking acronyms involving the fucking word fuck?--220.238.130.44 12:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BFJAOFDN♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (contribs) 11:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Utterly useless and unencyclopedic list. Carbonite | Talk 12:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sophmoric at best, only of interest to those who confuse swearing with wit. Stu 13:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • F. Has anyone else wondered what the nominator's pseudonym might stand for, give its first letter? -Splashtalk 14:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this article is FUBAR.Gateman1997 16:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Who the fuck thought up half of these acronyms? Sorry, couldn't resist. Karmafist 17:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, linked to from Fuck and too large to merge. Andrew pmk | Talk 17:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The link from Fuck is one of only three article links (the other two are Acronym and initialism and a list). Thus far, no one has proposed merging the article, so I don't believe its size is really relevant. Carbonite | Talk 17:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, SNAFU, no encyclopedic value. But I agree with User:220.238.130.44 . Barno 19:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Carnildo 22:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as equinoctial listcruft. MCB 02:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Colloquial language is important... -- Geo Swan 05:22, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then go write Wiktionary articles about it. This is not Slangopedia. / Peter Isotalo 03:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencyclopedical listcruft. Shauri 13:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Arbitrary list nonsense. / Peter Isotalo 03:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DFD --58.104.8.215 02:35, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I think this list could be useful. It would be helpful if there were such a thing as a sub-article for pages as these which are too large to merge with main article's like Fuck, however such a list seems to be relevant even if it referring to the acronyms of a derogatory word. Piecraft 14:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete useless listcruft. Groeck 16:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 11:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael giambra[edit]

Pure advertisement. Contains more information about Rockstarpix TV than it does about Giambra (coincidentally, the page creator is Rockstarpixtv.) I'm sure advertising the awesomeness of their ... whatever it is, and all the people who work for it, on Wikipedia, sounded like a dandy idea. The problem is, it's not what Wikipedia is for. Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Jwissick 06:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. Having a job does not constitute noteworthiness. CLW 08:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 08:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, Do not delete, please provide some input on how I could modify this to benefit this site. He has historical and biography material for numerous noteable popular rock musicians and he has been working directly with these artists for over 20 years. What about the people that have been interviewed here. He has over 20 years of exclusive interviews with musicians ranging from the Allman Brothers, Weezer, Billy Idol, etc.? Rockstarpix.TV is the next generation of music video television and V-logging (this has been said by artists he has worked with like Billy Idol, Steve Stevens, Jethro Tull). Please don't reply with some terse or snarky comment, Thanks.--Rockstarpixtv 13:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I edited the article. first problem was that it appears the text was largely from [13]. Next problem was that the article was non-encyclopedic. Terms like "impressive" and "visual showcase" make good advertisment copy, but are not neutral terms and are not appropriate for an encylopedia. I also removed the link to Rockstarpix.TV. It may in your opinion be "the next generation of music video television and V-logging", but hopefully you can admit to being a bit biased as it is your site. Those claims cannot be independantly verified, unless you can cite some sources where someone reputable has made that claim in an article.
    • Comment Check out Billyidol.com and stevestevens.net they have posted links to my interviews with their band directly praising Rockstarpix.TV and my music journalism. --Rockstarpixtv 02:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note that in this edit Rockstarpixtv (talk · contribs)}} changed the first person of his previous edit to third person: "**Comment Check out Billyidol.com and stevestevens.net they have posted links to his interviews with their band directly praising and noting his production of Rockstarpix.TV and Michael Giambra's contributions to music journalism. --Rockstarpixtv 02:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)"[reply]
I'm not sure this article will survive the AfD even with the changes because there is still the question of notability. I'm not trying to be snarky by any means, but there will be the issue of being able to verify some of your claims about being published. As it stands, I'm not sure being a photographer is any more notable (per WP:BIO)than being say, a bike messenger, even if you've had pictures of musicians published. No Vote because I did the rewrite.--Isotope23 18:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His musical clients and portfolio include: B.B. King, The Goo Goo Dolls, Sugar Ray, Fastball, Def Leppard, (etc etc etc) - this almost had me. But then I realized that, no, these are people who Giambra has photographed. He's not a producer, he's a photographer. Is he someone like Yousuf Karsh or Matthew Brady? I don't think so (although I'm willing to be convinced otherwise). Furthermore, Michael (I'm assuming that Rockstarpixtv is Michael?), let's assume that what you say is 100% accurate, that your business is in fact the "next generation of music video television" - in that case, it's explicitly not Wikipedia material. It'll be Wikipedia material in the future, but not until it actually happens. No vote yet, but probably delete. DS 14:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply by Rockstarpixtv (talk · contribs): I edited this because it is untrue and false. Michael Giambra started as a photographer for the Associated Press later moved the NY Times as a freelancer and now currenly works as a video producer --rockstarpix.tv 23:09, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, this user rockstarpixtv is not Michael Giambra. I am a great fan of his work. --Rockstarpixtv 02:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Michael Giambra started as a photojournalist and photographer, working for NYTimes and USA TODAY / AP. He currently directs and produces music videos and interviews with real top artists and musicians. rockstarpix.tv and Michael Giambra is CURRENTLY being praised by artists like Billy Idol, Steve Stevens and Jethro Tull for his video 'v-logging' interviews and video productions. You can find these references at the bands Official web sites. www.billyidol.com and www.stevesteven.net to verify --Rockstarpixtv 02:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO. Groeck 15:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BIO (assuming someone rewrites it) "Michael’s traditional still silver and color photography archives have been printed, displayed & appeared in numerous publications including The New York Times, Miami Herald, Associated Press ( Miami, Florida Bureau ) Reuters News Service, Associated Press & Gannett Newspapers / USA TODAY and Buffalo Spree Magazine." Kappa 16:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless much more verifiable indication of significance is provided. A few million people may have seen some of his photographs, but I doubt that anyone paid attention to the photographer's name or studio. Agree with DS. Notability does not transfer through a camera to its user. Also, violation of Geogre's Law. Barno 19:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. / Peter Isotalo 03:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep current article is fine by me. Alf melmac 08:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep according to current policy. ··gracefool |☺ 15:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What current policy? It's nearly useless to say "according to current policy" because there's so many of them; you need to explain how you feel particular policy applies to the current case. In this case, I think our policies on autobiography (we frown on them) and vanity (we frown on that too) apply, and as Barno points out, "Notability does not transfer through a camera to its user". It's true that this person has taken a lot of people over the years of some very famous people. But given that that is basically the definition of his profession, that every celebrity photographer is trying to get photos of celebrities, the question becomes: is every member of his profession automatically notable; or, is there evidence that he is notable beyond the standard for his profession? -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here is Michael Giambra's media credentials when he photographed Ronald Reagan for the NY Times at the Toronto World Economic Summit. Oh, did I mention this was one of his first assignements for the NY Times when he was 18 years old??--Rockstarpixtv 02:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures of Ian Anderson of Jethro Tull on the day that Michael Giambra interviewed and photographed him. He has won a Grammy Award, is that noteworthy enough Feldspar? He was asked to photograph and interview him by Ian and his management directly.--Rockstarpixtv 02:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Anderson won a Grammy award. Did Michael Giambra? -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, Has anyone here ever heard of Billy Idol?--Rockstarpixtv 02:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Feldspar, what is up your ass buddy? Michael Giambra is not a "celebrity photographer". He is a working journalist and producer. You should try to get your facts straight before you try to classify others. Why don't you tell us what great acomplishments you have produced other than your snarky, anal comments here? He does not "try" to get photographs of famous people. Michael Giambra is invited and encouraged to document them and treated as a friend and a peer by them. I try to remain humble here but I can back up everything I am stating here about Mr. Giambra with his photographic evidence and historical proof. What angers me is that someone with NO credibility (other than your affiliation to wikipedia) can try to berate and belittle his 20+ years of photography, journalism and video production work without ANY knowledge of the truth or facts. --Rockstarpixtv 02:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep current article is fine by me.--rockstarpix.tv 03:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • First of all, no personal attacks. Second of all, your vote doesn't actually count for much, since you have less than 50 edits, and they fall into two categories:
    • In short, the article may be "fine by you", but as both the article's author and as someone who has done nothing for Wikipedia except use it for self-promotion -- ooh, excuse me, Mr. Not-Actually-Michael-Giambra-Or-Rockstarpix-Just-Using-Their-Name-And-All-Their-Press-Material, using it for promotion of your absolute favorite celebrity journalist who-is-not-you-really and his commercial venture but-it's-not-you-even-if-you-chose-their-name-for-your-username -- you really exhibit no knowledge of whether the article is or should be fine by Wikipedia. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Assumption. --rockstarpix.tv 22:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, actually, not assumption. We know for a fact that you are the article's author; you created the article with this edit, and you spoke of Michael Giambra's experience and credentials as your own in this edit, this edit, and this edit. Did you really think that just changing "I" to "Michael Giambra" and "my" to "his" would erase your tracks? Either when you first claimed to be him, or when you clearly denied being him, you've knowingly lied to us. That's not going to help your case -- neither is vandalizing the AfD, as you've done at least twice: [14], [15]. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • *Comment: Feldspar, I disagree with you. I have done something for Wikipedia. I have uncovered a major flaw in Wikipedia. It allows jealous users like yourself to display their hubris as they live inside a false ethos of self-created importance constrained by a fairly "neat-o" online information resource that will soon be replaced by "the next greatest Google". You have no idea who you are conversing with here and your sarcasm-speak is childish at best. Keep on assuming, you are defeating your argument and proving what fool you are. What does it matter if this is my first contribution to Wikipedia? Again, you assume I will not contribute more. I just joined the site a few days ago! Why do you choose to be a flea on the "ass of the internet"? -- comment by Rockstarpixtv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log); personal attacks struck out
  • Comment: This guy seems to have a similar level of notability to Cyrus Farivar, ie not very much but enough Kappa 17:37, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Go ahead. Delete it. What a bunch of douchebags?! -- unsigned comment by 64.65.211.35 (talk · contribs), who has also blanked this AfD
  • Delete, as advertising, per nominator. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 14:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Love metal[edit]

Imaginary music genre. Death metal, yes, but love metal? —Wahoofive (talk) 05:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • KeepGenre is not crap, it IS real. Love Metal was first defined by the band HIM on their album Love Metal, and if you LISTEN to their music you will notice how different it really is to other metal genres.
  • Genre is crap but real. I don't know how notable it is, but I think it is notable enough for Wikipedia. Keep. Aecis 10:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do votes get discounted if they make no sense? How can you think something is notable if you don't know how notable it is? --Last Malthusian 22:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless any examples can be provided. ♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (contribs) 11:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I guess, although the brevity of the article doesn't inspire enthusiasm. Everyking 12:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per purplefeltangel. One band does not constitute a genre and unless a list of other artists of this "genre" can be provided (preferable ones that satisfy WP:MUSIC) I'd say this should most definitely be deleted.--Isotope23 14:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I thought "if this article doesn't just cite the album "Love Metal" by HIM (the Coldplay of heavy metal), I'll vote keep." Guess what, it doesn't. Delete this for the same reason as Ice metal; you can't create metal subgenres just by sticking a potential lyrical theme onto the beginning and citing a few metal bands who may or may not sing about that theme. --Last Malthusian 15:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I can't find a single use of the term 'love metal' via Google. All the matches for "love metal" are either album titles or are part of a sentence such as 'I love metal'. This is a neologism. --Last Malthusian 12:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Appears to exist... --MacRusgail 19:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vague genre. Failing that, redirect to the album. Punkmorten 22:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep its certainly a legitimate genre. JobE6 00:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Sonjaaa 06:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. In regard to Isotope23's comments, if this were one of those countless non-notable bands who have just started out (or worse yet, haven't even started out yet), I'd vote delete as a neologism. But this is HIM, who is better known outside their home country than Urho Kekkonen and C.G.E. Mannerheim put together. It's certainly notable. — JIP | Talk 11:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm in no way refering to the notabiliby of HIM, but again... one band does not constitute a music genre. I'd have no problem with this article being about the album, but to claim that there is a genre called "Love Metal" based on the music of one artist shows a lack of understanding as to what the term "genre" actually means. A genre is a collection or group of artists with a similar sound. By definition you can't have a collection or group of one artist. Unless there are other notable bands that can be considered to have this sound and this genre is being referred to by music writers and critics in notable publications it is a neologism.--Isotope23 18:01, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - Well, we have an article on Child pornography... --Celestianpower hab 12:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's that supposed to mean? That kiddie porn isn't an established subgenre or subwhatever of pornography or that "love metal" is just as famous? / Peter Isotalo 04:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and seriously expand and ellaborate, please. Shauri 13:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the point is that there is nothing to expand... Sam Vimes 18:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Expand? This is ridiculous. I could add a hundred bands to this article, but I won't, because it isn't a genre. A genre has to be defined by something they actually do that other genres don't. Death metal is notable for its use of screeching, nu metal is notable for its lack of solos and use of rap vocals, speed metal is notable for, er, speed, 'love metal' is notable for... what? Lyrics about love? Please. --Last Malthusian 09:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Metalcruft neologism. / Peter Isotalo 04:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The album is notable, but you can't define a genre on one album. Reluctant delete for now Sam Vimes 18:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep according to current policy. Cleanup, not delete. ··gracefool |☺ 15:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Article must be axpanded. --KeyStorm 17:12, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • How can you expand an article about a genre that does not exist? Again, nobody arguing keep has even made an attempt to establish the factual existance of this genre. There is a perfectly good article about the HIM album Love Metal already, so part of the disambigious page is not necessary. The definition portion of this term as a genre is a neologism. At best this should redirect to the album.--Isotope23 20:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete one band is not enough to define a new genre chowells 18:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't know why this vote is riling me so much - I don't even mind HIM much, and God knows there are articles on Wikipedia more devoid of information than this that aren't even subject to AfD - but I despair at the number of people just posting "keep" without any apparent attempt to justify their decision or counter the arguments that got this HIMcruft posted to AfD in the first place. I hope whoever considers the final result of this VfD takes that into account. --Last Malthusian 22:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I second that completely. Nobody who has voted Keep has shown any evidence of the existance of this genre.--69.14.198.253 01:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this because it's a neologism, almost to the point of being (in its claim that such genre exists) fabrication coupled to HIM vanity. The Literate Engineer 20:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 14:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keith b white[edit]

He is a businessman who is not particularly notable. -- Kjkolb 05:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Who??? Jwissick 06:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Google 72 results, not noteworthy. I suspect vanity as well. -- Malo 07:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn, vanity. Why do these folk create entries for themselves but without capitalising their names in the titles? CLW 07:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. 83.70.223.222 08:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lack of "notability" is not a criterion for deletion. But the capitalization needs to be fixed and the article needs to be wikified... -- Reinyday, 14:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes it is, unless I read CSD A7 incorrectly. -Splashtalk 14:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Correct, but CSD/A7 speedy requests are being turned down with the above argument (which isn't a Wikipedia policy - see link). Some clarification may help. Groeck 15:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. I almost speedied it, but it crams so many damned assertions in, it'll burst open next time anyone edits it. -Splashtalk 14:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think this is a speedy candidate due to the various claims of notibility... at least they are trying to assert them. Nothing this guy has done makes him more notable than hundreds of other managers at hundreds of other companies though. He graduated from college and he worked at various companies...--Isotope23 14:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Personally, I'd call it a speedy. This guy has had jobs, and has gotten degrees. So have lots of people. But I can see why the speedy may be controversial, so I didn't tag it. Friday (talk) 15:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete either per speedy/A7 or WP:BIO. Groeck 15:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'd said "userfy" if it wasn't an anon. This guy may be nice, and may be liked by everyone he works with, but he fails the "average X" test. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. Shauri 16:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn Amren (talk) 20:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This b deleted, not notable. 142.104.36.199 00:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I got auto-logged-out somehow when I tried to vote there. It's me. Hi. Lord Bob 00:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Eugene van der Pijll 11:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dodge B110[edit]

Google for "Dodge B110" -wikipedia yields a mere 76 results. Essentially no info, just a stub. If it could be expanded with lots of useful info, I'd say keep it, but it seems like just another stub from here. delete Malo 05:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - seems to be a legit model, and has potential for expansion if any users know about this one (when and where produced, features, etc). CLW 10:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • verify and keep So, it was nominated for deletion becasue its a stub? Roodog2k (talk) 15:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless independently (non-wikipedia) verified and notability established. The search results I found were mostly Wikipedia mirrors. Keep if it is a legitimate, significant model. -- Kjkolb 00:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - any production line car is significant. ··gracefool |☺ 15:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was already deleted. — JIP | Talk 14:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Efnet M-a-t-h[edit]

Not noteworthy Jwissick 06:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps not the place to say this, but that's like the third time that article has been recreated. Why isn't the author being blocked? ♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (contribs) 11:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 18:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UTorrent, ΜTorrent[edit]

Non-notable software. --fvw* 06:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have merged & redirected UTorrent to ΜTorrent, since edits were happening to both & the latter is the correct title.Pamri • Talk 12:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Will be an Azureus replacement for a lot of Windows users in the next few releases. Has all the key features without the massive resource hogging of Azureus/Java tedddee 09:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I can't see what should be wrong the article, or with having a bit of information about this program. -- Karl Meier 10:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep one of them. There's no need to have two articles. --220.237.167.46 10:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Reasonably popular for a torrent client. --Pamri • Talk 12:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Can anyone give us a sense of how popular this client is? It reads like an advertisement for the program. If we can get some data on how many active users there are, or # of downloads, that would make the keep/delete decision clearer. | Keithlaw 15:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Info. Here are two links demonstrating it's recent popularity. digg.com & Neowin.net Keep in mind this is a brand new program just released. Also, one of the key features of µTorrent is the ability to run it off a thumb drive due to the program's tiny file size. -- tedddee 16:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neither of those links says anything about the program's popularity. In fact, if it has just been released, the burden of proof for inclusion should be high. As for key features, those don't matter either. The fact that a program is useful or clever does not make it notable. | Keithlaw 16:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm new here but, what's the sense in deleting this just to come back in a few weeks and re-add it all? :shrug: -- tedddee 16:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a valid argument. The flip side is that if the program doesn't catch on, there won't be a need to re-add it. And adding non-notable products for the purposes of spreading the word about them is something a lot of Wikipedians (myself included) would like to discourage. I'll vote Delete but I'll change it if I see some real evidence that this program is notable. | Keithlaw 17:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, "brand new product just released." WP:NOT an advertising medium. If it "will be" a new standard, it will be encyclopedia-worthy content when it's proven. Personally I hope it makes it to that level, but it hasn't yet, and might never. Barno 19:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not an advertising billboard, for computer software or for anything else, nor is it a software directory or a encyclopaedia of things that "will be". Applying the notability litmus test for software outlined in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ExamDiff (second nomination), and the notability test for products and services at WP:CORP, I find no independently sourced reviews, manuals, guides, books, commentary, or other published works that deal with this piece of software. All that Google Web turns up are listings in software directories and mere reprints of the blurb that comes from the software's author (such as the two hyperlinks supplied above). Delete. Uncle G 05:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, although it is quite awesome, brand new and as-yet non-notable. It does seem likely, from my POV, that the article will end up being written again in a matter of weeks, but the point stands. --Superiority 16:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This little piece of software is gaining sufficient popularity to be called notable even as this vote progresses.Simoes 06:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I currently use the program. Although it may be new it is one of the smallest and most efficient programs out there. I do not believe this article constitutes advertising. If you look at Comparison_of_BitTorrent_clients this is one of the clients listed on the page. All clients listed on that page I believe should have articles about them. Matthewvelie 23:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now they've been merged. ··gracefool |☺ 15:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete at least until someone provides a working method to googletest. Google nearly ignores the µ. --logixoul 07:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 14:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hazudar[edit]

This article seems to be noninformational self-posturing about a specific character in the role-playing game mentioned. --24.21.181.39 06:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - searching Google for Hazudar and Alleria together brings up only two types of hit - this Wikipedia entry and forum comments on the Alleria website. If others see fit to keep this entry, I'm not sure anything should be kept after the first sentence. CLW 08:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per CLW. -- Kjkolb 00:40, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per CLW. Shauri 13:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 14:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Solo artist[edit]

Dicdef, no potential for expansion other than useless list of solo artists. —Wahoofive (talk) 06:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete CalJW 07:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, solo artist is self-explanatory. -- Kjkolb 00:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dicdef. Shauri 13:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Something fierce[edit]

Band who had the potential to be big until their lead singer was involved in a horrific car accident. Sad, but we don't have articles on might-have-beens. —Wahoofive (talk) 06:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: An "obscure rock band" in the '80s that never made it before disbanding. Sounds about as non-notable as it gets. — C Maylett 06:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agreed. Jwissick 06:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- AllMusic link of Something Fierce despite being relatively unknown, they did produce a record, albeit on an unheard of label. WP has many more pages devoted to far less. Malo 07:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An obscure band with one album on an obscure label does not meet the WP:MUSIC Criteria.--Isotope23 18:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Google search for band name and album name turns up enough hits to convince me CLW 09:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:MUSIC --Aranda56 22:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the Google results appear to refer to two other bands, Rocktopus and The Impossibles. -- Kjkolb 00:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN. Marskell 13:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, they're even at allmusic. ··gracefool |☺ 15:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and don't confuse with the more recent and still existing band. Groeck 16:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Isotope23—encephalon 11:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OS 0 1 2[edit]

Nonsense/not noteworthy Jwissick 06:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note that it is being spammed all over the wiki.Jwissick 06:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Reads pretty much like a load of hooey to me. — C Maylett 06:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does read like nonsense. Owen× ☎ 13:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain intriguing nonsense, if it is nonsense. Any possibility there is something to this, and it could be cleaned up? KillerChihuahua 13:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC) change to Move to Global Dialectic KillerChihuahua 14:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nonsense. Groeck 15:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep' regarding a listing as 'phooey' is a personal opinion and could be said about countless wiki entries many do not understand. there are many blogs and bbs that spread OS 012, as well as OS 012 having a formal framework and presentation on the site listed in the article. It simply is what the entry suggests. Nonsense means that no sense can be made of the entry, and that may be a personal problem with some of the readers, not the problem of the entry. I think some of these critiques are phooey, but I dont assume my opinion is enough to ban those users either. A simple google search on OS 012 would shows that this has an active web presence. http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=%22OS+012%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 or google blog search http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?hl=en&q=%22OS+0+1+2%22&btnG=Search+Blogs and sites linking to the source page http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=link+to:+//www.highintelligence.com&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tumbleman (talk • contribs) 17:25, September 23, 2005
    • Clarification: Since you appear to be the original author, I'll try to clarify my delete vote comments. The "hooey" that I mentioned wasn't in reference to the article's subject matter (although that might be hooey too), it was referring, instead, to the writing; it's unclear, dense, recondite, incomplete and muddled to the point of being nearly indecipherable. Since nearly indentical versions of the same text appear elsewhere on the Internet, I assume the poor writing isn't yours. However, if you rework the text, improve its structure and clarity, fill in the holes, work on the punctuation, remove the B.S, and provide convincing evidence of notability for this "Internet dialectic," I'm certainly willing to reconsider my vote. — C Maylett 21:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep and Cleanup. Is it a load of crap? Probably... but it is a load of crap that has a fairly significant number of blogs, forums, and related chatter in existance. I can see the potential that someone might reference wikipedia to figure out what it is. I would however rename the article to OS 012 or at very least do a redirect from OS 012 if OS 0 1 2 is the correct format as the former gets infinitely more google hits than the latter. I'm also tagging this with a cleanup because the article is not well written and is probably too esoteric to be of any value in its current form.--Isotope23 18:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Personal essay, original research, neologism not in substantial real use. Only reference cited is a website promoting the "meme." Google reports only 77 nonunique hits and most of them are completely irrelevant (i.e. do not refer to the topic of this article), e.g. "masi Music - Buy Rare CDs & vinyl Record Albums...Masiello Desyn, Original Series Os.0 1, 2 listed, $13 - $14" Re-create without prejudice when it becomes an accepted theory and when there is a good, verifiable citation from a neutral source confirming that it is a "master meme," e.g. a listing in Wired's "Memes on the rise." Dpbsmith (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You'll never get that as the master meme label appears to be self-applied by OS 012 proponents.--Isotope23 19:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • That just means that the "master meme" meme must become a master meme before the OS 0 1 2 master meme can be recognized as a "master meme." Dpbsmith (talk) 19:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Exactly.--Isotope23 19:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • 'Master Meme' is a term defined for an idea that can no longer be defeated or shown to be false in rational exchange, and continues to spread defeating, via rational exchange, all ideas in conflict with it. The word was 'coined' for the first time at the beginning formation of the dialectic, the only way to prove that it is not such an idea would be to disprove the idea in rational exchange. By definition, OS 012 being a master meme is true. The idea is not personal research, although personal research has gone into it, the idea formed as a natural dialectic on the internet, just as it states. I will work on cleanup as well as encourage others to do so too. User:Tumbleman
            • You lost me when you said "by definition, OS 012 being a master meme is true." Dpbsmith (talk) 00:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • It's a tautology, true by definition. Also, it says OS 012 'claims' to be, not is....read the print. Tumbleman
                  • "By definition, OS 012 being a master meme is true" is a quotation from your remark above. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                        • C'mon dpbsmith, focus on the valid critiques so i can make this page meet your standards here. THis issue with a piece of coined terminology is a non starter for valid critique. A 'master meme', by definition, by how it is defined by the person who coined the word, is an idea that has become dominant and can no longer be defeated in rational exchange. Such a meme is defined as a master meme. 2 + 2=4 is also a 'master meme'. Since OS 012 cannot, or has not been defeated in a rational discussion, it is, by definition and thus tautologically true a master meme. I dont see what is so hard to understand about that. A term that is defined, and then stays within that definition is a tautological truth, a truth by definition. OS 012 is a meme that spreads through the i nternet word of mouth. Here is a link that shows the stats of number of uniques hits worldwide word of mouth to the site in the past 60 days. http://s2.phpbbforfree.com/forums/os012-about43.html It being a meme is self evident as it's viral capabilities are proven. I dont need a write up in Wired to verify that it is a meme on the rise, that is absurd, I just need server stats, which I think are irrelevant to post on wiki, as I am sure most would agree. Tumbleman
                          • So by definition if the OS 0 1 2 article gets deleted from Wikipedia does that mean it's been defeated and is thus no longer a master meme or is this page considered an irrational exchange?--Isotope23 20:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as personal essay/original research. --Carnildo 22:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as OR, POV essay, dangerously close to patent nonsense. MCB 02:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's one thing to claim that it is a POV or personal research, there I could see an arguement, but nonsense? WTF? That is a CLAIM, and an unsupported one at that. Although this is not the proper forum for this, I would normally challenge you to back up such claims in debate. Why dont you pinpoint what is nonsense to you instead of flacking your opinion as if it is fact? What is this, an art gallery or a source for facts? I dont personally want to do the cleanup on Wiki as I may be too biased, and have put out the request for cleanup. In the meantime, some of you may want to argue this over at the proper forum. I dont mind a proper critique, but slandering something you dont understand as nonsense I wont tolerate. Tumbleman
          • Other sites that promote the global dialectic. http://www.geocities.com/salviacrusaders/os_012/ another one in England http://highcompassion.co.uk/, there is another one in a foriegn language I cant find the link to now....again, personal research sure, but by more than one person, dozens possibly hundreds contributed to this project. The truth values of the document are not personal research, they are self evident. 3rd value logic is not personal research, dialectic is not personal research. the dynamics of internet discussion is not personal research. It (OS 012) was not created by one person, but by many people, as it continues to be...so the claim that it is personal essay is false. There are more than one personal essays about OS 012 on the internet. Those people who created dont even know each other, and are not tied to a group either. Tumbleman
          • Again, to be clear, I have put out the request by an appropiate party to clean up the article. I dont think I can do so unbiased and although I can defend it or argue for it, writing about it objectivly as an outsider may be impossible due to my position. Thank you for your consideration
  • Delete, as per MCB. Vizjim 03:52, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I stopped reading at "...spreads as a memetic viral via blogs and internet discussion forums." Internetcruft. / Peter Isotalo 04:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research. Internet memes need to be much more powerful than this to be wikipedicized, and there's no evidence of substantive use of this concept outside of a few scattered websites. Ziggurat 04:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MCB and [User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]]—encephalon 11:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 17:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Godcasting[edit]

Neologism with a bunch of external links. --fvw* 06:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Maybe in a few years.Jwissick 06:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Neologism. Maybe if there were more substance, but as it stands, delete it. Malo 07:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Neologism. TheMadBaron 09:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There needs to be a new word for a neologism that is not only of little linguistic worth and likely to be short-lived, but also incredibly annoying and pretentious, like 90% of the words containing or related to the word 'blog' or 'podcast'. I suggest neolojizzum, given that, rather like masturbation, blogs and their like may be the simulation of a worthy task (sex/journalism), and they may be fun to do, but no-one wants to watch you doing it. --Last Malthusian 14:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And posting a neolojizzum is purely an act of self-gratification. I like the term Last Malthusian... now watch someone create a neolojizzum wikipage.--Isotope23 19:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, this term has often been employed to describe the invokation of ancient spiritual deities for specific elemental purposes. However I had no idea this was associated to podcasting. The term I refer to is something that many witchdoctors and "exorcists" or warlocks vocally perform as a manner of conducting ritual for communication with the gods. Also has been recognised as a similar term for the communication or converse with God between the angels and/or prophets.
  • Delete Neologism. DJ Clayworth 15:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as by Fvw. Shauri 16:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neologism Amren (talk) 20:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. At least 99% of the 87,000 Google entries for 'godcast*' refer to religious podcasts. The term has also been around almost since the time podcasting started to take off. Leave it in and delete the links?
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 17:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Secret nod of acknowledgement[edit]

Pointless. Jwissick 06:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

merge to Nod (gesture) -- Astrokey44 07:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete - unencyclopedic, and I don't see that this can become a sensible entry. I also don't see any benefit in merging this to Nod (gesture). CLW 07:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. TheMadBaron 09:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as utter nonsense, with or without redirect to Nod (gesture). It started in the 1990's in cubeland? I don't think so. Nothing worthy to merge here. KillerChihuahua 13:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well-known nod of deletion. No need for a redirect, because no-one wondering about nodding will go to this page first. — mendel ☎ 17:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just delete it. Useless entry. Shauri 13:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 17:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Motorzone[edit]

This article is just an advertisement for www.motorzone.com.my -- Kjkolb 06:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - advertising CLW 07:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wow, they even reprinted a whole article about their company, how helpful. Anetode 10:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertising. Groeck 15:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obvious advertisement.--Alhutch 23:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pure advertising. Shauri 13:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was: sent to copyright violations --fvw* 22:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of Nintendo Entertainment System screenshots, Gallery of Super Nintendo Entertainment System screenshots, Gallery of Sega Mega Drive and Sega Genesis screenshots, Gallery of Sega Master System screenshots, Gallery of Atari 2600 screenshots, Gallery of Atari 5200 screenshots, Gallery of Atari 7800 screenshots, Screenshots of Commodore VIC-20 games, Gallery of Intellivision screenshots, Gallery of ColecoVision screenshots and other similar galleries[edit]

Wikipedia:is not a mirror for mere collections of images.

NOTE: I'm progressively adding other galleries as I find them. They're all essentially the same so it makes no difference to the votes already cast, and the more the closing admin can shoot down at once the better. GarrettTalk 16:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to the Wikimedia Commons and retain any link to this article as a link to the replacement WC article/gallery. --SuperDude 06:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • All of the screenshots are classified fair use, and Wikipedia Commons allows only free (not fair use) content. – Seancdaug 10:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good point, then just delete. Wikipedia is not an image gallery. --fvw* 10:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Encyclopedias have articles showcasing art, articles like William-Adolphe Bouguereau gallery, why deny Wikipedia the benefit of this type of knowledge? The article is an archive to videogame imagery and useful for completing other video game articles. --ShaunMacPherson 20:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yup, I was just about to do that when it popped up in recent changes but that was you marking it. transwiki and Delete. --fvw* 06:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Make sure to see what links here so that the top level section tab can mention all the articles that link to this ballot. --SuperDude 06:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah right, a mult-nom. I agree with them all. --fvw* 07:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of info. Marskell 10:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons stated above. – Seancdaug 11:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whoa, hold on a moment, I just noticed something. "Other similar galleries"? What, precisely, is a "similar gallery"? I'm withdrawing my vote for now on the premise that I don't really think it's a good idea to fill out a blank check for the deletion of any page someone feels is similar to the ones explicitly listed.... I agree with the rationale, but would like some clarification on this point. – Seancdaug 04:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is getting better and better.... As per Garrett's comment at the top, it most certainly does "make a difference." I would agree with the deletion of all of these articles, provided they were presented clearly at the very beginning of the vote. But this moving target approach stinks, and it's not giving any of the articles the chance for interested parties to make a countercase. I'm changing my vote to keep, as this whole vote is looking more and more like a fiasco, no matter how sound the reasoning is. – Seancdaug 22:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Inclusion in an image gallery is not enough justification for fair use. - SimonP 13:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the galleries, but of course use applicable images with any applicable existing articles unless or "more fair use" images are already in place. 23skidoo 13:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I guess we shouldn't have a "mirror" for mere collections of images such as this one: William-Adolphe Bouguereau gallery. Why limit Wikipedia not to have this material, it is an archive of what video games used to look like and such information is hard to find. Wikipedia is not paper. --ShaunMacPherson 20:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not much value. Oleg Alexandrov 20:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These screenshots are of good value. They are okay for fair use. Wikipedia IS an indiscriminate collection of information. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 21:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT indiscriminant. Also, I'm skepical of fair use being applicable to mass galleries. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 21:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think it might be helpful for one to see a gallery of screenshots for video games. Marcus2 22:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, especially by system so we can see the evolution of gaming graphics. Where else can this information be found, it really should be included on Wikipedia.--ShaunMacPherson 22:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a few ways of getting around this: Create an article on the evolution of gaming graphics, then use some of these images to illustrate, or create articles for the games that don't already have articles, make sure the images are used, and make sure an easily accessible list page or category is made available (if not already in place).23skidoo 22:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete galleries (per SimonP, this is not a valid Fair Use). The images themselves, in their respective articles for the game in question, are fine. Sabine's Sunbird 22:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not an image gallery. --Carnildo 22:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and send them to the Commons. --ApolloBoy 00:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As was mentioned above, they're fair use images so they can't be put on commons. And as was also mentioned above, galleries of fair use images are copyvios. --fvw* 00:22, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While the reasons seem valid, it would be a shame to lose these. Could, perhaps, these be moved to someones namespace? Something similar has been done here: User:Raul654/favpics/Others' pictures —Snargle 00:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, those are free images, so you can do with them what you want, including making galleries. Fair use images on the other hand are images we don't have a licence to use but are allowed to use anyway for a fairly small number of purposes and in a fairly limited set of contexts. Galleries aren't one of those contexts. --fvw* 00:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOT specifically says that Wikipedia is not the place for galleries of images. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:57, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, this VfD is nonsense, why should this be deleted when other galleries for artists or other recognised image media are kept? Nintendo and SEGA are notable companies as well as consoles, the imagery provided represents the progress that these companies have succeeded throughout the 20th Century with their video games. I find that this is of extreme importance to any archive or record relating to the history of video games and consoles. Piecraft 12:01, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This AfD is not nonsense, so long as the official Wikipedia policy at WP:NOT specifically forbids it. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then explain to me the purpose for such a galley as William-Adolphe Bouguereau gallery ? Because as far as I can see both seem to be related in regards of displaying images related to an artist or in this case a video-game console. In regards to the video game console which so happens to be SEGA and Nintendo - both are notable and I think it is relevant to have a record of images based on the evolution of graphics of the games that both consoles have notable produced throughout the years. Unless you can come up with a better argument then I will continue to consider this VfD nonsense - I hope that was made clear. Also please be made sure that I am aware of what Wikipedia is not and is, and as far as I can see concerning the WP:NOT I quote "Collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles. If you are interested in presenting a picture, please provide an encyclopedic context, or consider adding it to Wikimedia Commons. If a picture comes from a public domain source on a website, then consider adding it to Wikipedia:Images with missing articles or Wikipedia:Public domain image resources." I can't see how the aforementioned article is an example of this. It is a gallery I agree, however a gallery of images that have been used throughout Wikipedia for articles related to the games, also they have been displayed under an encyclopedic context with added text and references to the individual articles of the games - just as other lists have been made, only in this case we are given information related to the evolution of the games in terms of their graphics and their respective screen shot. And whilst you're at it you lot should consider this entire category: [Image Galleries]. Null point. Piecraft 23:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Those galleries are in the namespace, I'm assuming to provide a place for editors to find images to illustrate their articles. And the images are free. These are not. I'm fairly sure no one is proposing to delete this images themselves, as they are valid fair use images in the context of the articles for the games. And the proposed article by 23skidoo would also be a valid fair use. But thiese galleries aren't. Sabine's Sunbird 02:25, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in some way that isn't copyright violating, or against policy. The information on these pages is valuable. --Boivie 00:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No can do. A simple gallery of images can't be fair use. --Carnildo 04:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: try to make a proposal to Jim Wales to see if he'll let Wikimedia Commons accept fair use images for the transwiki process of these images. --SuperDude 03:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Who decides which games get put onto the galleries? Everyone? No one? What if I add a screenshot of my favourite game, that's OK yes? What if everyone does it? How are we to say which ones are in, and which ones aren't. They should all be let in, and hence should just be a category of images. The categories should be revised and sorted by console/gaming system. If one wants to follow the evolving nature of a console, then a few select screenshots should be included with the article on the main console. - Hahnchen 03:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Take it to Wikimedia Commons. Stop trying to include anything and everything that seems remotely "useful" and start reading up on policy. / Peter Isotalo 04:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Read up on policy a bit yourself first, Commons only takes free-use images. :) GarrettTalk 16:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although I don't oppose galleries altogether these ones can't meet fair use. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Heinous abuse of fair use. I suggest that we hunt out other such "screenshots of platform X" galleries and get them deleted too. Personally I think contentless policy-breach galleries are speedyable material, but if we have to drag each through an Afd then so be it. GarrettTalk 16:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - All of these galleries serve a purpose. They are encyclopedic, therefore they belong here. You delete these, then artist articles that are galleries besides these should be deleted as well. --ZeWrestler Talk 18:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I totally agree with ZeWrestler. —Snargle 19:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please explain why you are voting keep in violation of Wikipedia official policy. See WP:NOT. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please explain why Category:Wikipedia image galleries is allowed to exist and this galleries are not? They all would be in the same violation. Yet they are still around.--ZeWrestler Talk 19:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please explain to me User:Zoe|(talk) how this gallery of screen shots falls into the WP:NOT? Because as far as I can see it is exactly as I have indicated in my last statement, a gallery displaying reference worthy images that illustrate an important and encyclopedic purpose, otherwise as I and other have already stated before, you might as well get rid of the ENTIRE Category of Category:Wikipedia image galleries. If you wish to delete this then take it upon yourselves to be hypocrites to allow an entire category to exist. Nuff said. Piecraft 22:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. Collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles. If you are interested in presenting a picture, please provide an encyclopedic context, or consider adding it to Wikimedia Commons. If a picture comes from a public domain source on a website, then consider adding it to Wikipedia:Images with missing articles or Wikipedia:Public domain image resources. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • To be fair, there is currently a proposal to move Category:Wikipedia image galleries to the Commons for the very reasons being cited here (and repeated directly above by Zoe). So it's not like there's a clear double standard here. If the images in questions were public domain/free, then they'd be eligible for the same, but they're not, and therefore cannot be moved. – Seancdaug 22:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • There seems to be many list articles (of software, linux distributions) etc. Why not a list article of images? I fail to see the harm, especially when the benefits of the article as an archive to video game history are so clear. --ShaunMacPherson 03:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). However, I would like to remark that a mistake was made when the article was moved to a new title. The redlink in the AFD tag should then have been fixed with a redirect to this debate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Scoring[edit]

I thought at first that this was original research. But the user who wrote the article said that he had heard about it somewhere else, although he wasn't sure where or what the concept was usually called. Google gives no hits under the name Virtual Scoring or Relative Scoring, and no-one on WikiProject Cricket seems to have heard of the concept.

In summary, it's probably not original research, but it is uncorroborated and unsourced, and probably misnamed too. Delete, unless someone can find a source, in which case move to the correct name. Stephen Turner 07:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC) [Vote later changed as a result of the debate, see below. Stephen Turner 09:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)][reply]

  • Delete - as per Stephen Turner's research. Creating an article about a concept you've heard about somewhere (but don't know where) and when you're not sure what it's actually called is a recipe for misinformation. CLW 07:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Stephen Turner. --Ngb ?!? 08:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - the source is the Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians and the method has also been called relative scoring. It is definitely used by some cricket statisticians to compare batting records in the past, when pitch conditions dictated low scoring, with more recent records when scores are higher due to beneficial pitch conditions. The article needs to be updated to indicate the source and usage. It is wrong to insist on deletion just because you have never heard of a concept; rather you should employ constructive criticism to help with completion or enhancment of the article. --Jack 10:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue is not that I haven't heard of the concept: it's that I can't find anyone who's heard of it, nor any evidence of it on Google under either of the names you have given. You need to give a sufficiently precise reference that someone else can look it up. See WP:CITE. Stephen Turner 11:54, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since when does something have to be on Google to be a recognised concept!?!? As for you being unable to find anyone who knows of it, it is not very well known and it has been included on here so that people can learn something about it, which is why most topics are included in encyclopaedias. Surely all that is needed here is to quote the ACS&H as the source and make clear that it is a statistical method used in specific circumstances such that its users are more concerned with it can do rather than what it is called. We seem to be overlooking purpose and usage by imposing pedantry. --Jack 11:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am happy to keep the article if you can cite a source that I can look up. Stephen Turner 11:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have quoted the source. It is the Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians via their quarterly journal. You will have to "look up" all their past journals because I do not remember the precise issue; I read the article and adopted the concept. It is not widely used because there are probably only a dozen or so people who are actively interested in comparison of Georgian batsmen with contemporary batsmen: it is a specialised area of study. Because an area is specialised does not mean it is unfit for inclusion in an encyclopedia: on the contrary, because it is specialised it should be included to enable people to learn about it. --Jack 11:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if, and only if, verifiable external references are given and the article name proves to be correct. If said references are given but the official name turns out to be, say, relative scoring, then move the article to that. Delete otherwise; I certainly don't disbelieve Jack, but the assertion of one person - any person - is not enough for an encyclopedia. Loganberry (Talk) 13:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • My vote is now simply Keep and expand. Since my original vote, Jack has added some information to the article about the fact that his source is "the quarterly journal of the Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians". This goes some way towards reassuring me, and I think it's enough for me now to oppose the article's deletion. I also strongly disagree with the subject's being referred to as "cricketcruft" (see below); I think it's entirely suitable for Wikipedia. However, although we know Jack is a good and trustworthy editor, most readers will never have heard of him (or, indeed, any of us). Therefore I stand by the reasons for my original vote, which was made at a time when no source information at all was given, and I still think that a specific source is highly desirable and its addition to the article should be a high priority. Loganberry (Talk) 22:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per Jack; obvious cricketcruft even if it turns out to be true. / Peter Isotalo 04:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's an entirely ridiculous statement. If it turns out to be true, and we can find a proper and verifiable source, then it will be an interesting and informative part of Wikipedia's content -- it is no more 'obvious cricketcruft' than Seijin shiki is 'obvious Japancruft'. People arbitrarily throwing the word 'cruft' around at VfDs really pisses me off. --Ngb ?!? 08:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is a completely idiotic statement and really there should be a VfD re use of nonsensical terms like "cruft". Apart from anything else, he says "delete as per Jack": I don't think I voted for "delete", did I? --Jack 11:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per Jack. Alf melmac 08:52, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. I did some asking around myself about this without success, but feel like giving the benefit of doubt. Tintin 16:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and update as necessary when further research has been done, including identification of the precise issue(s) of The Cricket Statistician (ACS Journal) in which this concept has been discussed. I think you will find that the article(s) is/are many years old by now. As for its usage, I personally know TWO cricket statisticians who use it. I admit that one is BlackJack but there is another chap who also uses the method. I think one of the difficulties with it, as Jack has said somewhere, is that it is a method without any definitely agreed title. I fully expect that if the source article in the ACS journal can be found, its title will not be the title of the method but something along the lines of "How to compare batsmen of different eras". As a result, those who have adopted and used the approach are left to give it their own title and, indeed, the two people I know call it differently: one says virtual scoring and the other says relative scoring. Equally, it could be called comparative scoring or real value scoring or whatever.
  • As with all articles on this site, this one is open to enhancement and improvement. I fail to understand how anyone can justify calling for its deletion just because the precise source is momentarily unavailable. Surely by including the article it is possible that someone may read it who can supply the journal date and number; who will then edit the article accordingly??? Or is that too much of a common sense view? --GeorgeWilliams 16:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Frankly, I get sick and tired of people who "don't think something is a suitable topic". This is an encyclopaedia and its purpose as such is to be a work containing information about every department of human knowledge. I presume cricket statistics is a department of human knowledge and is worthy of being a sub-category of cricket to contain numerous articles about statistical methods and approaches? In that case, if some members of the ACS use a technique to compare batsmen in 1805 with batsmen in 2005, is that method not a legitimate subject for inclusion in the cricket stats category; or is it more important to exercise pedantry because someone has encountered something in an encyclopaedia that he has not heard of before and "cannot find on Google"? I despair. --Jack 11:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Have you really still not understood? I actually said "I just don't think it's a suitable topic without some sort of corroboration". The dispute (well, apart from Peter) is not against the subject itself, but against the lack of citations. Of course it's a suitable topic, if, and only if, you can cite a proper source. "I heard about it in a journal once, but you'll have to look up which one," is not a proper source. It is required on Wikipedia that you write from sources, not from memory. Stephen Turner 12:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are splitting hairs. Okay, if the precise source was in a journal some years ago and cannot be readily identified, then the article is merely incomplete pending further research (i.e., to find the precise quarterly journal). Nearly every article on Wikipedia (and every stub) is incomplete; which is why people are invited to come on here and edit them. If I find the precise quarterly journal I will quote it; if someone else finds it, they can edit the article and quote it. The general source of the concept is the Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians and the concept is used by members of that body, including myself. This discussion is a waste of my time. Indeed, I am beginning to wonder if Wikipedia is a waste of my time. --Jack 13:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think Wikipedia is a waste of time. I think people who make pedantic, carping criticisms are a waste of time. Fortunately there aren't that many of them on here. May I suggest that as the article is incomplete it should be recategorised as a stub? By having it on here, there is a possibility that another user just might have the precise source (which I think will be an ACS journal from as long ago as 1980) and will edit the article to supply it? But he won't do that if the article is deleted, will he? What sort of short-sighted, illogical approach is it to delete a perfectly good article just because the precise source is momentarily unavailable? The article quotes the ACS as the general source so surely that is enough to be going with? This deletion topic is absolutely idiotic. --GeorgeWilliams 16:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was no mention at all of the ACS when I made my initial vote; it's been added in the last few hours. I've changed my mind about this as a result, but when I voted the first time (yesterday) there was no source information at all, and that was a big stumbling block. Loganberry (Talk) 22:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recategorisation as a stub is a good idea, George. Thanks for your support. --Jack 16:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I admit I've never heard about virtual scoring - but hey, isn't one of the things about an encyclopaedia that you do read about things you've never heard of before. Yes, the article is missing a few things - and references is an important thing that it is missing - but so are many other articles. It needs to be expanded, with comments on which statisticians use it, and comments on how relevant it is - but for this to happen the nascent article has to stay. Here we should give Jack the benefit of the doubt - Jack is a good contributor, and based on his very valuable work to WP to date, which I for one have found very informative and which supply information that has not previously been available on the internet, jguk 20:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. GeorgeWilliams's contribution above has swayed me. We now have a journal name (The Cricket Statistician), and confirmation that the method is not unique to Jack. I'm still not happy about the fact that the source is not precise enough to consult, and that the article was written from memory not from sources (I would love to know the answer to Tintin's question), and that it doesn't seem to have a fixed name. But we do have a lot more answers than the first time I asked around, so I think it's just acceptable now. I would, however, like to echo what Loganberry said above: "I still think that a specific source is highly desirable and its addition to the article should be a high priority". Stephen Turner 09:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep according to current policy. It even cites a respectable source (not that that is even necessary to keep an article). If this is deleted, it is in spite of current policy, not because of it. If you think policy should be changed, go ahead and submit it to the community and see if it reaches consensus. ··gracefool |☺ 15:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Update Done. The page has been rewritten to make the article more concise and to include the general source. A suitable name has been agreed upon and the article redirected to that name: Comparative performance scoring (cricket). --Jack 12:18, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MAY WE PLEASE HAVE A FINAL DECISION TO END THIS DISCUSSION WHICH HAS EXHAUSTED ITSELF?

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

The result of the debate was already deleted. — JIP | Talk 17:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

City_of_Paolo[edit]

Hoax. Alarmingly, a hoax with a lot of redlinks and a "see also". Already speedied earlier contribution by creator. Jkelly 08:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete, patent nonsense, I've already csd'd an article about water fountains in this "city"... Usrnme h8er 08:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Stephen Turner 08:34, 23 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 deleted by User:Gamaliel --Doc (?) 09:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Porsha Blaze[edit]

Entire text of article reads "Porsha Blaze is a former pornography model from the U.S." plus a link to her page at a commercial porn site - while I'm sure that's great for her, it's hardly encyclopedic. Article formerly contained personal information (now deleted by administrator) and a link to a personal blog kept by the actress who played Porsha Blaze, which stalkerbait appears to have been the entire point of the article. Vizjim 08:29, 23 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 Speedied. android79 12:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Laura and Ashley[edit]

3rd party vanity page, no assertin of evidence for notability Usrnme h8er 08:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Jwissick 08:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn vanity CLW 09:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete nn-bio, nonsense Anetode 09:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
While I certainly will not object if this is removed as csd, the reason I didn't flag it as such myself was that I felt the "voted as most befutiful within BCSS (whatever that is)" assertion suggested notability... Usrnme h8er 11:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Would have speedy-deleted it if this AfD had not started. -- PFHLai 10:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 17:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

HyperCast[edit]

Advertisement, the link is to a domain called "p2padvertisement" Usrnme h8er 08:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Jwissick 08:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - advertising, nn CLW 09:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Anetode 10:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, ad. Shauri 13:19, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, ad. *drew 07:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 17:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Point Cook railway station, Melbourne[edit]

Marked as a speedy for non-notability - but CSD not met. However, a proposed railway station looks nn to me. --Doc (?) 09:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 17:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keepkard[edit]

Product promotion, linked web page is not even in english. feydey 10:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - advert CLW 10:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete exists just for web site promotion. Dlyons493 12:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Ad. Owen× ☎ 13:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletekard. Advert. -- BD2412 talk 18:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, yet another ad. Shauri 13:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Eugene van der Pijll 11:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional pens[edit]

Seems to have started as a vanity page promoting someones pen collection on the web. Although the subject is probably suitable for an article, I can't see that this article as is is suitable as a starting point. Nothings links here. -- Egil 11:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per Egil CLW 12:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - do we have an article on promotional materials, in general? I can't find one, and there are certain things that are very commonly given away by companies that effectively promote those companies by featuring their logo (pens, caps, t-shirts, notepads, etc.). If such an article exists, this should redirect there. -- BD2412 talk 13:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete IMHO its not even an article - its two dicdefs. If you know what a pen is, and you know what a sales promotion is, you know all you need to know. The only redirect that might make sense is Advertising. My .02 - KillerChihuahua 13:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep just for the fun of it. I feel like being nice today, and I do love those promotional pens. "Bob's Garage," "DT Farm Insurance, Inc." and whatnot.
  • do not delete Keep, rename, merge, anything other than delete. Could be an interesting article if given a chance. Roodog2k (talk) 15:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Tchotchke, which could use a good cleanup. —Wahoofive (talk) 15:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per KillerChihuahua. Title is also misleading. Dlyons493 15:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reklamepenner, which is about the same issue, made by the same author (reklamepenner is the Norwegian word for promotional pens). Punkmorten 17:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Jwissick 17:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Tchotchke or delete. --Carnildo 22:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's probably a promotion versions of any standard household item out there and nonse of them deserve an article of their own. I mean, I've even seen promotional toothpaste tube roller-squeezers (or whatever they're called). / Peter Isotalo 04:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - why the *$#! not? It's verifiable and wiki isn't paper. It doesn't come under any point at What Wikipedia is not. ··gracefool |☺ 15:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just for the fun of it, though I don't think it is real fun. Groeck 16:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No sources for any of the claims. Unlikely to be expandable or encyclopedic. Quale 02:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was move. Eugene van der Pijll 11:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Josef Cardinal Clemens[edit]

The guy is actually not a cardinal (see [16]). I already moved the content of the article to Josef Clemens, thus no information is lost. Gugganij 11:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • A merge is not necessary (the article up for AfD contains the same info as Josef Clemens), a redirect doesn't add anything. Delete per nom. Aecis 11:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC) Keep --> Rename, per Uncle G. Aecis 14:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 12:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above CLW 12:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleting this article and keeping Josef Clemens would violate the requirements of the GFDL, as author attribution would be lost. Keep, delete Gugganij's bogus copy&paste move at Josef Clemens, and Rename the article back to Josef Clemens, where in fact it used to be. Gugganij, please read Help:Renaming (moving) a page and do not perform copy&paste moves. Uncle G 13:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know that copy and paste violates the requirements of GFDL, sorry for that Gugganij 21:03, 23 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. Roughly 29 keep votes, 21 delete votes. Cleanup take will be added - I'd suggest possible attention tag too. Hedley 21:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of warez groups[edit]

Always going to be POV; limited encyclopediac value. Talrias (t | e | c) 01:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This Vfd has gone through 1 week of voting, and appears to be a close match. I suppose we could err on the side of 'caution' and completely redesign the article, with some help of course. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 15:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or EXTREME Cleanup. I am entirely fed up with the opinionated 15-year olds going around on the article talk pages, vandalizing my talk page for protecting it, and other stuff. IT has no value, because we can't list every single group out there. Unless you want to start from scratch and only add groups with a news article source, my vote stands. If you'd like to do what is outlined in the previous sentence, then the extreme cleanup applies. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 01:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That is absolutely astounding. Wow. Imagine if we deleted all articles on the basis of what 15-year olds did on their talk pages. —RaD Man (talk) 04:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain for now. Don't know enough about this. But I see we have Category:Warez groups. Maybe a list could be made out of only those (i.e. notable enough to have a WP article. But then again, that list would be slightly redundant, so I don't know really. Shanes 01:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's redundant then. Like I said earlier, if it's kept it needs to be started over from scratch and only w/ groups with notable sources. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 01:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably what we should do is just trim the list down to groups that have articles on here, that will clear up about half of the page. In the last section, everything is red links except for one. No vote from me yet. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a repository of everything ever known. --Phroziac (talk) 01:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, category is sufficient. Dcarrano 02:01, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - agree with two previous voters, a category would be best, if anything at all. -- Joolz 02:07, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is what categories are for. --Woohookitty 02:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm inclined to agree with the nominator. A few examples in the main Warez article should be sufficient for our encyclopedia. This "list of" article adds little value and is creating obvious problems. Delete. If kept, I do agree with Zscout370 that the list should be pared down to only those truly notable groups. A reasonable proxy is having an article. A redlinked site (or worse, a redlinked site that no one could be bothered to even describe) is unnecessary. Rossami (talk) 02:11, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Almost entirely unverifiable. --Carnildo 02:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but only the stuff that can be verified. Note to warez people: if you can be verified by us, then the authorities will be able to also. Have fun in jail! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above 66.167.144.200 03:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Most of these groups are verifiable. The ones that aren't should be removed. Rhobite 03:15, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The Category is enough. --Eliezer 03:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redundant, category is better. Friday 04:07, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The list with short descriptions is value added over a simple category, but the list should be strictly limited to groups that are sufficiently notable and verifiable to have their own wikipedia page, i.e. no red links. Dragons flight 05:08, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
    Addendum Comment: I went through and found the following wares pages which recieved keep/no-consensus VFDs: [17][18][19][20][21][22][23]
    I would say this is fairly good precedent that at least some warez groups are encyclopedic. If one accepts that premise, it is not much of a stretch to believe that a list of notable warez groups is also encyclopedic. Dragons flight 08:41, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic. --Malathion 06:20, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic. I'd even go so far as put the category up for deletion. Almafeta 07:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - unlike the category, it seems like this table provides pretty good concise summaries / short descriptions of the groups. Agree with Dragons flight above on the necessity of limiting the groups to sufficient notability, though that of course carries the caveat of flame wars, vandalism, etc. when someone decides that warez group X or Y is not notable. Verifiability, IMHO, should not be too problematic, either. RidG (talk) 07:34, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete, there are a couple of notable groups on here but mainly it seems to be a magnet for vanity of NN ones. Radiant_>|< 08:26, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Some of the information doesn't seem like it could be easily and instantly verified. TheMonkofDestiny 10:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but let the redlinks stand. The category is sufficient at this time, but if at some later time enough articles are added to warrant a list, I have no objection the this page being re-created. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 10:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, mostly harmless unverifiable (sorry, I have Earth on my watchlist). I'm with Ilyanep on this one. Either this article gets deleted because it's too secret, or it gets kept, but only with groups that are verifiable through news sources. Even if this article gets deleted, one can always recreate it, but only with verifiable groups. --Deathphoenix 12:06, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable. Even a so-called "notable" warez group hardly is, I'd say, any more than any other cartel of fraudsters or copyright violators. CDC (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Not to overtly criticize, but that's a rather unsophisticated comment. 95% of all released warez comes from a small number of well-established groups, with anywhere from 2 to 5 groups vying for the top position in a specific niche (i.e., PC games, DVD movies, etc.). Given the attention that piracy receives in this country and others, I would argue that such major contributors to piracy are indeed sufficiently notable. Infamy does not warrant lack of inclusion to the Wikipedia, at least as far as I am aware. RidG (talk)
  • Keep - agree with RidG Ravedave 19:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per Ta bu shi da yu. --Conti|✉ 22:00, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - not encyclopaedic, fest for 15 year old IRC kiddies who think that being able to edit a .ini file makes them a 1337 Hax0r!1!!!!!1111! --Kiand 22:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Amusing. :D — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 00:45, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please but only the parts which can be verifid Yuckfoo 22:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable information. Martg76 22:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the list ordered information provides a useful comparitive summary of organisations. The criteria for inclusion in the list should be a WP article which itself meets the notability criteria. Fifelfoo 00:29, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bicycle keep. As it clearly states atop this article, this is a list of warez groups for the parent article on warez. It was created because the list of names was becoming too long for the main article and it was appropriate to export it; I believe this is an acceptable reason for the creation of a list on Wikipedia. If non-notable or non-verifiable groups are added they can always be removed, but that is certainly not a valid reason for the deletion of the entire list. Secondly, this list serves to document notable groups which do not yet have articles rather than create a host of stubs. Alkivar is out of town, so I'm not sure if he'll be responding before the close of this vote. —RaD Man (talk) 03:45, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was created because the list of names was becoming too long for the main article So what? It was worthless in the main article, and it's worthless by itself. --Calton | Talk 13:35, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-encyclopedic. WP is not a web directory. --Calton | Talk 13:30, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. Reluctantly, because there's no way this will ever get cleaned up and stay cleaned up. An annotated list is not redundant with a category. I would be more comfortable with this if it did not include freebie links with redlinked entries. (Seems like an open invitation for vanity additions.) It would be useful if there were some kind of objective criteria that could be applied (Alexa ratings? I don't know enough about the topic). -Aranel ("Sarah") 23:14, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, cleanup and annotte. This may be one of the few pages that needs semipermanent protection. Rich Farmbrough 00:52, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of which, I just noticed that this is protected from editing yet does not have a protection header atop the article. Secondly, it seems like a catch 22 (or conflict of interest) that an article cannot be improved while it is up for deletion. —RaD Man (talk) 01:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There used to be a vprotected tab...but it was removed by someone. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 18:05, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
RaD Man brings up a good point. This article, while being placed on VfD, has not had a chance to be improved. That really weakens this VfD, because one of the benefits of a VfD is that the article itself often gets improved during that time. If this article gets deleted (and it's pretty borderline right now), that makes it a strong case for a VfU. Perhaps this article should be unprotected and placed on VfD for another week. I'd like to see how (or if) this article gets improved. --Deathphoenix 17:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it should be unprotected at the moment. I think any admins who voted on this should watch it carefully, however. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, because we already have Category:Warez groups. If it were not for this category, I would vote strong keep. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 16:38, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Elfguy 17:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for several reasons: 1) moved to sub page since Warez was getting too large 2) stops the main warez article (which has been a repeatedly used resource/reference by major media organizations NY TIMES, BBC) itself from being vandalized constantly by joe schmoe the 12yr old warez kiddie to hype his latest l33t group. 3) Its really easy to verify existance of groups, but many are not noteworthy enough to get a stub article. This is a way to list smaller groups, as well as larger more verifiable groups with a brief 2-3 sentance description of them, and save the hassle of vfd's of small stubs because one person decided group X was non notable. Sadly a category (which I do find useful) would get cluttered up way too fast if we were to start including data on each group since there have been probably 15,000+ warez groups worldwide in the past 20 years.  ALKIVAR™ 00:17, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Interesting list. Removing this in no way improves Wikipedia. --L33tminion (talk) 01:16, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Many of these groups are very notable, some a little less. I'm offering my help in cleaning it up. It should definitly stay. bbx 01:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I'm persuaded by Alkivar's rationale. Problems should be handled by removing unverifiable additions. --Michael Snow 04:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This list is interesting. --Myles Long 14:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agreeing with RiDG, the fact that cracked/pirated software/media makes up such a large margin in the computer market (a given, since anyone somewhat knowledgeable on a computer has heard of p2p, and the general makeup of those networks is for distributing such files) should account for it's place it notability. Second, agreeing with RaD Man and ALKIVAR, the need for a seperate list to be created should be obvious given that someone that doesn't know what the term warez means probably doesn't want to have to deal with a huge list of groups on the same page. Also, not to be critical, but it seems that most of those giving a reason for deletion simply find the subject offensive. A wiki not only allows editing by anyone from mister PhD to his 4 year old daughter, but it also promotes free-speech. Hello World! 18:02, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
    I can't find a single vote on this who said they find the subject offensive, or that removing it would somehow limit free speech. Who are you referring to here? Talrias (t | e | c) 18:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weaaaaaaaak keep under the condition of cleanup and REDESIGN. The current layout is horrible. // Gargaj 09:45, 2005 July 20 (UTC)
  • Keep, clean and update It's an interesting list, but needs a few updates and design revamps as many groups that were only alive a month ago have now left the scene. --crumb 14:25, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Warez groups are on top of their food chain. They're the ones responsible for nearly every illegal copy of software and games out there, etc. Wikipedia's not paper, as some say. claviola (talk to me) 14:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moderate keep, mainly because all of the groups have their own articles already, and a list is more informative than a category. I don't really like the formatting, though. It should be more of a standard headers+<dl>-type thing. « alerante ✆ ✉ » 15:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Y0u. --WikiFan04Talk 20:55, 22 Jul 2005 (CDT)
  • Keep - but clean, perhaps, keep the POV out, etc. IMO this page was in its best state after Ilyanep locked it originally - it was POV, flame free, info was easily verifiable (defacto2.net, cybercrime.gov), and useful. It's referenced by many mainstream news organizations as well as people (including myself) writing papers on the subject of Intellectual Property.
  • Keep -- but does need cleaning, and probably some discussion about protection or watchlisting, per above. · Katefan0(scribble) 18:00, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete while probably keeping only "historical" dead groups. Listing recent groups brings nothing but trouble. Dipswitch(scribble) 20:28, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • weak keep - with cleanup. --Avatar-en 12:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 17:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gbolade seton[edit]

While heart-warming in detail, it looks very much like a vanity page. The user who created it is anonymous, and their contributions (3) to date (~1 month) consist of edits to this page. I suspect self-promotion. --Plumbago 12:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability unasserted, though I do hope he realizes his dreams. Marskell 12:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN. Owen× ☎ 13:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think this person has been sending me many e-mails. paul klenk talk
  • Delete Astrokey44 13:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No assertion of notability (A7) Groeck 15:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • " His process of water purification is currently unparallelled. He eventually started his own company and further built his factory in the Ikotun suburbs of Lagos state. He is currently making great progress in realizing his dreams of providing pure and safe water for the people of his beloved Lagos State and environs". Kappa 17:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 17:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kalara[edit]

Not notable group, not in Allmusic, the article has no info on releases, etc. feydey 12:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was already deleted. — JIP | Talk 17:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Morgantopian Empire[edit]

Nonsense. Unfortunately not incoherent enough to be speedied. jni 12:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Gibberish. Stu 13:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Faintly amusing, but totally delete-worthy. --Plumbago 13:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Should qualify for speedy, I would think. No big whoop. paul klenk talk
  • Delete as per nom. Groeck 15:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete patent nonsense. Shauri 13:22, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete It's the work of a genius!. Morj 10:06 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • What he said I don't know about genius.... Still cool. Ace 11:24 26 September (UTC)
  • DO NOT DELETE I have been an upstanding citizen of Sir Morj's Great Empire for many, many years and I will never regret signing up for it. Moff 11:24 26 September (UTC)
The last three DND votes come from two anon IP's, one who placed the three DND votes and one who edited the very last one to remove 'bollocks' and such. --Syrthiss 20:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC) (ps this counts as a DELETE as well)[reply]
  • The reason they all came from the same IP is because they are posted from the one network at my high school, but are from three different people, all members of the Empire
  • Don't delete this artical has done nothing wrong, all they want is recognition, it isn't spam it's a real virtual empire, the home site is still under construction though. COFM
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep as redirect. Eugene van der Pijll 11:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mikuni_shimokawa[edit]

The other Mikuni Shimokawa article has the same info (and more), is formatted better, and correctly capitalizes the family name in the title. --Darren Lee 13:26, 23 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.
To satisfy the "pony" vote.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). A vote was made to "pony" as well. Let's see... Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lingnan Primary School[edit]

Friends, I implore you to delete this crap about some random chinese primary school written in pigeon English and with no encyclopedic value whatsoever. Dunc|☺ 13:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Do you mean Pidgin English? Dpbsmith (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, he means pigeon, because deletioncruft is for birdbrains.--Centauri 22:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I gotta admit, that was pretty funny. Lord Bob 00:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because its on this list List of schools in Hong Kong Whats the point of deleting an article someone probably created after reading "This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it." *person clicks on redlink* thinks 'wow I can help by expanding it' then its deleted. Astrokey44 13:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because it's a vanity article that is clearly cruft. There should be links to primary schools from List of schools in Hong Kong because there should be no articles on primary schools. Dunc|☺ 14:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable school under attack because of multiple examples of systemic bias. Asian schools are now a constant victim of deletionist attack. Help fight the systemic bias by voting to keep. It is also disruptive to nominate articles which are already incorporated into list articles.--Nicodemus75 14:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Huaiwei[reply]
  • Delete unless material is added during vfd showing notability. This is not systemic bias - schools in all countries should have the same criteria applied. I've now discovered Wikipedia:Schools which clears some things up. Dlyons493 16:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please post evidence for Asian schools are now a constant victim of deletionist attack to help addressing any such problems. Dlyons493 15:44, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the past week, the following 6 Asian schools have been nominated for AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manila Waldorf School, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greenview secondary school, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Notre Dame College, Dhaka, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lingnan Primary School, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zhenghua Primary School and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clementi Primary School. If one discounts the mass-nomination made by user Dismas of 23 schools he was able to find in the Miami-Dade school district, the Asian schools nominated represent 32% of the nominations in the past week. There are more nominations in this past week against Asian school articles than in the preceeding four months. The recent spike in proportion of Asian schools being nominated for AfD is clearly an example of systemic bias, as is the nominator's comment concerning pidgin English. I am astonished that given that the nominator used the phrase "some random chinese primary school" , anyone would challenge my assertion that this is an example of systemic bias.--Nicodemus75 16:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The statement that it's a sudden spike actually argues against it being systemic bias, which would have been ongoing. Nominators of American school articles often ridicule their language as well, and use terms like "some random Iowa school". How is it that you view a whole bunch of Miami schools getting nominated as an individual vendetta, but a whole bunch of Asian schools getting nominated is "systemic bias"? —Wahoofive (talk) 21:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I may be wasting my time in trying to explain it, if you do not already see the bias. The spike in nominations of Asian schools is systemic bias, precisely because the attempts to delete American (and Canadian and British) schools have failed so miserably. Nominating Asian schools is an attempt to focus deletion attempts on schools which are de facto less well-known, less "notable" (whatever that really means) and less likely to be improved by a Wikipedia community made up largely of native-English speakers from the United States, Canada and the UK. Thusly, Asian schools being mulit-nominated for AfD is an example of systemic bias because (as this nominator has already stated) "the deletion of even one article is a victory". It is easier to delete a school article which is not from a native-English speaking part of the world because such a school is far less likely to be improved and brought up to standard when compared to those in English-speaking parts of the world. Hence, those voters who will approach the AfD with no stated view on the inherent notability of schools, will be more likely to see a poorly-written, poorly-edited school article when it is from Asia than from Florida, and are more likely to vote to delete it. The entire scenario is textbook systemic bias.--Nicodemus75 22:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • If what you say was the nominator's intent, it has failed miserably, since as of now there are zero delete votes and many keep votes. Still, alleging systemic bias is an attack on all of Wikipedia, and using the seeming bigotry of one nominator as evidence of a weakness of the entire WP community is not fair. —Wahoofive (talk) 22:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't know how much more clear I could be. Schools from parts of the world that do not speak English as a native language suffer a systemic bias because they will be less well known in a community that is made up of native-English speakers. You are correct, this bias exists in the WP community as whole - by definition. Schools in North America, the UK, Australia, etc. are going to be more numerous, more well-known, more "notable", be the subject of more edits (all of which are objectively true) than schools in areas where English is not the native language because the English-speaking WP community is made up of people largely from those places (and thusly will be better acquainted with schools in their own geographical regions than "some random school in China"). A multi-nomination of schools from Asia is an exploitation of this systemic bias in order to achieve the end of "getting even one school article deleted." I am well-pleased that this attempted exploitation of the systemic bias is failing in this case.--Nicodemus75 22:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Attacking contributors for their "pigeon English" is a sure way to increase systemic bias. Kappa 16:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. I don't think this school was nominated because it was Asian. The nom has indicated they wish to delete all primary schools, and has tried deleting American ones also. However, I think the text "...crap about some random chinese primary school written in pigeon English" was very poorly worded, and invites misinterpretation. --rob 16:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)I'm abstaining at the last-minute, due to problems of verifiability. I have tremendous problems with the nominators comments about certain people, general hostility towards schools, and the SPAM tactis; but I've decided verifiability is to big of a problem in this case, at this time. Abstain --rob 05:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Agree with Kappa and Rob on pigeon English - that's not a helpful term. Dlyons493 16:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to counter geographic bias on Wikipedia. The author's comment about "pigeon English" is rather offensive, to boot. Andrew pmk | Talk 17:44, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. --Vsion 18:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Dunc, I must politely request that you refrain from insulting these articles and the creators of these articles, you are violating policy by continually doing so. Silensor 19:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Schools are inherently important enough to deserve their own articles. Wikipedia is not paper. --ShaunMacPherson 20:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pony Wikipedia:Schools needs revisiting. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Besides generally agreeing that school articles have a place in wikipedia, this primary school is apparantly related all the way up to Lingnan University (Hong Kong). Certainly dosent seem like just another "random chinese primary school". --Huaiwei 20:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Please make note that several Wikipedians have made requests that we keep these discussions civilized. We may not see eye-to-eye on what is important, but that is no reason to insult someone, their beliefs, or their contribution(s) to Wikipedia. This is a community driven project. Bahn Mi 21:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I concur. This goes especially for those who want to make any intricate speeches or tirades about the merits of keeping or not keeping school articles. / Peter Isotalo 04:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Im getting tired of schools being nomintated if i c one more school being nominated in the next 2 days I will change all my delete votes for all those schools into Keep and maybe even join Wikipedia:Schools and help out and vote keep for school articles period. This is getting very out of hand and everyone should agree with me. --Aranda56 22:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can I hold you to that committment? :-) --Nicodemus75 22:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Deletioncruft madness. This school has existed for over seventy years! --Centauri 22:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; elementary schools are NOT NOTABLE!! ♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (contribs) 23:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is old school. Klonimus 23:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Asians do not belong in Wikipedia. I mean, Wikipedia is hosted in the United States, so only the United States should have articles. I fail to see how this point can be argued. Any American schools you may see on AfD are pure coincidence. On a serious point which less facetiously mocks those who go on about systemic bias, schools are not inherently notable regardless of which country they're in and which bird's English the articles are written in. Lord Bob 00:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We must be closing in on the day when even Dunc accepts that nominating schools is not a productice activity. CalJW 00:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete We must be closing in on the day when even CalJW accepts that not every concrete block construction is notable. Denni☯ 01:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vegaswikian 06:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is useful when one does research on the history of a place or an organisation. It should be marked as a stub for expansion. HenryLi 16:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, request all parties to mind civility and good faith. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, naturally. Have cleaned up English. Vizjim 03:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yet another non-notable school. / Peter Isotalo 04:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. *drew 07:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consensus so far has been to keep schools (see Archive and Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep). ··gracefool |☺ 16:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. We should be encouraging this type of participation. Unfocused 22:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonencyclopedic --redstucco 09:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This page has 4 sentences. The first states that it concerns a primary school. The second and third name a principal and a "consultant principal;" for both, not even a first name is provided, just the Chinese surname. The concluding sentence mentions that Lingnan Primary School has an association with its old boys society (almost as if that is unusual—I suspect the author is trying to relate something else?). There is not even a passing, stray nod toward any kind of verification. Not even an external link (even to the usual non-independent, poor sources). Not one reference. No mention even of those well-known bestowers of encyclopediability—telephone numbers. Every time you think you've seen the worst examples of complete indifference to the most basic requirements of Wikipedia articles, something turns the corner on AfD and proves you wrong. When people (on both sides of this issue) vote in a partisan manner (ie. to always "keep" schools or to always "delete" schools) they damage WP, because no attention is paid to the true arbiters of encyclopediability—the authority that is forged from having multiple, good quality, independent, subject-focused sources that will satisfy WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:NOT, WP:N. At its heart writing an encyclopedia article is simple: like any scholarly article, you need to always source all your statements to good references. That is and has always been the crucial requirement. If it is difficult or impossible to write a good article because there is simply a lack of sources to satisfy WP:V, that is an indication that the subject cannot be given encyclopedic treatment in a separate article of its own. Conversely, if there is an abundance of quality references, that article will deserve a place even if most people have never so much as heard about it. This article has remained in this utterly, completely, unverified state for 3 months. Delete.—encephalon 12:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are few to no "multiple, good quality, independent, subject-focused sources" for Haddersfield, Jamaica but its here because it's a real village. Wikipedia aims to be comprehensive and does the best it can with what is available. Deleting important information for the sake of being "scholarly" damages wikipedia because it damages the users who need it. Kappa 13:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are, of course, quite mistaken, Kappa.
        1. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. That is the very first thing you read under Key Policies (WP:RULES), the main page of the essential rules that govern this encyclopedia. It is the very first thing that you read in the fundamental five pillars (WP:5P). The fundamental requirements of encyclopedia writing are enshrined in the basic, fundamental tenets of its policies. WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV are each and all fundamental rules that we may not ignore as we please: they are there for a reason—if you want to write an encyclopedia, you must pay attention to sources and verifiability. On Wikipedia, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR are especially important—in fact they are crucial; I would say they are the single most important set of tenets that we have to follow. Why? Because of the particular nature of our encyclopedia: its editors are anyone and everyone, and it is open to editing by anyone and everyone. We do not have professional editors and scholars writing our articles, we do not have submissions for peer-review, we do not have experts endorsing them. The only safeguard we have against a deluge of nonsense, falsehoods, misinterpretations, lies, hoaxes, and other undesirables is to reference what we write to independent, reputable sources (either primary or secondary).
        2. If you wish to write an article about something you know about—your dog, say, or a little school across the street, by all means do so: as long as you can meet the above requirements. If your dog is the last of a special breed that was studied in a peer-reviewed National Geographic report, please, by all means write about him and reference the article. If your school has an 852-year old history and is the subject of several works, including at least one entry in an encyclopedia, please, by all means write about it and source your entry. If you work on an unusual pathological process that few WPns have even heard of, but which is well-studied by scientists, may I implore you—write about it and source it.
        3. But if your dog, school or work lack such primary or secondary sources, please—pause. That is an indication that it is not suitable for an encyclopedic entry, at least for now. If independent verifiable information on your school is so hard to come by that it's not even possible to determine trivial information like the name of its principal, please—do the honorable thing and desist. If the only "source" you can find for writing your article is an external internet link to a completely non-independent source in a foreign language, whose information the overwhelming majority of English WP editors have absolutely no way of verifying, please—do the right thing: maintain a respect for WP's policies and vote to remove the page, even if this goes against your personal preference. WP does its best, indeed. Its best does not include breaking its own fundamental policies to include unverified material.
        4. Haddersfield is a poor comparison to this apparent school. As someone who has spent a lot of time thinking about WP, its policies, and the seemingly intractable debates that surround some of its articles, it seems to me that poor understanding of fundamental policies underlie much of the disagreements. The difference between the two is two-fold.
        • A. Every single claim in the Haddersfield page is verified. It has a link to an independent source, which, even if principally only a map, verifies what is being said in the article, and indeed adds likely dependable information not found in the article. Furthermore, the source is not written in Japanese, ancient Greek, or in some other way that will render it inaccessible to the overwhelming majority of editors and readers of English Wikipedia. It's written in the acceptable language: English.
          B. Haddersfield is a town with a very old history. It was founded in a parish (St Mary's Parish) that was one of the very earliest Spanish settlements in Jamaica after Columbus' landing in 1494. In fact, St Mary's Port was the second town to be founded in Jamaica by the Spaniards. There was also an English presence in the area after 1655. It is virtually certain that such an historical place will have independent reliable primary or secondary works focused on it, written by local authors, historians, geographers and others. It is therefore not unreasonable to take the long (or eventualist) view with respect to the page, as long as the current page contains fully sourced and verified statements.
        5. The article on this alleged school of course does not meet any such standards. Every claim it makes is unverified. There is no indication that there is any work extant on this school that can form the basis for an encyclopedic article. Furthemore, because the vast majority of schools are never the focus of historic or scholarly study, it is fair to require that some evidence of the existence of good sources be presented before one votes to keep.
        6. I realize the difficulty with the group of articles that fall in the gray zone, Kappa. I've thought seriously about article-related policy on WP because I've wanted to find a fair approach that above all preserves the intergrity of the encyclopedia and its core policies; I think it's possible to have logically-consistent decision-making with respect to most articles. I've pointed out to you before that your approach is not logically consistent, and involves seriously compromising some of the most important WP policies—principles that lie not only at the heart of encyclopedia writing on WP, but are held sacrosanct by every scholarly enterprise worth the name. When WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:RS et al are thrown to the winds in order to support a partisan view (eg. keep schools at all cost), the encyclopedia suffers for it. You are prepared to accept into the encyclopedia things for which you can find little or no verification, simply to support keeping a page; they could well be utterly untrue. I can never, will never, do the same.—encephalon 10:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good God, if you'd spent a quarter as much time researching and writing about the article under nomination for AfD, as you did writing this long-winded (and ultimately pointless) response, the article would meet all of your requirements. Despite all this, the AfD will still end in no concensus.--Nicodemus75 15:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It didn't take me long to write the above, because I've thought about policy in this area for quite a while. I also keep a record of AfDs that I have participated in or which I find interesting, for reference.
  2. If I'd spent that short time on this article I'd have achieved nothing. The online search I've performed seems to indicate that there are no independent, reputable sources focused on this school (in English) that would enable me to write an encyclopedic article on it. There is some possibility that such works exist in communist China, in a Chinese tongue, in some library or archive, but you will understand that I'm disinclined to pursue such avenues in particular for what is of vanishingly small import.
  3. They are not my requirements. They are Wikipedia's requirements. I happen to try and follow them.
  4. If the post is pointless, that will be regrettable. But not for my having written it. It will be regrettable if I'm wrong but no one showed me where, or if I'm right but no one cared.—encephalon 15:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The idea that all articles require sources in English has no consensus and would be tremendously damaging if accepted. Websites of state-registered schools are a reasonably reliable source of information for details such as who the principal is. Also state-registered school have to be documented by that state, providing a potential independent source like those we can imagine are available for Haddersfield. Kappa 16:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Kappa, you can't be serious. This is English Wikipedia. It aims to have articles on a broad range of topics—but not at the cost of that all important principle, verification. On this encyclopedia, verification lies in the hands of you and me—ordinary editors, not experts in Chinese. The lingua franca of English Wikipedia is, to state the patently obvious, English. If we cannot even read the documents which supposedly provide documentary evidence of this alleged school, how on earth are we to verify it? Come now, Kappa.—encephalon 16:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frankly I'm tired of your patronization and arrogance. You are free to interpret policies as you wish but please try to understand that reasonable people may differ. Kappa 05:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a load of bollocks. There's no patronization in that, and here you are insulting him by blowing off his opinions as unreasonable. --Blackcap | talk 05:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was very surprised and more than a little saddened to see this note. I've always treated you with respect, as I do everyone on WP, and have never supposed that reasonable people may not differ. I've continued to treat you with respect even though I've reason to think you have sometimes been unfair to some of your fellow editors [24], [25], [26]. However, it's possible for all of us to say things we don't intend to be hurtful, but which others can construe as harsh. So I've carefully re-read my comments self-critically, with the intention of removing and apologising for any such remark, but I cannot find anything objectionable (if you do, please let me know Kappa). I never make personal attacks and always try to be well within the bounds of civility, so these are never concerns. As to your own response, characterizing someone as arrogant is a clear, outright personal attack. I'm not going to ask you to modify your comment or your tone as it doesn't hurt me in the least, but I hope you find a more productive way of discussing your views with all of us on Wikipedia.—encephalon 08:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sometimes I wonder if time is a good factor to consider when it comes to the ability of articles to grow in the long term. Saying this article will not grow because it has not for the past 3 months appears to nullify the probability of someone adding data tomorrow. In addition, I may also remind, that sometimes basic geography, economics, and realities of life do create stretched and compressed time scales when it comes to articles on different regions. How fast would you expect an article related to Africa to grow compared to one in North America? If we use time as a criterion, I suppose it will not be long before this site becomes another strong representation of the lopsided world it already is.--Huaiwei 13:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am not using time as a criterion, Huaiwei. I am using the criteria all of us should use: the principles central to writing encyclopedic articles on WP. Pages which violate those policies should be removed, whether they've been on WP for 3 weeks or 3 years, whether they pertain to the United States or to sub-Saharan Africa. Likewise, pages that are written in accordance with such principles should be kept, no matter how obscure or unknown to WPns at large.—encephalon 10:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • If I may quote correctly, you said "this article has remained in this utterly, completely, unverified state for 3 months". I clearly see that time was a criterion in your view, and I do not think I misread it at all, unless a month is not a time frame? You state this article should conform to wikipolicies applicable to the entirety of wikipedia. Sure. Now, show us which wikipolicy states that time is a criteria for deletion?--Huaiwei 16:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • You misunderstand. The reason the page should be deleted is that the claims it makes are unverified, and every indication is that it is for practical purposes unverifiable per WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR. I also stated that the article has remained in that poor state for some time—this is simply an observation about the length of time the article has been in violation of WP policy. The length of time is not the reason for deletion, the violation of WP policy is. Regards—encephalon 16:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Encephalon. --Idont Havaname 16:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Encephalon. --Blackcap | talk 04:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 19:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DraculaZombieUSA[edit]

nn bandcruft. Delete. Finishing a cleanup of user's nn contribs. Fails WP:MUSIC; no allmusic entry, only plays locally in NYC area.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 13:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was MERGE to Andy Ross. — JIP | Talk 19:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Dakota Ring[edit]

nn bandcruft. Delete. Finishing a cleanup of user's nn contribs.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 13:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 19:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Two Man Gentlemen Band[edit]

nn bandcruft. Delete. Finishing a cleanup of user's nn contribs.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 13:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 19:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Leave Baggage All The Way[edit]

nn albumcruft. Delete. Finishing a cleanup of user's nn contribs.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 13:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. nn. Andrew pmk | Talk 17:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Thank you very much for cleaning this up, Rasputin! Punkmorten 22:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn Groeck 16:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 19:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Councilman[edit]

nn bandcruft. Delete. Was a redirect back to the band listed. Finishing a cleanup of user's nn contribs.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 13:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 19:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Smilin' Andy Bean[edit]

d, nn User:RasputinAXP

  • concur, d. DS 12:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn Groeck 16:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zhenghua Primary School[edit]

Wikipedia:WIN the Singaporese yellow pages. Yet more schoolcruft. Dunc|☺ 13:44, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Isn't this part of the school wikiproject? -- Reinyday, 14:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Another example of systemic bias nomination against an Asian school. Help stop this bias.--Nicodemus75 14:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Learing about schools in other countries is good for you. Schools aren't cruft. --rob 15:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyvio from [27] Dlyons493 15:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, I took a quick look, and it seems just some stuff that mainly wasn't needed, had been copy/pasted. I removed it. I think what (little) is left is all original, but welcome a second look. --rob 16:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Gateman1997 16:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and/or Transwiki to Yellowikis. Andrew pmk | Talk 17:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools. Verifiable Dlyons493 18:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep another important school. --Vsion 18:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This AFD page is yet another example of deletioncruft. On a serious note, this is actually quite a notable school, considering that it's notable as all the planning regions we put up. For goodness sake, we write about towns that have populations as small as 12. Certainly, we can write about facilities that serve way more? -- Natalinasmpf 19:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, great example. When people started doing that, they were probably called insane too. Now, it's pretty much accepted that every little township in every little county must be kept, and there's been no harm, and much benefit. I can say in an article "Joe Bloe is from TownshipX", and when somebody clicks on TownshipX they go to an actual worthwhile article. It also "puts together" via backlinks people from the place. Similiar things would happen with schools. Often, in the "Personal life" section of a bio, their school might be mentioned, but there's nothing to link to. Lots of schools have famous alumni, but that info is usually not captured. Funny, if somebody is born in TownX and is there for only the day of their birth, we always mention it, but if they spend years at a school that had a big impact on them, we rarely mention it, even near the end of the article. --rob 20:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the multitude of reasons expressed at Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Silensor 19:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or move to the community that it serves Pilatus 19:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It serves the entire community of Singapore. That is, anyone from the entire population of FOUR MILLION is eligible to enroll. Of course, people within 1 km of the school have priority in the notorious primary one enrollment where kiasu parents elbow their way in, but it serves the entire city-state. Your justification isn't enough, because I don't think we can merge it with the Singapore article - it's way too large already. -- Natalinasmpf 20:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Schools are inherently important enough to deserve their own articles. Wikipedia is not paper. --ShaunMacPherson 20:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pony Wikipedia:Schools needs revisiting. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Please make note that several Wikipedians have made requests that we keep these discussions civilized. We may not see eye-to-eye on what is important, but that is no reason to insult someone, their beliefs, or their contribution(s) to Wikipedia. This is a community driven project. Bahn Mi 21:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain Sigh Hope I dont see any more schools --Aranda56 23:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep wonderful school. Klonimus 23:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just get over it. CalJW 00:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, schools are notable, and it is a non-US school, which is good IMO because it helps counter the inherent western bias on WP. -GregAsche (talk) 02:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep assuming that some work is done on the article. Vegaswikian 06:02, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as usual. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neutralitytalk 01:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The schoolcruft has moved out of the Anglo-Saxon world. May God have mercy on us all... / Peter Isotalo 04:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This deletioncruft is spiralling it's way out of control too. I'm considering holding an afd on this afd page, ironic as it seems. -- Natalinasmpf 05:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. *drew 07:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep - It clearly states that it is a school in the title. --Celestianpower hab 18
    49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • keep and please stop calling all school articles cruft already Yuckfoo 20:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consensus so far has been to keep schools (see Archive and Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep). ··gracefool |☺ 16:20, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. We should be encouraging this type of participation rather than wasting our time trying to remove good, encyclopedic information. Unfocused 22:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonencyclopedic --redstucco 09:09, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-Another un-notable school.Dudtz 9/29/05 5:54 PM EST
  • Keep - Worthy of a page. Singopo 06:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clementi Primary School[edit]

More schoolcruft. Substub, if you exclude the vandalism that it has accrued since no-one cares enough to watch it properly. Dunc|☺ 13:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Yet another systemic bias nomination against an Asian school. --Nicodemus75 14:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • And what the systematic bias in favour of primary schools and against such unnotable things as parks, corner shops, supermarkets, community centres, motorway junctions, garages, churches, lawyer's offices, doctor's surgery's, dentists, etc etc etc. Dunc|☺ 15:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I can't understand your statement in pidgin English. Work on your grammar so as to more adequately communicate your ideas. Diction is also important in the communication of ideas, "unnotable" is not a word.--Nicodemus75 17:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is a bit rich, given Dunc's systemic bias in favour of railcruft and related irrelevant minutiae. Cluttering up Wikipedia with pointless articles on non-notable trains - which are merely hunks of metal on wheels - and featuring such useful information as what colour the carriages of some defunct British rail company that nobody has ever heard were painted in 1958 makes most school articles look worthy of inclusion in Britannica by comparison.--Centauri 00:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this elementary school, which is large compared to elementaries where I am familiar with. Nobody will invest time in improving this or any article, until they know their contributions will be kept. The only way to give that assurance, is to completely defeat the attempt to mass-delete schools. Why can't nominators simple make up one big list, we'll have a single vote, and be done with this foolish waste of time. --rob 15:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you know why they won't do that.--Nicodemus75 18:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rob, and wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Kappa 15:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Rob makes a valid point that contributors need to know their contributions will be kept. Personally I disagree with the notability of most primary schools, but agree absolutely that we need a clear guideline to prevent this timewasting one-by-one approach. What's the appropriate forum for that?
  • Comment I've now discovered Wikipedia:Schools which clears some things up. Dlyons493 16:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.Gateman1997 16:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and/or Transwiki to Yellowikis. Andrew pmk | Talk 17:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep of course, this is an important school. --Vsion 18:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This AFD page is yet another example of deletioncruft. On a serious note, this is actually quite a notable school, considering that it's notable as all the planning regions we put up. For goodness sake, we write about towns that have populations as small as 12. Certainly, we can write about facilities that serve way more? And this is Clementi Primary School. By the way, verifiable, notable, and I can see where I can contribute on this, although I'm not a pupil there, it would be a case study of "average education" in Singapore. Because mind you, all the stuff we have so far (most of it, at least), Anglo-Chinese School (which won the Odyssey of the Mind in 2001), Raffles Girls School, etc. all have been schools with high upper class populations. Certainly an average school can be represented? Because 1), already it's distinguished from countless other schools around the world, but there are no similar articles about this kind of education in the context of streaming, Singaporean demographics, and whatnot. -- Natalinasmpf 19:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or move to the community that it serves Pilatus 19:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this as well for reasons declared at Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. I look forward to a time when we can all look back and wonder what all the bickering was about over the inclusion of a perfectly fine school article/stub. Silensor 19:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pony Wikipedia:Schools needs revisiting. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Please make note that several Wikipedians have made requests that we keep these discussions civilized. We may not see eye-to-eye on what is important, but that is no reason to insult someone, their beliefs, or their contribution(s) to Wikipedia. This is a community driven project. Bahn Mi 21:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • More Sigh --Aranda56 23:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this merged school is twice as notable as the pre merger schools. Klonimus 23:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep More notable than most of the train stations on Wikipedia and we don't have people determined to delete those. Just get over it. CalJW 00:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' Extract one fact - one fact - from this article which sets this school aside from any one of tens of thousands of schools and I will change my vote. Denni☯ 01:28, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Clementi Primary School is a government-funded and managed primary school in Singapore. It is located in Clementi, a new town in western Singapore." Fact 1: Clementi Primary School is the only educational institution of that name in Singapore. Fact 2: It is located in Clementi, a new town in western Singapore. Both of these facts distinguish this school from "tens of thousands of other schools", so you may now modify your vote accordingly. --Centauri 02:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • If that's the best you can do as far as "unique facts" go, then the joke is on you. / Peter Isotalo 04:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Precisely the kind of stupid argument I would expect from someone who votes uncritically for anything with four walls and a roof. Try again. Denni☯ 01:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as usual. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neutralitytalk 01:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. *drew 03:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per nominator; once these things are kept, they're either going to be forgotten and ignored or will steal attention from articles with actual content. / Peter Isotalo 04:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How will they "steal attention"? I genuinely don't understand the comment, don't have any intention of being rude. Vizjim 15:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 19:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tukehduta[edit]

Article claims it's a small town in Indonesia, and there is no other content. However, Google can't find it, and "tukehduta" is Finnish for "suffocate". Possible hoax. Delete unless it can be verified. Any Indonesians in here? — JIP | Talk 14:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as content-free hoax. At first I thought it might be a mispelling for something real, but then I saw the other edits of "213.138.128" and realize it has to be a hoax. --rob 15:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per — JIP | Talk and rob Dlyons493 16:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete MONGO 17:04, 23 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 The Land 09:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

British Fantasy Award[edit]

No idea of the reason for nomination! Stephenb 14:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The original nominator (User:Connor Wolf) doesn't say why this was nominated, though he has made some strange contributions to Vfds in the past (Sean W. Wright?).

  • Keep - these are valid awards given by the British Fantasy Society Stephenb 14:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for sure. Makes me wonder a bit about the motivation behind the nomination. Friday (talk) 15:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. No reason given, clearly not a valid nominee, and the result of this VfD is a foregone conclusion. --Ashenai 16:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Dlyons493 16:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - nonsense nomination. Additional comment: All this said, the article needs to be expanded since it's mostly a list of current nominations. 23skidoo 17:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. --Quintin3265 19:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't see any reason to take nominations without subpages or motivations seriously. If people can't be bothered even with a motivation, then please don't list them here. They just clog up the system needlessly. / Peter Isotalo 04:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.It asserts all what i needs. Kaosnoway 14:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious speedy keep, hello admins! ··gracefool |☺ 16:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 19:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DeadKidSongs[edit]

Non-notable band. Though they do appear to have local gigs and a CD, they are unsigned and not yet of note. Maybe when they get big, someone will create an entry for them. Best of luck! Habap 14:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Friday (talk) 15:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Excellent nomination, by the way, Habap. Makes your case well without being wordy or nasty. If more of us could make nominations like that, maybe AfD wouldn't be as toxic! --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, best of luck to the band, echo fuddlemark's comment. Alf melmac 09:25, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 19:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The X Mod Scandal[edit]

Not linked to or from anything. May be a vanity page for the site mentioned but should be deleted as being non-noteworthy. Al Clark 14:44, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete close to Speedy Dlyons493 16:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy. This isn't an article, this is a note passed in civics class. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete complete vanity piece. not encyclopedic at all.--Alhutch 23:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Some teenager’s blog. No assertion of notability. Unencyclopedic. ♠DanMS 04:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 19:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Age of conflict[edit]

Advertisement for a website[28]. Kusunose 14:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete advert, partly written in the first person. CLW 14:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this advert. --Plumbago 15:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advertising. *drew 15:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 19:53, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

C I P[edit]

Article on a non-notable band, which also looks very much like advertising. Loganberry (Talk) 15:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, seems to be non-notable and reads like an advertisement.— Wackymacs 15:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable advert. Only a radical clean-up and useful content can save it. --Plumbago 15:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing verifiable here. And it's clear these guys are just starting out, so there's no way they meet WP:MUSIC guidelines. Friday (talk)
  • Delete per Friday. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- not even listed on PunkOttawa (which is not limited to punk), which has a much, much lower notability bar than Wikipedia. — mendel ☎ 02:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 20:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 19:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado Os[edit]

Non-notable software project. Google query found one relevant match, wikipedia should not be used to establish notability. CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn. Andrew pmk | Talk 17:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom. Groeck 16:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - you may wish to vote on Ahmed Sammoud as well, since his claim for notability is as Tornado's creator. DS 13:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). When moving a page under a deletion discussion, please remeber to fix the subsequent redlink in the AFD tag by making a redirect to the ongoing discussion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Postipuu school[edit]

The systematic bias against doctor's surgeries, churches, parks and supermarkets (etc) and in favour of primary schools should be addressed by killing the schoolcruft. Dunc|☺ 15:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a bit rich, given Dunc's systemic bias in favour of railcruft and related irrelevant minutiae. Cluttering up Wikipedia with pointless articles that nobody will ever read, about non-notable trains - which are merely hunks of metal on wheels - and featuring such useful information as what colour the carriages of some defunct British rail company that nobody has ever heard of were painted in 1958, makes most school articles look like they're worthy of the Nobel Prize for Literature, by comparison. --Centauri 00:25, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, international schools are even more interesting than average. Also per wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Kappa 15:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; although I agree with you in principle, international schools are more notable (I would not say "interesting", because I am not Kappa) than your common or garden variety primary school. Needs a cleanup to make its notability more obvious, however. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. How many schools in Finland offer curricula in both Finnish and English?--Nicodemus75 18:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uh...probably all of them. Neutralitytalk 01:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • "consider not participating if: a nomination involves a topic with which you are unfamiliar." Kappa 01:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I have yet to see an article about something finnish that wasn't worthy of inclusion, it could use expansion though. Klonimus 23:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this school is important and we do not want to promote systemic biases here any more Yuckfoo 18:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools. Verifiable [29] Dlyons493 18:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • When citing Wikipedia:Schools, please make clear to others who read your comments that it is not policy. In any case, it sets no specific criterion. It does say that "the only fitting criterion is how much verifiable, NPOV information can be found on the school." In this case, there isn't very much. And it's not even clear how verifiable it is. The article cites no sources at all. The website mentioned by Dlyons493 is not a website for the school, but a general website for the City of Espoo. I can verify from that website that the school exists, but I cannot, for example, verify that it has 360 pupils and 45 staff members, as the link for the school itself, http://www.edu.espoo.fi/~pkoulu2/englind.htm , does not currently seem to be functioning. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why should he have to "make clear that Wikipedia:Schools is not policy" anymore than any other citation of reasons for voting? I see no reason for this since Wikipedia:Schools itself states it is not policy, and the only reason to mention it during an AfD is to attempt to somehow invalidate the ideas expressed there. I see no demand that all voters who say "non-notable" as their justification for delete, "make clear that lack of notability is not a valid criteria for school deletion as per WP Policy."--Nicodemus75 19:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Personally, I'd happily delete most schools but my reading of Wikipedia:Schools is that the only choose one of (polite|sensible|useful) procedure is to recognise that we differ on this and hence consensus to delete will not be reached, implying that vfd's should not normally be started. So I'm planning to vote keep in future (but only if it seems to be necessary) Dlyons493 22:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pony Wikipedia:Schools needs revisiting. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Please make note that several Wikipedians have made requests that we keep these discussions civilized. We may not see eye-to-eye on what is important, but that is no reason to insult someone, their beliefs, or their contribution(s) to Wikipedia. This is a community driven project. Bahn Mi 21:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:NOISE --Carnildo 22:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The systematic bias against doctor's surgeries, churches, parks and supermarkets (etc) and in favour of primary schools should be addressed by requiring Dunc to write more articles about doctor's surgeries, churches, parks and supermarkets (etc), rather than wasting the time of dozens of editors and disrupting Wikipedia to promote a campaign of deletioncruft against perfectly good, factual, verifiable articles about schools. Keep. --Centauri 23:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is this a record for most school nominations in a 4 day period and I Abstain got tired of this . --Aranda56 23:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Please respect the consensus and stop nominating school. --Vsion 23:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no consensus about schools. If you believe I'm mistaken, please cite the relevant policy page. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd think there is a concensus with respect to mass-nominations and multi-nominations. --Nicodemus75 00:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • And your reference for this consensus is... where? Dpbsmith (talk) 13:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wilful disruption. CalJW 00:40, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: what do you mean by "doctor's surgeries?" -- Kjkolb 01:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Brit-speak for a doctor's office. Brit "he's in surgery" = U.S. "he's taking office calls." Dpbsmith (talk) 13:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A garden-variety school is a garden-variety school, Finnish or not. Nothing in this article convinces me that this is any more than an institution that opens at 8:30 and closes at 3:30. How many schools in Finland offer instruction in both Finnish and English? I'd guess the answer to that is "quite a few". Denni☯ 01:34, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "consider not participating if: a nomination involves a topic with which you are unfamiliar. " Kappa 11:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, based on your own familiarity with schools in Finland, Kappa, would you say that it is usual or unusual for a school to offer instruction in both Finnish and English? Dpbsmith (talk) 13:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Very unusual, as far as I can tell. Kappa 14:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • "...as far as I can tell..." Consider not participating if: a nomination involves a topic with which you are unfamiliar. Denni☯ 01:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • I am not depriving users of information on the basis of uniformed guesswork, unlike you. Kappa 20:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yes, we would be well and truly deprived if an article on this utterly non-notable school were to vanish. I can hear the wailing and the gnashing of teeth already. I think I'll go write an article on a daycare to help myself feel better. Denni☯ 03:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is a common garden gnome school, with nothing notable at all, apart from the fact that it's a school. It will never get deleted however, because of the big majority needed to delete, and the fact that the keep voters are a bunch of organised extreme inclusionists, whereas anyone wanting to delete just doesn't care enough. Keep it up Dunc. - Hahnchen 03:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Denni and I second Hahnchen. These keep votes are a bandwagon which never address the notability of the particular subject. Marskell 13:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I see nothing wrong with this school article. — JIP | Talk 11:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to proper capitalization and keep. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neutralitytalk 01:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. *drew 07:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consensus so far has been to keep schools (see Archive and Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep). ··gracefool |☺ 16:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no consensus about schools. If you believe I'm mistaken, please cite the relevant policy page. Wikipedia:Schools is not a policy page. It is not even a guideline. The link you provide is a link to an archived discussion of a failed attempt to reach a consensus. I ask everyone to strive for accuracy and objectivity when making statements about "consensus." Dpbsmith (talk) 19:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this is one in a series of several bad faith nominations made by someone with a deletionist agenda against schools. Bahn Mi 20:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. We should be encouraging this type of participation rather than wasting our time trying to remove good, encyclopedic information. Unfocused 22:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonencyclopedic --redstucco 09:13, 27 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. -Splashtalk 01:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Filemon "Momoy" Canete[edit]

Article establishes little or no claim to notability; Google search "Filemon Canete" returns 55 unique hits. Paul 06:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting this, the original entry didn't draw enough discussion to establish a consensus. Rx StrangeLove 15:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was 'DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vinyl Rag[edit]

Vanity record label of the already-deleted band The Biscuits —Wahoofive (talk) 15:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm, ideally it'd be speediable somehow, but I'm not sure how. Delete as bandcruft. Friday (talk) 15:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn vanity Groeck 16:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 05:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Hers[edit]

Previously submitted for Speedy/A7. Resubmitting as NN per WP:BIO (per below; should be kept). Groeck 15:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, he has a variety of Lilac named after him. While he may not be über-famous, for a Chinese botanist from 100 years ago, he's as famous as they come ;) Sherurcij 15:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You got me there. I had wondered what botanized was supposed to mean and thought he was some railroad engineer; I did not get the connection to him being a recognized botanist. Changing my vote to keep based on the additional information (I am not a Lilac hater, btw ;-). Groeck 18:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, convert all lilac haters through the power of reason. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stupid lilacs... always making me sneeze... Keep and Expand with a list of the varieties of lilacs he discovered, if possible.--Isotope23 18:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 22:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand, I'll go note the lilac page for any experts there. Alf melmac 09:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should be a speedy keep now. ··gracefool |☺ 16:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. -Splashtalk 01:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agalmics[edit]

Non-notable neologism; there are two WP articles about "Robert Levin," although neither is the one who is credited with coining this word; 86 unique Google hits. Paul 06:51, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting this, the original entry didn't draw enough discussion to establish a consensus. Rx StrangeLove 15:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This philosophy is under attack and suffering oppression in web forums due to the implied anti-capitalist and anti-intellectual property stance. Please do not delete the entry without strong concensus to do so. Edit by user:24.218.145.239, users second edit. Rx StrangeLove 18:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless this term is used by people other than the guy who coined it. Friday (talk) 18:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism. I can't find any uses other than in Wikipedia mirrors or by the guy who created it. --Carnildo 23:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I found this site, that is currently down [30], but a google scholar search turns up zero links [31]. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 23:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gamehippo[edit]

Advertising. Does not seem to be notable. DJ Clayworth 15:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). There were suggestions to merge this with List of Guantanamo Bay detainees. Redirecting this page there might be an option, but after reviewing that article, I have found that it does not accomodate biographies like this article, but only the names and some vestigial info. Therefore I will let the article stay and not merge it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jamal Muhammad Alawi Mar'i[edit]

NN ≈ jossi ≈

One of the noteworthy things about Alawi is the role volunteering for, and being employed by, two charities the USA has classified as tied to al Qaeda, appears to have played in his classification as an illegal combatant. I created an article about one of those charities, Al Wafa. I mention Alawi on that page, and link to his article. There is something strange about this. Al Wafa's headquarters are in Israel. It is hard to understand that Israel's security services would allow a charity based in Israel to be tied to al Qaeda. -- Geo Swan 01:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. However, having a page that lists the detainees in Camp Delta would be more acceptable. Individually they don't (usually) merit a separate article, especially when there's nothing beyond nationality by way of content. Also, is there a source for the information that this individual is detained? --Plumbago 15:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with List of Guantanamo Bay detainees or equivalent if possible, otherwise delete. By the way, jossi, consensus on the mailing list seems to be that nominations need more than just an abbreviation or two. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with Plumbago's reasoning.
  • Delete Jwissick 17:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with and redirect to List of Guantanamo Bay detainees. Andrew pmk | Talk 17:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to list as above. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 23:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Alawi merits an article because few Guantamo detainees Combatant Status Review Tribunal records can be downloaded. -- Geo Swan 01:22, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Do not create List of Guantanamo detainees, that would be no more notable than List of prisoners in San Quentin. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regardless of whether such a list is worthwhile, I don't agree with your comparison. San Quentin is a perfectly ordinary prison, with criminals within. Guantanamo Bay is not the same sort of prison — it's used for terrorists, prisoners of war, and political prisoners. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • So should we have a list of every political prisoner in the world? User:Zoe|(talk) 21:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Geo Swan. In response to Zoe, yes. Chick Bowen 22:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further to my original "Delete", Geo Swan has expanded the original article. However, if the expansion material is available online anyway (it seems to be a straight lift), why not stick with my suggestion (an article with a list all known GITMO detainees) and link to this information rather than simply reproduce it? --Plumbago 12:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You ask "why not have a single article with links to the source documents, and let the readers follow the links themselves? Because it is not just a "straight lift". The documents are in portable document format. They are hard to read. Each .pdf consist of about a dozen different documents. The documents within the pdf are not all in the same order in all the detainees dossiers. But they look similar enough you have to actually scan them. So, you have to do a visual grep of something like a dozen pages.
  • In short it is a lot of work to find the allegations within the pdf. Go ahead. Look at the pdf yourself. Could you locate the allegation portion in less than two minutes? And you know what you are looking for. So, not a "straight lift". -- Geo Swan 00:25, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies Geo Swan. My bad - I didn't follow the link to the PDF. --Plumbago 10:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ··gracefool |☺ 16:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and do not merge, per User:Zoe. Groeck 16:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Anne Frank was just a girl - but history records what she said about her time spent hiding in an annex. I agree the articles should be expanded to fit perhaps a more biographical tone if such information can be found, but it seems odd to class an entire 'enemy' as not allowed to have articles on their individual soldiers, look at Georg Konrad Morgen, he was 'just some Nazi', but we detail what he did during the war. Also worth noting that Wikipedia does not consider notability a requirement[32]. An excerpt would read Notability is not needed as long as the verifiability rules are strictly applied - and then also mentions this doesn't apply to vanity/wikimemorial articles. Sherurcij 17:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per above. - Hahnchen 03:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AoS[edit]

Page was initially created as a speedyable context-less map thing. Then a spammer came along and rescued it, with spam. Clearly non-notable (if we're still allowed to say that here), described in the article as "a free online multiplayer game in it's infancy". The game being advertised no longer really exists, as the website on which it's hosted has been suspended. Google seems to return unrelated websites. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete current content just looks like advertizing. Very few things that are "in their infancy" could have a useful article about them. Friday (talk) 16:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteMONGO 17:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Gamecruft.--Isotope23 18:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Campylactis[edit]

I've never heard of Campylactis, and a Google search doesn't turn up anything; a search of PubMed doesn't turn up anything; other random medical and veterinary medical journals I've looked in have nothing about it. The treatment is rose hips and grubs? I think somebody's trying to pull a fast one... --CDN99 15:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless shown to be real. Friday (talk) 16:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax unless made verifiable. Charles Matthews 19:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax in the absence of further evidence, which I strongly doubt will be forthcoming. Sliggy 20:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax, "Campylactis" and "medical" results in two hits, this and one mirror. Alf melmac 10:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree it's probably a hoax, but can you people please stop using Google as if it's proof of notability? ··gracefool |☺ 16:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. And Google is a good rule of thumb test, especially in the case of hoaxes (especially given that nobody is disputing notability here, as veracity is a more pressing issue). - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 16:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Squad7[edit]

Non-notable techsite.DS 15:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above by the author of Squad7 posted as vandalism - deleting all previous content. But I have been merciful. -- RHaworth 07:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as website vanity/advertising Groeck 15:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - advertising. [maestro] 09:01, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Vanity/Advertising TheSeer 11:25, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete del -- (☺drini♫|☎) 01:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Eugene van der Pijll 11:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jalal Salam Bin Amer[edit]

No assertion that this is a notable person. According to the article on Guantanamo Bay there are currently 520 prisoners held there. It might be useful for someone to compile a list of them and put it all on one page, but I see no reason for each prisoner to have his own article. Brandon39 16:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Jwissick 17:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to List of Guantanamo Bay detainees (soon to be created) as per this AfD. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 23:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no more notable than any other prisoner in the world. Do not create article as suggested by Brandon39, as that is also nn. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I created this article, and a few others, when I came across a few transcripts of the proceedings of the Combatant Status Review Tribunals. The detention of the detainees, outside of the Geneva Conventions, is highly controversial. The procedure for determining their illegal combatant status was highly controversial. -- Geo Swan 13:24, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That seems like it might be the basis for a good umbrella article. You could call it something like Guantanamo Bay Detainees, and link it to the main article on Guantanamo Bay. That's a much more likely search term than the individual names of prisoners.Brandon39 19:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Listing all the known Guantanamo detainees in one place is a good idea. It is overdue.
Trying to confine all the information about all the detainees to a single article -- that is what you are proposing, isn't it? This would be unworkable, in my opinion.
Have you considered how many Guantanamo detainees already have substantial articles? Here are some of them. Abdurahman Khadr Benyam Mohammed Jose Padilla Omar Khadr Mohamed al Kahtani Mamdouh Habib Martin Mubanga Murat Kurnaz Salim Ahmed Hamdan Shafiq Rasul Ahcene Zemiri Ali Hamza Ahmed Sulayman al Bahlul Asadullah Rahman Bisher Amin Khalil Al-Rawi David Hicks Feroz Abbasi Fouad Mahoud Hasan Al Rabia Fouzi Khalid Abdullah Al Awda Hisham Sliti Ibrahim Ahmed Mahmoud al Qosi Jalal Salam Bin Amer Jamal Muhammad Alawi Mar'i Jarallah al-Marri Jumah Al-Dossari Mehdi Muhammed Ghezali Moazzam Begg Mohamed al-Kahtani Mohamedou Ould Slahi Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef Mustaq Ali Patel Omar Deghayes Richard Belmar Sabir Mahfouz Lahmar Yaser Esam Hamdi
I believe a case can be made that each of these detainees merits an individual article.
This is merely a selection of the existing articles you suggest merging into one union article.
Let me direct your attention to the article 108th United States Congress. Note there are approximately as many members of the US Congress as there are detainees in GITMO. No one is suggesting that all the information about US Congressmen should be confined to a single article. Look at the article for Jim McCrery for instance -- it is hardly longer than the articles on GITMO detainees were when you proposed deleting this one.
Am I saying GITMO detainees are more important than members of the US Congress? Nope. However, would you disagree that some GITMO detainee are more important than the least active, most junior members of the US Congress?
Zoe seems to be saying that any articles about these detainees would be "America bashing" -- no matter how factual they are. I hope that they didn't really mean that comment the way it sounds. There is absolutely no way the wikipedia should shy away from factual articles, that avoid inflammatory language, just because some Americans find them embarrassing. I don't see anything inflammatory or biased in these articles, so far. And if there is something biased of inflammatory, thatI am overlooking, why shouldn't that prompt a discussion about how to improve the article, instead of the complete suppression Zoe seems to be suggesting?
Several wikipedia contributors have said here that it would be a mistake to make 500 articles, one for each detainee. Well, who is suggesting that? I didn't suggest that. I don't see anyone suggesting that.
On Friday I found a site where approximately ten percent of the documents generated during the Combatant Status Review Tribunals are available for download. I started writing articles about them. Perhaps I grew over-enthusiastic. I defended three of them here. I didn't defend the one on Adil Said Al Haj Obeid Al Busayss. One has to pick their battles, and once I had really read through his dossier there wasn't anything I wanted to try to defend as notable, before a hostile audience.
I have created dozens of articles over the last year or so. Lots of them started out as stubs, no larger than these four. None have ever been tagged for deletion before. These four articles on Guantanamo detainees however, were tagged for deletion within a few hours of their creation. This gives the unfortunate appearance that, whatever justification is being offered for their deletion, a hidden reason is that reporting of events that reflects poorly on current US policies offends some American contributors, even if it is reported accurately, and without the use of inflammatory language.. -- Geo Swan 12:54, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Guantanamo Bay detainees, with a small d. This vote applies to any other articles in AfD which relate to Guantanamo Bay detainees, unless I must vote on them individually. Alf melmac 10:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's verifiable and wiki isn't paper. It doesn't come under any point at What Wikipedia is not. ··gracefool |☺ 16:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and do not merge with anything. NN. Groeck 17:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Anne Frank was just a girl - but history records what she said about her time spent hiding in an annex. I agree the article should be expanded to fit perhaps a more biographical tone if such information can be found, but it seems odd to class an entire 'enemy' as not allowed to have articles on their individual soldiers, look at Georg Konrad Morgen, he was 'just some Nazi', but we detail what he did during the war. Also worth noting that Wikipedia does not consider notability a requirement[33]. An excerpt would read Notability is not needed as long as the verifiability rules are strictly applied - and then also mentions this doesn't apply to vanity/wikimemorial articles. Sherurcij 17:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Parkhoppers[edit]

Fans of the fanclub of a fanfilm of a film. We're about four degrees from notability here. DS 16:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this fairly obvious Vanity article.--Isotope23 18:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tagged for speedy since there's no claim to notability. --TM (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. probably not quite a speedy, so I'll remove the speedy tag. Regular deletion should suffice. -R. fiend 19:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you could go speedy under CSD/A7... there isn't anything in the article that even approaches a claim of notability.--Isotope23 19:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was going to say that A7 generally applies to people, and this is a film. However, upon closer inspection, it isn't really about the film, if the film even exists. If you can find an admin to delete I sure as hell won't be bringing it to VfU. I'm hesitant to do it myself, though. I've only been an admin a few days, and don't feel like rocking the boat at the moment. I won't remove the speedy tag again, if anyone cares to reinsert it. -R. fiend 21:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • You have a good point. 5 days or right now, looks like the outcome will be the same either way, so it's fine the way it is.--Isotope23 17:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Clearly a self-promotion article. Solarusdude 19:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Eugene van der Pijll 11:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sabir Mahfouz Lahmar[edit]

Not a notabile person. Article on Guantanamo Bay lists 520 detainees. No reason is given why this individual merits his own article. Brandon39 16:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Jwissick 17:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to List of Guantanamo Bay detainees (see AfDs above) --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 23:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Brandon's view is that not all the Guantanamo detainees are notable. I've kept my ears open for places where one can download the documents arising from the detainee's Combatant Status Review Tribunal. I've found approximately three dozen documents. I've started going through them. I think they are noteworthy. They reveal what I regard as noteworthy flaws in procedure and discrepancies. Note: I have added to the article since Brandon put his notice on it.-- Geo Swan 00:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the concern is that while one or two articles are interesting, 520 would just be in order to make a WP:POINT. Without some reason to assert that this detainee is more important than the 519 others, there is no reason to prefer this one. If we just have one article listing the detainees this would account for the noteworthiness while also not leading to an unnecessary proliferation of articles. (Or more likely a biased collection of 10 taken more or less at random) --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 01:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The United States has been very secretive about who the detainees are, how they came to be captured, what they are accused of, and how much of the evidence against them is classified, and thus unchallengable. Some of the documents make for fascinating reading. So, I think that makes the detainees where the records are public notable. A single article that had a section about each detainee would grow unmanageably long. As the details about the detainees leak out I think we will find that a significatn number of the detainees merit lengthy discussion. -- Geo Swan 01:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non notable prisoner. Please explain how he is any more notable than any other prisoner in any other prison in the world. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How are Guantanamo detainees more notable than any other person in the World? That's easy! There is a great controversy over how the Guantanamo detainees are being treated. Surely you have noticed? The Bush administration has described them as "the worst of the worst". The Bush administration has also been very circumspect about their details. The combatant status review documents that I came across, and on which this article, and a few others, are based will give interested readers a better chance to make up their own minds as to whether the detainees can fairly be described as the worst of the worst. -- Geo Swan 06:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So discuss their treatment (in a neutral way) in the article about the prison, but an article about each one of these non-notable people is only America-bashing. User:Zoe|(talk) 06:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I completely disagree. Suppose this was 40 years ago. Would you argue that, let's say, Rosa Parks, didn't deserve an article of her own? Would you argue that an article about her was just "America bashing"? Would you be telling me that I should find a neutral way to add her treatement to the article on Civil Rights? -- Geo Swan 13:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rosa Parks was/is notable because she became a national (even international) public figure, as the central rallying figure for a regional political movement. But writing an article about each individual African American who participated in the boycott, or even each individual African American who was imprisoned under questionable circumstances in the United States, would not be warranted.Brandon39 19:22, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's verifiable and wiki isn't paper. It doesn't come under any point at What Wikipedia is not. ··gracefool |☺ 16:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and do not redirect. NN. 143.127.3.10 17:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Anne Frank was just a girl - but history records what she said about her time spent hiding in an annex. I agree the articles should be expanded to fit perhaps a more biographical tone if such information can be found, but it seems odd to class an entire 'enemy' as not allowed to have articles on their individual soldiers, look at Georg Konrad Morgen, he was 'just some Nazi', but we detail what he did during the war. Also worth noting that Wikipedia does not consider notability a requirement[34]. An excerpt would read Notability is not needed as long as the verifiability rules are strictly applied - and then also mentions this doesn't apply to vanity/wikimemorial articles. Sherurcij 17:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 06:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adil Said Al Haj Obeid Al Busayss[edit]

Not a notable person. Same reasoning as in three other articles on named Guantanamo Bay prisoners that are already listed for deletion. Brandon39 16:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Jwissick 17:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to List of Guantanamo Bay detainees (see AfDs above) --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 23:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, do not redirect, all are nonnotable. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's verifiable and wiki isn't paper. It doesn't come under any point at What Wikipedia is not. ··gracefool |☺ 16:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per User:Zoe. 143.127.3.10 17:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - do not redirect - Hahnchen 03:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I created this article, and a handful of others. May I suggest that the controversy over the justification for ignoring the Geneva Conventions in apprehending these individuals, and the controversy over the conditions under which they were incarcerated will continue to grow. I am going to suggest that these controversies will be seen as at least as questionable as the incarceration of those of Japanese descent during World War II.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 11:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Solutus[edit]

This page consists of a Latin-language dictdef and a description of a Chicago graffiti artist. Neither topic is encyclopedic, and though the former may be worth transwikiing to the Latin language wiktionary, it would have to be translated first. NatusRoma 16:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't see what's wrong with an article about a Chicago graffiti artist, if it can be verified and expanded. Keep ··gracefool |☺ 16:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are thousands of graffiti “artists” in every major city. If it turns out the character is notable, the article can be be reposted with verification. Until then, dump it. The next thing you know, a claim of notability will be made because he is in the Wikipedia. ♠DanMS 04:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There's some grafitti artist in London called Tox, who signs his name bloody everywhere, just Tox and the year. Tox03, Tox04, Tox05, no he doesn't deserve an article, nor does this guy. Bansky however, does. - Hahnchen 03:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect. Eugene van der Pijll 11:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tryad[edit]

With recent edits it's become clear that this band never existed. No trace can be found of its "chart-topper" hits, the movie one of the members supposedly appeared in, the TV series another supposedly appeared in, their producer -- it's 198.86.158.10 (talk · contribs)'s fiction. Delete this hoax; Wikipedia isn't for this nonsense. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as hoax, per nom. Surely if the hits were real, they'd be verifiable. Friday (talk) 16:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete MONGO 16:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Triad. --TM (talk) 19:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why redirect a hoax article about a non-existant band to a page about Hong Kong gangs?--Isotope23 19:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because it's conceivable that someone would type in tryad when they actually want triad. Redirects are cheap and easy. --TM (talk) 20:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair enough... I could go with that.--Isotope23 17:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax... quite a large article for a hoax though eh? I'm actually impressed they took the time to mock up such a large article.--Isotope23 19:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Triad. Jaxl | talk 02:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Triad, impressively long though it is. Alf melmac 10:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Włos[edit]

Non-notable. Contrary to what the Polish presidential election, 2005 article says, he didn't even manage to register his electoral committee [35]. Włos' candidacy is rather a kind of joke or a way to promote his "business", just take a look at his website, here's the translation: "Earn money at home - quickly, reliably, no risk, no investments required, free info - send a postage stamp". Roman Włos article in Polish Wikipedia has been already deleted. Filemon 17:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for reasons above. Andrew pmk | Talk 17:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dełete if the Polish Wikipedia doesn't want him, I don't think we do either. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 23:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sheep mode delete baaah. Alf melmac 10:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He is not a public person in Poland at all, just a self-promoting dodger with too high (it seems) ambitions. It is notable the entry was introduced by someone not revealing his name --Mohylek 17:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tredington Community Primary School[edit]

some random Victorian primary school. Useful info: the kids get culture shock when they go to high school! Dunc|☺ 17:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - it clearly states that it is a school in the title of the page. --Celestianpower hab 17:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • And your point is? Denni☯ 01:40, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Schools are inherrantly notable. And saying that it's a school in the title is a valid assertion of notability. Therefore it should be kept. --Celestianpower hab 18:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite Objective sounding articles only, lest we run out of exclamation points here in AfD due to culture shock! Karmafist 17:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Okay, Dunc, this is starting to get a little out of hand. You're violating either WP:POINT or WP:DICK with your deliberately provocative nominations; I'll leave it up to you to decide which one. Whether we like it or not, schoolcruft seems to have a strong (if baffling) following on Wikipedia. Everything you've nominated will be kept, and I suspect you knew that before you nominated. Please consider reining it in a bit, and only nominating articles that could possibly see consensus to delete. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just because "schoolcruft will be kept" is no reason to attempt to stop the madness. This is a school which is a carbon copy of thousands of others. Merely existing is not sufficient reason for an article. Duncj is right on the money. Denni☯ 01:40, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nominating Primary schools is out of hand? What has this primary school got that others don't? Which major scientific discoveries were made here? What notable alumni is there? What would his WP:POINT be, that there is so much rampant school inclusionism that now nominating a village primary is considered WP:DICK? - Hahnchen 03:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is not the only school article that Dunc has nominated recently. He's put quite a few of them up for deletion, despite knowing full well that his nominations would not do any good. He's also phrased his nominations in a manner calculated (or so it seems to me) to irritate the pro-schoolcruft faction. If that's not being a dick and disrupting AfD to make a point, well, what is it? --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A clearly old and notable school that services a number of communities. Rewrite and expansion helpful, but not required.--Nicodemus75 18:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if you integrate over time, ever school affects thousands of people. Klonimus 23:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Have you nothing better to do than finding articles people have spent their precious time writing and nominating them for deletion?! Wikipedia is not paper and it has more than enough resources for an article on every school in the country. Tredington school has served local communities for well over 100 years, and has even had a book written about it. It's also clearly stated that the article is a stub (so even a suggestion of 'rewrite' is hardly useful, that's the whole point of a stub is it not?). As for (my) reference to culture shock, if you don't like it delete the reference (which somebody has done). That comment has no bearing on the usefulness of an article on Tredington School. Actually I consider that to be useful information anyway, as somebody who went through that process - Tredington had under 60 pupils when I was there, and we left that closed little world for a school of over 1,000 - that's nearly triple the population of my entire village! kingboyk
    • Don't worry, I'm sure the nominator will point out how few edits you have and cook up some condescension for you as well. If you're lucky, he might throw in the word "crap" since he hasn't used it in this AfD yet. That way, you'll know that he does have "something better" to do with his time. ie. count user contributions and think up non-clever condescending remarks.--Nicodemus75 18:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes indeed. This is the creator of this crap. See vanity page, vanity guidelines, etc. Dunc|☺ 18:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • That last point is not even worthy of a reply. kingboyk
        • Incidentally Jimbo seems to think it would be ok if he wrote a "vanity" article about his own school [36]. Kappa 00:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and please stop doing this dunc to make a point we get it already you do not like schools fine Yuckfoo 18:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per kingboyk. This is a good article too. --Vsion 18:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this fine article. Sarcastically labelling something as "crap" is both insulting and non-constructive. Silensor 19:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Another useful article and pointless/rude nomination. --rob 19:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - is there some assertion of notability that I missed? I see it's a school, but what makes it worthy of an article? Guettarda 19:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not making any such assertion, no. It's no more or less notable than any other random school. Wiki, however, is not paper, and AFAIC an institution which has touched the lives of hundreds of children over 100+ years (and which is still active today) deserves a page if someone is willing to write one - yep, any and every school. Why not?! It's not costing anybody anything, and if you don't like it don't read it (the stance I will be taking with pages on railway engines, I can assure you). There's clearly a 'political' motive to all this and it's not really about Tredington School, it's about how wide Wikipedia's coverage should be. My personal opinion is: as wide as possible. Others will disagree, no problem. I do think there's a danger of all this descending into an early 90s style Usenet flamewar however... --kingboyk 19:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Danger? You speak as though this is something that might happen in the future???......--Nicodemus75 19:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Heh, I'm new in these parts and stand corrected. --kingboyk 19:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it could use some more information but essentially I don't see a problem with this school having an article. -- Francs2000 19:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pony Wikipedia:Schools needs revisiting. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn school and per Hipocrite - «Talk» it is time to revisit Wikipedia:Schools and at least try to get consensus on where the cutoff is for school notability is, if any.--Isotope23 20:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this one does appear to be noteworthy.Gateman1997 21:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Please make note that several Wikipedians have made requests that we keep these discussions civilized. We may not see eye-to-eye on what is important, but that is no reason to insult someone, their beliefs, or their contribution(s) to Wikipedia. This is a community driven project. Bahn Mi 21:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletioncruft madness. This school has existed for over 100 years! Keep.--Centauri 22:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. This interesting article helps to improve the diversity of schools covered by wikipedia. Kappa 00:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Get over it. CalJW 00:40, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't think that schools below the college level are notable enough for an encyclopedia, but a lot of people do, so these nominations are rarely going to reach a consensus of delete. Therefore, I don't think it is a useful way to spend our time. -- Kjkolb 01:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm getting tired of the newbie chant "Wikipedia is not paper." True, but Wikipedia is server space, screen real estate, editor time, and search engine fodder. Just because it exists does not render it an automatic in. Schools are not automatically notable. Denni☯ 01:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Server space costs virtually nothing, especially for text articles. Schools attract more editors and thus create more editor time. Schools also provide search engine fodder, attracting more users, donors and editors to wikipedia, which is a good thing. Kappa 00:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Server space is not just about cost, it is also about accessibility. Every article takes up server space, and the more articles on server space, the longer they take to access. Next time you can't get onto Wiki, you may consider your foolishness in voting to keep everything with four walls and a roof. I question your contention that the mere existence of school articles on Wikipedia is going to encourage the participation of users and editors. Sounds like wishful thinking to me, and is most certainly unverifiable. Denni☯ 02:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, the mere extistence of an article about something interesting, obviously does attract readers and editors, through something known as a search engine. It, generally, only returns results for a search, if relevant content already exists. I, like many editors, have edited countless articles *only* because I found something on wikipedia in Google, based on wikipedia happening to have what I was looking for. Many people start as an anon, with just an interest in a specific article (maybe just doing a spelling correction at first), then they progressively turn into regular editors, even admins, and ultimately make lots of contributions in many areas. There's no finite/fixed amount of wiki editors. Editors create interesting content, and interesting content attracts new editors. On the other hand, blind deletion of content, without justification, quite clearly does discourage new editors, and causses existing editors to give up in frustration. The contribution of those editors extends beyond just schools. --rob 14:04, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a nn school, but please, stop nominating schools for deletion. It almost always goes to no consensus, and it just increases the acrimonious mood on *FD. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 02:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - totally NN school. A village primary, anything about it should be listed in the Tredington article. Why are schools so inherently noteworthy? This one isn't! - Hahnchen 03:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete any article that talks about everything but the topic of the article. Vegaswikian 06:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per the usual. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For Pete's sake, they have 63 students! Neutralitytalk 01:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete *drew 07:52, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — 'twon't make a difference, but I do agree that this school oughtn't to have its own article, I just disagree with Dunc's methods. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consensus so far has been to keep schools (see Wikiproject Schools archive and arguments to keep schools). ··gracefool |☺ 16:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see the formation of a consensus in the former, and the entirety of the latter page seems to be evidence that it's a contentious topic, with no consensus yet formed. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 16:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It depends on what type of school you are talking about. If you are referring to a degree granting institution, there appears to be an overwhelmingly strong consensus in favor of including them. There also appears to be a mild or luke-warm consensus to keep high schools. There is no consensus to delete primary or middle schools and when there is no consensus on whether to keep or delete something this results in a keep. So to say that the consensus so far has been to keep schools is somewhat accurate depending on how you want to interpret its meaning. Silensor 17:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not true, gracefool. There has almost always been no consensus to keep schools, either primary/elementary or secondary/high. Very often, there is in fact a bare majority to delete, but no consensus to do so. With no consensus to keep, delete, merge, or do anything else, these articles generally exist in a kind of "legitimacy limbo"; they exist purely because it is the nature of a wiki to be relatively indiscriminating. This is sometimes a great strength of a wiki; it is also its profound weakness.—encephalon 12:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eventually wikipedia will develop some kind of filter for general-interest and specialist-interest topics, so people who want a highly discriminating wikipedia can have it, and users can still find information when they need it. Kappa 22:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. We should be encouraging this type of participation rather than wasting our time trying to remove good, encyclopedic information. Unfocused 22:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonencyclopedic --redstucco 09:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn School --JAranda | yeah 02:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very poorly written. However, 1. there appears to be at least one good, independent, reliable source which has the school as its focus, and which may be used to write an encyclopedic article in accordance with WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR; 2. with a 100 year history there is some chance that the 27-page report is not the only such source; if a reference can be found detailing its history, it will probably satisfy WP:N. Of course, I am sceptical that it will ever be improved: the whole school thing is one of WPs depressing ironies. So much argument, so little to show for it.—encephalon 12:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-Another un-notable school. Dudtz 9/29/05 5:57 PM EST
  • Keep. -- DS1953 04:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Good UK primary school stub. --Tony SidawayTalk 05:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 06:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DraculaZombieUSA (album)[edit]

nn, fails WP:MUSIC, albumcruft. Delete. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/DraculaZombieUSA.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 18:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was 'DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pass It On Records[edit]

Seems to a record label operating out of a dorm room. Not notable? DJ Clayworth 18:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, doesn't seem notable. — Wackymacs 18:44, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is blatant promotion. Nothing to suggest this label is remarkable, and lots to suggest it's just some kid recording his friends. Friday (talk) 19:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable. Solarusdude 19:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. Jaxl | talk 02:25, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was already deleted. — JIP | Talk 05:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Going_to_Jackson_ranch[edit]

Topic is irrelavant and was creadted by a known-offending IP; additionally, the article contains bad grammar and punctuation. Chingador 18:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - nothing worthwhile here. --MacRusgail 19:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - This article meets the critereon for using the {{db-attack}} tag.
  • Speedied. -R. fiend 19:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted -R. fiend 00:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Carter Brandon III[edit]

Vanity article, not notable, and I hate anyone who puts numbers after their name as if they were royalty! MacRusgail 19:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as textbook A7. So tagged. Friday (talk) 19:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedying it now. -R. fiend 20:03, 23 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Hopefuls[edit]

AMG knows the name of a folk band by this name, but has nothing on these guys. Nothing to suggest they meet WP:MUSIC. Friday (talk) 19:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - No assertion of meeting WP:MUSIC other than a regional midwest tour (with the only shows mentioned being in MN).--Isotope23 20:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I may be picking nits, but an "active show schedule" (as the article says) does not imply a tour, regional or otherwise. Friday (talk) 20:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was trying to be nice... I've known band that played a series of towns <2 hours away from their home and considered it a "tour".--Isotope23 20:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. Eugene van der Pijll 12:00, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. A single keep vote given without reason or not addressing any of the reasons given to delete does not carry much weight. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Records[edit]

Small-time record label. Nothing to suggest notability. Apparent main claim to fame is The Hopefuls, who are also on Afd. Friday (talk) 19:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gerard den Sthronthope[edit]

I'm quite sure that this article is a hoax, for a couple of reasons:

  • no google matches for this "famous Dutch person"
  • his last name Sthronthope => from the Dutch "Stronthoop", meaning "Pile of shit"
  • the mentioned "Johan de Wittjes" tulips, supposedly famous, are nowhere mentioned on internet.

The biography sounds quite plausible, could be from someone else, but I'm pretty sure this is fake. JoanneB 19:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reads convincingly, but you've convinced me more. Delete ---MacRusgail 20:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, excellent research, Joanne. -- Kjkolb 01:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nice catch, Joanne. Alf melmac 10:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect. Eugene van der Pijll 12:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Strongmen of America[edit]

The content of this article is not very notable and it appears to be an ad. Solarusdude 19:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Heh. It's not actually an ad, because you can't join the Strongmen of America unless you a) have $9.99 and b) live in the same universe as Tom Strong (to which I would suggest a redirect). DS 20:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this fancruft.--Isotope23 19:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and if research turns up anything useful in this, include it in Tom Strong. Article shows a good deal of confusion regarding whether it is real or merely part of the Strong universe. WCFrancis 06:29, 24 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 to keep the article. Moved to S. Parthasarathi Ayyangar and deleted title. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

S.Parthasarathi Ayyangar ML,IP[edit]

Very POV, nn person, prob by friend or family. Fluency in several languages is common in India. MacRusgail 19:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional Delete Doesn't appear to be a notable person but I would appreciate hearing an opinion from someone in the region (other than the author or a sockpuppet). If the article survives it is in desperate need of a cleanup tag for POV content, spelling, and grammar.--Isotope23 19:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep being Commissioner of Police, Madras; Inspector General of Police; Inspector General of Railway Protection Force which he organised from Scratch is clearly notable. I've only 1 Google hit so confirmation would be welcome and also cleanup as per Isotope23. Dlyons493 20:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I think the correct spelling should be S. Parthasarathy Iyengar (Iyengar is a common South Indian lastname). Googling 'S. Parthasarathy Iyengar police commissioner' gives you some relevant results. utcursch | talk 07:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as per User talk:Utcursch above. this is the only link that I get from google but google is not reliable when looking up for someone who died twenty years ago. So benefit of doubt, though I would like to see it rewritten. In Iyengar the same person has provided this link but it contains nothing. Tintin 10:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – A Commissioner of Police is a high post. Also the fact that he got through the IPS selection during the British era makes him even more notable. Cleanup+Redirect to actual name =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional weak keep – I don't have the time to check the veracity of the information mentioned in the article. If it is true, then it can be kept. However, I've never heard of this person even though I'm from Tamil Nadu (not to say that it makes him non-notable). -- Sundar \talk \contribs 10:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. F'goodness' sake, POV is not a reason to delete. ··gracefool |☺ 17:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 06:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Complete Short Stories of J. G. Ballard[edit]

Self-evident article with no material of interest. JG Ballard is a good writer, but what's the point of this? MacRusgail 19:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to J. G. Ballard. The title=the article content. Dlyons493 20:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above until someone can expand this into a proper article. I have no objection to compilations getting their own articles, but there needs to be some content. 23skidoo 22:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with no redirect as it is an unlikely search term. -- Kjkolb 01:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redirect makes no sense per Kjkolb. WCFrancis 05:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Alf melmac 10:40, 25 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 Speedied. android79 23:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abeyta[edit]

Some sort of background on a family. Not enecylopedic. R. fiend 19:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete - I'd say this is an excellent candidate for CSD/A7 speedy as there is absolutely no assertion of notability in what is basically a family tree bio.--Isotope23 19:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete because this article is about people with no claims to notability. --Quintin3265 19:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, Wikipedia is not a genealogy. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 20:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per all given reasons. Shauri 20:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deletion, since once the photos were removed, there was no content. Zach (Sound Off) 01:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See The Uniforms, See CFL Uniforms[edit]

Delete or possibly merge to respective team pages. Uniform images are so far all tagged with {{nosource}} and will probably be deleted. There's no other content in these articles. --Durin 19:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Images can be linked from team pages without keeping these two pages' history around, there's nothing authored there to maintain history on. — mendel ☎ 02:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete impossible title for article. WCFrancis 06:12, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 02:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another duplicate also appears at CFL uniforms, delete them all.--nixie 06:27, 28 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 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 Speedy deleted at 20:06, 23 September 2005 UTC by User:Charles Matthews. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Stibitz[edit]

Assertion of notability seems to be a hoax. Google hits on "yo soy"+Stibitz come up with nothing. -- Curps 19:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Aaron Kress[edit]

Vanity. Very weak claim of notability. Says little more than "he's an architect". It's nice to know he's employed, and all, but there's no reason he belongs in an encyclopedia. R. fiend 19:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Borderline A7, IMO. Friday (talk) 20:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh good, another college graduate with a job! Delete--Isotope23 20:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete But it's reassuring that he often works in steel and concrete since he builds houses. Dlyons493 22:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. 0 googles. Jaxl | talk 02:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. By the way, so everyone knows, this article was vandalized almost a day ago and I just found and reverted it. Someone blanked the page accept for the AFD notice and wrote some nonsense on it. Even articles that are goingg to be deleted shouldn't be vandalized! Academic Challenger 23:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 06:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Umbo[edit]

"Court Jester Umbo Scrubbelnuts is a character in Everquest". For fuck's sake, why would someone think that their jigbugrick EVERQUEST CHARACTER deserves a Wikipedia entry? I don't CARE that he won the "funniest gnome" contest! NO ONE cares that he won the "funniest gnome" contest!

.... my goodness, am I ranting?DS 20:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey... at least he included a screenshot! CSD/A7 Speedy I forgot, A7 is for real people. Maybe there should be an A8 for MMORPG characters... Delete--Isotope23 20:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm lost for words. Delete Sliggy 20:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and hide the evidence, quickly, before someone creates an article about the Campaign to save Umbo. Friday (talk) 21:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have played everquest for going on 5 years now, I don't know Umbo personally but i do know of him and his accomplishments. This gnome is highly respected in the everquest community and I am almost positive that the majority of the everquest community would agree with most everything said in that umbo page is true. Certainly you would agree that this mage who set the standard for many everquest strategies and being probably the most influential character on the biggest and first mmorpg created deserves some recognition. Also I am fairly sure Umbo himself didnt make that page. -Tokar Guild leader EQ Community forum admin.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_to_save_Umbo"

  • Delete. Gnot gnotable. Neognomeism. Orignomeal research. -- BD2412 talk 02:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all fan-created characters everywhere. — JIP | Talk 11:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if he is indeed well known in everquest. ··gracefool |☺ 17:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Quale 07:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smite with level 47 Deletion wand - Hahnchen 14:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 06:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual network address[edit]

I found this while deleting links after closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lillehovde's Dynamic Network Address Protocol. In that debate, the author and main proponent of the article states that the information in Wikipedia on LDP constitutes original research. This other article appears to be a highly related article, and I submit that it is also most likely original research. I hope someone more knowledgeable than I in network protocols checks this. moink 20:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I suspect that some networking protocol somewhere has something called a "virtual network address", but this clearly isn't about that hypothetical protocol. --Carnildo 23:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. I saw a link to the article in the deleted article (see above) and made a note to revisit it to see if it was the same OR, with the intention of nominating it, but I see that moink has already done so. As someone familiar with the field, I would agree that it is OR, and that while the (real) concept of virtual networks exists (see virtual network), it has nothing to do with the LDP (for which there is no independent verification of existence). In the previous AfD I asked the author of the article to provide references, independent verification of the existence of the work, or even to more fully identify the researcher ("Lars Lillehovde", no Google hits) or his institution or affiliation, but he declined. This stub article has even less substance. --MCB 01:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't make much sense to me. Not an established term. 143.127.3.10 Groeck 17:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 18:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ID4 TAG[edit]

Unable to verify any claims made other than vague references to ID4 tags during Google search with no detail gatherable other than that they may exist. Article text seems to admit this. Pipian 20:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks like a crystal ball article. I don't mind it being there tho. ··gracefool |☺ 17:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and possibly redirect to ID tag. Not sure if this refers to ID3v2.4.0. Groeck 17:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Also, what Apple is talking about is MP4, or MPEG-4 Part 14. Plop 10:14, 30 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 -> Keep Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional musical works[edit]

Feels unsustainable. Typically when music is in fiction, it's actual music; the premise here is for a song which is only mentioned and never actually performed in any way. DS 20:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete listcruft —Wahoofive (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the article offers such profound insight: "Please note that songs are songs". Delete. Punkmorten 22:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Listcruft. --Carnildo 23:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - this could potentially be turned into something useful which, for example details the fictional music detailed in A Clockwork Orange and which has in turn had a wider influence such as the naming of the band Heaven 17. However, the text in the current entry is pretty nonsensical and the sole entry is not as notable as the possible Clockwork Orange entries. CLW 09:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per CLW, I'm fairly sure HHGTTG has some, and I think if Bill and Ted pieces that brought the planets into alignment were named in their Excellent Adventure film, they'd be OK too. That's off the top of my head. Alf melmac 10:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep could be useful ··gracefool |☺ 17:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think so. Listcruft. Groeck 17:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Potentially useful article, although the current version is not useful. I believe there are a bunch of these in Salman Rushdie's The Ground Beneath Her Feet. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Book the Thirteenth (A Series of Unfortunate Events)[edit]

I'm a big fan of Lemony Snicket but the Thirteenth book? We haven't even got the Twelfth yet! We have no idea of what it willbe about, the title, nothing. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Celestianpower hab 21:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Agreed. Wait till the book has been announced or details become available before doing an article on it. 23skidoo 22:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain as I created the entry. My reasoning was that Book the Twelfth is imminent, and as soon as this has been published, there will be clues about the plot of the thirteenth book. Just as the Book the Twelfth page has been used for plot clues gathered prior to publication, I thought this would be a useful place for the Book the Thirteenth clues to be gathered in a similar way. CLW 05:40, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we should recreate it when Book the Twelfth is out. --Celestianpower hab 07:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstaini think you should not delete the page. The Book the Twelfth is coming out in only 3 weeks and then this page will get longer. 18:30, 24 September 2005
  • Do not delete - if we can have pages for movies that aren't coming out for three years, we can have a page dedicated to one book from an immensely popular series. Information on Book the Thirteenth will start becoming available next month (wuth the release of Book the Twelfth) at any rate -- MattManic7325, September 25th 2005
    But if we know nothing about a subject, how does it deserve an article? --Celestianpower hab 14:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain As already mentioned, in a few weeks the page can be filled with suggestions as Book the Twelfth will be released. We have Harry Potter: Book Seven which is estimated to be released between 2007 - 2009, and this book will probably be out next year. Squidward2602 16:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep HP:Book Seven was listed when book six wasn't even out. ♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (contribs) 22:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's not hurting anyone, stop misquoting WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball ··gracefool |☺ 17:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - just to reassure folks that although as stated above I created the original article, it's not me operating as a sock puppet who has been removing the AfD tag from the article. Dunno why, but for some reason The Nameless Novel and Book the Twelfth (A Series of Unfortunate Events) get heavily vandalised - looks like the same could well happen here if the article is kept... CLW 21:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep i just wanted to say i agree with everyone this site should say- for the vandalisim, there will be enough people to fix it- i recently got on The Nameless Novel and the whole Mystery the Third was gone so i fixed that... then i created my account! Magcidooser 00:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball does not apply here, since the event is notable and about 99% certain to take place. Second of all, there really aren't all that much of these "hypothetical" books in the A Series of Unfortunate Events-ring. Just the 12th and 13th, of which one is going to be released really soon. The article is not a two-liner either, it really provides some content. -- SoothingR 11:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Handy Hand Man[edit]

No sources given for this book, which has no entry in The Library of Congress. The majority of the page seems to deal with some sort of fan page with some secretive access method. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless somone can point to evidence of this book's existence. Reads like a hoax to me... --Daedalus-Prime
  • Delete - like Daedalus-Prime, I suspect a hoax. CLW 09:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about this thing, I swear that a few months ago I heard about it, but I'm not sure. Friends of mine are into this kind of stuff, so I'm not sure. I say do whatever. I admit it sounds hoaxy. user:IAmTheWalrus

  • Delete as hoax. I did not find a google reference except this entry. Groeck 17:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sniktard[edit]

Unverifiable neologism; zero Google hits Tonywalton  | Talk 21:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Agreed. Anyway, Wikipedia isn't a dictionary — C Maylett 22:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Daedalus-Prime 23:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism. Jaxl | talk 02:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another reason for increasing scope of speedy deletions. WCFrancis 06:24, 24 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. Paul August ☎ 16:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kodimedia[edit]

Non-notable company; does not appear to be publicly traded or otherwise significant; likely promotion; 86 unique Google hits. (Nominated along with Jackson Mahr) Paul 15:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm relisting this because the original entry didn't draw enough discussion to judge consensus. Rx StrangeLove 21:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, most search results appear to Wikipedia mirrors. -- Kjkolb 02:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn. CLW 09:17, 24 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 Speedied by Jtkiefer. android79 05:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anommas Pooter[edit]

Earlier versions of this were speedied my myself and others as patent nonsense. But it is back and no longer patent nonsense: still nn, non-verifiable, and googleless, but not, I judge, a speedy. Please delete, and I suggest closer protects against re-creation. --Doc (?) 21:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

isn't quite For thy sweet love remembered, such wealth brings .... But then again what is? Dlyons493 22:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC) *Don't DeleteAnommas Pooter is real and will soon have a website and Myspace music spotlight, have made 6 cds i know, i am listening to one right now. If you guys want to delete this you are ignorant, they're UNDERGROUND of course it wouldnt be on google, last time i checked, google.com wasnt a big west coast rap site. (unsigned by User:AnommasPooter) *Don't Delete This is real, some stuff was embelished, but it is fact www.geocities.com/anommaspooter -- vote from User:AnommasPooter[reply]

*No Delete This is truth, no matter what anybody says, My source is the six cds made by Anommas Pooter in my Ipod-- unsigned vote from User:PerriceZw whose only contributions are to this page. *DO NOT DELETE I AM A STRONG SUPPORTER OF ANOMMAS POOTER AND API, if you delete i swear to God, you will have a boycott in parts the Bay Area and California -- unsigned vote from User:PerriceZw whose only contributions are to this page. *Don't Delete Agree with above voter -- unsigned vote from User:OaklandPlaya7772 whose only contributions are to this page. *Don't Delete This is a legit rap group, they have a huge fanbase unsigned vote from User:Lyzford whose only contributions are to this page. *Don't Delete Pooter is real, I know a lot of the members unsigned vote from User:67.160.204.186 *Don't Delete dont trust drini, hes a sock puppet --unsigned vote from User:67.160.204.186

Yeah? Sockpuppet of whom? -- (☺drini♫|☎) 00:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Zero Google hits. Don't let it be made again. --Sean Jelly Baby? 00:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it and all of its associated pages. DO'Иeil 00:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since I agree with the nominator and I am in California and I never heard of this guy group. Zach (Sound Off) 00:22, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Dont Delete Zscout shouldnt count he doesnt even know what hes opposed to, Pooter is a group, not a person --unsigned vote from User:67.160.204.186

    • You see the point I was trying to make? If I had no clue what this group was, and I am in their backyard, then something is missing, notability. Zach (Sound Off) 00:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • . This article, here or not, affects none of you either way, 2. Dont vote against something if you dont know about it. --unsigned vote from User:67.160.204.186

Dont Delete. Pooter is real, you just dont know it... Unsigned vote from User:67.169.156.60

  • Delete. Jaxl | talk 01:25, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and close this nomination, please. -- Kjkolb 02:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Dont Delete" Anommas pooter is good rap! Unsigned vote from User:67.160.204.186

  • Delete and 24 hour block of sockpuppet and Anon IP. Type O Spud 02:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Don't Delete Anommas Pooter is working on a webpage (www.geocities.com/anommaspooter) and just had a photo op in Oakland, so yes I would have to say Pooter is real. Unsigned vote by User:24.4.33.96. *DONT DELETE! THEYRE TIGHT! Unsigned vote from User:207.62.163.93 *DONT DELETE! I listen to the Best of Pooter CD daily and its quality Unsigned vote from User:198.188.150.5.

  • Kill it with fire. I am tempted to just speedy it. android79 05:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Go right ahead. Zach (Sound Off) 05:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll wait on a little more admin backup before I do... android79 05:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, Jtkiefer beat me to it. android79 05:16, 24 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The two keep votes are invalid; their accounts are currently too new. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dijball[edit]

Man, am I itchin' to speedy this, as it's terribly non-notable, but it doesn't really fit any CSD criteria. Anyway, 0 google hits for a game invented by a few college kids a couple years ago. R. fiend 22:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Non-notable — C Maylett 22:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I tried to speedy this when I saw it created, but my creativity failed me. Nn game made up by some friends once a while back. Not encyclopedic. -Splashtalk 23:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; non-notable. Jaxl | talk 01:25, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn CLW 09:40, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If it's being widely played in ten years time maybe an article would be justified. Alf melmac 11:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable for its following throughout UofC's Schulich School of Engineering. dougbraden 20:21 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 20:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable, still current inforamtion. Seems it was created 2 years ago, not abandoned. dberry
  • Delete. Not verifiable, non-notable. Quale 02:29, 29 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Last vote is invalid; currently that user has only edited on AFD discussions. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal to contempt[edit]

Appears to be a neologism; can find no evidence that this term is actually used. The fallacy actually described appears to be another form of ad hominem. I'd say Delete. Your thoughts? Christopher Parham (talk) 22:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as ("appeal to contempt" fallacy) gets 0 Google hits. If there was more information there, worded differently, there might be something to merge with epistemology. Jkelly 22:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Christopher Parham. -- Kjkolb 02:24, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ditto. --Flex 12:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge? The term may be incorrect, however the information seems solid enough. Perhaps merge into ad hominem. Unsigned comment by Garfunkel4life (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Breakdown[edit]

Substub about a band which doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC. No allmusic entry, Googling for "Natural Breakdown" together with relevant words such as band and New Jersey yields very few hits. Punkmorten 22:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: One sentence article with no claim to notability. — C Maylett 23:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; nn band vanity. Jaxl | talk 01:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not establish notability. Cnwb 01:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn CLW 09:40, 24 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 consensus to delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs with take-turn vocal work[edit]

Unmaintainable, way too broad, listcruft. Delete. Punkmorten 22:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete listcruft —Wahoofive (talk) 00:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete CalJW 00:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, helps me to find other songs like Do They Know It's Christmas and We Are The World. Kappa 01:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, silly list. Kappa has a funny idea of search criteria. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:28, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Punkmorten CLW 09:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not an interesting list, and does "take-turn vocal work" really mean anything? --MacRusgail 13:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I kind of like the idea, but it is too vague and open to too much. Do songs that have a lead singer and then another singer sing the occasional line (like "White Light/White Heat" and several other songs by The Velvet Underground or "Venus de Milo" and several other songs by Television) count? Folkor 01:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Any song sung by more than one person must have some form of "turn" in it; hopelessly unmaintainable. Xoloz 08:20, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, doesn't have to be vague. Many reasons above are reasons it should be improved, not deleted. ··gracefool |☺ 17:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is probably possible to qualify this list so as to make it technically maintainable. As with a possible list of People in Akron, Ohio who ate chicken salad for lunch between 1 PM and 2 PM on October 3, 2004, the other question is whether the qualifications needed to make the list maintainable also make it hopelessly obscure and of minimal use. I don't mean to be snide: I really think that to make the list maintainable, the qualifications would be so numerous, complex, and problematic, as to limit severely the value of even trying. Hence, my above vote. Xoloz 03:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as listcruft. Groeck 17:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Mario[edit]

Relisting on AfD after previous discussion failed to reach a consensus. This article is about a non-notable fan fiction. Pburka 22:44, 23 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wong Shun Leung[edit]

This was tagged for speedy, but doesn't quite qualify. I'm not exactly sure about this, as "Wong Shun Leung" gets me 14,000 google hits, but a preliminary glance seems to indicate a much older fellow, who too is a martial artist. I'm tempted to think there's some potential for an article, but not this. If someone can write a real article about the potentially quite notable martial artist, then I'll likely change my vote. Until then, this should be deleted. R. fiend 22:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless someone can confirm importance and cleanup the article. Vegaswikian 06:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a hoax, unless somebody wants to turn it into an article on the real Wong Shun Leung. --GraemeL (talk) 14:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete probably a hoax. *drew 07:56, 25 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 deleted by R. fiend at 00:10, 24 September 2005 UTC. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SAMOAN PILE DRIVER[edit]

  • Delete: Joke, no meaningful content — C Maylett 23:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, nonsense. -feydey 23:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsense indeed.--Alhutch 23:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedied -R. fiend 00:10, 24 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A Perfect Setback[edit]

Delete, non-notable band vanity. Only 50 useful Google hits (note that in the full list many are repeated many times within individual websites), and no allmusic.com presence. This suggests they have an EP and a something on a Emo label, but doesn't mention that they have charted or toured (except low key locally). Fails WP:MUSIC. (Oh, and they don't have their own website, they're only on myspace.com) -Splashtalk 23:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete another band with a future put no past. WCFrancis 05:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not yet notable. CLW 09:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Might be notable in the future, but they're certainly not at the moment. --GraemeL (talk) 14:31, 24 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 Speedied. --Golbez 13:57, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jodie Andrews[edit]

Delete nn porn quasi-star (let's not be blinded by the use of the word "star", here). Main claim to fame is broadcasting occasionally on pirate radio. IMDb does not find this individual, although it turns up two other Jodie Andrewses who have each appeared in 1 film. Dead easy to make porn movies, so not making any means you're probably not a star. -Splashtalk 23:19, 23 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brown batman[edit]

Delete invented 'sexual' 'act'. Google does not find any relevant hits in the first few pages — they're all just adjacent coincidences of the two words. Do not redirect to List of sexual slang because I just don't buy that this is such. Just a teenage mind fantasising. -Splashtalk 23:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Agree with nominator — C Maylett 23:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As above -=# Amos E Wolfe talk #=-
  • Delete. I suspect the author just returned from a showing of The Aristocrats. MCB 02:28, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Then sanitize all of Wikipedia with boiling alcohol. -- BD2412 talk 02:56, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - even though it does sound like such fun. CLW 09:34, 24 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Die trip computer die[edit]

Delete nn band-vanity. Their legendary leader scores 22 on the Google scale, and the band as a whole scores 200 useful Googles, many of which appear to be advertising, unsurprisingly. There is this which says they have two releases, but those releases are 2 of the 3 total releases of their label, so they don't meet any of WP:MUSIC so far as I can tell. -Splashtalk 23:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. Also doesn't have an AMG entry. Jaxl | talk 01:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alright, I'm convinced. Keep. I searched for their entries in The Wire as Cnwb stated, and here they are: [37]. Jaxl | talk 16:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article needs is a bit messy and needs wikified, but the band are notable. I have seen their name mentioned in The Wire magazine numerous times. Cnwb 01:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Legendary leader is actually L. Voag orignally of the band The Homosexuals, quite an influential lot. Satisfies WP:MUSIC on counts 2, 4, 5, and arguably 6. - Jaysus Chris 10:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've wikified a bit, but it needs dates, cats and "legendary" etc wording seen to. Alf melmac 11:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ··gracefool |☺ 17:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Informationleak[edit]

Not notable web page, no alexa ranking. WP is not a web catalog. feydey 23:29, 23 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bbkse[edit]

Delete terminology apparently invented by the two individuals named in the article who "conclude that this will be the next big cybersport". In any case highly specific to Counterstrike, and we should not redirect a neologism. -Splashtalk 23:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete neologism/gamecruft. MCB 04:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn. Also, I encourage users to watch this article as the original creator removed the AfD tag (which I have now reinstated). CLW 09:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable neologism. --GraemeL (talk) 14:37, 24 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge Student Liberal Democrats neé CSLD[edit]

The Cambridge Student Liberal Democrats hardly appear to be a notable topic. Solarusdude 23:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is Cambridge University, not some high school, ie one of the two principal sources of senior British politicians. The former members include the current party president and various MPs. CalJW 00:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per CalJW, far more notable than a typical student society. Kappa 01:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep potentially useful background info for a number of bios. Jkelly 04:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CalJW CLW 09:25, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Alf melmac 11:37, 25 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Amritaswaroopananda[edit]

Delete: This article seems to be promotional and biased in nature. No user will benefit from it. Manjithkaini

  • Cleanup. I hate articles on swamis and sadhus. But being badly written is not a criteria for an article to be deleted. He seems to be somewhat notable (Google it up).
  • Cleanup as per User:Utcursch]. I would have the complete contents of the article in its current form deleted, and replace it with a paragraph or two. Tintin 10:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at it again, the only decent line in the whole article is the first one, and even in that Amma should be replaced by amritnandamayi. Tintin 10:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Delete reasons given above are reasons for the article to be marked {{cleanup}} or {{attention}}, not {{afd}} or {{delete}}. ··gracefool |☺ 17:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spectral reflectance curve

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_September_23&oldid=1081093717"