Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 September 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 6 September 8 >

September 7[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. -- BD2412 talk 04:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Kalomira Sarantis[edit]

Not notable as musician as per WP:MUSIC RMoloney 00:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep If she won the contest, and it's anything like American Idol (even if Greece-only), then I'd say that makes her notable. It is hard to find info in English, though. — brighterorange (talk) 00:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears to meet it under, "Has won a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno or Mercury Music Award". Falphin 00:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looks mildly notable, at least in Greece. Flowerparty 00:36, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I NPOV'd the heck out of this thing; it should be an acceptable stub now. Fernando Rizo T/C 01:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Fernando Rizo's rewrite. Winning the contest makes her notable enough especially if the album or one of the singles from it charted in Greece. Capitalistroadster 01:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Brighterorange. Nandesuka 03:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - In addition to winning the show, her CD went gold [1][2]. --rob 07:44, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable as per WP:MUSIC. —RaD Man (talk) 07:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems to be a notable musician. — JIP | Talk 09:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep you wouldn't believe how big a deal Fame Story is in the Greek-speaking world. Imagine a show that combined the ratings power of Survivor, Big Brother and Pop Idol, and you're still nowhere close. This woman is and will continue to be a megastar. Vizjim 11:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's difficult to find WP:MUSIC info on non-english performers, sometimes it's worth putting a 'pre-afd' request for info on the Talk page. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, appears to meet the criteria of WP:MUSIC as a notable and award-winning musician within her country. Hall Monitor 18:13, 8 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, with or without copyvio concerns. android79 15:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Allee[edit]

Looks like a vanity page, written by John Allee himself. See also http://churchofsatan.org/gallery.html . "Critical acclaim" for a US movie that is not in IMDB? (But if somebody can find facts , such as the size of Allee's community, that would be different. Austrian 00:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete -- Obviously a vanity page, however if someone took the time to clean it up a bit and add some more factual info I'd be willing to change my vote.--Isotope23 00:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyvio in fact. (Although since its author was user:Johnallee, who knows.) Flowerparty 00:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Even if it's the author copying his own material over, it's a copyvio without confirmed permission, if the original material was not released by GFDL or public domain. Copyright adheres without any statement of copyright, and copyrighted material can only be here if it is first declared free. Geogre 01:57, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as copyvio. Capitalistroadster 01:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete It is possible that this guy is notable outside of Satanic circles (references to him to appear on a lot of free homepages). Needs more factual info. 68.20.28.234 02:05, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN Marcus22 10:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. Dottore So 19:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:12, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyvio, therefore delete. However, were the copyvio not an issue, I would have said weak keep, because wikipedia is not paper and it has some merits. --Jacqui M Schedler 16:12, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete.  Grue  13:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Zimmer[edit]

A non-notable figure, and does not make the google test nor any of the others. Falphin 00:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As far as I can tell he only seems to have written one essay published online. He doesn't seem to be a 'published author' offline or have actually done anything else of note. Jezze 01:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: He has a website. Wow. No other notability. The article's claim for notability is that he's a Scientologist. Geogre 01:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of notability. Flowerparty 07:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn Marcus22 10:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Scientology alone does not notability make --NielsenGW 11:20, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity, does not meet WP:BIO inclusion criteria. Hall Monitor 18:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. Dottore So 19:23, 7 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 deleted.  Grue  13:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Girardin[edit]

Delete NN - Only Google on the title of the book he supposedly authored is this article and its mirrors. No other evidence of notablity found by me in a brief Google on his name. Caerwine 00:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Is this the same Andrew Girardin as the one in the dubious Suburban Vegetable? Flowerparty 01:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as a substub, or delete for lack of any claim of notability. Writing a book is not very unusual. Getting a book published is better, but still not notable. Getting a book published and read or widely discussed -- that's notable. Geogre 02:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: non-notable, per Caerwine. mholland 09:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn Marcus22 10:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. Dottore So 19:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, also amazon gave nothing. feydey 21:32, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete.  Grue  13:29, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wicked pissah[edit]

Regional slang term, not encyclopedic Kjkolb 01:03, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. WP:NOT a slang dictionary. Fernando Rizo T/C 01:35, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Slang dictdef and, honestly, one that comes more from Saturday Night Live than from Boston usage. Geogre 02:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clumsily typed-out dictdef. Flowerparty 07:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete all chowdahcruft Roodog2k (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete --Mecanismo 17:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Encyclopedia not dictionary. Psy guy (talk) 01:33, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Fernando Rizo. --MCB 18:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - ridiculous. Dottore So 19:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wicked retahdid. -Sean Curtin 06:57, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • If this article is not Deleted, it should be merged with Pissah and expanded. What other encyclopedia would have an article on this subject? Fg2 01:21, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was: Article kept. →Raul654 18:48, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Sam Sloan[edit]

  • Non-notable person... arguing a case before the Supreme Court and making thousands of posts to a Chess newsgroup does not make one notable. I'm not voting as I nominated this for deletion. --Isotope23 01:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This guy is extremely weird, but read the article: totally notable just as a function of all the crazy things he's done. Sdedeo 01:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep and Cleanup. Sloan has had a colorful/weird life, but so have a lot of people. It seems to me the guy's done one thing maybe warranting inclusion in Wikipedia: arguing and winning a case, pro se, before the Supreme Court. That is indeed quite a feat. If the article were pared down to this one noteworthy fact and a paragraph or two of biographical information, I think it would be appropriate. But all this stuff about Sloan's perfect SAT score, his sex life, his custody battles, other litigation, prison sentence, Usenet, blog, etc. is way too much IMO. Krakatoa 01:28, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I originally had the above down as "Weak Delete," but that wasn't quite right. Seeing Andrew Lenahan's vote below for "Weak Keep and Cleanup," I have changed my vote to that, which is a more accurate expression of my views. Krakatoa 15:32, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looks to meet the bar as an author, amongst other things. Paring it down sounds sensible. Flowerparty 01:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A non-lawyer who successfully argued a case before the US Supreme Court and is a published author to boot? Smells like notability to me. Fernando Rizo T/C 01:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete: It's marginal, but the question that it fails, to me, is whether this is a proper biography rather than incident. Is this person, as a person, notable? Is a biography necessary/useful? It's close, but I'd say not. Instead, it seems to me that he is curious and that the article itself is actually about the eccentricities rather than the man. Geogre 02:05, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak extreme keep. Tastes like chicken to me. —RaD Man (talk) 02:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Notable enough for me. Isotope23: why nominate something if you don't feel strongly enough to vote to delete it? — brighterorange (talk) 02:18, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I generally don't vote on things I nom for deletion, unless it is obviously an advert or cruft. my opinion is Strong Delete, but as the one who nom'd it, my vote is biased. --Isotope23 13:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Concur with Fernado Rizo. Andrew pmk | Talk 02:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Somewhere down the line, some day, someone will ask the question that nominations such as this beg: does it actually do any harm to an encyclopaedia of the size and scope of Wikipedia to include well-written articles on people of marginal interest or is that actually what makes this project worthwhile? If the idea was simply to create a rather inaccurate and poorly written version of Britannica, would half of us be here? Is it simply a vanity project for geeks and nerds who don't get out enough? I can't believe that. I believe we're here to create something grand, not just a collection of "useful" biographies or articles about what we personally feel is "notable" or "important". It's rather saddening that that view is not widely enough held that nominations such as this aren't just laughed out of the place. Grace Note 03:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's sad to me that there are still people trying to dissuade VfD nominees, that there are still people whose standard is merely that it is in coherent English. A beautiful essay on your MUD avatar is not encyclopedic. If you believe that we are here to please ourselves, then your vision of what a reference work is is fringe. I think we're here to be of use to researchers, to serve. The hypothetical someday when the hypothetical someone comes along who doesn't seek this person in the context of his SC argument but solely by this particular variant of his name is not sufficient to vote "keep." Euphony is a false god, and Wikipedia is not Everything2: it is not a project for self-expression. Geogre 10:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Normally I would agree with you, but you didn't answer the question at all: What harm is there in having a well-written article on a subject of a borderline interest level? --Ryan Delaney talk 19:43, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • My answer about harm is that, of course, harm isn't really the criterion. However, if pressed I can demonstrate it. The article establishes that this person is known by 2-3 names. His major activities are 1) a court case, 2) pounding at a keyboard. So, how is this information going to be retrieved? Where is it going to do some good? Secondly, how much of a context is he generating for himself? The court case is a court case and should be discussed in that place alone; how it was won by an untrained guy is marginal, and this biography doesn't give us any reason to believe that his victory is a sign of anything or part of his character or an attribute of his life -- he just did it (and none of the issues are mentioned). As for slapping a keyboard, that's what I refer to as fiction about fiction: it is an ephemeral event in an epiphenomenon of a series of conversations that have taken place. We don't feel like writing the biography of the chatterbox who goes to every departmental meeting and won't shut up: we want the biography of the guy who goes to the departmental meetings and sets policy or changes the elections. What I see here is a biography of a life that isn't given any reason and a memorializing of someone whose accomplishment is prolixity. The harm is that a common name space is primarily occupied by a largely irrelevant person. Geogre 03:07, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just because it does no harm does not mean it is necessary to include the information in Wikipedia. Sloan is an interesting character, but does he truly merit an article, particularly an article that contains so much pointless trivia about his life? There is a difference between "interesting" and "notable". How does an bio of Sam Sloan contribute to "creating something grand"? By your criteria Grace, we might as well start including people like Abdner Ashman because I'm sure someone, somewhere, feels that the World record holder for Ms. Pac-Man is a notable person...
    • I empathize with Grace Note's comments, but wonder if this opens the door for self-promotional biographies. Is the test for notability how colorful and fascinating of a biography that you can write about yourself? --goethean ॐ 21:19, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's a pretty safe this article is going to be kept based on the votes here. I still stand by my VfD because an article of this nature has no merit unless there is an obvious desire by the majority Wikipedians to catalogue this information. The VfD establishes that one way or another. If the consensus is Keep then so be it, though it could certainly stand a cleanup. --Isotope23 16:26, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep and Cleanup This is an odd article indeed: a bio of a notable (or at least borderline) person that's just overflowing with trivia, with a death of actual encyclopedic info. Anyone who's written that many books probably deserves an article, but the trivia (usenet posting habits, etc) needs to go. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:55, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. By itself, Sam Sloan's chess playing does not make him notable, except that he is the strongest player I know of who likes to defend the Black side of the Damiano Defence, but being a non-lawyer to win a case at the Supreme Court, is unusual, and does make Sloan notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It looks like it's not going to make any difference to the outcome but I say delete. So he's a little odd/clever whatever.. big deal!! None of that makes for any reason to keep this article. There. Had my two-penny worth. I can go home happy now.... Marcus22 10:27, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep And strongly agree with Grace Note's comments above. I'm currently researching a group of people considered marginal (like this guy) in the mid-60's, and you wouldn't believe how difficult information like this is to find. it's precisely articles like this that Wikipedia will be used for in the future, not the so-called "main" entries. Vizjim 11:29, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dotty, colourful, no doubt the most entertaining taxi driver in New York if you like that kind of thing, but ultimately nn. Peeper 14:56, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Winning a Supreme Court case pro se seems notable, and some of the other stuff in his life sounds interesting; he's also pretty (in)famous in chess circles. *Dan* 15:43, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Fernado Rizo and others. Hall Monitor 18:39, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. Since this article will be kept, hwoever, I'll echo [User:Starblind|Andrew Lenahan]]'s sentiment that it needs to be cleaned up, and probably shortened, given the subject matter. I strongly disagree with Grace Note's comments; this mindset is why we are moving toward keeping articles on every preschool, Trek BBS, and the lighting guy on Friends. Dottore So 19:35, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obviously --Ryan Delaney talk 19:41, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Let us not go through this again, folks... Nagaflas 02:39, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well known net.personality, might be a KOTM recipient (forgot). Article could stand being edited mercilessly. Phr 20:05, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well written, asserts and proves notability. Owen× ☎ 23:39, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why is this up for VFD again? This is the second time within a month [3]. It appears that the last decision was to keep [4]. --PhilipO 00:22, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was speedied as re-creation, implemented by Andrew Lenahan. Phil | Talk 17:15, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Tallon Zek times[edit]

non=notable forum.--Shanel 01:17, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

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

.

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

The result of the debate was speedied by me. Scimitar parley 15:12, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Fried[edit]

The current article is a copy of the Carl Rickard Nyberg article, with "David Fried" replacing Nyberg's name in the beginning. Some versions in the history have information copied from the Jason Reso article. The anonymous author did not respond on the talk page and removed cleanup tags without explanation. This seems to be the only information about David Fried: "David "Eisenhower" Fried (born November 30, 1988 in Detroit, MI), also known as Fried is a Canadian film maker, currently signed to GFG Production's Canoe! brand. Known for his skills in Inventing, Fried spent several years as one member of Spaceman and Ochorio (E & C." There are no results for "GFG Productions" or his full name on Google. If someone can verify that he is notable, I vote keep, otherwise delete. Kjkolb 01:19, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as vandalism. This is a person born in 1988. At 17, he has done lots of things actually done by others, it seems. If we were kind, we'd say it's a hoax. I'm not particularly kind about it. Geogre 02:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As much as I would like to agree with Geogre, being a blatant hoax is not a critereon for speedy deletion. Either way, the article is nonsensical blathering. Fernando Rizo T/C 02:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a hoax. Born in 1988 and he was an aviation pioneer in 1897. Capitalistroadster 04:56, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, makes no sense. Flowerparty 07:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Take said blowtorch, apply to article until David's Fried (Delete). Alf melmac 14:36, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've speedied it under general criteria 3: vandalism. This is vandalism because it attributes the achievements of Carl Rickard Nyberg to somebody else. If you disagree, feel free to yell at me ;)--Scimitar parley 15:09, 7 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. Well, that was confusing. Apparently this was on AfD and VfD simultaneously. Combining the two (or even considering each separately), we have a rough consensus. android79 15:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blogsnob[edit]

Please note that this is a renomination, where the article already sported a deletion notice linking to an existing discussion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Blogsnob that was on-going at the time.

WP is not a dictionary Paul 01:38, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Wikipedia is not a place to coin sniglets, either. Ugly and wasteful. Geogre 02:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Joelito 02:10, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nice neologism, though. Nandesuka 03:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neologism. Flowerparty 07:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. Anville 11:05, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, because blogsnob spelled backwards is bonsgolb, and, well, that's just unacceptable. (also, neologism). -- BD2412 talk 01:44, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Should the above Delete comments be classed as Blogsnobbery.?

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 dealt as copyvio. - Mailer Diablo 16:06, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ServiceCenter[edit]

Advertising. Delete. -- DS1953 03:01, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete: Almost spam, but not quite. Advertising, and Wikipedia is not Freshmeat.org. Geogre 14:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As it stands it's just an advert. Jezze 15:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete --Mecanismo 17:26, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advert/NN. --MCB 19:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyvio. Done. -Splash 18:21, 8 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. — JIP | Talk 10:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Coral Reef Library[edit]

nn i just hope libraries are not the next big wiki thing Delete --Aranda56 03:18, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Information would be properly included in the municipality entry. However, some people think there is no "merge" vote, so delete. Geogre 14:44, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete is the right thing, and easy to do since the material merged is a single edit by a single author. If the closing sysop does not wish to honor a merge and delete vote, then delete. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:47, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Wikipedia is supposed to be a comprehensive attempt at an encyclopedia but it doesn't mean that it should host information on all obscure and irrelevant buildings. --Mecanismo 17:27, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete but as per geogre, merge if not intrepeted as keep. Does not warrant own article. --TimPope 20:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge unless the author decides to explain why it needs its own page. Maybe there's a good reason, and it's just stubby... but I don't see any proof. --Jacqui M Schedler 16:20, 8 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, implemented by Zscout370. —Phil | Talk 17:18, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Biniqdu[edit]

Unremarkable software, self-described "A quick, dirty and ugly frontend...Backup your files before you start editing!". Only 48 displayed hits[5], and most are forums. Waterguy 03:27, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

.

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Joolz 17:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Godspeed You! Underrated Guitarist[edit]

Meeks is a real person, but this band is non-notable if it even exists. The rest of the article reads like a bad joke/nonsense. BrainyBroad 03:47, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. It doesn't exist. The complete failure to mention Godspeed You! Black Emperor (a genuine band) is cause for alarm, really. Flowerparty 04:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This title is too long for a Googlewhack but achieved 0 results see [6]. This presents obvious verifiability problems. Perhaps BJAODN or the author could be directed to Uncyclopedia. Capitalistroadster 06:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete --Mecanismo 17:28, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete Someone invested a stupefying amount of effort in this weird joke. Anetode 22:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete You! Fake Article -Sean Curtin 07:00, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Joolz 17:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Hak Boon[edit]

School principal that brought a school from top 20 to top 10, non-notable. Rx StrangeLove 03:59, 7 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. Even ignoring the sock puppets, there are only 7 more delete votes than merge votes. However, I can't find any article to merge to, as neither Interdictor Webcam or DirectNIC exists. And the concept is too specific to merge to a generic webcam article. — JIP | Talk 10:32, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bouncy[edit]

The subject is not notable. Jobarts-Talk 04:01, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Tell that to the 500 people in the IRC chat room watching these guys. Admiral Justin 04:14, September 7, 2005 (UTC)comment by article creator. --PhilipO 17:19, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Clarification: I don't mean to say that DirectNIC is not notable, or that using something like "Bouncy" to let you know that a stream is live isn't a good idea, just that "Bouncy" itself is not notable. I would have said merge, but the article (at the time that I listed it for deletion) didn't have hardly anything worth merging. The content there now could be a start for an article on DirectNIC (or similar.) By the way, 500 people knowing about it isn't really a phenomenon (and I'm one of those 500). (Edited.) Jobarts-Talk 23:45, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but move to New Orleans webcam or something. The fact that someone is broadcasting live 24x7 on the internet from the Big Easy, and has been all week, is surely notable. If you haven't seen their blog, you should check it out. --DavidConrad 04:39, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep where it is, and maybe rephrase as a general concept that can be applied to any webcam, citing the Interdictor webcam as an example. — boredzo (✍) 04:51, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Has the phenomenon of 'bouncy' really taken off _that_ much? I can't say i'd ever heard of it until today. Bouncy could be perhaps mentioned in an article somewhere on wikipedia, but I don't think it needs it's own entry. Also, I don't really think 'bouncy' can possibly be applied as a general term to webcams, seeing as the article mentions it refers instead directly to the No Signal message on the monitor at the back of the webcam image. Kyelewis 06:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify that, I would be more than happy to see an article about the specific webcam, but not the 'bouncy' phenomenon on it's own. Kyelewis 06:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to an InterdictorWebcam, OutpostCrystal, or DirectNIC page. I'm another of the folks who've been distantly watching this whole ordeal they've been going through, and can attest that it's notable. A handful of determined folks are managing to keep a large swath of the Internet viable while literally camped out on the 10th floor of a dead office building in a dead city. That's worth a page. I just now did my best to flesh out the page some more, but it really needs more work from more people who have been closer to the story. stevegt 08:56, 7 September 2005 (UTC) Vote actually by anonymous user User:66.166.78.130. Vote then modified by anonymous user User:66.166.78.130[reply]

I'm that "anonoymous user", now logged in from same IP. And I'm going to modify my vote again, to clarify: keep the content, move it to another page (I take it Wikipedia doesn't support page renames?). While the page title is wrong, the topic is encyclopedic; very few disaster recovery events are captured in public sources at this level of detail, and Wikipedia's current base of material is painfully thin on this topic. Enterprises consider this proprietary information, leaving practitioners (myself included) in the lurch when it comes to third-party reference material. For example, I worked on a WTC-related recovery, learned a great deal, but can't publish. Grab this material while it's there, put it on another page, encourage more editors (that "to be deleted" banner is a stigma right now) and do it soon, while the sources are still available. Stevegt 01:03, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hello Stevegt and welcome to Wikipedia - I see you created your account today. I hope you stay with us. You should be aware that since this is only your 4th addition to Wikipedia, and all four edits have been related to this topic, your vote may be discounted. Cheers. --PhilipO 06:17, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Bouncy is not just a screensaver or a random collection of pixels. Rather, Bouncy refers to the ideology of normalacy in a time of extreme duress. As NOLA fell into lawlessness, as basic rules of civility werestripped away as quickly as were basic utilities, as the city was besieged by both water and fire while its residents fell over the breaking-point, the bold professionals at DirectNIC succeeded in keeping at least a little corner of the city connected to the world. Bouncy may refer to the screen saver that was the team's mascot, but for those thousands of us who were glued to the news and video feeds that came out of that small office, Bouncy was a symbol of the need to "do as we are doing" and stay the course. The article must stay. User:Blackrobe:Blackrobe Vote actually by anonymous user at User:66.91.152.125
  • Merge anything actually encyclopaedic into one of the countless articles about the hurricane. Not worth an article on its own. Proto t c 09:43, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Interdictor should get a page, but Bouncy? Totally non-notable. --Moritz 12:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not a place to advertise or announce anything. It is not the place to document week-old events. Remember: this is an encyclopedia: it is intended to be a tertiary information source. Geogre 14:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete C'mon - not worthy of inclusion. Fake votes always a bad sign too. --PhilipO 17:10, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete It's an article about a clever little graphic on a web feed. Yes, a web feed from NOLA, but it takes a drastic stretch of plausibility to go from hurricane stricken area (very notable) to web feed about area (perhaps notable because few exist) to animated mascot of web feed (shockingly not notable). Oh, and no merge. I really would hate to see the word "Bouncy" be a redirect to a webcam page. --Icelight 17:27, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • delete Article void of encyclopedic value and merit. --Mecanismo 17:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge to an appropriate place, per the suggests of others. -Fang Aili 18:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even though some people might find this event notable today, in a month it will be a non-notable event. We must also remember that this is an encyclopedia not a newspaper. Joelito 18:41, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear delete and how can such a risibly unimportant topic spur such sockpuppetry?? Dottore So 19:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't really sockpuppets; I recogize some of the names from the #interdictor-chat IRC channel. Jobarts-Talk 21:33, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not encyclopedic. -feydey 21:39, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I would possibly support inclusion of an article on Interdictor, DirectNIC, or Outpost Crystal, as part of the history of a major disaster (and specifically the effect of the Internet on public response to disasters); however "Bouncy" itself is not notable as an article subject, and surely is no more than a short mention, if at all, in an article on one of the subjects above. -- MCB 22:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Commendable resolve of DirectNIC employees, but the article is not worthy for inclusion in an encyclopaedia! --GilHamilton 23:33, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete without prejudice; this smacks of Wikipedia:Recentism. Nandesuka 04:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I agree that Interdictor/Michael should get a page. But should it be the Directnic page, the Interdictor page or the Operation Crystal page? Also, James/jwinston wants his own page and should get one as well, imho. And while we are giving out pages, can I have one too? Pretty please? ;-) --Astartae 23:41, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If the Interdictor webcam is notable in some verifiable way, perhaps it could have an article. But an article dedicated to Bouncy is just silly. And apparently it's sockbait. Friday (talk) 13:30, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move or merge both look like good options right now, based on the above arguments... I will decide which way to vote as the conversation progresses. --Jacqui M Schedler 16:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move or merge. Subject is very notable. The name is not; I'm an avid reader of the blog but have never been able to see the webcam. Article should be about the DirectNIC post-Katrina experience, not just the webcam. Given comments above perhaps a good name for the article would be Operation Crystal, which would reference the event as a whole rather than just the webcam. Perhaps needs to be cleaned up to a higher standard of quality. Jdavidb 22:17, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move / Merge I think the content should be merged/moved to DirectNIC and linked to/from Katrina entries as it could be the basis for building an experience record. --Matt Ishida 09:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into some other article about Katrina. It does not deserve its own article, but don't lose the content entirely. –CConrad 15:59, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Another mostly trivial-though-seemed-important-to-someone-at-the-time article relevant to Hurricane Katrina. I can't event support a merge. We're geting a bit too flooded (no pun intended) with Katrina minutaie. 128.119.199.102 19:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move or merge, per above. Interdictor's notable, but Bouncy is news t'me. --Jack (Cuervo) 21:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In 3 weeks absolutely nobody is going to care. Corporal 02:07, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - thats the whole reason wikipedia exists - to document things and events without respect to current interest, but rather to incidental impact.... there are tons of articles about which "nobody cares". Who cares? Definately keep! 24.148.27.74 08:44, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to another page, editing to keep to new name/topic. I would suggest Outpost Crystal or Interdictor, possibly DirectNIC though that might smack of advertising (or even create a redirect from each, directing to a central page), as these are perhaps the most recognizable names associated with this notable, direct, and extremely up-close source of Katrina NOLA relief efforts. It would be a shame for this herculean effort to slip into obscurity because some felt the term "Bouncy" was inappropriate. --Huntster 13:32, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge the content with something more germane -- perhaps some article on activity indicators or screen savers. It might stand as an interesting footnote on another page, but there's no need for it to have its own entry. --Scott F 01:41, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am unconvinced of its significance. &#151; Eoghanacht talk 15:08, 2005 September 12 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. android79 15:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle J. d’Entremont[edit]

A letter from an irate U.S. soldier. Having a Livejournal doesn't make you notable. Delete--Shanel 04:04, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • This is out of place. Unencyclopedic rant (whether anyone agrees or not.) Opinion piece that is strongly POV essay with miniscule chance of becoming Neutral POV. Delete is consistant with Wikipedia policies. Comment for conspiracy theorists - I can't seem to find this online, it either has scrolled off blogs that had Google hits, including the included link, or was otherwise removed. -- WCFrancis 04:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I found one site that stated that the article was struck at the request of the author (with the text still there with html strikeout tags surrounding it). Another said that she has been court-martialled. I have not found any confirmation and cannot find this in Google news yet. The court martial, if true, has the potential of making her notable real soon now. -- WCFrancis 05:38, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • See [7]. I would say delete this, we all have our bad days, and things have sucked recently for sure. But if it does turn out to be newsworthy, then someone should source it. Sdedeo 06:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. At the moment it's unverifiable. If this changes before the VfD finishes, I'll change my vote. If it happens after, a new article can be created. By the way, the text is probably a copyvio. --Apyule 06:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little confused here. It looks like you blanked the text, but without putting up a copyvio tag, which complicates things. If it's copyvio, it should have a copyvio tag and go to the copyvio resolution page, rather than here in AfD. I'm not sure why you blanked the text, because that means that technically we are evaluating (for AfD purposes) a fundamentally empty article. Yes, the text can be recovered from the history, but we're supposed to be voting on the article as it presently exists. Puzzled, MCB 22:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not actually blanked, just the copy-and-paste of the letter itself. Yes, technically, we should submit this to the copyright page, where it will sit for ten days, but sometimes it's better to just be bold. Sdedeo 00:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason I mention it is because (entirely independently of the worthiness of the article, which I think is approximately nil as stated below) I don't think it's a copyvio, in that I think there's a very good Fair Use case to be made for republishing anything self-described as an "open letter" or containing other assertion that the author intends, for public policy purposes, for the work to be redistributed without limits. But, I'll pick a better case to make that argument for. :-) MCB 01:07, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I probably should explain why I deleted the letter from the article. The main reason that it went was that it wasn't encyclopedic. Even if the copyright status was clear, I don't think that it belongs in wikipedia. The copyright is still interesting though. Does fair use enable us to licence it under the GFDL? --Apyule 01:13, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I should probably state that notwithstanding the above comment, I don't think the article should stand, regardless of sourcing and verification (that she wrote it), until & unless there's some sort of actual controversy of public note here. MCB 23:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Online search of New York Times turns up nothing, so it's not big-time notable anyway. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:08, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am becoming more suspicious of the validity of the claim of the source of this. If it were true, I would expect the signature to read "US Army Reserve Corps of Engineers" instead of "US Army Reserves Engineer Corps". The discrepancy here makes me doubt it was created by a member of the US armed forces at all. - WCFrancis 01:35, 8 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. android79 15:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Funxion[edit]

Maybe I just suck at searching, but I can't find anything on these people.--Shanel 04:13, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Well, they are Greek, so maybe we had to search in Greek. Until proof and notability have been established, delete. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This must be them. They might be worth an article, but this is a copyvio, buried in a flash animation. Flowerparty 04:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Advertising and rappanity. They may be the dopest freshest yo, but they're not making a dent in the world of references yet. Geogre 14:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Mecanismo 17:31, 7 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. android79 15:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Olchowy[edit]

Not an encyclopedia article 70.144.20.226 04:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Notwithstanding the apparent copyright violation (copied from here), the subject of the article appears to be non-notable. Crypticfirefly 04:38, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Normally, I would vote delete as copyvio. Instead, I am voting for an A7 speedy delete as no notability is asserted in the text. Being a grandfather, former soldier and textile worker is not notable. While I am sure his family thought the world of him, that is not enough to warrant inclusion. Capitalistroadster 08:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Mecanismo 17:32, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for nn, copyvio ---CH (talk) 04:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. The votes are: 7 to keep, 12 to delete (including the nominator). This is a very thin margin, and a renomination to get a wider sense of the community would not be out of order. -- BD2412 talk 04:54, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Glomp[edit]

Non-encyclopedic neologism; little more than a dictionary definition. Oh, don't worry if we delete it, Urban Dictionary has 12 definitions. Paul 05:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC) P.S. anyone citing this as a reason to keep should eat cruft.[reply]

  • Delete, rambling dicdef. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 05:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, real method of showing affection. Kappa 06:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, interesting and informative, particularly in relation to anime fandom and internet culture. Some of it probably should be rewritten to sound more encyclopedic, though. Kamezuki 06:44, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per かめずき. —RaD Man (talk) 07:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is a dictionary entry and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Colinmac 13:27, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Paul. Sad as I am to lose an article which contains the enlightening example Tape this to your butt; I'm going to go on the other side of the room and glomp you, it is indeed a rambling dictionary definition. Peeper 15:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not a dictdef. This is a dictdef. Granted, the etymology and examples belong there more than they do here, but most of this article is encyclopedic in nature. —Cryptic (talk) 15:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. The encyclopedic content is not very encyclopedic, and what's at stake here is a pop culture ephemera. Where is the documentary evidence? Where is the verification? Is this original research, or can we find references? Geogre 16:44, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete wikipedia attempts to be an encyclopedia and not a dictionary. --Mecanismo 17:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Interesting and more than a dicdef. It could use some cleanup and expansion, though.-Fang Aili 18:38, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Glomp then weak delete, per Geogre. I agree with Peeper about the enlightening example. Barno 19:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pointless, ephemeral forumese that will doubtless soon disappear. This belongs on Urban Dictionary, not Wikipedia. Dottore So 19:43, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not verified, no sources. Non-notable even if verified. Quale 21:12, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Rubbish examples and dictdef. Unless you can go into the origins of the glomp and it's significance in the world outside of cosplay, I think it would warrant an article. But it seems very neologist to me. - Hahnchen 00:57, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems more than a dictdef to me, includes history, etc. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 02:27, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable IRCruft. Nandesuka 04:37, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As much as I'd like the phenomenon to go away, this is, sadly, widely-known in anime circles and is widespread especially at cons. And the article itself seems fine. RADICALBENDER★ 19:19, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Think: is anyone going to care about this word/"phenomenon" in a few years? This kind of stuff is going to hurt Wikipedia in the future. WP can either be a legitimate encyclopedia or a snapshot of what 12 year olds were talking about in the early 21st century. Paul 22:47, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Perhaps this should be moved to the Wiktionary until such time as more information about the subject can be appended. --ThatNateGuy 00:02, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was MERGE with Fire Emblem. — JIP | Talk 10:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Valkyrie staff[edit]

Non-notable gamecruft, barely 100 Google results. Paul 05:31, 7 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. Rx StrangeLove 05:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Rankine & Sorita D'Este[edit]

Delete NN pair of New Age authors as far as I can tell. David has certainly written books with other authors so even if they do pass the notoriety test by reason of notorirty beyond my knowledge this stub should still be deleted and redone as two separate stubs. Caerwine 06:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Seems someone's already tried making David Rankine and Sorita D'Este. Makes no sense to merge them together, even if they do co-write the odd book. Flowerparty 07:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Individuals who are not known as a corporate identity. Geogre 16:47, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -Fang Aili 18:44, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; it's an advertisement at this point. --Jacqui M Schedler 16:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as transparent adspam vanity nn ---CH (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. Rx StrangeLove 05:13, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Baker v. He[edit]

No claim to notability despit {{explain-significance}} being there for quite some time. Appears to be non-notable -Werdna648 06:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: News report. Without wider significance (rights of immigrants established/denied by precedent), there's nothing really here except a "Guess what? there was a court case." Geogre 16:51, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not even an appellate opinion; it looks like Tennessee procedure is to hear the case in Juvenile Court and then bring it to Chancery Court with trial de novo on the motion of a party. In other words, even if the public interest factor was high, this is basically just a trial court decision. Geogre has it right; while the case may have some implications for public policy regarding immigrants, it's really just an ordinary child welfare/adoption case. MCB 23:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. My former Constitutional law professor, Thomas E. Baker, once wrote an article entitled Tyranosaurus Lex, in which he noted somthing to the effect that the amount of new case law generated every year in this country would fill up a library. Speaking as someone who has contributed dozens of articles on notable cases, this ain't one of 'em. -- BD2412 talk 02:16, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as per BD2412. Sheesh.
  • KeepLevKamensky
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. Rx StrangeLove 05:36, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Patriotic journalism[edit]

  1. Delete - idiosyncratic non-topic. This phrase is a euphemism for propaganda - perhaps it belongs in a dictionary but what is its place in an encyclopedia? It is not used often enough to be notable -- a nexis search of major papers finds 10 articles since 1990 - some of them not even using the term in this way. csloat 07:29, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with propaganda or yellow journalism. CambridgeBayWeather 07:36, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Duplicate material of propaganda. A redirect would itself be POV, however. If the contents were not a duplicate of Propaganda, then they'd be self-evident (and also a delete). Geogre 16:57, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to yellow journalism. Gazpacho 17:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and maybe a redirect to Propaganda --Mecanismo 17:35, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's creepy newspeak, but it appears to be 100% non-notable as well. Sdedeo 18:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's already been covered in other articles, and to create a redirect would be POV, even if it's a POV I agree with. --Jacqui M Schedler 16:32, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JMS. -choster 23:39, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Joolz 17:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Video Surveillance of Government Leaders[edit]

plus a redirect to it. Policy proposal/advertisement, bordering on blog. Nateji77 08:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, OR, advocacy. And what a horrible idea! Zoe 08:37, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Zoe. Except that presumably she thinks it's a horrible idea because no-one would ever want to become a government leader... I think it's an awesome idea for the same reason :-D. Last Malthusian 14:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point.  :) Zoe 21:55, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not encyclopedic information --Mecanismo 17:39, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, Zoe. Dottore So 19:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advert ---CH (talk) 21:39, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:42, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the Silver Marmot[edit]

If this were an order issued by all of the Boy Scouts as a whole, then I could see keeping it. But it's only issued to camp counselors at one single nn Boy Scout camp. nn order. Zoe 08:29, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, nn Proto t c 10:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Chief Seattle Council if that survives AfD, otherwise delete. Do holders of this get the "Order of the Golden Groundhog" if they do further good work? Alf melmac 15:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Mecanismo 17:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Camp Parsons. —Cryptic (talk) 17:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was in the Boy Scouts (albeit not in Seattle, but I never heard of this being an official Order or honor society. Zach (Sound Off) 18:41, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Like there's a reason to keep any Boy Scout order-articles. / Peter Isotalo 01:55, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Note that this doesn't preclude anybody from being bold and merging the content themselves. · Katefan0(scribble) 18:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aurora District, Green River District, Chief Seattle Council[edit]

nn Boy Scout regional organizations. And if any of the other red links on the Chief Seattle Council get filled in, consider them added to this list. And please, don't create all of those troops which are linked from the district pages! Zoe 08:32, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete --Mecanismo 17:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all three into List of BSA local councils and districts in Washington (without the districts' troop lists, of course). Break them out if they get too large there. —Cryptic (talk) 17:47, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I'm not sure they're entirely non-notable, just not notable enough for individual articles. And what was that phrase again? "Wikipedia is not paper."  :) --Quintin3265 18:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, but probably leave out of any paper editions. Kappa 18:51, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, or merge as per suggestions above.---CH (talk) 23:55, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Boy Scout-cruft. / Peter Isotalo 01:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was failed to reach consensus. Rx StrangeLove 06:21, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christian City Church, Oxford Falls[edit]

nn church, advertising. Zoe 08:41, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep and clean-up this is a mega-church (4,000 attending weekly is notable - certainly more notable than a singapore busstop) if this were a sportsground with 4,000 weekly spectators would we delete that? --Doc (?) 08:47, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Considering that most small towns in Texas have a high school football stadium that meets that criterion, then, yes. Zoe 08:59, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
      • Justifying to keep one article because of the obviously flawed reasoning of a second nomination is what is terribly bad reasoning. / Peter Isotalo 09:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable church. Capitalistroadster 09:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into article on the town. Proto t c 09:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per nominator. Peter Isotalo 09:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, of interest to at least the 4,000 people who attend weekly. Kappa 10:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it can be proved that this megachurch is somehow relevant to anyone outside the congregation by all means keep. Pilatus 13:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless cleaned up to asserts its relevance. The Singapore "bus stops" are actually major commercial centers of Singapore suburbs, so User:Huaiwei informs us. I don't feel well about putting those up for deletion now. With some effort, those entries can be turned into something encyclopedia-worthy. I'm not convinced about this mega-church. Pilatus 13:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete -- borders on an advertisement for the church and as Pilatus said, unless someone can prove relevance outside the congregation, it should go. If it survives, someone needs to add a cleanup tag... there are entire sections without text. --Isotope23 13:35, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If we are keeping primary schools and bus stations - why is the bar so high for churches? 4,000 members should be notable enough for anyone- but if you need more see this [8] - and ask yourself how many churches have their own grammar school, TV studio, and got opened by the Prime Minister of Australia?? --Doc (?) 13:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have no problem with this article, a merge to Sydney, Australia would be bad for that article, merging to City of Sydney might be good, but don't know if that's the right place, so, OK where it is, but more work and clean up needed. Alf melmac 15:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It isn't in Sydney, it's in Oxford Falls, New South Wales. Zoe 21:54, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
        • Thanks Zoe, I only liked geography lessons at school when we got to use the coloured pencils. Alf melmac 00:28, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Mecanismo 17:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete in agreement with Pilatus. Barno 19:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete echoing above although justifying Singapore bus stops seems a hopeless task. Dottore So 19:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
6,000 members, one of the largest in Australia, they run a TV studio and a school, and attract support of a prime minister - but they are nn? Can someone explain what the notability threshold for churches should be? They run a school - if they had just been a school, there'd be a string of keeps here right now!--Doc (?) 20:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the town, or establish notability better then the article did. CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The town doesn't have an article --Doc (?) 20:27, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I usually vote to delete churches, but this is a particularly large one in a country where a congregation of 4000 is notable (an equivalent church in the US would be nn, IMO.) Keep. Sdedeo 21:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it's the founding church of a worldwide church movement, and what happens there has wider significance than just locally. 203.222.133.98 05:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Most people who say "Merge" never seem to think through that very well. RADICALBENDER★ 19:22, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't see why there is even a question about deleting this particular church, because of the size of the church, and influence in Australia and broader. There are so many other churches out there in Wikipedia-land, so why question this one? 220.101.98.47 11:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 13:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Student Revolution and Generalismo Juncal[edit]

Hoax. Zoe 08:55, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete: can't spell Generalissimo. And it does meet speedy deletion criteria: it doesn't assert any sort of importance beyond a reference to The Student Revolution, created by same author, and just as bogus. mholland 09:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whoops. Yes, you've listed that here too. mholland 09:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's connected with The Student Revolution novel which I listed as an AfD. CambridgeBayWeather 10:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • del, seems to be a hoax. [9] --MarSch 14:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • These articles very similar to two previously deleted articles (VfD for Seve Juncal and VfD for Student Revolution). Speedy delete as substantial recreation of a previously deleted article and/or no claim to significance or importance. (Plus hoax and vanity for good measure.) Sliggy 15:44, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Mecanismo 17:46, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This just in: Generalismo Juncal is still deleted. Same goes for the revolution, but I couldn't think of a Saturday Night Live reference for that one. Lord Bob 00:55, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax, or else nn fiction (see related VfD for article with very similar title).---CH (talk) 08:57, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 13:05, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arne & Carlos - Norway[edit]

Advertising. Probably a copyvio, but I'd rather get it deleted outright than have the chance it will be recreated without the ad-speak. Zoe 09:01, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. -- BD2412 talk 04:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Cartoon physics[edit]

Impressionistic pop culture cruft that is very hard to verify other than through other fan writing and the cartoons themselves. Worth being mentioned (but not elaborated on) in cartoon, but certainly not worthy of a separate encyclopedic article. This goes for sub-articles like cartoon collision physics as well. Delete. Peter Isotalo 09:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, seems like a good enough article. — JIP | Talk 09:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a fun article. Some verifiability in article but could use more. Capitalistroadster 10:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - boy, what a killjoy! - DavidWBrooks 10:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm an animator; this subject has a long history, and is discussed in the animation literature. An encyclopedia article must not be deleted just because it is humorous! The sub-article could be merged here, though. --Janke | Talk 10:54:08, 2005-09-07 (UTC)
  • Keep - good article, illustrates an important principle of comedy, namely the "plausible impossible" RMoloney 10:57, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Janke, merge sub-articles . --Moritz 11:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with cartoon. While this article and sub-articles demonstrates a beautiful interplay of haughty seriousness and humor, it should be confined to its area. The real-life recognition of its validity (Esquire and IEEE) require that it gets elaboration, but only in its context. --NielsenGW 11:30, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
    • Did you check the cartoon page? Not the place for this! --Janke | Talk 12:24:18, 2005-09-07 (UTC)
      • The main article is extremely short considering how major a subject it is. Whether or not you want to keep this, cartoon should be expanded and include some of this info. Also, the nominee needs to have a few references. Fan websites and direct observations of cartoons are not enough considering the whimsical nature of the article. / Peter Isotalo 16:38, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Did you check "What links here" on Cartoon physics? We're talking animation here, not just cartoons, which has several definitions. --Janke | Talk 17:08:47, 2005-09-07 (UTC)
          • Animation can certainly exclude cartoons, but cartoons can't exclude animation. It needs to be covered a bit more thoroughly. I've brought it up at talk:cartoon for those who wish to discuss this further. / Peter Isotalo 06:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • This is absolutely true. I have created the article Animated cartoon, formerly just a redirect, and added a "Main entry" link in the animation section of Cartoon. OK? --Janke | Talk 06:53:52, 2005-09-08 (UTC)
  • Keep, valid encyclopedia topic. Punkmorten 12:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This article is featured on Wikipedia:Unusual_articles ! Quote: These articles are valuable contributions to the encyclopedia, but are somewhat odd, whimsical, or... --Janke | Talk 12:47:06, 2005-09-07 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep deleting good but different articles like this one is like trying to delete the heart of wikipedia. (by User:Bandraoi, who forgot to sign... inserted by Janke)
  • Keep: Trivial but valid. The term has fairly widespread coverage, although this is one of those articles that attracts the obsessive crowd, and the wiki- structure means that it can become a tangle in an instant. The term may be fan coined, but it has been used by the creators of the form (incl. Chuck Jones in his autobiography, Chuck Amock). This differs, IMO, from the fictions about fictions and goes on to critical observation (when it isn't just degenerating into "list of funny stuff I've seen in cartoons"). Geogre 14:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't call this subject "trivial". These laws have been de facto "working rules" in animation for well over 80 years now - and just because they are funny, and make a Wikipedia article funny, isn't a reason for AfD, if you ask me. This is as serious as a treatise on a painter's tools, brushes, canvas, oils etc. But you are correct that this might grow uncontrollably - it sure needs to be watched. (I got carried away once here, too but was reverted - good thing, too! ;-) --Janke | Talk 18:46:55, 2005-09-07 (UTC)
  • Keep much better than the article about animated breast physics we saw here recently, does the job for me. The idea of characters not succumbing to forces of gravity is not restricted to cartoons though, see: Arthur Dent and Ben Bova's The Man Who Hated Gravity for starters. Alf melmac 15:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep an actual, documented phenomena, not the physics but the fact that many cartoons even by different studios seem to have developed commom "laws" despite their being completely arbitrary. --Outlander 15:44, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - a glance at what links there shows that it is a wanted article. -- RHaworth 15:50:42, 2005-09-07 (UTC)
  • Keep — a reasonable topic for an article providing some insights into human psychology. — RJH 18:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. -Fang Aili 18:51, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Optichan 21:40, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Genuine term in real use. Valid cultural observation. There are issues about what is factual, what is objective, what is neutral... but these problems exist in all articles on art or culture, e.g. Postmodernism. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • !!!qƏƏĶ ġñǒrłS -- BD2412 talk 02:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The sub-articles should be nominated together separately from this, but they should either be merged and redirectd into this or simply deleted. -Sean Curtin 07:03, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • Uhm, don't nominate articles if you only want them merged; you don't need a AfD-vote to decide that. Just marge them with or without previous discussion. Consensus can assumed unless clearly stated otherwise in an obviously well-motivated merger. / Peter Isotalo 14:40, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This article is a great example of why wikipedia exists. --Jacqui M Schedler 16:37, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This article is fairly relevant, and should remain in the Wikipedia. --driscolj 21:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and merge Cartoon collision physics into it. Owen× ☎ 23:57, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or at least Merge Very interesting. I think it is appropriate when tied to cartoon. Psy guy (talk) 01:36, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep, I guess ---CH (talk) 03:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kýýp. If we have articles on pop records, and they're pop culture and can't be verified apart from the works themselves and reviews by fans, then why not this? --Damian Yerrick 01:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 09:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deutsche M9K[edit]

Fictional gun from a computer game. Say no more. Delete Proto t c 10:18, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and salvage. Put any usable trivia bits in the articles of its real-life counterparts. If we allow every game weapon in, we'd hit 800K articles by tomorrow. --NielsenGW 11:38, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment no objection to putting the trivia into the relevant articles, but would be concerned of doubling up, say (for example) one was based on a combination of five or more real weapons, what we do? Alf melmac 16:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • My solution is to put the information where it has the most relevance, in this case, with the article on the video game itself. --NielsenGW 16:37, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge with the video game's article. -Fang Aili 18:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's a nice gun though. -- Kjkolb 01:56, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Cruft. / Peter Isotalo 01:57, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 13:11, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Patapol Ngernsrisuk[edit]

Delete"Athletes who are widely known, widely acclaimed, or highly successful in their sport." Doesn't qualify on this basis. Follow the link to Nathan Robertson on the page for a counter example of someone who does qualify. Marskell 10:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Simply being in the Olympics does not notability make. --NielsenGW 11:41, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Actually competing in the Olympics does confer notability. It means on a *national* basis the person has been "highly successful in their sport" (since a country is allowed only 3 entries per event). Being at the top of your local town isn't good enough. Being in the top of the world is more than enough. Being in the top of your country is just enough. This is just enough. --rob 12:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Olympic athletes. Kappa 18:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep because he was in the Olympics. And he may have some fame in Thailand. -Fang Aili 18:57, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep solely because of the disruption that would be caused if we deleted this and then had to endure an avalanche of AfD's for all of the hundreds, if not thousands, of other Olympic athletes we have stubs on. Zoe 19:19, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Re: "the person has been 'highly successful in their sport' (since a country is allowed only 3 entries per event)": Did the Jamaican bobsled team on which a Disney movie was based really consist of the twelve best bobsledders in the nation, or just a bunch of people who found it interesting; i.e. was there even a selection competition? There are several thousand athletes every Summer Games, and a few thousand more every Winter Games, most of whom will never gain enough widespread media coverage to merit articles in the English Wikipedia. Barno 19:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: You're mistaken to keep looking only at an international basis. Also, the large athlete count includes many large teams (probably with bench warmers), and I would be happy to say that not every player in a team warrants inclusion. Your allusions to "English Wikipedia" is something I strongly object to. The *only* thing English in English Wikipedia is the language *we* the editors use. Notability requirements for inclusion are wholly unrelated to language. In fact, we should bend over backwards, to realize that as English speakers, it's harder to judge a non-English person's notability. --rob 22:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: I was working from some assertations I'd seen veteran editors make in VfD (now AfD) discussions. I just went looking through policy pages, and don't see much in the way of "must have notability among speakers/readers of English"; the closest I found is Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources_should_be_in_English. Since there are no sources linked nor cited, I can't judge their language. "... defeated in the round of 32" tells me not notable within the field of Olympic athletes. I have no idea of his fame and significance in Thailand. If earlier informed voters had given assertions that Ngernsrisuk was the Michael Jordan of Thai badminton, I would have held my vote awaiting verifiable citations. As is, I'll skip language matters and rely on the basic Wikipedia:Criteria_for_inclusion_of_biographies point: "Has the person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in the specific field?" No change in vote, but I'm willing to be persuaded if someone provides the verifiable documentation required by WP's fundamental policy. I agree that editors and AfD voters are often too centered toward the USA or the "western democracies". Barno 23:51, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: The quote you made is for dead people. For living people, who are athletes, the standard is "highly successful in their sport".
          • Actually, an easier standard: "Athletes who are widely known, widely acclaimed, or highly successful in their sport". Sam Vimes below has provided an event that Ngernsrisuk didn't-quite-win and a world ranking, with sources. I don't know how significant the Thailand Open is among the international badminton community or among the Thai general public, and I don't know how noteworthy 26th in the world is among either group. For comparison, I was recently 41st of 83 in the World Diplomacy Championship, with players from 8 of the 20 or so countries with active Diplomacy hobbies, but I'm not asserting notability for me. Vote withdrawn; I'll leave it up to people with more cultural context and who care more. I still don't think that Olympians are automatically notable even if they don't get past the round of 32 teams. Barno 00:44, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as Olympic athlete and to counter systemic bias. Punkmorten 21:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - reached the final of the 2003 Thailand Open [10] in addition to his Olympic participation. He and Prapakamol is ranked 26th in the world. [11] Sam Vimes 21:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep badminton is hard. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 02:38, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 14:11, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Student Revolution novel[edit]

Unable to verify any information about either the book or the author. No-notable and also looks like a vanity promo for a upcoming book. CambridgeBayWeather 10:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed that this is the same person as listed above in "The Student Revolution". CambridgeBayWeather 10:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either a vanity page for an unpublished "novel" which is very likely to stay unpublished, or a hoax. Couldn't find anything relevant on Google. Delete. Demogorgon's Soup-taster 12:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This all is all very very familar, as the "novel" is just a re-creation (with a new slant) of two previously deleted articles (VfD for Seve Juncal and VfD for Student Revolution). Speedy delete as substantial recreation of a previously deleted article, and/or no claim to significance or importance, and/or arguable vandalism. (Plus hoax and vanity for good measure.) Sliggy 15:52, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Mecanismo 17:47, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, more hoaxitude. Zoe 18:49, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete both this and The Student Revolution. Apparently a childish plan for an unwritten novel, but certainly not an encyclopedia article.---CH (talk) 09:00, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 04:33, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clea Rose case[edit]

Finishing an incomplete nomination. I also think it should be deleted, people get run over everyday.--nixie 10:43, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I think the article was originally created as a memorial, which justified the initial delete tag. However, it has been fixed, to cover the controversy/issue surrounding police which which has already been noted in the national media. --rob 10:59, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We also have a Clea Rose article referring to the same thing so I would vote merge. This case has had considerable publicity in Canberra, the capital city of Australia. There is concern about possible police involvement in the chase and the failure of security cameras in Civic (the CBD). A 15-year-old who was driving the stolen vehicle that killed her is facing manslaughter charges. Capitalistroadster 11:10, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if this is the Clea Rose page. Capitalistroadster 02:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Reply: That's just a re-direct, there's no duplication. --rob 11:38, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This was not an incomplete nomination. The page was moved from Clea Rose to Clea Rose case. A merge may be needed between this page and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clea Rose. --Scott Davis Talk 13:36, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and, if it is proven that this case is a landmark case instead of yet another death in the world, rewrite the article. Until then, strong delete. --Mecanismo 17:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We already had this debate. Sdedeo 18:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable for media coverage. Kappa 18:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a news item, not an encyclopedia article. We have dozens of cases or more like this every year in the U.S. Quale 21:18, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm not sure why this was re-nominated given that there was a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clea Rose which appeared to result in a consensus to keep the article. I voted keep there based on the partial rewrite and name move, meant to change it from a bio of a NN person to an article about the case. MCB 23:39, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum: I closed/archived the discussion on the old page and pointed it here. (Not normally done by a participant but I broke it so I'll fix it.) At this point I've said my piece and will leave it to others to reach consensus and close this one. MCB 00:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Same reasons as the old page. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 01:18, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Uh, that page is a redirect to this one. MCB 07:20, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep no change of opinion from other page
  • Delete Maybe a call later on for a reference in a Wikipedia article relating to Road Safety Issues in Australia, but of little signficance as a stand alone article --bacco007 07:41, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP, considering the early deleters may not have seen the rewrite. -Splashtalk 00:47, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zhang Hong Jie[edit]

Non-notable murder victim, Wikipedia is not a memorial and so on, delete--nixie 10:47, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is this non-notable, though? The article does at least try to establish notability... --Moritz 11:16, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dying unnaturally (or even horrifically) does not notability make --NielsenGW 11:36, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete millions of people die every day. Some of them more notable in every aspect but they aren't worthy of an article. --Mecanismo 17:51, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, international incident. Kappa 18:47, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator Pilatus 19:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been expanded since the first three comments here, with more on how it is significant involving Chinese & Australian governments, links to national news sites and forums. Astrokey44 22:47, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we have people killed all of the time overseas involving different nationalities and it is just another fight over the extradition and the death penalty. We have those in the US a bunch. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
how about it gets moved to Zhang Hong Jie case?, as it is the incident, not the person which is notable. Similar to how Clea Rose was moved Astrokey44 03:07, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move per Astrokey. This case is significant given the political and diplomatic sensitivities involved both between the ACT and Australian Governments and the Chinese and Australian Governments. There is a strong possibility that the alleged murderer could escape trial because Jon Stanhope won't allow the ACT Branch of the Australian Federal Police to investigate the case. That certainly isn't a usual occurrence. The case has received plenty of publicity in Canberra and political attention. Capitalistroadster 03:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the international angle argues for keeping this. Nandesuka 04:39, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move per Astrokey. The case is notable, not the victim. MCB 07:28, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue the murderer is moe notable that the victim. Extradition cases aren't that notable. Pilatus 10:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep murder case that raises some important issues. --Vsion 05:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as long as it is not moved. No need to attach "...case" to it. Ambi 02:04, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are probably hundreds of college women murdered by their boyfriends around the world every year. We can't have articles on each locally sensational murder case, and this article utterly fails to explain why this particular case is worthy of such attention. Compare say Sharon Tate, who probably would be one of the rare examples of a notable murder victim.---CH (talk) 08:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, weak keep as per Capitalistroadster (international legal/political issues).---CH (talk) 08:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Joolz 17:43, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nightlife in Bermuda[edit]

Merge with Bermuda culture — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidanb (talk • contribs) 2005-09-07 11:33:38 UTC

  • I say delete. Entry is basically an excuse to advertise a website, while the admission that Bermuda's nightlife is considered "quiet" hardly indicates notability. Demogorgon's Soup-taster 14:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete If the article had some substance, I would say transwikitravel, buty alas, its some kind of vanity... Roodog2k (talk) 15:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Roodog2k. --GraemeL (talk) 20:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--an article on this topic could be written, but this is merely an external link--quite possibly a speedy candidate. Meelar (talk) 04:09, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for above reasons. --Bhadani 14:11, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above - Rhyddfrydol 21:33, 8 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. — JIP | Talk 15:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ville Mönkkönen[edit]

nominated before but no consensus. appears nn bio —Gaff ταλκ 05:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. I originally both nominated this article for deletion and closed the debate as "no consensus", but a subsequent Googling found enough hits. — JIP | Talk 10:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep It survived Afd in September - this is far too soon to put it up again whatever its failings may be. Dlyons493 Talk 16:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Kappa 16:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, not an nn-bio. Moreover, his games are notable. Punkmorten 21:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable.  Grue  16:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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. -Splashtalk 00:48, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Undinism (Band)[edit]

Google search for Undinism band gives 387 results, no allmusic entry. Punkmorten 12:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete with no allmusic entry, and no claim to notability, and hardly any information in the article, it can only be nn/vanity. — brighterorange (talk) 16:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete not notable --Mecanismo 17:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete -- speedy delete should be an option for bands that don't meet the notability soft requirments --Quasipalm 17:59, 7 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 delete. Author realised the mistake, created an account and reposted it at Steam Car Club of Great Britain. Kewp's tagging of this article within 8 minutes of creation constitutes "biting the newbies" in my view. -- RHaworth 23:27:34, 2005-09-07 (UTC)

See The Steam Car Club of Great Britain link below[edit]

nn car club in Great Britain with ~800 google hits. Kewp 12:27, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bad article with horific title - contributor certainly does not understand WP. However, I'm still going to say keep, rename and cleanup seems to be a reasonably notable and certainly interesting club, see [12]. --Doc (?) 13:41, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I second Doc's keep, rename and cleanup --MacRusgail 13:44, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll third Doc's keep, rename and cleanup --Outlander 15:53, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN. -Fang Aili 19:05, 7 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. -Splashtalk 00:49, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Williams[edit]

  • Delete I do not believe that these people are notable, especially Rhiannon Biddulph. The last sentence seems to be more or less an advert for their handfasting service. I would consider this a vanity article. MacRusgail 13:39, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support that this is the worst kind of abuse of wikipedia, little more than an advert, and not even her real name too. - 84.69.16.92
  • delete not worthy of an encyclopedia article and possibly vanity. --Mecanismo 17:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete vanity. --Quasipalm 18:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please delete. How sad. Next we'll be hearing about people's hobbies or pets:) I had no idea Wikipedia was a place for free advertisements or free personal webspace. - 86.137.20.35
  • Delete nn vanity and possible adspam---CH (talk) 05:36, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep This discussion has already taken place, and as far as I can tell the very person calling for a delete is the same person who vandalised both the Martin Williams entry and the Pagan Association entry. Pettiness and spite are not seen as valid reasons to delete pages. I do agree with the handfasting comment and have removed the link to this. Rhiannon Biddulph (and yes that is my real name!) - allegedly posted by "Rhiannon Biddulph" (article subject132.185.144.122 )
    • Before you slander me further, I'll have you know that I have never visited the Pagan Association entry, and did not vandalise this article. I don't think either of you appear to be worth an article. That's why I put this article up for deletion. It would be great if we could all have our own article on Wikipedia... we'd end up with several billion pages. Not very practical though eh? --MacRusgail 16:06, 14 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, but verging on enough to call it an outright keep. -Splashtalk 00:53, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fossicking[edit]

Dicdef, and not a very good one at that. Demogorgon's Soup-taster 14:16, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Expand - fossicking is a big piece of traditional (white) Australian culture, and I believe there are various laws covering it. It originates in Cornwall, and the term itself is argued to come from Cornish. This stub is certainly worthy of more detail. --MacRusgail 14:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Expand if possible. I nominate MacRusgail in charge of that effort. I'll check in a week or two and if it's still less than a paragraph or two, i'll re-vfd and vote delete then. Karmafist 00:19, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable activity. Kappa 18:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Wiktionary until someone wants to make it an encyclopedic article. --Fang Aili 19:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Is this different from gold panning? Zoe 19:22, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep a little bit of Australiana. The defention is, if I recall, a little inaccurate, I'm sure it is searching through the left overs of mining activity to find useful leftovers. And is used particularly with opal mining. Sabine's Sunbird 02:03, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a dicdef. If more information is provided, and it can be distinguished from gold panning, I'll change my vote. If it can't be distinguished, we could and should just redirect it there. Nandesuka 04:42, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK definitely different from gold panning, since it is "dry" prospecting, and staking out land.
  • Redirect to Placer mining. Owen× ☎ 00:02, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Owen, as far as I can tell it is not the same as placer mining, but you can correct me...--MacRusgail 15:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Encyclopedia not dictionary. Psy guy (talk) 01:38, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:54, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of chess resources[edit]

Wikipedia is not a repository of links. Because these links might be interesting I've added them to the "External links" section of the Chess article. CG 14:18, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not needed, WP:NOT. Proto t c 15:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redundant --Outlander 16:00, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • delete --Mecanismo 17:59, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I work a lot on chess articles, but relevant resources can go into the External links sections of the related articles or can be put on Wikipedia:Wikiproject Chess. Wikipedia is not a collection of links. Quale 20:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a link depository. Optichan 21:42, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable. Molotov (talk) 21:59, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for not telling me, you listed the page here for deletion, Cedar-Guardian! Very nice of you, but then your style is not my style, whatever... There are a lot of pages like the one we are talking about... "Delete, delete, delete... " but - what's the matter? Can somebody tell me precisely? It says Wikipedia is not a mere repository of links. And the policy page says why: "Excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia." Tell me what's wrong about having special pages for this purpose. And if you give reasons for deletions don't come me with "redundant" or "not notable." That's totally stupid here. Doesn't apply, think better. Ben T/C 15:52, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Genetic Halfling[edit]

Appears to be original research. Googling the term "genetic halfling" resulted in zero matches, it is unlikely to be an accepted term under those circumstances. CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I hesitate to say delete -- some times there are real technical terms that I can't find on google myself, so I'm not sure this should be deleted until someone that knows Biology well can confirm that this isn't a real term. --Quasipalm 17:57, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — I recall that scientists are not even certain whether humans and neanderthals ever cross-bred, so this appears to be totally original "research". Perhaps it was meant to be relevant to Homo floresiensis? Otherwise it just looks like semi-gamer crud, with a link on the halfling page. — RJH 18:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless use of the word is sourced someplace not-crazy. Sdedeo 18:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - looks ORish. Shimgray 12:25, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Crossbreeding between neandertals and homo sapiens sapiens is at least controversial. It should not be presented as fact. The reality of genetic halflings itself seems doubtful. Not grounds for deletion as such, of course, but unless some supporting information can be found, I'd say delete this as an invention.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 00:53, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Tradition[edit]

This is a long proselytization tract, and I can't even figure out what they believe in. This will need to be deleted or seriously edited. -Fang Aili 14:44, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete either as original research, advertising, linkspam or all three ---Outlander 15:57, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as OR or inherent NPOV. -- MCB 19:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I suspect editing this to yield any sort of sense would be impossible. There's a lot in there about what it isn't, but very little coherent about what it actually is (and the author might do well to read the Vangello delle Streghe before asserting that it isn't paganism) Tonywalton  | Talk 20:03, 7 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 nomination withdrawn. Russ Blau (talk) 18:14, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Ed Warby[edit]

  • Delete vanity page. --Russ Blau (talk) 14:49, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this is the drummer from Gorefest - a well known death metal band; natheless it needs a serious cleanup as it is probably a copyvio and written in the first-person. Spearhead 14:59, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I updated the page to remove the copyvio and switched it to a drummer stub....
  • Comment Each member of Gorefest has a similar vanity page, which should all be rewritten. android79 15:12, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Seeing as the Gorefest article itself contains a whole two lines of writing, this and the other member's pages should be merged into the main Gorefest article. Their names should redirect to Gorefest. Proto t c 15:16, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination since this person apparently is somewhat notable (I've never heard of the group, but I happily acknowledge that that's not part of the deletion criteria...). --Russ Blau (talk) 16:40, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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) 05:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When Good Robots Go Bad[edit]

Please kill this page, it is in violation of [13].(nominated by 144.118.196.165 whose only edit is this vote.)

  • Don't delete. In no way promotional. Have been on tour in a large/medium-sized country. (unsigned comment by Dumplinberry whose only edits are votes in two VfD's for local bands.)
  • Do not delete. Informative. (unsigned comment by 12.207.25.92 whose only edit is this vote.)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Al 13:25, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No entry at allmusic. There is a page at artistdirect, but it's blank. 136 unique Google hits, and they're not all for this band. 205 unique Yahoo hits, and not all are for this band. Zoe 21:26, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Do Not Delete. Not promotional.

  • Sockpuppets: When Good AfD Processes Go Bad -- delete per Zoe. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 15:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who? Begone --ElvisThePrince 15:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Banish to the pit of eternal non-noteworthyness --Outlander 15:50, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable - Tεxτurε 17:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete band vanity. (Couldn't find anything on their label using google either.) --Quasipalm 17:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete void of encyclopedic value --Mecanismo 18:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity Joelito 18:12, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:00, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As above, found a web page on the band (obviously written by one of the members), but nada about the label. -- llywrch 20:49, 8 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 00:57, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Refco Private Client Group[edit]

adspam Doctor Whom 15:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. Al 16:21, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • delete shameless adspam --Mecanismo 18:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ditto. Larsoner 19:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Information is factual; admittedly it is autobiographical, but did eliminate the POV/advertising elements to make more neutral. Is there a compromise? RPCG 20:35, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that RPCG (Refcopcg) is apparently the author of the article under consideration. I looked at the history and it appears to me that the change Refcopcg refers to above was to remove the words "regarded as an innovator". R, I have nothing against making a living, but Wikipedia is not a yellow pages.---CH (talk) 22:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE the redirect. I don't think userfication was appropriate in this case. -Splashtalk 01:03, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tanja Louise Stephen[edit]

Memorial Page, no hits on Google or Yahoo Outlander 15:36, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Userfy to Evianboy. Lets not bite the newbies. Looks like an honest mistake. Roodog2k (talk) 16:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment OK, I moved the content to Evianboy. I will leave him a message on his talkpage explaining why the page was moved. Roodog2k (talk) 16:08, 7 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 01:02, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stripping the Gurus: Sex, Violence, Abuse and Enlightenment[edit]

Non-notable ebook. 144 Google hits. The author admits in his 26 Aug 05 blog entry to anonymously spamming Wikipedia in order to promote book. See further discussion at my talk page. --goethean ॐ 15:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Sorry... I see a lot of angry stuff on that page, a good deal of vitriol thrown at Wikipedia in general and goethean in particular... but which, exactly is the passage that you says is an admission of "spamming Wikipedia?" Dpbsmith (talk) 00:24, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(Those are all links to free information on the Internet. And he doesn't even know that it was me that put them there! All that's given to identify the user who added the information is the IP address of his/her computer! So how can he call it "self-promotional"? What a beautiful example of "democratic censorship"! Granted, it's unlikely that anyone else but me would have placed all of those relevant links to my own free online content there; but you never know, and you certainly don't know enough there to go whole-hog on the censorship thing.) What he (and several other comparable fools) have done, in fact, is to systematically go down the entire list of the three dozen or so edits I made yesterday, and remove every one of them.
This, combined with 207.112.92.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), a series of edits placing a link to his website/ebook on each related article, I call spam/ads/self-promotion. Mass linking like this has happened before, and it is definitely frowned upon, and in my experience reverted. --goethean ॐ 17:32, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure. Most Wikipedians remove suspected linkspam on sight. The point I wanted to pin down is this. I read your original comment to mean that he acknowledged that the creation of this article was a conscious act of self-promotion. That's not quite true. He acknowledges systematically linkspamming Wikipedia, but does not actually acknowledge that this article is spam. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't actually believe that the author of the ebook created the article. But I do believe that it was created by a WP user due to the linkspam. A WP user followed the links and decided to write an article about the ebook. --goethean ॐ 19:40, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Al 16:21, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Admitted advertising. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:12, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No brainer, maybe speedy Molotov (talk) 19:10, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete spam spam spam spam I don't like spam spam spam spam spam. Sabine's Sunbird 02:08, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable book. Advertising. My personal criterion is that a book cannot be considered notable unless it has an Amazon sales rank of less than 200,000. (Amazon lists everything in Books in Print). This book isn't even listed by Amazon. Or by Barnes and Noble. Not under title, not under author, and not under ISBN 0973620331 (the ISBN listed on the website). "Million Monkeys Press" appears to have published exactly one title at the present time. This "press" does not even have a merchant account with the credit card companies; it only accepts payment via PayPal. It is possible that the "book" exists only as a PDF file. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete not a notable book (yet) . Andries 14:41, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 09:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flying scorpions[edit]

Probable hoax, I can't find any reference to this, or in association with Shinto or Oklaptianis. Was tagged a speedy delete as patent nonsense but it doesn't fit that criteria Rx StrangeLove 16:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Hoax/Patent Nonsense. Google search of "Flying scorpion" and "shinto" had zero hits, as did "Oklaptianis". --Fang Aili 19:12, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per Fang. / Peter Isotalo 02:00, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 01:04, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

James Martin (DJ)[edit]

Previous vfd: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/James Martin (DJ)
UPDATE: The nonsense (eg "Cracking") has been removed as of 06 Sep 05. - Unsigned by Billbennett
  • Keep - DISAGREE - Is biographical. Vote to remain. - Unsigned by 84.65.191.242.
  • Delete Notability not established. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:39, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete void of encyclopedic value --Mecanismo 18:05, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy recreation of prior deleted content. Sdedeo 18:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete quickly as vanity. Hall Monitor 18:44, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speed delete nn, vanity, recreation of previously deleted material ---CH (talk) 04:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 01:04, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disrepair[edit]

dicdef that is already in Wiktionary Cje 16:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not only does Wiktionary already have an entry for disrepair, the definition given in this article is incorrect. —Cryptic (talk) 17:35, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, no need for it. Molotov (talk) 19:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, so keep. -Splashtalk 01:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Paes[edit]

Delete Non-notable as per [14] PhilipO 17:02, September 7, 2005 (UTC) --PhilipO 19:13, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep—According to the Leander Paes page she was "captain of the Indian team in the 1980 Asian Basketball Championships". I think that makes her at least marginally notable. — RJH 18:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete void of encyclopedic value. Her "call to fame" is the career of her daugher. Let's not create an article on every family member of any semi-obscure athlete --Mecanismo 18:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mecanismo, Leander is her son, not daughter. Plz see below. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:54, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and Cleanup. The information from RJH should be included for a start. Capitalistroadster 18:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep basketball player in her own right. Kappa 18:43, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep if this can be expanded further, otherwise redirect to Leander Paes. Hall Monitor 18:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as expanded, Olympic-class athletes are definitely notable. Hall Monitor 19:30, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mecanismo, at least until someone wants to do some serious work on it. --Fang Aili 19:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no real assertions of notability in article. From the article: "She was a basketball player in he own right." Professional? Semi-pro? Olympic? Amateur? Hobbyist? Shoots hoops in the driveway? Top scorer on the NBA Jam machine at the laundromat? This article needs context, and without it, is worse than no article at all. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:41, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Either needs proof that she has represented India at basketball (played professionally seems unlikely) or should be deleted. Average Earthman 21:32, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable in and of herself. Will change my vote if references to her own notability can be cited. Fernando Rizo T/C 22:47, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fernando Rizo. Nandesuka 04:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Reasonably well-known, though almost always attached with the name of Leander Paes. Tintin 11:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep — very notable. I also believe she was in the Indian national team. Heard a lot about her. Take it from me. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:24, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • Philip: Google rankings are not the sole criteria for notability. I've rewritten it in stub form. Hope the above users can change their vote. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:14, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
      • No, but there a pretty good indicator! ;-) However, the links added do seem to provide more evidence of notability. --PhilipO 16:37, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
        • As this article shows, google rankings are a terrible indicator of notability for people in developing countries or who were famous in the past but not now. Kappa 16:42, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fair enough - changing my vote to Merge. --PhilipO 19:13, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
        • Philip and the rest of the AFD team: please use this as a guide in the future: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deletion sorting/List control =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:54, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • I assume Women's Basketball must have been a demonstration sport in the 1972 Olympic Games, as the first medals awarded in that event were in 1976 (according to the IOC anyway) Average Earthman 22:04, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • But I just checked David Wallachinsky's massive The Complete Book of Olympics which should have mentioned about 1972 if basketball was a demonstration sport, but it doesn't. This book lists all the teams that took part in Women's basketball between 1976 and 1992 - India isn't in any of them. I was suspecting that she could have taken part in 1980 when the big teams boycotted, that 1972 could be wrong and some copywriter might have taken the 1972 from Vece Paes and attributed it to Jennifer. That doesn't seem to be the case. Tintin 00:14, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge but agree with Average Earthman that first needs proof that she has represented India at basketball (otherwise should be deleted) Dlyons493 21:22, 9 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 with MOVE to Frisbeetarianism. The new name has a number of supporters following it, and one delete changed to it (whether Angr follows that support with Buncofgrapes is unclear, but the conditioning would seem to make Angr a keeper of some form). -Splashtalk 01:16, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Frisbetarian[edit]

This isn't even a parody religion, it's a sig file. Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is notable. Discordianism is notable. This is not. DS 18:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • nowhere in the deletion guidelines does it say something must be a phenomema; the text is entirely accurate. As far as I can tell, this is entirely within the acceptable content for wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Drcrumb (talk • contribs) 14:20, September 7, 2005
  • Delete per WP:NOR, Wikipedia:Importance, etc, etc. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 19:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It was an idea invented supposedly invented by George Carlin. The "Frisbeetarianism" link in his article points to Frisbee. Frisbee, in turn, links to George_Carlin#Frisbeetarianism. A redirect to George Carlin seems reasonable, but a delete wouldn't be out of bounds. Al 19:08, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. User:Popeccola and I have been bantering this term about for years. Turns out it's from a 1975 skit from The Jim Stafford Show. Heck, I mentioned it on Popeccola's user page when he established the account. I just updated it today. - Lucky 6.9 19:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but more sources are better. Sdedeo 21:18, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sourced and better justified as notable. The 317 google hits for "Frisbetarian" (most message boards and blog entries) don't strike me as enough to merit a keep here. Bunchofgrapes 21:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename to Frisbeetarianism. Notable enough. Redirect to Carlin would not be quite right. -- BD2412 talk 02:06, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete with the same provisos as per Bunchofgrapes --Angr/tɔk tə mi 06:00, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Re: This [is not notable]. Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is notable. Discordianism is notable. This is not. FWIW, I'd only ever heard of one of these three things until recently - although I've always seen it spelt Frisbeetarianism in the past. Widespread term. Needs either a keep or a redirect, but something of it should be kept somewhere. Grutness...wha? 08:23, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, Cultural reference, people could easily run across the term and look in Wikipedia for more info. We should have that info if we can. 24.97.252.34 13:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename to Frisbeetarianism. Remove redirect to Carlin. - Introvert talk 21:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN, unless it attains real notability. Owen× ☎ 00:16, 9 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. -Splashtalk 01:25, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Stiller[edit]

Weak Delete. I'm throwing this one out there to see what people think. He made a very ambitious attempt, but he failed. Obviously if he had suceeded, that would be qualifications for inclusion. The book itself has an Amazon sales rank of under 500k, so it alone is not enough to qualify him. Icelight 18:11, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, published author and got 1/3 of the way round Australia. Also media coverage "...has been profiled in publications like New York magazine and The New York Times. He has made numerous television appearances on shows like The Today Show, Good Morning America, and PBS's Trailside[15] Kappa 18:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Molotov (talk) 19:12, 7 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 redirect, probably a common enough mis-spelling to not delete outright, whatever content not in Sons and Daughters has been merged. Rx StrangeLove 03:34, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sons and daughters[edit]

Void of any encyclopedic value and is a orphan article and without any links (it was found through the random article) Mecanismo 18:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

.

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

The result of the debate was delete.  Grue  13:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Panshanger yellows[edit]

British schoolboys ("under 16") playing soccer. Non-notable. DS 18:23, 7 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 01:27, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Coppertop[edit]

  • Delete DJ with no allmusic page, (although there is a DJ Copperpot, but they appear to be different), about 130 unique google hits, and maybe one record. Icelight 18:34, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • delete dj vanity. — brighterorange (talk) 19:16, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity and possible adspam ---CH (talk) 02:22, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 userfy. -- RHaworth 00:06:42, 2005-09-08 (UTC)

Simon Carlsen[edit]

Not notable. Not enough info. Molotov (talk) 19:07, 7 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. -Splashtalk 01:28, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Schizima[edit]

This article was previously marked for speedy deletion for being reposted content that was already deleted. However, the article in its current form is totally different than what was deleted. That, and since it was previously deleted more than a year ago, I therefore moved it here to AFD. This article seems to describe an internet conspiracy among online message boards, but it still needs a list of third party references. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, forum...cruft. Zoe 19:31, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Forum cruft. Only 13 unique Google hits. --GraemeL (talk) 20:09, 7 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 01:29, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Montenegrin language/German translation[edit]

  • Delete There's not even an article, only talk page, the content is unbiased an unproved and without cited sources

RockyMM 19:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Someone obviously doesn't know how to use Wikipedia. But aren't articles supposed to be unbiased? Maybe you mean biased. Optichan 21:56, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • If this is an attempt at translating de:Montegrinische Sprache in preparation for integration into Montenegrin language, then userfy to User:Node ue, so he can work on it at leisure. (On the other hand, since he hasn't touched it since June, and since the existing Montenegrin language article is much better, maybe just delete it.) --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:00, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I meant to use double negation, but then incorrectly corrected myself and just left the word unbiased. English is not my mother tongue. Sorry if this had caused any confusion. RockyMM 22:56, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was MERGE to Samuel Z. Arkoff. -Splashtalk 01:31, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ARKOFF Formula[edit]

Delete or weak merge Doesn't warrant own article as per [16] PhilipO 19:22, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge info in Arkoff's article. Redirect ARKOFF Formula to that page. --Quasipalm 19:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Quasipalm ---CH (talk) 03:21, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 01:32, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy fountains[edit]

Delete NN, Band Vanity --Quasipalm 19:40, 7 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 redirect. Fernando Rizo T/C 22:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keith jarret[edit]

Completely unnecessary really, it's a superfluous copy of an article we already have (Keith Jarrett (the proper spelling)). It's like having an article for Miles Davis called Milse daviss. I don't think a redirect is justified, it's a complete waste Knucmo2 19:46, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just make a redirect. It's plausible that someone could forget the last "t". --Fang Aili 20:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy redirect. The existence of the article is evidence that at least one person misspelled it this way, and redirects are cheap. — brighterorange (talk) 20:05, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect As an awfull spell-er miself, Im offendedd.  :-P --Quasipalm 20:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't wikipedians want to get into the habit of redirecting from misspellings, it's just laziness not being bothered to retype a name properly (capitalizing the J and adding a t is not laborious stuff).--Knucmo2 20:18, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, we already have policy that says the opposite. Redirects from misspellings are good. Andre (talk) 20:38, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy redirect Stlemur 20:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect - redirects are cheap. FreplySpang (talk) 20:33, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy redirect, if anyone's not too lazy to try it. --fuddlemark (talk) 20:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect. Plausible misspelling. Nufy8 20:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. Agreed, we don't want Milse daviss, but even WP:CSD mentions redirects for common mis-spellings or misnomers as useful. I'd say "Jarret" for "Jarrett" would be far from uncommon. Tonywalton  | Talk 20:35, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect. Why did you bother bringing this to AFD? Andre (talk) 20:36, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I find your tone patronizing. I brought this to AfD due to the reasons listed above, if you didn't agree with them, don't question why I did it, OK? All you needed to do with list your objections, not bring into question my motives.--Knucmo2 21:39, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hardly think your motives were being questioned. Andre was, and please correct me if I'm wrong, just expressing that fact that bringing this to AfD was pretty pointless considering WP policy allows, even encourages, misspellings to be redirected. Soltak | Talk 21:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • E'en so, only Andre can answer this, not you I'm afraid. Plus WP policy is not gospel (WP:IAR) and liable to change, I thought it deletable by the deletion policy.Knucmo2 22:05, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article has been redirected to Keith Jarrett. If you don't think the redirect is necessary, tag it with {{rfd}} Soltak | Talk 21:30, 7 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 --Aranda56 02:54, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statistical Methods for Research Workers[edit]

Not an encyclopedic article. No information on what's actually in the book. There might be a place for this information in Wikimedia; I'm open to suggestions. --Fang Aili 20:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep it is a signifcant book in the history of statistics. Good lord, we have every Jessica Simpson album, why can't we have a book on something that has actually contributed to society? Dunc|☺ 20:21, 7 Setember 2005 (UTC)
You may be right (your comment about Jessica Simpson is compelling), but the article doesn't even assert that the book is notable, or how it has affected anything. Ostensibly the book has been read by people, but does that make it inherently notable? --Fang Aili 20:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Er, it's one of the most important books in the history of statistics. Dunc|☺ 20:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe so, but I wouldn't know that by reading what was there when I first nominated the article. --Fang Aili 22:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dunc; maybe Dunc can provide more info? Sdedeo 21:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A Google search turns up plenty of notability, as stated by Dunc. I added a couple notes to the article, but it needs more... --Daedalus-Prime 21:43, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Dunc's nailed it. -- BD2412 talk 21:44, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Weak article about very notable book. Still in print after 80 years. 20,000 Google hits on exact phrase. Top hit is the full text online on a site entitled "Classics in the History of Psychology." I'm pretty sure (at the 5% level of significance) that this was the book that introduced the chi-square test to the research community. Jessica who? Oh, is she Bart's sister? Dpbsmith (talk) 22:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC) P.S. Don't knock the nominator. The original article sounded like it was just some random textbook. Nominators don't need to be subject matter experts, that's exactly why we have AfD. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Dunc and Dpbsmith. Guettarda 02:08, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep this arcane evil book of villany and undergraduate torture... I mean this important text on statistics. (Can you tell my least favourite subject at uni?) Sabine's Sunbird 02:11, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • My thanks to Daedalus-Prime for updating the article to indicate the book's notability. Given that it's certainly worthy of an article, I withdraw the VfD. --Fang Aili 16:02, 8 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 REDIRECT to List of Japanese supporters of the WWII period. -Splashtalk 01:33, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese,East Asian and foreing supporters personalities in ww2 period[edit]

Delete and possibly Move to a correctly spelled title that makes sense (my guess is that this is just a poorly translated article) --Quasipalm 19:57, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I remember this list. Wasn't this already deleted once before? - Lucky 6.9 20:16, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup and do something to make it encyclopedic. Molotov (talk) 21:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC) *Eek! Delete it now, before all of those articles about captains get created!!!!! Zoe 22:03, September 7, 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and send to cleanup, helps to counteract systemic bias. Kappa 02:17, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nice idea since it's potentially useful, but how would one title and categorize this? I'm good with keeping the info if it can be referenced. - Lucky 6.9 03:08, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Japanese supporters of the WWII period, which is a duplicate. Charles Matthews 10:13, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect as per Charles, but I still have problems with the notability of a lot of those names. Zoe 20:29, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Charles. Dottore So 23:44, 9 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, though frankly I can't believe no one has added the slightest hint of a source to this despite being sure they exist. -Splashtalk 01:36, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchist Communist Union of Seattle[edit]

Delete - more or less nonsense. --Quasipalm 19:52, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete nonsense/joke article. — brighterorange (talk) 20:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — An anarchist union? Oxymorons. :) — RJH 20:10, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup. Believe it or not, this is actually an established group. I'm not sure offhand if they are part of the group that disrupted the WTO conference in Seattle a few years ago, but from their website it looks like they may be affiliated. --Daedalus-Prime 21:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup. Established anarchist group. -Miborovsky 00:36, 8 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. Woohookitty 09:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oldskool produxions[edit]

Small, local, family-owned screenprinting shop. Only claim to fame is that they are not automated. Non-notable; likely ad. Delete — RJH 20:07, 7 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 by Lucky 6.9 as experimental page per original poster.

Electrobytes[edit]

Advertisement page for a new toy. Notability has not been established, limited matches on Google search for the name. CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above. CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If these toys deserve an article, and I believe major toys do, this isn't it. - Lucky 6.9 20:12, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sorry guys I was trying to make this on the same page. It is not a real toy per say but a character used a real toy a Shockini which is being judged for staying on Wikipedia. We were just trying to link it all together to have a more encyclopediac feel to the main article. Please do delete this as I am new to Wikipedia and did not understand it. I edited it to say it is an anime and not a toy, but if it is to be deleted we will understand!


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:38, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver's Woofing Theorem[edit]

Delete, Wikipedia is not a free host or webspace provider. --Russ Blau (talk) 20:16, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not encyclopedic. Stupid subject matter, anyway. --Fang Aili 20:26, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine, not a free host, not encyclopedic, understood. Delete it if these criteria apply, which they probably do. But please keep subjective comments to yourself. There are many that would disagree with your opinion. --Jeff Imes 05:21, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not encyclopedic, full of self-aggrandizing BS among the actual content, a fun and agreeable topic but not the least bit factual, and not of enough widespread significance to justify inclusion. Woof! Barno 19:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dumb but funny, completely unencylopedic, maybe a candidate for BJAODN. MCB 00:00, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 01:37, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moppy[edit]

Article about a mop used in a professional wrestling storyline - non-notable. --Jtalledo (talk) 20:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not even remotely notable. Mention the mop in the appropriate wrestlers' articles if need be. Fernando Rizo T/C 22:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. McPhail 00:24, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's more or less covered in Perry Saturn's article anyway. --Oakster 11:51, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete angle is mentioned in Perry Saturn's article anyway, and has no need for its own article --- Paulley 10:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, so keep. -Splashtalk 01:39, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Egoboo[edit]

Usenet slang. That's very non-notable in real world terms and it's a crystal clear dicdef. Ergo, delete. Peter Isotalo 20:36, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless Wiktionary wants it. Slang term. But I've heard the term used in non-Internet contexts. Zoe 22:04, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Wiktionary doesn't have an entry for "egoboo". The term used to be common in hobby where people published fanzines, such as science fiction fandom and postal Diplomacy (game). Its general noteworthiness is questionable enough that I could accept this article either being deleted or kept after transwikification. Barno 00:06, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please, please don't vote to keep it. This will only result in a very good excuse for every imaginable kind of slang being kept. We're seriously burdened by young white (American) male geek cruft as it is without turning into a ethnological-etymological dictionary of Usenet slang. And, no, balancing with non-notable slang from other population groups won't make it more viable. / Peter Isotalo 06:47, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Notable to sf fen perhaps but when would a mundane hear it? Consider redirect (and merge brief info) to Fanspeak or Fanzine
(no vote at this time, just suggesting alternatives.) - WCFrancis 02:16, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if we have enough examples scattered around to split a list off from fanspeak and discuss etymologies and so forth there? Fanspeak only has three-four examples, but it's an interesting set of subcultural phrases and could probably form quite an interesting article in a jargon-filish way; the word-blending habit, for example, is quite noticeable. Shimgray 15:20, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do find it somewhat amusing that the only page I've ever had VFDed is one that gets put up after I've corrected it... It's pre-Usenet slang, and not significantly used there - couple of thousand hits - so nn usenet slang is a bit of a misrepresentation. Borderline as per Barno whether it's notable or not (though it's interesting to see that it spread into fanzines generally); if it is deleted don't see any reason not to transwiki it. It's not a term I'd particularly use, though I encounter it relatively often, but am loathe to claim notability through that... hrm. Hrm hrm hrm.
Another Comment re: last. Egoboo did not spread to sf fanzines from Usenet; usage predates internet by decades. - Old Fart FanWCFrancis 20:09, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Oh, and slippery slope - have you looked at the slang cats recently? If someone wants to cite an excuse for keeping anything they come up with, they have more than enough there already...) Shimgray 12:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe Wiktionary that states that words have to have been used in running texts for more than a year, so I think this would be accepted and I'm not going to comment on whether that's appropriate or not. I'm aware of the slang inconsistency, but I hope that words like blatte won't be used as a rhetorical bat in these discussion. Does anyone else think that this is worth making a centralized discussion like those about conlangs or all those B (?) roads in the UK? / Peter Isotalo 14:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I wasn't intending to do the "if you keep X, you must have Y" thing... (the one I was thinking of is STFG, incidentally); as far as centralised discussions go, hmm. I'm not sure we really have enough "slang discussions" to warrant it. (VFDs on plain and simple definitions tend to be clear-cut, ones with a little more detail about a colloquial phrase less so). Shimgray 15:06, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep iff it is expanded. This is not Usenet slang; it is a term and phenomenon in sf fandom. --FOo 23:38, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hogwash. It's specific Usenet and Internet-nerd slang and claiming that "excitement through the achievement of a free service" is unique of "sf fandom" is such a narrow view that it has to be viewed as pure and unadultarated POV. / Peter Isotalo 07:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note the sourcing provided in the current version of the article, in which the definition reads: rush received from public recognition of a free contribution, probably derived from "ego boost". ("Rush" is not the right word, but "excitement"doesn't fit either. Nor does "Pride"fit the meaning.) I have not claimed that it was exclusively used in SF jargon, and I don't think anyone else said that either. I meant that it is in wide use in fandom and has been for many years, according to references around fifty years. To say that it is specific to Usenet could be considered to be a narrow view that if it does not exist on the internet, it does not exist. (I don't think anyone meant that either, but it could be taken that way.) Remember, many SF fans are also usenet/internet fans... Like me.
I have not voted on this issue, just made extensive comments. But the arguments opposed to keeping it are convincing me of more notability than I expected it would have. Still no vote. - WCFrancis 16:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewritten a chunk again - sorry, Peter, but I think I'll finally vote to Keep. I've mulled this over for a couple od days, and I'm just not convinced it's on the wrong side of the line. Shimgray 23:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've finally decided, on the basis that Wikipedia is not paper. Although I still think it could be effectively merged into Fanspeak. -WCFrancis 19:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Rx StrangeLove 04:16, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Succubus[edit]

  • Delete: Articles on cartoon episodes should not be included in an general encylopedia. This subject is not sufficiently notable for an entry. Rintrah
  • Keep: Cartoon episodes as opposed to live-action episodes? There is a fairly vast array of episode articles scattered all over Wikipedia, why go on a campaign to delete all of them? 69.37.16.204
  • Keep should be brought up to the standard of other south park episodes. Alf 22:57, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Given the large number of episode articles for other tv show epsiodes (that aren't even currently on air) it is foolish to consider this one page as a candidate for deletion without applying the same logic to the rest. Gallaghp
  • Keep: there are already many South Park episode articles, this one needs work. --realwingus 06:30, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; disagree that articles on cartoon episodes shouldn't be included. CTOAGN 18:50, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - not previously listed on vfd/aft - now fixing (no vote) --Doc (?) 20:59, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to The Succubus (South Park episode), then make The Succubus a redirect to Succubus. Zoe 22:05, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Move as per Zoe. Fernando Rizo T/C 22:52, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Comment, why would someone looking up Succubus, search for The Succubus? - Hahnchen 01:02, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move per Zoe. -Sean Curtin 07:08, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-encyclopedic Larsoner 19:19, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and fix, per Alf. Owen× ☎ 00:22, 9 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 Starblind. -Splashtalk 01:42, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Tinny Mish[edit]

Delete...no sources, and it's a nonsense article.--JRL 12:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED, but not by me. -Splashtalk 01:40, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Percy School[edit]

Borders on patent nonsense, article creator is a frequent vandal from wikisucks.com (see WP:VIP). Almost listed as a speedy. ESkog 21:12, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nonsense/hoax Soltak | Talk 21:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. I'm tempted to tag it as patent nonsense. --GraemeL (talk) 21:26, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article "is a tool for scambling the brain" [sic]. Alf melmac 21:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obvious hoax, unless someone finds an actual Percy School to rewrite this into. —Cryptic (talk) 22:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment don't tempt me. The primary school (grade school in USAnian, I think) at the end of the street where I live isn't called that, but the road's called Percy Road, and it's a school situated there… Tonywalton  | Talk 23:10, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Execellent article... or should I say succulent? Delete. Would it be very wicked of me to list it on Schoolwatch? Dpbsmith (talk) 00:53, 8 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, not notable. Thue | talk 20:29, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Petroff[edit]

No claim for notability, unverifiable 'vanity' articleAverage Earthman 21:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks like I malformed the entry, hope this has fixed it. Average Earthman 21:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete or perhaps speedy if we don't take "greatest man alive" as a serious claim to notability. — brighterorange (talk) 21:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as per A7 claiming that a person is arguably "the greatest man alive" is not a serious claim unless evidence is presented to substantiate the claim. The only evidence that we have is that he went to school. Capitalistroadster 03:35, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete obviously someone's idea of a campy hoax article.---CH (talk) 07:07, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP, but please don't remove AfD tags during the debate. -Splashtalk 01:42, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chuukese language[edit]

Look at it. Gibberish, nothing. Enough said? Molotov (talk) 21:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the article had been rewritten quite well. Molotov (talk) 20:39, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy, quite clearly. Average Earthman 21:28, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep following stonking re-write by Angr. Tonywalton  | Talk 14:40, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article topic, list on Requested Articles, delete current content unless someone can translate it enough to be something better than starting from scratch. Good save, Tony! Barno 00:11, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Angr's rewrite left a legitimate stub, keepworthy. Barno 18:25, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Chuuk; Tonywalton is correct, but Chuuk is the specific island group in Micronesia where this language is spoken, and Wikipedia has a reasonable article about Chuuk already although it doesn't describe the language yet. Even if the current content is a legitimate description in Chuukese of the language, it's barely one sentence and I can't see much point in looking for a translator for such minimal content. --Metropolitan90 01:00, September 8, 2005 (UTC) Keep as rewritten by Angr. --Metropolitan90 07:13, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, as above; (redirect does not require AfD). Guettarda 02:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, do not redirect. Kappa 02:15, 8 September 2005 (UTC) keep Kappa 09:59, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense. While it would be good to have an article on this language, this article is worse than useless. Capitalistroadster 03:39, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Angr's rewrite. Well done to him for rewriting this article. Capitalistroadster 06:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete but list on requested articles. Topic is very encyclopedic, contents are useless rubbish. — JIP | Talk 04:01, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --ZappaZ 17:03, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - amazing work, Angr! -- BD2412 talk 19:44, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten the article so it's a proper article on the language. Keep the re-written article please! --Angr/tɔk tə mi 06:39, 8 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 Evercat. -Splashtalk 01:43, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Selman[edit]

Dumb-ass article written by a vandal, also put a speedy delete tag on it. I am really tired of these people, perhaps IPs shouldn't be allowed to create new articles, but edit the ones that are already here. Molotov (talk) 21:34, 7 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 01:43, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Twisted Limitations Studios and www.twistedlimits.com[edit]

Advertising, pure and simple. Also, I redirected www.twistedlimits.com to here, so as to reduce VfD load. And if/when this does get deleted, I suggested removing the references on the TL and TLS dab pages. DS 15:29, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Yeah, definitely advertising. And unnotable. They don't even have a game yet. Kushboy 16:56, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising a large stock of crystal balls, it seems Tonywalton 19:53, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This vfd was blanked on August 19th. I am restoring it. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 03:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Advertising, not notable. They haven't even made a game! -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 03:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment due to the blanking, this has missed being concluded, I'm relisting (let me know if that's bad) --Doc (?) 21:38, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Two words: bull and s**t Molotov (talk) 21:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ad/NN --Daedalus-Prime 21:59, 7 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 01:46, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

USUAggies.com[edit]

By checking this out, 216.190.35.218 has a vendetta against a competitor, tureaggie.com, and isn't this vanity? --fpo 04:51, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. I agree. Almost 6 months ago, I personally added a link to TrueAggie.com (as its a housing resource for students) to the bottom of the Utah State University article. I'm an admin on TrueAggie.com, but DID NOT add anything other than one link to one article. In May this year and since then, one particular IP has consistently spammed the link usuaggies.com on to every article having to do with logan, utah or USU, and in the process aggrandizing itself within the articles by claiming to be a primary news outlet for students. Further, this same IP (and one other) consistently (every day or two this month so far) purges all references to trueaggie.com and puts links to usuaggies.com in its place. I believe its fine for references to usuaggies.com as well as trueaggie.com - by why is one side so biased? In no edits have I ever removed usuaggies.com links or references. I've edited it - correcting the fact that that site is not the secondmost media outlet serving USU, but that the comm departments own website does more than usuaggies.com and that usuaggies.com is a private editorial board. This article is, as mentioned above, vanity - and should be considered spam. The IP 216.190.35.218 and 66.219.228.90 should also be blocked as their users have violated several wikipedia policies in its users personal vendetta and promotional efforts. --ncmlnr August 4, 2005
  • Keep. While Ncmlnr is correct in several of his arguments they are not germane as to whether this article should be deleted. It was certainly poor etiquitte of whoever deleted the TA links and put the USUAGGIES.COM links in places that weren't topical. I sympathize with Ncmlnr and his frustrations. Both links should co-exist and are very relevent to USU. However, immature behavior on other pages of adding and eliminating links does not change whether this particular page is relevent to USU. It, like TA, is a site that is used by thousands of students. At other schools, such as byu, the domain byucougars.com or utahutes.com is owned by the University. This page is helpful in identifying what USUAggies.com is as well as who is (and is not) responsible for it. Further, the activities and discussions at USUAggies.com are helpful for outsiders looking to get a feel for what the political and social climate is like at Utah State. Also, FPO is making the allegation that this particular IP is a "competitor" (ie the owner of USUAggies.com or a contributor). While this is likely, the conclusion is at best circumstantial, and until a definate link can be made the allegation should be retracted. The action could have been done by anyone for any reason.--PDek August 4, 2005
  • Delete. Let's take a field trip to the Utah State University revision history. Our first stop shows me removing all Big West mentions of USU. USU is in the WAC as of 7/1/2005. Next, one of the IPs that is behind this article here, 216.190.35.218, is shown removing trueaggie websites and replacing them with his or her (for ease of typing, henceforth known as him or he) website, usuaggies.com. Next, 216.190.35.218 is shown removing further reference to trueaggie.com. The next edit is irrelevant. Here, we see Ncmlnr putting the TrueAggie links back, and keeping the USUAggies.com links as well. Note that he is not deleting anything! He then fixes spacing in his next edit. Now we see a USUAggie.com person remove the TrueAggie link, and put his USUAggies.com link ahead of the official school website! He then deletes all True Aggie.com references. Ncmlnr then reverts the page back, but he didn't put his edit summary :( Afterwards, 216.190.35.218 gets back to his old tricks again, deleting TrueAggie references. I then basically did a revert. 216.190.35.218 then removed the trueaggie external link yet again. Next, he removed all references to TrueAggie.com. By this time, I became frustrated, and I removed all references to both sites. Ncmlmr than did something similar. That's my story, and why I voted delete. And, if that isn't enough, this seems like vanity. Also...
  • Alexa Traffic Rank for trueaggie.com: 1,734,883
  • Alexa Traffic Rank for usuaggies.com: 4,735,754 < fpo 05:40, August 5, 2005 (UTC) talk
  • PDek, I do agree with some of what you say, specifically that the article does identify what usuaggies.com is and isn't, and who by. I don't agree that what I discussed above does not pertain to this particular article. Wikipedia policy seems to say that a users editing history, etc., will be used to indicate intent of vandalism, spamming, etc. I posted the above facts to demonstrate that the same IP that created this article, also went on a link spree and vandalized articles by deleting other's additions. As a final note, one IP in question is registered as belonging to a DSL customer in Logan, Utah - a radio station and the admin of USUAggies.com works at a radio station :-). The other is registered to another ISP that is credited (by the admin of usuaggies.com himself) with providing the wireless broadband at the apartments that the admin of USUaggies.com manages and lives at. Hmmm...strong link? yes. Proof? not absolute.

I believe it should be under the self-promotion, vanity and spam guidelines of wikipedia. But, notice that I took no action myself to delete or remove (except once as an agreement to fpo that both should be removed if one was!) usuaggies.com links or this article, except voicing my own opinion and offering facts to this discussion and correcting info about the number and prominance of news outlets at USU within pertinent articles. Still DELETE --ncmlnr August 5, 2005

UPDATE - the admin of USUAggies.com called me today, and mentioned that he had no knowledge of the happenings on the wikipedia until recently, and has talked with the one (those?) who made all the changes. He believes that both sites contribute and should both be relevant to USU. I agree. I would recommend KEEPING if the article were written by a 3rd party or re-written, and the contributor did not show malice towards other sites / article content and others contributory edits. Such would negate the "historical edits" context, and make the arguement on the article itself as pdek suggested, not on the authors promotional, spam-like and even wiki-vandalism efforts. --ncmlnr August 5, 2005

  • Delete (maybe) — I agree that there has been repeated and systematic vandalism and junk entries centering around multiple pages containing links to usuaggies.com. And I'll agree that the evidence seems to point to someone's efforts to promote usuaggies.com. This behavior is certainly inappropriate and the offending contributor(s) should be blocked if possible. However, the users are anonymous and not registered. Blocking IP addresses is very blunt way to solve the problem since it might block other users. Even so, I'm reluctantly in favor of blocking the offending IPs because the bad behavior is so consistent, systematic and spread across multiple pages.

    About deleting the Wikipedia USUAggies.com page: Is a small, private Web site really a legitimate subject deserving its own page? Should every similar Web site be entitled to its own Wikipedia page? Is USUAggies.com an important and notable part of university life at USU, or is it just a small, here-today, gone-tomorrow Web site? Should one user be allowed to liberally ad links to this small private Web site on all the pages dealing with Logan, Cache Valley, USU and many of the pages dealing with Utah? I don't really know the answer to these questions, but my gut feeling is that it's no more deserving of a separate page on Wikipedia than thousands of other, small private Web sites. On the other hand, the Wikipedia USUAggies.com page isn't the real problem, instead, it's the ongoing, blatant promotion and vandalism perpitrated a certain user. — Maylett 03:55, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with Ncmlr. Tom Grover is an asshole. unsigned by 129.123.26.13 (talk · contribs)
  • Comment and apology - I hate to inflict this debate on everyone, but this nom has not been previously listed here- now fixing. --Doc (?) 21:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Molotov (talk) 22:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not notable. -- Kjkolb 03:22, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete To paraphrase the article: "There are two main news outlets at USU...then there's the non-notable USUAggies.com Paul 17:28, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. · Katefan0(scribble) 18:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phil fury[edit]

Non-notable individual; 86 Google hits, and many of those are "Phil's fury" or similar. tregoweth 21:42, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Virjun[edit]

Neologism-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 05:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This nomination was never listed - now fixing --Doc (?) 21:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism and nonsense. --Doc (?) 21:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neologism. DES (talk) 22:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonsense, and I don't think anyone spells badly enough that a redirect to virgin would be useful. —Cryptic (talk) 22:38, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neologism. Flowerparty 03:03, 8 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 01:47, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amerophilia[edit]

Move to Wiktionary and delete. And is it Amerophilia or Ameriphilia? Zoe 21:59, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, neologism. Google Print doesn't find either spelling [18] [19]. —Cryptic (talk) 23:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - neologism --ZappaZ 17:05, 8 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. -Splashtalk 01:48, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ExecPC BBS[edit]

Not notable. a computer bulletin board system that only gets 147 Google hits. Plus the phone number makes it seem like advertising. Dmcdevit·t 22:02, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, notability not established. Martg76 22:16, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above. -GregAsche (talk) 22:28, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. This is a very poor AfD nomination IMO. The BBS in question started in 1983 -- making it one of the earliest in the world, back when 300 baud was considered blazing -- and ran until 1999, quite a stunning longevity. Take a look at the first google hit [20].
The fact that the nominator considered the inclusion of a phone number "advertising" when the BBS no longer exists makes me wonder if he actually read the article. Again, sorry if I come off too strong, but it seems that assertions of non-notability here are really off-base. Sdedeo 00:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I was going to suggest merging this with FilePile.com but that page has been deleted without an RfD, I think because an admin thought it was an attempt to recreate a deleted article, which isn't the case. FilePile.com was a large and well-known shareware site from the 1990s which was a web interface for ExecPC BBS, a large and long-lived BBS. Together I think they are notable and of historical importance. --Aquafinal 02:38, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm... it would make more sense to merge filepile into Exec BBS, no? Since Exec was around for 13 years before they added the web interface. Anyway, as long as the content is kept, we can futz around later. Sdedeo 03:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • That works for me too, Sdedeo. --Aquafinal 12:02, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to FilePile.com. If the BBS by itself is nn, then I suggest merging it with FilePile.com, which has been restored. --Aquafinal 02:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This is a joke nomination, right? ExecPC was, if i recall correctly, the largest BBS in the world in the years when the Internet was just getting off the ground commercially. Significant amounts of Jason Scott's BBS: The Documentary comes directly from ExecPC and their experiences. I agree that this is somewhat obscure, but if ExecPC is not notable, no bulletin board system is. Nandesuka 04:46, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a cleanup tag and a category. I'll work on cleaning the article up and expanding it over the next few days. Nandesuka 04:49, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. That the web has supplanted BBSes as the geek's choice for electronic communication doesn't mean that the BBS era wasn't important, and this was one of the really important ones. Al 13:13, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it's not promotion or adspam. Larsoner 19:22, 8 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 01:49, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Durrwatcher[edit]

Her 7.5 minutes of infamy are over. Zoe 22:10, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Molotov (talk) 22:28, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tonywalton  | Talk 23:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment --BlogBuilder 00:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC) I apologize as I'm relatively new here. I'm also the author of the article, though I realize that it may not warrant inclusion in wikipedia. I read through the criteria for VFD several times, and I don't see this as a particularly obvious case for deletion. Please do correct me if this is a stupid comment or if I'm violating the norms of wikipedia. Here's my rationale for why this article merits inclusion. Just because this person isn't well-known doesn't mean she isn't influential; in fact it is the decisions of the people behind the scenes who shape public discourse as much as those on the boob tube. While there's a great deal of public information about those in front of the cameras, there's a lot less information about those behind them, in part because of a bias against learning about the influential but non-famous. This is a serious information problem that I would hope we could correct. Over the next few days I'll track Google hits on this person's name. Should they increase dramatically I'll vote to keep this article.[reply]
  • Delete. "Susan Durrwatcher" brings up a grand total of 2 Google hits. [21] Apparently the justification for an article about her is that she booked a guest on a talk show who allegedly made false statements on the air, and when asked about that, said that the guest's statements were a matter of opinion. But the article and its external links don't even identify the controversial guest. I would expect more people to be interested in the guest himself than in the person who booked him. --Metropolitan90 05:59, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Ok that's persuasive. --BlogBuilder 16:07, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with appropriate Hurricane Katrina article. There's some useful information (or at least a POV worth mentioning), but the bottom line is that Durrwatcher is just another employee doing her job that possibly did it wrong. If a programmer screws up a bug fix, is he then worth an article? -- llywrch 20:28, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn. -- DS1953 05:56, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. Even the author seems to agree that this article was a noob misjudgement on his part.---CH (talk) 07:57, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Smartest man ever[edit]

Not notable, and not encyclopedic. Molotov (talk) 22:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. It looks like a poor entry from the Guiness Book of World Records followed by a blatant plug to Mensa. If it got cleaned up and had valid sources, I wouldn't mind leaving it here. ~ Syrae Faileas - «Talk» 22:32, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, because although the subject seems notable, the entire article would need to be cleaned up, and then moved to the appropriate title. Easier to just start fresh. --Scimitar parley 22:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Scimitar. Tonywalton  | Talk 23:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Scimitar. Jdcooper 00:59, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect to User:Lord Bob Delete, as per Scimitar. Lord Bob 01:01, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable and advertising Mensa. Anyway IQ tests don't prove smartness. — JIP | Talk 03:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Scimtar. Larsoner 19:23, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Utterly incorrect title (what are the chances of the smartest man ever being a US highschool student in 92?), plug for Mensa, no sources. Average Earthman 22:09, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Scimtar. Owen× ☎ 00:29, 9 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 RHaworth. -Splashtalk 01:50, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Breadlegs[edit]

If this were a person, I would have speedied it for failure to allege notability. 205 unique Google hits, and lots of those are to forum pages. Zoe 22:19, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete no brainer. Molotov (talk) 22:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have never heard of it, and under "Breadlegs design" on google it only received 21 hits. Falphin 22:36, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete: CSD - Short article, no context; having Breadlegs -> "Breadlegs is a web design company." is just like having Microsoft -> "Microsoft is a software company", and neither article would have enough context to make speedy deletion inappropriate. --Mysidia (talk) 23:36, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as db-empty. Tonywalton  | Talk 23:41, 7 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, whichever way I interpret things, so keep. -Splashtalk 01:52, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

4Frontiers[edit]

6 Google hits, no alexa ranking. Zoe 22:23, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • strong delete ridiculous pipe-dream masquerading as business opportunity Anetode 22:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOT a web directory. Fernando Rizo T/C 22:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Was written about in Wired! and frontpaged on Slashdot. Valid stub article, revisit this in six months to a year. SchmuckyTheCat 23:46, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So I can create a website and send out press releases saying I'm going to put a colony on Venus and I get an article? Zoe 04:44, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, but getting a main article from Wired! is a lot more difficult than sending some press releases, that took some credibility somewhere in the organization. Remember, our duty is to describe the world, not judge it. SchmuckyTheCat 18:23, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak weak keep this pipe-dream for now, agreeing with Schmucky, and expand with what little information is verifiable. Lots of companies blow a few hundred thousand dollars of suckers' money and disappear; the media accounts so far suggest that this intends to be serious. Scope is bold and broad and commercial compared to most such proposals. If the project has legs, it'll get such coverage that it'll be notable long before the first launch of humans or mining robots. However, that's also a reason to accept deletion, on the grounds that "it can be recreated when it's famouser" and "WP is not a crystal ball" and "WP is not Wikinews". Barno 00:22, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whether the company's goal is a 'ridiculous pipe-dream' or not, the desire to colonize the solar system is part of our culture and society. The company represents a valid attempt at achieving these goals. This is a valid stub. --192.158.61.140 16:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd been going to say delete, but it's marginal - I do recognise a couple of the names involved, so I suspect it's a little bit more seriously intended than most. Probably worth merging somewhere, and redirect to that page, but not really encylopedic as is. Shimgray 16:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, of course. Most experts consider Mars landing/colony by 2020-2030 quite possible. And any project that is going to eventually succeed is bound to start small. Space Adventures was probably seen as pipe-dream too. Yes, all these projects are high-risk (high-payoff), but that doesn't mean they are bogus. Paranoid 18:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If the company thrives, I'd like to know. If the company crashes and burns, I'd like to know. No matter what, it will always be at least a footnote in Martian history. --noösfractal 19:32, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, possibly Speedy under empty in its current form. Owen× ☎ 00:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. 84.43.108.201 created a bit of a larger article, 4frontiers. I Wikified it, moved it to 4Frontiers Corporation, but it still could do with some work. Inky 00:17, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- It is irrelevent whether their goals are a pipe dream, impossible, or that they are goals which would make them famous (if their efforts would in the future be considered important). A company's intent to some day make a settlement on mars does not make an article about that company encyclopedic, any more than a person stating they would like to travel to mars makes a biography about that person encyclopedic. Is the company a well-recognized or popular name?. If the company is not otherwise notable, it shouldn't have an article, just because of its intent, not until the company's effort or attempt has become noted, or enough of their efforts, their plans, method, etc has been publicized so that their very efforts have become a well-known or important subject: notable failures are encyclopedic, but 4Frontiers has neither succeeded nor failed. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and we seem to just be speculating about future importance of a subject, which does not merit an article. --Mysidia (talk) 01:35, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 01:52, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Power king[edit]

Seems like some sort of advertisement. That said, a Google for ("Power King" drink -Jewish) returns 953, none on the first page actually being about such a drink. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 22:24:37, 2005-09-07 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator, and per W:SPAM Molotov (talk) 22:29, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This apparently seems to be an actual product, but Google [22] doesn't really seem to know much about it. The article itself doesn't help at all, and I doubt it's sufficiently notable. (note: thanks for completing my AFD nom.) --Alan Au 22:32, 7 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 REDIRECT to Player Character Record Sheets. No consensus to delete, but only one participant wants to retain the content. I've chosen this redirect since the target is about D&D as is this article. Feel free to redirect elsewhere if you prefer. -Splashtalk 01:55, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Player Character Record Sheets AC6[edit]

I do not see that a commercial package containing noting but multiple copies of a single standardized form for game players to use is notable enough to ahve its own article, nor that this can ever be more than a stub. Delete I think the entire content could safely be discardable, but if someone wantes to merge it into an appropriate larger article, fine. But there is no reason for even a redirect from this title, IMO. DES (talk) 22:27, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, gamecruft too finely detailed for encyclopedic significance, not really noteworthy even to Dungeons and Dragons players. (I was one in the Seventies.) Barely a line could be merged into a D&D article if someone cares enough. Barno 00:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • And I agree with DES that we don't need a redirect from this title. WP:NOT a gaming guide. Barno 00:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to character sheet. -Sean Curtin 07:13, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Player Character Record Sheets. Al 13:17, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

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

Valley Sawmill, Anchorage, AK[edit]

Article is of information about an operation that has no distinguishable notability outside of its locality; many such places exist in other locales. Delete Bumm13 22:41, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. Tonywalton  | Talk 23:43, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems like one of the largest sawmills in Anchorage. Kappa 02:13, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can't find any evidence it's anything other than a 'run of the mill' mill. ;) If kept, the name should probably be Valley Sawmill (Anchorage). Someone adding info about the Fire Wise program in general to the Anchorage, Alaska article would probably be a good thing. Waterguy 03:35, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, promotion. Larsoner 19:33, 8 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. Rx StrangeLove 01:46, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disco Montego[edit]

Delete Fails under WP:Music criteria. Forbsey 22:43, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. They do have an AMG entry [23], but it states that they have made only one album, one short of what WP:MUSIC requires. Jaxl | talk 00:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep. Still not too sure, but Capitalistroadster's expansion establishes notability. Jaxl | talk 01:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, "enjoyed success on the Australian music charts in 2001" = passes WP:MUSIC. Kappa 02:11, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. This group had a charting single in 2001 in Australia.According to this article, one of the members recently died of chest cancer after the pair had some success doing remix work for Mariah Carey see [24] According to Top 40 Charts, this group has had three top 40 hits in Australia in "Beautiful", "Magic" and "U' Talkin' to Me" in 2002 with "Beautiful" reaching the top 10. Capitalistroadster 03:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have expanded this article considerably outlining the band's case for inclusion under WP:Music. No change of vote from keep. Capitalistroadster 06:12, 8 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. Rx StrangeLove 02:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Big Head Todd and the Monsters[edit]

No claim to notability per WP:MUSIC. Always open to being proven wrong. ^_^ Delete Keep. brenneman(t)(c) 22:56, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep, well-known band with several albums. Zoe 23:06, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • What? I mean Keep. Aaron, come on man, all you need to do is pop over to All Music guide real quick. :) Fernando Rizo T/C 00:02, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Fernando Rizo. Jaxl | talk 00:05, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep silly name, famous/notable band. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:07, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand, easily meets WP:MUSIC although the article when nominated didn't give such indication. Barno 00:32, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - obviously. Guettarda 02:12, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While initially astounded by these responses, a review of my Firefox history makes everything clear. When some actually writes an article about Big Head Todd and the Mobsters, I'll vote to delete that one. Apologies all around, the system works. ^_^
    brenneman(t)(c) 02:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Expand. Notable band as per WP:Music. Unfortunately, the article currently doesn;t indicate notability which is why it is here. Capitalistroadster 04:00, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article now expanded. No change of vote from Keep.Capitalistroadster 10:20, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, as per Zoe, Rizo, Starblind. Larsoner 19:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I had found this on the requested aritcilse page. User:ONEder Boy 14:04, 9 September, 2005
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ndforums[edit]

nn forum, founded in May of 2005, no Alexa ranking. Zoe 23:02, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Rx StrangeLove 02:19, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Three Stooges (film)[edit]

The movie is coming out in 2007. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Article cites IMDb (without a link) - IMDb is not a crystal ball either. Possible hoax. Gadgetfusion claims to have written this article, if so it was as anons. -- RHaworth 23:16:50, 2005-09-07 (UTC)

  • Try [25] --Mysidia (talk) 23:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I stand very firmly corrected. -- RHaworth 01:03:47, 2005-09-08 (UTC)
  • Delete. Aside from being a future movie, the majority of content is a POV complaint about the casting... --Daedalus-Prime 00:07, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. At this point in time, it's speculation and opinion. Will reconsider if good evidence is provided that the preparation for this upcoming film is currently legitimate news in the mainstream press. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete two years out is a little too speculative for a film. I've seen a lot of film projects at that stage get cancelled. — RJH 14:36, 8 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 Rx StrangeLove 02:32, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sephiroth Built My HotRod[edit]

Nonsense forum term. Zoe 23:27, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Now.--The Kooky One 00:05, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; nn term, no googles. Jaxl | talk 00:12, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ding a ding dang my dang a long ling delete. — JIP | Talk 03:56, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yay for middle schoolers using the library computers. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 04:06, 9 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. Rx StrangeLove 02:38, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kristin Cavalleri[edit]

Non-notable reality show contestant. DS 23:05, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and improve article. This appears to be the most well-known person on Laguna Beach: The Real Orange County, a national (albeit cable) TV show. From reading about this reality show, it's not a contest, and she's not a contestant. This isn't Fear Factor or a vote-off show. This reality TV show covers her life, and those around her, on an ongoing basis. She's lasted for more than just one season (which is the normal max for reality shows). There was no basis for the nomination whatsoever. --rob 05:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain Yes, there is a basis. I abstain insofar as I don't think reality show actors belong but that a recurring role on the show raises her above others. Marskell 08:22, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She is a star of a reality tv show and while many people might not like reality tv or its casts, it does make psuedo-celebrities out of people. In her case, a major cable channel, MTV, has chosen to chronicle her life for entertainment on television and even sells the series in dvd form. That certainly warrants a article on the person in question, imho. AriGold 14:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems to me that appearing once on late night TV is not by itself notable. How popular is this TV show? What is the chance that anyone would actually come here seeking informationa bout this person?---CH (talk) 05:06, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She's got her own tv show in a primetime slot on MTV which has gone on for more than one season. This is easily verifiable. And I'm hardly a fanatic. Mmmbeer 02:20, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. The merge target (and source) are redlinks, which is confusing, although DigiDestined does have something resembling such a list, but does not include any from Digimon Chronicle, where this character is apparently from. -Splashtalk 19:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yuji[edit]

Fancruft. Character appears as a supporting character in a minor comic-book spinoff. fuddlemark (talk) 23:56, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete --Angr/tɔk tə mi 20:46, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ameen Dorri[edit]

I don't know about this one. It looks like an attack page. But Iranian presidential election, 2005 has a mention of "the influential student organization Islam's Students led by Ameen Dorri". Is this the same guy? Zoe 23:56, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete possible A7 speedy. A quick Google does not come up with much see [26]. I would vote to keep a verifiable article if he or she was an Iranian student leader. However, what we are voting on is a substub of a person learning the violin with no indication of notability. Capitalistroadster 04:04, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Are you two looking at the same article I am? It is apparently about a violinist, and history claims it the one and only edit was Zoe adding the VfD flag. ---CH (talk) 01:14, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's also apparently re-creation of a previously deleted article (see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ameen Dorri from July 7). I'm speedy deleting it now. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 20:46, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:31, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thugsta[edit]

nn band/bio vanity. — brighterorange (talk) 23:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy as patent nonsense - and becoming more nonsensical even as I write --Doc (?) 00:08, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and Gangbagin' 2005. Jaxl | talk 00:17, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both as nonsense, possible hoax. - Lucky 6.9 02:23, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonsense and vanity, written in the first person, even. — JIP | Talk 03:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a joke maybe. Marskell 08:09, 8 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) 05:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ALTON CLARKE[edit]

Borderline speedy but I suppose claiming to be a guitarist for 3 bands implies a claim to notability. A Google search for "ALTON CLARKE" guitarist pulls down three hits total. We really need to tighten up the CSD. Fernando Rizo T/C 23:59, 7 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) 05:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Baxter Ride Share[edit]

Wikipedia is not a free host or webspace provider. Doubtless well-meant and creative attempt to use Wikipedia as a resource for exchanging information about ride-sharing, but not an appropriate use of Wikipedia. No potential to become encyclopedic. Suggest the contributor consider creating a Yahoo group instead. I considered speedying this as an "article which consists only of attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title" but decided it didn't quite meet that criterion. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:43, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, non encyclopedic with no potential to become so. -GregAsche (talk) 02:08, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a listing service, and this doesn't even tell you what country it's in. — JIP | Talk 03:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. I'm sure that this ride-share list belongs somewhere, but that somewhere isn't Wikipedia. Doctor Whom 16:07, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Good intentions, but not encyclopedic. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:33, 8 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_September_7&oldid=1081093830"