Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 November 2

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< November 1 November 3 >

Purge server cache

November 2

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!?) 00:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

46 Time Traveling Lawn Gnomes

edit

Song by two people without articles. No third-party coverage, unverifiable. Kappa 17:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!?) 01:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A kiss could be deadly

edit

Accordinging to policy this link is enough on its own to keep them in. AKCBD album review - also, search them in msm or alta vista - you'll get different results. Plus, they are the definitive band of the Southern California Electroclash scene. The style was originally made big in NY and they are the biggest and most active SoCal dance/punk band. The East Coast style focuses more on hipster issues while AKCBD is setting a precedent by focusing on darker topics. The west coast version incorporates more guitar and live drums and is not solely synth and drum machine driven. The policy specifically says its just a guideline and the band has been featured in a major music publication, has toured 3x and is representative of a certain style and place. It almost feels like Keepsleeping has a personal vendetta aginst the band. Leave it in


does not meet WP:MUSIC keepsleeping say what 23:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!?) 00:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A&A Global Industries

edit

spam placed here By the subject (check the history page and see who created the article). Also completely NN, and a copyright violation since most of it was cut ans pasted from their webpage. Bachrach44 14:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete per Vegaswikian. – [[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] [[additions | e-mail]] 02:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Air conditioning unit

edit

Someone deleted this article without explanation as to why. Perhaps it should be deleted or merged somewhere. Should it? CarDepot 21:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Redirect to Hamster. --Titoxd(?!?) 23:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Albino hamsters

edit

Dicdef. The species referred to is Golden hamster, but other species have albinos as well.


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!?) 00:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alessandro Bassi

edit

Article doesn't have much information other than he's a lawyer in Italy; no particular reason given as to why this is encylopedic. Delete. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 21:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete.  Denelson83  05:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Zaidlin

edit

Previously kept as no consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Zaidlin since no one commented on it. Found this tagged afd again while running Crypticbot, and like Kjkolb, I'm completely unable to verify that he exists. —Cryptic (talk) 12:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!?) 00:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arachnibble

edit

Delete: unless someone can provide a source. On Google, "arachnibble" only brings up this article.Bjones 15:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy keep as rewritten DES (talk) 04:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Artifakt

edit

Delete NN band. I found no matches via allmusic.com & Google PJM 21:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete, per discussion and official policy. --Titoxd(?!?) 00:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Asgervalen

edit

Probable hoax. No Google results for "Asgervalen". Delete. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 17:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Google is not an authority. It's a search engine. (previous unsigned comment by 130.15.82.217 -- Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 17:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

  • There are numerous references available. See for example the Annotated species list of marine planktonic copepods occuring on the shelf and upper slope of the northwest Atlantic (Gulf of Maine to Ungava Bay) report by the Canadian Department of Fisheries, 1984. Just because it's not online doesn't mean it doesn't exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.15.82.217 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment: If you happen to be an expert on this species, why don't you expand the article some more and put more substantive information than what exists now? --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 18:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would hardly call myself an expert, or at least I'm no Jasper Asgervalen on the topic. I'll expand it but I'll have to do some reading to refresh my memory as it's been a few months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.15.82.217 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete This is a hoax. When I was the new guy on the job here the old hands would say things like "Hey, go ask the foreman for the left handed screwdriver", or "Ask the foreman if you can use the asgervalen" and the guys would just laugh and laugh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.237.7 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete unless notability can be established through citations and/or hoax assertions can be disproven. Jessamyn 20:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment When in doubt, don't delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.15.82.217 (talk • contribs)
      • Comment That's not WP policy. WP policy is, if it isn't verifiable, do delete. You claim there are "numerous references", and you've named one; if someone can find a copy and verify it, we'll keep the article, but if they can't, we'll probably delete it. Do you have any other references to cite that might be easier to find? — Haeleth Talk 22:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment WP:DP - If an article is repeatedly re-created by unassociated editors after being deleted, this may be evidence of a need for an article. Conversely, if an article is repeatedly nominated for deletion, this is not in and of itself evidence that it should be deleted even if there are valid concerns about the quality of the article. (Cleanup may be appropriate.) In some cases, repeated attempts to have an article deleted may even be considered disruptive. If in doubt, don't delete!
        • Comment: one more thing - there are probably not a lot of easily accessible references to this topic, but I'm trying to do the world a service by creating one - so much for Wikipedia's openness and love of knowledge
  • Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.49.232 (talk • contribs) 2005-11-02 22:11:59 UTC
  • Keep Am I reading this right? we're going to delete the article on plankton because it might be a hoax? I think we should refrain at least until the other guy can expand on the topic or someone can get the book cited. It's not like wikipedia will be brought under by the great plankton hoax of 2005. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.107 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for everyone who's upset about the allegation that it's a hoax, I agree with you, Google isn't the world. In fact, the Google test is currently one of the least accurate information-finding methods I can think of. However, whoever last had their hands on that book has something like four more days to find the book and put the source in the article. So if you could relax and play the waiting game a bit, that would be cool. Thanks. Jacqui ★ 04:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I searched for this term in Encyclopedia Britannica, Expanded Academic Index (online database, indexing thousands of periodicals [5]), and a newspaper index which indexes over 100 newspapers and did not find one reference to this word in a full keyword search dating back to the mid-80's. It's entirely possible that it's so super-specialized that it's only mentioned in professional literature outside of these more general databases, but then I wonder why it isn't mentioned in OBIS (the Ocean Biogeographic Information System) since according to the commenters, it's not a newly discovered lifeform. It also does not appear on this list of diatomic organisms where there are many other organisms from the Biddulphia genera (family?). Jasper Askervalen is supposedly notable in Norway but doesn't work in Bergen or Oslo, and has not apparently published a single thing in English. [Norwegian speakers want to check your Norwegian databases?]. I suppose we could drop these people an email to see if they've heard of it, since they seem to be the experts on Baffin Bay plankton. In short, absence of any mention at all, anyplace, and absence of a verifiable citation makes this entry questionable. Lack of Googleability in and of itself does not constitute "unverifiability" but it is often an indicator that something may be amiss. Jessamyn 04:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Babylon ltd/Temp

edit

corporate vanity/promo page, probably a copyvio of subject's own website [6]


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

The result was delete. W.marsh 14:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Boys of Computer Science

edit
Bad Boys of Computer Science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article about a no lonoger published webcomic meets almost no standards. Their are no refrences even from the webcomic page. The text on the page is written poorly. A major cleanup is needed of all webcomics as I am sure their are more that need to be deleted than just this. The Placebo Effect 14:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- Sid 3050 14:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no references, no notability. - Francis Tyers · 16:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Jefferson Anderson 22:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as blatant cruft. This fails to meet even the questionable standards which are plaguing other webcomic-related discussions. NetOracle 06:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The fact that a webcomic is no longer published has no bearing on whether or not it meets notability standards, and an AFD is not a substitute for a cleanup tag. Balancer 14:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, my search at the library has turned up no sources, let alone any suggesting importance. That the webcomic is no longer published is worth noting as it is unlikely that a defunct webcomic is going to gain new coverage in multiple non-trivial reputable sources. -- Dragonfiend 16:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, that would still not be relevant to the basic question of notability. Speculation on whether or not the topic would become notable in the future doesn't answer the question of whether the webcomic has at some point before now met the standards for notability. That said, I'm going to tentatively say weak delete on the basis of lack of any evidence for notability (I haven't found any either), and ask the contributors to the article[7] if they can provide any non-trivial sources. I'm not of the opinion that a mention in a notable webcomic qualifies, but it seems polite to include them in this discussion. Balancer 17:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That the webcomic is no longer published is worth noting as it is unlikely that a defunct webcomic is going to gain new coverage in multiple non-trivial reputable sources. --Dragonfiend 18:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Repeating an invalid argument does not make it any more true. Please read WP:N again and see if you understand why I have told you that the fact that a comic is defunct is wholly irrelevant to the AFD process. If not, perhaps you should refrain from involvement in notability-based AFDs until you have remedied your understanding of WP:N. Balancer 18:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thank you for sharing. That the webcomic is no longer published is worth noting as it is unlikely that a defunct webcomic is going to gain new coverage in multiple non-trivial reputable sources. --Dragonfiend 18:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • And repeating yourself again still doesn't turn your invalid argument valid. Speculation as to whether or not a topic may be written about in the future is not at all relevant to the question of whether or not the topic is notable. If you have any real argument to make to this effect - bearing in mind that a defunct comic can easily be notable, and that an active comic can easily be non-notable - I recommend you take it to user talk rather than further clutter up this AFD. Balancer 19:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Thank you for sharing. Sometimes editors think it's a good idea to keep an article because, for example, it is tied to an event just around the corner which may lead to verifiable info from reputable sources. Whether or not you, in your self-appointed role as validator of AFD discussions, believe that to be an idea worth expresing, that type of "wait and see" idea probably isn't worth exploring here with "This article about a no longer published webcomic [which] meets almost no standards." In other words, that the webcomic is no longer published is worth noting as it is unlikely that a defunct webcomic is going to gain new verifiable coverage in the multiple non-trivial reputable sources which will allow us to cover this topic from a neutral point of view without delving into original research, or any of our other standards which this article currently doesn't meet. --Dragonfiend
  • Abstain I don't see any notablity here, but I do see some SERIOUS BIAS against webcomics when I see "A major cleanup is needed of all webcomics" given as a specific reason for this AFD. I think that the nominator of this AFD needs to do some serious explaining for this remark before the AFD is to continue. I also see that other wiki editors who have also been identified as biased towards webcomics notablitly have chimed in with deletes. Please read Wikipedia:Fancruft - cruft is not a reason for AFD in itself, just a contributing factor. Please show other reasons for AFD. Timmccloud 00:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment I did not mean to make it sound like I hold a bias. My view is that too many webcomic authors make an article on their webcomic when it doesn't meet nobility standards. The Placebo Effect 00:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment The author didn't make the entry to my knowledge, it was made several years after he had quit. In it's day it was a popular comic, noted as 'groundbreaking' by Mac Hall as commented in a previous deletion-discussion, referenced often in many other notiable strips... I don't know if that meets the standards or not for notiability since I'm not sure if other webcomics count (I think they should, there wasn't much else around at the time to judge notiability) but it's not just some author tooting their own horn. 22:53, 14 February 2007
  • Keep This article has already been nominated for deletion once, and the end result of that attempt was keep. Given that the comic was determined to be notable shortly after the article was written, I think any argument that it is not notable should have more substance than "I did a search at the library and didn't find anything". A Google search of "bad boys of computer science" yields about 600 hits. Even a cursory examination of the results provides additional research leads, namely the web-comics Avalon and Sexy Losers. You may have to actually ask a member of the web-comics community to determine whether this comic was notable, if you are not a part of that community. Do the research to attempt to improve the article. If, despite your best efforts, you cannot find evidence of notability, document your search efforts on the talk page, then start the AFD process. Do not leap to that stage from the perspective that all webcomics suck, this article sucks even more than most webcomic articles, and Wikipedia should purge it as unworthy to be read. Deletion should not be the first option for someone who does not care to provide the effort to improve the article in any way; it should be the option of last resort for a topic that cannot meet standards, even when improved as much as humanly possible. 216.165.132.250 15:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Past performance doesn't guarantee future success. Look at the GNAA. It went through 18 AFD's before it was deleted. The reason I nominated this was because all the sources I found were other Webcomics, which I believe doesn't qualify as a good enough source for another webcomic. The only webcomic's that I believe that should be shown here are the ones that have published books are have had newspaper articles written about it (like Megatokyo). I don't believe all webcomics suck, but if it their are no reliable sources outside of webcomics, then I believe this has to go. The Placebo Effect 17:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think that, as of 2007, print-based sources are better determinants of notability than either web-based sources or first-hand personal interviews. The major reason why Wikipedia is so successful is that there are no "gatekeepers" for information: anyone can add or edit the content. If you require that notability be documented in a restricted medium, you are just moving the gatekeeper around to the back door. Also, I don't think BBoCS is comparable to GNAA in regard to the AfD process. Perhaps you could find a more fair comparison than the article for a trolling organization that has a racial slur in its title. In my opinion, the best sources for determining the notability of a web-comic are the people that are involved in that community, and comic authors are de facto leaders. They network amongst one another as much as print comic authors. Do you recall Blondie and Dagwood's anniversary, wherein most of the comics in your local newspaper paid tribute to the long-running print comic by drawing crossover comics? 216.165.132.250 21:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Their are gate keepers on information. That is the reason why their is Speedy Deletion and AFD. And no one used the crossover to cite information in Wikipedia. Plus, that was covered in various newspaper articles, namely "multiple non-trivial sources". The Placebo Effect 21:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Then the bone of contention here is whether other web-comics constitute a non-trivial source in regard to other web-comics. In my opinion, they are non-trivial. The people that read web-comics know which ones they like, and the authors, being drawn from the same pool of people, tend to like the same things. So in lieu of polling hundreds of readers (as may be seen from an archive from some sort of web-comics meta site, like Keen or BigPanda), a handful of webcomics authors may constitute a representative sample. Additionally, if you are too quick to label a newspaper as a non-trivial source, you may not be keeping your subscriptions current, as the presence of paid reporters and editors does not seem to be sufficient to keep pointless tripe and blatant political bias out of my local newspapers. There is good reason why print newspaper circulation is declining in the U.S., and that is because the "gatekeeper" model is no better at providing quality information than the free-for-all of blogs, boards, and wikis. The only advantage the media establishment currently holds over the internet mob is freer access to "newsmaker" people. They can get interviews with presidents and CEOs. But this is not an obstacle here. Many web-comics authors publish their e-mail addresses. If you want to prove non-notability (and in my opinion that burden of proof is on you, as this is an appeal to an earlier determination of notability), then ask some of these people if "Bad Boys of Computer Science" was notable way back in 2002. If you don't know who to ask, then perhaps you shouldn't be making judgements of notability at all. 216.165.132.250 22:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Also, the issue of whether the Blondie anniversary crossovers were used as references in Wikipedia is not relevant. If there were no other information available on Blondie whatsoever, the crossover comics alone would have been sufficient to establish its notability. I consider print-comics authors to have great credibility in regard to the importance of other print-comics. The same principle holds for web-comics. In contrast, there is no intrinsic measure of credibility in a fluff newspaper article whose author has never heard of a web-comic until his editor told him to write an article about them for the Sunday edition. But that reporter will still actually do enough research on the topic to fill a certain number of column-inches before flapping his jaw about it. 216.165.132.250 22:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NOTE & WP:WEB, does not meet WP:WAF and WP:RS. Additionally its defunct status makes any notability gain unlikely.Freepsbane 18:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This subject lacks sufficient independent sources to produce an article complying with NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, and NOT a publisher of original thought. Con reports are teenage-blog-level unreliable, and the other material is trivial in the extreme. Tim McCloud is quite right about biases though. My bias against including material which can't be supported by reliable sources is very strong indeed, and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are similarly biased against made up stuff. This can't be attributed to anyone but the editors who created it and is indisputably WP:NOT material. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 delete. - ulayiti (talk) 02:41, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Basiliaz

edit

uncited Tom Harrison (talk) 02:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. – [[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] [[additions | e-mail]] 01:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beanpole family

edit

Belongs in a science dictionary BeteNoir 05:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. Ral315 (talk) 02:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Behrooz Modirrousta

edit

vanity — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 11:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Web and E-Publications Festival --howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 00:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to List of MIT dormitories. —[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] [[additions | e-mail]] 04:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bexley Hall (MIT)

edit

Dorm at MIT. No assertion for notability. Searching Google, I can't find anything that sets this apart from any other dorm on any other campus [8]. Delete.--Isotope23 17:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or Move Dorms are an important part of university life, espicially those with distinctive character. However, inclusion of such information in university main articles causes those articles to become bloated and takes away from information about the academic side of the university. As such, there is adequate reason for articles on dorms to exist.


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!?) 23:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond fate

edit

Delete. NN band. According to their website they've been together for 1 year and are just putting out a demo. PJM 03:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus (default keep). – [[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] [[additions | e-mail]] 02:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Updated to no consensus 06:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Bibliotheca

edit

Dicdef, apparently, containing little more than an interwiki link to a non-existent article in German. -GTBacchus 06:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted under criteria A6 and G4. - ulayiti (talk) 01:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bluelight.ru

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!?) 01:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bronchial fork

edit

Unverified "product" that has 0 hits on Google. Looks suspiciously like advertising - or more likely vanity. Ifnord 23:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Insecticide. -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] [[additions | e-mail]] 04:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bug spray

edit

Someone deleted this article without explanation as to why. Perhaps it should be deleted or merged somewhere. Should it? CarDepot 21:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 06:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chemistry student society

edit

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 12:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!?) 00:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Armas

edit

Vanity. Not noteworthy, claims notability where there is none. Jogloran 07:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - ulayiti (talk) 02:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cinekinetic and Mike young

edit

Cinekinetic was previously listed as part of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cinesaddle; however, the discussion there was cut short due to both articles being tagged as copyvios. This one's now back, and since it isn't directly cut-and-pasted from their web site so far as I can tell, I'm hesitant to tag it as a speedy under G4. Regardless, it's still advertising, it's still of very dubious notability, and it's still gotta go. —Cryptic (talk) 01:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. company does have some recognition. 1800 hits on Google. 581 on yahoo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.32.176.34 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC), creator of article[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!?) 00:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cityside

edit

One of a series of articles on Afd promoting a non-notable group.


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!?) 00:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Click environments

edit

Badly titled neologism. I've never heard any web interface being known as a "click environment", and neither has google. Delete. Graham/pianoman87 talk 11:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect to closet, and ignore the sock- and meatpuppets. -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] [[additions | e-mail]] 05:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Coat closet

edit

Someone has deleted this article without saying why they did it. I agree that it should be deleted, but it think that should be explained first CarDepot 20:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!?) 00:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Colin davin

edit

Another non-notable musician bio stub BeteNoir 05:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 07:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copernicus' nationality

edit

Strong delete This page is ultimately pointless in the long run considering history has established Copernicus as a Pole (by his last name origin and citizenry) whether or not he, in fact, was a German. An entire wikipedia page is not necessary for this discussion.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!?) 00:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Creasman

edit

Looks to be a nonsense/vanity page that's been up for 5 months. Google gives nothing notable for the name Creasman. JJay 15:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!?) 00:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Curbing

edit

I'm fairly sure that this article is mostly made up, and that its only notable instance occured in the film "American History X" Holdek (talk) 06:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Both Wikipedia and Wiktionary require adequate references to reputable sources for material written in their respective mainspaces. I am less familiar with the precise requirements of Wiktionary, but am fairly sure that anecdotal references to usage among friends will not satisfy them. If there are references available that would meet Wiktionary's source requirements, I agree with you that transwiki+delete would be acceptable. As it stands however, I know only that this entry is best deleted from Wikipedia. encephalon 21:55, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!?) 00:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cwelve

edit

Admitted neologism, made up by someone from a high school. No suggestion of notability. Delete. JesseW, the juggling janitor 19:54, 2 November 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 Delete. --Titoxd(?!?) 00:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Davenport (rock band)

edit

Non-notable, band vanity keepsleeping say what 21:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delta notre dame

edit

NN basketball team in Ireland who play in a community center. Might be a youth team. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 19:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!?) 00:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Demetra Raven

edit

Extremely minor actress with three guest appearances in TV series and two movie roles in which her characters had no names. See http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1496302/. Reads like vanity, to me. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete as non-notable. - ulayiti (talk) 12:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Diary-X

edit

Non-notable site 12.22.157.254 17:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, non-notable blogging site.--Isotope23 17:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. *drew 05:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As the creator of this site, a vote by me would be considered fancruft, so I'm not voting. However, I'd like to present some information about Diary-X that is relevant to this vote. Diary-X has a total of 117,467 users, of which approximately 7,269 are active. Only 35% of them are listed in the members directory (which is opt-in only). Diary-X has been online since August 2000, and has recieved mention (although not in an article focused on Diary-X) in Newsweek and Time magazines. The forums have approximately 4,818 members, although technically all Diary-X members are allowed to contribute to the forums. Our Alexa ranking is 29,249, and Google results are misleading because Google has only recently lifted an internal ban on the diary-x.com domain. This of course all boils down to not meeting the requirements for website notability, but only just barely. Thanks. Stephen Deken 17:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've rewritten the page to reflect some of the notability of the site. Obviously if a vote by me is not conisdered to be fancruft, then I vote Keep. -- Stephen Deken 22:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete by JoJan. Jkelly 00:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Diya NYC

edit

Obvious hoax. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ali Empire. I see absolutely no reason, other than Haworth's insistence, not to speedy delete this and all associated pages created by the same user. --Nlu 06:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Totally unverifiable and surely a hoax. —HorsePunchKid→龜 06:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. —Cleared as filed. 04:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Embee

edit

Non-notable and perhaps vanity Ifnord 17:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge to MythBusters Episodes. - ulayiti (talk) 12:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Episode 6 (Mythbusters)

edit

We really don't need articles on individual episodes. We have a perfectly good and to-the-point list at MythBusters Episodes--DooMDrat 11:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - ulayiti (talk) 02:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Etherpron

edit

Hoax/neologism. Flowerparty■ 02:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Redirect to Nausea (book). --Titoxd(?!?) 00:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Existential nausea

edit

Wikipedia is not a humor dictionary BeteNoir 06:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Free London Musical Press

edit

No google hits. Same IP used to create article for The Spunkers which is also on afd as presumable vanity for a non-notable band at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Spunkers. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep. --Titoxd(?!?) 00:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Free World Dialup

edit

Advert, and, despite being 9 years old, probably not notable. Better to list website on a list from Voice over IP article. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 20:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 08:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Freeones

edit
  • Delete - Advert/not encyclopedic - added along with external links to it by other article solely to support the website. User contributing has no other unrelated edits. -Tεxτurε 21:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The creating user's edits for the day:
      • 16:56, 2 November 2005 (hist) (diff) Dalene Kurtis (→External links)
      • 16:56, 2 November 2005 (hist) (diff) Crystal Klein (→External links)
      • 16:51, 2 November 2005 (hist) (diff) Internet pornography (→External links)
      • 16:46, 2 November 2005 (hist) (diff) Sky Lopez
      • 16:43, 2 November 2005 (hist) (diff) Briana Banks (→External links)
      • 16:40, 2 November 2005 (hist) (diff) Jenna Jameson (→External links)
      • 16:31, 2 November 2005 (hist) (diff) Image:Freeones Logo.jpg (→Summary) (top)
      • 16:28, 2 November 2005 (hist) (diff) Freeones (Added logo)
      • 16:22, 2 November 2005 (hist) (diff) Image:Freeones Logo.jpg (http://www.freeones.com/)
      • 16:06, 2 November 2005 (hist) (diff) Freeones (Creation)
  • DELETE ad FRS 22:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These sites are a dime a dozen and I don't see anything to suggest this one is any more notable than the others. 23skidoo 23:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alexa rating of 561, but the site appears to be nothing more than a link repository, and tactics this user is employing to advertise his website (because there's no other word for what he's doing) are just not christmas. Delete as advertising and remove external links from all pages this user has added the website to. Saberwyn 04:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Abstain in light of JM.Beaubourg's argument, but I still consider it supicious that the user creates an article on a website, then goes and adds the website's external link to a number of pages, resulting in the sum total of his/her contributions. Saberwyn 00:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. tregoweth 04:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Any reference to any website here on Wikipedia could be considered advertising, so it's quite a lame reason. So the question would remain whether this website warrants an entry in an encyclopedia. Since Freeones is one of the largest and also longest-living site of its kind, featuring original content and normally biographical data on its featured actresses, centerfolds, musicians, porn stars, sportswomen, supermodels and TV hosts (these are the categories by which one can sort the entries), which can (and will) be used as sources to enter/verify information on Wikipedia. For both reason I strongly support keeping this entry.
Additionally I should point out that judging someone's work by unrelated contributions is a bit useless if the registered (!) user has only started contributing. The fellow has made his first contribution on November 2nd, which was just about 5 hours before his article was marked for deletion (which is not the point here - my reasoning for keeping was argued above) and his contribution history was used as an argument against the article - thus being ad hominem (including the fact that the list at the beginning of this discussion was claimed by User:Texture to be the creating user's edits for the day which is just the half-truth; as I already mentioned, it's his first contribution to Wikipedia ever, see Special:Contributions/CWonroy). JM.Beaubourg 00:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In judging whether a website and immediate links to it in other articles are spam and not real what do we have to use as a guide? Every day that passes where this user makes no other contributions furthers a simple belief that this was a spam attack. New users do not solely add one website to many articles and perform no other edits. - Tεxτurε 16:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It took me 2 days and three hours to make further contributions after adding the first article, and the following edits were pretty much related to my first contributions. All I'm saying is, that this is not considered a valid argument. And if this were a spam attack, then it took the folks at Freeones an astounding four years (well I don't know the exact date when Wikipedia was set up), as Freeones was started in 1998. I feel like Wikipedia can also be used describe the functions of internet business, of which sex-related website make an important part (I mean: who owns what, what practices do they use - so it can also be used as a critical guide). JM.Beaubourg 00:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let me begin by saying that I AM NOT AFFILIATED WITH FREEONES or their webmasters or anything; If I was, I think I probably would have been versed enough to make a more detailed entry. Second, I can see why my contributions have raised suspicions since they are the only contributions I made in that time frame and they did all relate. I guess that's fair game for debate (although unintended). But JM.Beaubourg raised a good point and it leads me to ask, would it have been better if I would have interspersed my contributions with other random contributions to make the more diversified? I don't think that's a requirement.

By the way, if you look at the Sky Lopez revision history, you will find that in addition to adding the Freeones link, I fixed a caption error at the top of the article. When Texturε reverted my edit back to the previous version, the caption error remained. Another user, Brim has since fixed the caption error.
If you look at the Crystal Klein article's revision history as well, you find another mistake by Texturε. Without comparing the article's history with my edit, he reverted back to the original article. The Freeones link was already there, and what I did was (1) Add a link to the new Freeones Article and (2) add Warning: Contains links to explicit material. to the link. It did not exist when I edited the article, and therefore it did not exist when Texturε reverted it back.
The same can be seen in the Dalene Kurtis article history where the Freeones link already existed and I just added a link to the Freeones article.
This is all just to show that we can all make mistakes and is not an attack on anybody. It also shows that even if insignificant, I did actually make other contributions.

Anyway, I strongly feel that this entry, in and of itself, is okay as encyclopedic material. As for the links I created on the other articles, delete them if you have to as that is where the real debate lies.

On a side note, consider that the website for Gibson Research Corporation is listed on Wikipedia and it's Alexa rating is currently 17867 [11]. Then that raises the question, is the Alexa website ranking the determiner for encyclopedic material?; of course not. But, considering how many websites are ranked by Alexa, 561 has to be somewhat significant. Howstuffworks is ranked 1086 [12] which surprised me. And lastly, WebMD is 622 [13].

I am sorry for the trouble I have caused, and I hope the issue resolves itself. Thanks for sharing your opinions on the matter. –CWonroy.

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

The result of the debate was keep. – ABCDe✉ 03:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Freezer

edit

Someone has deleted this article without explaining why. I don't agree with the deletion. A refrigerator and a freezer are not the same thing, so should have separate articles. CarDepot 20:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added in content to the article this evening. The content needs someone else to to prrof it and rewrite where needed. But I think it lifts the article up. Stu 02:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Could you be more specific on the "full" errors of errors so they can be corrected? Stu 00:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Garrius Carpenterus

edit

Looks like complete nonsense (presumably insulting someone called Gary Carpenter), but not quite qualifying as patent or vanity. DJ Clayworth 18:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!?) 00:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GeeseUK

edit

Non-notable Halo gaming clan. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - ulayiti (talk) 02:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

George Rivera III

edit

The claims made in the article are frankly unbelievable about a 19 year old, and I get no hits on Google for "George Rivera" with "Trips Records" or "Trips Gear". "George Rivera" with "Albuquerque" in the search gets a lot of hits, but it isn't clear that any of them relate to the subject of the article. Some of them seem to be about the governor of a tribe of Pueblo indians. The article should be deleted unless substantiated by reliable sources. DavidConrad 02:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence presented in the article that he is the best known person in that town and Google clearly refutes the claim. Capitalistroadster 04:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - ulayiti (talk) 01:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Georgie and the Chipmunks

edit

Unverifiable. No Google results for "Georgie and the Chipmunks". No relevant results for "Georgie Chipmunks heavy metal Poland". Brought to you by the same anonymous user responsible for Klep dim Trep. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 00:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete (A7). Physchim62 (talk) 19:21, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Cobb

edit

Non-notable, probably vanity. He has written one book that "may or not be published". Ifnord 15:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

HAMPSHIRE HALLOWEEN

edit

Article about a Halloween party. Not notable. DJ Clayworth 18:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

* that said, a merge seems appropriate in any case. Jessamyn 20:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete as vanity supported by sockpuppets. - ulayiti (talk) 12:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Boepple

edit

not notable, possible vanity We99 18:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • He has apparently played with several prominent orchestras, recorded for a couple of labels and received a number of awards.[16][17] I would welcome the nominator to make his case for the non-notability of Boepple, but for now I see no reason not to keep this article. u p p l a n d 06:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC) Changing my vote to delete - too many words, too little substance from the Hans Boepple Fan Club. u p p l a n d 07:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If Boepple has recorded for a number of labels, where can I buy his CDs online? Where did Hans Boepple receive his PhD and where is the list of published papers? If Boepple has made important contributions to the field, there should be a list of published papers, if his contributions were original and worth putting into writing. The logic to save this page is ludicrous: "He lives in a unique city and he plays a unique set of songs." This is a vanity page and does not deserve to be in an encyclopedia. If Boepple is a noted classical performer, where is his concert or touring schedule? An occassional concert doesn't qualify as a concert pianist. Hundreds of piano competitions are held every year with hundreds of winners. Boepple is not notable. The fact that SCUMATT would call him a renowned classical pianist and hyperlink pianist to the Wikipedia pianist page does a disservice and is self-promotion. More troubling is the title of "Master Pianist" on Wikipedia. Assuming no one steps up to the plate to point to his CDs, his playing doesn't rise to the level of playing as other pianists that are on Wikipedia pianist page. The fact that there are links to his faculty web page indicate this is vanity. We99 17:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Note: I have reinstated We99's original post above, according to Uppland's request below. We99, I hope you don't mind, but this was necessay; please see your Talk page for explanation and information. Bishonen | talk 00:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The recordings he has made, or rather the ones I can easily find, are for an educational music publisher, Neil A. Kjos Music Company [18], see [19] and [20]. The newly registered users arguing for the retention of the article should presumably be in a position to provide details of Boepple's other recordings hinted at in his online bios, but that they seem uninterested in doing so is making me lean towards changing my vote to a delete (I'll wait a couple of days before doing so, though). The PhD issue is however completely irrelevant for a music professor - I don't think Nadia Boulanger had a doctorate - so please don't waste time on that either way unless the argument is that he has made some scholarly contributions to musicology. u p p l a n d 06:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • First of all, the point of the comparison was not to compare the importance of one with the other, but to point out that a professor of music, i.e. somebody who teaches music on a practical level at a conservatory or musical academy or similar institution (which is apparently what Boepple does), does not normally need to have a Ph.D., as opposed to somebody who teaches, say, music history. In this case, the music school just happens to be part of a university, which is what may confuse you. Secondly, stop revising your original comments! To substantially change a comment to which somebody else has already replied confuses the issue and makes the discussion impossible to follow. If you want to reply to a comment made by somebody else, don't change your original comment, but put your new comment, indented, below the comment you want to reply to, and sign it with a datestamp. Please go back now and restore your comment to what it originally looked like when I replied to it, and add your newer comments further down in the discussion. u p p l a n d 18:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • For reasons already stated above, whether this Boepple has a doctorate is not the issue. It is completely irrelevant. Neither is the issue whether he is the equal of Arthur Rubinstein as a pianist or of Nadia Boulanger as an instructor. The issue is just whether he is notable enough for to fulfill the requirements of WP:MUSIC, which lets in a lot of obscure death metal bands only notable in their own subculture. So far I haven't seen any sensible discussion of that either from you or from the other recently created users commenting below. And BTW, I have already stated that I will change my vote to delete unless Boepple's defenders present more evidence of his recordings. You don't need to convince me on that point, but stop obsessing over the issue of his doctorate. u p p l a n d 22:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • I have repaired the links to the interviews, which I thought would be beneficial additions to provide personal insight concerning Boepple that print encyclopedias don't have the opportunity to demonstrate. As far as recordings, the two that seem to be listed most often are the Kjos Music recordings shown above and the complete Bagatelles by Beethoven for the Orion Master Recordings series. See [21]. I haven't been able to track down any pre-web era recordings that he may have made. It is true that Boepple has settled into teaching and has not currently toured as a performer within the last decade or so. To me, his past performances and competitions, recordings, and demand as a teacher should be enough to warrant an article. Particularly, the inclusion on the Steinway list suggests that he is a highly respected classical musician. Once again, no one is trying to compare him with the great pianists of the past. Also: do see my new comments below. As they suggest, I am not at all opposed to changing the wording of the article such that it does not include terms like "renowned" or "master pianist" if a consensus is reached that these words, by definition, should only be used for household names. To me, they are usual enough in the classical music lexicon to be used with any well respected performer.SCUMATT 4:35, 5 November 2005 (PST) (I'm not sure if there is a way to edit the page so that this comes up automatically. Again, I'm somewhat new to Wikipedia)
            • SCUMATT, please provide a link where we can buy his complete bagatelle recordings. If you have reviews, that would be great, too. It seems fishy that you are only referencing a page that talks about it. We99 06:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know in my heart that this article is worth keeping on the basis that Hans Boepple has won one international piano competition in the last millenium when back when piano competitions were geniunely competitive because the idea had not caught on as much as it has today. These days I counted 100 competitions at http://www.piano-net.com/links.htm so people take it for granted. Just because any international piano competition may seem meaningless today, it meant a lot than he won one a long time ago when there were fewer piano competitions and you could keep track of the names more easily. I am mostly impressed that all these notable symphony venues openly rented their facilities to him because every musician needs to play at important places and ask others for help promoting the concert with articles. We need to keep this article solely on the basis of the Steinway International list and the unique list of cities that he has played in. Getting real experience as a musician is far better than squandering time and cash on a Ph.D. in music or one of those DMA degrees. It would be completely unfair to compare him to to Jonathan Berger because he is a chairman of a rival university that grants its own doctorates in music and attended a univesrity that granted those degrees a long time ago. We only need to be listening to opinions that are neutral not from rival music scholars or rival musicians. We should definitely not compare him with chairwoman Ingrid Monsoon because she is an African jazz and she receives sponsorship monies from her sock puppet committee that was more interested in African jazz diversity instead sticking to the piano classics. Only undiplomatic doctorate divas who know nothing about how a university degree factory works would dare ask about his Ph.D. No music chair would ever ask about that of another because the chairman of the department can always print a diploma using university's special paper on it and ask his professional peers to sign it as a professional courtesy. There is nothing vain about being the chair of department and setting policy. Policy is not vain. It is one of the responsibilities and privileges of a department chairman to sign diplomas and make policy. I think music chairs also participate in admissions decisions too. I see every reason to keep this article. He is of a unique age and lives in a unique city and plays a unique set of songs. Those are the reasons to keep this article. Campbrat 03:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I entered the article into Wikipedia, I won't offer a vote in the matter; I will, however, offer some insights. First, in response to We99, noted classical performers don't always get PhD's and usually do not publish papers. Their artistic achievements generally speak for themselves. Secondly, I think that Boepple is sufficiently notable in classical circles, in which he is a widely recognized teacher and adjudicator as well as performer. Classical artists, unless we're talking about the very top handful, tend to receive media attention in specialized outlets that are not as widely read by people whose interests are not in classical music. Boepple is not the Michael Jordan of pianists; however, he has made important contributions to his field and is quite well regarded throughout the US. To extend the basketball metaphor, we welcome articles about proven stars in the NBA even if they are not Jordan or Bryant. Should we not extend the same welcome to pianists? SCUMATT 05:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • My apologies User_talk:NSLE, I mustn't have been signed in under my username when I edited my suggestion. Secondly, there were complaints about the wording... "master pianist" I believe. If the article is not deleted, please feel free to change the words. Often pianists are described in such a way when they have had as much education and performance experience as Mr. Boepple, even if they don't compare to whichever piano "greats" that you choose to cite. Thirdly, I am not interested in creating a vanity article concerning Mr. Boepple. As a student at SCU and someone realatively new to Wikipedia, I have simply tried to provide the information with which I am exposed at the present and that I think is helpful and acceptable by Wikipedia; I believe that I have been fair in this regard. Obviously, there is some disagreement and ambiguity in terms of the place of biography especially among musicians. Fourthly, there was some insinuation that Mr. Boepple was in some way interested in comparing himself with the said "paino greats" which is untrue. He has no knowledge of or association with this article, nor am I one of his students or a major or minor in his department. I am simply someone who has been told of his excellence, heard him play, and know that students from across the US come to Santa Clara to study with him and have turned down major scholarships to USC, Oberlin, and other noted conservatories to do so. My research about him suggested that he was enough of a noted classical pianist to warant a small article on Wikipedia. Obviously others disagree. I appreciate and understand criticism of articles I write and certainly understand if an article I write is deleted through this process; however, please do not jump to conclusions as to my reasoning for authoring this or any other article. SCUMATT 4:35, 5 November 2005 (PST) (I'm not sure if there is a way to edit the page so that this comes up automatically. Again, I'm somewhat new to Wikipedia).
  • A living healthy person like Boepple that hasn't toured in the last decade means he isn't a notable performer. If his recordings are notable, where are the reviews of those recordings? If these recordings were worthwhile, they would have been reviewed. I'm sorry, but an advertisement for Hans Boepple on Wikipedia just doesn't belong. Nadia Boulanger had people like Aaron Copland and Leonard Bernstein as her students. Has Boepple produced anyone close to an Aaron Copland? We99 02:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, "a living healthy person like Boepple that hasn't toured in the last decade" may simply indicate that his attention has turned to teaching. Secondly, if Nadia Boulanger and Aaron Copland are the standards that Wikipedia is going to use to indicate which articles deserve to be on Wikipedia, then there are many articles in need of deleting. The decision of whether or not to include Boepple will depend entirely on this issue: whether this online encyclopedia tends to inclusivity or exclusivity. I don't think that I have the answer to that question. Do see the "classical music" section of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines SCUMATT 2:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC). (Note: Scumatt, were you asking about inserting your signature? If you sign your posts by typing four tildes, like this ~~~~, they will convert automagically to your individual sig plus timestamp when you save./Bishonen | talk)
      • If his attention has turned to teaching, what is the evidence to show he is a teacher worth putting into Wikipedia? What are the names of his greatest students? The issue is really whether SCUMATT should be allowed to legitimize mediocrity under the rhetoric of "inclusiveness." I think not. We99 03:11, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional Delete. Delete. I'm sorry, but I've been watching the development of this debate, expecting the keep voters to come up with better arguments, and I don't see it happening. The "unique age, unique city and unique set of songs" argument, or that "the chairman of the department can always print a diploma using university's special paper on it and ask his professional peers to sign it as a professional courtesy" don't really do the cause any favors, so I'll just disregard them. (I'm inside the "university degree factory" myself, and, um, no.) If the enthusiasts of B who have posted here don't come up with something more concrete, I'm going to vote "Delete" myself. SCUMATT, the decision doesn't so much depend on "whether this online encyclopedia tends to inclusivity or exclusivity", or how ably you can argue in the abstract, but more on what specific references you can supply. The reviews of recordings and names of notable students that We99 asks for would help, for instance. Bishonen | talk 11:13, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP! I agreed with some earlier comments that Mr. Boepple does not need a Ph.D. to receive the international commercial recognition that he has receievd. There is a complete justification for keeping Hans Boepple is that he has made many contemporary developments classical music. Even if Hans Boepple is humble enough to refer to them as extraordinary secrets, those contributions deserve to be kept because his work is unique within the music profession. There are so few Bach purists, so few tenured music teachers, old school international competitors of international renown, Western European music experts, purists who respect the international developments of the last century, who have composed works with the unique key sequences that Mr. Boepple brings to the keyboard. It would reflect poorly on this encyclopedia if those who delete him do so without trying to find his songs and listen to them. I am not sure who is qualified to delete Mr. Boepple without listening to his compact discs, reading more about him, or seeing him perform in concert. I vote that we trust the neutrality and honesty of SCUMATT that Mr. Boepple has no knowledge of these articles or of SCUMATT's attempts to independently document his story (that more than satisfies my definition of history). Mr. Boepple's accomplishments are independently and adequately documented in Santa Clara University's website and the SCU alumni association magazine and written by people of color and people of gender who speak highly of him. Every reporter knows it is necessary to interview the source directly in order to have an accurate story. I feel the stories about Mr. Boepple are either accurate because he is quoted as a direct source or they are developed independently and are therefore neutral. These salaried university employees do not have any publicist commission interests in overstating or understating the accomplishments of Mr. Boepple so we can safely assume that they are stated at the correct level because it is a university publication that has passed editorial or some peer review muster. We also need to discount any comments from anyone who has a classical music CD that competes with Mr. Boepple. Mr. Boepple's music star rivals have every incentive to give him a poor review so those reviews need to be disconted. We need to filter out any biased comments from jealous individuals who have not earned the tenure that Mr. Boepple has. He has a masters degree in music with an emphasis on piano so does that not make him a master pianist if not a master musician. Many other music chairs lack the specialization in piano performance that Mr. Boepple has. I think if we document all the money that Mr. Boepple has received for any of his music expertise, we can conclude that he is a music professional and therefore deserves privilege of an article solely for the payments he has received for his music which seems far more relevant than answering questions about a degree he could have earned before any of his students were born. Golf players are accorded respect for the size of their money purse or their professional status. Why can't Mr. Boepple be accorded some respect for the size of his professional purse? He is more than a dallying amateur who could not hack it in the competitive world of classical piano and then needed to earn a living from one of those ultra-high paying low-class televised professions that lack the artistic respect that Mr. Boepple obtains freely. Mr. Boepple has earned the role of a tenured classical professional who consistently speaks the truth and should be respected for his position instead of constantly flip-flopping between professions because he does not know what his profession is. His sphere of influence is not restricted to a monolithic organization's monolithic website. If knowledge of Mr. Boepple is ubiquitous common knowledge, then I vote that this article should be allowed to document HIS story about what his job as a music chair is. Musicpro 02:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC) Musicpro 02:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Er...is the above new user writing in response to my request for references? "We can safely assume that the SCU alumni association magazine has ... some peer review muster"? We need to discount any comments from anyone who has a classical music CD that competes with Mr. Boepple...? And he has a masters degree in music with an emphasis on piano so does that not make him a master pianist...? Thank you, I quite understand, I'm now fully ready to vote delete. Bishonen | talk 03:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to Head-Royce School. —Cleared as filed. 04:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Head Royce School

edit


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

The result of the debate was delete. - ulayiti (talk) 01:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hierarchy of the Zucchini People

edit

Non notable website/student paper. Was published between autumn 94 to spring 95? Then moved online? A Google search for the term, gives 30 links. - Hahnchen 23:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!?) 00:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Imagolantern

edit

non-notable, bordering nonsensical.


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

The result of the debate was Delete according to the deletion policy. --Titoxd(?!?) 00:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Baller

edit

An essay and original research. Thue | talk 22:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - ulayiti (talk) 12:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Inside air conditioning unit

edit

Someone deleted this article without explanation as to why. Perhaps it should be deleted or merged somewhere. Should it? CarDepot 21:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. Ral315 (talk) 02:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

International Web and E-Publications Festival, International Web Festival

edit

Non-notable event. Google search INTWEBFEST gets 67 results. Festival run by Behrooz Modirrousta, also up for deletion. Delete. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 17:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!?) 00:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Israel vs. Iran and Russia War

edit

Original research abakharev 06:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • You underestimate the tenacity of fundies. A great many of them are convinced of the connection, and fundamentalism in general tends to be somewhat... how can I put this diplomatically?... resistant to outside arguments. Haikupoet 02:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus default to keep (3 keeps, 3 deletes discounting the last vote which is incorrectly signed by an anon IP). - ulayiti (talk) 12:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

J-Walk Blog

edit

Page about a minor blog. It appears to fall under WP:NOT: "self-promotion" and "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". I vote to delete. RJH 17:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

James Considine

edit

Vanity. Suspect non-notability, but not 100% certain, so using AFD instead of Speedy. Definitely totally non-encyclopedic. TexasAndroid 19:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!?) 00:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jiang QiLi

edit

Most likely a hoax; user also contributed to these edits at [22] and [23] --Confuzion 12:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!?) 00:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Manos

edit

Smells like a hoax - article created by anon who created Henry Almond hoax on same day and inserted links to Manos and Almond on their respective birthdate pages. Careful googling indicates existence of an Australian named John Manos who has in fact won a medal for his athletic feats - in pistol shooting, not football/rugby/whatever. Your thoughts, brethren and cistern? DS 13:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect. Uncle G 00:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kathy Hills

edit

This article is currently a duplicate of Kathy Mitchell (EastEnders) article. To be honest, I'm not quite sure what the editor has done. The original page I created was simply named Kathy Mitchell (EastEnders), the user then went on to move this page to Kathy Beale (this being the previous marital name of the character), and then, instead of using the automatic move page, simply created Kathy Hills - Hills being the maiden name.

However, though the character of Kathy is divorced, she still posses the Mitchell name as can be seen on the BBC character profile.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/eastenders/eastenders/characters/character_content/character_kathy_m.shtml

Whatever way, a duplicate is not required.

EastEnders the great 18:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Party. Titoxd(?!?) 06:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keg party

edit

Someone deleted this article without explanation as to why. Perhaps it should be deleted or merged somewhere. Should it? CarDepot 21:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep. Common term for a party where someone rents a keg filled with beer. Deserves more than a wiktionary entry. Youngamerican 01:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is really no more than a dictionary definition. It’s difficult to see what else could be added to this beyond the definition that is given here. A party is a party and many kinds of beverages could be, and are served. Other than the beverages served, what is the difference between a beer party, a margarita party, a wine party, etc? It’s the people that make a party, not the beverage that is served. I’ll be glad to change my vote if someone can expand on this article enough to make a real article and explain the differences between a keg party and other types of parties. ♠DanMS 02:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment I am going to work on this article over the next couple of days on my broadband connectin and non-crappy computer at work to try to make it a worthwhile article. I will research its social meaning, especially with American youths, its association with binge drinking, the rejection of the events by many frats, and references in pop culture. Please check my edits this weekend and see if the article has been made worthwhile. If it still stinks, then lets trash it or restore the redirect. Youngamerican 03:03,
      • another comment I worked on this a good bit, but a power outage deleted all of my work (I was too dumb to hit save). I still plan to work on this, but its been a hectic time at work, so it might be a while. But making this article-worthy is still tops on my wiki-to do list. In the mean time, I still urge everyone to vote keep or at least redirect to party in order to give me a chance to do a proper article without going through undeletion. Cheers. Youngamerican 14:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3 November 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 Delete. --Titoxd(?!?) 00:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keith hartzell

edit

Probably vanity. Notability assertion is not credible: Google has heard of neither any entomologist by this name nor the award he supposedly received. The attempted image link goes to a staff picture at a fireplace and cookstove import and sales company. --Tabor 21:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!?) 00:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kiarein

edit

vanity page, NN, is probably spam. Google has zero hits. Bachrach44 15:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete, A7. --Titoxd(?!?) 00:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Klaus Lebkuchen

edit

A hoax. This "Nicolas Gingerbread" was supposedly the first husband of Magda Goebbels. Uppland 07:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete all of them. - ulayiti (talk) 01:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

edit

NN band/group. Not found on google, allmusic, and is therefore unverifiable as well as not passing WP:MUSIC 158.36.225.169 18:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: I'm the anon user that afd'ed this article, just had some problems with wp/sessiondata. Bjelleklang - talk 18:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: Combining AFDs for articles related to this band (by same author) for efficiency. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 00:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: Relisted on Nov 2 AFD log, as there were other related articles added to the nomination. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 00:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's not about being against the Welsh language, it's about removing an article about a band that can't be verified. Bjelleklang - talk 14:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Whatever that means, please do not engage in personal attacks -- SoothingR(pour) 13:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with SoothingR. A geniune Welsh person would know how to spell TWPSYN. Also, you contradict your own grammar by using the word "dy" in the same sentence and to the same refrence as the more respectable "chi". Furthermore, the spelling "cae" means "field", not "shut". Believe me, I certainly would field my mouth if I could. So, before insulting me, I would recommend you to learn proper Welsh, and please, cau dy geg os gweli di'n dda, y twpsyn ffwc.

I can vouch for this band. They are not on Google, or much of anywhere else but I remember going to a gig once and they were the top billing. I admit it's bread and butter stuff, but it does exist and to delete it is to delete the existence, on the net, of a little known germano-welsh gem.

Comment: It doesn't matter if you say you can vouch for it, as long as the information can't be verified. Bjelleklang - talk 21:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm new to Wikipedia and I found this page, and saw the comments against the band. They DO exist, and, believe it or not, are quite good! They played a university gig (Aberystwyth probably, though it might have been Cardiff) back when I was a student and they really have a solid fanbase, most of which were good guys. So I plead, for them, keep them on!!

  • Nice effort, Grutness(at least better than Proto), but the correct Welsh way to say it is "Dydi o ddim yn dda". It's not quite Maori!
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep, oddly enough, I'm from the area, and it definitely is notable. --Titoxd(?!?) 01:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KTAR

edit

Non-notable radio station, advertising. Delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 22:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete as vanity. Could maybe have been speedied as well, since there is no real assertion of notability. - ulayiti (talk) 12:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Laura-Jane Foley

edit

Student vanity.

lots of issues | leave me a message 07:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT remove or alter peoples' comments on this page. If anybody removes or alters other peoples' comments, they can expect to be blocked immediately. · Katefan0(scribble) 00:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I do know Laura-Jane, and she is rather distressed by the appearance here of "Student vanity" as a result of a google search on her name. Perhaps I can clear up a few things: Laura-Jane didn't actually write this article (someone else did, perhaps as a link from the ISIS_magazine page); she is no longer a student, and is not a "The Honourable". However, the worst confusion arises over the meaning of vanity: to a Wikipedian, it just means irrelevant, whereas to a layperson, it is interpreted as this person is vain. Hope that helps - RichardNeill
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was moved to Lemon Laws, kept there. Titoxd(?!?) 06:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lemon law

edit

This article is anything but encyclopedic Isolani 15:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete from Wikipedia with a strong recommendation that it be offered to Comixpedia. Not being a sister project under WikiMedia, we can not perform a straight transwiki.

I see that Comixpedia is also licensed under GFDL so a transfer is allowable. However, not being a member of their site and being completely unfamiliar with their codes, formats, styles, etc., I am unwilling to attempt to add the article there myself. If anyone wants to carry out the transfer, please contact me (or any admin) and we can recover the article in order to submit it to Comixpedia. Please remember to also have the Talk page transferred at the same time because it documents the author's release of certain content to GFDL. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LeveL (webcomic)

edit

Non notable obscure webcomic, found here, it's 40 member forum can be found here. Looking through one of their sparse forum threads, I know plenty of effort has been put into this, but I just don't think that the website is notable enough for wikipedia. Can I introduce you guys to comixPedia? Where every webcomic under the sun can get their article there? - Hahnchen 23:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This nominationt was closed here. It was then discussed here and here.

To date, there are three clean deletes + nominator + one withdrawn, two transwikis, three clean keep + two with very low contributions (-Flare- (talk · contribs), 12.160.33.128 (talk · contribs)). As this is far from a clear consensus, and not even a clear "no consesus", per discussions with the closer it is being re-listed extended for another five days to draw wider community input. - brenneman(t)(c) 23:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  1. If that came across as a bite, I apologise, that wasn't my intent.
  2. It says at Wikipedia:Guide_to_Articles_for_deletion#Discussion "Always explain your reasoning," because it's not a vote.
  3. I dont see how WP:AGF applys. Don't you assume good faith when someone wants to delete?
brenneman(t)(c) 07:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Captain Disdain's arguments. - Andre Engels 08:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia:Web comics lists several possible criteria for webcomic notablility. This doesn't meet any of them. I'd also point out that User:12.160.33.128's understanding of the Alexa ranking system is limited. For example, Penny arcade ranks in at 4500, not 400,000. This comic ranks at 2 million, which even taking into account Alexa's margin for error, is pretty bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.238.34.168 (talk • contribs)
  • Neutral, long-running and extensive archive, I just can't find its audience. - Mgm|(talk) 11:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable. Wikipedia is not a web directory. - Dalbury (talk) 12:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per Bryan and Flare in the first run of this. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 12:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I don't understand this "Bryan and Flare" thing. What point did Bryan make that you agree with? Was it (1) that the article was extensive and all long articles are notable or (2) that you don't understand why people are voting Delete? What argument of Flare are you agreeing with? Do you agree that (3) any website with 600 visitors/day is notable or (4) notability may be asserted in ways that do not need to be described? I await your comments. Ashibaka (tock) 02:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The point of me mentioning the visits a day was to show that it is obviously known aside from the 40 people in the forum, since some of the voters for deletion used 'forum has 40 members, noone reads this thing' as an argument. It's not like this site DOESN'T generate tens of thousands of visitors a month. I was also referencing the guy that brought up points against Alexa rating, but he didn't have a user name, so it was probably easier to refer back to me. As for the ways that need not be described, it's obvious I'm a reader of the comic and thus have a bias, which is why mentioning any points about the actual quality of the comic over the quantity of activity around it would be putting myself on display to be torn apart. When I looked at WP:WEB before suggesting the article, it still had the alternate proposal that included longevity, a certain number of existant strips/pages and some other things that I can't remember right now but that were all met. Now that it's pretty much popularity only, any such argument has become void- I can't argue against the fact that it doesn't have an audience of millions. -Flare- 13:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am probably going to hate myself for saying this, but I'm all for frankness: This is still only a proposed guideline. It's referred to as a pointer for what the current suggested direction for this guideline is according to those who have taken part, but that is it. Don't let it deter you from making a pitch for its inclusion based upon longevity or something else. And anyone who's wavering in ther recomendation, don't be swayed by the pseudo-official nature of WP:WEB which I've had lots to do with shaping. Feel free to make your own decision, but please be ready to state your reasoning clearly. Thanks.
          brenneman(t)(c) 13:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails every guideline we've ever had for "notability," and the fervor of its fans in voting is not any argument against that. For those who wish a "reason why" it shouldn't be here, even though there is no reason why it should be here, I'll simply say that encyclopedias cover that which is referred to in alien context and which needs explanation and contextualizing. This forum/comic/game is known by its fans and referred to by none else. Those who wish to know, know. Those who do not know, will not hear of it and need to know. Since Wikipedia is not a place to satisfy the fan's obsession nor a place for people to advertise, the article should be deleted. Geogre 13:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Geogre. It's old, but unremarkably so. People read it, but not very many. It is, in short, an utterly and completely average webcomic, and Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for the utterly and completely average. (Of course, if Comixpedia wants it, they can have it) Lord Bob 16:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Geogre--Isotope23 17:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. nn, webcomic. Dottore So 17:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above; try advertising the comic more in places that accept advertising, and then come back to WP when you have the readers you deserve. — Haeleth Talk 17:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I was the original nominator, so please don't count my vote twice. I wasn't too happy with the no-consensus of the first vote. I did not have a chance to reply to the erronomous and misleading comments above. Dragonfiend has already established that a popular webcomic like Penny Arcade has a respectable Alexa rank. The comparisons to Orrin Hatch and Pete Ashdown are totally irrelevent, these are people who have had major press attention, something which this comic lacks, even in the webcomic community. I would however, either redirect an article on Orrin Hatch's website to Orrin Hatch, or even move to delete. Just because a site links to it, does not mean it is notable. Heck, some blogs even link to my wikipedia page. This comic has no assertion of notability, a low readership and almost empty forums. Other arguments above, saying that "keep - long archive", I just don't agree with. One of my main points against the no defunct original WP:COMIC was the, longevity = notability" clause. Would you keep an article for a person who's only claim to notability was living up to retirement age? - Hahnchen 18:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --JJay 19:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, just in case previous votes aren't being re-counted (I voted before). Why is this being re-listed? If the result wasn't a consensus, then it was "no consensus". Bryan 00:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for that it's not actually been "re-listed", I mispoke before and have corrected it. It has been extended as is common for AfD discussions that do not reach a clear consensus. For example, a 50/50 split with strong arguments presented by each side is a "no consensus" and thus no action is taken. In this example, neither the numbers nor the arguments clearly indicated the "will of the people", and extendind the discussion appears to have made things clear. - brenneman(t)(c) 00:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as this is a comic with no evidence of popularity, significance, or impact beyond its small fanbase. (Of course, this should be transwiked over to Comixpedia, but you can do that with anything that meets their goals.) - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Based on the discussion, I am reinstating my delete vote. Even though it is not the webcomic I originally thought it was, this webcomic appears to miserably fail the proposed guidelines at WP:WEB and WP:COMIC. Also, to those who try to justify keeping articles based on the argument "Article X is on Wikipedia. This article is in this way better to Article X, so therefore it should be on Wikipedia too", please don't. Each article should be kept or deleted on it's own merits, and it's own merits alone (as the various article policies allow). I will support a transwiki to Comixpedia, but will shed no tears of this does not happen. Saberwyn 02:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per A Man in Black. Xoloz 16:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Can't think of a good reason to delete this article. Moreover it was subject to a perfectly valid no consensus close, an re-opened as part of an evident campaign of deletion. --Tony Sidawayt 09:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki as per jnothman and others. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 14:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Comixpedia. *drew 22:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect to closet. Sockpuppets, will you please quiet down for a little? -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] [[additions | e-mail]] 05:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Linen closet

edit

Someone keeps deleting this article without explanation as to why. Perhaps it should be deleted or merged somewhere. Should it? CarDepot 20:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. - Article contains a picture of a linen closet and more description, such as the layout of a walk-in linen closet, than the closet article. I also plan to add a pic of an open linen closet, showing typical contents. StuRat 01:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What's incorrect about it ? StuRat 19:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!?) 00:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of foods that cause unpleasant urine odors

edit

Unencyclopedic list. The fairly well-known asparagus urine effect is discussed in the asparagus article. The rest is, in my opinion, not worth it to merge anywhere. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!?) 00:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish Members of the French Academy of Sciences

edit

Strong delete Another addition to the listmania craze. All of the people presented in the first section of this list are accounted for in the list on the main page (under scientists and social scientists), and the second section are just repeats from other lists. Finally, there isn't even a list for Members of the French Academy of Sciences <-----even that would be pointless though. 72.144.114.22 10:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!?) 00:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of kanji by group

edit

Wiktionary material that isn't even as complete as what's already there Caerwine 21:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The principles on which the list is supposed to be constructed are impossibly vague, and do not represent any accepted system of classification, so it's OR; see the page creator's comments on the article talk page. The purpose of the list is also totally unclear: who is supposed to use this, and for what? — Haeleth Talk 23:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Whoever started this seems to have insufficient knowledge of Chinese characters. We could use a list of Kanji by radical / list of Kanji by stroke count / list of Kanji by phonetic element / List of Kanji by SKIP pattern / List of Kanji by Jōyō grade / List of Kanji by on reading ... There are many ways of classifying characters. For example, NTC's dictionary has 7 indices for finding characters. Delete this page and start from scratch with a concept. -- 19:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this is not a useful article as it stands and the criteria for the list are difficult to understand. Please note that there are some other kanji lists such as the above unsigned user suggested: see category:Kanji. --DannyWilde 11:01, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was KEEP Marskell 17:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Live in Chicago (Jeff Buckley)

edit

Appears to be about a concert, seems to be vanity, or at least NN. Rogerd 23:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!?) 00:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LoveSac

edit


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!?) 00:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky 7 Studios

edit

Non-notable website. NatusRoma 10:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 02:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy English

edit

Hoax/joke. There is an author by the name of Lucy English, but this is not her. I was unable to find any book titled "Going Nower fast", or assuming a misspelling, "Going Nowhere Fast" by this author. Nor was I able to find any such award as the Apple Prize for literature (although there's a Golden Apple Prize for children's literature). --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 16:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting ... no votes recorded first time around.. Delete. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 19:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!?) 01:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Madden Planet

edit

Non-notable Madden video game fansite. Delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 22:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Madden Planet We are a very notable and longest standing Madden site out there. We have been reconized by EA for quite some time and have exclusive early info on Madden and other EA games on a regular basis. I am new to this site so I hope that I did not post this in the wrong place.

Damon

  • Delete. I was going to ramble on and on on about fixable problems with the article, like unencyclopedic tone and lack of wikification, but then I noted they, umm, have Alexa rank of 216,691 and thus fail WP:WEB. By the way, surprisingly few game-specific sites are notable for inclusion by this criteria. But I guess if you add an external link to the Madden article, few people would dare to remove it. --Wwwwolf 22:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • I looked into your WP:WEB and it mentions forums in which we have over 20,000 unique members.

Damon


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

The result of the debate was delete. - ulayiti (talk) 02:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mapletip

edit

NN website ad. Destroy all ads --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete, five days are up. Titoxd(?!?) 06:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maserati Rick Carter

edit

Delete per nom. Copyvio http://www.geocities.com/jiggs2000_us/Maseratirick.html LichYoshi 07:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Titoxd(?!?) 06:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 06:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mason Smillie

edit

Non notable. A google search for "Mason Smillie" yields six hits, none of which (except a sentence in the Wikipedia article for Tyson Beckford, which the author of this article added to that one) have anything to do with the subject of this article. FuriousFreddy 23:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Bathroom. Titoxd(?!?) 06:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Master bathroom

edit

Someone deleted this article without explanation as to why. Perhaps it should be deleted or merged somewhere. Should it? CarDepot 21:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Bedroom. Titoxd(?!?) 06:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Master bedroom

edit

Someone deleted this article without explanation as to why. Perhaps it should be deleted or merged somewhere. Should it? CarDepot 20:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!?) 00:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Matsuricon

edit

Pure advertising of a non-encyclopedic future event. Caerwine 21:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect to Appalachian Mountain Club. - ulayiti (talk) 12:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mizpah Spring Hut

edit

Most of the text is duplicated here, and as of right now I don't see a reason to keep it a seperate page. Basically, this article is already merged with the AMC article, and i see little reason not to delete and redirect. jfg284 22:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

you know, i figured it was that easy...but i wasnt sure. so i went ahead and did this. but this is also kind of a test, as there are 7 other similar articles to be merged (the other huts) and i want to see what the consensus is.jfg284 22:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete ... I didn't think the redirect would work, but it does. But leave this page as a redirect for those who go hunting for it. - DavidWBrooks 22:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change vote to Redirect w/o delete. its just not necessary and i thought it was. my bad.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to Reservoir Dogs. - ulayiti (talk) 12:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Freddie Orange

edit

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 12:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!?) 00:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Munib

edit

Nonencyclopedic, borderline nonsense, possible attack page. Speedy tag has been stripped twice, at least once by author (other was an IP). --Trovatore 17:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Redirect to muscle. --Titoxd(?!?) 00:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Muscles

edit

About the nickname of a fellow of unknown identity who tried to get this nickname copyrighted. Notability not indicated, no proof provided and likely to be unverifiable sufficiently for inclusion. JFW | T@lk 14:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, no deletion required, as usual. Trollderella 18:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - ulayiti (talk) 00:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mystii

edit

Doubtful information (Google), fancruft, POV, opinion, speculation &c Tagishsimon (talk) 00:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete as spam supported by sockpuppets. - ulayiti (talk) 12:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Net Fusion

edit

This is extremely short and without detail. Also, this is just an advertisement for Net Fusion. So, this is short, uninformative, an advertisement, unencyclopedic, and many other things. Oh yeah, I vote to delete. Note: When I posted this, there was one sentence there. Sprited Spheniscidae 22:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted as either a test page (G2) or vandalism (G3). --Angr/tɔk tə mi 14:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete as non-notable. (You can't merge and delete by the way, it's against the GFDL.) - ulayiti (talk) 12:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

North Hall

edit

A single dorm housing less than 100 people at Harvey Mudd College. I propose that we merge what's useful into HMC's section on dorm life and then delete. — Laura Scudder | Talk 07:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Laura, why don't we "ignore all rules" (as your bio suggests) and let the page remain. Another article in Wikipedia about a material subject advances the objective of Wikipedia. Look up "encyclopedic." It means, inter alia, "comprehensive." --Dexter Speare 05:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the page is no less useful than articles such as the one on Bexley_Hall_(MIT)...

...which is also up for deletion now. — Haeleth Talk 22:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • North is one of the oldest buildings on campus, and has a lot of unique history (more coming soon), including several members that became major donors to the college. I created the page because I think that it will be of use to a sufficiently large number of people...
    • The entire HMC community, especially newcomers, who want to understand our school's unique traditions and dorm histories
    • Dorm Alums, of which there are around 1000, will definitely want to know the current status of the dorm.
    • Prospective students want to know more about the college than can be explained in a single article. I know that I used every internet resource possible when looking at HMC, and I'm sure that current prospective students are doing the same.
    • I wish that there were more detailed information about graduate schools that I'm currently looking at--not just cursory generalizations, but in-depth information about the schools' institutions.
  • How is the page harming Wikipedia? Only those who want the information will go to it, and the number of students interested in the dorm will keep it well maintained.

I think that the page enhances the depth and usefulness of wikipedia. But, I would like to improve it... how could I change the page to make it more suited to Wikipedia? Changes that I plan to incorporate soon include:

  • notable alumni

other suggestions are welcome.


Thanks for the feedback. Rdchambers 08:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • It would be an outrage to have this page deleted. Several wealthy alumni who have contributed to the college and the human condition are greatly anticipating the permanence of this page and how it honors their legacy they left during their time here at our humble college. Harvey Mudd College may be small, but that does not exclude it and its rich history from being represented in Wikipedia. In the words of Margaret Mead, "Never doubt that a small, group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
  • Move'
    • North is substanially more notable then most other dorms at other campuses. This is probably revealed in the fact that someone bothered to write something about it in the first place. North Dorm along with East Dorm and West Dorm at Harvey Mudd are regularly sites of study for anthropology and sociology students and faculty at the nearby colleges.
    • As to not wanting an article on individual dorms at colleges I see no reason why not to allow people to write them, provided their is enough information to warrant it. These articles could provide a wealth of information to both prospective and current students about campus life. As noted before, there are already several out there.
    • I see no specific criteria for deletion of this article in the offical policies beside it being a "Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article." However, the North page is already of a size that it is entirely reasonable to give it its own article. Merging this article would decrease the current quality of both the Harvey Mudd College page and detract from the information contained in North Hall.
    • I'm not a particularly interested party, but I say move, because why not have more detailed information available about colleges, etc? Just not on the main college page, where it distracts from the main article. And, after all, certainly other colleges have dorms or halls named "North" that are of no doubt of equal interest to them.
  • I don't live at North Hall and I don't go to HMC. However, if the problem is that the boys aren't objective enough, I am more than willing to create the page for North Hall. It deserves an article in Wikipedia.
    • Funny that someone who doesn't go to HMC should be using a 134.173.*.* IP address. That puts you in a Claremont educational facility, at least. LWizard @ 19:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The point is not that the dorm always was what it is now. The point is that now the dorm has a certain reputation and that there is no need to strike its entry from Wikipedia because some people think it's silly. The dorm has been a part of this school almost as long as the rest of the school has and there is just as much validity to having a page for all of the other dorms as there is for having a North Dorm page. Nobody fabricated what is in the entry and nobody exaggerated what is in the entry so what real reason is there to delete the entry? NorthJesus 12:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • (Note: there is no such user as User:NorthJesus, the above is actually User:134.173.58.52)
        • None of the other dorms has a Wikipedia page. The reason to delete the entry is that Wikipedia has standards - otherwise we get flooded with people putting up pages for themselves or the club/language/handshake they've made up with 3 of their friends. North Dorm is not notable outside the Claremont Colleges community, so I don't think it's notable. (Some dorm information may be relevant to the Harvey Mudd College page, but none of them really deserve their own page.)DenisMoskowitz 21:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Entirely non-notable; every college and university has characteristic dorms, with parties and such. mdd4696 21:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • In fact, at least four of Mudd's eight dorms match North's assertions of uniqueness: definitive character, annual parties, and traditional named suites (i.e., Nevada, Who Wants Jack Daniels, Atomic Bar, etc.), so North isn't even alone in this within Mudd. True, WP:ISNOT paper, but everything that is unique about North could be effectively conveyed within the HMC article, and I would say this about my own dorm, too. — Laura Scudder | Talk 00:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with main college article, like all dorms. — Haeleth Talk 22:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too much non-encyclopedic information to dump in the main college article. -- DS1953 talk 01:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to HMC webspace and delete from Wikipedia. There is plenty of room on student servers and on student controlled webspace. — HMC student: 134.173.58.29 04:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move and redirect I maintain that dorms and dorm life are an important part of information about a college. However, putting such information on the college's main page would detract from the academic aspects of the college. Having looked through some other cases, it seems the appropiate thing to do with the article is to move it to a central 'List of Harvey Mudd College Dorms' and include entries for the other dorms on campus. While I still support just renaming and allowing seperate articles for dorms, aggragation seems to be more standard. Topkai22 04:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic. *drew 04:56, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to List of Pokémon episodes. Titoxd(?!?) 06:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Official Pokemon Episode list

edit

Already covered in List of Pokémon episodes. --Daniel Lawrence 23:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!?) 23:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Shirt Tuesday

edit

Delete. Very cute but not notable PJM 03:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for that as well. PJM 04:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it's relatively unknown and local is the very reason it's not notable. Indium 23:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. Orange Shirt Tuesday is a staple in a community that suffers from many problems. The only hope and consolation for many citizens in Eagan is getting to celebrate this holiday every once in awhile — (Unsigned comment by 64.113.85.108; user's 2nd edit.)

It's gaining popularity and like it says in the article it is being introduced in several universities across America. I think that people would like to know the origins of the holiday they participate in/observe others participating in.

If you want me to take that comment seriously, then please provide some good, verifiable, source citations, such as online-accessible newspaper articles, that show that it really is being celebrated in "several universities across America." I believe this "holiday" is a friendly custom between a small number of friends in a couple of living groups. Everything in Wikipedia must be verifiable; that is, statements resting only on the authority of the contributor are not acceptable if they've been seriously challenged. I've been wrong before about things that sounds like jokes or hoaxes; when people have produced verifiable evidence I've changed my vote. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - ulayiti (talk) 02:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the Cross and Circle (Crux Orbis)

edit

uncited; original research Tom Harrison (talk) 02:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As all entries on secret societies cannot be fully substantiated, if this article is to be deleted it then follows that all entries on secret societies must be deleted. Judging by the fact that IP addresses involved in suggesting this page for deletion are from the Washington DC / Georgetown area, requests for deletion are clearly motivated by reasons other than Wikipedia policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.255.62 (talk • contribs) 2005-11-02 19:14:03 (UTC)

Comment: Some of the other secret societies have citations. I looked for some for this one, and didn't find any. If you have a couple of good solid citations, maybe from college newspapers, I would reconsider my vote for deletion. Let me also point out that Wikipedia does not publish original research. Tom Harrison (talk) 20:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. - Tom Harrison (talk) 02:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: original research. TECannon 11:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR.--Isotope23 15:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: original research. There is no reference to 'Crux Orbis' or 'Order of the Cross and Circle' (which is not the actual Latin translation of 'crux orbis') anywhere on the internet. Joe Hoya 20:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: unverifiable. — Haeleth Talk 22:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. And I'm in California. MCB 00:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete: This entry is linked from a larger entry about secret societies in general. This article lists societies at major U.S. universities. The very nature of secret societies is just that - they try to remain secret. While much is known about some, such as Skull and Bones, little is known about others. While in no way a member or supporter of this particular society, it is intriguing that it has kicked up as much discussion as it has. Like many socities of this sort, hard verification of a society's existance is hard to come by. However, if asked, a good amount of Georgetown students and alumni will attest to its existance. I will suggest that rather than deletion, a heading is added that reads something such as "due to the nature of such organizations, the following information may be unverifible." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.59.114.150 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 2 November 2005
  • Do Not Delete: Crux Orbis is well known for keeping its history and traditions secret. Specific details of the society should be presented, but they should be presented as part of the legend surrounding the society and not as hard fact. Crux Orbis and the other Georgetown secret societies, including the several Societies of Stewards and the Torch & Talon Club, are known by students and alumni. While it is certainly the case that not every detail is agreed upon, that is not proper grounds for deleting the whole entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.109.67 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 3 November 2005
    • But unfortunately the cabal have taken against it (as they did against Alpha Phi Omega), and so, vote or no vote, it will be deleted. You have to ask: is this because they don't want secrets revealed, or because they don't want people to know CO exists?
  • Delete. But you gotta love the suggestion that we add a tag saying it "may be unverifiable".
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!?) 00:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ospedia

edit

A visit to the site indicates that the project never got off the ground. It claims to house 2 articles, and no updates have been made in recent history. It essentially does not exist. NymphadoraTonks 04:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect to Air conditioning. The socks have been blocked -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] [[additions | e-mail]] 12:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside air conditioning unit

edit

Someone deleted this article without explanation as to why. Perhaps it should be deleted or merged somewhere. Should it? CarDepot 21:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete (no consensus to BJAODN, but someone could do it if they wanted to, I'm not at all opposed to the idea). - ulayiti (talk) 01:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Overlord Smurf

edit

Tagged as nonsense speedy - and it isn't. But given it was created by User:Overlord Smurf I'm not exactly optimistic (no vote) --Doc (?) 00:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC) -Doc (?) 00:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P. Briddy

edit

Alias for non-notable college DJ. No relevant google hits. JJay 19:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!?) 00:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pinthin

edit

Article is only a definition, and appears to be a hoax: link brings up a black page in Safari...dave souza 00:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!?) 00:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proper Rock and Roll

edit

This page is on a campus radio program, likely written by the show's host. I believe it contravenes the verifiability requirements of Wikipedia. WP policy requires that all articles in the main namespace "should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher." Since Wikipedia cannot conduct original research, nor put its articles through traditional methods of fact-checking and peer-review, all contributions to the mainspace should be based strictly on external sources that are reputable publications. If the subject of the article does not have at least a minimal body of work devoted to it, such as a newspaper clipping/report, magazine article, book, thesis, or other publication that meets the requirements of WP:V and WP:RS, it cannot be written about in the WP mainspace. Articles are required to comply with the three cardinal mainspace policies, WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. A subject that easily meets the WP:V (and the related WP:RS) requirements, such that multiple, independent reputable publications on the subject are extent, is said in common Wikipedia parlance to be notable. This does not appear to be the case with this radio show (nor its host, P. Briddy, also on AFD). Thus, delete. encephalon 21:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!?) 23:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prospecting for customers

edit

as well-written as this is, wikipedia is not a how-to guide. I have already transwikied this to Wikibooks (though I may not have done it quite properly as it was my first transwiki. Someone who knows what they are doing should really check on it). Now what? I don't see any other option but delete Jacqui ★ 03:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rascal Insurance Services

edit

It's an advert! DJ Clayworth 18:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete and redirect to Harrow School. - ulayiti (talk) 00:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rendalls House and Bradbys House

edit

In many countries, people may be familiar with the concept of "houses" in schools. In countries where the concept is not used, think of the Sorting Hat in the Harry Potter mythos. While a page on Harrow School is essential (being probably the second-best-known public school in England after Eton College), separate articles on the houses is without any doubt TMI, even after considering WINP. No useful information to merge into parent. Chris talk back 00:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete as band vanity. - ulayiti (talk) 12:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rese'vor Dogs

edit

Does not meet WP:MUSIC criteria. Delete.--Isotope23 18:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was to redirect Rock Bottom to Professional wrestling throws and delete Big Herk. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Bottom & Big Herk

edit


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!?) 01:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sailorbirds

edit

Unverified content, no references. Google search turns up results for a cartoon character, but nothing for an actual feathered creature. Choice quote from the article: Often ,the babies forget to take off the acorn helmits and they get stuck on their heads. Unless someone who knows their birds can verify its existence, then perhaps this belongs on WP:BJAODN. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 23:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!?) 00:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Society of the Seven

edit

uncited; original research Tom Harrison (talk) 15:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete, votes by recently-created accounts discarded per the Deletion policy. --Titoxd(?!?) 00:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SEJ, Students for economic justice

edit

Article about a local branch of a national organization (which itself has no article); not notable enough for a separate article. tregoweth 07:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I added the article with the full name. Gazpacho 08:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: don't deleteI added a stub page for United Students Against Sweatshops. I agree with Gazpacho's naming move from SEJ to Students_for_economic_justice. Being a major activist group at a big ten university, Students for Economic Justice is notable and worth referencing in terms of campus activist history in the midwestern US. Jimotron 3:23, 2 November 2005 (User is the main editor of Students for economic justice - — Haeleth Talk)
  • Comment:don't deleteI agree with Jimotron. Especially within United Students Against Sweatshops, the Michigan State chapter of Students for Economic Justice is both a well-known and well-respected grassroots organization. Many in USAS regard SEJ as one of the most creative and effective chapters. corserma 3:33, 2 November 2005 (User has only made two edits, one here and one on the page in question - — Haeleth Talk)
  • Comment:don't deletei agree with both above users. SEJ has received national attention from other students against sweatshops chapters as well as from many media sources for both its campaigns as well as the well known infiltration and FBI monitoring.

iammaggieryan5:20, 2 November 2005 (User has only made two edits, one here and one on the page in question - — Haeleth Talk)that is not true check my ip i have been editing pages since september and have edited a number of pages as per below.Iammaggieryan 09:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

  • strong keep the article has been significantly modified since the delete and specifically addresses the two posted reasons for deletion. The article is not, and was not intended to be, about a chapter of a national organization. Rather, this is about a major activist organization at a big ten university in Michigan. The article documents two major instances of police monitoring that made national news and thus contributed to broader discussions of civil liberties and privacy in the US. jimotron 1:42, 3 November 2005
  • Delete per nom. Strong delete for blatant sock puppetry. Ifnord 03:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is sock puppetry? I'm new and still reading through the rules. jimotron 3, November 2005
      • Please see Internet sock puppet. Ifnord 04:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ifnord, thank you for your response and the definiton. I looked it up just before I received your message. I did not create fake accounts. Please check the IP's of corser and iammaggieryan. I asked them both for help - iammaggieryan did considerable work on United_students_against_sweatshops and corser did not have time to do many edits. We're trying to work with the moderators, so please let us know what we can do to improve the articles.jimotron, November 3
        • Or rather, excuse me, she contributed to United_Students_Against_Sweatshops. I didn't know when I went to make the SEJ page about the capitoliation guidelines, and we both worked on that page until we learned about the lowercase version of United_students_against_sweatshops. The history would be on the other page. jimotron, November 3
        • Um I am not a sock puppet, and it makes me sad to think that you think i am a sock that fits over jimotrons hands. Check my ip, i've also done changes to SEJ, USAS, policy debate, pfizer stuff, and minor changes to the (many many) grammatical mistakes contained within wiki. Like that everyone thinks the possessive form of its is it's. damn i hate that. iammaggieryan, November 3
  • Delete. Non-notable of course. *drew 04:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete.  Denelson83  06:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sewer baby

edit

Not notable movie project BeteNoir 05:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Movie Project Mutai 00:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Etoll may better be described as "infamous" in many circles, not all of them confined to Minneapolis. Though his name may not appear extensively on the web, his notoriety is extensive, specifically among "lo fi" realms, e.g. underground filmmaking, theater, punk rock, and countless appearances in nontraditional forums with the specific intention of remaining anonymous while inciting pranks, tricks, subversive activity.

In other words, Etoll has created, appeared in or significantly contibuted to films, videos, records and has been responsible for hundreds of creative projects not necessarily credited to same. Not only is Etoll's work most known among the non-technical and non-electronic media, his oeuvre has intentionally occupied the realm of the unattributable.

Please also note that Etoll's work has a long history as an artist whose work predates electronic citation. He didn't even know how to use a computer until two years ago. His contributions as a painter, filmmaker, playwright, actor, effects and prop artist, writer and performance artist can be traced to the work of Soul Asylum, Babes in Toyland, The Butthole Surfers, Curtiss A, The Meat Puppets, the Hysteric-Ontologic Theater (see also Richard Foreman), Husker Du, The Replacements, and Run Westy Run, First Avenue, Seventh Street Entry...

A majority of Twin Cities musicians and artists who gained their celebrity during the 80's and 90's can certainly attest to Etoll's "behind the scenes" influence on pop culture.

See TCPunk for extensive and most comprehensive documentation of Twin Cities underground music scene.

"Sewerbaby" -- the movie -- is Etoll's first major mainstream offering and heralds this amazing artist's emergence into popular culture. --Onomatopeon 11:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC) User's first and only edit.[reply]

  • Keep Quite interesting. Noteworthy. And above all notable. Contains content already referenced on wiki. Contributes to film in ways that many films don't. [User:BigBooger]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete as completely lacking in context. --Carnildo 00:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shamans (creatures)

edit

Without any context or references this article is nonsense. Thue | talk 22:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!?) 01:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shantz

edit

Neologism, nn dicdef, borderline nonsense --keepsleeping say what 22:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete as spam. - ulayiti (talk) 12:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shoebuy

edit

advertisement

    • I added the Shoebuy page as a valid entry just like the other entries on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Companies_based_in_Massachusetts. Presumably the aim of this page is to list all the significant companies in Massachusetts - of which Shoebuy is one. It is certainly significantly larger than several of the other companies listed on this page.
    • My apologies if you feel the wording or tone of the entries is incorrect - that was not my aim. Please let me know how to change this or please go ahead and make edits.
    • I just changed the Categories that it is in to remove http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Boston%2C_Massachusetts, since it doesn't look like it should be in here.
    • Thanks Nick 17:25, 4 November 2005
      • Well, the article doesn't assert notability at all. Why is Shoebuy important? Why is it important to Massechusetts or the country or anyone else? Also, the last sentence referring to it's location is fairly useless as no one knows what city you're talking about. Also, street location probably isn't important even if the company is. Tedernst 23:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect to Cole slaw. --Titoxd(?!?) 00:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Slaw

edit

Band is non notable, google search brings up some references to local gigs Jdcooper 12:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as per Vegaswikian. These are not useful, no one is going to search for them, and they're full of patent nonsense. -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] [[additions | e-mail]] 12:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sliding glass door

edit

Someone deleted this article without explanation as to why. Perhaps it should be deleted or merged somewhere. Should it? CarDepot 21:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete as churchcruft. - ulayiti (talk) 12:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

South Holland Community Church

edit

If I am reading this article right then this church has four members. Delete as non-notable. Thue | talk 22:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was redirect to sprinkler system. -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] [[additions | e-mail]] 05:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sprinkler system timer

edit

Someone deleted this article without explanation as to why. Perhaps it should be deleted or merged somewhere. Should it? CarDepot 20:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!?) 00:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stations of the Cross - Contemporary Icons to Reflect On at Easter

edit


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


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

The result of the debate was no consensus (default to keep). - ulayiti (talk) 12:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Steeler nation

edit

A colloquial term for a group of fans that happen to have a webpage is not reason for a wikipedia entry IMHO. Bachrach44 16:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination --Bachrach44 16:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering the term has been around since the early 1970s, and considering most other sports and teams have adopted the "Nation" terminology, one would think the historical significance of Steeler Nation would qualify it for wikipedia. On a side note, "Steeler Nation" was coined by NFL Films.
    • ANON IP: When adding comments to a afd thread (or any thread for that matter), please do not delete prior comments. Rather you should add your comments in a list. (which I have taken the liberty of doing to your comments as an example). --Bachrach44 17:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As previously stated, the phrase "Steeler Nation" was coined in the early 70s and is now widely used in regards to other teams. It's pretty common for the media to simply stick a teams' nickname in front of the word "Nation." However, I think it's important that the origins of the phrase are documented.

There are currently entries in wikipedia for Raider Nation and (for God's sake!) the Icy Hot Stuntas. Precident has been set.

  • Comment how in the world do the Icy Hot Stuntaz confer any precedent for inclusion to Steeler nation? I've added a cleanup tag to the article. Right now I see no context that shows this term is in any way significant. I would be inclined to vote keep though if someone cleans up the

article and adds some historical context about the term.--Isotope23 19:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!?) 01:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Kornas

edit

This article is a complete hoax. The anonymous editor who created it has vandalized several other articles (see: Debt restructuring; The Defeat of the Spanish Armada; Spring Lake Heights, New Jersey etc). There are only two mentions of Stephen Kornas in the web (see [33] and [34]). These indicate that Stephen Kornas lives in Farmingdale, New Jersey and goes to school in Colonia, New Jersey. The former is in the same county as Spring Lake Heights, New Jersey, whose article the editor vandalized. This is obviously just a homophobic deffamation attempt, especially since the article accuses Stephen Kornas of child abuse.--Carabinieri 00:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!?) 00:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Subject Zero

edit

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 12:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable "sycologickle thriller." —Cleared as filed. 13:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No Google hits for a movie by this title. Appears to be a hoax. BrianSmithson 14:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment ummmm....did zou actually google it? I mean, it was a flop...but it did star ben kingsley (and i remembered that from the ads before i read that "it had that guy that played gandi." a qucik IMdB gets zou this, where i learned that it ALSO starred aaron eckhart and carrie-anne moss and that tom cruise played a roll in production (though his name was removed before release, that one was buried in the trivia section). All that being said, this article is so poorly written it might be easier to delete it that go through the effort of trying to rewrite it. 'course, i might just be bored enough to go in and fix the article myself. as a result, i wont vote...but i will point out that it"s no hoax.
my bad, forgot to sign above. jfg284 22:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The IMDB link you provided is to something called Suspect Zero, but the article for deletion is about Subject Zero. I don't think the latter existed, but if someone can provide evidence, I'll change my vote. —BrianSmithson 02:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely right. Voting Delete Accordingly. i think the author of the article made the same mistake I did, as the line "it has that guy who played gandi" (or something similar) seems to refer to Ben Kingsley and his role in Ghandi.jfg284 06:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 02:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sunward cohousing

edit

NN housing community/development. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 18:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting ... need some more input on this. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 19:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep/merge. Ingoolemo talk 06:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC) . Redirect to party. The next time I see one of these, I'm speedying it as patent nonsense. Oh yeah, sockpuppets need to be quiet now. -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] [[additions | e-mail]] 12:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Super Bowl party

edit

Someone deleted this article without explanation as to why. Perhaps it should be deleted or merged somewhere. Should it? CarDepot 21:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - ulayiti (talk) 02:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suspended Animation, INC

edit

Advertising, nn. Delete. -- DS1953 talk 02:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus=redirect to Terrill Middle School Ingoolemo talk 06:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Terril Middle School

edit

DELETE PLEASE! Are we going to have stubs for every middle school in the world? WikiDon 06:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete nn middle school --JAranda | watz sup 06:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus=keep. Ingoolemo talk 06:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanksgiving dinner

edit

Someone deleted this without an explanation. Perhaps it should be deleted or merged somewhere. Should it? I vote keep. CarDepot 22:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete.  Denelson83  06:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That Darn Essay

edit

Pretty Very sure that this is a hoax: no mention on Google and it all sounds very, very unlikely...-- JoanneB 09:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was deleted as hoax. DS 13:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Ali Empire

edit

Obvious hoax. In fact, I think this AfD is a complete waste of time, but I am posting this at RHaworth's insistence. There is absolutely no reason not to speedy delete this and all associated pages created by the same user and IP. --Nlu 06:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Totally unverifiable and surely a hoax. —HorsePunchKid→龜 06:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A major hint as to the reason is contained in the same user's vandalism of October 28; this gave the hint that the user is 19 years old. It was probably created as a class project. --Nlu 07:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Please see the second AFD for the new (December 2006) discussion

Vanity - The article, now about a fake game, was simply created to generate attention for an obscure person, who in turn tried to re-sell the "fake" game in a private auction on his forum using this article as hype for the product. Nothing but a ruse to get traffic and money from a hoax. TSA 22:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. Nomination has the facts wrong about this article. The article has nothing to do with vanity, as I wrote the majority of the text back in November of 2005. There's no money or traffic to be had through this article at this point, nor was there any when the original article was put up, as I wasn't in possession of the alleged cart or even knew much more than what's in the article. Article is about a noted hoax that made the rounds throughout the internet. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Certainly not a vanity article, and I'd say it's a notable hoax, although it could use better referencing. BryanG(talk) 00:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the second AFD for the new (June 2006) discussion

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 (No consensus). --Titoxd(?!?) 00:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The_Legend_of_Zelda:_The_Triforce_Saga

edit

No content, blatent advertisement/spam GeminiDomino 04:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete jnothman talk 04:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This game has actually found some legs due to an alleged find of a prototype cart at a flea market. While the article name needs to be fixed to conform to whatever standard the Zelda people have set up, and the article needs to be cleaned up further, I have fixed the article somewhat to meet the standards of why it should be included in WP via removing the blatant ads and spam and replacing it with actual information. I'll withhold a vote until more info can come about regarding whether this article can be improved further. Keep. --badlydrawnjeff 14:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep of Badlydrawnjeff's edits. Even if this stays here the rest of its time without anyone adding anything else to it, there's still more information here than some other articles, and I thank Jeff for his work. However, it would be bad if it became a space for rampant speculation of the unsourced kind, which it might eventually because of the subject matter. So if kept, we should keep an eye on it. Jacqui ★ 15:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the main article; this is essentially unverifiable and of no real note even if it was. Nice rewrite, though. - Just zis Guy, you know? 16:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - What part of the Moody link makes you vote delete? Not only is that link already in the article, but it tends to increase, rather than decrease, verifibility of the existence of the game, even if the recent eBay cart is a hoax. --badlydrawnjeff 21:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - ulayiti (talk) 02:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Myths Of Redwall

edit

"The Myths of Redwall is a Roleplaying website under-construction." Aserts minimal notability as a Redwall RPG. Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 03:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Shadwells

edit

Probably a hoax. "The original singer Bart Day, was sadly killed in a wasp storm in Argentina" ??? There is a band in Surrey called the Shadwells, but their description doesn't sound anything like what's in the article. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 23:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting ... need more votes on this. Delete. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 19:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete both. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Spunkers and Cherry Strattico

edit

No mention of this band or the lead singer on allmusic.com. If this is voted for deletion, also remove Cherry Strattico from 1985 births section, List of musicians in the second wave of punk music, List of female singers and List of musicians of anarcho-punk. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free London Musical Press. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep Ingoolemo talk 06:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Zywicki

edit

Vanity page Nv8200p (talk) 15:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!?) 00:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VasoVerga

edit

Band vanity with 8 unique Google hits. Pilatus 16:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

myspace.com entry removed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfPlum (talk • contribs)


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

The result of the debate was delete. - ulayiti (talk) 01:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Virus Manga

edit

Non notable online manga/webcomic, found here. The page was nominated for deletion just over a year ago, resulting in a no consensus. Since then, it still hasn't established a wide fan base, nor has any other assertion of notability been established. A look on Google shows mostly links to a french language Manga magazine to which this article does not refer. And searching for the english language results mainly brings up wikipedia mirrors. - Hahnchen 00:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep Ingoolemo talk 06:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Von Neumann Cellular Automata

edit

Doesn't really say anything beyond the title. Basically an "I'll put something here soon" message that hasn't been touched since July. — Gwalla | Talk 05:21, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - ulayiti (talk) 01:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Waterlizard dot com

edit

A webpage with zero Alexa stats, found here. It's forums are desolate with hardly any activity. This just looks like a random guy's personal art site. - Hahnchen 00:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was errr... no consensus default to keep (20 deletes, 16 keeps, 2 merges - yeah, I actually counted them). - ulayiti (talk) 02:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whitman Middle School (Seattle, Washington)

edit
Agreeing with the above, but for slightly different reasons. 'Policy' isn't a reason to keep, as policy is in the end what the community consensus decides it will be. But consensus has consistantly shown that schools will not be deleted. Whatever individuals may prefer (and, if really pushed, I'd probably vote delete) this is the position. We have a defacto policy - accept it. Game over. --Doc (?) 14:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It may appear to be nitpicking, but I'd point out that consensus does not decide policy. Many decisions are made on Wikipedia by consensus, and some policies can be changed by consensus, but some are not. No personal attacks, for instance, which does not enjoy consensus support, is nevertheless official policy and we cannot ignore it with impunity. NPOV has been explicitly described by Jimbo Wales as "non-negotiable". Moreover, where a dozen or so editors decide to do something, this doesn't constitute a consensus. There is at most a grudging acceptance of deletion nominations that do not give adequate policy backing. --Tony SidawayTalk 16:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It should also be noted that a significent number of schools, including the vast majority below high school level, come up no consensus, not keep; the lower ones often with a simple majority for deletion. Although Schoolwatch, for some reason, makes no distinction between these, the difference is significent--repeating the same vote a thousand times on a thousand different articles still can't turn a no-consensus result into a consensus. Certainly, while there are some policies that cannot be challenged even by consensus, there is no policy that should be decided by a minority. --Aquillion 17:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely well put, and precisely the reason why the endlessly repeated cant of why schools should be kept per precedent (as itself consensus defining) is so off the mark. Dottore So 19:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well put, but irrelevant. There is no consensus to delete schools - so the schools will stay - and 10,000 more will come. You can keep testing that fact, or lammenting that fact, but there it is. Eventually it will be accepted. I may not like it, you may not like it, but there it stands. Of course, people have a perfect right to bang their head off walls, and perhaps I've been wrong to try to dissuade them, but sooner or later they have to realise that the head hurts and the wall doesn't really care. This game is over. --Doc (?) 19:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that there is no consensus to keep schools is superficially true, but objectively false. There is a consensus that, excepting speedy deletions which are normally decided by one or at most two persons, we will keep all articles unless there's a consensus to delete them. Thus school articles that have been kept have been kept by consensus. We don't use AfD to decide whether there's a consensus to keep a particular article; such a consensus may form but it's of no significance. The article is still kept if the debate forms no consensus at all. --Tony SidawayTalk 03:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is flawed in that it assumes that the same proportion of support is required for keeping or deleting a page.
... and exactly what precedent would that be? Chris talk back 20:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The precedent that not a single, verifiable, non-preschool school has been deleted via the AfD process since April (over 300 nominations).--Nicodemus75 01:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an AfD precedent. It just happens to be the case that since April 2005, there has been a concentrated effort to disrupt AfD, and put a category of articles beyond deletion. Moreover, it can't be a real precedent. If it were, it would be reversed pretty quickly, as any measure which effectively exempts a group of articles from the deletion process without any real reason to do so would make for a dangerous precedent. Articles such as Pope Benedict XVI are not exempt from deletion. Anyone may nominate it if they feel so inclined, they just might find the article kept with overwhelming, real consensus, as opposed to the junkies who think that the current state of affairs is anything like a consensus. I say junkies, because anyone who seriously believes that 51% is a mandate needs to tell me what they're taking so we can all get some. Chris talk back 20:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Family Altar Christian School and several others would disagree with that statement. The fact is there is no preceedent that has been concretely set. And preceedent is not consensus which is what we need to ultimately achieve. I think revisiting WP:SCH to make some progress like WP:MUSIC did would be the most constructive thing to do. Becuase the fact is many school articles are being kept by the skin of their teeth (ie: they have majority delete but get a no consensus vote).Gateman1997 01:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Family Altar Christian School was unverifiable. Why respond with a non-sequiter?--Nicodemus75 01:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am of the opinion it quite frankly doesn't matter to most of those voting "keep" on these articles what the subject or the contents are. The equation is quite simple. School=keep. Such an equation is utterly immune to reason, and no modification to WP:SCH will change it. Until those who take such a tack can appreciate that school articles must meet the same criteria of notability and excellence as ALL OTHER ARTICLES do, any attempt to achieve a consensus is doomed. Denni☯ 02:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • There is no general criterion of either notability or excellence in our deletion policy. The idea that there are such general criteria is a fiction. Articles on schools are no different from other articles, and as a matter of practice the debates involving those articles are closed in precisely the same manner, by the same set of closers, as other AfD debates. --Tony SidawayTalk 03:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • While there may be no formal recognition of notability asan inclusion criterion, there certainly is a fe facto one. Your experience at AfD must surely have shown you that. Moreover, Wikipedia:Deletion policy uses the word unabashedly in its descriptions of what is eligible for AfD and what is not. There will also soon be a poll opened to measure support for notability to be introduced as a formal criterion. I agree with you that school AfDs are closed in the same manner as all other articles and I don't have an issue with that. The big bone in my craw is how school articles are treated by those who vote. Articles appearing before AfD are, I have to assume (I may be wrong), read by people before votes are cast. In the case of school articles, however, it seems to me that a number of supporters simply vote "keep" because it's a school, and no matter how pathetic the article is, they are unwilling to cast a delete vote, or even refrain from voting. All I am asking is that if we must accept school articles (And I have come to that acceptance), let us at least assure that they are good articles. Denni☯ 00:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete middle schools (and other items with a default presumption of non-notability) unless (A) they play a key role in the history or development of middle schooling (or pedagogy in general) or (B) they are otherwise the subject of sustained interest on the regional, national or international level, or reasonably expected to be so. flowersofnight (talk) 16:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or delete if you also delete University of Michigan which is not a notable educational institute in my view given its a Michigan State University rival. --Cool Cat Talk 01:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it, I'll let you guess why Broken S 02:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This statement is logically flawed. Chris talk back 20:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete under CSD A1 Karmafist 02:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wife Breeding

edit

Barely understandable dicdef, with poorly written, meandering content. Fails to assert notability or credibility. PeruvianLlama(spit) 21:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - ulayiti (talk) 02:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject:major league baseball

edit

Poorly formatted and just a redundant and less updated copy of whats on 2005 in baseball. Jobe6   02:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also in a non existant "wikiproject" space. So thats why its not at Miscellany for deletion. Jobe6   02:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!?) 00:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

World Without Zionism

edit

The only notable material that could possibly be covered in this article is already covered in the article for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The conference was un-noteworthy aside from Ahmadinejad's comments. Since those comments are already covered and since it's unlikely that anyone would ever reach this page without seeing the link on the Ahmadinejad's entry, I think this page probably ought to be deleted. I appreciate the effort put into it by all the contributors, but I simply can not see anything ever coming of this stub (beyond what is covered in the other article). So basically I think it should be deleted for non-notability and for being redundant.Jakob Huneycutt 17:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_2&oldid=1234127175"