Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 September 30

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< September 29 October 1 >

Purge server cache

September 30

edit

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

The result of the debate was Speedied as nonsense/nn-bio --Doc (?) 00:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Monroe mann

edit

While an actor with this name exists IMDb he is a not notable actor with a brief appearance in 1 movie. Also the article is slanderous and full of inaccuracies. feydey 00:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 22:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ping972

edit

Although this webcomic is now defunct, if it were notable, I should be able to find some mention of it in Google. Google only has 25 results for ping972, and a search for ping 972 returns nothing which suggests the webcomic was notable. Article claims it was mentioned by another webcomic, but I don't feel this is notable, nor is being available in 2 languages. - Hahnchen 00:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 22:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By a Thread

edit

Bandity. DS 23:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 17:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chili powder (color)

edit

All of the colour articles were subject to a blanket AfD here. This was closed as a delete all, although the talk page for that AfD was tabulated otherwise. VfU opted to undelete all the articles and give them seperate AfDs (see the bottom of VfU for my reasoning on this). So here they are. If you wish to make a blanket comment on these articles please copy paste your comment into each — do not expect the closer to extrapolate your intent in these exceptional circumstances. Thank you. No comment from me. -Splashtalk 00:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 17:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Feldspar (color)

edit

All of the colour articles were subject to a blanket AfD here. This was closed as a delete all, although the talk page for that AfD was tabulated otherwise. VfU opted to undelete all the articles and give them seperate AfDs (see the bottom of VfU for my reasoning on this). So here they are. If you wish to make a blanket comment on these articles please copy paste your comment into each — do not expect the closer to extrapolate your intent in these exceptional circumstances. Thank you. No comment from me. -Splashtalk 00:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 17:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fire brick red

edit

All of the colour articles were subject to a blanket AfD here. This was closed as a delete all, although the talk page for that AfD was tabulated otherwise. VfU opted to undelete all the articles and give them seperate AfDs (see the bottom of VfU for my reasoning on this). So here they are. If you wish to make a blanket comment on these articles please copy paste your comment into each — do not expect the closer to extrapolate your intent in these exceptional circumstances. Thank you. No comment from me. -Splashtalk 23:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splashtalk 17:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fire engine red

edit

All of the colour articles were subject to a blanket AfD here. This was closed as a delete all, although the talk page for that AfD was tabulated otherwise. VfU opted to undelete all the articles and give them seperate AfDs (see the bottom of VfU for my reasoning on this). So here they are. If you wish to make a blanket comment on these articles please copy paste your comment into each — do not expect the closer to extrapolate your intent in these exceptional circumstances. Thank you. No comment from me. -Splashtalk 23:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 17:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Metallic Rose

edit

All of the colour articles were subject to a blanket AfD here. This was closed as a delete all, although the talk page for that AfD was tabulated otherwise. VfU opted to undelete all the articles and give them seperate AfDs (see the bottom of VfU for my reasoning on this). So here they are. If you wish to make a blanket comment on these articles please copy paste your comment into each — do not expect the closer to extrapolate your intent in these exceptional circumstances. Thank you. No comment from me. -Splashtalk 00:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 17:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Olive-yellow

edit

All of the colour articles were subject to a blanket AfD here. This was closed as a delete all, although the talk page for that AfD was tabulated otherwise. VfU opted to undelete all the articles and give them seperate AfDs (see the bottom of VfU for my reasoning on this). So here they are. If you wish to make a blanket comment on these articles please copy paste your comment into each — do not expect the closer to extrapolate your intent in these exceptional circumstances. Thank you. No comment from me. -Splashtalk 00:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 17:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pale gray-red

edit

All of the colour articles were subject to a blanket AfD here. This was closed as a delete all, although the talk page for that AfD was tabulated otherwise. VfU opted to undelete all the articles and give them seperate AfDs (see the bottom of VfU for my reasoning on this). So here they are. If you wish to make a blanket comment on these articles please copy paste your comment into each — do not expect the closer to extrapolate your intent in these exceptional circumstances. Thank you. No comment from me. -Splashtalk 00:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 17:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Persian Sunset

edit

All of the colour articles were subject to a blanket AfD here. This was closed as a delete all, although the talk page for that AfD was tabulated otherwise. VfU opted to undelete all the articles and give them seperate AfDs (see the bottom of VfU for my reasoning on this). So here they are. If you wish to make a blanket comment on these articles please copy paste your comment into each — do not expect the closer to extrapolate your intent in these exceptional circumstances. Thank you. No comment from me. -Splashtalk 00:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 17:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pink-cerise

edit

All of the colour articles were subject to a blanket AfD here. This was closed as a delete all, although the talk page for that AfD was tabulated otherwise. VfU opted to undelete all the articles and give them seperate AfDs (see the bottom of VfU for my reasoning on this). So here they are. If you wish to make a blanket comment on these articles please copy paste your comment into each — do not expect the closer to extrapolate your intent in these exceptional circumstances. Thank you. No comment from me. -Splashtalk 00:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 17:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Red-pink

edit

All of the colour articles were subject to a blanket AfD here. This was closed as a delete all, although the talk page for that AfD was tabulated otherwise. VfU opted to undelete all the articles and give them seperate AfDs (see the bottom of VfU for my reasoning on this). So here they are. If you wish to make a blanket comment on these articles please copy paste your comment into each — do not expect the closer to extrapolate your intent in these exceptional circumstances. Thank you. No comment from me. -Splashtalk 00:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splashtalk 17:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Raspberry (color)

edit

All of the colour articles were subject to a blanket AfD here. This was closed as a delete all, although the talk page for that AfD was tabulated otherwise. VfU opted to undelete all the articles and give them seperate AfDs (see the bottom of VfU for my reasoning on this). So here they are. If you wish to make a blanket comment on these articles please copy paste your comment into each — do not expect the closer to extrapolate your intent in these exceptional circumstances. Thank you. No comment from me. -Splashtalk 00:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splashtalk 18:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rose (color)

edit

All of the colour articles were subject to a blanket AfD here. This was closed as a delete all, although the talk page for that AfD was tabulated otherwise. VfU opted to undelete all the articles and give them seperate AfDs (see the bottom of VfU for my reasoning on this). So here they are. If you wish to make a blanket comment on these articles please copy paste your comment into each — do not expect the closer to extrapolate your intent in these exceptional circumstances. Thank you. No comment from me. -Splashtalk 00:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep for all the reasons that there was no consensus to delete this one in the earier AfD - even if some of the current material needs to be scrapped, rose is definitely a notable color. -- BD2412 talk 00:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I voted delete all up top, and I would still delete this one. Surely, this would be better if just included in the Rose article, its not like theres a lot of information here is there? - Hahnchen 00:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • This one has more potential than most - it can be found in poetry, literature, music, heraldry - consider the expression, "rose-colored glasses"! -- BD2412 talk 00:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, there are enough cultural references for this. Pilatus 01:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this one is rather widespread. I'd suggest replacing the sample with a picture of a red rose though. Gazpacho 01:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Petra, John William Burgon
Match me such marvel save in Eastern clime,
A rose-red city - half as old as time!
Dlyons493 Talk 01:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 17:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sphaerocobaltite (color)

edit

All of the colour articles were subject to a blanket AfD here. This was closed as a delete all, although the talk page for that AfD was tabulated otherwise. VfU opted to undelete all the articles and give them seperate AfDs (see the bottom of VfU for my reasoning on this). So here they are. If you wish to make a blanket comment on these articles please copy paste your comment into each — do not expect the closer to extrapolate your intent in these exceptional circumstances. Thank you. No comment from me. -Splashtalk 00:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was MERGE to Terra cotta. -Splashtalk 18:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Terra cotta (color)

edit

All of the colour articles were subject to a blanket AfD here. This was closed as a delete all, although the talk page for that AfD was tabulated otherwise. VfU opted to undelete all the articles and give them seperate AfDs (see the bottom of VfU for my reasoning on this). So here they are. If you wish to make a blanket comment on these articles please copy paste your comment into each — do not expect the closer to extrapolate your intent in these exceptional circumstances. Thank you. No comment from me. -Splashtalk 00:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Tomato. This is the only one of these that is at all difficult to call. We're just about over two-thirds to delete on numbers, and I don't honestly understand why people think this is useful as a redirect given the vast unlikeliness of anybody thinking to search for it, parentheses and all. However, given how clear the other debates were, and the vascillation by Tim Pope, I'll say there's not outright consensus to delete and will apply the redirect. RfD may feel differently if someone wants to try that. -Splashtalk 18:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tomato (color)

edit

All of the colour articles were subject to a blanket AfD here. This was closed as a delete all, although the talk page for that AfD was tabulated otherwise. VfU opted to undelete all the articles and give them seperate AfDs (see the bottom of VfU for my reasoning on this). So here they are. If you wish to make a blanket comment on these articles please copy paste your comment into each — do not expect the closer to extrapolate your intent in these exceptional circumstances. Thank you. No comment from me. -Splashtalk 00:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 18:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Starsomething

edit

None notable Keenspace comic found here along with the martian surface forums here. A run of just over 60 comics followed by a hiatus since November last year. The article makes no assertion of notability, there is nothing here to distinguish this from every other website out there. - Hahnchen 00:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 18:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Demonic Boppu

edit

A defunct webcomic hosted on keenspace, found here. A google search along with the article content show no assertion of notability. Although the comic apparently lasted over 3 years from 2001 to 2004, this does not mean it is notable, no matter what WP:COMIC may claim. Wikipedia is not a memorial for the dead, moreover it is not a memorial to dead websites. - Hahnchen 00:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn Ashibaka (tock) 02:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Be careful about the adversarial tone, though, please; I disagree with WP:COMIC too, but the standards were made in good faith. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 06:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think this is a memorial for the dead. While the main comic has ended, that was only due to the storyline coming to an end. It's not because the Webcomic artist gave up on it. Her latest comic is still set in the same "world" as Demonic Boppu, and is in many ways a sequel. I had every intention of adding to this article when I had time, and more information. I'm sorry if you do not agree with the standards of WP:COMIC but in many ways the comic meets those standards. Perhaps you should set your sights on changing the standards first? Arleas 23:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • May I introduce you to comixPedia, a wiki for comics? You should start and expand your article on Demonic Boppu there, it doesn't exist yet. I know if you were a fan of the comic, it's nice to see an article on wikipedia, but it really isn't the place for it, especially ones which have not stated their notability. - Hahnchen 16:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 18:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Syntax Error (webcomic)

edit

A non notable webcomic which can be found here. Although Alexa figures can be misleading, a ranking of over 2 million must mean it is not popular. A google search for syntax errors comic shows up nothing which would make this website more notable than any other, and a google search for syntax errors just gives pages about actual syntax errors. Yet again, this is a comic found on wikipedia and not Comixpedia where it belongs, due to the massively lax inclusion criteria at WP:COMIC. - Hahnchen 00:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep (at least in some form) and move to correct spelling. Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vercvactor

edit

Very Very minor Roman God 412 Google hits very little for a Roman God almost of them non related or licened from here. Delete --JAranda | yeah 00:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 18:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arvind Vaz

edit

Was becoming a revert mess (speedy not speedy) by a couple of users, so I tagged it AFD better, Abstain -- (☺drini♫|☎) 00:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also', it has been deleted once before. Citizen Premier 05:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 18:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fox & Apple

edit

Non notable webcomic which can be found here. The comic looks defunct with a run of 29 strips on their archive. Nothing I can find suggests it's more notable than any other website. - Hahnchen 01:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Shockingly. Amazingly. Unusually. -Splashtalk 18:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

St. Anne School (Seattle, Washington)

edit

Delete as this does not appear to be encyclopedic material. [edit] 01:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no notable alumni / no notable discoveries / no notable events / not gonna get deleted anyway - Hahnchen 01:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Verifiable middle school. Pburka 01:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Yellow Pages. Pilatus 01:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools - it verifiably exists. Dlyons493 Talk 01:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since it does exist and we keep other school articles. --Rschen7754 01:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn school even though its going to be kept --JAranda | yeah 02:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this is an educational institution which is important to the community it serves. Additional reasons for including this article may be read at Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Silensor 02:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All schools are important to the community they serve. Inclusion in an encyclopedia suggests something of universal public noteworthiness; elsewise WP would engulf the whole internet. To include it in a ONE-PAGE list of ALL schools in Seattle, on the other hand, would probably be quite useful. Twang
  • Keep. Usual reasons. Grace Note 05:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, good substantial stub, no contest. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, concise and completely adequate coverage of the topic. Inclusion in wikipedia should be determined by the kind of things people would reasonably hope to find in it. Kappa 07:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Even at this short length it is rambling and padded - "Here is a quote from the St. Anne home page" it says. Better off merging into a wider overview of such schools - possibly to a new Catholic schools in Seattle rather than the Education in Seattle table. Don't waste the time of people reading the pages - all we need from the current article is name, founding date, age range taught and number of students, and you can do that in a table with the rest of the Catholic schools in Seattle (since there are four catholic high schools, I'd assume there are a number of catholic primary schools). The rest is waffle. Average Earthman 09:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Please do not nominate any more schools. It is a waste of everyone's time. CalJW 09:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, local grocery shops are more important to their community than schools. Can't go to school if you're dead of starvation. Just because something is provided as a public service and involves children or something equally cute doesn't mean it's more important than any local business, or the public gasworks for that matter. Oh lord, forgive us our cruft, as we forgive those who cruft against us, and lead us not into inclusionism, but deliver us from American high schools and garage bands... --Last Malthusian 09:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and please do not merge this the school is from 1923 so it can expand Yuckfoo 16:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A perfectly good start to an article on this inherently notable school.--Nicodemus75 19:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete primary schools are not deserving of articles in an encyclopedia. Dunc|☺ 19:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a worthwhile article on a unique school. Do not merge, since it would mean people who do want to find it, won't be able to, while people neither looking nor interested in the specific school will see it mixed in with stuff they are interested in. Those not interested in this article should ignore it, and worry about creating and improving articles they are interested in. --rob 19:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Hahnchen. Marskell 20:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No particualr indication of notability, and this is a primary school, which means I would require rather exceptional notability. DES (talk) 22:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep --Vsion 22:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep  ALKIVAR™  00:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article about a real school that does not assert that school's importance or significance. Denni☯ 02:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems perfectly encyclopedic to me. Why are we still nominating schools for deletion? --Centauri 02:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. With every single one of the articles listed in the September 21 mass-nomination of elementary and middle school articles now closed as a no consensus keep, the success rate of school deletion listings has dropped from its previous low of 13% earlier in September to 11% now. And from now on nobody on Wikipedia will regard elementary school deletions as a pushover. So far for September, one school article has been deleted for 49 kept. The deleted article was a hoax. --Tony SidawayTalk 02:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it may almost be time to re-open a wide-ranging debate about Policy. Given the survival of almost all schools at the AfD process, the chronic nomination of schools (particularly mass-nominations) is steering very close to disruptive behavior, going forward. I think the question needs to be put to those that do not believe schools to be notable institutions in their own right, how many elementary schools have to survive the AfD process in order to establish a "rough concensus" that school articles (and stubs) should not be deleted? I'm not merely asking this rhetorically, but how many AfD votes that do not result in article deletion are necessary to establish "rough concensus" to "not delete" (as opposed to a concensus to "keep")? An honest and open debate on that question will soon need to begin, in order to end the abuse of AfD with multi and mass-nominations of school stub articles that will doubtless survive the AfD process. The issue is not whether schools should be debated on "their own merits" but whether or not "elementary schools are non-notable" is a legitimate reason to nominate an article (or 21 of them in one day) for AfD. If a policy can established on that question, then we could actually debate each school on it's merits as an article.--Nicodemus75 15:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • "elementary schools are non-notable" is not a valid reason to put one on AfD, but "this elementary schools is non-notable" is a good reason. However, it's impossible to actually do this at the moment, because of the large "schools are notable by definition" movement. It is clear that the continuing nominations of NN schools for AfD indicate a sizable minority of Wikipedians disagree with the premise that schools are inherently notable. A middle ground is required - as has already been suggested, a page with a table of schools in a particular district (and other misc. info like roll size, founding date, etc.), and any notable schools can be linked to from their entry on that table.--inks 23:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's that simple. Vegaswikian 06:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Also simple. Why people wage a useless war to fight something wanted by a large portion of the community still baffles me. I don't like or dislike school articles, but I see reasonably that enough folks do such that they will always live. Xoloz 07:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I thought schools were not to be deleted any more, it wastes time. Let us vote on an offical policy to have schools not be deleted just for being a school article, I'm sure that policy will pass if someone puts it to a vote ;). --ShaunMacPherson 08:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per User:Twang. This topic is in grave danger of becoming "Keep articles on schools, because we always do, it's tradition", if we just fast forward a few years :) --inks 08:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • In grave danger? This has already happened, even if some haven't caught on yet. Because WP embraces consensus (and keeps by default unless ~70% favor deletion), and because enough committed editors care about these articles (claiming schools are public institutions, and ipso facto, notable), these articles will almost always stay. NB: I don't care, really; I don't know whether I think schools are notable, but I understand that enough people do such that a decision has effectively already been taken. Soon enough, indifferent editors like me will understand the same, and this rough keep consensus will become policy. Xoloz 08:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problems with a broad "keep articles on schools" policy is the inevitable extension to encompass primary schools, kindergardens, creches, technical schools, military schools, vocational colleges, language schools, art schools, schools for the gifted (and not so gifted) and other innumerable variations of organised education. I would personally prefer each article to be debated on its own merits, which happens for just about everything else. A quick look at the comments on this page suggests that I'm not alone here (although I am outnumbered) :)--inks 09:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think the fear of extension to kindergartens and language schools is exaggerated. I don't see why you want to debate every single article on wikipedia "on its merits", there are far too many new articles to do that. Kappa 12:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Over the past year the argument has shifted from just keeping all secondary schools, to now keeping primary schools as well- I fail to see why this trend will not continue. The problem with school article votes is that there a lot of people who believe schools are always notable simply for being a school. A minority of the people who bother voting on these articles believe that school articles should demonstrate notability in the same way bands, websites, etc have to (i.e. they should be more notable than the average). This is yet another average school, so delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --G Rutter 20:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think your belief that there are a lot of people who think kindergartens are always notable for being kindergartens is mistaken. Kappa 23:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well, we now have a majority who think elementary schools are always notable for being elementary schools. Perhaps kindergardens might be a bit of a stretch, but the point regarding "definition creep" is still valid. We debate every other AfD entry on merit, it seems odd to exclude schools from this process.--inks 00:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • We don't debate villages, or universities, or metro stations, or major league baseball players, or pokemons, or Simpons episodes, or battleships... Kappa 00:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • Kappa, you have not been here long enough to remember when even high schools had to meet notability criteria. At that time, those who expressed concerns that elementary schools would be next on the list if high schools were granted automatic right-to-exist status were pooh-poohed. Look, however, at the last spate of AfD nominations, and the comments made by users such as yourself. I will not be surprised at all when arguments begin to be made for the automatic inclusion of kindergartens and daycares, on the sole ground that they are "inherently notable". This is what I fight. I have no objection whatever to articles on genuinely notable schools. I would have no objection to an article on a genuinely notable daycare or kindergarten either. At the same time, I oppose the blanket inclusion of any public institution. And yes, if I had my druthers, battleships, Simpsons episodes, and baseball playeres would all have to meet entry criteria as well. It is, however, a disingenuous argument that just because they are currently immune from AfD, so too should something else be. (Oh, and trust me, pokemon characters are not all sacrosanct. I've happily seen a few go into the furnace recently.) Denni☯ 01:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                        • I feel motivated to speak in Kappa's defense here. Kate's tool says he has been here since Sept. 2004, and that you've only been here eight months longer, Denni. No offense, but I do believe it's natural and expected for consensus to evolve, and I think its a bit irrelevant to refer to an older state of affairs that apparently existed 21 months ago, but had dissolved as early as 13 months ago, as if it were of precedential value. On a related note, it seems to me that the "rump" of opposition that continues to fight high schools only serves to promote other schools. Those who oppose schools rarely make any distinction among grade-levels, so why should their adversaries. Xoloz 22:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Thanks Xolox well put. As I said, I think the fears of people claiming daycares to be "inherently notable" are exaggerated, but the most likely way to create such people is by continually attacking educational institutions as non-notable. The idea that consensus should be torn up on baseball players, Simpsons episodes etc, seems an incredibly retrograde step, exposing every editor who would try to improve such articles to a semi-random threat of deletion. Kappa 02:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Uh....so you mean to say that if we keep saying X is non-Notable, people will tend to think the opposite??--inksT 03:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                            • If you keep saying "non-notable, delete" about things that people think should be kept, it will reduce the amount of notability they demand from any topic. Kappa 04:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                              • If you keep saying "notable, keep" about things that people think should be deleted, it will increase the amount of notability they demand from any topic. Nobody wins, and Wikipedia loses. I think consensus is transient and relative to a particular article - to try and extend it to a class of articles results in the current problem. Not all schools (or Pokemon) are created equal.--inksT 05:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                                • You could call it "transient" and "relative" but to me it seems a lot like "inconsistent" and "arbitrary". Kappa 05:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                                  • If you agree that consensus is "inconsistent" and "arbitrary", how can you then state that there exists consensus on school articles?? *confused*--inksT 01:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                                    • Consensus on a class of articles is more consistent and less arbitrary than semi-random decisions on each one. However, I certainly don't claim consensus exists on schools, the deletionists reject all attempts to build it. Kappa 10:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. -- DS1953 18:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn school. Dottore So 20:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep verifiable and NPOV information of a school. Reasoning at Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Unfocused 03:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Perhaps a worthwhile mental exercise when considering AfDs relating to institutions is to imagine the subject as a person. In this case, we would have "St Anne's School is a teacher who lives in Seattle. She is five foot four, has brown hair and blue eyes (this is the equivalent of the data on the school's ethnic makeup). She thinks she's a very good teacher." Would that be notable? The fact that the school is a few thousand times bigger than a person makes no odds - zero notability multiplied by a thousand equals zero notability. --Last Malthusian 13:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • that is your opinion lm but not one that really holds up because schools are not humans it is kind of like comparing a can of apple sauce and an apple sauce factory Yuckfoo 14:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not so much trying to argue notability or lack of, but suggesting a different approach: the question of whether these articles contain any encyclopaedic information. Ethnicity data for a school or an American county may look impressive, but without some kind of "value-added" it's no more useful than someone's eye colour. And my other argument stands: if an entity consists of several thousand people, it means nothing if they're all non-notable. --Last Malthusian 16:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm tired of retyping the same justification for worthless articles being deleted.Gateman1997 21:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, doesn't assert any notability.  Grue  16:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above. JYolkowski // talk 21:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. Bahn Mi 21:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge do not keep this non-notable school as is. Reads like an ad too. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 09:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As a public service, I make it Delete - 16, Keep - 18, and Merge - 4 as of this line :)--inksT 09:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert 23:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Devious vs. Lincoln High

edit

A webcomic, found here, along with its haunted house forums here, with all its 50 members. No assertion of notability, google search brings up nothing to assert notability either, although I have found out that Dr Devious was a previous Derby winner. - Hahnchen 01:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 18:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Film Presentation

edit

Personal Essay/Discussion Forum for an English Class. A recreation of the 149 Presentation idea [3] (only editor of both was User:Engl149), and 149 Presentation was speedied 4 times before protection from recreation. Wikipedia is not a free host or webspace provider nor is it a place for personal essays or discussion forums. Cursive 01:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 18:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dan dings

edit

Obscure bandcruft NeilN 01:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 18:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The All-American Good Looking Guys

edit

This article is either a hoax or band vanity. Can't find on Google or All Music. -- Kjkolb 01:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city (or both, as in British hip hop); note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.

They meet this criteria, as they are the primary band in their genre of the city of Severna Park, Maryland. Their genre being Experimental in areas of grundge and grindcore. Do not delete.

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

The result of the debate was Merge. Rx StrangeLove 00:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My Big Fat Pizza Party

edit

Delete as this does not appear to be notable. This is a one paragraph stub about a single episode of the Disney Channel's That's So Raven. [edit] 01:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied as nn-bio (A7) --Doc (?) 08:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sayyid Ahmad Shaheed al-Hasani

edit

Delete. No claim of notability. Claim that some of his ancestors were notable, but nothing in the article claims that this person has done anything noteworthy. ♠DanMS 01:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splashtalk 18:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Petrea Burchard

edit

This is not an article, this is a minor actress' CV (complete with headshot). And no, clean-up won't make her any more notable. Delete. Calton | Talk 01:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Bear community. -Splashtalk 21:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Musclebear

edit

Neoplogism ≈ jossi ≈ 01:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Hermione1980 22:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jamil al Banna

edit

nn ≈ jossi ≈ 01:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied (again) --Doc (?) 08:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rube Chat

edit

Non-notable forum/chat room/channel. Almost empty, almost nonsense, but not quite.Jkelly 02:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it up. Rube chat is a community that has a life unto its own. While its roots are in MN, the fanbase is spreading. It may not be notable to those without a grasping of sports or who do not live in the Twin Cities metro area, to others it is a great source of fun and camaraderie. mech_e from Rube Chat

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splashtalk 21:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Betrayal

edit

Wikitionary entry ≈ jossi ≈ 02:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus (13 keep, 10 delete, 5 merge). I did move this article to The Star Spangled Banner (Whitney Houston single), though. Robert 22:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Star Spangled Banner (Whitney Houston song)

edit

Surely every major rendition of "The Star-Spangled Banner" is not going to get its own article. As such, delete or summerize and merge--no redirect--to an article on an album or on the singer herself. FuriousFreddy 02:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the GFDL requires merges to be finished with a redirect. Deletion would destroy the edit history. - Mgm|(talk) 09:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I hadn't thought about that. Thank you. --Blackcap | talk 15:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you didn't think of that. It's not true<g>. There's no reason attribution can't be given in an edit summary or on a talk page. - Nunh-huh 04:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but after reading WP:MM it seems like it doesn't hurt anything to have the redirect, and is simpler that having to paste the edit history into a talk page. It'd be a lot of info to put into an edit summary. --Blackcap | talk 06:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (12 keep, 7 delete, 4 merge). However, I did move the article to Do You Know Where You're Going To? (Theme from Mahogany) (Mariah Carey recording). Robert 23:27, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do You Know Where You're Going To? (Theme from Mahogany) (Mariah Carey song)

edit

Article about a cover of a Diana Ross song. This song was not a hit in any country, and was not given a full release as a single. The article fails to establish any other notablility, and therefor the neccessity for a seperate article is questionable. Not even the orignal song has enough information availabel on it to honestly have its own article (this article was in fact written first, with only passing mention to the more notable original). The original version had a stub article which I have now merged and redirected to Mahogany (1975 film), where it reads better (well, at least I am trying to redirect it, although OmegaWikipedia seems intent on reverting the redirection, for unexplained reasons). Suggest a redirect for this article to the album, with summarization of article text. If and when someone wants to write one article about the composition and any notable recorded versions of it, and has enough information and established notablility to do so, it can be done. FuriousFreddy 01:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's an infobox in the singles' articles. Each of them links to the previous single and the next single. It would look odd if it linked to the article of an album or different song, ad those couldn't include the singles' infobox. Alensha 11:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect to the single's album easily solves that problem. It also ads the benefit of a ombined album/single chronology. --FuriousFreddy 14:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Speedied by JoJan --Doc (?) 08:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sunrise Medical

edit

Delete as this is link spam and non-encyclopedic. [edit] 02:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to List of shock sites. Robert 23:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Meatspin

edit

Non-notable shock site, description already merged to list of shock sites. Almost WP:CSD A3. Ilmari Karonen 02:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD tag was removed from this page by 67.80.77.53. I put it back. >: Roby Wayne Talk • Hist 23:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lim_Peh_Oh

edit

This article is non-verifiable, with no credible references provided. Very likely false. 203.163.111.98 02:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 21:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Angry Zen Master

edit

Why are people putting up articles on webcomics even though they have no assertion of notability whatsoever? Alexa ranks it at over 600k and that's the main site, this comic leads off it! It's only been online since March this year, and Google search shows nothing to assert its notability. [6] [7]. We should be transwiking things over from comixPedia when comics achieve notability, not the other way round. - Hahnchen 02:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, leaning towards merge. Discounting sockpuppets, there are 10 keep, 5 delete, and 10 merge votes. While merging this article was more strongly requested than, say, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Do You Know Where You're Going To? (Theme from Mahogany) (Mariah Carey song), I do not think there is enough agreement on what action should be taken. I did, however, move this article to Santa Claus Is Comin' to Town (Mariah Carey single). Robert 23:39, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Claus Is Comin' to Town (Mariah Carey song)

edit

See above discussions. FuriousFreddy 02:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Discounting sockpuppets, there were 9 keep, 3 delete, and 8 merge votes. As with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santa Claus Is Comin' to Town (Mariah Carey song), I do not think there is enough consensus on what action should be taken. However, I did move the article to O Holy Night (Mariah Carey single). Robert 23:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

O Holy Night (Mariah Carey song)

edit

See above discussions. FuriousFreddy 02:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zededarian

edit

Vanity. Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splashtalk 21:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ellis Hollins

edit

Fails the criteria for an appropriate actor bio: no media features, fan base, independent bio, name recog, or commercial endorsements. Ziggurat 02:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Although he is listed as making guest appearances in Hollyoaks on IMDB, he is definitely now a regular cast member and should now probably be listed as such on IMDB. I've padded out the article a little but as he is now a regular cast member on a popular TV show, he meets the criteria to have an article as Hollyoaks is seen by a relatively large audience every day. Candice 12:50 30 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert 23:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Frycookonvenus

edit

nn quote from movie, and advertisement for web site based on it. — brighterorange (talk) 02:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pie2k

edit

A webcomic with found here with no alexa rank. A google search shows for pie2k shows about 3 links regarding this comic, and the rest were irrelevent. For the creator of this article, please take a look at comixPedia, a wiki for comics. - Hahnchen 02:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete since it was an attack page. Zach (Sound Off) 02:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Terminator 4

edit

A crystal ball. A really, really, poor crystal ball. Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Personally as a fan for me the buck stops at T2. As a Wikipedian, an article on this movie should not be too speculative, and should not be written until valid confirmation of basic story, cast and shooting/release dates is given Dessydes

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

The result of the debate was DELETE (4 keep, 18 delete) Robert 23:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs in movie trailers that are not in the movie

edit
This nomination was not completed; listing now. Flowerparty■ 02:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think this list is even "important" enough to be in an encyclopedia. I don't think that anyone would ever go looking for th is information and go "wow that's interesting", but I could be wrong. But I just think the list is pretty pointless. Private Butcher 00:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. I'll add a merge tag or two, though. -Splashtalk 21:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of hidden tracks

edit

There are thousands of hidden tracks.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert 23:30, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Philliesphans.com

edit

Non-notable fansite. Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

This is the best phan site in the history of phandom. To delete a Philadelphia fan website would be yet another blow in a long sorry history of Philliephandom. It is OK with me if you delete the Phillies web site, if that violates some Wiki rules. If given a chance this page will grow into a source of baseball knowledge and philadelphia phandom knowledge.joboggi Sept 30, 2005

Above comment by anonymous user User:208.59.165.121, who has three edits, all involving this article and this AFD page. Ral315 WS 15:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Keep it. You will feel better about yourself.

Keep-I came across this page today and I find it very valuable. I get to see how phillies fans think on a real board.

Keep-I originally said delete, but finding now that there is an entry for "Sons of Sam Horn" I've changed my opinion. The entry will be upgraded in terms of appearance and content shortly, if it is not deleted, by board members. I have no idea why "Sons" should be notable, but "philliesphans" wouild be non-notable. Is is a Red Sox vs. Phillies thing, or does it have to do with the entry itself? --phillychuck, a moderator of said site.

Keep- and it seems the majority here agrees.

Just a note that the forum does have a topic about the Wikipedia article and its AfD status, and though they, to their credit, don't seem to be calling out the vote on this, I think it's safe to say that the majority if not the entirety of this collection of anonys are simply forum members sticking up for their board. Lord Bob 20:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I just read that, and think it's worth mentioning that they do seem to be fairly mature about it, which is better than a number of forum-based stuff that's been deleted in the past. The post by "donmoney" is particularly good and quite reasonable about the whole thing. For anyone coming here from the forum, I'd like to point out that ( 1 ) we're voting about the topic, not the article... it isn't a matter of making it bigger, or adding pictures, or anything like that ( 2 ) votes from new or anonymous users generally aren't counted, and a whole lot of them tends to make the article look bad and thus less likely to be kept. Feel free to comment and add to the discussion though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Even though I initiated the AfD, I'd like to second Starblind's note on how they are handeling it. Props. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, Son of Sam Horn warrants a page. If you take a look at the site it is as good as any, and certainly as good as Son of Sam Horn. The discussion of sabremetrics demystifies these stats for many uninformed phans. The folks posting are generally professionals. donmoney being a lawyer, PC is in stats and so on. As with Son of Sam Horn the contacts that post on the site often scoop the media on Phillies information. The site is not commercial in any way, contrary to a note at the top of the page. joboggi

Delete, delete, delete. This group makes baseball sound so dry and empty. Lacking in passion and color. Their use of stats is pointed out as a reason to be allowed on wiki. Their gross overuse of stats sucks all the life out of this passionate game. This is not an attempt at serious archiving but in advertising this site. Delete.

Let me add a comment--we have no need nor desire to advertise the board broadly (or narrowly). We want quality of content, not quantity, and we do not run a single advertisement, nor make a single cent profit from any poster. The site is entirely privately funded by the founder, and has never accepted a donation nor solicited support of any kind. If one is a phillies fan (or likes to discuss politics or philosophy), sure, we'd love to have you come by occasionally. My feeling still is that SOSH, though a bit more prominent nationally, is a perfect precedent for this decision (wiki mgmt may not know that this board was notable in the fight by private fan boards to stop MLB from shutting down private fan sites, was written up in the Phila. Inquirer for this, and participated materially in getting the Phils to acknowledge (again with help from the Inky) that they had mis-measured the dimensions of Citizen Bank Park, and was active in helping to apprehend and convict a noted internet criminal). Regarding the use of stats on the board and making baseball "dry"--that's a joke. We just want people who make assertions ("Bobby Abreu stinks") to support their position with some reasoned arguments, which, in baseball, often leads to the use of stats. The part of the stats FAQ posted in the article is an attempt to HELP users unfamiliar with sabermetric stats decipher posts from users who employ them, nothing more. --phillychuck again

Delete. nn website. Now I feel better. User:Zoe|(talk) 07:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, management weighed in when the site was two lines of joke material. In the baseball world, this site is very well respected as noted in PCs message above. joboggi

KEEP- you elitist snobs, there are some websites that are listed on here that if they are here so should this.

KEEP-DISCO STU

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Even if I discount Joaquin Murietta as they'd only been here one day, and lump all the deletes and merges together, I'm still not satisified there is a consensus on what to do. -Splashtalk 00:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bengbu Public Security Bureau

edit

non notable article by a user with a history of trying to push his agenda. Wikipedia is not a forum for propaganda.

Sarcelles 22:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and Expand, obviously notable but needs more text and perhaps some sources cited if possible. Piecraft 15:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above comment. ··gracefool |☺ 17:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am reopening this poll because it was closed prematurely, before everyone with an opinion about this matter has expressed his/her views. As such, there is no consensus on whether this article should be kept or deleted. Nor do I think that the situation has been sufficiently explained. Here are three reasons why this article should be deleted:
    1. Precedents. Sarcelles has previously created 4 similar articles: Changchun Public Security Bureau, Tangshan Public Security Bureau, Shijiazhuang Public Security Bureau, Lu'an Public Security Bureau. None of those survived VfD, because they were deemed non-notable and POV. It makes little sense for this to be kept.
    2. POV. Sarcelles has a history of starting purely POV articles for the sake of pushing his agenda. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chinese cities for a detailed account of his actions starting from mid-May. Three Wikipedians (User:Abstrakt, User:Miborovsky, and I) are currently considering an RfC or even RfA against him if the situation does not improve quickly, because we are sick and tired of chasing after literally hundreds of his edits, de-POVizing when we can and VfD'ing when his creations are unsalvageable. This article is an example of that.
    3. Non-notable. There are 300+ prefectures or equivalents in China, Bengbu being one of them. Bengbu itself is an unremarkable city in Anhui province. Its public security bureau is, in turn, one of dozens of bureaus in its bureaucracy. There is absolutely nothing sufficiently remarkable about it to warrant an article at this point in time. The same goes for the other 4 articles that were already deleted.
    As such, this article should be deleted. -- ran (talk) 02:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I saw Sarcelles Falun Gong pushing articles earlier. Should be deleted. It's not like its as notable as a primary school is it? Maybe it should be in mentioned or listified in some sort of Police Hierarchy in China article - Hahnchen 02:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nonnotable. mikka (t) 03:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Should be merged into a bigger article until it needs breaking out, but none of the reasons given here for not even mentioning it is actually compelling. Number of entities is absolutely not a good criterion for deletion. There are how many species on this planet? Grace Note 05:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Where should this article be merged to? Which sentence of this article, except the last one, even provides unique and encyclopedic information? The police department of Bengbu is located in Bengbu, and is in charge of the polic there... and it has detention centers! The last sentence is unique and encyclopedic, but there's already an article on the dissident; we don't need a 2nd article just to say who detained him.
    As such, there isn't even anything here to merge into any other articles. This article should be deleted outright. -- ran (talk) 05:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly there is little information other than the location and that it is a government office handling policing. Until I can see a better reason for keeping this article, my vote is unchanged. Delete Abstrakt
  • Keep, since we can say something specific about this particular PSB. Anyone researching it would not appreciate being redirected to Zhang Lin. Kappa 06:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I could also say something about my neighbourhood police kiosk, how it arrested 2 students for drinking and driving... Notable? I think not. The chance of someone researching is, as much as the chance that someone would be researching the above-stated kiosk. --Miborovsky   07:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think a prefecture branch of the PSB bears any comparison to a local police kiosk, nor does arresting an internationally known dissent compare with arresting students for drinking and driving. Kappa
  • Well how an internationally known athlete? How about I start an article on the police station whose officers arrested Micheal Phelps for drunk driving?
If you are an expert than feel free to give us tips on how to expand. Like ran and Mib have already pointed out, there isn't anything else in this article to expand upon. And I'm opposed to the idea of merging this information into the Bengbu article because that would be doing what Sarcelles once did, and that was making assinine edits on Chinese city article to make the main focus about prisons and police. Abstrakt 14:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone researching it would not appreciate being redirected to Zhang Lin. — Then this researcher would find out absolutely no new info about the Bengbu PSB from this article.
Look, if you guys want to start a WikiProject to describe every single bureau of every single prefecture and county in China (~50 x ~5000 = 250000 new articles), then please go ahead. If I can start, say, Hulan County Forestry Department or Haidong Prefecture Education Bureau, and write a useless subsubstub article that goes "The Haidong Prefecture Education Bureau is located in Haidong, Qinghai, and is in charge of education there. [end]", and get away with it, then please keep this article too. But until you decide to do that, this article should be deleted. Unless, of course, if you support Sarcelles' agenda of POV-pushing that he has engaged in for over four months. -- ran (talk) 17:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 21:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Divorce in Washington State

edit

WP:NOT a howto. — brighterorange (talk) 02:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus (thus keep), but possibly a copyvio, so I listed the page on WP:CP. Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mater Hades

edit

Actually, I can't make sense of it, but it is like a project-born-of-band-vanity. — brighterorange (talk) 02:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED by Android79. -Splashtalk 22:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gfxtreme

edit

"gfxtreme is a cool forum / website," but WP:NOT a web directory, even for cool sites. — brighterorange (talk) 02:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Discounting sockpuppets, there were 7 keep, 4 delete, and 7 merge votes. As with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santa Claus Is Comin' to Town (Mariah Carey song) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/O Holy Night (Mariah Carey song), I do not believe there is enough consensus as to what action should be taken. However, I did move the article to Joy to the World (Mariah Carey single). Robert 23:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joy to the World (Mariah Carey song)

edit

See above discussions. FuriousFreddy 02:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP and MERGE. [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 02:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Pump It

edit

Apparently a charting album track from the Black Eyed Peas. Fails to establish notability (a record being a charting single does not make it inherently notable, especially since it was not a hit. I would speedy megre to the relevant album, but I wanted a consensus first. FuriousFreddy 02:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's notable to note singles which were available to chart without promotion. OmegaWikipedia 03:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd leave it, whats wrong with having a page for this song? 217.34.35.180 19:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, do not merge—to me whether it had an official single release or not is academic. The point is it charted, indicating a significant degree of popularity. Everyking 07:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not a hit, eh, FuriousFreddy? What, have you been living in a hole? The song climbed to the top-five in the United States. Winnermario 02:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is a notable track as it charted on the Hot 100. Even though you personally may not find it notable, many other people would. I think the fact that a song charted or was released makes it notable enough to have its own article. This is not just an article about some random track but one by a very popular group from one of the best selling albums of 2005 which received decent play at different radio formats and at clubs. The song was also featured in a very popular TV commercial. --Musicpvm 03:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Millions (or atl east hundreds of thosuands) of songs have been charted and/or relased over the years in various countries. There needs to be more discernemnt than that. I dont nominate articles for deletion because I personally do not find them notable; I do it when I find articles that do not meet the Wikipedia standards for notability. The album's article is very short; a simple merge would make one article better instead of keeping two stubs around. --FuriousFreddy 03:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to 1943 Naples post office bombing which has already been discussed here at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/An explosion at the Naples post office kills 100 people. The explosion was caused by a Nazi time bomb placed there 6 days beforehand.. -- RHaworth 15:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Naples post office explosion

edit
This appears to be a rewrite unrelated to the previous AfD/VfD, either that, or someone deleted a redirect by mistake. - Mgm|(talk) 09:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 22:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2010 in film

edit

Another foggy crystal ball. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't jump the gun on the redirect. The title could still be used as a serious encyclopedia article - for instance, an article about the depiction of the year 2010 in various films, or, five years from now, as an article about that years slate of motion picture releases. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it can always be "un-redirected" later when the title is needed for something else. That happens quite a lot. Grutness...wha? 02:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bumblesnap chess

edit

hoax/OR, apparently deleted/bjaodn'd before [8]. — brighterorange (talk) 03:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE Robert 23:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Free derivative work

edit

OR at best. — brighterorange (talk) 03:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE Robert 23:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phr0zed

edit

Obscure neologism NeilN 03:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 22:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robots 2 (2010 film)

edit

A crystal ball that makes zero sense as the article (written as a PR piece - SPAM?), states the film comes out in.... Wait for it... 2006. See also the AfD on 2010 in film four spots up. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 22:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Daisy Angus

edit

This article appears to be an old news article that is not very notable for Wikipedia. Solarusdude 03:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as patent nonsense --Doc (?) 08:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rhodaism

edit

Nonsense NeilN 03:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECTED to Developed country. -Splashtalk 22:06, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Developed economy

edit

Nonsense, gets even stranger at the end NeilN 03:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 22:06, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ola Vista Records

edit

Obscure, only mention on Google is label's website NeilN 03:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 02:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

The Murder of Rosa Luxemburg

edit

Non-notable band. Fails WP:MUSIC on most counts.

  • Has never had a top 100 hit
  • Has never been on a major tour
  • Has not released two or more albums on other than self-label
  • Not listed on allmusic.com
  • No members famous from other notable groups
  • Has won no major music awards

And finally, the band has split up and no longer exists. ♠DanMS 03:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TO address your final point "The band has split up and no longer exists" the band are actually still in existance working to get their final album done (which also, by the way, invalidates Point 3 of your argument), the band are not necessarily splitting up but inner turmoil may lead to line-up changes and FURTHERMORE there are numerous bands who have split up on Wikipedia, yet that doesnt make it a valid reason for removing their Wikipedia page. Wikipedia is a resource for people to find information and there is little to no point in making unnecessary deletions such as deleting this when there are editorials on the make up of the turd the author took yesterday hovering around wikipedia. Your time is better spent being a busy body on the really unnecessary wikipedia pages.WFCO 15:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Hmmm.. no need to be unpleasant. Surely the point about the band splitting up is a fair one in as much as were the vote to be borderline, the fact that they had split up would probably tilt the vote against keeping the article. (Not by virtue of the fact that they had split up - as you rightly say, many bands have split up but are still included - but by virtue of the fact that in splitting up they would be unlikely to become more notable). Marcus22 13:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The first source given did not talk about a tour, it said they were playing gigs. This is not the same thing. The second one mentioned "a short 5-date tour" with 2 other bands, it's not clear who the headliner was. I'm thinking they don't meet WP:MUSIC, but the apparent existance of a record makes me wonder. Friday (talk) 14:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 22:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Znode

edit

Ad.--Shanel 03:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. The article has only had one edit since the AfD tag. -Splashtalk 22:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to Electronics

edit

(Nominated by Twang.) Non-encyclopedic spam. — Mateo SA | talk 05:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Advertisement for an electronics course. Text is most likely right from the website. ♠DanMS 05:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. school spam. Nateji77 05:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the first article I have submitted to this resource and I apologize for the format of this article. This resource is a free educational module on the electronics industry. I thought is would be easier for a user to go directly to the information via the weblink and not post all the content explanation and additional resources in the article. If all the materials need to be included here, I will reformat the materials to accomplish this. I am also open to having the links added to a resource site. The object of the development of these materials is to have everyone that is in electronics using them when they are needed. Please advise me on what would be the best way to present this information and not have it look like spam or an advertizement. It was not intended to be offensive but only a new resource to be used. --Tom 15:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This particular article seems to promote one particular course from this company. I would suggest an article on WorkReady Electronics (website), from which you got this information. You could describe the history and purpose of the company and some of the types of courses that they offer. The article must not sound like a promotion for the company, but a description of the company and its importance in the field of occupational education. If the company is at all notable or has an established reputation in occupational training, then the article would likely be worth keeping. ♠DanMS 01:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the spam. Vsmith 16:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DanMS I will take your suggestion and re-write the article as you have suggested. MATEC is an educational division of the Maricopa County Community Colleges and the Work Ready Electronics project has been running online for 2.5 years serving electronics instruction throughout the US Community Colleges Electroinics programs. I will begin the rewrite of the article. Is there a way to retitle the article if it is needed? Tom--Tom 14:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert 23:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alabama Ass Whuppin'

edit

A joke page -- not encyclopedic.

I think that you all are misunderstanding the nature of my approach. The Alabama Ass Whuppin is necessarily a stereotypical concept that, at least to many, is not taken seriously. Hence it only makes sense to explain it using stereotypes and in a manner that suggests its questionable basis in fact.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 22:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"new age bible and philosophy center"

edit

Not notable. Spam. Jwissick(t)(c) 04:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was redirect. -- RHaworth 08:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The United States Of America Patriot Act

edit

Was listed for speedy deletion but it doesn't qualify. An essay. Delete. Eric119 04:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 22:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MEANING OF JOBS

edit

Rambling, non-encyclopedic essay, possible copyvio. — Mateo SA | talk 04:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE Robert 23:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ITOK

edit

Not notable. Spam. Jwissick(t)(c) 04:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was COPYVIO, so deal with at WP:CP. -Splashtalk 22:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Xenosaga Script

edit

Delete. A non-notable minor snippet of script from one episode of a video game. ♠DanMS 05:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 22:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Benzie Playboyz

edit

I go away for a few days in space and when I return, it's the same old place complete with band vanity! Delete. - Lucky 6.9 05:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 22:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jaded Dragons

edit

Not notable. Nonsense. Jwissick(t)(c) 05:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Userfied --Doc (?) 08:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Theodore Miller

edit

Vanity article. The author seems to be writing the article about himself. Only real claim to notability is being chairman of a student group, which while admirable, applies to thousands upon thousands of people. --W.marsh 05:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE, after the obvious fumigation. -Splashtalk 22:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

S.U.C.K.S.

edit

Non-verifiable "secret" society, probably hoax Cnwb 05:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is a club that has been in existence for some time. I am personal friends of many members, and the society serves primarily as a social group, though their networking and significant influence is well known. There are various items of clothing that are available for members, who suprisingly for a secret society, are happy to wear them around the university. I think photographs of the apparel would certainly lend to this group's credibility.
Both Billy McMahon and Whitlam resided at St._Paul's_College,_Sydney and I'm sure some mention could be found of this in the media.
Unsigned comment posted by User:Maheshm, whose only contribution is this post.
  • Delete. Ambi 06:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Secret socities are inherently unverifiable, or they wouldn't be secrets. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 06:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not entirely true. Skull and Bones and the Illuminati have plenty of verifiable material on them although a lot of it is disputed. This however, appears to be vanity more than anything else. The Fanthom section kinda clinches it for me. - Mgm|(talk) 09:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless good, independently verifiable evidence of the facts in the article is provided prior to expiration of the AfD period. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless it can be verified. — JIP | Talk 12:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can at least verify that some of the claims of this article are true. Whilst the Skull and Bones links are probably bordering on impossible to prove and tenuous at best, I can attest that the Phantom, St Paul's College and University of Sydney links are irrefutible. Whilst I didn't attend St Paul's College, rather St Andrew's College, I do know that most of the things argued in this article are true. I also know that the society is not as secret as they make out. The Rock is an actual place next to a public thoroughfare within the grounds of the college. This article, whilst possibly a vanity piece, does have some truth. Perhaps we should give them an opportunity to introduce some more facts and remove some of the more tenuous claims. I know of at least one Australian CEO who was a President of this society. 138.130.23.157 14:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC). I don't care if the article gets dumped, but the facts, although I hate to admit it, are mostly true, barring what I mentioned previously about Skull and Bones[reply]
    • Personal testimony isn't what we mean by verifiability. We need to have an outside reference, preferably a print reference although a website will do, that is one which readers will acknowledge as reliable; the contents of which can be inspected; and which confirms the claims. A newspaper article would do, or a reference in a book, or a university's official website, or something like that. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • D.E.L.E.T.E. Private Butcher 00:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was surprised to come across mention of SUCKS here as I wasn't certain of the existence of the organisation, however mere mention of the society here has verified many specific details that I had already heard elsewhere in the past about the body. While not connected to Sydney University in any way (I am, in fact, based in the United States), I first heard mention of the organisation a few years ago in conversation with an Australian stockbroker in his sixties. What I can tell you is that the society certainly is real, as regular contact with this financier and some of his associates subsequently confirmed. These are reputable individuals who are discreet and well-respected, and it is erroneous to suggest they'd be making this all up (and I can't see them as the kind of folks who'd be authoring a piece on Wiki!!). That said, I'll concede that you are always going to have trouble verifying the existence of something that, at least to my knowledge, has not received media coverage and attempts to remain under the radar. The page would, however, be of interest to members as well as those curious of the existence of such societies so I believe there is merit in allowing the page to be saved from deletion as, especially given the subject matter, it is likely to receive more expansive and in depth additions once it has become available for broader viewing. That something like the Men In Black conspiracy theory which is equally unverifiable as an event of fact appears on Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFO_conspiracy_theory) provides equal justification for inclusion of information about something also speculative, that being S.U.C.K.S. I suggest it is given time to flourish.
Posted by User:64.223.226.185, who has contributed to the article.
    • "mere mention of the society here has verified many specific details that I had already heard elsewhere" - Mere mention doesn't verify anything, and neither does hearsay, even from people who aren't "the kind of folks who'd be authoring a piece on Wiki" (whatever that means). We can't have an encyclopedia built on rumour and speculation. Cnwb 03:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Let it remain a secret. Jwissick(t)(c) 03:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stick it on the WP:ARC thing... 68.39.174.238 03:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Bankers in their 60's are unlikely to be spending time on the net working on a piece about their secret society... and none of what was on the site read like something written by well-educated bankers (i.e it was riddled with spelling errors until I cleaned it up). If I'm to make a fair assumption that they haven't written this, then someone else presumably also knows about this society. I raised the appearance of this page with my Australian contact this evening and while he sounded a little perturbed about the existence of the information he offered that the best he could do would be to contribute a photo of one of the group's items of clothing bearing the society's logo for page verification. Might this serve to satisfy some of those eager for more proof of the body's existence?
Unsigned comment by User:64.223.226.185, who has now voted twice
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 22:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DVEO

edit

Not notable. Spam. Jwissick(t)(c) 06:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 22:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beer sandwich

edit

non-notable fictional item from one episode of a TV show Cnwb 06:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cheng sai mun

edit

This article is non-verifiable, very likely hoax. A sister page Lim Peh Oh is also nominated for deletion. -- Vsion 07:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 22:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lord of the Rings v. Last Alliance

edit

I think the term starcruft is in order here... WP:ISNOT a game guide. Delete Usrnme h8er 08:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 22:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Mustafa

edit

The article is based on a single joke from the short-lived Roc (TV show). A redirect would not make sense as the name isn't mentioned in the article. -- Kjkolb 08:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied as linkspam --Doc (?) 08:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jesu Joseph

edit

This appears to be a vanity page.

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied under A7 --Doc (?) 08:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Tankard

edit

Not notable. Spam. Jwissick(t)(c) 08:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 22:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

HaloGen (Mod)

edit

Crystalballery about a unreleased Command and Conquer mod of no particular newsworthiness that I could uncover. Seems like it's been mentioned on quite a few forums and once on Kotaku (a gaming blog), but that's it. (Applying the Google test turned out to be futile, because of the mod's name.) - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 09:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splashtalk 22:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Theme from Mahogany (Do You Know Where You're Going To?) (Diana Ross song)

edit

The article duplicates material in Mahogany (1975 film), and should be a redirect. User:FuriousFreddy has been trying to do this, but User:OmegaWikipedia insists on reverting. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 22:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blomkin

edit

Sexual slang dicdef. 37 google hits. As a neologism, should be deleted and not transwikied to wiktionary. Thue | talk 09:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Rx StrangeLove 01:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fender Tucker

edit

Vanity Cnwb 09:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 22:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclone2k

edit

Non-notable fanpage Cnwb 09:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 22:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Hinze

edit

Google search for "joe hinze" + socksy = zero results. Hardly "a staple today in underground music" Cnwb 09:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied as nonsense/attempt to communicate/vandalism... who knows? --Doc (?) 11:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Longman

edit

Total rubbish, seems to just be the contents of an email and of no encyclopaedic benefit whatsoever Ben W Bell 09:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete, article re-created multiple times by socks of Girls Aloud/Manchester/Obesity vandal (Bad Tax Man and multiple socks)

Obesta

edit

Complete content: "Obesta is the god of obesity worshipped by Christians, Scientology, Hindus and Sikhs.". I doubt it. Thue | talk 09:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Merge. Rx StrangeLove 01:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tomb Raider Level Editor

edit

Non notable. Jwissick(t)(c) 09:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE ALL. This is going to be tedious... -Splashtalk 22:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

J. P. McManus Scholarship Award winnners

edit

From J. P. McManus Scholarship Award: Joseph McCarthy (IV), Donal O'Brien (II), Patrick Dundon, Tevor Clancy, John O'Halloran, Patrick Gavin, Raymond Casey, David Fahey, Trevor Byrne, Thomas Fleming (VII), John Walshe, Roger Gough, Michael Metcalfe, Declan Hogan, Patrick O'Doherty, Joseph Mulqueen.

Winning a scholarship does not make you notable enough for an article in an encyclopedia. Thue | talk 09:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. P. McManus Scholarship Award winnners 2

No, it doesn't make you notable. Delete. Pilatus 10:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Hermione1980 22:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Keith

edit

Don't think this is a speedy, though a Google search only brings up a livejournal which isn't really notable. Haven't looked further into Google results though. Francs2000   10:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete --Angr/tɔk tə mi 00:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Xanga Incident

edit

Does nto appear notable The Land 11:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splashtalk 22:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ahn Trio

edit

non-notable. 202.156.6.60 11:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 22:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Military domunism

edit

Hoax. Delete. Lupo 11:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Author gets to participate in the AfD debate. -Splashtalk 22:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Everywhere Girl

edit

I think this could possibly be speedied, but just in case: this article is so vague it's not even clear who its subject refers to MC MasterChef 11:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: May well be notable (but I'm not sure if it is) as an internet phenomenon. Everywhere Girl dossier on The Inquirer seems to have a point, tbh. The Land 11:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Basically, some girl (the photographer doesn't even know her name) appears in a stock photo shoot. Said stock photos are used by different companies (duh, that's what stock photos are all about). For some reason The Inquirer tech website is obsessed with this. Definitely not notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Was about to write this article myself, in fact, and could contribute to it. The fascinating thing about this is the girl is not only being used by different companies, but by competing companies, as well as academic institutions, governmental sites, and so on. It's a comment on the generic and ubiquitous nature of advertising. - Scooter 06:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (I'm the one who added the article, so obviously I'm voting Keep) Scooter, that's exactly the reason I added the article. I couldn't put it so eloquently. Please feel free to add to the article. I just wanted to get it started, because it seemed odd to me for there not to be an article about such a well-known internet phenomenon.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY KEEP (nomination withdrawn, no delete votes). — JIP | Talk 12:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sloggi

edit

nn. 202.156.6.60 11:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 22:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony!

edit

Full article text: Derived from the phrase often used in parts of 17th century England to hail a prostitute. There are rumors that Gayland Woodliffe, a drunk with little historical record or indeed relevance, once uttered it in a parliamentary meeting, causing much uproar within the house. (bolding mine) Given this, I don't see why it warrants an entry. - Mgm|(talk) 12:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedied. Lupo 12:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Byrne

edit

nonsense & attack 202.156.6.59 12:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECTED to KUMM. -Splashtalk 22:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kumm radio

edit

non-notable. 202.156.6.59 13:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedily redirected. Nominator agreed to redirecting, no objections from other voters. - Mgm|(talk) 22:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bagrat IV

edit

We already have a full article on Bagrat IV of Georgia. This stub has no new information. --Valentinian 13:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC) My error. A redirect is of course the proper solution. --Valentinian 17:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 22:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zurkhaneh

edit

Incomplete foreign dictdef. --fvw* 13:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 22:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tus Wutch

edit

Slang, neologism. DS 13:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Little debate, but it was a recreation (non-verbatim) of Lake dialect. -Splashtalk 22:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Dialect

edit

An article about this entirely unverifiable "dialect" was already deleted in February. The current incarnation is no more verifiable than the previous one was. The edit summary of the first edit even says "this information was passed to me by word of mouth", making it original research. Delete. Angr/tɔk tə mi 14:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Having grown up in "The Lake", I am very aware of a very distinct set of words used exclusively there. Whether this qualifies as a "language", a "dialect", an "ideolect" or just an interesting vocabulary is not for me to decide. I can only say that this might be linguistically interesting. I have found only few brief references online so far refering to it. For now, I vote to keep it.

The question is not whether the dialect/accent exists or whether it is linguistically interesting. The question is whether the information is verifiable from published sources. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 16:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splashtalk 22:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Otherkin

edit

This is an obscure topic, as discussed in WP:V. To quote that section, Subjects which have never been written about in published sources, or which have only been written about in sources of doubtful credibility should not be included in Wikipedia. One of the reasons for this policy is the difficulty of verifying the information. As there are no reputable sources available, it would require original research, and Wikipedia is not a place to publish original research. Insistence on verifiability is often sufficient to exclude such articles.

The sources here are various websites of dubious credibility. I think Otherkin would be a great topic for a Wikinfo article, but I don't see enough verifiability for this to be included here. Friday (talk) 14:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • No vote (changed to keep, below). I'm confused. Doesn't a website count as a published source? There's no rule saying we have to use scholarly sources. ~~ N (t/c) 14:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not what the nominator said. The article's sources are websites of dubious credibility, and the article seems to be built up from a lot of first-person stories on the Web. The veracity of those primary sources cannot be verified by Wikipedia readers, who are thus required to take the article on faith. Wikipedia needs to report the results of other people who have studied otherkin; right now, this article collects the experiences of otherkin, which makes it original sociological research. WP:NOR notes that it is rare for an article to be built from primary sources alone, especially if it is a contested topic. Ideally the article would be severely stubified but given its history I don't think the regular authors would be willing to do so, so delete to send the NOR message, and possibly write a new stub based on secondary sources until more can be found to expand the article reliably. I'd consider changing my vote if the article is cleaned up to not take primary sources at face value. — mendel ☎ 14:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think deleting an article to send a message is an appropriate course of action. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 16:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can't imagine how deleting an article could not send a message, unless the contributors are known to have left Wikipedia. The message is "Do not put this sort of thing in Wikipedia". Sometimes the message is even made explicit with the "This article is deleted, please don't recreate it" template that I can't find right now. — mendel ☎ 23:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • The issue is not that deleting it will not send a message, but that it is not the appropriate way to send the desired message. It seems kind of agreed upon that otherkin is a real topic, just that there is the issue of getting proper sources and an article that reflects those sources. So wouldn’t deleting the article and putting up a warning to not recreate it be effectively hiding from the issue instead of trying to fix the issue itself? And if you intend to replace the article with something else, then I don’t see the point of deleting the article instead of normal editing. AtomicDragon 00:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • What sociological truths is the article offering on Otherkin? I don't see how it's original sociological research if it's not making any sociological claims. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • What's a "sociological truth"? I'm not saying it is/was reporting the results of an experiment, just that it was original research: concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication. But like "patent nonsense", "original research" is one of those things whose Wikipedia-specific definitions tend to be forgotten.. — mendel ☎ 23:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • A sociological truth is one that we need a sociologist to declare before we can acknowledge it as a truth. =P You seem to be working so hard to make sure the Wikipedia-specific definitions are remembered you're forgetting the functions they were intended to serve; we follow the "no original research" policy not as an end in itself, but to keep Wikipedia free of crackpots and cranks who want Wikipedia to publicize their pet theories. To say that people are not credible sources for statements about what their own beliefs are and that we must wait until a "reputable publication" has covered them and then take that publication's word over the word of those they're reporting on just shows the hazards of taking any policy and following it too literally too long. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • WP:NOR says: "In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims that are easily verifiable by any reasonable adult, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events)". This seems to fit that description - "Otherkin say A, B, and C; people say X and Y about otherkin". Keep. ~~ N (t/c) 02:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Maybe I wasn't clear. I'm not saying this should be deleted because the belief system isn't credible. Young Earth creationism isn't credible (to me) either, but clearly it's appropriate to have an article on it. If this article used reputable sources, I would have no issue with it. Some websites are reputable sources, some are not. Anyone can have a website and claim whatever they want. I invite anyone who's interested to read the websites listed as sources. These are personal websites, not cnn.com. Please, let's make this discussion about verifiability, not the irrelevant-to-our-purposes question of the merits of the Otherkin belief system. Friday (talk) 15:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Encyclopedias are the repository for obscure articles. Joaquin Murietta 16:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC) PS, why delete an article that cites ^ "Dealing with the Bloodthirst". Sanguinarius: Vampire Guide. as a source? Joaquin Murietta 16:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Good article about encyclopedic topic. I'd consider the FAQ and otherkin.net to be credible sources, especially because they are written by the community of "otherkin". It's easy enough, given that citations are provided, for the reader to make up his own mind about the veracity of the article. — brighterorange (talk) 16:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If you go to the Talk:Otherkin/Archive 3 you'll find quite a few published sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup -- There are core facts that are easily verifiable here: a number of people consider themselves to be otherkin, the exact specifics of which change depending upon who you talk to. The only parts that are unverifiable are whether what these people claim to be true is actually true (though common sense should tell us otherwise). The fact that these claims are made is undeniable, well-documented, and widespread. I severely question the rationale in interpreting the Wikipedia:No original research policy in such an exaggerated way. If we keep things down to object facts and avoid the weirdness we get periodically where certain editors claim it's real, that certain otherkin are better than others, that they are psychic and reinarnated and have animal DNA and yada yada yada as if they were proven, then there is no problem. Documenting nutty fringe beliefs is quite verifiable, as this particular one is not so small that there's any problems involved on that end, assuming we can get past the people constantly inserting their own POV and making false claims that rewriting for NPOV is "disrespectful" shos "bad faith" and whatever other nonsense they come up with. DreamGuy 20:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've never heard the term Otherkin before, but conceptually I will agree that as a sub-culture these people do exist... albeit in small numbers. I used to work night stock at a grocery store and the "vampires" would come in occasionally around 3 am. I guess blood goes down easier with an EZ-Cheez chaser. No vote yet though... I want to research the usage of this term more first.--Isotope23 21:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but clean up. I think this is more common than nom would like. --Jacquelyn Marie 22:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, agree with cleanup as Jacquelyn Marie stated. >: Roby Wayne Talk • Hist 00:05, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up. The dubious sources are not being cited for their dubious veracity, but as products of a subculture. There's a significannt, if fringe, subculture of people who think they are elves or vampires or whatnot, and the existance of a market in books and such about and being sold to such people is evidence that such a subculture exists. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 01:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The main problem with the article (not just this version, but anything about the topic) is that it needs, perforce, to lump together a very broad spectrum of beliefs, ranging from simple alternate spirituality to pseudoscience to outright lunacy. So some of it is verifiable as much as anything in the realm of religion, spirituality, or philosophy; while other parts are very difficult to source reliably or at all. But it is worth keeping as, at least, a verifiably notable phenomenon (although until reading the article I had never actually heard the term "otherkin", even though instantiations of the belief system had been related to me). MCB 01:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:A Man In Black, User:MCB. I've added a reference from a print source as well. Crypticfirefly 05:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Being self-admittedly very odd, I've been familiar with this sub-culture for sometime, and am surprised at the variety of places I encounter it. I'm somewhat taken aback to see editors here unaware, which is more reason for an article. Furries alone are more numerous than anyone suspects. Xoloz 07:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Likability is not a criterion; the subculture's existence is demonstrable, and the term is in common (if not mainstream) use as a quick Google will show without effort. Coren 21:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up. -Sean Curtin 00:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm a part of the Otherkin community, and it's more widespread than you might think. This page is dead-on for the common issues.69.110.12.6 16:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am also a part of the Otherkin community. It grows every day. It saddens me that editors here can not see how numerous we really are. This article is a broad but accurate description of our beliefs. Why delete it? I am sure Several Otherkin would agree. --Jwaf725 14:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There may be little point in commenting further, but I still want to clarify. Of course there are lots of them; what does that have to do with anything? I know there are also lots of people who, for example, like to eat jello. However, if someone wrote an article describing these folks and giving information about them, I'd want verifiability there also. There is a difference between what exists and what's verifiable. In theory, WP is meant to include only things that are verifiable. Friday (talk) 15:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Same old Communists vs. people with red hair distinction. Self-described "otherkin" have a shared culture and influence each other (unless you want to get anal about whether there's a larger "otherkin" culture or if it's a series of distinct, discrete subcultures, but then you're into content issues and not whether or not this article should be deleted), instead of just having a shared attribute (a belief/delusion, depending on your POV). - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 15:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • As for the content question of one subculture v multiple, that's a good, valid question. I'd be tempted to consider the spiritual side of the Otherkin movement to be a subset of modern shamanism. The problem with these kinds of content questions is, there has been no way to resolve them. With no proper sources, it's just up to editor's opinions. Thus, this article functions as a magnet for original research. We haven't even been able to resolve fundamental questions, such whether "Otherkin" is the proper blanket term for things like "Vampyres", "Dragons", "Elves", and "Therianthropes". When the Otherkin community has a variety of different definitions and beliefs, there's little hope of consensus on this article. Friday (talk) 17:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • By itself, the number of othrekin means little, but combine with their self-describing nature yields a lot of material written on the group from within. Many attempt to describe the group as a whole, noting various observations. To me, that seems to be the point most of the original research is being done, even though WP has to attempt to combine information from several such sources (doesn’t this happen, to some degree, for most subjects?). Looking at the bigger picture, in my opinion, an article on this would add to WP’s encyclopedic value, as many people do stumble upon it and can benefit by seeing a general overview of the subject that is confirmable at the basic level in various otherkin sources. The details are much harder to work out, and as MCB already mentioned, such a diverse group is very hard to talk about as a whole, but that is a matter of cleaning up and not deletion in my opinion. I may be misinterpreting policy though, so I’ll only comment instead of vote for now. AtomicDragon 17:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This entire nomination seems to me to be a complete misunderstanding that we only demand verification, and bar original research, to the degree that a claim is questionable. To delete this article implies that we cannot verify any of the claims contained therein, not even "people who describe themselves as Otherkin exist"; to say that we cannot verify that, despite being able to go to hundreds of websites where people are describing themselves as Otherkin, because we cannot quote some professional source who has also read the websites affirming that yes, Otherkin exist -- if the nominator didn't appear to be entirely serious I would suspect an attempt at reductio ad absurdam. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think it's rather clear from even a casual reading that the WP:NOR rule exists for preventing wikipedia from becoming a platform for cranks or pet theories; the Otherkin article is neither. Otherwise the article describing Brights would need to be deleted as well: it also explains the nature of a term used by a group to describe itself, and from primary sources at that. I'm sure it wouldn't take much effort to find other examples. Coren 21:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but cleanup. Robert McClenon 18:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete This article is full of misinformation, original research and crank. Agriculture 05:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • have you researched the topic?Gimmiet 05:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, and I challenge you to find peer reviewed and respected journals substantiating the beliefs posited in the article. Agriculture 05:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Peer-reviewed? Vampire? Joaquin Murietta 06:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • In otherwords, no scientist worth his salt will substantiate the ridiculous claims made on the page by angsty teens looking for an outlet fantasy world. Otherkin is bullshit. Agriculture 06:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • So all of the people claiming to be otherkin simply do not exist? Are all such accounts that come up in my web-browser an optical illusion, since you seem to claim that they don't exist? And you are right that no scientist would likely write a paper on this in a science journal, since this is a cultural topic, not a science one. AtomicDragon 16:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I realize you are trolling, but I will bite. I never say people who suffer from dellusions do not exist, simply that the dellusion is just that with nothing to back up the claim but angsty blogs. FYI: Sociologists write plenty of scientific papers on cultural topics, it's their job. Psychologists likewise write plenty of papers on similar dellusions, their job as well. Agriculture 17:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok, all I am suggesting is that as long as this group actually exists, there is reason for this page to not be deleted as an actual factual article can exist on it. If the article simply states verifiably what the people are (and hence listing what they claim, as claims not fact) and any recorded counterpoints to it, then that would appear to be a factual article to me. At the moment, the word trolling appears it can go both ways, so please avoid such attacks and so that we can move on and actually discuss a compromise on this.AtomicDragon 17:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • If the article could be reworked, I'd agree, but the POV pushers have so far prevented any factual additions to the article. On the issue of trolling, I am simply posting my opinion and stating it as such. You're making shit up and wildly and purposefully exaggerating my statements so you can troll for defenses to your strawman arguements. Nice to meet you AtomicDragon, now stop trolling because I have no tolerance for trolls. I will not respond to your trollish statements again. Agriculture 17:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • We have both made some exaggerations in the end as an attempt to illustrate a point. That worked out poorly, so it is at least a mistake on my part. Nonetheless, we will need to have some actual discussion to work this out, and simply not state that our own view on the situation is clearly the correct one.AtomicDragon 17:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Please remember civility, Agriculture, and stop making personal attacks. Neither your original argument nor your subsequent argument hold up. Your first argument was 'no reputable source will ever say "Yes, what Otherkin claim about themselves is true"; therefore, we must delete this article as unverifiable.' The enthymeme there is "all articles about Otherkin must describe their claims as truth, rather than as their claims." This is not the case. Your subsequent argument is that "POV pushers will always prevent the article from being maintained in an NPOV state." The number of articles that are actually worth deleting simply because we cannot come to agreement on them is minimal. Since you yourself have only edited Otherkin twice and one of those edits was simply to place three cleanup tags on it at once, I question whether you have sufficient knowledge of what happens when you try NPOVing the article to declare that it could never possibly work. By the way, speaking of verifiability, would you mind giving us details on the University of Minnesota study you refer to in this edit? Since much of the discussion here has been made under the assumption that no professional study of those who believe themselves "otherkin" has been made, and since your edit (which I'm sure you marked 'minor' by accident) contradicts that, I'm sure providing details would be appreciated. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think an important distinction was made: scholarly treatment of Otherkin is NOT going to amount to a scientific effort to prove or disprove their beliefs. That would just be silly. Christianity (or any major religion) is obviously verifiable as a belief system without needing to prove or disprove their beliefs. FWIW, the closest thing I've seen to a scholarly treatment of this is over at Clinical lycanthropy. Friday (talk) 17:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Article is controversial and certainly has its problems caused by warring POVs, but this is a topic not covered by other encyclopedias but worthy of inclusion in this one. Kit 22:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Stong Keep But Clean Up For many, this is a spiritual path. No religion on the planet is independantly verifiable and yet there's nothing wrong with providing a basic set of information on what it's follower's believe. Writing a book on the subject doesn't make it true, it just makes it published. There are significant and serious sites which address the subject which act in the same manner of highlighting and defining the term. It doesn't matter if you share the belief or not. What wiki is supposed to be about is giving information on a variety of subjects. Why is otherkin not a valid subject to give information on? One need not share it's view to still acknowledge it is a valid viewpoint/belief/path for some people. It is, therefore, it should be discussed. You can't simply remove something because you don't believe it personally.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 22:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gorilla Operation

edit

Article is very nicely done, very clean, not too much braggadocio. But unfortunately, they're a "newly formed" band, "still in the process of recording their first album (as yet untitled)". DS 14:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Still a well thought out article with good ideas and information. 09:54, 1 October, 2005 Chillie
Note: Above comment actually added by User:61.68.53.30, whose only edits are concerning the article in question. The name signed above does not appear to have ever been used. DreamGuy 00:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I am the 13yr old author of this article. I would like to say that I am in no way affiliated with the band in question. They have no idea this artile was writen, so the accusation of "vanity" is not true. Thankyou. !Please Keep This Article!
To the author: Please don't be offended in any way by the deletion nomination. This is not intended as a judgement on the band. I'm sure they're quite good. The problem is, Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, so many of us have high expectations of what goes in the main "article space". While many editors may be of the opinion that GO isn't "significant" enough to be included, there's actually an even bigger problem: Nothing in the article is verifiable. If you can show us that the music media is talking about this band, that would make them verifiable. If they're not yet to the point where they're getting that kind of coverage, there's really no way for them to go in an encyclopedia. WP does not allow what we call original research. That means your own experiences are not considered appropriate for inclusion. If you were to go review a show and interview the band for example, WP would not be an appropriate place to publish that work. I hope you understand, nobody's trying to say that the band (or your article) is bad. We're just saying WP isn't the right place for it. Friday (talk) 14:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
From Author:thankyou for the feedback. Would it count as a varification if their music was list as "1# most downloaded" on a music download site. I mentioned this fact in the article. I belive this is enough to varify them as a music influence to some degree. Also, the research was done from the bands website (2nd redirect in article).This proves this it was not, how you say, "original research" as i was not involved with the original research.
Don't hold back on us, are they or aren't they #1 most downloaded on some notable site? I'm not sure if it would answer WP:MUSIC requests, but being coquettish about it definitely doesn't help. Check out the WP:MUSIC criteria and list any that GO matches, it will simplify matters. Until then:
  • Delete per nomination. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's Takeing So Long?!?. - It's come to my attention that this has been going on for 6 days... When will you actually come to a decision and delete my damn article.... Though it would be nice if you kept it.... thankyou, the author.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Speedied. android79 17:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Csull

edit

This is a vanity page about a non-notable. Melanchthon 14:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splashtalk 22:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sable Holiday

edit

This is a vanity advertisement for a non-notable. Melanchthon 14:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied. android79 17:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Mashayekhi

edit

Non notable, as near as I can make out Mallocks 14:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 22:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blagger

edit

This is a neologism, and reeks of vanity. I'd say it almost qualifies for a speedy; unfortunately, not quite. Ashenai 15:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merely going by Google hits for "Alex Blagg" and "Blagg Blogg", the guy actually seems notable (though I do realize that bloggers generally get inflated Google hits). I actually considered listing Alex Blagg on AfD, but refrained for this reason. --Ashenai 15:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splashtalk 22:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The hungry man

edit

nn. about a book which doesn't seem to have ISBN. 202.156.6.60 15:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Hello. I just wrote this page and did not know it should include the ISBN. The Hungry Man: ISBN 9789743452116; There You Go! ISBN 9789749286302. I think both books are published in Thailand by Hungry Man Books (?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.232.8.1 (talk • contribs) 10:23 ET, 30 September 2005
  • Keep The book is self published, but it seems that the author is known in the international aid community, aand so is the book to soem extent. I ahve added proper links to two online reveiws, and the ISBN to the article. DES (talk) 16:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Move to The Hungry Man for proper capitalization, I think. >: Roby Wayne Talk • Hist 00:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A Google search for '"The Hungry Man" "Oren Ginzburg"' comes up with four hits for this self-published book. Not even sold at amazon, which generally sells self-published books. User:Zoe|(talk) 07:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I take a very inclusive line on books so long as they are not self-published. In part, this is because I have "psychic" relatives who regularly self-publish absurd predictions, so I am familiar with the range of kooks who will pay for the "honor" of disseminating ideas this way. Basically, if you self-publish (at least after 1950), I assume that your ideas were denied a label for a reason. The four google hits, in this instance, support my assumption. Xoloz 08:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Speedied. android79 16:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Noirin Carmody

edit

defamation attempt. 202.156.6.60 15:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Merge and redirect. Rx StrangeLove 02:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Goddard's factory

edit

nn. 202.156.6.60 15:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Goon Door

edit

non-notable drinking game at parties. Only occurences of the phrase as per Google as because the words also exist in Dutch. DS 15:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Martin macfadyen

edit

nn. 202.156.6.60 15:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think this is a joke. If you look at the history, you can see that the porn films started out with jokier names than they now have.AndyJones
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Speedied. android79 16:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The History of ME

edit

vanity. 202.156.6.60 15:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was No consensus, keep. Rx StrangeLove 02:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Hicks

edit

nn bio. vanity. 202.156.6.60 16:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep. He appears to be an NCAA basketball player, that seems like borderline notoriety. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC) Now Delete per Barno, good points, I change my mind. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep unless there is a precedent for deleting articles about NCAA players. Hall Monitor 18:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no indication of encyclopedic importance. At WP:BIO, the guideline for inclusion of athletes requires something like being outstanding, not just participating. There's no consensus about whether a routine professional player (as compared to an All-Star, All-Pro, league Most Valuable Player, etc.) should be kept. In general, one of the thousands of college basketball players is not notable, unless thousands of non-basketball-fans have heard of him. Article doesn't suggest anything close to meeting WP:Importance. Barno 20:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would note that WP:Importance doesn't require that non-fans have heard of him, only that "it is at least well-known in a community." While this individual may not be well-known on his own merits, I think that keeping his article because of his relationship with the University of Cincinnati is akin to keeping the article for a single episode or season of a television show because of their relationships with the overall program. ESkog 21:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Woohookitty 10:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

99 Bottles of Beer computer program

edit

Computer source code which should be transwikied to Wikisource. We already have a 99 Bottles of Beer page, which is encyclopedic, but this content should not be merged there. -- Curps 16:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 22:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Factory zero

edit

Notability not asserted in article. Simply stating subject is an architecture firm in Los Angeles. Willing to change vote if notability/significance is demonstrated. Hurricane111 16:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whiteley Film Co

edit

an "amateur film company". They have a website, but there's nothing to suggest they've made any significant films. I can't confirm existance of them, other than by their own website and their myspace page. Friday (talk) 16:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use Wikipedia to promote yourself. Friday (talk) 20:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You need help. Wikipedia is meant to be a useful resource for people to find out anything they want to know and yet people like you are going round unnecessarily deleting articles for no other reason than to exert some sort of power over people. Wikipedia aren't exactly short on server space, Get a life. WFCO (talk) 20:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Wfco (improperly signed above) appears to be a primary maintainer of this article. I doubt it's coincidence that the initials in his username happen to be the same of those of this film company. Friday (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Speedied all as vandalism. android79 16:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zackary Clark

edit

Part of a set of vanity/hoax pages (see also Z-Unitt, Zack Clark, Cruisin in my Taurus). Asserts notability, though claims are obviously bogus. Vandalism appears to be still in progress. Can this be speedy deleted, or do we just have to go through the whole AfD process? Ilmari Karonen 16:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln's Revenge

edit

According to WP:MUSIC; entirely non-notable. Delete. SoothingR 16:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Would relist it, but it doesn't have a chance. -Splashtalk 23:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedæd

edit

delete as neologism. Google does not know it (yet?) --Aleph4 17:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bio static Systems

edit

band vanity with no WP:MUSIC assertion or AMG hits. — brighterorange (talk) 17:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stripcreator

edit

Tagged for speedy, but tag was removed. Seems like just another web forum to me. R. fiend 17:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blackout Shoppers

edit

First album recorded in 2005, group does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC based on article. CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 22:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Worldscape

edit

nn. 202.156.6.62 17:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Classroom expectations and procedures

edit

This sort of thing should be speediable. Anyway, doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. DJ Clayworth 17:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by Hall Monitor

Debbie Desham Delaura

edit

appears to be attack ("genetically modified hybrid") 202.156.6.62 17:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been speedy deleted as per WP:CSD A6 (blatant attack page). Hall Monitor 18:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Atalie Moore

edit

Not verifiable, no source provided, likely hoax. Google query of "Atalie Moore" [11] yields 21 unrelated hits. --Vsion 17:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as unreferenced probable hoax. Hall Monitor 18:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think this might be a quasi-good faith but horribly mistaken attempt at a bio of a notable person, since I do remember a story about someone with somewhat similar history (African-American, female, born in Hawaii around 1900, kept out of Harvard, returned to Hawaii, was an activist), but the names are all wrong. Weird. I can't remember her real name. MCB 02:01, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Normally would relist with so little participation, but this hasn't a prayer and is barely an article anyway. -Splashtalk 23:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Manthra

edit

nn fancruft 202.156.6.62 17:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Anon discounted as usual. The comparison by the only other keeper to Tiger Direct is considerably off-target as pointed out, and the nominator gets to join in since they started the debate. -Splashtalk 23:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mysterybyte Computers

edit
You can't tell the difference between a multi-national Fortune 1000 corporation with assets of over a billion dollars which supplies governments and the military and was in papers internationally over a high-profile lawsuit, and a small-town computer reseller? -- Corvus
  • Comment. It's worth mentioning that MysteryByte is considered the place to go for computer parts (and has a very strong following among the geek-elite) in the Halifax area. I've shopped there myself on several occasions, and while I don't know if there's enough content/relevance to justify an article, I can vouch that it isn't just some random never-been-heard-of store from Hicksville. -- Peruvianllama 06:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED by Starblind. -Splashtalk 23:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Grant

edit

Patent Nonsense. CSD materials but author keeps removing CSD tag. Hurricane111 18:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

HIM Productions

edit

nn. 202.156.6.62 18:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED by DavidWBrooks. -Splashtalk 23:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flavio vento

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 22:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User Services

edit

nn. 202.156.6.62 18:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1369 Coffeehouse

edit

This article was VfD'd on 9/1/04 by LeeHunter as non notable, deleted and recreated on 9/16/05. It's still just a coffehouse with no particular significance other than good coffee. No historical background I can find. I suggest delete and block as it's likely to be recreated again Outlander 18:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate wasSpeedy delete as single-person vanity.

Angie lee

edit

NN ≈ jossi ≈ 18:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apukaka

edit

neologism. 202.156.6.60 18:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC) - or it can be a plain hoax. 202.156.6.60 18:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Planith

edit

Band substub, no claim to notability, fails WP:MUSIC. Might even speedy as A1/A3. Ilmari Karonen 18:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Entity-Paradigm(EP)

edit

NN bandcruft, fails WP:MUSIC. Article does not claim notability. Ilmari Karonen 19:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was MERGE to Dune (novel). -Splashtalk 22:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kanly

edit

Admitted dicdef of the term only used in Frank Herbert's Dune. 202.156.6.54 19:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I'm the user that added the description of Kanly. I would just like to ask what additional information would be required from myself to prevent this from being deleted? and what time limit I have to make additions before deletion. Also the member/user who posted above me raised a copyright issue, I would just like to point out that the source I used is the same that has been used for the Dune Terminology page here on wikipedia which is also copied word for word from the Dune novel. Here is the link to the page I am reffering to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dune_terminology User:Garry_Johnston (talk)

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

The result of the debate was delete. Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Www.seatmaestro.com

edit

non-notable and very much advertising Alhutch 19:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 22:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apple-o

edit

notability not established. 202.156.6.54 19:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as hoax. Thue | talk 20:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Omar

edit

unverifiable & possible attack page. I notice this article had been tagged as nonsense but the author removed it. 202.156.6.54 19:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclone Gaming

edit

Not notable. Website doesn't even exist yet.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bibble

edit

Dictdef for an obscure neologism. Could not find any use in this sense by Google. Delete or, if found to be in actual use, transwiki to Wiktionary. Ilmari Karonen 19:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bo jeune-fille

edit

Spam for [12] Dlyons493 Talk 19:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Donpenny

edit

Ad page. NN - Alexis rank 1,382,929 -- SCZenz 19:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete it's just a sickening ad. I'm tempted to nn-bio this since dumping an ad into Wiki is hardly an assertion of note. -Splashtalk 21:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been thinking that we need an equivalent version of nn-bio (as a SD criterion) for companies/websites. I've put my views in a couple of places, but who knows if anyone will listen? -- SCZenz 21:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I have listned, but I disagree on companies. Too hard to tell notable from non for a safe speedy criterion, IMO. DES (talk) 21:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh, I meant "enough people will listen to change something", not that nobody noticed. ;) One question for you, though: how is it harder/easier than with people, where the criterion is whether it has an assertion of notability? -- SCZenz 22:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. We could impose that rule on coompanies. Except that most of even the spammiest company articles include statemetns that are at least arguably claims of notability. People become notabel through specific achievments, which arfe likely to be mentioned in any decent articel about an actually notable person. But companies are often notable as much for size and market presence as anything else, and IMO the presence or absnece of an assertion is noit a useful guide. The real question for a speedy criterion, IMO is "what obvious cahracteristic can we poitn to, that can be determined quickly by a single person, that will pretty much always identify an articel that ought to be deleted". If you think otherwise why not create Wikipedia:Proposal for speedy deletion of non-notable company articles or the like. i'll be happy to coem there and joint the discussion, and to call other people's attention to it. Look at the way the "Blatent copyvio" proposal was handled, and how it is going forward. DES (talk) 22:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this case, however, delete. And pending deletion, i have munged the link to not rewarrd linkspamming. DES (talk) 21:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 22:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vinkadecimal

edit

Dictdef for a neologism, coined by the author of the referenced computer program after himself. Could not find any uses outside of the context of the program. Ilmari Karonen 19:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedied A7/nonsense --Doc (?) 22:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

George Hoang: The Hero of the New Free World

edit

An unencyclopedaic story- fan fiction? Dlyons493 Talk 20:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete (I'm giving little value to the last vote by some anonymous contributor which has also worked on the article him/herself. I don't doubt that it's a genuine organization, the point being made is that it of such limited importance that it does not deserve an article here.) Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Romanceromance

edit

The article does not establish notability. Thue | talk 20:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep RomanceRomance is a genuine student art organisation, based in Norwich, UK. Searching RomanceRomance (one word) on google, RomanceRomance-the art organisation is the first result.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete, non-notable person. Thue | talk 20:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The history of ME

edit

Vanity. 202.156.6.54 20:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete . ≈ jossi ≈ 20:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 08:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Geeknet.nl

edit

Nn website ♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (contribs) 20:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Karate International

edit

Non-notable bio, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jan wellendorf (despite that, it doens't meet the criteria for speedy deletion, right?) --Interiot 20:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn karate club. -Splashtalk 21:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article.

Sriram Rajagopalan

edit

Wikipedia is not a HOWTO or FAQ. Thue | talk 20:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was WITHDRAWN. -Splashtalk 22:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy F.X. Finnegan

edit

Withdrawing this nomination - thought the page was a hoax but it's a fictional character! Apologies for any confusion. Dlyons493 Talk 20:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE Robert 23:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mother Vinegar

edit

non notable band. they have yet to release their first album. 202.156.6.54 20:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedied as A7 --Doc (?) 23:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Hollow

edit

Vanity ≈ jossi ≈ 20:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. I skipped closing this at first since I participated, but then I closed the one on Candy Thrash (capital 'T') since I didn't participate. Given the debate, seems silly not to do the job properly. -Splashtalk 23:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Candy thrash

edit

a possible hoax. 202.156.6.60 20:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Candy Thrash

edit

Delete. Yet another imaginary music subgenre. 24 Google hits. android79 21:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP SHE IS A GREAT PORNO ACTRESS

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep. (Nom withdrawn after compelte rewrite of article) DES (talk) 04:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Reynolds

edit

Mostly vanity and in-jokes, no sources, not notable. Example: Says he survived by sucking a pebble in the desert for weeks. Tempshill 20:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{subst:ab}}

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

The result of the debate was DELETE, either as speedy or copyvio. -Splashtalk 23:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gadi Singer

edit

Why is this person worth having an article? Elf | Talk 20:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mhave

edit

The article begins by letting us know that there is some Great News!!!! about the company "mHave". It gushingly describes mHave's products, provides us with the company's website, etc., using all the usual corporate public-relations jargon. I think this is just an advert for a non-notable company.

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. -R. fiend 22:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beaumont area

edit

This article is nonsensical and completely useless MJ 21:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Torrent house

edit

Spam for [14] Dlyons493 Talk 21:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of English competitions

edit

It's not at all clear what this list is for, or whether it is indeed an encyclopedic list worth keeping. Delete. Angr/tɔk tə mi 21:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, there must be similar competitions in other parts of the world, I should be able to find them in wikipedia. Kappa 22:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unmaintainable list. And am I really voting delete in something that has to do with Academic Decathlon? Oh, the irony of it all! :P Titoxd 00:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "This list is incomplete". Do tell. This list is bloody near nonexistent, and not likely to grow any larger in any hurry. Denni☯ 03:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why not? Kappa 03:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because despite its being created in July 2003 (and so more than two years for growth already) and having had the gentle ministrations of no less than eleven editors, it still has only one more competition than what it began with. Its edits have been almost entirely housekeeping edits, and for all intents and purposes, its content has remained unchanged since the Decathlon was added. Even being placed on AfD, which is often a kiss of life for weak articles, seems to have done it no good. As it stands, it is out-and-out useless since both items it lists already have stand-alone articles. While I have nothing against the idea of a good article on the topic, this is not it, and at its present rate of growth, is not likely to become it. Denni☯ 22:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonsense. User:Zoe|(talk) 07:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP Robert 23:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of case sensitive English words

edit

This list seems to be a blatant violation of Wikipedia Is Not A Dictionary. No encyclopedic content. Delete. Angr/tɔk tə mi 21:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gert Jonnys

edit

I couldn't find anything under WP:MUSIC, and although the article creator claimed that it may be notable as an internet meme [15], I only got around 1,000 hits on Google that were barely related and got nothing on Alexa. Karmafist 21:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dazed and Confused Drinking Game

edit

Delete, unencyclopedic and cruft.--Zxcvbnm 21:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete this, it doesn't hurt anyone and it's all in fun. Lighten up.

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Historicism. Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Historical narrative

edit

Delete. There's no information in this article. Hoovernj 21:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep (no votes, so defaulting to keep). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Halim

edit

somebody tagged as speediable, probably it's not, so sent to afd Abstain. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 02:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DynamiContext™

edit

Advertising, Non-notable. See also Kontera and AdLink. Sean 21:26, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more eyeballs, relisting. · Katefan0(scribble) 22:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

edit

Advertising, Non-notable. See also Kontera and DynamiContext™ Sean 21:33, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more eyeballs, relisting. · Katefan0(scribble) 22:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DB Banner

edit

This character sounded fishy to me, so I checked and found not one page about this supposed son of Bruce Banner and Betty. Seems to be nothing but a fan creation. Kross 20:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more eyeballs; relisting. · Katefan0(scribble) 21:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

Yet another useless, though mildly amusing trivia list. Delete. Postdlf 18:15, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. Nothing wrong with this having this list. RickK 18:29, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's one of many lists of songs, which many Wikipedians find valuable. To date, it has received 388 contributions from 82 different registered users (i.e., not counting Docu or the many anonymous contributors). -- Jeff Q 18:45, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, lists of song trivia have been established as encyclopedic since the List of songs where the title does not appear in the lyrics case of March 2003 [[20]. - SimonP 20:07, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • It's an odd sort of list, but it seems like a reasonable enough thing to keep. FZ 20:12, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Cute and weird at the same time. I admit adding an entry to it a few minutes ago. I mean, how could anyone have missed "If I Fell" by The Beatles? Might be fun at parties. Tentative keep. - Lucky 6.9 00:34, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, if only for the sake of searchability and curiousity. Kaelus 06:53, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I'll be in the minority on this, I expect, but I vote delete. I wish we did have a Wikitrivia that could take all these daft lists. Average Earthman 13:14, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Harmless, potentially useful. Haven't you ever put together a mix tape of "songs about trains" or "songs with curse words in them"? Jgm 23:03, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splashtalk 23:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs with brackets in their titles

edit

List is becoming unmaintainable.

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, even discounting redlinks. -Splashtalk 23:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

edit

Non-notable, possible link spam. Notability is not established. CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:11, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:Importance, a proposed guideline that suggests that a criteria for notability be applied. It contains some food for thought on the issue, as does the WP:Notability non-policy. To play devils advocate, if usefulness is the criteria when notability is not established, then what would stop me from writing an article about a code metrics tool I developed that's used within my organization? It is not famous, but the people who use it find it very useful. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
True. Some amount of notability is important (excuse the pun). ··gracefool |☺ 22:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
From the WP:Notability page: "The word notable is often used as a synonym of 'unique' or 'newsworthy.'" Would you deny that coverage from the #1 site covering search is a legitimate secondary source about a search engine? There are many other pages where SearchEngineWatch is listed as a reliabe and trustworthy secondary source: http://www.google.com/search?q=site:en.wikipedia.org+searchenginewatch
··seobook |☺ 11:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC
  • Keep. It's a damn useful tool and although external links go to the site it isn't spam in the traditional sense of link spam on here. - Unsigned vote by 87.74.42.175
  • Keep. For disclosure purposes I am the person who created the tool. The tool was profiled in Search Engine Watch Myriad Search: Meta Search Your Way. Search Engine Watch is the top search information site in the world (search Google for search engine to see Search Engine Watch rank at or near the top). ··seobook |☺ 12:55, 28 September 2005 (UTC
  • User's 3rd edit
Needs more (non-sock) eyeballs. Relisting. · Katefan0(scribble) 22:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pokeshine

edit

Ad for non-notable site. --fvw* 22:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more eyeballs; relisting. · Katefan0(scribble) 22:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedied as nonsense --Doc (?) 23:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Splak

edit

Protologism, close to nonsense. Jkelly 22:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP Robert 23:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Apex Tapes

edit

nn interview CD Delete --Aranda56 23:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more eyballs; relisting. · Katefan0(scribble) 22:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Coon

edit

possible vanity page.He garnered no unique hits from google Deyyaz 23:18, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more eyeballs, relisting. · Katefan0(scribble) 22:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Arnaldo Tamayo Méndez. The target already talks about this person, so need to actually merge. -Splashtalk 23:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

José López Falcón

edit

Could this be A7? nn Delete --Aranda56 23:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. and remove the link from Arnaldo Tamayo Méndez so that no-one tries making an article again. This guy was a "backup" cosmonaut, dont think we need articles on 'backups' Astrokey44 04:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more eyeballs, relisting. · Katefan0(scribble) 22:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Bolt

edit

I like the visual design of his website, but I think he doesn't meet WP:BIO. The only claimed notability is as a filmmaker but I can't find him on IMDB. There's no indication in the 2-sentence article of any notable work, or any work at all, actually. Quale 22:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Woohookitty 10:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Black Mountain Camp

edit

No source provided; no argument for notability provided either, the author created about 30 articles like this, except without any text in them at all. I speedied them all, as CSD A1. Unless some explanation of why this is notable or verifiable can be provided, Delete. JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Move: I've noticed these pages popping up too and I found out where they're comming from. These articles all talk about a particular campsite at Philmont Scout Ranch in New Mexico. The reason why they are all popping up is that the Philmont article has a link created for each campsite. It seems to me that these articles are notable for anyone looking at the Philmont page, but are not very notable to Wikipedia as a whole. I proposed in the discussion page that these articles be moved into subpages under the main Philmont article (If you want to debate this issue, go to the discussion page). If that doesn't work, we could at least set up a Philont category and list all the campsites there. Solarusdude 22:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus Karmafist 16:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clark's Fork Camp

edit

No source provided; no argument for notability provided either, the author created about 30 articles like this, except without any text in them at all. I speedied them all, as CSD A1. Unless some explanation of why this is notable or verifiable can be provided, Delete. JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Move: I've noticed these pages popping up too and I found out where they're comming from. These articles all talk about a particular campsite at Philmont Scout Ranch in New Mexico. The reason why they are all popping up is that the Philmont article has a link created for each campsite. It seems to me that these articles are notable for anyone looking at the Philmont page, but are not very notable to Wikipedia as a whole. I proposed in the discussion page that these articles be moved into subpages under the main Philmont article (If you want to debate this issue, go to the discussion page). If that doesn't work, we could at least set up a Philont category and list all the campsites there. Solarusdude 22:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Keep the information this article could provide is too much to be merged into any one article. 700,000 people have been to Philmont so while this camp may not be 'notable' or famous, the information the article could provide is valuable and worth retaining.--L1AM 12:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -- but maybe move? Per L1AM & Solarusdude
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Karmafist 16:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crooked Creek Camp

edit

No source provided; no argument for notability provided either, the author created about 30 articles like this, except without any text in them at all. I speedied them all, as CSD A1. Unless some explanation of why this is notable or verifiable can be provided, Delete. JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Move: I've noticed these pages popping up too and I found out where they're comming from. These articles all talk about a particular campsite at Philmont Scout Ranch in New Mexico. The reason why they are all popping up is that the Philmont article has a link created for each campsite. It seems to me that these articles are notable for anyone looking at the Philmont page, but are not very notable to Wikipedia as a whole. I proposed in the discussion page that these articles be moved into subpages under the main Philmont article (If you want to debate this issue, go to the discussion page). If that doesn't work, we could at least set up a Philont category and list all the campsites there. Solarusdude 22:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I went to Philmont so I may be biased but these should be kept. Here's why: more than 700,000 Scouts and leaders have backpacked through Philmont since 1938. These camps are familar to many people. With some additional work, the articles could be useful. I tried merging them into a Camps of Philmont article but if quality information is added to each subheading, that article will be enormous. The information could be valuable but the only way to share it is to keep all the individual articles.--L1AM 10:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedied by DavidWBrooks --Doc (?) 23:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Swedanese

edit

Not very amusing joke. 31 Google hits. Dlyons493 Talk 22:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedied as nonsense --Doc (?) 23:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Helicoptering

edit

More nonsense from the Swedanese IP address. Dlyons493 Talk 22:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. – Sasquatcht|c 23:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Celestial fall

edit

Band substub, no claim of notability. Borderline speedy candidate. Ilmari Karonen 22:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was No consensus after nearly a month. Rx StrangeLove 04:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moxoene

edit

Is there any independently verifiable source info for this article?? Every Google hit refers to the Wiki entry here. Merge to Armenia if we must but I say Delete unless someone can come up with something a little more concrete. Eddie.willers 23:01, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough eyeballs, relisting. · Katefan0(scribble) 22:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Rx StrangeLove 04:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Parenticide

edit

An unnecessary and unimaginative neologism, loaded up with pop-psychology piffle. DavidWBrooks 20:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

&Keep, cleanup, and de-POV it as per Angr. Sadly there's enough notable examples of this for an article to be justified. 23skidoo 04:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MathMartin\Newton polynomial

edit

Appears to be a copy of Newton polynomial with a nonsensical title. Not even worth a redirect; no one is going to search for or link to "MathMartin\Newton polynomial". Psychonaut 22:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE Robert 23:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Dr)

edit

non notable halo gaming clan -- (☺drini♫|☎) 22:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Doctor -- (☺drini♫|☎) 23:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Comedy film, content is already there. -Splashtalk 23:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adult comedy film

edit

This isn't really a genuine film genre. Seems to be inspired by the release of The Wedding Crashers. JW 22:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Allfon

edit

SpamDlyons493 Talk 23:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED per the nominator's remarks. -Splashtalk 02:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mydieter

edit

Nonsens. About a group of young people devoted to clean the underground of Schermbeck from impurities in the bacteria comunity (?). -guety is talking english bad 23:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 08:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unlending

edit

Spam for mortgage sitesDlyons493 Talk 23:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The links were put in place to reference the practice of the definition. That is why the links are to competing organizations. Derek Tamura October 6 2005

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 08:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Marleys Dead

edit

Typical $@$#@ band vanity created by an account whose sole purpose, it seems, was to spam this site. I really want to speedy this one, but rules is rules. Delete. - Lucky 6.9 23:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 08:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

James Werken

edit

Elaborate hoax - nothing in Google on this NeilN 23:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we ask the author to verify his sources before we delete it? Ben D. 23:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, he posted a link to an obviously fake picture at: Http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v211/dragonar/jameswerken.jpg Ben D. 23:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The author has all the time they need in the 5 days of the AfD. We don't need to wait around for them. -Splashtalk 23:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splashtalk 23:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pull my finger

edit

(no vote). Someone tagged, but not listed. mikka (t) 23:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC).[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splashtalk 23:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Karl W. Richter

edit

Non notable? Andy Mabbett 14:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: yes, but only a minority of sites use his middle initial. A Google on "Karl Richter" MiG gets over 2500 hits, mostly about him. Tearlach 12:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zombina and the Skeletones

edit

Does not meet standard for musical ensemble article inclusion DarbyAsh 00:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_September_30&oldid=1233258501"