Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 October 20

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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. Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Farsi. Has been on WP:PNT since 5 October. Physchim62 13:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• delete; without translation, it's just nonsense in an English wikipedia, and nobody has taken up the task for two weeks. — brighterorange (talk) 15:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless someone translates before the end of AfD.--Isotope23 18:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Farsi Wikipedia and delete the version on the English Wikipedia unless translated before the end of AfD. Andrew pmk | Talk 22:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Translate or something. Molotov (talk)
  03:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, its two weeks at WP:PNT are up. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 08:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN --Rogerd 03:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Farsi. Has been on WP:PNT since 5 October. Physchim62 13:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete if not translated in next day or so. --MacRusgail 16:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless someone translates before the end of AfD.--Isotope23 18:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Farsi Wikipedia and delete the version on the English Wikipedia unless translated before the end of AfD. Andrew pmk | Talk 22:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Translate or something. Molotov (talk)
  03:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, its two weeks at WP:PNT are up. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 08:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NNd --Rogerd 03:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greek. Has been on WP:PNT since 5 October. Physchim62 13:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English:

It's in Greek, and that's all I know. DS 13:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It means Anexartiti Phoititiki Hepalxi (I hope I didn't make any errors in transliterating), and it seems to be a Greek-nationalist Cypriot political party. That's about all I can tell. Aecis 16:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless someone translates before the end of AfD.--Isotope23 18:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Greek Wikipedia and delete the version on the English Wikipedia unless translated before the end of AfD. Andrew pmk | Talk 22:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has now been transwikied to el:Ανεξάρτητη Φοιτητική ΈΠΑΛξη, and so is speediable. Physchim62 04:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Translate or something. Molotov (talk)
  03:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you going to translate it?? It won't happen by itself. "or something"?? what something? --Rogerd 02:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, its two weeks at WP:PNT are up. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 08:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN --Rogerd 02:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article about a flash advertisement for a non-notable company. Almost a speedy. --Anetode 04:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Useless, advertising.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  06:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete. Why isn't this A1? --JJay 16:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article appeared to have context for expansion. --Anetode 17:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Ad for a sexually explicit advertisement. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if not speedy delete an article on a web ad?! Cool3 19:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN --Rogerd 02:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a non-notable web site... <200 google hits... --Mysidia (talk) 23:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nn website. Appears to be advertising. Forbsey 23:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Advertising. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete advert --Rogerd 13:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• some background. the ezine has been in existence for 8 years, quite an achievement for one person. It is part of the National Library of Canada, so it is recognized as being an important representation of a media form. (Unsigned comment by 72.38.206.228 (talk · contribs))

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

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

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

Unverifiable, probably a hoax Demiurge 14:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as per nom. Demiurge 14:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete, hoax vandalism perpetrated by WoW sock or imitator. android79 14:12, 20 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 after being blanked by author. Friday (talk) 20:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not encyclopedic. Molotov (talk)
20:09, 20 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 delete. Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Smells like a hoax. Posted with {{cleanup-verify}} 10 days ago, and no verification has been supplied. Google search for "Alan Mcilwraith" produces only 27 hits, none of which (except for Wikipedia and mirror hits) appear to be relevant. One would think that if a gentleman had provoked a standing ovation at a UN meeting, at least one newspaper somewhere would have written a story about it. --Russ Blau (talk) 19:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a wacked-out haggis munching hoax! Check the dates - inducted to a University at age 16 for a scant 2 years before military academy. Only 27 years old but a knight and still only a Captain - despite all those decorations! And what is this sublime officer, this paragon of scottish manhood, doing serving in the Territorials - a part-time army! etc etc etc...cont. P.94. Eddie.willers 21:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Rogerd 05:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Make this nonsense go away. Average Earthman 23:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• This page should be deleted. It is created and edited by the person that it is about. The only reference to him on the internet is his own web page that he created.

vanity vanity vanity: delete --202.158.212.34 03:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• Well...delete. But only for the reason that he appears non-notable by WP standards. His contributing his own article does not neccessarily mean that we have to delete it. Nor does the heavy "editing" done by you, User:202.158.212.34, mean that we should keep it. Posting "Makin is a narcissist" on the page looks an awful lot like an attack. But whatever. Googletest does not bring up much and it sounds like he is involved in a minor municaplity role, without making much of a splash on the big picture. —Gaff ^ταλκ 04:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but my comments were referenced to the history of the page whereas his opinions are completely subjective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.158.212.34 (talk • contribs) 04:10, 20 October 2005

• Delete nn --Anetode 04:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn, vanity pfctdayelise 05:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable, also, auto-bio Agnte 07:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity. -- WB 07:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Scott Davis ^Talk 07:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Agnte--User:AYArktos | Talk 09:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no original research thanks. Alphax ^τεχ 15:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If he gets elected maybe, but for now totally NN. --JJay 16:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non notable as yet. -- DarbyAsh 21:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn, vanityFRS 22:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am a resident of Melbourne's outer East, and I do not believe that this article is vanity. Alex Makin is a publically known activist- just a couple of days ago I was reading an article about him in the Age, the most respected newspaper in Melbourne [1]. He is also mentioned as a key player in official parliamentary hansard [2], showing that he does not necesssarily need to be elected to be notable. This shows that there is far more to Alex Makin's public profile than his personal website (Crazyandrew 08:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete. Created by User:Alexm; therefore vanity. Snottygobble | Talk 03:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. vanity. -- Ian ≡ talk 03:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus, a suggestion was made to rename the page which can be discussed on the talk page. Rx StrangeLove 03:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a thinly veiled attempt to merge a series of FOSS articles without consensus. It's a duplicate of content that already exists in the other articles. One reason cited to create the article was that the other articles were POV, but that's not a valid reason to create a new article. The title of the article itself is POV, as many would disagree that one is necessarily an alterntive term for the other. Nathan J. Yoder 16:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Nathan J. Yoder 16:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I beg others to check what Njyoder is saying. The talk page for the article never says anything about other articles being POV. The Talk page says that this article is a consolidation of other articles, so yes it currently duplicates info on those articles. The reason for creating this page is that the other pages duplicate a lot of information (sometimes with inaccuracies, and those differ from article to article), and a secondary issue is that quality of the other pages seems to suggest that have few wikipedians caring for them (and this is a situation which has not been changing over the years) - merging to one article would combine their efforts. I plan to suggest a merge of the articles in question, when I've finished making this page. On the issue of POV, which has not been raised by me, but since it has been raised by the person requesting deletion of this page, combined efforts will bring more eyeballs to this page and more eyeballs should lead to less POV.

The articles which I've suggested merging into this article are libre software, FLOSS, FOSS, and OSS/FS. There may also exist others (of lesser size / of less known terms). Each is an alternative name for free software. Some can be thought of as an alternative name for "both free software and open source software", but, "open source software" is, by definition, an alternative name for "free software" [3]. So I maintain that this page and it's name are accurate and would be an improvemet over the current situation. Finally, I would like to note that I only started this article a few minutes before it was suggested for delection, and I have commented that it's not yet ready, and I have continued to improve it since. It is therefore a work in progress (although a good one, IMO) and can of course me modified by anyone. Gronky 17:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You said: " Current pages for such terms are fairly thin, and go through phases of being biased." Correct me if I'm wrong, but 'biased' means POV. You've conceded that you've done a unilateral merge without consensus. The names "open source" and "free software" are associated with philosophies and movements as well, they're not just definitions for licenses, so it's misleading to classify them as that. Nathan J. Yoder 17:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They go through phase of containing POV. POV isn't a persistant problem, but consistancy is a persistant problem. It appears that not many people are caring for these pages, and when edits are made it's by one person and it an go weeks or months without review. Also, I have not done any merge - not unilateral or multilateral. I have made a page which I hope will reach (or has already reached) a quality and usefulness where I can propose it for a merge. The philosophies put forward by FSF and OSI are indeed different, but this does not make FLOSS different from free software. Gronky 17:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So you admit you brought up POV then. You did merge the content, you took it from the articles and you stuck it in this one. That's called merging, it seems like the only means you have to counter my argument is some very weird semantic argument using a bizzare version of English that only you speak. And the philosophies are different, which means the associations between the terms are different, which means you can't just blindly substitute one for another as an "alternative." Meanings of words go beyond just what they are formally defined as. For example, the dictionary definition of "propaganda" is benign, but anyone who speaks the language knows it has an obvious negative connatation/meaning attached to it. And the idea that some of the terms are alternatives to others implies a certain inferiority as well. Nathan J. Yoder 01:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Merge" is a wikipedia term, as well you know. It means, approximately, to stick on a tag that suggests replacing many articles with 1. My page is not a merge. On the word "Alternatives", I've already agreed to remove the word. And you know this too. To steer clear of philosophical implications, in the article I try to talk about software "that is covered by the names discussed in this article". I can't think of a fairer method than that, and now that you've advertised this on the open-source software Talk page, that one side of the debate can contribute to the article if they feel there's misrepresentation. It's a wiki, the community can fix it. Gronky 10:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He left out that he also suggested merging open source software as well. Nathan J. Yoder 17:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did not suggest merging open source software. I said "Ideally, open source software should also be merged into this, but if the maintainers of that page want to continue as a seperate page, that's what'll happen." - i.e. I will not do a merge of open source software, and I may not even suggest it, but I will mention this page on the Talk page of open source software, and if they want to merge in, that would probably be good (but it's up to them, and I say "probably" because that debate is not for today and I don't have a firm stance on it) Gronky 17:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That was obviously a suggestion, stop trying to back out of it by arguing semantics. Nathan J. Yoder 01:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, regarding the nomination, I just noticed another false criticism. This is not duplicate content. It contains some duplicate content, but if you read the article there is plent of new stuff in there. (Stuff that would be silly to put in each terms page since that would be more duplication, and stuff that can't fit in each term's page because it deals with how the terms relate to eachother.) Gronky 19:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What content ISN'T a duplication? Nathan J. Yoder 01:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Definitions and meanings section and the Licenses section are both new. Other new bits are included throughout the article. And I'm still working on the article (although slower than I had hoped - due to being busy). Gronky 03:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They're new sections with duplicated content from other sections. The types of licenses covered, the history of the definitions/terms, the attempted registering of the trademark and so forth are all covered by the other articles. You're still using semantics to twist things. It's disingenuous to suggest that because other articles haven't used those specific headers that the content in those sections is new. I also noticed that you're already POVifying the article, trying to portray the term "free software" as if all they did was co-opt the term and renamed it (like they were just some copy cat movement), ignoring any kind of philosophical and pragmatic disagrements. Nathan J. Yoder 04:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Those sections are not duplicate content. Read them. Some other articles might have sections with the same section title, but the analysis and comparison and the facts were researched by me. Gronky 10:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have read them, I'm asking which part of them is new content, please quote something. Nathan J. Yoder 19:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I feel I'm being set up here - as if you're asking me to pick one sentence so that you can pick at it and ridicule it. Well here's one anyway. You asked to be shown "new content", so please, evaluate the newness only of this - I'm not saying every word is perfect, it's not a finished article:

While the term "free software" is mostly associated with FSF's definition, and the term "open-source software" is mostly associated with OSI's definition, the other terms have not been claimed by any group in particular. This, however, has not lead to confusion since the definitions published by FSF and OSI are practically the same.

The bit up to the first comma is probably mentioned in an article somewhere, as is the bit between the first and second commas. The bit between the 2nd comma and the first full stop is new. The last sentence is also new, as far as I know. But, more than the newness of individual words, phrases, or sentences (and even if I'm not correct about the above, at least under the scrutiny you've been tracking me with of late), the arrangement of this information is new - rather than it being spread across multiple articles, each one with a different wording - here it is consolidated. It is undeniable that a non-zero amount of newness exists there - and you asked only for newness - so I think this is the conclusion on this issue. Gronky 21:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So the entirety of the newness is you saying "the other terms haven't been claimed by anyone"? The last sentence isn't new, the other articles discuss similarity between the formal definitions. It seems to me that you'rearguing that it's new content based on the fact that you've rephrased and reordered some sentences, even though the information remains the same. Nathan J. Yoder 22:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your first sentence (up to the question mark) implies that you agree there is something new. You asked for something new, I've shown you something new. The rest of your comment just confirms my stated suspician that you asked me the question for the purpose of ridiculing whatever sentence I chose. Gronky 04:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Gronky 17:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you clarify? The nominator is clearly recommending deletion. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 17:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry "per nom" removed, I was refering to that I was also the poster of the above comment, that that connection was broken when someone replied to it. Gronky 17:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, a discussion of the various terms is useful, and it's nice to keep the discussion in one place. However, the nom is correct in that the title is POV, so perhaps rename to Free Software terminology (or something else avoiding the word "alternative"). — Lomn | Talk / RfC 17:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly open to a change of name. I don't see "altenative" as being POV - but that could be just me. I think "Free Software terminology" changes the scope greatly. "terms for free software" would be good though. (the difference being that the latter says what the terminology is for, while the former says what it's about - which a hard to define relationship.) Another title I thought of was "suggested replacements for free software" - but FLOSS, FOSS, and OSS/FS weren't suggested as replacements, they were just suggested. "other names for free software"? Just "names for free software"? or "terms for free software"? Other suggestions welcome. Gronky 18:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but proably change the name. `Trollderella 19:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.Gator1 19:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because Richard Stallman will kick our asses if we don't per nom. This really belongs on free software, if anywhere. Lord Bob 21:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that the information belongs together in one article, but I will ask you to reconsider your vote because I think this article contains too much information to fit in a subsection of another page. Keep in mind that it was proposed for deletion only minutes after I started making it, so it's not yet as complete as it will be. For example, I hadn't written the Licenses section when this was proposed for deletion, but I think that's a good section now and it doesn't completely fit under the topic of free software. Gronky 22:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  I certainly see that this article, as is, can hardly be put verbatim into free software because it's just too long. However, I personally believe that, if it belongs anywhere, a very much more concise list in free software would be best. We'd have to be pretty concise about it, but I think it would be best. Lord Bob 23:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, I see where you're coming from. The list of terms can certainly be made more concise, and this is something that I plan to do (I just didn't get time to do this before an Afd suddenly appeared). I did the list first because it's the easiest, but I think the more important things are the bits I'm working on now such as the "Definitions and meanings" and the "Licenses" sections. If this article was just/mostly a list of names and blurbs about each, I'd agree that it should be merged - but please check back in a day or two and see where the article has developed to. One other thing, although of secondary importance, is that if this is put in the free software page, it will be maintained by the maintainers of that page - which wouldn't be as good for neutrality as a seperate article would be. Gronky 23:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Check back in a day or two? I will certainly be happy to do so and reconsider my vote in that context when the time comes. Lord Bob 00:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunately, my wikipedia time has been almost completely exausted by this Afd. Although I haven't been able to show the purpose of the page by writing it, information of my plans is in this here discussion, as well as the one on Talk:Open-source_software, and the one on Talk:Alternative terms for free software. Gronky 04:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge everything into, or at least direct traffic from: Geek naming controversies or similar category -- List_of_disputed_F/OSS_terminology, FLOSS, FOSS, Libre Software, Open_source_vs._free_software, GNU/Linux naming controversy... Talk page indicates that is the goal. I'll stay out of it. have fun ∴ here…♠ 22:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Talk page was not meant to indicate that. The page is not supposed to have anything about the "GNU/Linux" naming stuff, and it shouldn't have Anything Vs. Otherthing. It's not about controvercy or disputes. This is the history of the names that have appeared, the reasons for each name, the meaning and associations of each name, and other factual stuff. Emotional stuff is for another article. Pages such as List of disputed F/OSS terminology are terrible. Gronky 22:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a great article. Perhaps history of free software terminology would be a perfect name. I'll abstain as this is much larger (and heated) than I am willing to dismantle. ∴ here…♠ 22:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This AFD has now been advertised on the Talk page for open-source software (by Njyoder). I feel this may bias the sample of Wikipedians that enter this debate. (However, I will not retaliate/escalate this by adding similar advertisements to other articles.) Gronky 03:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So add it to other articles, this needs to be voted on by people in all the relevent articles. Nathan J. Yoder 04:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, merges need to be voted on by people of all relevent articles. This isn't a merge, it's just a page. It will probably form the proposal for a merge when it's ready, but it itself is still just a page - and it would be nice if I could have gotten the proposal ready before it was thrown into AFD trials. Gronky 10:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you're right, AfDs shouldn't be voted on by the people who best understand the subject matter. You could have avoided this all by asking for permission first, don't complain about getting proposals ready when you move ahead with something without permission. Nathan J. Yoder 19:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You could claim that you notified "the people who best understand" if you had notified all related articles, or even two or three of the most related articles, but you notified one. Ask for permission? For what? From who? This is getting crazy. Gronky 21:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I inserted it into free software after you complained too. You need to ask for permission from your fellow Wikipedians, because Wikipedia acts on this principle of consensus. When merging content, you start a discussion to ask if it's a good idea or not. Nathan J. Yoder 22:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't merged anything. I had not added any merge tags to any articles, and I had not opened a dialogue on any Talk pages about merging. I wanted to try something out, and if it went well, I would probably propose it for a merge. Gronky 03:57, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Rx StrangeLove 03:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity/advertising in Spanish. Physchim62 13:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A translation frm Babelfish is available on the talk page. Physchim62 13:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English:

Spanish? Looks like a bit of vanity... Budgiekiller 11:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm it's Spanish, vanity, and a bit of advertising. Arker 13:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would one care to move this to AFD (I have no concrete evidence of vanity, it just had that ring to it...) Budgiekiller 13:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete advert --Rogerd 02:52, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Budgiekiller 15:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Possible vanity article created by User:Eaaland, as per above. The Minister of War 16:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as advertising vanity. Eddie.willers 21:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete blatant advertising vanity - Forbsey 00:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not advertizing, but a market standard for provisioning VoIP and IP devices from a service provider to the end user equipment.

• Einar, APS may well deserve an article. But your version is a blatant ad for one specific product. Hence delete; we'd best start over from scratch. (Google indicates with a mere 178 hits for +"automatic provisioning system" that there are other manufacturers of APS.) Lupo 08:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as vanity. Person shows no interest in any Wikipedia goals or principles, hence the user should also possibly be blocked and subject words be added to a blacklist. -- NoUser 13:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Rogerd 04:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Advertisement. Sponsoring a puzzle contest for me doesn't qualify as criterium for notability as defined in WP:CORP. --S.K. 12:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was merely filling in the stub since it was linked from other pages. Vote to keep, but don't particularly care.AppleSeed 12:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete - seems like a resonably large company, but not convinced that there is anything of note there. Fourohfour 15:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Factual, verifiable and neutral. Trollderella 16:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could write an article about my Ford Taurus that is in my garage that would be factual, verifiable and neutral. But it wouldn't merit an article in wikipedia --Rogerd 02:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.Gator1 19:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Dottore So 13:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN --Rogerd 02:43, 22 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 Speedy Deleted by Ragib as recreation of a deleted article. --GraemeL ^(talk) 13:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article, once deleted [4], has come back, this time with a copyvio to boot [5]. Tintin 23:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Surely this is a no-brainer. If it was voted to be deleted and has resurrected within a day with a copyvio, then it must go again. Otherwise, it was a mockery of the first voting process. Ian Cairns 23:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The last discussion ended early because it was a copyvio, and so should this one. His discography establishes that he very easily passes WP:MUSIC so I will vote to keep any non-copyvio version that shows up. Kappa 00:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because it's a re-created copyvio. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:27, 21 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 delete. --Celestianpower ^háblame 16:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bandcruft. Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nomination. Harvestdancer 15:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Bad hoax. --JJay 21:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower ^háblame 16:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I speak Norwegian and I have never heard of this word. After reading the article I found out why, it is an "expression came to birth at Grefsen V.G.S. in Oslo during the summer of '05". ("V.G.S." BTW stands for "Videregående skole", or high school.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, non-notable Norwegian neologism, per nominator. — JIP | Talk 08:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Anetode 10:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Neologism. jni 15:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. --JJay 21:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• This Norwegian says Delete, neologism. Punkmorten 18:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN --Rogerd 02:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. – Alphax ^τεχ 02:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not noteworthy +/- vanity. Ifnord 04:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Vanity page. Mr. Tibbs 07:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No content.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  07:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• She wrote quite a nice book about herself and Marc Chagall and appeared on the most of his paintings. It might be worth to safe her. As it is now the article is not useful. abakharev 07:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have rewritten it. I would say keep abakharev 12:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your work. It's a very good start. --Jacquelyn Marie 16:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Lots of hits on Google. Book, etc. It's not so full right now, but it can be filled. -- WB 08:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Even if she is notable, the current contents are useless. Wikipedia is not paper, and so deleting an article now doesn't prevent recreating the article later. When someone actually has more information about Rosenfeld than her name and relationship to Chagall, they can write an article then. — JIP | Talk 08:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vote changed to keep after rewrite by User:Alex Bakharev. — JIP | Talk 14:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No content. KNewman 10:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious keep after User:Alex Bakharev's work on the article. Uppland 12:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. There's more there than most stubs right now, but I know there could be a lot more. (Note to admins: if it would help create consensus later, I'd also be okay with a merge to Marc Chagall.) --Jacquelyn Marie 16:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Factual, verifiable and neutral. Trollderella 16:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Alex Bakharev's rewrite. Notable enough for mine due to her connection with Chagall and her biography. Capitalistroadster 19:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep after rewrite. ∴ here…♠ 20:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as rewritten. MCB 21:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• speedy keep after rewrite by User:Alex Bakharev. --Irpen 02:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep thanks to Alex Bakharev. Nice work.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  02:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 09:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A not (quite) notable footnote to a footnote. chocolateboy 17:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.Gator1 19:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN --Rogerd 05:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- why delete it? Useful background info. I thought Wikipedia's policy was to err on the side of keeping what is there? Someone has gone to the bother of writing it, and others may find it useful. I just did. --Dan Huby 22:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower ^háblame 16:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not encyclopedic and is advertising. The subject seems to be linking to this page from its website. Secretlondon 19:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Haeleth 21:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Copyvio from [6]. Tagged as such. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Rogerd 05:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. *drew 07:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower ^háblame 16:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Attempt to coin a neologism. NN OR (burnies "burning man" gets 25 hits on Google) --Anetode 03:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable.--Dakota 04:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If we have an article on Burning Man Festival, maybe could mention that festival goers have different attitudes towards the festival. So...possibly merge. But this seems all unverified on non-encyclopedic.—Gaff ^ταλκ 04:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is quite an extensive article on Burning Man. This information, if valid, would be much more fitting within the Burning Man article, so merge if apropos. ♠DanMS 05:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable neologism. — JIP | Talk 08:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If this information is in fact true, extensive research would still have to be done to verify it and make the text something worth merging anyway. And at that point, you might as well rewrite it from scratch. In any case, regardless of the state of the text, it's not a topic that deserves its own encyclopedic entry. --Jacquelyn Marie 15:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If true, deserves at most one sentence in Burning Man. MCB 21:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN - agree with MCB --Rogerd 02:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower ^háblame 16:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa ranking has nothing to do with this site not deserving a page here on wikipedia. It has been around long enough to deserve one.

Ad for a non-notable website (Alexa ranking: 397,468) --Anetode 03:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As per nomination.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  06:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --JJay 21:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn.mikka (t) 22:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN --Rogerd 02:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. – Alphax ^τεχ 02:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article is an inaccurate summary plugging a nn 272-page book that was the only book written by this author. The book itself was written in early 2004. To say that the book was not exactly a best seller would be an understatement. Joaquin Murietta 14:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge opinion to George W. Bush, as there has indeed been speculation about his drinking habits on a wide scale in the past couple of years. Recently, there was an article about the issue in some tabaloid (Star or what have you). Granted, they are speculations only at this point, I think, but we can insert the information about said speculation in a NPOV way. This article itself, however, is unnecessary. --Jacquelyn Marie 18:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep... book made some waves when it was published before the election. I don't set the bar on books as high as best-seller list. Is there criteria like WP:MUSIC for literature? I'd concur with Jacquelyn Marie if it wasn't for the constant POV edit war over there at George W. Bush... Bush on the Couch would be giving them gasoline and matches. Regardless, I'd slap a dated cleanup on this article becuase if it is kept it needs a complete rewrite.--Isotope23 18:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point about gasoline and matches. I am changing my vote to weak keep. Isotope23's call for a cleanup tag is also a good idea. --Jacquelyn Marie 05:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn.Gator1 19:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep--Amazon sales rank of 10,200 (pretty high up there), and major media attention including reviews from notable publications (e.g. Salon) and mention in the Washington Post's "Reliable Sources" column. Meelar (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• keep Disclaimer: I wrote the text that another wikipedian has described as POV, and an inaccurate summary.

• I think the book is notable, even if it didn't make any best-seller lists.
• I think we need to recognize that there is a difference between an article that is POV, and an article that reports on a book, whose contents are POV. Articles on books that are POV are not necessarily POV themselves. If the article is NPOV it clearly belongs on the wikipedia.
• If a book is notable enough to belong on the wikipedia, but the contents are agreed to be POV, then surely the next step is to rewrite it, or to add a {npov} tag?
• The person who nominated this for deletion put a note in the talk page that the article was an "inaccurate summary" of the book. I haven't read the book. But I have read several articles about it. I believe the brief summary in the article accurately reflects what the articles and reviews of the book said the book contained. Here are some reviews from across the political spectrum.

• The inner W, Salon, June 16, 2004
• Book Review – Bush on the Couch, by Justin Frank, a review - Political Affairs, October 3, 2003
• Shrinking the President: A mind is a dangerous thing to psychoanalyze, The Weekly Standard, September 19, 2004
• Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President, a review

• Wikipedians can differ on how much credibility they allow Dr Frank. But the book was widely reviewed and is regularly quoted and cited. And that, IMO, makes it worthy of mention in the wikipedia.
• As to whether the information about the book should be merged with the George W. Bush article... I think the wikipedia is better served with the information about this book staying in an article of its own. I gather that the GWB article is beset by unending edit wars. IMO the current contents are NPOV. And it will be easier to keep them NPOV if it is a standalone article. Or restore it to NPOV, if you disagree about it being NPOV now.
• IMO standalone ancillary articles make the wikipedia easier to use than huge, monolithic, omnibus articles. -- Geo Swan 21:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• keep please this book has a good sales ranking on amazon Yuckfoo 22:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• How can people vote in good faith if they say, I haven't read the book. But I have read several articles about it. ??? Joaquin Murietta 23:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's the whole point of the policy wikipedia:No original research. I don't have to report about this damn book. I have to report what has already been reported in reputable sources about it. Of course, reading the book itself might prove useful for writing an article, but definitely it is useless during voting: an opinion (read: POV) of a vikipedian about the book itself is irrelevant. mikka (t) 00:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point, in this case the person who said they did not read the book did write the article! Joaquin Murietta 02:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • My keep vote is not based on an assessment of the accuracy of Dr Frank's views, but on widely the book has penetrated the public consciousness. I have a google news alert on "Justin Frank". Over the last year it has generated, on average, more than one hit per week. That is not an enormous presence. But I think it is enough to justify an article. I remain curious what basis JM used to justify writing in the talk page that the article was an "inaccurate summary" of the book. -- Geo Swan 07:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm glad to answer that. Here is the article written by Geo Swan, without ever reading the book!

      Bush on the Couch is the title of a book by psychoanalyst Justin Frank. One of Frank's main concerns of Frank's book is that President George W. Bush, as an untreated alcoholic, was in constant danger of a relapse. Further, in Frank's opinion, President Bush manifested the symptoms of a dry-drunk, principally irritability, judgementalism and a rigid, unadaptable world view. Defenders of President Bush have responded by challenging the value and scientific respectability of analyzing someone without a clinical interview.

      Maybe if you actually read a few books, Geo Swan... oh well. Never mind. Joaquin Murietta 14:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• My writing seem to serve as a red flag to a bull to JM.
• Here is a new article JM started about an hour ago, which contains what I consider a personal attack, in violation of wiki policy.
• Here is a comment JM left on my talk page, similar to those above, and my reply. -- Geo Swan 16:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and cleanup. Seems to have attracted some attention see a Google search [7]. Capitalistroadster 00:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - Appears to be genuine, but still could do with a clean-up! I really cant see a need to delete this article. - Bwfc 13:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Notable enough book on Google and Amazon. Agree with others re cleanup, but that is no reason to delete a perfectly valid article. --Cactus.man ✍ 13:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but clean up. Fawcett5 13:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Why would you want to delete this. A published book with topical content. --Meiers Twins 18:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I wasn't aware of any of this until I found Justin Frank submitted by Joaquin Murietta today. Submitting an article that begins "Justin Frank is the author of a book that Geo Swan has never read" is childish and constitutes a personal attack (see article history). There is no reason to waste everyone's time like that. --JJay 19:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the book looks notable enough - no need to have read it to write about it, the article is not meant to be a book review --Me or a Robin 11:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per JJay. --Apyule 11:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable book. Also, I concur with what JJay said. --rob 06:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: the article is a published book and is therefore a totally valid entry. You don't need to like it, but the fact is that it exists. The article just needs to be cleaned up and kept from bias. devotchka

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. --Celestianpower ^háblame 16:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

one of the less frequently used insults on a show, only appearing in one or two episodes. Melaen 15:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable... fancruft or would-be neologism. --W.marsh 15:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete obscure insult neologism. --Fire Star 16:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but I do have to work that one back into my list of insults used when someone beats me at poker with a higher flush kicker Youngamerican 19:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this infrequently used insult. Joyous (talk) 20:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A one-time insult or joke in a cartoon doesn't pass my reasonably low bar for fancruft inclusion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN --Rogerd 04:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN Remy B 15:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower ^háblame 16:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Calchas Street is an as-yet incomplete manuscript by the British writer Alistair Davie", the article informs. The phrase "Calchas Street" itself gives no Google hits; the name of the author Alistair Davie gives one pertinent hit - the website of the British Arts Council informs that Alistair was awarded GBP 600 to support a manuscript reading to secure a literaty agent for his piece "Waiting Room". Alistair's name does not return any hits in the catalogue of the British Library.

As this is an unpublished work of an obscure author this entry should be deleted.

Please note that this entry was brough to us by the same anonymous hoaxter that brought us Professor David Ashmead and his œvre, whose entry is up for deletion here. Pilatus 21:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as this article is impossible to verify.--Scimitar ^parley 21:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. feydey 08:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN --Rogerd 13:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE NN ROADCRUFT --SPUI (talk) 18:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That made me laugh. Alphax ^τεχ 02:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unpublished manuscript by relatively unknown author sounds like Original Research. Oh, and it's completely unverifiable as well. Alphax ^τεχ 02:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Hoax. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 15:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower ^háblame 16:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One of millions of solders who served in World War II Shows no other sign of notablily except for being a solder. Delete --JAranda | watz sup 23:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There were millions of them, and most of them weren't notable. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete, CSD:A7, no assertion of notability. Anyone? MCB 01:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Captain Jones might have been saved from a probable death but many innocent Japanese were killed. The way this article is written makes my spine tingle.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  04:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN --Rogerd 13:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN, reads like a book report or something. Devotchka 23:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete then redirect to Carlyle Group. --Celestianpower ^háblame 16:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

vanity advertising and non-notable, same as Recruit Event (also nominated)Gator1 21:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. - Gator1 21:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How can this be vanity advertising? It doesn't advertise anything. Memetank 21:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that this is not the Carlyle Group featured in Fahrenheit 9/11 although its name is probably pronounced the same way. Weak keep because this company is listed on the London Stock Exchange. --Metropolitan90 03:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom., still looks like nn. -feydey 08:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Rogerd 12:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Carlyle Group, common misspelling. --Golbez 05:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 20:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment an anon editor keeps removing the {{Afd}} -- Rogerd 13:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Vanity. Delete --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 22:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Editor of some papers that don't seem to have articles on WP... 36 google hits (which is odd, I know a local newspaper reporter who gets zillions of google hits because her name gets repeated so much in by-lines). I say Delete as non-notable. --W.marsh 22:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I know this person very well. She might not have enough google hits... but her name is not common. for example, John Smith could be the editor, and no duh it would have a lot of google hits. Are you aware she really was an editor. She represented New Edinburgh. Check the Wikipedia article on that. If you read the article on her, she did more than be an editor. She also got nomminated for ottawa's women award. Isn't that a big achievement? So keep the article, so more people can learn about someone local to Ottawa.
  • I hate to say this anon user, but there are tons of article on folks from Ottawa who deserve them. Your person isn't encyclopedic. Besides, anon users don't get a vote. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 00:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No-one gets a vote on Votes Articles for Deletion. :-) Even then, there's no rule that prevents closers from taking comments left from anons into account. Wikipedia encourages people to create accounts but doesn't require it. — mendel ☎ 20:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; appears to be an average successful reporter/editor, but not widely known or discussed. MCB 01:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable and per MCB. -feydey 08:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• The only thing in the article that could meet WP:BIO is her editorships (being nominated for, but not winning, an award is below the radar, particularly for local awards). Anyone know the circulation figures for the New Edinburgh News and Manor Park Chronicle? They're both community papers. I happen to have the Kitchissippi Times (Hintonburg/Westboro) here, with a circulation of 16,700, so assuming that that's not exceptional for an Ottawa community paper I have to say keep. — mendel ☎ 20:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not following your logic to keep this article, especially since it sounds like you meant to vote delete. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 20:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, that was kind of ugly, wasn't it? I mean: Ok, per WP:BIO, the only possibility is her editorships. Assuming her neighbourhood papers have circulation like the neighbourhood paper of my neighbourhood, then she meets that, so keep. WP:BIO sets a low bar, but it sets a bar. — mendel ☎ 04:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Rogerd 13:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• The circulation for the "New Edinburgh News" is really high. The newspaper goes to some local embassies and goes to the Governor General and Prime Minister. Any other community papers that go to high power figures? Will in world
  • It doesn't mean they read it. And that would only make the paper notable, remotely, not this person. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 20:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; the paper might deserve an article with a circulation figure like that, but that doesn't extend to its editor unless she's done more than just edit a community newspaper...like, has she been a columnist in the National Post or the Ottawa Citizen? (Tangentially, I'm personally curious to know if she's at all related to k-os, but that knowledge wouldn't actually change my vote.) Bearcat 22:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe she is not known across Canada, but a majority of people know her in Ottawa. READ THE ARTICLE!!!!!!!! There is more than just an editor. Will in world
  • She fails the 100 year test, which means in 100 years, will anyone want to read about her? I'd say not. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 23:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn --JAranda | watz sup 23:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe in 100 years, there will be many editors of this paper and they need to be remembered. There are so many people that are only known to about 1,000 people and get the smae credit as someone who is known by 1 billion. She also started the newspaper layout electronically. She was a diplomat, mother, newspaper editor, activist. Does she need more than that? Will in world
• Delete. A majority of Ottawans do not know about her. I doubt a majority of New Edinburghians do either. -- Earl Andrew - talk 23:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and condense considerably (1 paragraph max.). Editor of two neighborhood newspapers, wife of Canadian Consul-General in Buffalo, met in Havana. Perfect Who's Who entry which will be read 100 years from now, but very occasionally. --Tremont30 03:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Tremont30 is not a sock puppit of me. Just to clarify that. Keep this article for one of the other reasons why... She was the first editor of those papers to start the layout electronically. She also interviews Adrienne Clarkson, a huge achievement for a local community editor. Can you name anyone else? Carolyn is knwo across New Edinburgh that a majority a residents in New Edinburgh were saddended tha she was leaving. If you keep this article, more people can learn about her. A lot of musicians weren't known until they died. Just keep that into consideration. Will in world

1. She was the first editor of those papers to start the layout electronically. This is not a criterion that makes her notable. If she'd been the first newspaper editor in the world to ever use electronic layout, you'd have a point, but being the first one at a specific local community paper simply isn't encyclopedia-worthy.
2. She also interviews Adrienne Clarkson, a huge achievement for a local community editor. This is not a criterion that makes her notable. Lots of people have interviewed Adrienne Clarkson over the years; it's not a feat that automatically makes someone deserving of their own article.
3. Carolyn is knwo across New Edinburgh that a majority a residents in New Edinburgh were saddended tha she was leaving. This is not a criterion that makes her notable to anyone outside of New Edinburgh. This is a worldwide encyclopedia, not the encyclopedia of New Edinburgh.

Bottom line: nothing you've said makes her notable enough to be on here. Bearcat 02:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe she was the first on to start the layout electronically. Do you know anyother papers that started their layout before 2003, most likely but you don't know.A lot of people who interview Adrienne Clarkson are mainly people who work for big papers, but is it really often for a person working for a community paper? Can you answer me that? Maybe she is not known, but maybe in the future she will be known. Her husband works for the Canadian Foreign Service, maybe their will be an article on him, and might need one on his wife. So instead of looking at the present, think about the future. There are a lot of articles on wives of famous people. Also, (i know i told you this), but read the article. She is a diplomat, mother, activist, defender and newspaper editor. Does she more than that to get on to Wikipedia? Tell me. I really want to know.

Will in world

1. Do you know anyother papers that started their layout before 2003, most likely but you don't know. Um, I personally worked at a newspaper that was using electronic layout in 1994. And, ironically enough, it was in Ottawa, which means Carolyn's paper wasn't even the local leader in that regard, let alone a worldwide one. It wasn't even a particularly radical new approach when we did it.
2. Does she more than that to get on to Wikipedia? Yes, she does have to do more than that; she has to be notable, for one. Bearcat 23:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE NOW!!! I don't want this article up any more. You can delete now. Will in world

• Delete. Doesn't meet WP:BIO. Corvus 22:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want the article up anymore. Im the editor. Just delete the article. Do you know how? just let me know. Will in world

• Wikipedia is a collaboration, there is no single editor for any article. It's based on consensus. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 01:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nn Forbsey 02:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete nn bio A7 User:Purplefeltangel/sig 02:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• delete nn Youngamerican 03:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Zheng He. Friday (talk) 05:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Friday. Alf ^melmac 10:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete notability not established. If it is, I will reconsider --Rogerd 01:57, 22 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 speedy deleted as an A7. Friday (talk) 04:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Content:"Charlie Wurm is an amazing man. he has helped do such stage productions as "hating alison ashley" in 2004." Probably speedy. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd give it a Speedy Delete. Mr. Wurm is amazingly unknown on google. --JJay 04:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Possibly a hoax. Got 36 Google hits on "Charlie Wurm," none of which seemed be the subject of the article. ♠DanMS 04:49, 20 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 delete. --Celestianpower ^háblame 16:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mild notability claimed, but not definitively established - also may be vanity. Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, non-notable bio. I love the last paragraph; let's make his dreams come true. Tempshill 03:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "A real gangsta physics teacher that most def does not suck." hoax --Anetode 04:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• It looks to me like the claims of notability are hoaxish. Friday (talk) 04:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "Professor Chris Ramming" gets nowt, "Chris Ramming" + DJ Seafood does....Alf ^melmac 11:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Hoax and vandalism. --JJay 15:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, nothing via yahoo.com Gator1 16:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as a non-notable hoax biography. Hall Monitor 21:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep pending verification (or lack) of publication of "multiple articles" in Nature and Smithsonian, which could confer notability. (I edited the article to remove the irrelevant POV/attack material and self-referential nonsense from the article, leaving the stub for consideration.) MCB 21:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Appears to be non-notable bio, and even if it isn't, the article is a mess and there is no real good way to improve it. --Nlu 13:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED. — JIP | Talk 11:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD discussion was orphaned. Listing now. — JIP | Talk 06:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Appears to be nonsense, if A lot more information is added I’ll change my vote. As the article is now, it should be deleted. Bwfc 18:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Should have been speedied for A1, G1, maybe G2, etc. --JJay 15:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, complete nonsense. — JIP | Talk 06:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A textbook example of patent nonsense. Reyk 06:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Del. complete non-sense! -- WB 07:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete CSD:A1 --Anetode 10:36, 20 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 Delete. Rx StrangeLove 03:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Advertisement. Doesn't seem to fulfill the criteria of WP:CORP. It's for example listed neither in the S&P/TSX 60 Index nor in the S&P/TSX Composite Index. --S.K. 12:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Didn't this lot get deleted just the other day? Or was that some other CRM solutions company? All these spammers look the same to me! If they are the same lot they should get speedied for policy violations. - Just zis Guy, you know? 12:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN --Rogerd 02:53, 22 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 speedy deleted as an A7. Friday (talk) 04:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Either blatant vanity or blatant lovecruft. Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete as a nn-bio, no? Never genuinely asserts notability. --W.marsh 03:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn bio. Tempshill 03:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Her main claims to fame seems to be (1) She enjoys many kinds of music, (2) She is an interesting person, and (3) She is cute. To that, I hope we can add (4) Her Wikipedia page got deleted. ♠DanMS 04:53, 20 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 Delete Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 20:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Though I am sympathetic to the loss of a young teenager's life, Wikipedia should not be news archive / memorial. Furthermore, we need to be very careful as the accused is innocent until proven otherwise by the court. Hurricane111 22:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- (drini's page|☎) 22:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- sad as this story is, it is not notable. Reyk 22:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Tragic, but nn ephemeral local news story. MCB 01:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - agree with "hurricane111", the legal situation is dubious here. --MacRusgail 09:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Delete***-I wrote the article only because I an in mourning of my friend and wanted a way to remember him. but I hasd forgotten that the girl hasn't been put to trial yet. Sorry.
• Delete per above --Rogerd 13:26, 22 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 speedy keep, nomination withdrawn due to article improvement. Friday (talk) 05:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NN poppycockery. Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll be damned. Clean it up, wikify it, ad another source, and it's a keeper. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete as it's obviously patent nonsense. Ifnord 04:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete poppycock is a good word for this article. Reyk 04:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• There've been some edits that seriously improved the article. To me it looks like a keeper now. Friday (talk) 05:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Dan Rice actually exists ... the original article contained factual information, but needed some cleanup and verification. ERcheck 05:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- much improved. Reyk 05:23, 20 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 Keep. brenneman^(t)(c) 06:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another forgettable runner-up on an (nation'snamegoeshere) Idol. Besides being a runner-up on a reality TV show, he's a performer that miserably fails WP:MUSIC. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 08:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Cnwb 01:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, non-notable musician. — JIP | Talk 08:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for one of top places, entertainer followed by many in public, ongoing appearance, national tv show, and precident. He easily qualifies under WP:BIO "television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions". Under WP:MUSIC "Has been prominently featured in any major music media". The show itself is part of "major music media". --rob 09:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A runner-up in a national Idol series is a very liberal application of "promiently featured in major music media," and that WP:BIO criterion is rarely interpreted to include people who appear on game shows. As I recall, articles on runners-up in Survivor and American Idol (which, unlike Australian Idol, are broadcast internationally) are almost always deleted. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 09:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • AFD results have changed. Quite a number Idol finalists have been kept (or often not nominated, based on acceptance). Generally those outside the top 10 have been kept out. If you re-read the nomination, the current version of the article in question, the show article, the person's web profile, the show web site, do a google on him, look at more recent AFD precident, you'll see it's a slam-dunk keep. Also, this is not a 10 minute appearance on price-is-right. --rob 09:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did all of those things and I still disagree. (Anything that isn't an obvious {{nn-bio}} candidate I Google before nominating.) I was making a distinction between cast and contestant, not comparing him to a one-time contestant on a typical game show. (I just couldn't remember the word "contestant.") The term "television personality" is generally not used to refer to the latter. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 09:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I suspect you're using the criterion of who is *worthy* of notability, and not who has generally been found to be notable. Wikipedia shouldn't be picking who it thinks is worthy of notability. Rather, if somebody has been widely found to be notable (media coverage being one factor), that means there is a) sufficient sources of reliable information to make a good article and b) sufficient number of people with an interest to read and edit the article. The fact any of us don't think they "deserve" it, is quite irrelevant. Your views on what a television personality is are a leftover of the 1980s, and no longer apply. --rob 10:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I was applying WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, and AFD precedent in what I saw as a straightforward way, not making some sort of worthiness judgement. I'm wholly indifferent to Australian Idol or its contestants. I suspect keeping this article will mean it's a stub forevermore or filled with the sort of silly "contestant profile" trivia one finds on Idol fansites, however.
            Your views on what a television personality is are a leftover of the 1980s, and no longer apply.
            Uh. Kay. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 10:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. He's one of the remaining finalists and could still win Astrokey44 10:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If he wins, he might in time become notable, but if Wikipedia has a page for every contestant (or even just every finalist) in every national variant of every "reality" TV show it will (IMO) rapidly become completely unworkable. Perhaps the best thing would be to merge all of them into a single article for each (national?) show; they can always be split out again if they do in future become genuinely notable. Past experience indicates that the majority will not. - Just zis Guy, you know? 12:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, he's not notable yet. In fifty years, who would want to know who a reality TV contest is (or now for that matter)? -- Kjkolb 13:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. From my understanding of the above arguments, the contest is still going on (someone correct me if I'm wrong). Wouldn't it have made more sense to have this debate after we knew whether or not he won? In any case, no vote right now, but I like the suggestion of putting all non-winners of a particular [countryname] Idol on a single page. --Jacquelyn Marie 16:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Factual, verifiable and neutral. Trollderella 16:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Trollderella: I see you vote this "Factual verifiable and neutral" over and over. Being those three things is great, but does not automatically warrant an article in an encyclopedia. This person is a third place runner up or something on a marginally notable television show that has not been around long at all. Flash in the pan. delete.—Gaff ^ταλκ 03:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Your assertion that "Factual verifiable and neutral" does not automatically warrant an article in an encyclopaedia is highly contentious to say the least.

"'fame' and 'importance' are not the right words to use, they are merely rough approximations to what we're really interested in, which is verifiability and NPOV"' (Jimbo Wales, 30 January 2004 (link)).

Snottygobble | Talk 02:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.Gator1 19:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep until he is eliminated from the show. If he progresses to beyond the last three, keep regardless, otherwise, merge to somewhere within Australian Idol (series 3) or similar, as per Big Brother UK series 6. Bobo192 19:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete even if he wins. I would require at least one non-idol fame source for inclusion; google: Daniel Spillane -idol (not much). Already listed in Australian Idol -- I can't believe every single contestant of season 3 has their own page (first elimnated: Tarni_Stephens ) !? Spinoff Idol contestants are not encyclopedic. He does have a 42 member fan club ∴ here…♠ 20:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. not yet notable. mikka (t) 23:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete at this stage. If he wins or is runnerup, it might be a different story as the two winners and runnerups of Australian Idol have both had number 1 hits. Indeed, several entrants in the first series qualified under WP:music by having hit records in the Australian charts. However, I would be prepared to reconsider in a month's time depending on his success. Capitalistroadster 23:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete He can try again when he signs to his first label. Denni☯ 02:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He's still in the public eye three times a week (Australian Idol twice, and Inside Idol). If/when he becomes forgotten to the Australian public, maybe delete then, but he's certainly not at this stage. Ianiceboy 10:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If all the other Australian Idol's from every other series have a page, why not Daniel? I don't like the guy personally, but why shouldn't he miss out? He's made it so far into the Top 6 of Australian Idol 3. --58.84.94.54 10:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• if their only claim to fame is appearing on this show, they should ALL be delted. This is wkipedia, not wikiflashinthepan.—Gaff ^ταλκ 21:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Some time in the '10s, some imaginative history student is going to write a masters thesis entitled The Reality TV Phenomenon and its Effect on the Lives of its "Stars". And then all these verifiable, NPOV, articles on flashes in the pan will be very useful indeed. Snottygobble | Talk 03:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nn. Dottore So 13:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - someone's gone to a bit of trouble to write this and right now he is a known name. -- Ian ≡ talk 03:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There's a precedent for keeping these, and it's not a bad article. Ambi 02:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesian. Has been on WP:PNT since 5 October. Physchim62 13:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English:

Indonesian. --Jondel 06:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The content is probably an excerpt from Soe Hok Gie's book titled Di Bawah Lentera Merah ('Below the Red Lantern'). My suggestion is to delete the article since the article currently does not mention any fact/description of the book. --*drew 07:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I would agree. The language is clearly literary, indicating it is probably an excerp of the book mentioned, although I couldn't confirm that. It is definately nothing factual that would be of any use in the current form. --Sepa 13:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• del. useless. mikka (t) 23:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article is currently lack of information. *drew 02:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN --Rogerd 02:52, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please Note: This AfD page and the original article are being altered in an attempt, I assume, to prevent discussion regarding the appropriateness for this page to be included on the encyclopedia. I will reconstruct the discussion by cutting and pasting previously entered comments:—Gaff ^ταλκ 00:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Non-notable stub on internet chat room or something. Only reference is a link to a log-in. delete. —Gaff ταλκ 03:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As per nomination. freshgavinTALK 06:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nn chatroom. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 10:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN --Rogerd 02:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

• the only reason why it links to the log in is because YOU HAVE TO BE A MEMBER! WHAT ELSE?!! Is just like MYSPACE. & WHY ARENT U DELETING MYSPACE IF YOUR DELETING THIS?!!!72.234.109.218 19:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 20:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable webcomic--archive has two entries, Alexa rank of 1,741,312. 24.17.48.241 08:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom --Anetode 10:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --JJay 15:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. See User:SCZenz/Webcomics for my general thoughts. -- SCZenz 23:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN --Rogerd 02:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Dragonfiend 17:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 20:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a vanity article. It is created by User:Eaaland, which makes it all the more fishy. It is one of several articles he created today, all on the topic of him and his company, Owera and himself. He also edited his apparent hometown. The Minister of War 16:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete vanity advertising. --Fire Star 16:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable vanity. --W.marsh 16:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. KHM03 17:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 20:00, 20 October 2005

(UTC)

• Delete as advertising vanity. Eddie.willers 21:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy. Lupo 08:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vanity. Person shows no interest in any Wikipedia goals or principles, hence the user should also possibly be blocked and subject words be added to a blacklist. -- NoUser 13:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity --Rogerd 04:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 20:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's not indecent, has no suggestive languauge, or pictures, and refers in a casual way to it's content. Fundementalism has no part in everyones lives. See a good psychiatrist if you're stuggling with the voices in your head.

KEEP! I dont care if it is porn Wikipedia is not for children and this is one of the most highly rated sites on the web. Its alexa ranking proves that.

Is this an ad? Is it business vanity? Is it not noteworthy? Take your pick. Ifnord 18:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• It should be speedily deleted. I don't think anyone would want to look this up in public.  Denelson83  18:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Distasteful subject-matter is not a criterion for speedy deletion. Haeleth

• Speedy Delete non notable. --Reflex Reaction 18:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not a criterion for speedy deletion. Haeleth

• Keep. Has an Alexa ranking of 3172. KeithD (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It passes the criteria suggested by WP:WEB, both in Alexa rank and in number of registered users. Yes, the subject may be distasteful to some, but Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. Haeleth 19:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree except this isn't a speech issue, it's corporate vanity. Do we support that? I hesitate to be swayed by the number of users as it may be an outright lie just generated on their website. Not speedy, simply delete. Ifnord 21:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep--term gets 32,000 googles and passes WP:WEB. Meelar (talk) 19:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.Gator1 19:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unless someone turns it into an actual stub. Alr 19:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment added cleanup tag because right now the article doesn't even qualify as a stub. It has unsource claims of membership as well. I'm not voting yet... If this article gets a rewrite and sourcing for claim before the AfD finishes I will go keep.. otherwise I will vote to delete.--Isotope23 20:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a quick rewrite, but it's still just a stub. The number of registered users is shown on the front page of the site. It currently stands at 406,197. KeithD (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteWith opinion concuring with user Ifnord.-21:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per alexa under 4k ∴ here…♠ 22:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems to be a notable web community. --Carnildo 23:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, very well known in the BitTorrent and online porn worlds, rewritten to NPOV stub. MCB 00:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment if kept, this should probably be a DAB page since this is a type of store and there is another site using www.Empornium.com which might one day be noteable. Vegaswikian 05:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 21:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

vanity. Asserts notability, but none of these cut it. — brighterorange (talk) 01:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would have voted to keep it, if the author's username wasn't Aughie. Vanity. x_x Acetic'^Acid 01:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Vanity--Mpeisenbr 01:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. "notable for his acclaimed podcast Aughie By Nature" doesn't hack it. - Sensor 02:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable Internet personality. — JIP | Talk 09:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's some guy in a high school who does a podcast. -- Captain Disdain 09:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sorry - blogging and one questionable publication doesn't cut it for me. Alf ^melmac 10:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. How many high-school students are truly notable? --JJay 14:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. What everyone else has said. - Dalbury 23:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus, sock vote was discounted but point was considered, tagged with clean and merge. Rx StrangeLove 03:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Is this REALLY notable? And if this does not get deleted, at least clean up the damned thing. It is horrid. - Mrdie

• Trim and Merge this article, and others mentioned at Warcraft III#Custom maps into a List of multiplayer scenarios in Warcraft III --Anetode 10:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN --Rogerd 02:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and clean up/improve. EotA recently became a sponsored map on Battle.net ( http://www.battle.net/mod/mapvault.shtml ), and as such should have an entry (a better one hopefully). 212.200.134.60 21:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Hermione1980 23:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Possible vanity article created by User:Eaaland, as per above. The Minister of War 16:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as advertising vanity. Eddie.willers 21:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; advertisement. Only 66 Googlits for +xAPS +provisioning. Lupo 08:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vanity. Person shows no interest in any Wikipedia goals or principles, hence the user should also possibly be blocked and subject words be added to a blacklist. -- NoUser 13:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advert --Rogerd 04:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Hermione1980 23:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is supposedly a game that has something to do with throwing bicycle tires. Zero google hits means that it has yet to take the world by storm JJay 15:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Bicycle tires deserve our respect. --JJay 15:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete games you made up with your buddies aren't notable. If only! I'd love to write articles about Frisbee Tennis and ChadBall... --W.marsh 16:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom and W.marsh--Reflex Reaction 19:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 21:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article about a non-notable person; vanity page Mpeisenbr 03:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I just added Bereder frederic, Frederic bereder, Sereder, and Bereder as the content is identical. delete all. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• You Bedderer believe I'm voting delete.—Gaff ^ταλκ 04:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Did someone think it was funny or something?  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  06:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Del all. vanity... -- WB 07:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, vanity. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 10:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all There may well be a notable person or company involved here. But, it's not shown clearly, and more signficantly, there isn't any verifiable English info on person or organization. Also, it seems this must be a copyvio, even though I can't find the source. --rob 11:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all of these and any missed, being CEO might give some notability, I would consider a good stub or well written encyclopedic entry more favourably than this article. Alf ^melmac 11:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all of them per nom. - Just zis Guy, you know? 12:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Vanity, advertising, NN- take your pick. --JJay 16:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all as nn-bio. MCB 21:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, all vanity. --JoanneB 23:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The poor grammar is reason enoungh to 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 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 Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 21:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

quasi-neologism Ifnord 04:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I originally thought this just needed sources but on googling I found only one reference - and that was two guys giggling on a board about fart jokes. Ifnord 04:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable enough, or at all? Also may contain incorrect information -Andrew 04:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Joke or gag. OED shows that fart has been in use since Chaucer used it in the year 1386. ♠DanMS 05:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, Chaucer probably did fart in the year 1386, but I actually meant he used the word in 1386. DanMS 05:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm gonna jump on the bandwagon and say delete.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  06:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and do it F.A.S.T. Oyvind 12:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This article is no more than Flatus Advanced by Rectal Transport. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tho' ye subjoct be but a fart, yet will this tedious sink of learning pondrously phillosophize. Sam Clemens 23:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as a clever but useless jape. - Sensor 00:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. brenneman^(t)(c) 06:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bandcruft. Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rewrite to assert notability... they are on AMG [8]. This is not bandcruft at the very least. Might barely fail the letter of WP:Music but still... that's just a guideline. I say they're notable. --W.marsh 03:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I rewrote the article to assert notability and generally add more information. There were already several pages with pre-existing links to the article. --W.marsh 04:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. They are on a reputable indie label that has been around since 1991. One album and one single. Not strict WP:music, but close enough for—Gaff ^ταλκ
• Keep User W.marsh's rewrites. Apart from the records, the web site for the record label says that they have had at least two US tours and one European tour see[9]. As a result, they meet WP:MUSIC so keep. Capitalistroadster 06:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. per above. -- WB 07:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Not bandcruft. http://www.jadetree.com/bands/artist/from_ashes_rise That's their webpage at their label -- or, rather, one of the labels they're on. They have releases outside of this label and members are in scores of other notable bands. Various t-shirt designs at another label they're on: http://www.havocrex.com/store/store.cgi?page=shirt_f_r.html Also, they have more than one album out, but their previous releases have been on smaller labels. Pushead, artist for Metallica, has done some of their art. Etc. -- user:in_on_the_killtaker
• Keep W.marsh's rewrites. Thanks to everyone for good web sleuthing. --Jacquelyn Marie 15:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above arguments. Well-known band in its scene. Punkmorten 18:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 21:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non-existant "webcomic". Zero relevant hits for "Fuzzy Shoe" joey, and the external link in the article claiming to be the homepage of the webcomic is a tripod.com placeholder with no user content. 198.104.0.100 20:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom ∴ here…♠ 22:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN --Rogerd 12:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as above - Hahnchen 15:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom Dragonfiend 19:19, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 21:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non notable Indian private limited company. A google search mostly returns advertising/self-references. Pamri • Talk 13:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. - Pamri • Talk 13:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Cool3 23:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - Forbsey 00:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN --Rogerd 02:59, 22 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 Speedy delete, no claim of notability. Thue | talk 20:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Claims notability by being a film director but the article is a substub. After Googling the name, I found only 4 distinct hits, one of which is dead, and one of which is Nilsen signing at a Norwegian discussion forum. The only ones which seems to assert a slight amount of notability are these two which show him in 22nd place of a county ballot in the local elections of 2003. It is the ballot of a small party, Demokratene which didn't get any seats, and 22nd place is much further down on the list. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notability Oyvind 09:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Looks very A1 to me. --JJay 21:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. I believe this article meets WP:CSD A7, and I've tagged it as such. Punkmorten 18:45, 21 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 Keep. brenneman^(t)(c) 06:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Completely unnecessary and useless disambiguation. No one's going to reach it unless they actually type "Gloss (disambiguation)" into the Search box. 24.17.48.241 07:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep No big deal now, but as new uses come up, it would be more useful. Gloss is not, and should not be a disambig page, so a link to this is reasonable, even though there's just one laternate meaning right now (that I know of). --rob 07:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. This article is linked from the main gloss page. If there are more than two plausible articles with the term "gloss", the disambig should definitely stay and those articles should be added to this page. If there are only two, we might satisfy ourselves with changing the disambig header on the gloss article to point to the alternate one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's how it was when I nominated it--no link from Gloss, which just linked directly to Gloss (material appearance)[10]. Now it seems fine. 24.17.48.241 08:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There's now five uses, although only three would seem likely (lex,material,lip). So, that justifies a disambiguation page easily. The only question is whether to have Gloss or Gloss (disambiguation) be the disambig. Given, the large number of links directly to Gloss for the intendended meaning, I think the way things are now is fine. No changes are needed. --rob 07:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for finding the other uses, now it's a definite keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Gloss will be needed when people typed "gloss" to find something other than the main gloss and click the disambig.. -- WB 07:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, useful disambig, linked to from main search result Saberwyn 08:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, useful disambig, "gloss" has many unrelated meanings. — JIP | Talk 08:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. -- Captain Disdain 10:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Gloss is ambiguous. --JahJah 15:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Incredibly useful. --Jacquelyn Marie 16:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Useful and Gloss currently links to it. --Optichan 20:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. brenneman^(t)(c) 06:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. KHM03 17:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. - KHM03 17:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep fixed article as the title did refer to something notable and added "expand" tag. Please consider withdrawing nomination.Gator1 18:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: how expandable is the new stub? At present it's a dicdef, and we probably have material on the doctrine of the Dual Nature of Christ elsewhere (though I can't immediately find it). Maybe this should become a disambiguation page, pointing both to whatever the article on the theological subject is called, and, of course, to Tom the Dancing Bug? <g> Haeleth 18:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is Incarnation what you're looking for? KHM03 18:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's always the one term I don't think of... -_-; Haeleth 20:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is a definition with no potential for expansion. Tom harrison 18:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NOMINATION WITHDRAWN; ARTICLE REDIRECTED KHM03 18:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment I take it from the above that the nominator now votes "Speedy Redirect". I have replaced the AfD tag on the article, however, as the AfD is not yet finished. Jkelly 16:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and start new article on the "godmen" of India under this title. (see [11]) I'm surprised we don't have an article on this already. Unfortunately I'm not knowledgable enough to write a proper article myself. flowersofnight 19:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but turn into a disambig page for the cartoon hero, the category discussed in The Golden Bough and to religious beliefs discussed in Incarnation and avatar. Jkelly 16:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY REDIRECTED. Would people who speedy redirect articles under AfD please close the debate to save me the trouble of checking the result? — JIP | Talk 09:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic (uninteresting part of a limitless series) and hoaxy (0 google hits) — brighterorange (talk) 01:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - made up. -- WB 01:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Cute idea, but original research just the same. Acetic'^Acid 01:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this doodoo. KingTT 01:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: AfD may be moot, as it looks like someone already redirected this to Googolplex. Hilarious word, though. Remind me to say "googoloctodeciplex" six times fast the next time I need to ward off the Devil. - Sensor 02:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let's collect all the googol variants on one page. Uncle Ed, the closing admin. Uncle Ed 02:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I still prefer deletion (to a redirect), since there are zero google hits; this might not even be the correct way of spelling that number. I'm all for taking obvious actions to close out AfDs early, but so far the consensus here was for delete... — brighterorange (talk) 15:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Let's not. All the real googol variants, googol and googolplex, and two neologistic ones, googolduplex and googoltriplex, are covered at Names for large numbers. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Hoaxy spelling of Googolplex (or Googleplex). Andrew pmk | Talk 19:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Optichan 19:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete... I know redirects are cheap, but this is apparently a neologism that has no life outside of this wiki article. All a redirect does is confer the appearance of some notability to the term where none previously existed... besides, who is going to wiki search a term that doesn't exist?--Isotope23 19:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not a real word, not in real use, pure neologism, and perfect illustration of a word formed on a predictable numeric system (such as "septenquinquagintillion"). Such words are "not encyclopedic unless they are defined on good authority, or genuinely in use." Dpbsmith (talk) 23:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a policy on deleting redirects? I defer to Dpbsmith. Uncle Ed 11:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know what the policy is. Let me clarify that my vote is indeed "delete, do not redirect" and such votes are commonly accepted as valid AfD votes and which are acted on by closers. Common sense says that changing an article to a redirect should not magically protect it against deletion. The issue is not the "cost" of the redirect, but what course of action is most calculated to discourage the insertion of bogus material into Wikipedia. Leaving the redirect might be interpreted as an endorsement of the term and lead to the insertion of bogus material into the article. For example, someone might decide that "Googoloctodeciplex" belongs in the article and write something about it there, which might then lead to a table of bogus entries (Googolseptemdeciplex, etc.), which might get wikified, and the resulting redlinks might encourage creation of further bogus articles. Bogus entries are sometimes left as redirects specifically in order to discourage re-creation, and are sometimes even protectedm but I don't think this is appropriate here. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Habbo Hotel. Whether or not there is a consensus for deletion, there is certainly a consensus to remove the article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be talking about a minor UK website(?) Mpeisenbr 01:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per policy.--Mpeisenbr 01:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This article is promotional and non-notable. Solarusdude 01:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Vanity page. Andrew pmk | Talk 01:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)http://www.whatis-it.com/[reply]
• Delete per Wikipedia:Websites... Alexa rank: 720,531. --W.marsh 01:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Vanity NN. And horribly misspelled to boot. - Sensor 01:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Del. Vanity. -- WB 03:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete agree w/ above.—Gaff ^ταλκ 04:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable fansite. — JIP | Talk 09:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

THis article is to help users understand what our site is all about, it is still under construction... (preceding unsigned comment by 142.227.194.4 (talk · contribs) )

• Redirect to Habbo Hotel. Habbos live in the Hotel, so it's a reasonable thing to look for, Habbo already redirects there, and redirects are cheap. — mendel ☎ 19:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Habbo Hotel. We don't need articles on individual fan sites. Secretlondon 19:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per mendel.--Isotope23 19:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. There are probably hundreds of minor fan sites and blogs for Habbo hotel players... --JoanneB 23:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable. Dxco 10:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Our site is an offical site for Habbo Hotel.co.uk

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 as patent nonsense -- Ferkelparade π 09:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense

• Delete Article consists of nonsense.--MONGO 08:56, 20 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 no consensus, with the majority leaning towards article inclusion. If anyone objects, revert me and re-open the discussion. —RaD Man (talk) 06:48, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NN, D. ComCat 03:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep a good a stub on a worthwhile school. --rob 05:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, good stub, well done Silensor and rob. Also per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Kappa 06:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Kappa and rob. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reyk (talk • contribs) Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. When nominating something for deletion, please use a full sentence. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete public schools. Gazpacho 07:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No assertion of notability. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 08:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, harmless school article. — JIP | Talk 08:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as Community Consolidated School District 54 already contains all the information Wikipedia should have about this school. Maybe a redirect is in order as well. flowersofnight 13:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per User:A_Man_In_Black Pilatus 13:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are thousands of school articles and well over ah hundred are added each week. Nominating the odd one for deletion achieves nothing except the generation of conflict. CalJW 14:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Experienced users nominating schools are just wasting everyone's time. Novice users nominating schools are making mistakes. I will assume the later. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep, and at this point I think people nominating schools are violating WP:POINT. It's "gaming the system" to try and kill a few school articles and keep wasting the time of people on AfD, because it has become clear that the vast majority of these will pass. --Jacquelyn Marie 15:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and please stop making threats.Gateman1997 20:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Er, that wasn't a threat. I'd apologize, but I'm trying to figure out where you got that idea in the first place, so I would know what I was apologizing for. --Jacquelyn Marie 23:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Factual, verifiable and neutral. And please stop AFD Spamming. Trollderella 16:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep and please stop nominating these schools we get your point but this is a waste of time now Yuckfoo 17:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Ahem...WP:CIVIL.--Isotope23 17:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn Middle School --JAranda | watz sup 20:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, schools are not inherently notable. Am I the only one who thinks that a SchoolsAreNotInherentlyNotable template and a KeepPerWPSchool template would be really handy? Lord Bob 21:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not-notable. Plus, many school noms have been "no-consensus", not keeps. Saying we should stop nominating NN schools for deletion is like saying people should not vote for opposition political parties because there is a government already in power. How about some statistics on the number of pageviews that these stubs get?--inks^T 22:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Article fails to establish notability. --Carnildo 22:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. mikka (t) 22:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete another non-notable school. The Golden Apple winning teacher is far worthier of an article. 'Course he's a person, so he can't have one. Denni☯ 01:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, verifiable. JYolkowski // talk 02:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and stop nominating schools until there is consensus on them --Ryan Delaney ^talk 03:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep See my argument at this page. Xoloz 03:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• K, N. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unnotable crap please. Dunc|☺ 10:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you said please, here is your "unnotable c**p". --rob 10:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn school. Dottore So 13:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it seems an interesting school. Evil Eye 16:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, verifiable, and worthy to include - it is credible and well written and thus there is more good than harm including it in. -- Natalinasmpf 19:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• We keep articles on obscure wheeled metal boxes, so we can and should keep articles on enduring public institutions. --Centauri 23:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, there is no official Wikipedia policy against public schools. --Aleron235 15:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. 85%-90% of all school nominations in the past year have resulted in the articles in question not being deleted. Irrespective of the fact that about 40% of that number were ruled to be "no consensus", the deletion policies of WP clearly instruct that "no consensus" results are kept. As a matter of process, policy and resulting precedent school articles on WP are not deleted by virtue of either being stubs or "non-notable". Please respect exisiting precedent with respect to school articles.--Nicodemus75 22:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Important distinction: No concensus does not equate to a concensus to keep, and should not be presented as such.--inks^T 08:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Irrelvant comment. I never said there is a "consensus to keep", I said there is a precedent.--Nicodemus75 08:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]