Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 October 31

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< October 30 November 1 >

Purge server cache

October 31

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. Thryduulf 18:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

" A Coathanger Abortion"

Delete Not sure if this is a candidate for speedy deletion? Could be a redirect to Abortion? Shawn 09:36, 31 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. Kirill Lokshin 01:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A 5 minutes explanation of Relativity

Delete This article was added by an anon with IP address 212.21.138.161 which is registered in Bulgaria, and cites a cranky web page in Bulgaria. The article evidently concerns the authors cranky personal views; certainly there is no "time relativity" known in physics. Hence this article violates the verifiability and NOR rules, at the very least. CH (talk) 15:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I applaud the effort at an easy to understand introduction to relativity. This might qualify as a "trampoline" article, designed to introduce novices to advanced concepts, similar to Special relativity for beginners. See Wikipedia:WikiProject General Audience. As such, any flaws should be fixed and the article improved upon, rather than deleted. As for the time relativity line at the end, I believe that was meant as a joke. It can certainly be taken out. As for whether it was written by an anonymous I/P from Sophia, Bulgaria, I don't see how that disqualifies a contribution. As far as I know, Wikipedia has no policy excluding contibutions from certain locations or from anonymous contributors. If they are referencing themself, those refs should be taken out. In short, we may just be dealing with a newbie who doesn't know the rules, so let's show a little patience, please. StuRat 22:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Stu, please keep your shirt on. The location information was simply to support my presumption that the anonymous edits were made by Marinchev. That is relevant because I was invoking WP:NOR in nominating the article for deletion. I am about to add another comment further down which I hope you will take to heart.---CH (talk) 16:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we assume that the last line is a joke, I still have to say I don't see the article as useful. It similar to stating Euclid's axioms and calling it a "5 minute explanation of geometry." Unless you happen to be a Euclid—or an Einstein—it doesn't really "explain" anything. So, yes, I applaud the effort, but I reject the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's the issue, there's not much here we can use. So we have an article idea that might be fine, with content that has to be wholly rewritten and a title that has to be changed. Why not just delete it and let someone write a new one at the right place if someone wants to? -- SCZenz 23:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suppose it all depends on if we have someone willing to give the article the TLC it needs to get it up to specs. StuRat 00:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Stu, about Wikipedia:WikiProject General Audience, I am certainly one of those who has been raising the technical bar with my own contributions to the Wikipedia, but I don't disagree with the goals of that project unless your goals statment means "every article in Wikipedia should remain accessible in its entirety to a general audience". Actually, even then I might not disagree, since I am beginning to think that there may be case for Wikimedia forking the Wikipedia into a populist general audience encyclopedia which anyone can edit, as in the current Wikipedia model, and a controlled content scholarly/scientific encyclopedia which is much less up-to-the-minute but much more reliable, as in the Britannica model. However, in the short term, statistics seem to show that many of the most active and knowledgeable editors of the Wikipedia are involved in creating articles on highly technical topics, including physics topics, and in such articles, I advocate (following accepted encyclopedic practice) that the articles should begin with a nontechnical summary accessible to a general audience, and subsequently introduce technical material as needed, if possible with monotonically increasingly technical demands, after the Baez model of exposition.
In any case, while it might be beneficial to discuss such policy issues elsewhere (maybe on my talk page?), in the case at hand, the key point about why this particular article has been nominated for deletion was succinctly expressed by SCZenz: there's not much here we can use. Don't forget one of Einstein's own favorite sayings: a (theory, explanation) should be as simple as possible, but no simpler. What we have in this article is something so simplified it doesn't even make sense, not just to a physicist but even to a general audience member. Bearing this in mind, I hope you will reread the article and change your vote.---CH (talk) 16:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would say the Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject General Audience page would be the proper place for such a discussion, but since I'm not sure you're watchiing it, I will respond here. I would characterize the goal of the project as "every article in Wikipedia should be accessible in its entirety to a general audience, inasmuch as it is possible to do so without deleteing technical content. Introductions to articles which the general audience is likely to encounter should be accessible to a general audience, even if movement of technical content from the intro to the body is required." StuRat 17:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I won't be changing my vote, as I believe such an article is needed, although admitedly with a major rewrite. My vote for deletion is not required, however, as I bow to the will of the majority. In other words, if the article is deleted, I won't revert it, not because I agree with the action, but because I respect the consensus. StuRat 17:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It goes without saying that we all respect consensus, and I think more generally-accesible introductions are good. (Even my physics writing is designed to be generally readable.) I'm personally just confused about why this article should be kept; as I said above, nothing about it is salvagable. -- SCZenz 17:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The concept is salvagable. That is, there should be an introductory article on relativity. The Special relativity for beginners article is decent, but lacks some of the historical references, such as to Newton and Galileo, which have been added to the new article. I would support a merge with Special relativity for beginners, but that's quite different. StuRat 21:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason why that information cannot simply be added to Theory of relativity, which is linked to from the Relativity dab page, and which in turn links to Special Relativity and General Relativity? I.e., put the general concept and historical information that covers the topic as a whole at "Theory of," and start getting down and dirty in the more specific articles (while, naturally, still providing the General Audiences versions in the introductions). I continue to maintain that any article as grotesquely simplified as this article wants to be (and isn't) belongs at simple:Relativity, as noted in the edit to my delete vote above. --Kgf0 22:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think simple is the right place for this stuff, because it's a site for simple language, not necessarily simple ideas. (Actually it's pretty difficult to figure out what it's for, but I've already voted with my feet by not writing there.) However, I still don't understand your stance, StuRat; nobody's attacking the concept of a simple introduction, nobody's voting against the concept of a simple introduction, and deleting this article isn't getting rid of the concept of a simple introduction. Hell, I might work on a simple introduction to GR myself, if you like. -- SCZenz 02:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not just advocating a general audience intro, but an entire general audience article, in cases like this with a seemingly complex topic which has a name recognizable by the general public. With that said, I think some of the content, like the Galileo and Newton references, should be merged into Special relativity for beginners. Then this article can be deleted. StuRat 03:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 01:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Cathar

Vanity and doesn't meet WP:MUSIC Budgiekiller 21:00, 31 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. Kirill Lokshin 01:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Against Empire

Doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Suggests (in an advertising way!) to go to a MySpace page to listen to their tracks. Claim to have two records, both available at a website I have never heard of. Otherwise, nn bandcruft. Wcquidditch | Talk 23:15, 31 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. Kirill Lokshin 01:11, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Age of Suffering

Band does not meet criteria at WP:MUSIC: only released a demo album. Delete Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 17:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have a tough time with that one, I guess. I really believe if something is clearly NN, and / or vanity, it should meet CSD. PJM 18:50, 31 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. Robert T | @ | C 01:11, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Guinan

Indistinguishable from his brother, Tomas Guinan, whose article we just deleted. —Cryptic (talk) 04:09, 31 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 DELETE. Thryduulf 18:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anais Escobar

Information looks fake; only 10 Google hits. --Ixfd64 08:10, 31 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. Kirill Lokshin 01:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anders Hackzelius

This unreferenced article is very close to being a hoax. There really was a 17th century Anders Hackzelius who was a parish vicar in the Katarina parish in Stockholm, and later in Holm parish in Uppland, and who can be found in a couple of genealogy pages on the web (e.g. here).

The article, however, attempts to give the impression that this Anders Hackzelius was somebody more important: "Anders Hackzelius was a priest, a Church master and the Curator of Sweden-Finland during the most influential time of the superpower period of the Swedish Empire in the late 1600's." I don't know what Swedish title "Curator of Sweden-Finland" is meant to translate, but the fact is that Hackzelius can not be found in Svenskt biografiskt lexikon (the Swedish Dictionary of Biography), Nordisk familjebok or Nationalencyklopedin. A person of some significance would have been found in one of these reference works.

It also claims that "[t]he Hackzelius family was an influential family of political and spiritual leaders as well as warriors and cavalry men.". Well, no other members of the Hackzelius family can be found in any of these standard Swedish reference works either - how influential could they possibly be? (Finnish prime minister Antti Hackzell may well be a descendant, but he lived centuries later.)

The article continues: "The name Hackzelius refers to the brave and fiercely fighting Finnish Hakkapeliitta cavalry men, knights [...]" 17th century cavalrymen were not knights, but that may be excused as just a bad translation. The statement on the name is unsourced, as everything else, but anyone with some knowledge of how Swedish family names were created in that period will find it much more likely that the name is derived from Hackzelius's birthplace: Hacksta.

The short article also throws in an implicit reference to a long-debunked genealogical myth about a never-existing ancestor of President of the Continental Congress John Hanson, see comment by Viper Daimao at Talk:Hakkapeliitta. This doesn't strengthen the credibility of the article.

I can only insist on deletion of this article. Uppland 22:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I find the argument for deletion confusing. Uppland, if the article contains unverified material, or overstates some claims, is there any reason to not simply edit the article? Jkelly
  • Delete -- Jkelly, because it's a hoax, and at best the article would get edited down to "Anders Hackzelius was a vicar in 17th-century Finland", which is up there with listing every other citizen of 17th-century Finland and the rest of the world. I can't verify Uppland's references myself but it's his area of expertise. (A bit strongly argued, but that's the best-supported deletion argument I've seen in some time.) — mendel ☎ 01:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh. Well, in that case, delete. Jkelly 03:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry for being confusing. I couldn't think of any way to explain more briefly or simply what is wrong with this article, but Mendel summarizes it well, except for the Finland part. (As far as I can see, the real Hackzelius was born in Uppland in Sweden and worked there and in Stockholm. It is possible that he served with the Finnish hakkapeliitta, but it is in any case not very significant. There were thousands of clergymen following the Swedish(-Finnish) troops during the 17th century.) The article not only lacks references, but the general character of the article makes it impossible to put any trust in any parts of it. Uppland 07:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Good research, Uppland. We need to get rid of hoaxes like this one. Sam Vimes 09:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 01:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Antediluvian Brotherhood

no citation Tom Harrison (talk) 19:29, 31 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. Kirill Lokshin 01:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Austere

An anonymous band. Dlyons493 Talk 23:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous band is not invalid - distributed by well-known indie label Hypnos:

http://www.hypnos.com http://www.hypnos.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=HOS&Product_Code=austere02&Category_Code=austere

They are a favourite band and deserve an entry.

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

The result of the debate was to refer it to WP:TFD. —Cryptic (talk) 08:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Australia Primetime Sunday

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Neutralitytalk 19:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Australian monarchist alliance

after removing copyvio material nothing notable remains that is not PoV FRS 00:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE, per nom --FRS 00:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This would appear to be a political party-- fix it would also be my vote --eleuthero 00:58, 31 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. --Holderca1 04:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bai Li Xi

Non notable (>45 hits on Google and those seem mostly for current holders of that name) plus perhaps original research. It seems like this article has already been deleted twice... Ifnord 04:17, 31 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. Kirill Lokshin 01:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barrett the Master

no reference found, probable nonsense Melaen 15:16, 31 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. Kirill Lokshin 01:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bear patrol

An informal name for a work-study job at a single American university. Not encyclopedic. Joyous (talk) 02:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This page bears deleting. I know, I know, that was awful. BD2412 T 02:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, I know it wouldn't get appaws. BD2412 T 18:45, 31 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 speedy delete (attack page) - Mailer Diablo 18:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful Flame

The page was created by a vandal who claimed self-creation in the edit summary, and therefore is vanity as well. The band appears to be non-notable; no claim of actual commerical recording. Also contains an attack on an ex-bandmember.

Additional comment by me (who nominated this): It's also poorly written. I think it should be speedy deleted, but added AfD just to be on the safe side. --Nlu 14:39, 31 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. Kirill Lokshin 01:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Maas (college)

  • keep, " Sportspeople who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in an individual professional sport, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States"-he has never played professionally and not even at the highest level of collegiate athleticsXpendersx 18:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep -Greg Asche (talk) 03:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bird-people

Made up term, and there's no such "race". Delete. CLW 09:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since I nominated this article for deletion, it has been cleaned and expanded to give a useful article which no longer runs along the lines of "Bird people are a race of people such as Woody Woodpecker". Hence, change vote to Move to Bird people (and remove the re-direct which is currently there). CLW 13:55, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 02:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bitoogle

This seems to be a page on a non-notable search engine (along with page Yotoshi, which seems like a vanity page or even a link to a commercial service which does not really provide any encyclopedic value. Move to delete Master Of Ninja 19:05, 31 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. - Mailer Diablo 06:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bittorrent Search Engine

This seems to be a page on a non-notable search engine (along with page Bitoogle and Yotoshi), which seems like a vanity page or even a link to a commercial service which does not really provide any encyclopedic value. Move to delete Master Of Ninja 19:11, 31 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. Robert T | @ | C 02:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blarghasm

Delete neologism, near-nonsense. --Trovatore 03:36, 31 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. Robert T | @ | C 02:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Beecher

Vanity page created by the user described in the page, and attempt to advertise and spam a link Jdavidb [[talk • contribs]] 22:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I provide free services to many community groups who lack funding. Mohegan Sun in wikpedia is a vanity page for a casino. They do nothing for free. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.74.53 (talk • contribs) 2005-11-01 00:22:06

Could you please point to the Wikipedia policy that has anything to do with what you just said? This is about notability and self-promotion, not about whether you are doing anything out of the goodness of your heart or not. Jdavidb [[talk • contribs]] 00:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 02:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Lacy Campos

Delete Non-notable person, never held elective office or high-profile party official, vanity article EdwinHJ | Talk 16:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page has been blanked as a courtesy.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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. Robert T | @ | C 02:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bryce Molyneux

advertisement for nn musician. --Isolani 19:59, 31 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. Neutralitytalk 20:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Buis, Turkey Cash, Reputation Power, BUIS Reputation and O-Board

Note: If you are here as a result of the thread entitled Wikipedia Article on BUIS (Needs input) on the BUIS forum itself please ensure you have read and fully understand the deletion policy before leaving a comment. Also please note that pointing out that your comment is your first edit, or that you are a new user, is common practice in deletion discussions and is not intended to be a personal attack on you as a person.

A forum. With pretend money. Is it really notable? Francs2000 00:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can assure you the site is real and not a hoax. (preceding unsigned comment by 68.117.38.99 (talk · contribs) 04:25, 31 October 2005)
  • Plus you guys are real jerks. :mad: (preceding unsigned comment by 68.117.38.99 (talk · contribs) 04:28, 31 October 2005)
    • Don't take it personally. In general, Wikipedia articles for individual web forums tend to get deleted unless there is something particularly notable about them, no matter how real they are. Also, you should sign your comments on deletion discussions and other talk pages by adding ~~~~ to the end of them; you might want to register, too, so you'll have a proper username instead of just your IP address. --Aquillion 05:10, 31 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. Kirill Lokshin 02:58, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cathar (band)

Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC and seems entirely non-notable Budgiekiller 21:05, 31 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. - Mailer Diablo 06:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chasing The Horizon

A detailed, track by track music review of an album. Copied and pasted from some website "with permission". 208.57.241.61 20:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

took off all of the review except song names... hope those are ok.

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete by RHaworth. Kirill Lokshin 03:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken broccoli alfredo

WP:NOT a howto guide or a cookbook. Wcquidditch | Talk 23:38, 31 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. Kirill Lokshin 03:01, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity to the Extreme

article subject non-notable; article appears to have sole purpose of bringing attention to a local high school student's personal website/creation ERcheck 04:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete - I go to the maker of this "religion" high school and it is more than just one kid's creation. CTTE has a very strong following in our town even though many still consider it rediculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.177.66.6 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 1 November 2005

  • Can I tell you a story? When I was in high school my friends and I decided to call going to the drinking fountain "a libation to Poseidon". We thought it was hilarious. When I was in college, I created the Church of the Pizza with Everything, dedicated to spreading the good news that the universe is, in fact, a pizza with Everything on it, including the pizza itself. I have no doubt that a lot of people where you're from are just tickled pink about their little in-joke, but it just doesn't belong in the encyclopedia. It should be deleted. --DavidConrad 07:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete The article is about an organizaiton, not a person and therefore is not covered by A7
Vote struck; this anonymous user, 69.177.66.6, already voted above. Also note that this user has only 7 edits total: 5 to this page, and 2 to Christianity to the Extreme. -Silence 22:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability standards apply to all articles, not just people ones. An obscure organization confined to a single town is almost never noteworthy enough to merit an article. Wikipedia is meant to consistently represent all opinions and matters with an equal level of depth, not just the random issues that happen to be of interest to editors working on it, no matter how trivial. Otherwise our skewed focus on articles would be even worse than it currently is. -Silence 21:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Colonial_Heads_of_Port_Cresson_and_Bassa_Cove

Considering that the locations this article is about are redlinks, I'm not sure this is necessary information. ♠PMC♠ 03:54, 31 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. Robert T | @ | C 02:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Connor Chau

Band doesn't meet WP:Music yet so their members can't really claim notability either. See also Corbin Chau. Delete. Dvyost 20:11, 31 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. Robert T | @ | C 02:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Corbin Chau

Nonnotable player from nn band; see also Connor Chau. Delete. Dvyost 20:09, 31 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 DELETED. — JIP | Talk 13:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Corpus Christi Monastery

Needs to be deleted so Corpus christi monastery can be moved here. Alternatively, the quality of Corpus christi monastery may not be good enough to consider keeping around, but if it is indeed notable, as the article claims it to be, then it should be cleaned up under the new name. --Spring Rubber 01:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both. This one because it has no content, and Corpus christi monastery because there is no claim to being notable other than the first Dominican monastery in the USA. Being old is not much of a claim to notability. ♠DanMS 02:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - please note that AfD is not the place to take an article that should be deleted so that another article on the same topic can be moved to that space - that would be Wikipedia:Requested moves. No vote. BD2412 T 02:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete this article under A3. It is merely a link to the Corpus christi monastery article. Part of the problem is that a substantial part of the Corpus christi article is a copyvio of the order's web page see [3] with the contact details at the bottom. The article proposed to be moved needs a substantial cleanup. Capitalistroadster 02:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Actually, after further investigation, the entire Corpus christi article is a copyvio from different parts (home page and history) of the website. Should we speedy delete that article under copyvio and speedy delete this one under A3? --Spring Rubber 03:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This one can be speedied under A3. However, as at least part of the article isn't from a commercial content provider but from the Monastery itself it will have to go through the normal process for AfD/copyvio. It would have to be nominated for deletion for AfD or listed as a copyvio. Capitalistroadster 03:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • All right, I'll speedy this one, but what do you recommend we do with the other one? Obviously it can't stay as it is. Should we put it under cleanup, Afd, or copyvio? --Spring Rubber 03:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would list it as a copyvio at this stage. Capitalistroadster 04:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taken care of. I put this up for speedy delete-A3 and put the other one on copyvio. I guess that settles it. I just wonder how long the copyvio case will take with all of the backlog there. --Spring Rubber 04:36, 31 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. - Mailer Diablo 07:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmo the Cougar

Plain offensive (homophobic) and stupid Budgiekiller 21:34, 31 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 page history moved to Cringleford, redirect deleted -- Francs2000 19:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cringleford/Temp

temporary page no longer needed (?) Melaen 14:57, 31 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. - Mailer Diablo 07:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crouchjump

Seems to be created by the founder of the clan as some sort of vanity article, its not notable, and nothing links there anyway. The linked article Phil house should also be deleted for the same reason. jeffthejiff(talk) 13:22, 31 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. Robert T | @ | C 01:20, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel_Halperin

All entries were deleted by the anonymous user at IP address 24.13.108.15, who also deleted the afd 
notice in the article. I also reverted the article.  - Dalbury 22:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages. The notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of an article, and removing them is considered vandalism. If you oppose its deletion, you may comment at the respective page instead. Thank you.

nothing but POV, and hoaxish sounding. -Andrew 21:44, 31 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 userfy, and delete redirect. - Mailer Diablo 07:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do stars we see actually exist?

Delete personal essay. Better than a lot of them, but still not encyclopedic. --Trovatore 03:29, 31 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. Robert T | @ | C 02:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who Restoration Team

So they have a website and forum, and they get into Wikipedia? Frankly I don't see why they really need their own article. It's only really relavent for mentions in articles on Doctor Who DVD releases, not an entire article. FredOrAlive 23:14, 31 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. Robert T | @ | C 01:21, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Domeafavorbuddy.com

As per WP:WEB, this article is about a website of minimal importance. Alexa rating for the site is 3,905,771, with no other sites linking to it. [4] A Google search finds one result, a link to the site.[5] Lack of independent information about the site also raises concerns about verifiability of the article. --Allen3 talk 03:12, 31 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. Kirill Lokshin 03:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Domotic maid

Google gives no hits for this away from mirrors, and the related article Domobot has been deleted recently, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Domobot. Susvolans ⇔ 17:47, 31 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. Kirill Lokshin 03:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Economic oppression

seems like it belongs in wiktionary, if it belongs anywhere

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

The result of the debate was delete.  Denelson83  05:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Elks on the Up and Up

Google search shows no hits for this book, and the title and claims strain credibility. Delete as unverifiable. Dvyost 02:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No Google hits, and what researcher would know that much about Nunavut and its wildlife and STILL call it a province? Devotchka 02:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete when i first looked at it I was just doing stub sorting, I did not check facts. As I googled it too and turned up no results I doubt the credability. Chemturion 04:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I want to delete the article about this non-existent book's author, I guess the book itself oughta go, too. Delete. -- Captain Disdain 08:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't know why the title and claims should strain credibility, except perhaps for the 'best-seller' claim. A study of elk breeding and migration certainly seems plausible, and it's not unknown for serious natural-history books to have lighthearted titles (e.g., Mice All Over by Peter Crowcroft). Having said that, I don't see any evidence that this book really exists. Perodicticus 13:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Devotchka, it's even worse than that: look at the author's article. Considering that Nunavut didn't even exist until 1999, how exactly could an author who died in 1952 write a book about it? Delete hoax. Bearcat 05:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Hoax, unverfiable and there are no elk in Nunavut. Caribou: yes, lots and they do migrate. Moose: some in the south but the Tundra is not their favoured habitat. I will also be putting Tyler Harlan up for deletion. Luigizanasi 05:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • {It's already up...) Bearcat 05:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, my eye failed me. Anyway, voted on that one too. :-) Luigizanasi 05:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Unfortunately you can't speedy just for being a hoax. Check out CSD G1... --Dvyost 05:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I know, we have to follow procedures. How about for being patent nonsense? I change my vote, I meant patent nonsense, not hoax. :-) Luigizanasi 05:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I suspect that criterion was really meant to convey something more along the lines of "the determination of hoax status may require more than one set of eyes; sometimes what looks like a hoax to you might actually be just a bad article about a legitimate topic". I don't think it was ever meant to suggest that hoaxes somehow have an inherent right to stick around. Bearcat 05:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I dunno... It doesn't seem like "This does not include hoaxes" has a lot of ambiguity in it. Wouldn't that more than one set of eyes mean the AfD process? Don't worry, I don't think it's saying that hoaxes have the right to stick around (I'm the one who flagged this one, in fact), only that they need to be AfDed first to confirm that they're fake. After all, it's not as if letting the article live for an extra few days is going to do any harm; it's tagged as an AfD, and who's going to come to Wikipedia to look up "Elks on the Up and Up" in the next week anyway? =) --Dvyost 06:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Understood; I'm just saying that I have seen obvious hoaxes, where the AFD consensus went in favour of speedying, which then got speedied in advance of the formal AFD closing with no objections. So I don't particularly think that voting to speedy when something is obviously beyond question as a hoax is an unreasonable thing to do. Bearcat 06:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per hoax arguments. --maclean25 00:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep and rename to epoline. --Edcolins 14:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Epoline®

Advertising. I'm not sure if this qualifies for speedy deletion so I'm listing it here. Delete. — JIP | Talk 13:27, 31 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 discuss with Patimokkha PRECEPT RELATED TO THE ENVIORNMENT - see above. -- RHaworth 13:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Essa writting map

Some sort of personal essay or original research. Delete or userfy. — JIP | Talk 15:27, 31 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. Kirill Lokshin 01:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Faculty bash

Nonnotable "annual" party which was held for 3 years at a community college. Not verifiable or notable. 66.207.142.71 04:01, 31 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. Kirill Lokshin 01:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ferret Crossing

Delete per nomination; nn site. LichYoshi 14:13, 31 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. Kirill Lokshin 01:32, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First Majority Catholic Supreme Court

Delete un-encyclopedic - may rate a mention on SCOTUS article, but not its own article.--Rogerd 17:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is not an encyclopedia subject—this is nothing but a potential statistic. Postdlf 17:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Massive change in Supreme Court's composition, and major historical fact worthy of debate during deliberations. 31 October 2005.
Unsigned comment by anonymous user, who also vandalized my vote.[6] Postdlf 18:47, 31 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. Kirill Lokshin 01:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First Minority Protestant Supreme Court

Nominated for speedy deletion, but not a speedy candidate, so sending to AfD. I suggest merging this and First Majority Catholic Supreme Court into a single article on Composition of the United States Supreme Court by religion, which would surely be of interest to some. BD2412 T 18:11, 31 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. Kirill Lokshin 01:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flexual

This was nominated for speedy deletion as "nonsense". It's not nonsense, it's just not very notable. So I'm moving it to AfD. RSpeer 03:53, 31 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. Kirill Lokshin 01:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Davis

nn vanity Gator(talk) 16:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I live in the area where this artist lives and found the information very useful. I was having trouble find this information elsewhere. Maybe magicians have a way of making their sites disapear. I say keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.110.196.19 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC), original creator of article, who proceeded to remove all delete votes[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Robert T | @ | C 01:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Frank Davis & Company"

nn vanity see Gator(talk) 16:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:12.110.196.19, original creator of article, deleted all votes and attempted to pass himself off as IP address 14.118.184.16, as if the edit history wouldn't betray him. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 18:03, 31 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 after discounting sockpuppet votes. - Mailer Diablo 07:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Sun Password

Wikipedia is not a password resource, GameFAQ, or whatever. Appropriate gaming related websites should be used for this purpose. Some guy 17:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, wikipedia is not a web host. Kappa 17:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. It would have been more appropriate as a snippet in Golden Sun. PJM 17:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • HOLD your fire, This article has not been up for a day. Do you know that someone tried to make it dissapear before I even created it? It is a link from the article on Golden Sun and should be separate because someone only wants to know about passwords in depth when he needs to use one. As for the article's usefulness, GOLLY !!! I know that there is no other place with the information. I know that the knowledge of what a password does is pieced out among - isolated - gamers. Wiki's structure is designed with the intention of gathering and distilling knowledge that is scattered among isolated persons. As for the possibility that the knowledge is solely useful to gamers, is this a criterion for deleting it? Why not pick another group and delete the the entries that are uniquely helpful to that group?
  • Delete I suggest the editor of this article to create a wiki in WikiCities or other similar resource to start a wiki about the game. I'm sorry, but we are not a GameFAQ repository. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 21:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to administrator: User 72.227.132.250 blanked the discussion page for this AfD. I've reverted it but think it should be monitored or something. Also just realized author of article removed a request for speedy deletion from the page.Some guy 22:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's an attempt to mis-use Wikipedia as a bulletin board for exchanging passwords between players of a computer game. As per Kappa, Wikipedia is not a free wiki host or a resource for conducting business. It is an encyclopaedia. Delete. Uncle G 00:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy as having little or no context, at least for an encyclopedia, and a completely inappropriate use of Wikipedia space. Block from recreation. Jkelly 00:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If You Read Only One Thing, Make This It GameFAQs says its not the place for this, and frankly the purpose of Wikipedia may not be to store every little thing for every little game, it is meant to compile the knowledge of it's user in a way that makes it conveniant. I see no problem in allowing this page to continue, and people that have a bone to pick with GameFAQs shouldn't take it out on this rather nice idea.
  • Keep The Golden Sun Password article is collecting facts and knowledge. This article is being accused of having no context of misusing Wikipedia as a message board and as an "every little thing of a little game." For the sake of argument, let us say that these accusations are true: What we are still left with is a demand that the article be deleted yesterday. What we are left with is that Wikipedia is not for the likes of you. This article is not a fungus or a virus that will contaminate Wikipedia. This article is not a cancer that is taking over Wikipedia. I believe that the demands that the article be deleted are consuming more Wikipedia resources than the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by CobraGT (talk • contribs)
    • One good thing about a slow process like this is that we can try to explain why it doesn't belong. In the end passwords are part of the game, but listing them don't help readers to understand the game better, so they don't belong in an encyclopedia article. You say it's taking a lot of resources to get it deleted, that's true, but if it says wikipedia will be taken over by similar pages of game passwords/tips/challenges/whatever which will end up consuming a lot more resources than this discussion. Kappa 00:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but good luck with your wikicities endeavors, if you listen to Rune Welsh's good advice. Jacqui ★ 00:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The statement that passwords do not help readers to understand of the game sounds as though you know what you are talking about but the statement is not true. This is like saying that a picture of a particular species of plant does not contribute to an understanding of plants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CobraGT (talk • contribs)

Comment: You aren't allowed to vote twice. Also, please sign your comments with three or four tildes (~~~~). Also, a picture is nothing like a password. I have played the game and the password does not contribute to understanding of it. Some guy 04:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I did not mean to look like a clown, obviously. I thought that signing in appended a signature. I did not realized that every person who wants this gets to visit this discussion and count as a zomg! vote. I thought that the "keeps" and "deletes" were captions to cue you in on the comment's intent. I do appreciate your explaining that without rubbing it in. So let's see, CobraGT<CobraGT>CobraGT 14:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)</CobraGT> CobraGT[reply]
Comment: CobraGT has only contributed to the page in question and this page.Some guy 07:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep wikipedia is to inform people. This article will serve people to understand everything they need for Golden Sun and it's password system. Those who say it doesn't are only willing to troll. Mamsaac
Comment: Mamsaac has only contributed to this page. Some guy 07:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Does that make their comments invalid?
Comment:I don't know, I've just noticed people pointing that out in other articles for deletion. I suppose it could indicate the individual is a sock puppet. Some guy 15:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not the sock puppet of anyone. I just go to a board on GameFAQs and I've known CobraGT for more than a year (I met him on a Golden Sun board.. casually). I know how much people need a PASSWORD guide for Golden Sun.

Keep Wikipedia's purpose is to give information right? Well, this article gives information for the Gameboy Advance game, Golden Sun. It will help new players and/or other people who play this game understand Golden Sun's password system. It also helps the player as if you don't have the original Golden Sun, you don't have a password to use. People who just bought this game (part 2) can simply choose a password from the list to use. Isaac

Comment: Previous user (68.190.233.64) has only contributed to this page. User Isaac has only contributed to one nonrelated page.Some guy 22:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep as its rewritten form. - Mailer Diablo 07:11, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzalo

"Gonzalo" is a Spanish proper name and it is not appropriate to have it point to one person in particular 68.92.32.23 04:15, 31 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. Robert T | @ | C 01:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Half Assed Morning Show

Not notable BeteNoir 06:09, 31 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 all. - Mailer Diablo 07:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

HostENZ and subsidiaries

This is a collective nomination for HostENZ and its subsidiaries, namely Aspire Design, Computer Fluency in Training, Techknow, Carley Network Media Ltd, Joomla Studio, Seqeuro and Tierra Sistemi.

HostENZ appears to be a local Hamilton, New Zealand company; no assertion is made, and indeed there is no indication that it meets the criteria in WP:CORP. Pilatus 14:14, 31 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. - Mailer Diablo 07:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Human Feed

non notability Melaen 14:40, 31 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 07:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane preparedness

Apparently copy-pasted from FEMA (also seen here. Possibly delete as copyvio, or transwiki to wikibooks? Rd232 talk 17:37, 31 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 07:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Cresswell

Wikipedia is about educating and sharing of knowledge. There is a deep lack of accurate information available regarding Australian composers and performers. Please consider the possibility that a lack of google hits does not equate to the importance or noteriety of an individual.

Brian Orchy— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian Orchy (talk • contribs) UTC 05:49, 31 October 2005

  • Keep. I'll take Roadster's word for it, and agree with Brian Orchy that Google's not the best tool for finding information about some topics; composers who don't work with pop or rock music are unfortunately all too often one of them. (And Brian, please sign your votes -- you can do that by typing four tildes, like so: ~~~~ . That'll add your name and the time to your comment.) -- Captain Disdain 08:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Try looking on Australian google and you still only get 600 hits. And they include furniture makers named Ian Cresswell, Assistant Fisheries secretary called Ian Cresswell, Angling coaches called Ian Cresswell and not very many for the PhD student in Music Compostion called Ian Cresswell. He may well become notable but he is not yet. Not even in Oz. Marcus22 10:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ambi 12:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Ian ≡ talk 13:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep based on my trust in CR. I do also agree that the Google test doesn't get everything right. Jacqui ★ 15:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ignoring the Google test, as a musician and music student myself I regret to say that I simply am not aware of this gentleman having done anything worthy of note. I have neither seen him mentioned in any journals, nor come across any of his compositions; indeed, I had not heard of him before I read the article, and I regret to say that we cannot possibly have an article on every single music graduate that ever existed. If I had even heard of one or two of his compositions, or heard that he had obtained a resident composer or musical directorship position with a (reasonably) notable orchestra outside of Wikipedia, I would not advocate deletion. As talented as this fellow be, I fear he does not meet the Wikipedia levels of notability that are usually expected of musicians. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) (e-mail) (cabal) 15:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - verifiable. Trollderella 16:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


It would still appear that detractors of Mr Cresswell are still relying on internet based sources. My intention is to ADD an internet based source so people can find out about Mr Cresswell. For those in need of academic support, there is discussion of Ian Cresswell's piano concerto in Larry Sitsky's book (details as follows):

Australian piano music of the twentieth century / Larry Sitsky. BOOK Westport, CT : Praeger, 2005. xviii, 335 p. : ill., music ; 24 cm. 0-313-32286-4 Bibliography: p. 283-292. Includes index. AMC Library number: REF 786.20994/1

Brian Orchy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.149.168 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment Brian, there are no "detractors" of Mr Cresswell. No-one here has any feelings one way or the other. There are just arguments for deleting or keeping this article. As to the Internet: we all rely on the internet for sources unless we happen to the subject of an article personally. Marcus22 08:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not yet notable. One of the awards is from ANU -- his undergrad institution -- awarded to the "leading composition student" each year. The other, I was not able to identify. pfctdayelise 12:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 02:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Imaginative Cinema Society

Film club with no assertion of notability. Delete. CLW 09:21, 31 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. As the nomination doesn't even mention what misinformation is about, and it would need over 50 deletes in order to sawy the outcome, I'm closing this one earlier. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 03:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Institute of Management Calcutta

Misinformation


  • Keep. Tertiary institutions are generally accepted to be notable. We have had no delete votes other than the anon nominator and plenty of keeps and speedy keeps so this vote should be wrapped up early. Capitalistroadster 23:10, 31 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. Robert T | @ | C 01:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ineptability

A word created by a student this year, used within one school. JPD (talk) 16:00, 31 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 02:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson 5 Record Sales

Article fork written by anon after The Jackson 5 was cleaned up to move sales information (which I am not even sure should be included; the source for the album sales is not verifiable) to Jackson 5 discography. Delete, no merge. FuriousFreddy 17:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

relisting on today's page for community input. Thryduulf 17:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Already done. --FuriousFreddy 18:15, 31 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 relisting. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:52, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jarle Roar Sæbø

Listing with No Vote. Contributed by an anon with no other contribs, and reads like a vanity entry. Standards on magazine writers aren't very solid yet, and I'm not sure whether contributing an article to "Nordic Intellectual Property Review" is enough to make a person notable by our current standards, hence the no vote. -Colin Kimbrell 17:36, 31 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 SPEEDILY DELETED -- Francs2000 18:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jason roof

Non-notable, and an attack page to boot. Delete. Colin Kimbrell 18:08, 31 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. Neutralitytalk 20:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joe The Peacock

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Robert T | @ | C 01:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Finkel

A Magic: The Gathering player that is not much more notable than any of the 6,000,000+ other players in the game. Apparently he some minor significance in the Pro Tour, which I can assure you most Magic players care little about. Very crufty fancruft.

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. – ABCD✉ 20:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KeesjeMaduraatje

Someone who owns a weblog. NN - delete. Francs2000 18:21, 31 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 merge.Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:52, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Smith's Count Basie Extravaganza

One-off, non-notable performance. Delete. CLW 09:26, 31 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 and redirect. Kirill Lokshin 04:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keygrip

Vanity, doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Delete. Dvyost 20:06, 31 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. Kirill Lokshin 04:01, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Kissell

I cannot find anything on Google about this person. Delete as possible vanity page LichYoshi 06:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just tried Google and had the same luck. Delete as unverifiable. --Dvyost 07:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Larry Kissell" congress gets two Google hits, and neither one of them is relevant. And the writing style ("In 2005, Larry could take it no more. He decided that it was time for every day people to take back their House. He began his quest to represent the people of North Carolina's Eighth Congressional District.") is pretty far removed from NPOV and doesn't exactly make me want to believe that this is not a vanity article... If this guy's for real, I'm sure someone'll pipe up and say so; even if that happens, cleanup's a must... but until and unless that happens, though, delete. -- Captain Disdain 07:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete according to WP:V as only thrre results for "Larry Kissell" Congress see [7] and none of those are relevant. Even if it were verifiable, it isn't notable as Candidates for Congress are not in themselves notable unless they have already some notable achievements to their name or hold notable positions such as members of state legislatures. Capitalistroadster 09:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity Tedernst 20:00, 31 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 but make into a disambig page. — JIP | Talk 08:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lawless

Possibly not notable - did not see any matches via Google. My initial vote is Delete PJM 13:12, 31 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. -- Psy guy (talk) 02:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lera Boroditsky

According to the Wikipedia guidelines the person's notability should be above an average University Professor. Mrs Boroditsky is a junior faculty at Stanford. I asked the question of her notability at the Talk:Lera Boroditsky but have not received an answer. Delete abakharev 00:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • After reading the supplied sources I changed my mind from Strong Delete to Weak Delete as I still do not think she is notable enough. The Whorfian question is almost an urban folklor now, and she certainly did not invented it. The first of the new external links shows to an absolutely strange article. I am a native Russian speaker myself and I can tell that the word for the cousin is either Kuzen (pronounced similar to the English word) or Dvojurodny Brat (a simple Brat is for Brother). There is absolutely no way that a Russian (having enough command in English to follow the play) would hear cousin and decide that it means sibling. I hope that it was the error of a jurnalist not the quality of her research paper. abakharev 03:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --FRS 00:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to see an article on the linguistic features mentioned in the article, but the person is non-notable. Delete --eleuthero 00:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Information has been added on the revolutionary/notable aspects of this person's work with citations to articles about the work in the media (the Economist, the NPR, the Boston Globe, etc)
  • Delete unless someone can prove otherwise. Eleuthero, the topics mentioned in her article are not that unique in the linguistic realm, so I imagine you could find something on them somewhere (assuming the information isn't already here on Wikipedia in some form or another.) Devotchka 02:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added more bio information on her, including awards receieved, got her first faculty job at MIT when only 23 years old, etc.
  • Keep. The anonymous editor has provided sources which convince me of her notability. BTW, you can sign on by typing 4 tildes like this. Capitalistroadster 04:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per media coverage. Kappa 04:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keeping basing on newspaper coverage is ridiculous. She is not a superstar. She is professor and the yardstick must be the according one. Where is her peer review? mikka (t) 07:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strongly agree. Using media coverage to determine professors' notability makes about as much sense as using number of academic citations to determine movie stars' notablility. flowersofnight 16:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • The presence of coverage, outside of one's peers, is a large plus. It means somebody other than her peers, may be interested in reading about her. I suspect expert linguist researchers aren't coming to Wikipedia to read about the latest advances in their field. However, a regular member of the public who heard about her in the Economist, or listened to her interview on NPR, may well wish to read an article about her her. --rob 01:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity. --Ghirlandajo 09:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. (And how many times is the same person going to say Keep?) Marcus22 09:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The media coverage shows she's already been judged notable. --rob 11:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per rob. Perodicticus 13:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reading the external links, it appears that Ms. Boroditsky's ostensible claim to fame is that as of 2004, she is beginning research into some interesting Indonesian linguistic phenomena. The rest of the links essentially say "she's a promising young scholar". If she ever publishes this new research of hers and makes a big impact on the academic world, she's welcome to come back. flowersofnight 15:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep verifiable. Trollderella 16:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has media attention. People may want to know more about her, and would come here, the repository of all human knowledge, to do so. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Someone who's garnered that much media attention is notable regardless of the level of their professorship. We shouldn't hold professors to a tougher notability standard than everyone else. —Morven 19:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep verifiable, media interest and quote from Steven Pinker suggest to me that there is no reason to view this article as a vanity bio. Jkelly 00:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep scholarly professor. Klonimus 06:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All of the "keep" comments above make me wanna write an article about myself, maybe they'll keep it here anyway. Не надо путать божий дар с яичницей. KNewman 18:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 20:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of country names in various languages

Doubtless, these lists contain a very useful information, but this is a classical, clear and transparent as a shot of vodka, case of wiktionary.

Suppose I am reading about Andorra, and I want to know its name in French. How the heck would I know where to look for? Now, look at Poland article. Its "Name" section links to wikt:Poland, and everything is nice and clear.

NOTE I consider this vote invalid, because the main opponent, Pascuale stuffed talk pages of his colleagues with a call to skew the vote, and I reserve the right to repeat this nomination. mikka (t) 21:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is customary to wait a fair amount of time after an AFD ends with a "keep" result before renominating. See Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#If you disagree with the consensus. While there is no "official" period of time that must elapse before a renomination is made, many people consider a period of six months to be a minimum. A renomination made within a few months of the original AFD is likely to be closed early as a "speedy keep". There is no policy or guideline that a user may not inform other users of an ongoing AFD. On the contrary, there are several WikiProjects and notice boards designed to inform users of, among other things, AFDs on articles that may interest them. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 22:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty aware of the rules and contrary to some heated opinions I am not a troll. I will renominate only if I decide that the vote was skewed by Pascuale. His position that all of us voting here are voting just besause "we like or don't like it" is deplorable. Unlike those who "like it", I provided serious arguments why these pages are wrong place. mikka (t) 23:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: It is only fair to warn long-time users and contributors to a certain page that that page has come under attack. This is not skewing the vote, as I had no idea how those users would actually vote. Surely, we don't want an article's fate to be decided by people who have just stumbled into it for the first time and didn't like it! The users and contributors I warned are in no way "my colleagues" any more than any other Wikipedia users, but are indeed users who have repeatedly contributed to that page. (And, in any case, at least eight "Keep" votes so far are from users I have not contacted and whose names I have never heard, while at least one that I contacted -- Aecis -- has voted the other way. Check my user contributions for confirmation.) I am in no way "the main opponent" here. I simply consider myself responsible because I unwittingly alerted this attacker to the existence of these pages, which he has then IMMEDIATELY nominated for deletion. Is this not troll behavior? Where are the administrators when you need them? Pasquale 21:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, nominating a page for AFD when one believes it belongs at Wiktionary instead is not troll behavior. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 22:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to offer a little unsolicited advice to both aggrieved parties and hope it is taken in the spirit it is given. (With love, kindness, and pixie dust) I have often gotten into a tizzy over certain articles and as a result, have come to the conclusion that the emotional expenditure is just not worth it.
It's not worth raising your blood pressure, or upsetting you, or ruining your evening. It's not worth ruining your digestion, or your after-dinner cocktail, your birthday, or whatever is happening in your real life. Don't let the users' behavior on the Wikipedia get to you. Because it doesn't matter.
That's right - it doesn't really matter, that much, does it? I would hate to lose this information to the Wiktionary, but really, what does it matter? If you think it SHOULD be in the Wiktionary, and it stays in the Wikipedia - what difference does that make to your life? You might never have run across it. Take this pent up frustration and go for a run, or volunteer at a hospital, or hug your kids. Do something worthwhile and uncontroversial.
Once again, I hope not to get too preachy, but I think we often escalate conflicts just because we're in conflict, not for substantive reasons. At least, that's what I do. All the best to both of you. Danlovejoy 13:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - and censure user Mikkalai for the reasons explained below. Pasquale 17:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing my vote to Delete the entire Wikipedia - If it is legitimate for a user to advocate the deletion of a page which has cost two years of work by hundreds of people, WITHIN MINUTES OF DISCOVERING ITS EXISTENCE, and easily gain the support or benign neutrality of several other users, then there is no point for the Wikipedia to continue existing. Pontius Pilates, indeed! Pasquale 15:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The List of country names in various languages, like the List of European regions with alternative names, the List of European cities with alternative names, the List of European rivers with alternative names, and other such, is of exceptional value to linguists, historians, toponymists, and other social scientists, and should be preserved. These lists have been very popular for the past couple of years and have attracted many users and contributors, who have found them fascinating and of high educational value. I find it extremely objectionable that a Johnny-come-lately such as mikka should, upon discovering the existence of such lists, take such bold initiative as to advocate the deletion of articles he personally has no use for. This is hardly what the Wikipedia is about. I submit that mikka should be censured and, in fact, expelled from the Wikipedia. Pasquale 17:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pasquale must learn to behave in a civilized way during disagreements, or they are looking for big troubles eventually to run into. In particular, God forbid to have Pasquale as an admin. mikka (t) 18:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Angr, I hope my "lack of civilization" is not a valid reason for deleting these pages! Perhaps you, as an administrator, can clarify that point. Lack of civilization indeed! I have 16 months of very civilized contributions behind me and I have never once filed an AFD, let alone a gratuitous and frivolous one. Pasquale 20:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Of course no one's lack of civility is a reason to keep or to delete a page. And indeed the number of "keep" votes cast at this point makes it extremely unlikely that there will be consensus to delete. However, filing AFDs is not uncivil behavior (I have filed a fair number of them in my ten months here). --Angr/tɔk tə mi 20:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Angr, can you please explain to me why I can't have a contiguous space below my vote, explaining my reasons, without another contributor interjecting his personal attacks on me? Would you kindly move the above injected three paragraphs to somewhere below, together with the rest of this person's diatribe, so I can have my reasons immediately following my vote? As an administrator, can you please decide this matter? I am trying to be very civilized here, but I don't know if that's true for everyone concerned. Pasquale 21:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The proper place to discuss one's behavior is WP:RFC/USER, not VfD. mikka (t) 21:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that you strongly feel the articles should be kept, but the above comment [i.e. that Mikka should be censured for calling the AFD] is really uncalled-for. Mikka has been at Wikipedia for two years (about eight months longer than you yourself) and so can hardly be called a Johnny-come-lately. He's entitled to his opinion that this information is more appropriate at Wiktionary than here--he never claimed the information isn't useful, merely that it's in the wrong place. The information will be just as usable by linguists, historians, toponymists, and other social scientists at Wiktionary as it is here. Mikka has done nothing warranting censure or banning from Wikipedia. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 17:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Angr, by "Johnny-come-lately" I meant "Johnny-come-lately" to these particular lists. It is obvious that Mikka has just stumbled into these lists. He first made some remarks the other day on Talk:List of European regions with alternative names, denigrating and ridiculing that particular list. I explained to him that that list closely parallels others, such as the List of country names in various languages, the List of European cities with alternative names, the List of European rivers with alternative names, all of which he was not aware of, and so what does he do? He turns around and advocates for the deletion of all these pages, whose existence he has just become aware of. Maybe I am not a very bold Wikipedia contributor, but I would never even think of doing something like that. And, yes, I do find this behavior extremely objectionable and censurable. Frankly, I am amazed that you fail to see how inconsiderate this is. To me, it would be as if someone with no interest in linguistic reconstruction should argue for the deletion of your Proto-Celtic language article. I think it's truly insane! And, furthermore, it is idiotic to buttress this kind of argumentation by ridiculing the notion that someone just might want to know what Zimbabwe is called in Finnish (see below). Should I be ashamed if I wanted to look up all the names Zimbabwe has in as many languages as has been possible to collect in one place by Wikipedia users? Please tell me: Should I be ashamed? I stand by my above comment. I think it is extremely called-for. And as for the Wiktionary, personally, I never use it. And I truly doubt anyone would ever look up Zimbabwe in the Wiktionary. One final thing, Angr: You just added the Bân-lâm, Breton, Esperanto, Lojban, and Japanese names for Basque Country to the List of European regions with alternative names for the simple reason that the same names already appeared in the List of country names in various languages, and now you don't have the guts to break a lance for these lists which are being threatened by a wolf in sheep's clothing (namely, a vandal camouflaged as a serious Wikipedia contributor). In fact, you seem to be taking his side! I am very disappointed in you. Pasquale 21:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not taking any sides in this particular discussion; you may have noticed I haven't voted. (Incidentally, neither have you, technically.) I was defending his right to make the AFD, not supporting the AFD itself. Yes, I am still editing these lists because there is a good chance they will be kept. Yes, I have found these lists to be very interesting, and have been quite active in editing them. Nevertheless I can also see that what they cover is really more Wiktionary's jurisdiction than Wikipedia's. If Proto-Celtic language were to be deleted, the information would be completely lost, because there's nowhere else to put it. This information will not be lost if this AFD results in a delete; it will just be transferred to Wiktionary. You say you don't use Wiktionary; that's easily enough remedied: just go to wikt:Main Page and sign up. Finally, making personal attacks against the nominator of an AFD is not going to win people over to want to support your side. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 21:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Angr, if I haven't voted, I guess it's because I don't know how to. Where do I send in my ballot? And as for you, I know full well that you have repeatedly contributed to these lists and do find them useful, except that now you suddenly seem to have such little interest in them that you can't bring yourself to take sides. I am sorry, but that's what Pontius Pilate did. And, by the way, I am not making any personal attacks here. I am being very objective. If you read carefully what I wrote, you will see that I am simply reporting facts. To someone who just came across this AFD, it may not be apparent that its nominator had just stumbled into all these lists and, having found them of no use to himself, and having repeatedly ridiculed them and their users, promptly filed a petition to delete them. This is simply an abuse and if you don't recognize it, then I simply don't understand how your mind works or what you're doing to protect the Wikipedia content. Pasquale 22:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To vote, all you have to do is type "keep" or "delete" and a brief summary of your reason, anywhere on this page. I do still have an interest in this information, but I'm willing to entertain the suggestion that it's more appropriate at Wiktionary than Wikipedia. Calling Mikka "a vandal camouflaged as a serious Wikipedia contributor" is most certainly a personal attack. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to disagree, Angr. Words, as you know, have objective meanings after all. To me, "vandal" is someone who wishes to destroy something without rhyme or reason, in this particular case, with barely any knowledge or familiarity with the object of his vandalism. You seem to think I am using words as expletives or gratuitous accusations. I am not. I am trying to offer an objective assessment of what's going on here and now. Pasquale 15:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Additional problems with these lists are their maintainability and duplication of information. Instead of nervous outburst, just compare

and I really have nothing more to say.

I understand that some people spent plenty of time on these and they are dear to thier heart, and I am not offended, but people really need to practice in understanding why other people have other point of view.mikka (t) 19:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This in probably not the place, but I would say that a much more useful would be List of historical country names, List of historical place names, etc., i.e., list of official names of the toponyms in different historical periods: under differet rule and different local population. this would be really useful for historians, toponynists, etc. In the current list, what is the use for a historian to know how Zimbabwe is called in Finnish language? mikka (t) 19:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maintainability isn't an issue; Wikipedia is just as easy to maintain as Wiktionary. Easier, probably, because there are more people at Wikipedia to keep an eye on things. As for "Ангельшчына (Belarusian)", I don't speak Belarusian, but it looks like several pages at be: don't consider it "ridiculous": be:1922, be:Катэгорыя:Ангельшчына, be:2 студзеня, be:Сьпіс краінаў і тэрыторыяў паводле альфабэту, be:28 лютага. (And even if it were wrong, it would be easy enough for you to correct it.) The only argument you bring up that stands is duplication, and indeed, the Finnish name for Zimbabwe can be found at wikt:Zimbabwe as well, for the benefit of anyone who needs that information. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 21:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Did you have a chance to look at the page I listed for comparison? The maintainaability 'is most definitely the issue. Also, wiktionary is a good place to talk about etymologies of the names. As for more people, don't forget there is also more articles. I contributed about hundred geographical articles (towns, rivers, mountains, etc.) and edited may not less than a thousand ones, and only recently I stumbled upon these lists. I immediately noticed their usefulness and invisiblity at the same time. mikka (t) 22:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Belarussian wikipedia is a playground of belarussian russophobic nationalists with archaic ideas to roll back the Russian influence in Belarussian language. I even don't bother to contribute there. "Ангельшчына" is a colloquial term, loosely translated as "land of Englishmen", a standard Slavic construction, and indeed is in informal use, but no way it is the name oif the country. Just try to google "Ангельшчына" (185) vs "Англiя" (44,900). mikka (t) 22:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Zimbabwe part is an polemic fugure in the context that the missing List of historical country names would be of encyclopedic value, rather than of dictionary value, and hence is relevant to wikipedia. mikka (t) 22:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, if there are errors or non-NPOV implications in the Belarusian entries on these lists, all you have to do is correct them. The presence of mistakes in a Wikipedia article or list is not a valid reason for deletion. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huh? Less accessible? The same single mouse click on a link, man! Try it: just point your mouse cursor over the word "Poland" (oops!, I mean this one:--> Poland) and press the left mouse button. mikka (t) 09:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - very useful. Qertis 06:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, but I just want to say that I have had many a conversation with Mikkalai, and have always found him very polite, reasonable and helpful - a Good Wikipedian, in short. While I do think that it is all right to inform people who have worked on an article about its deletion, the way Pasquale did it is completely inappropriate - at least on Avala's talk page (which is how I found out about it) he wrote that the articles have come under attack by a certain Mikka, who, having just stumbled into all these lists, having found them of little use to himself, and having repeatedly ridiculed them and their users, has then promptly filed a petition to delete the lists in question. I don't think that people "informed" in such a way will vote fairly, so either their votes should not count, or Mikkalai should be allowed to repeat the vote after less than six months, without such interference. By the way, I'd probably voted keep had this not happen in such a way. Nikola 09:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excuse me, Nikola, if I dare ask you the following question. Are you saying that what I wrote is not an exact description of what happened? Did you not like the tone or the substance of it? If it is the tone, I truly do offer my humblest apologies for offending your sensibilities. If it is the substance of it, then, I am sorry, with all due respect, I stand by what I wrote to the letter, because that is EXACTLY what happened. And what good is your opinion, anyway, if it is affected by perception rather than substance? You say you would have probably voted keep but now you're prepared to sacrifice a good Wikipedia page just because of my zealous tone in defending it? Pasquale 00:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto to the above, and I've received the exact same message. Aecis praatpaal 10:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. --Holderca1 05:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Powerpuff Girls episodes

Delete. Reason: not notable enough and not encyclopedic. Marcus2 23:48, 31 Oct 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 keep. Kirill Lokshin 03:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Cam

Appears to be musician vanity, in that article was started by User:Lordcam, who has no contributions to any other article. I don't see a page for any of his three names on Allmusic or a listing for his music on Amazon, and most googles appear to be mirrors of this article. As such, Delete, though I'd be open to evidence of notability if anyone else can find some. -Colin Kimbrell 03:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What we need, though, are quality articles, not unverifiable and self-produced vanity pieces. The ONLY non-cosmetic edits to the article are by "Lord Cam" himself, and he's never so much as touched an article on anything other than his own bio. -Colin Kimbrell 12:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concern - but it's mirrored by a concern that we lack articles in this area, and stubs are better than nothing. Lord Cam the calypsonian is verifiable. There is almost certainly an element of vanity in the creation (over a year ago). While it might well have a hard time meeting the burden of "notability" in comparison with American (or even Trinidadian) musicians, so would anything from Nevis. But, tiny as Nevis is, it is a major component of St Kitts & Nevis, with a strong independence movement. You need to look at the person in perspective. Many Caribbean or Pacific heads of state would fail the google test. But that does not make them undeserving of an article. Guettarda 17:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I remain unconvinced that more notable Caribbean or Pacific personalities would fail the Google test (as with my "Dis N Dat" example below). If people feel otherwise, I'll of course agree to abide by the consensus, but at a minimum we need to take out the unverifiable and NPOV allegation that he was "robbed" of the championship. -Colin Kimbrell 18:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely agree that "robbed" is POV (hmm, if we were sure he wrote the article, we could say "he claimed he was robbed" - it's a common claim in calypso contests, and probably true at leats some of the time) - Guettarda 18:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Significant calypsonians are unlikely to be well documented online - they are often not recorded at all. [8] lists him in first place in the semi-finals of Nevis calypso competition in 2001. That makes him nationally significant in St Kitts and Nevis. We should not enhance the systemic bias in Wikipedia by depending on a google test in cases like this. Guettarda 04:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, nationally significant, albeit in a small nation. Kappa 04:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Guettarda. from an underrepresented area of the world on Wikipedia. --Kewp (t) 05:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Note that his position in Guettarda's link 1 does not indicate that was first in the semi-finals of that competition. Rather, it merely indicates that he was eliminated in the semi-final round of that competition, and as such, finished no higher than a tie for ninth. The next year, he finished fifth in this competition...out of six entrants in his class, and those are the only two significant mentions of his name on the entire web, after you screen out wiki mirrors. I'm sure that there are significant calpysonians from Nevis; I just don't see any evidence that Lord Cam is one of them. Compare the results for his name with those of another Nevisian, Dis N Dat (the current Culturama king). Despite the same "small country" handicaps as Lord Cam, there are mentions of him winning past competitions, performing other gigs, and even serving as president of the Nevis Cricket Association. There are two major regional newspapers giving coverage to other local calypsonians, and I just have to think that if Lord Cam were significant, he'd be mentioned there as well. Even if he weren't, I'd still look to give him the benefit of the doubt if anyone other than a user with the same name as him had made substantive additions to the text, but nobody has. -Colin Kimbrell 12:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you're saying, but as this area is hugely underrepresented on Wikipedia, I don't see the harm of keeping it. As to the main contributer's username, it may be that the contributer is "Lord Cam," but it also could be that the user just signed up for a one time edit and couldn't think of any other name. Either way, though, we can't be sure. Less than 100 articles on Wikipedia mention or are related to Nevis [9], and I think that this article, albeit in a small way, may help improve people's understanding of Nevis' culture. Perhaps in the future when there are thousands of articles about Nevis, this article may prove to be not so noteable but I think we should keep it for the time being.--Kewp (t) 18:12, 31 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. Robert T | @ | C 02:19, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Melodious Owl

No claims which meet WP:MUSIC guidelines. Delete. Dvyost 03:13, 31 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. Robert T | @ | C 02:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mens Rea (band)

The article does an excellent job of clarifying how they don't meet WP:MUSIC. Joyous (talk) 02:49, 31 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 relisting. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mike McCue

Not notable, probably vanity. Google search Remy B 18:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Mike McCue (1986? - ) is an elected member of the Finance Committee in Freetown, Massachusetts.

  • No Vote/Comment. I've been watching this since yesterday half-amused, half-surprised, and finding it altogether bizarre. I'm going to refrain from voting, and please by no means think I'd be the least bit offended if it gets deleted; but as far as it being a vanity article, I wouldn't have had to guess at my own year of birth... (it is 1986, tho, if anyone was remotely curious. I haven't fixed it because I don't think it would be right for me to edit the article). Sahasrahla 20:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just out of curiosity, how did you know there was an article about yourself? Remy B 05:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • A friend of mine had told me about it, and I've now begun to suspect he was the one who created it. Therefore, I apologize to everyone that this has happened. Please do not misinterpret these actions as me thinking that I'm a noteworthy subject. Sahasrahla 06:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 03:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch Uhrig

Hoax; neither IMDb nor Google know him. Delete, including the image. Lupo 13:54, 31 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. Robert T | @ | C 02:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Seymores Global Perspective Class

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 09:06, 31 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. Robert T | @ | C 02:15, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New information

Howto with totally misleading title

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

The result of the debate was merge with New Trier High School. --Celestianpower háblame 09:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New Trier News

Clearly a vanity page. Plus, non-notable. Plus, there is no content, only examples of texts they published. Definitly not encyclopedia material. Ritchy 15:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • If the 'award-winning for 50 years' claim can be substantiated then I'd suggest Keep - if we're looking at the best high-school newspaper in the USA it's notable. The New Trier High School article seems like such a claim might be plausible. I have however scrapped 98% of the article because it violated copyright. The Land 16:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. The college newspaper I work for is considered one of the top-5 in the United States, but it's not encyclopedic in and of itself. Same goes for this paper. FCYTravis 01:21, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting on today's page. Thryduulf 17:41, 31 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. Robert T | @ | C 02:14, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non-game program

A self-evident dictdef from the same contributor that gave us the recently-deleted article Cooking Breakfast 2. Very few google hits in a software context (most relate to game (food)), and the only ones I found with this specific usage are all on gamemakergames.com. —Cryptic (talk) 23:53, 31 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 keep. Article improved mikka (t) 20:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

North Shore, California

AbstainI googled this town but I found a thriving town that is San Bernardino County, California. However It does not fit your description. This article does sound like it might be real though. (Nominated by Anonymous user User talk:69.140.67.148)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Kirill Lokshin 03:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Olle Bergdahl

A bio on a Swedish computer science student whose claim to notability is that he in 2005 "become a champion in Software Design winning the Nordic Finals in Microsoft´s competition Imagine Cup together with team O2MG". That is presumably not significant enough for any real notability (although I'm sure he may have the potential to become notable in the future), but you are welcome to prove me wrong... Uppland 15:17, 31 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. Kirill Lokshin 03:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On Center Software

Does not meet WP:CORP

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 to Delete the article. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

plus Essa writting map which has an extra initial paragraph but is otherwise identical. Added RHaworth 13:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some sort of personal essay or original research. Delete or userfy. — JIP | Talk 14:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*userfy They put alot of work into this, but it just is not something that should have an article. Youngamerican 16:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC) delete per Paolo Liberatore, without transwiki. Youngamerican 14:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy del: nn. mikka (t) 20:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Oakland

County council worker - merely being a management level council employee does not render someone notable. Average Earthman 18:22, 31 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 delete by DragonflySixtyseven. Kirill Lokshin 03:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PHSO

Created by banned user:Andrew Lin. Banned user (intial and continuing cause: blatantly POV vendetta against soft drinks). My vote: Speedy Delete

Fourohfour 22:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Valid speedy delete due to who created it, listing there. --Kiand 22:31, 31 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. Kirill Lokshin 03:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pirate Metal

The article is totally pointless, adds no viable description. Furthermore it talks about a supposed genre that only contains ONE band Chelman 22:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misinterpreted the word fictional in this context. I also think that eskimos could be rather irked by the fact that you deny their existence. ;) Chelman 16:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It - The genre exists. Children of Bodom also have a number of pirate metal tunes. The entry needs tweeking, but the fact that you haven't heard of something is not grounds for deletion.
According to this reasoning it would be OK to create Beer metal, Car metal, Sword metal, Love metal, Flower metal, Fire metal, Water metal, Smoke metal and any other NOUN metal related to a theme of a song performed by one artist or another? Chelman 16:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It - stop the oppression of pirates everywhere. this is another attempt to quash their rich pirate culture!
Why are you voting twice from the same IP? Chelman 17:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 02:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Power level (dragonball)

Just a list of data connected with the Dragon Ball manga. Unencyclopedic. I was very tempted to speedy it on the grounds of no context. -- RHaworth 10:55, 31 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. Kirill Lokshin 03:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prostate Troubles (website)

New (launched 27 Oct 2005) website initially linked externally from prostate cancer and now written up as an article because an editor disagreed with my removal of that link (and hence WP:POINT). We do not need pages on every website, hence delete. JFW | T@lk 08:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete web spam. — brighterorange (talk) 14:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - Dalbury 17:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (as creator of the article, not the website). This was created as a consequence of an editorial dispute, but that does not justify my being accused of practicing WP:POINT. If it is web spam, then I ask that the dozens or hundreds of similar (and less content-containing) articles be nominated here in short order. Please do not consider the implied intent but consider the content. If it still is considered to be deletable content, then I'm for accepting that consensus and moving on. Regards, Courtland 17:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC) (P.S. I just wrote a couple of words on a complete different topic that involved a reference to Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and I thought it was useful to bring that not to my defense or that of the article up for deletion, but to those accused of "web spammery" ... spam'dness is often an eye-of-the-beholder matter. Courtland 18:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • WP:POINT or not, I voted to delete because wikipedia is not a web directory. If you know of hundreds of other articles about three-day-old websites, please nominate them to AfD, and I assure you they will be deleted without controversy. — brighterorange (talk) 20:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Time since creation is not a criterion for deletion, though I don't disagree that if I am going to invoke the "there are many like this" argument, then I should back it up with some action or (at least) facts. Thanks for the additional input. Courtland 18:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Neutralitytalk 20:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rap Basement

This article does not assert notability; internet forums are not by themselves encyclopedaic; I believe this article was created by members of the forum (so is therefore vanity). Talrias (t | e | c) 01:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the site -- it is one of the most well-known internet hip-hop sites on the internet. Real celebrites have frequented on the site, something that nearly no other website can match. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.203.25 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 31 October 2005
    Could you add this information to the article, providing links to the examples you give? Talrias (t | e | c) 20:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been fixed to give examples of notibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.241.226.31 (talk • contribs)

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 02:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ready to comfort

NN (no google hits for this band in first 60 results of about 800 total google results) and seems to be just a vanity article, corresponding nl wiki article already deleted Qutezuce 04:19, 31 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. Kirill Lokshin 03:40, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reverend Lee

Song lyrics Jdavidb [[talk • contribs]] 19:03, 31 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. Robert T | @ | C 02:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Unwin

Not Encyclopedic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.164.3.90 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 30 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 SPEEDY DELETED. — JIP | Talk 13:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sam_Borys

Delete Garbage. Page about nothing it seems

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Kirill Lokshin 03:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Morris Hall

non notable dorm, just 76 google hits, that must be a record. -Greg Asche (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


KeepFirst, Wikipedia can use any article it can get. Second, no one in Morris actually calls it by its full name. Most of us use "Sammy," "Sammy Morris," or just "Morris." In addition, each floor is mentioned far more often than the dorm as a whole. This article is worth keeping. Brokenfrog 01:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)brokenfrog[reply]

Right, but just because it is important at that specific college doen't mean we need an encyclopedia article on it. However, that is your right to disagree. Please be sure to add your vote in bold before comments though. -Greg Asche (talk) 01:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I guess what I meant is that your figure of 76 hits is inaccurate, as no one would use the full name of the dorm except in official circumstances. People talking about it on their website aren't going to use that exact phrase. Also, there doesn't seem to be anything in the deletion rules about how articles must be about a sufficently popular subject. I don't think that this would qualify as a vanity page. 192.195.234.26 04:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)brokenfrog[reply]
Ahh, I see what you mean. I never said it was a vanity though. And I don't see how wikipedia can be expected to have articles on every dorm in every college in the world. -Greg Asche (talk) 20:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as long as it isn't in a name conflict, I really don't think it can do anything but help the wiki be a more rich source of information. I mean, it doesn't use more than a few kilobytes of space, and it contributes useful information. If a new student googles the dorm, he might just be able to find some good information on it here. That makes it worth it to me. 192.195.234.26 04:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)brokenfrog[reply]

Somehow this AfD page never appeared on the daily list of AfDs, and AfD tag was removed from the article at some point. Relisting for more eyeballs. Pilatus 15:41, 31 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. Robert T | @ | C 02:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Morris Penthouse

Article about one floor of a dorm. Non-notable; only of potential interest to students of Taylor University. (The dorm, Samuel Morris Hall, previously appeared on AfD, but no consensus was reached.) tregoweth 08:21, 31 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-delete. Thryduulf 18:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Theunick

Non-notable, little content Modular. (Talk.) 15:38, 31 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. Robert T | @ | C 02:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

School yard wrestling

Appears to be an advertisement for some sort of company or something, created by User:Aemud, who also uploaded Image:SYW.JPG. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-31 12:01

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Kirill Lokshin 03:38, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Secondfunction

Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC; borderline CSD for being empty (this is how it was originally tagged, but I thought I'd give it a bit more of a chance). Delete. Dvyost 06:49, 31 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 Speedied as blatant advert Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 03:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Shurtugal.com

advertising for the website ERcheck 02:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Speedied as blatant advert Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 03:02, 31 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 delete by JesseW. Kirill Lokshin 03:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sierra (band)

Just nominating. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-31 21:42

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Kirill Lokshin 03:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SonicAdvDX

Well, maybe I'm wading into it here... but this seems a bit out of Encyclopedic range. I'm sure the life of 'SonicAdvDX is important to its creator. But it stops there doesn't it? --Bookandcoffee 02:29, 31 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. Kirill Lokshin 03:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

St._Noels_Hall

not encyclopedic -Andrew 18:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

YOU ARE ALL RETARTED AND DONT HAVE A SENSE OF HUMOR, SCREW YOU ALL! TROLLDERELLA YOU ARE AWESOME! EVERYONE ELSE CAN KISS MY ASS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.30.228.3 (talk • contribs)

Because the article is a pure advert and , also because the authors and their homophobic supporters lack common civility. Bwithh 03:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I couldn't find which example of homophobia you were talking about... You're still being vague... Sorry... RGH
I was referring to the early comment "you moderators are a bunch of homos. Get a life. (preceding unsigned comment by 143.105.80.202 (talk • contribs) )", and then later comments in the same vein. I assumed that this was by the article authors, but was not referring to the article itself. I could have been clearer. Bwithh 12:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still don't see how it's an advertisment... Maybe a specific example would be more helpful. Or you could all sit around feeling all proud and mighty that you shot down an admittedly crappy article. I hope you all come down with a severe case of rectal prolapse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.81.166.99 (talk • contribs)
  • Yeah! I second that. And I hope you can't just push it back in, either!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.221.254.91 (talk • contribs) , who is also responsible for all comments signed user:RGH in this debate. Saberwyn 06:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC) [reply]
  • Comment. Fails the proposed inclusion guides for WP:CORP. As an aside, someone who knows about the place may have helped with the article's improvement, if the first comment here by the article's contributors hadn't been "YOU ARE ALL RETARTED AND DONT HAVE A SENSE OF HUMOR, SCREW YOU ALL!". Saberwyn 06:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • In all seriousness, you really don't have a sense of humor. This was only put up for fun and to see if it would last. It was obvious from the beginning that it wasn't going anywhere. I don't even know why it's still up. In other news, Saberwyn clearly indicated that it shows potential to be a 'real' article, which goes against all the other's proclamations that it is a cut and dry removal piece. Clearly the standards need to be worked on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.81.166.99 (talk • contribs)
    • May. The key word is may. I originally did not believe personally that there was potential in this article. Mind you, my judgement is hampered in this case because I live on a different continent. I was only stating the possibility that someone who knew the place better that I did (and wasn't an original contributor to the article) could possibly have looked at the piece and given the rest of us informed advice. Jacqui has given us that informed decision, and I see no evidence here to counter her claims.
If there was any desire by the original contributors to make this into a decent article (which there apparently wasn't according to the comment above) that effort has been completely blown out of the water by the behaviour of the article's contributors and their allies during this AfD. Mind you, some of the accusations by the regualar users are almost as bad.
I've made my decision. I'm no longer abstaining, now voting for delete as a serious failure of WP:CORP, and also as a breach of the spirit of the Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point policy, as attested to above by anon user 209.81.166.99. Saberwyn 10:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, Well, Well. Looks like we gots ourselves a bunch of retarted moderators here. Seen um before I have. Yup, they go around getting a sick high off deleting enjoyable articles. Yeah, them some nasty buggers. They pretend to be high n' mighty while striking down the weak and unedumicated. Bastards. Nope, you just can't get rid of them. They hang around like flies on dead bodies. We can only pray that someday, maybe, they will understand harmless humor, and find something better to do with their time. But for now, we all must put up with their stank.
  • Comment Very cute...
  • Does anyone know anything about calculus? I'm having a hard time with one of my homework problems and I was hoping someone could help me out. The problem reads: We are planning to put a space shuttle in gepsynchronous orbit at a distance above the earth`s equator of 22, 300 miles. It`s objective is a point in space 240,000 miles from the earth`s center. We know that the best time to leave earth`s orbit is a little more than 3/4 of an orbit past the point,C, which is the closest point in the shuttle`s orbit to the object, M, However, we need a bit more accuracy that that. A) How long from the time when it is closest to the objective, M, should it fire its rockets so as to be on a direct course toward the objective? B) How fast will the shuttle be traveling toward the objective just before firing the rockets to leave earth orbit. The picture given has earth inside of this larger circle. The point C is directly below E on the circle and the point S, is directle to the left and down, like at 280 degrees on the circle. I know that: you have to use the radius of the earth, divide by 24 to get how fast the space shuttle travels in one hour, and that the circle is the orbit of the shuttle. I would really appreciate your help. Thanks for taking time out to help.

-Josh

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 SPEEDILY DELETED -- Francs2000 18:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Horn

Attack page, possibly also patent nonsense. Already put it up for speedy, but I don't like to have A6 pages up any longer than necessary. Delete. -Colin Kimbrell 18:24, 31 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. Kirill Lokshin 01:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suudsu

A term from this week's Strong Bad e-mail. Not quite nonsense as the original speedy tag had it, but certainly not notable either. Delete. Dvyost 06:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

November 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 01:13, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Swooge

It's a dictionary definition of a neologism. - Squibix 12:16, 31 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 to Delete the article. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil language/temp

This was a working draft that should have been created in a sandbox or user space. Tamil language already exists, and I see no need for a merge. Dalbury 15:54, 31 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 relisting. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TeamXbox

Article about the goings-on in the forums of an Xbox365 fansite. In July it was tagged as a speedy and deleted four times, but the entry had virtually no content at that time. --anetode¹ ² ³ 18:06, 31 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. Kirill Lokshin 01:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Technology Criminology

it's a narrative, not an encyclopedia article, and there's no content to salvage. Calliopejen 22:15, 31 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. Kirill Lokshin 01:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Terran militia

Anti-zombie patrol in Illinois. Non-notable, but can't quite figure out what article of CSD applies (it's a group, not a bio), so it's here instead. Dvyost 02:58, 31 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. Kirill Lokshin 01:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures of Mr. Mickel

Transparent hoax; these guys are a long way from their five Pulitzers.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Kirill Lokshin 01:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures of Star Fox

Google brings up nothing. I've never heard of this myself. Also, it lists characters, especially Krystal, that weren't even thought up of during the time frame it lists. Thunderbrand 04:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMDB doesn't list anything like this in Dan Aykroyd's credits. End of story.Vulturell 05:26, 31 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. Kirill Lokshin 01:19, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Crazed Mugs

Non-notable band. —Wayward Talk 15:44, 30 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. Kirill Lokshin 01:20, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Gaming Hotel

Advertisement. BrainyBroad 07:38, 31 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 Intelligent Design. Robert T | @ | C 01:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The science of Intelligent Design

Seems to be pointless as this info is on Intelligent Design, not sure. Splintercellguy 03:50, 31 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. Robert T | @ | C 02:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To-do list

Seems more approriate for Wikitionary. Not really an important article for Wikipedia. TDS (talk • contribs) 06:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not approriate for Wikipedia - just a useless article in general. TDS (talk • contribs) 06:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Tasks for VFD:

  1. Close all discussions as consensus to keep.
  2. Delete VFD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPUI (talk • contribs)


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

The result of the debate was redirect to list of racial slurs. Neutralitytalk 20:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Towel head

delete slangdef --Trovatore 04:55, 31 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. Robert T | @ | C 01:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Harlan

Unverifiable, probably a hoax. Also see Elks on the Up and Up. Delete. Dvyost 02:36, 31 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 relisting. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 10:01, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ulster air and Callie group

An article about an airline which does not currently exist, nor can any information be found in news sources. The airline industry is a volatile one, and it is quite likely that this airline will never exist. Likewise the Callie group (parent company which is launching the airline) article cannot be verified by news sources, web searches or local phone directory searches. Not notable. Both articles only links in are from the other article. WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Thanks/wangi 15:45, 31 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. --Holderca1 04:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

USS Sproston (DD-577)

Delete as per nomination. Lack of content - perhaps the person in reference should make the page for themselves? LichYoshi 05:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I see what it's become, please forgive my over-zealousness. -LichYoshi 07:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't worry! We were glad to fix it. Joaquin Murietta 07:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask that you do not delete the information entered for the USS Sproston. My Father Lawrence H. Ernest and the remaining shipmates of the USS Sproston recently had a reunion in Charleston, SC. They have a wealth of information concerning this ship and all related mater to enter an outstanding article about this ship. I felt that the little bit of information I placed there would let others know that a more detailed article would be forthcoming and looked better than no information at all. However now that it has that UGLY tag for deletion on it I would much rather you delete it. I have contacted the parties that can provide us with a much more appropriate entry. Please forgive my enthusiasm and sub par work in this matter. Please delete the information I entered ASAP or remove the deletion notice. Thank you, Lawrence Ernest.

Thanks Bikeable, we were editing it at the same time. I expanded it -- do you think we should remove the stub? All it needs now is to wikify all the DANFS text and to switch the photo of the Fletcher for a public domain DANFS photo of the Sproston. Oh, yeah, we need a disambiguation page. Joaquin Murietta 06:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you 71.140.134.102 00:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
thank you. 71.140.134.102 00:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your gracious comments. 71.140.134.102 00:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page intentionally left blank.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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. Robert T | @ | C 01:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VIMUN

Not notable student event

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 09:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Visual list of American artists

Although I appreciate what the author was trying to do with this article it is not suitable for Wikipedia for two reasons (1)WP:NOT a collection of media files and loading the page chokes a broadband connection (2)I don't think that images from modern artists could be used under fair use in an article of this nature creating a copyright headache. Delete.--nixie 07:22, 31 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 relisting. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 10:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Visual mental imagery, Mental imagery, Auditory imagery, Motor imagery

This may be a copyright vio (though its claim of permission prevents a speedy), but certainly looks like original research. Can anybody more qualified sort through this one? I'm suggesting delete. Dvyost 06:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm the original Speedy lister... It does fall under Speedy Criteria > Articles > #8:
  • An article that is a blatant copyright infringement and meets these parameters:
    • The article and its entire history contains only copyright violation material, excluding tags, templates, and minor edits
"The following entry is excerpted and adapted from Kosslyn, Ganis, and Thompson" and posted by user:KosslynLab so 1) only 1 of the 3 editors is not enough to declare its got permission. (so its copyvio) 2) its vanity 3) its OR 4) user spammed with several other articles that are vitually identical content: Mental imagery, Auditory imagery, Motor imagery. Nuke them ALL and while we're at it block User:KosslynLab who hasnt been back since posting (aka no major loss)  ALKIVAR™ 06:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right that it's probably a copyvio, which is why I'm listing here; but as long as the author makes an "assertion" of permission, which (s)he has, we can't really speedy it yet. Don't worry; leaving it here for a few days with a tag won't hurt anybody. Let me go round up those others you mention... --Dvyost 07:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as copyvio. Chunks of it may be salvageable, citing the Nature Neuroscience article as a proper source, but as it stands, it just won't work. Anville 15:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as copyvio. Tedernst 19:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless the copyright release can be verified, Delete - 70.146.91.110 17:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC) - This was me. I keep losing my login. - Dalbury 17:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have time to fix this now, but it really doesn't seem right to move the votes from one article to look like votes for them all; the above users only voted on one or two of these articles, not all four. What's the matter with keeping these as separate discussions? Also, Auditory imagery had text before Kosslynlab touched it (see page history)--that text should be preserved regardless of copyvio findings. Keep Auditory Imagery but remove copyvio text; Delete the other three. --Dvyost 00:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, but delete the final few paragraphs which are (as pointed out above) some combination of original research and vanity. The topic of auditory imagery should make an excellent wiki article eventually, so please don't delete: wiki really ought to have an entry here, but let's focus on making the entry a good one. Robinh 08:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I don't think this qualifies as original research since the source article is a review article, which ought to be a summation of the state of scientific knowledge on the matter at the time of writing, and therefore encyclopedic. That being said, I have real doubts that Macmillan has relinquished their copyright on the article so that it could appear in four chunks on wikipedia. The journal prints nothing but neuroscience reviews, if this permission is the publisher's policy, it's quite conceivable that every article of every issue would appear on wikipedia. I wonder if Kosslyn (Dept of Psych, Harvard U.) is aware of, and endorses, the actions of Kosslynlab? Pete.Hurd 06:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED. — JIP | Talk 13:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Waka waka

A thoroughly useless entry, I'm sad to say; it just doesn't deserve its own article. I suppose it could be merged to Pac-Man (that wakka-wakka-wakka sound is highly distinctive), though. -- Captain Disdain 07:44, 31 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. Robert T | @ | C 01:14, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley Johnson

This page makes no assertion of notability whatsoever - this guy's only claim to fame is that he had a website, which, in this day and age, is hardly unusual enough to put this guy in the Wikipedia. ♠PMC♠ 03:51, 31 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. Robert T | @ | C 02:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WGFP

Advert, non-notable. Delete. Dvyost 06:34, 31 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. Robert T | @ | C 01:13, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yearyism

NN. It is hard to come by a term with no Google hits -- ReyBrujo 05:13, 31 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. Kirill Lokshin 03:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yotoshi

This seems to be a page on a non-notable search engine (along with page Bitoogle, which seems like a vanity page or even a link to a commercial service which does not really provide any encyclopedic value. Move to delete Master Of Ninja 19:04, 31 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. Robert T | @ | C 01:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Z310

delete slangdef --Trovatore 04:59, 31 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. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zagat’s

SNL is certainly notable, as are many, many of the sketches. But a sketch that was only done twice? In one of the show's worst seasons? That isn't in any other way notable? 128.231.88.4 You can call me Al 18:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak keep. Cecil Turtle gets an article, and he only appeared in three cartoons, so as a recurring comedy bit in a larger body of work, I see this as (weakly) similar. —BrianSmithson 21:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please retain the article on the SNL sketch comedy, Zagat. Perhaps, the default link can be to the article on Zagat's, the restaurant guide, with a disambiguation link to the SNL sketch article. SNL has fans from many countries and cultures, who do not always get references to American pop culture. Such articles in the Wikipedia are very useful.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_October_31&oldid=1234127345"