Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 September 23

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

The result of the debate was KEEP The Land 09:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem like it should have its own article. - 203.134.166.99 07:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - why not? Vizjim 08:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Could be a fine article, after some attention, if its verifiable. Jkelly 08:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Jkelly. Proposer hasn't made a case for deletion. Stephen Turner 08:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not only is it a known named idea, it has been extensively used in science fiction. Article should be expanded. --JahJah 08:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Expansion should start with a source on where Dyson first proposed it rather than how Sci-fi has run with the idea. Marskell 12:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Hmmm, an article about a hypothetical genetically modified tree that can grow on a comet? I want some of whatever Dyson is smoking.

No vote, but if this stands, nobody better complain when I post an article about Isotope's Lounger a hypothetical La-Z-Boy that pops into existance due to a Quantum fluctuation... complete with beer and chips.--Isotope23 17:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and expand. Somewhat notable in both science and SF. Does Isotope's Lounger include a beverage pocket in the armrest? Barno 19:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep i see no reason to delete this article.--Alhutch 23:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, of course. Needs some more content, but certainly by no means obscure or non-notable. Rsynnott 00:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, because Freeman Dyson was da bomb, yo! If he came up with it, it's gold. -- BD2412 ^talk 02:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand, notable enough. Shauri 19:57, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Dyson is more important than Isotope23 :p ··gracefool |☺ 07:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Expand or Merge with Freeman Dyson, notable enough as it can be already referred to in the Freeman Dyson article as an existing theory. Piecraft 13:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Keep - if verified. -- Arthur Rubin 01:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 22:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable band. --fvw* 00:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, obviously. Friday (talk) 00:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete bandity. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, no AMG entry. Jaxl | talk 00:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Promotional page and fails to meet WP:MUSIC criteria. There ought to be a speedy delete rule for these endless band promotion articles. — C Maylett 00:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nn CLW 07:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Lack of "notability" is not a criterion for deletion. -- Reinyday, 13:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • But not meeting WP:MUSIC certainly is. Delete--Isotope23 17:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Maylett. Kertrats | Talk 14:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: When the band is not notable, an article is advertising, which is a grounds for deletion. Geogre 18:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: for reasons cited above.--Alhutch 23:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Flash fire? Else, just delete. --Celestianpower ^hab 12:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Shauri 19:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all. --Blackcap | talk 18:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Oleg Alexandrov 04:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence of notability. --fvw* 00:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete NN company. I wonder if a redirect to Compact disc might be warranted afterwards. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Friday (talk) 00:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; non-notable. Jaxl | talk 00:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This appears to be more PR than encyclopedic Stu 12:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable. MONGO 17:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn Amren ^(talk) 20:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. Shauri 20:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all. --Blackcap | talk 18:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Oleg Alexandrov 04:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Only claim to notability is being in a band which I'm AfDing after this page. --fvw* 00:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete doesn't seem to meet our WP:MUSIC guidelines. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. IMO this is speediable, but I've not tagged it. Having a band and having a company are not assertions of notability in my book. Having an important band or important company is another story. Friday (talk) 00:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, drummer of a non-notable band. Jaxl | talk 00:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nn, vanity CLW 08:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Vanity; tied to article on CD Technologies which is also up for VFD.
• Delete - i agree completely with the vanity thing. needs to be deleted, not notable at all.--Alhutch 23:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, clear case of vanity. Shauri 20:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, obvious vanity. --Blackcap | talk 18:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus - default to keep (10 keep, 18 delete) Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 23:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Went through a AfD already, having a no consensus result. The article hasn't improved any, and in my opinion, continues to be worthless. I also feel that the previous AfD was too muddled by people's preset perceptions about Pokémon articles, fearing that cutting off one head would make it grow back a thousand-fold. Coolkat's accusations of sockpuppetry didn't help the matter any. With that in mind, I threw this back into AfD so we could reach a consensus, hopefully without wrongful impressions or accusations of sockpuppetry. Apostrophe 23:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The previous discussion can be found here.
• Speedy Keep no reason to AfD again just 2 weeks after the last time. Same reasons for keeping as before. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just explained why I did so in my original text. The first one was such a clusterfuck of Coolkat's accusations and people's implusive reactions to Pokémon articles that it needed a second go to achieve an actual decision bereft of such influences. --Apostrophe 01:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last time, the AFD went down to no consensus, with a plurality of delete votes. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 00:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I see a majority; it just wasn't large enough to be taken as consensus on Wikipedia. Plurality isn't possible when people only pick one of two choices. --Apostrophe 19:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN. There are cultural references in every piece of fiction in existence, Wikipedia is not a proper catalogue for such minutiae. (Now if these were "Significant cultural references TO Pokemon"...) Anetode 00:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mean List of Pokémon references or spoofs? - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 00:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, Anetode and WP:ISNOT an indiscriminate collection of trivia and information. ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^{(Contributions)} 00:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Purplefeltangel. Jaxl | talk 00:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Starblind, wikipedia is not paper, and the point of having an encyclopedia at all, which is to help users understand the world. Kappa 01:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't consider a list of cultural refereces in Pokémon all that pertinent to understanding one's world, Kappa. --Apostrophe 01:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn, OR. Kappa apparently cannot understand anything in the world without help from Wikipedia. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey now, I disagree with Kappa too, but NPA, eh? - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 00:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sarcastic but not really a personal attack. The "sum total of human knowledge" or derivatives of to justify a %100 keep-vote ratio (which I assume Kappa has) does wear a little thin. Marskell 13:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • NPA: Kappa has cast a couple of "delete" votes and "merge per (actual policy reference}" votes just in the last week. Not 100 percent "keep", although I suspect there have been months in 2005 where all Kappa's votes were "keep" or "keep or merge somewhere". More bothersome was the way so many were "keep all XXX" or "keep, real YYY" in ways that didn't correspond to WP policies nor precedents. Improvement noted lately. Barno 02:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. -- Kjkolb 04:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is the way this kind of information should be presented, merged together in a list. The presence of this article prevents the creation of articles on individual cultural references. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see the fear of a Pokémon hydra still persists. Sigh. --Apostrophe 17:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A similar list (by the same author, to boot), Grudges in the Pokémon anime, was recently deleted, and no swarm of stubs took its place. Also, if you look at the history of this article, it isn't a compilation of merged stubs. If this were to be deleted, no swarm of stubs would take its place. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 00:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Pieces of fiction do make cultural references, but the number of cultural references in some of them is staggering enough to warrant their own article, and I believe Pokémon is one of them, after looking through the list. Putting all of them in the Pokémon (anime) article could make that article unnecessarily large and narrow down it's scope by putting too much focus on one part of the subject. A.K.R. 12:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I just want to add that I have went ahead and cleaned up the article. Quality of article should no longer be an issue. A.K.R. 10:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Lack of "notability" is not a criterion for deletion. -- Reinyday, 13:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Note that the page says "It has been argued that lack of "notability" is not a criterion for deletion." The Cultural References article is also not verifiable. ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^(contribs) 19:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Why not? Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why keep it? - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 00:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, current policy puts the onus on the deleters to give a reason. ··gracefool |☺ 07:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Pokémon may have more cultural references than other series but this is due to the gigantic size of the franchise; its density of cultural references per episode/megabyte/cuddly toy/etc is probably relatively small. --Last Malthusian 15:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Barring the addition to references to, say, cultural studies professors making the connections the article makes, delete as original research. — mendel ☎ 17:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Crufty Original Research. Transwiki this to Cruft-o-pedia. Karmafist 17:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Stare Decisis (Keep) per Starblind. Too soon. -- Plutor 17:44, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: What the heck? It is a cultural reference? Any reference is "cultural." The thing is all cultural reference, as is any work of fiction. Pure fancruft: this is known to, enjoyable by, and comprehensible for those who are already fans of the thing. It is a cutting up and repasting of the thing in a hundred patterns merely for their pleasure. Geogre 18:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, pokecruft, original research, not encyclopedic, not verifiable. Fails to help me understand my world which is non-fictional (except for government pronouncements). Barno 19:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pokecruft --Aranda56 21:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It would have been better if this re-nomination had waited, for the simple reason that the niomination would be more likely to go through. This page is, however, absolutely worthless. Statements like Poliwag nearly unable to move on land - For a while after birth, the tadpoles (young frogs/toads) live in and breathe through (with gills) the water, before developing legs that let them move on land, much like Poliwag and Poliwhirl and Ash passes on prune juice - Prunes are said to set off bowel movements, because of its high fiber content, which is why many people don't eat prunes belie the idea that this is remotely worthy. Sabine's Sunbird 22:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Get rid of it. As above. --Carnildo 22:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, again. Most of the references are obvious, and the non-obvious pop-culture or historical references in Pokémon are mentioned in the relevant articles/lists for the character, Pokémon, or place in question. Catch-all lists of random trivia are not encyclopedic material. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 00:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I've never seen a Pokemon and probably never will, but this is a well written and harmless article. The legitimacy of the renomination is debatable. CalJW 05:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Starblind and I dislike the use of AfD for cleanup. --Celestianpower ^hab 12:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup for what? --Apostrophe 21:02, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While NN seems to be the consensus for the delete vote, I'd actually point to OR. Marskell 13:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just for the record, I included OR in my argument for deletion.  ;) User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually I guess a few people did. Karmafist even called it "Crufty Original Research." Indeed. Marskell 06:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll claim Delete under the "loosely related collection of trivia" clause, and with a dash of OR. kelvSYC 03:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Loosely related collection of trivia for sure. You keepers really, really disappoint me. / Peter ^Isotalo 03:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh Lord. Not merely a bad idea, a bad idea badly executed. Delete. --Calton | Talk 20:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Many of the delete reasons given above are reasons for the article to be marked {{cleanup}} or {{attention}}, not {{delete}}. It's verifiable, wiki isn't paper and it doesn't come under any point at What Wikipedia is not. ··gracefool |☺ 07:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do you intend to verify the intent of the localization team? - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 08:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I personally frequent a Pokémon fan forum, and many people there who knows a lot about the animé can verify the information. Also, I see that many of the reasons brought up by the pro-deletion camp can be resolved by rewriting and expanding the article, something I'm prepared to do so. There are many other references not mentioned by the author; just go take a look at [1]. This shows that the article has potential for expansion. A.K.R. 09:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another thing I wish to add: it seems like that Pokémon articles suffer from some sort of prejudice by many Wikipedians around here. Why is it that The Simpsons gets such a large, thorough article, with so many accompanying articles (including one article for each episode), while the similar-sized, if not larger Pokémon franchise gets a considerably smaller article with less accompanying articles to boot? Also, think about the stubs; why is it that sometimes, there are several, countless stubs taking a place of a deleted Pokémon article? I feel that such a phenomon occurs because some useful articles that require only a cleanup or rewrite gets deleted by overzealous Wikipedians who see Pokémon as something triva. Deleting them is as good as dispersing the information into several different stubs, only to be brought together again, and then to go through another deletion process and the cycle repeats until a culture of fear of deletion surrounding Pokémon articles is created (let me stress that the last bit is my own personal observation). Instead, Pokémon articles which are large enough to warrant their own article, while stubs that have the potential to become one, should be expanded if the subject scope is wide enough, or to be merged with other stubs to form one article if it is not. A.K.R. 09:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • "...who see Pokémon as something triva." This is trivia. NN, OR trivia. Do you see that "cultural references in..." can't not be OR (unless perhaps people have started writing theses about it)? Marskell 09:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then, on the same scale, should The Simpsons be considered "triva" too? I'm also not sure what you are referring to as "triva" - is it Pokémon itself, or is it this article? A.K.R. 10:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a list of loosely associated topics, point #2 under "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." Granted, it's factually debatable if this list fits that description, but if you absolutely need a policy cite, there you go.
    In reply to other comments, the idea of adding information to articles about movies, games, characters, places, etc. to increase their relevance to the real world, including links to pop culture or history, is a great one, and I would love to see (for example) A.K.R. expand the heck out of the Pokémon movie articles; they need it, badly. I welcome any effort to lend greater context to Pokémon (or any other) articles.
    That said, this particular list is forever going to be unhelpful to those who want to learn how the Pokémon anime or movies are localized into English, because inherent to lists of trivia is a lack of description or overview. Most of what's here already should instead be an integrated part of the articles/list entries for the characters in question or movies in question, as examples reinforcing description of the subject. (For example, the fact that Ash turns down prune juice is in and of itself a useless fact, even with an explanation of the joke, but it would make a fine example to support a statement in Pokémon (anime) along the lines of "Much of the humor in the English-language adaptation of the anime is the sort of mild, youth-oriented humor common to childrens' cartoons." (This is a crappy example, but you get my point.)
    This list is an example of why lists of trivia, either as standalone articles or as sections of larger articles, are unencyclopedic; they do not help the reader reach an encyclopedic understanding of the subject, but instead simply arm the reader with bits of data.
    If someone wants to rewrite Pokémon (anime), using examples from this list to explain how the Pokémon anime's English-language localization is Americanized, that would be absolutely fantastic. Barring that, this list is just a list of fannish factoids, un-linked-to, mostly obvious, largely contextless, and almost entirely valueless. The little information of value in this list belongs in (and, by and large, is already in) other articles. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 13:19, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Junk. Dudtz 9/29/05 6:16 Pm EST

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

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

The result of the debate was Transwikified and left as redirect Marskell 13:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dicdef —Wahoofive (talk) 00:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I transwikied it to Wiktionary, adding to the existing entry. Therefore, the Wikipedia entry can be deleted. Andrew pmk | Talk 01:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Idiom. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Angr. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above. Amren ^(talk) 20:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete - 4 keep/15 delete (78% to delete) Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 23:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Irreparably point-of-view and intrinsically useless because none of these problems can be objectively "solved" like in other "unsolved problems" articles. Any material of this type can go to an article on social issues. Neutrality^talk 00:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Originally filed under delete, to clarify

• The title alone is POV and the content is even more so. Andrew pmk | Talk 01:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Originally filed under delete, to clarify

• Delete as completely idiosyncratic non-topic. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The degree of development of a subject can be assessed by the list of items which the practitioners admit are unsolved. Thus physics and mathematics have a large and growing list of unsolved problems. Assuming that governance is a proper concept or subject of study, like physics or control theory, then it should be possible to state a list of the objects of study for the subject. If some item of the list currently cannot be solved, as in physics, then a description of that item can be added to this article. It's like the description of an addiction; the first step toward recovery is to admit you have a problem. Even the concepts of physics were once controversial. People have been burned at the stake for stating a principle of physics. So too for this subject. Ancheta Wis 01:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC) This is not to say that the items in the list might not be POV. But that is an agenda for discussion of each item. Note that there has been theoretical progress in this subject. See Nash equilibrium and Iterated prisoner's dilemma for solved problems in this subject.[reply]

Comment, not a vote. I'm not sure if these two solved problems are properly considered part of governance. I think the real concern is that "problems" are not adequately specifiable in this domain that would allow someone to decide if a problem is solved or not. In physics there is experimental data that is either accounted for by the theory or not (yes, yes, I know there are fuzzy boundaries to this problem). In this sense its clear when a problem is solved. But, what exactly is the problem of "war"? And what sorts of things would lead the relevant scientific community to consider the problem solved? If there aren't undisputed answers to these questions, there is some serious worry about POV. I think this is a serious concern here since we don't have a large number of scientists as contributors and so we could easily be the place for one or two scientists to POV push. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 02:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your "solved problems" in governance are really solved problems in psychology, no? Neutrality^talk 02:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More than anything, they are solved problems in mathematics. Whether the Nash equilibrium and prisoner's dilemma are in fact related to human behavior is itself an unanswered question. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quotation from Nash equilibrium (NE) article: However, as a theoretical concept in economics, and evolutionary biology the NE has great explanatory power: Ancheta Wis 06:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it's sometimes a useful model for human behovior doesn't answer the fundamental questions of when, where, and to whom it is most applicable. And certainly, for the behaviors modeled under this sort of game theory there are other competing explanations. The point I was trying to make is that the only sense in which Nash equilibria are a "solved problem" is that we have worked out the mathematics. The application of this branch of game theory to political science questions remains at issue. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thus Nash equilibrium is a model (abstract), an idealization which can make scientific reasoning about the subject easier. That is, governance is a subject which can be modelled. That is an advance in the art. Ancheta Wis 07:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, POV but more importantly apparently original research. Looks terrible in comparison with the analogous articles for computer science, mathematics, etc. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the state of development of this subject looks terrible. You have to start somewhere in a wiki. Even the concepts of mathematics were primitive and undeveloped at one time. But the statement of rules of the game is an important part of the subject. The word governance and the root word for cybernetics are part of control theory. Ancheta Wis 06:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who is from a country that has been ravaged by war would see that its occurrence is a problem. You can be on the side of the victor in a war and still lose big-time. Ancheta Wis 06:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, there is a competing POV that war can be good, consider Just war theory, but in any case the main point is that this appears to be original research. I'm happy to change my vote if this turns out not to be the case. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RAND Corporation, one of the original research corporations in the US, was an employer of John Nash, the Nobel Economics laureate. They currently perform studies in governance and social policy, as well as their original charter as consultants to the US military. They were originally a USAF thinktank which was spun off from the aerospace industry in Southern California after World War II. It is quite rational for a military organization to study war and its mitigation, thus RAND can propose solutions for the problems. The unsolved problems list is the obverse. Ancheta Wis 08:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, original research. --fvw* 05:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep there's certainly an article in there somewhere and there quite an edit history to this so maybe it will emerge. Perhaps some references to established and published work would be a good step forward. Dlyons493 07:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but possibly rename List of unsolved problems for Governance or List of unsolved problems in Civics. I have added it to the Civics category where it clearly belongs. As stated above any area of thought benefits from its unsolved problems being clearly stated rather than avoided. The article should remain a list and not become a Forum for discussion of its members ( except perhaps on its discussion page). Where is the research? This is just a list, all lists on Wikipedia could be considered original work. Lumos3 08:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. In its current form, the article is devoid of content. Owen× ☎ 12:37, 23 September 2005

(UTC)

• Delete Lacking content and it seems that it is itself loaded with unsolved problems of its own. Stu 12:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The term problem in the context of social or politics or governance implies unresolvable POV conflicts, as the article itself admits. Thus, the title itself is unresolvable POV, even if renamed. This is different to the definition of problem as used, for example, in mathematics, and the two should not be compared. Groeck 15:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete mish-mash MONGO 17:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Hopelessly POV topic and can really never be more than a matter of opinion. Why are cults a problem for governance in a free society? What's to stop me from removing "war" from the article if I believe my government should grind all others into the ground militarily? This article is just going to spawn an endless edit war as people on both sides of an argument attempt to make a WP:POINT.--Isotope23 17:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as original research, unless convincing sources supplied. Charles Matthews 19:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Hopelessly POV. --Carnildo 22:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as OR and intrinsically POV. MCB 01:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Essay topic. / Peter ^Isotalo 03:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Many of the delete reasons given above are reasons for the article to be marked {{cleanup}} or {{attention}}, not {{afd}} or {{delete}}. ··gracefool |☺ 08:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not an encyclopedia article, no references provided. Quale 07:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete all. Eugene van der Pijll 11:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hard Rain (Guinevere Jones episode), Psyched, That Old Black Magic (Guinevere Jones episode), Ordinary Evil, Weird Sisters (Guinevere Jones episode), Dybbukkin, First Date (Guinevere Jones episode), Warwe and Mineer, Love Hurts, The Dryad, Solo Act, Shadows (Guinevere Jones episode), Choices and Rebellion (Guinevere Jones episode) -- a series of substubs on episodes of a TV show, all of which are well-covered by the main article, Guinevere Jones. I realize many Saturday Night Live episodes have recently been kept, but Guinevere Jones has left no mark on popular culture and only ran for two seasons. Also see point five of WP:FICT. ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^{(Contributions)} 00:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per general precedent for keeping TV episode articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't think there is a general precedent for keeping TV episode articles for every series. I could be wrong, but I know that over at The Prisoner we debated over whether we should do individual episode articles -- and that was for a series that a) only had 17 episodes total and b) is still highly regarded and frequently referenced over 35 years after it showed. If there's a general precedent that every TV series merits individual articles for each episode, a lot of us missed the memo. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All Of Them TV Cruft --Aranda56 00:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The Guinevere Jones article already provides the plot for each episode, and these articles don't. --Metropolitan90 01:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. Wikipedia should not be an episode guide. Does the mistake of keeping other episodes mean we have to keep making it over and over? Having an article about a tv series should be enough. -- Kjkolb 04:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nominator.--nixie 04:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom Dlyons493 07:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Metropolitan90. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Absolutely no consensus on keeping episode articles on any series, much less the less-than-iconic ones. We battle every day against the cruftism of "every joke a page" and "every character a series of pages" impulse. If it cannot be said in a single article, in this case, it is probably best to wait for a specialist, fan-wiki. Geogre 19:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to two season episode-plot-summary articles, per WP:FICT, or delete entirely. Series is not sufficiently notable to merit many thousands of words of not-paper coverage here. Barno 19:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. Wikipedia is not paper, and TV series episodes are a legitimate topic. However most of these are substubs that haven't been expanded in several months since their creation, and in their current state no real information would be lost by deleting them. However, deletion on this basis shouldn't preclude re-creation later. -- Curps 20:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC) Keep Psyched and Rebellion (not substubs as pointed out by User:Caerwine below) and delete the rest if not de-sub-stubbed before the end of this AfD. -- Curps 04:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all except Psyched and Rebellion (Guinevere Jones episode) as abandoned sub-stubs.

Neutral on Psyched and Rebellion (Guinevere Jones episode) Caerwine 01:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect/dab. Rich Farmbrough 11:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nominator. Shauri 20:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. TV-cruft. Don't merge, just get rid of it. / Peter ^Isotalo 03:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wikipedia should have the abilty to be a place to get episode guide Cruft is not always bad, plus Wikipedia's not paper. Nick Dillinger 07:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedied. --Phroziac ^(talk) 00:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One IRC channel out of hundreds of thousands? Wikipedia's not a free host or webspace provider. --Mysidia (talk) 00:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 23:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable band. --fvw* 01:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nn. ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^{(Contributions)} 01:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- Fails WP:MUSIC, not notable, I'm afraid. Good formating, though (infobox!)--Sean Jelly Baby? 01:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not delete I just made this page today, never made a wiki at all, proud of it. You have the right to delete, I just wish you didn't. The0208 01:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Check my note on your talk page --Sean Jelly Baby? 01:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sorry to hear that you're so attached to the article, but it's Wikipedia policy to delete articles on non-notable bands. If you wish to contribute new articles, you are very welcome to do so as you seem to have a good knowledge of formatting and so on. Welcome to Wikipedia and enjoy your stay. ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^{(Contributions)} 01:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Um, what policy is that? ··gracefool |☺ 08:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you The0208 01:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as band vanity, though more gently than usual since the author's taking the AfD reasonably well and did a good job on this article, especially for somebody who's so new here! --Idont Havaname 04:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but look forward to other articles from this user. Dlyons493 07:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. -feydey 11:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Lack of "notability" is not a criterion for deletion. -- Reinyday, 13:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Reinyday, WP:N is neither a guideline, nor a proposed guideline, however, WP:MUSIC is and this article does not meet the requirements listed there. --TM ^(talk) 18:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Lack of "notability" is not a criterion for deletion I seemed to overlook this aspect of the deletion process. Notability alone does not appear to be a strong enough reason to delete, though I may be incorrect. The0208 16:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As you will notice as towards the replies to Reinyday every time he tries this crap (I don't bother because I don't feed the trolls), Wikipedia:Notability is not a policy (and is clearly labelled as not being one). Policies are clearly labelled as such, although as a newcomer to the wiki you're excused for an honest mistake in my books, anyway. Lord Bob 23:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability isn't a policy but nor is WP:MUSIC. AFAIK current policy says to keep ··gracefool |☺ 08:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:MUSIC is, however, a guideline, which WP:Notability is not. A guideline, to borrow from the template, "illustrates standards or conduct that are generally accepted by consensus to apply in many cases." Good enough for me, although I can't dictate what you believe. Lord Bob 18:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hmm, the guideline template has been completely and unreasonably changed (see the talk page). Up until recently, pages now marked with {{guideline}} used {{proposed}} instead. A guideline that has consensus is a policy, or should become one in short order. If WP:MUSIC really has consensus, there is nothing stopping it from being a policy. It should be submitted to requests for comment or something. ··gracefool |☺ 16:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to The0208's user page if he is agreeable. NGC 3031 (band) doesn't meet the WP:MUSIC criteria, which is no surprise since it looks like they just formed this year. It is however a MUCH better laid out page than 90% of the band vanity pages posted here though and since The0208 has actually participated in the process here, I'd hate to see his hard work get totally blown out. Maybe if they can meet WP:MUSIC in the next few years it could get moved back...

The0208, if you guys have any mp3's posted somewhere on the web, post a link on my user page. I dig noise rock.--Isotope23 17:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy if The0208 wishes. It's really nice looking and I'd love to have this stored for later if notability gets established (i.e. when they meet WP:MUSIC) Hell, I'll store it in my Userspace if need be- I've encouraged this user to start editing other articles, so we'll see. --Sean Jelly Baby? 18:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:MUSIC or userfy if requested. --TM ^(talk) 18:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: If the user wants to memorialize on his own page, then glory glory to him. That's no one's business but his: as an article, it fails WP:MUSIC and acts only as an ad. No advertising. Geogre 19:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Sheesh! Userfy is a perfectly valid AFD comment- there's no need to be rude. BTW, most everyone recognized that it didn't meet WP:MUSIC, but that it was a good article too. Focus on the positive and all that...--Sean Jelly Baby? 19:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, I'd like to concentrate on the positive, but it takes misunderstanding the whole project to post an article like this and then argue that it should be kept. The beauty of the prose is irrelevant, and some of the people closing VfD's lately have been trying to make it binary. All "userfy" they are dealing with as "remove the tag and leave it alone." Thus, I'm no longer voting anything but keep or delete, with what could be done alternatively after that vote. As for band articles, I'm not the only editor on Wikipedia who was in a band that does have an entry in AMG and other places but not an article on Wikipedia. The fact is that Wikipedia is not Ultimatebandlist.com, not AMG, not "every cool band," and it is not an advertising medium nor a mechanism for legitimizing a subject. Geogre 21:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment:Okay, listen: 1. I already voted to delete, noting that it was not notable. I was merely suggesting that the user save it as an example of their work. 2. Userfy is simply an additional comment. I doubt that an admin would keep an article if there were several reccomendations to userfy. 3. Just because you have decided to always vote 'Keep' of 'Delete' doesn't mean anyone else has too. 4. It was created by a new user who has the ability to make good contributions, and I didn't want to discourage them, that's all.--Sean Jelly Baby? 21:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: NGC 3031 is not notable enough, and I have already userfyed it, thank you for the constructive criticism. The0208 22:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as failing WP:MUSIC. Lord Bob 23:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Shauri 20:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. as per nominator. Kewp 16:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 23:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is schoolcruft at its max. I normally keep High School Articles but this one havent even opened yet and wont even open for another year at least. why write an article about a school that havent even open yet. Delete --Aranda56 01:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The school is notable as an overcrowding reliever for an existing grossly overcrowded school, and what's the point of deleting an article just to have to place it back up when the school opens? Might as well keep it now. Plus, the school building may not be open, but the school is operating with 9th graders only at the Doral Middle School campus. PRueda29 01:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everybody always says this about "crystal ball" articles. But why not copy it to user space, leave it there, and create the article at a time when it is appropriate? With any corrections necessitated by events? Dpbsmith (talk) 01:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • But it's not a "crystal ball" article. It's something that we know will happen, already exists, and is already in progress. What's the point in copying it to userspace and recreating it later? That's more work than just leaving it alone. ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^{(Contributions)} 01:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because it is of interest now. CalJW 07:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; will be useful when the time comes. I would probably vote delete if it was a substub or something, but it's a well-written article with context and the potential to be a good article on the school when it opens. ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^{(Contributions)} 01:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as per comments by Puplefeltangel, well written article at present--User:AYArktos | Talk 01:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, good article, written without use of a crystal ball. Kappa 01:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, well written article, and high schools are notable. -GregAsche (talk) 02:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as per above reasons for keep. --Vsion 03:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but I think it's a bit presumptuous to say what it's Athletic Rival will be. delete thtat partFrozenPurpleCube 03:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Its atheltic rival has already been chosen since Miami Springs High School has no official rival and all the students at Regan/Doral will be taken from the Miami Springs Boundaries. But I guess it could be deleted until its official. Let's see what others think.

Um, chosen by who? I can understand a rivalry happening, but it's not something mandatory. My HS didn't care about anybody we played more than anyone else. I'd say leave it off until the statement has some meaning. Like fighting over some trophy or mascot. Preferably in a friendly manner.FrozenPurpleCube 16:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's complicated, I'll just remove it. PRueda29 21:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep well done article. Also, is it ok to have a slash (/) in article name? I thought that was only done for sub-pages, which are used for things like AFDs, user-scratch pages, etc... --rob 06:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The slash is part of the school's name, unfortunately; check the school's website and see. PRueda29 07:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is apart of the official name, no question. But, many articles don't have the *exact* official name as their article name. The exact name must always start the article, but it doesn't have to be the article title. A number of articles even have a message saying the article name is wrong for technical reasons. I just wander if there are potential problems with it. I'm not a wiki expert, but wanted to mention the issue, to get some feedback. --rob 07:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it is a problem. I'll change the name/move the page PRueda29 07:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• keep of course. Good article. CalJW 07:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Bicycle for the usual reasons.--Nicodemus75 11:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:WIN chrystal ball, schoolcruft. Dunc|☺ 13:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Pony. I want one. We need to work on criteria for this schoolcruft/schoolvalue problem. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's already been done and the outcome was the high schools should not be nominated. CalJW 16:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As an observer of that whole discussion, I don't think there was buy-in to that statement from all reasonable parties. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • While I don't accept that "buy in ... from all reasonable parties" is attainable, I strongly agree with User:Hipocrite that further discussion leading to a policy would be very useful. The school issue bogs down AfD almost daily. (I abstain on the deletion vote.)AndyJones 17:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Disagree. Wikipedia:Schools is dead. Requesat In Pace. The fact is, (and clearly demonstrated here and the rest of this week's nominations) that there is indeed no concensus. All of the previous attempts to reach it over the past 2 years have failed - utterly. Deletionists (not necessarily Hipocrite or AndyJones), who have waged an ongoing, destructive, war of attrition against school articles would now like to re-open some sort of negotiations to re-wrangle through previously kicked-to-death-horse issues. I see this as nothing more than a last ditch attempt to stem the tide of two inevitabilities which are ruining their campaign: First, the exponential growth of the rate of creation of new school articles (virtually impossible to AfD them as fast as they are being created). Second, the near 97% rate of survival by school articles at the AfD process. Suggestions have emerged from deletionists that the AfD process is no good, and that a new concensus has to be reached. I submit that gradual and inevitable concensus is indeed being reached - school articles are being created at a never-before-seen rate, and they are surviving the AfD process at 95%+. What this means is that if there is not already a "concensus" (of a sort) that school articles will indeed be part of WP, then there soon will be. As the number of school articles grow and are improved over time, more and more editors will acknowledge their legitimacy, if only because there will be so many articles which will have been a part of WP for so long (by the time this is "over" it will literally be years). AfD is doing it's job (even though it is chronically being abused to launch terrorist strikes against school articles in the form of multi and mass-nominations) - editors are voting on articles, and the articles are surviving the process.

Nicodemus75 forgot to sign. Kappa 23:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Currently under construction so not a crystal ball and verifiable. Good article to boot. Andrew pmk | Talk 17:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I must admit, this listing makes me question the nominator's motives. The article is excellent. Silensor 19:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable school Amren ^(talk) 20:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: There is no school. It does not exist. Write it when it exists, and all those taxoboxes won't do a damn thing to buff up this non-existent school. Geogre 21:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Judging from the picture in the article, it's the largest thing that doesn't exist I've ever seen. Pburka 23:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Please do not misuse WP:NOT. WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball specifically states: Individual scheduled or expected future events, should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event isn't already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include 2008 U.S. presidential election. A schedule of future events may also be appropriate. This article can and should be included as it is about a certain and notable institution, clearly documented as such. Bahn Mi 22:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Carnildo 22:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly does exist. The campus has been topped off and construction ended on September 14th, classes have begun on the Doral Middle School Campus, it has an administration, teachers, and 9th grade students, it will be holding Sports try-outs for Spring and Winter sports for this school year next Tuesday, it has a chosen mascot and colors, has an address, phone numbers, boundaries, feeder schools, and a PTA. I don't think it qualifies as a crystal ball article just because the campus hasn't opened yet.

• Keep any school named after "9-chloro-6-(2-fluorophenyl)-2-(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl)-2,5-diazabicyclo[5.4.0]undeca-5,8,10,12-tetraene-3-thione" Klonimus 23:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain, although schools are not inherently notable and this one isn't either I accept high schools just so people shut up about them. However, I should note that not-a-crystal-ball doesn't seem to apply in this case, as is detailed above. Which is the real purpose of my comment. Lord Bob 23:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It hasn't even bloody opened. How can it possibly be notable? However, I accept that I am being stampeded by a flock of sheep. Denni☯ 01:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Millions of dollars have already been expended in the construction of this large public institution in a major population centre of Florida. Non-notability not established. Keep. --Centauri 02:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's the other way around, Centauri. An article is assumed to be notable unless the opposite is proven. And what on earth does the monetary value of the school have anything to do with it? Since when is X amount of dollars a sign of notability? / Peter ^Isotalo 03:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Neutrality^talk 22:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this isn't what the crystal ball clause was meant to stop. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The only thing more non-notable than your average non-notable high school is a non-notable high school that hasn't even been built yet. / Peter ^Isotalo 03:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment --But it has been built, and it is functioning, and it's already topped off and it has students and an administration. The building exists, too!!! It's not a like its a drawing on some paper in a folder at the school board office in downtown Miami. PRueda29 04:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. *drew 07:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep this article please the school exists there is even a photo of it here [2] so how can someone say it does not exist Yuckfoo 20:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Consensus so far has been to keep schools (see Archive and Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep). ··gracefool |☺ 08:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. It's pretty obvious that this will be completed, and if it's not, it will become even more interesting if stopped at this late point. We should be encouraging this type of participation. Unfocused 21:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nonencyclopedic --redstucco 09:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all public schools. Gazpacho 16:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm almost lost for words— the thing is even written in the future tense. This is quite sad; would really like to have seen some evidence of non-partisan, knee-jerk-free commentary, but it's not to be I guess. Clear delete, not only for the usual reasons, but this time also for WP:NOT a crystal ball.

'Delete Just another school. Dudtz 9/29/05 5:45 PM EST

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. Fine, kill it. Wikipedia is slowly becoming the irrelevant censor's choice anyway.

Slashdot forum humor brought to WP. Not encyclopedic. feydey 01:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Godwin, you have created a monster of unfunny copycat laws and their articles on Wikipedia. Delete with prejudice. ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^{(Contributions)} 01:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not in significant real use. Not well-known even within the Slashdot community. I've participated on Slashdot for several years now and never seen any reference to it whatsoever. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete strong agreement with Dpbsmith. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not the Encyclopedia of Slashdot. --Metropolitan90 06:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete utterly nn - unlike, for example Cole's Law :-) Dlyons493 07:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable. Amusing in context (I admit that I smiled when I first read it) but not even really notable enough to merge with Slashdot. -- Plutor 17:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• 1. Delete. 2. ???? 3. Profit! (That is, delete in full agreement with Dpbsmith.) Barno 19:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn slashdot joke Amren ^(talk) 20:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, waste of time. Shauri 20:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete useless. *drew 07:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. Fine, kill it. Wikipedia is slowly becoming the irrelevant censor's choice anyway.

Slashdot forum humor brought to WP. Not encyclopedic. feydey 01:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Godwin, you have created a monster of unfunny copycat laws and their articles on Wikipedia. Delete with prejudice. ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^{(Contributions)} 01:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not in significant real use. Not well-known even within the Slashdot community. I've participated on Slashdot for several years now and never seen any reference to it whatsoever. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete strong agreement with Dpbsmith. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not the Encyclopedia of Slashdot. --Metropolitan90 06:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete utterly nn - unlike, for example Cole's Law :-) Dlyons493 07:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable. Amusing in context (I admit that I smiled when I first read it) but not even really notable enough to merge with Slashdot. -- Plutor 17:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• 1. Delete. 2. ???? 3. Profit! (That is, delete in full agreement with Dpbsmith.) Barno 19:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn slashdot joke Amren ^(talk) 20:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, waste of time. Shauri 20:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete useless. *drew 07:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 02:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Press release. --fvw* 02:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete obvious ad, right down to the keywords in the first sentence. Pakaran 02:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; should be speedy for obvious advertising like this. Borders on nonsense. ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^{(Contributions)} 02:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Pure advertising. ♠ DanMS 02:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - advertising CLW 08:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, blatant advert. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete advertising Glaurung 12:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I gave de-advertising the old college try. There's not much there now in terms of notability, but I'll leave that to you. (As a side note, since its often possible in cases like this to remove the ad content but leave an article, it would be helpful if people weighed in on notability when voting) --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 18:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A valiant try, but I'm afraid in my view it was a wasted effort, I'm sticking to my position on the matter. --fvw* 23:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete advert Amren ^(talk) 20:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, advertising. Shauri 20:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Delete, I am not sure why SunRocket should be deleted when Vonage isn't. SunRocket is probably the closest competitor to Vonage for VOIP services right now. I think it just needs a lot of improving. -Jiraiya 01:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 02:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article only exists to further the POV-pushing attempts of User:67.124.49.20, User:208.57.91.27, User:Johnski, and User:Samspade. It could be a redirect, but it keeps getting changed back. It should be deleted and protected against recreation for the time being. Jdavidb 02:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This doesn't seem to me to be the place to sort this out. Jkelly 02:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Irrespective of the ongoing content arguments at Dominion of Melchizedek the term "ecclesiastical sovereignty" is a neologism of uncertain meaning used only by supporters of Melchizedek. Delete.--Gene_poole 04:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Britannica uses the term and so do many other notable websites. It should not be a redirect as the Vatican is not the only possible ecclesiastical state, even if it is currently. -- Kjkolb 04:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but remove references to not established or recognized Ecclesiastical states (especially to fake ones, see [3] and [4]) such as the so-called Dominion of Melchizedek. There was, for example, an Ecclesiastical state in Germany from 1007 to 1802, with the city of Bamberg as capital. Groeck 04:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Redirect. Dispute regarding validity should not be resulted in article being AfD. It should be tagged for NPOV/Validity instead. Also, we have a very similar article Ecclesiastical government. Maybe we should merge the two articles together (ie: 1 redirect to the other). --Hurricane111 05:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. as per Hurricane111 Dlyons493 07:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per hurricane. Absolutely no need to have both. Marskell 12:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• MergeRedirect to Ecclesiastical government. Karol 13:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• No new information to merge to the other article, unless the Melchizedek thing has much more widespread acceptance than anyone here has indicated. Delete, but agree with Groeck on potential for inclusion of "real" ecclesiastical states vs. bogus ones. Barno 19:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteRedirect... there is nothing in the current article that would be of value to merge. A locked redirect to Ecclesiastical government would be better.--Isotope23 20:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete...utter nonsense. KHM03 20:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Used as propaganda for DoM Shocktm (Talk * Contributions) 01:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I agree that it is currently for promoting Melchizedek, but it appears to be an actual term. Therefore, I think it should be cleaned up and one of the articles should be redirected to the other. -- Kjkolb 02:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or at least get rid of the irrelevant fraud scheme mentioned there. Pavel Vozenilek 14:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Ecclesiastical government. Alf ^melmac 08:21, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Ecclesiastical government. I would argue that simply deleting the page is not the best solution. Give it about three days after it is deleted and the same person will readd the page. Trust me, I've been dealing with this page for a month or so and have been deleting the POV information. Anyone is more then welcome to go back and look at my comments on that talk page. Davidpdx 9/25/05 11:18 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In spite of the title of the article, this is a perfectly good dictdef. It is, however, still a dictdef. Jkelly 02:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Groeck 02:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, don't transwiki limited to 4chan. ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^{(Contributions)} 02:44, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, more 4chan junk.--nixie 03:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Jkelly. Shauri 05:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for being junk. --rob 06:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. nn. Andrew pmk | Talk 17:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Perhaps this is a true thing (never seen it used myself), but it does not belong in an encylopedia. Amren ^(talk) 20:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; nn neologism. MCB 02:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Internet Slang. Pacific Coast Highway 01:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Second move to Internet Slang. AV 01:21, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was move to Wikipedia:Academic resources. Eugene van der Pijll 11:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an organised list of academic resources, just a random list of stuff taken from a user page. The first edit comment was "Help me edit this, its a useful list that I saw from User:172" TreveX^talk 02:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, that is a useful list. Organize and move into Wikipedia namespace. ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^{(Contributions)} 02:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Topic is far too broad and consists of nothing but links. See also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. ♠ DanMS 02:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd say Keep, but make a short list of lists, pointing to List of Encyclopedias, List of Academic Journals, etc. Ideally, that would preserve usefulness and make it maintainable. Jkelly 02:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and edit as per Jkelly Dlyons493 07:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Wikipedia namespace. Is useful to encourage the citation of sources. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge sections as proposed within article, and then delete shell. CLW 11:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Recycled, duplicate material. Duplicate material is deleted. Again, if an author wants to create a namespace helpful list, that's fine, but maybe user:172 could do it. That has nothing to do with this, though. Further, an "article" with nothing but links is a speedy deletion candidate. Geogre 21:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merging the sections as per the merger notices is not particularly useful. The external links to encyclopaedias are not as useful in encyclopaedia as the far larger list of internal links that is already in that article is. The same goes for the other sections. There is nothing useful in Jkelly's proposal that this be edited into list of lists, as the only thing that connects those lists together is the task of building an encyclopaedia, exactly what we have the project namespace for. This may be a useful companion to Wikipedia:cite sources and Wikipedia:reliable sources in the project namespace, best placed as a "resources" sub-page of Wikipedia:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards I think, but it does not belong in the main article namespace. As per MacGyverMagic and Purplefeltangel, rename and delete the redirect. Uncle G 04:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:NOT a collection of links, and this material is widely available anyway. Also, many of these links are to subscription databases, and I do not think wikipedia pages (particularly in the main namespace!) should link to things that won't be accesible to most readers. Chick Bowen 21:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As per nominator. Just copy the links and paste them wherever if you think they're useful. / Peter ^Isotalo 03:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, certainly, if they're useful to anyone, she's welcome to put them in her own user space. Note that the whole list is available at User:172. Chick Bowen 21:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup (or possibly merge) not delete ··gracefool |☺ 08:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A list of links ia not encyclopedic. Could exist in Wikipedia namespace. Paul August ☎ 02:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED. — JIP | Talk 05:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nobility not established. Google search 1 2 comes up empty. Article smells like vanity. Hurricane111 02:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Urban ninja gang???? No claims of notability -- speedy delete. ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^{(Contributions)} 02:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Change my vote to Speedy. History shows article had already been deleted once. --Hurricane111 02:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• No reason to delete this article at all. I've seen much smaller stubs then this one, and F5 is authentic.
  • The question is not whether they are real or whether the article is long enough, but rather whether they are notable, which they are not. ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^{(Contributions)} 02:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the above "no reason to delete" comment was made by the anonymous author of the article 69.142.234.125. His sole contributions to the Wikipedia has been this page. ♠ DanMS 03:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Have you been to Union, New Jersey? They're name has really spread around there.

• Have you been to Wikipedia? The Crips are notable as their influence has been seen far from their home city. F5 & Company is not. I would advise you to stop pressing the matter. ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^{(Contributions)} 03:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Smell like someone's fantasy. ♠ DanMS 03:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• May I ask a question?? Do you get paid to ruin peoples articles or is this just a fun day for you at your desk?
  • This is not "your" article. Please note the huge bold notice on the edit page: "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it.". ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^{(Contributions)} 03:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I am actually from Monmouth County, about 20 mintues from Union County in New Jersey and I've heard of them. They do ninja stuff and often film themselves. --Koala Bala 03:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • User's only contributions are to this AfD debate. ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^{(Contributions)} 03:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • I'm voting for a purplefelangel ban. All in favor say "notability".
    • Please see WP:BP for a list of reasons why users can be banned. ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^{(Contributions)} 03:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and please do it is asap. If possible, delete its author in the process. Shauri 03:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• The anonymous comments on this page were made by users 69.142.213.87, User:Blanco vato, and User:Koala Bala, who are probably all the same person. This user has also been vandalizing this page by deleting the votes and comments of other persons. The author of this article was 69.142.234.125 ♠ DanMS 03:44, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, enough reasons given above. Groeck 04:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close as per Groeck. -- Kjkolb 04:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Oleg Alexandrov 04:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable. Vanity. Google search: [5] Barfooz (talk) 02:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Don't forget to remove his name from List of photographers once he's gone. Oswax 06:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nn. Most Google hits seem to be mirrors from Wikipedia CLW 08:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Vanity. Stu 12:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Lack of "notability" is not a criterion for deletion. -- Reinyday, 14:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • See WP:BIO for guidelines on who ought to have a biographical article. The criterion here applicable is:

1. Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more.

He needn't meet this if there is another reason for his having an article. But there is none. Oswax 14:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:BIO isn't a policy. ··gracefool |☺ 08:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BIO Groeck 15:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While non-notability is not an official criterion for deletion, is a de facto one established by years of precedent. This article is non-notable. Andrew pmk | Talk 17:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could go on Yellowikis if the author so wishes. Andrew pmk | Talk 17:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If non-notability was a criterion with consensus, it would be official policy. ··gracefool |☺ 08:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, vanity. Shauri 20:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 14:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable, possible vanity article on an unknown Irani composer. Hits four non-Wikipedia related entries on Google [6], 3 of them from forums where he has posted ads, and his own personal webpage. Shauri 03:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Shauri - nn. CLW 08:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, vanity AFAICS. Charles Matthews 19:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Advertising, as its purpose is to increase publicity for a creature who has no public profile. Geogre 21:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 14:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Totally non notable webcomic, check out it's website here and its forums here. Sure, effort has been put into this, and it's been around for over 6 months, but just goto their website and flick through their forums and see how many people actually read it. There's so much dreck in the Wikipedia webcomics section, it's almost an advertising board. But even given the massively lax inclusion guidelines at Wikipedia:Web_comics, it still fails to meet it in the keenspace alexa rank here - Hahnchen 03:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^{(Contributions)} 03:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 07:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Hahnchen CLW 08:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nominator. Shauri 20:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 14:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article is semi-coherent nonsense - not a verifiable micronation. There was no "coup d'etat" in Sealand in 2002, and the claim that its "territory and geography are not exactly known" - despite consisting of a man-made island 300 km² in size in the South Atlantic, speaks volumes. Gene_poole 03:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Most mentions on the 'net of "New Sealand" are actually misspellings of "New Zealand." Among other things, this articleabout a planned reality show makes me strongly suspect that the article is a hoax. The part about David Duke is kind of a giveaway as well. Crypticfirefly 04:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Hoax/fantasy/vanity or whatever. CalJW 05:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as absurd. --rob 06:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Gene_poole
• Delete Hoax, and not very clever at that Stu 13:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nonsensical hoax. Shauri 20:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was already deleted. — JIP | Talk 14:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a web directory... --Mysidia (talk) 03:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - advert. Oswax 06:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Advertisement which only exists to give an external link. Dlyons493 07:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nn. Is the word "sofistication" a joke? CLW 08:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy deleted as spam. Contents were:

"Financial Counselors of Virginia, Inc. is a registered investment advisor based in Hampton Roads Virginia. The site contains much information of interest to sensible investors at all levels of sofistication. Please click here for access to the web site:[7]

I did the speedy delete. Geogre 21:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied. Please leave the AfD notice intact when adding the CSD notice to an article, so the deleting admin knows to close the relevant discussion. Thanks. android79 12:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No assertion of notability. I think it is speedy/A7 but wanted second opinions. Groeck 04:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy -- no context, no assertion of notability. ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^{(Contributions)} 04:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy as per ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^{(Contributions)} Dlyons493 07:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have tagged the article for speedy deletion. ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^{(Contributions)} 10:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Paul August ☎ 02:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial plug for a non notable "business school". jmd 04:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Business schools are notable. Grace Note 06:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does this mean I can pay $50 to register a business, and in the "Nature of Business" box on the form write "Business School" and then I can have my own WP entry? jmd
    • That and get a bunch of people attending it. ··gracefool |☺ 08:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep This is an post-graduate level institution and we don't delete high schools. CalJW 07:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep needs expansion and reference back to very well-known UK parent. Dlyons493 07:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - institutes of further education are notable enough IMO. CLW 08:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am sure we will get the usual batch of "NN" and "crap" and "this article sucks" from delete voters.--Nicodemus75 11:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't be so negative! ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^(contribs) 11:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not being negative. When voters repeatedly tag their "delete" votes on school articles as "crap", "NN", etc. it is merely a statement of opinion that we will see more of the same, based upon frequent and long-standing occurance. I have already assumed good-faith, but certain editors clearly do not demonstrate good-faith with commentary of this nature, as well as multi and mass-nominations of schools to AfD. The comments I have made should be assumed to be in good faith, since all they do is predict AfD voting patterns based on previous and extensive history.--Nicodemus75 12:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're getting all bent out of shape for nothing. This is a post-secondary institution, not a high school. android79 12:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am not "bent out of shape".--Nicodemus75 12:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sheesh, man, not even one person has said anything about deleting this article. Chillax! ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^(contribs) 19:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Stay tuned.--Nicodemus75 19:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Post-secondary educational institutions are generally notable. android79 12:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keepas an accredited graduate business school. I am wary of some private business schools, that lack accredition, and just want a plug, but this isn't such a case. --rob 16:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • By whom is it accredited? and what are the credentials of the acrediting body? jmd
• Keep, business school, notable, needs cleanup and attention but undoubtably salvagable. Andrew pmk | Talk 17:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable Amren ^(talk) 20:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, in this case, I'd say that it should be deleted, but not because it's a school. Post-secondary schools are all worthy topics and all encyclopedic, but this particular article is written so poorly as to be nearly incomprehensible. It became part of what UK college? It has only offered an MBA? What? The article is a mangled mess, and it would be better to have silence than gibberish on the topic. Geogre 21:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep if expanded Im too much of a deletionist I need to vote keep for once. If not Expanded Delete --Aranda56 22:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, NN crap. This article sucks. Keep, although it obviously needs a good, solid cleanup. Lord Bob 23:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice :-) But your name isn't Dunc. It doesn't quite have the same ring to it.--Nicodemus75 00:02, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there a need to take pot-shots at other users like this? - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 08:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Post-secondary schools (particularly graduate schools) have a greater potential for individuality and notability than primary and secondary schools. Weak keep, though, because I don't see how individuality or notability is demonstrated here. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 02:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (past consensus has been to keep schools, see Wikiproject Schools archive and arguments to keep schools ··gracefool |☺ 08:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep institute of higher education so notable enough for me chowells 17:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion: This article should be changed, to mainly cover the "home" school in Britain, and then list/describe the local programs (AACSB accredited and well known). If/when desired, a separate per-country articles can be made. It doesn't make sense to make an article for the this, before the parent. Any per-country article would obviously need to have it's article name qualified, to avoid mistakes like the John Madejski article pointing to the wrong place. --rob 21:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. You cannot force volunteer editors to create articles in the order you dictate. There's nothing wrong with this one as is. We should be encouraging this type of participation. Unfocused 22:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually the creator picked the title, which the content should follow. If they wanted one just for South Africa's campus they should have called it Henley Management College, South Africa. Right now the combination of the content, title, and category is ambiguous at best. Saying "There's nothing wrong with this one as is" makes as little sense as the article. Anyway, I see little point in voting, if there's no agreement as to what's being voted on. I abstain. --rob 23:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anyone can move the article, even while under AfD, provided the change is noted in the AfD section header and the links to the AfD discussion are double-checked and preserved. Unfocused 02:47, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nonencyclopedic --redstucco 09:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 02:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't appear to be notable enough for an encyclopedia entry. -- Kjkolb 04:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Junior academic. CalJW 07:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy reluctantly as wiki could do with more information on his field but needs more notability for a personal article. Perhaps he'd contribute some articles on those topics? Dlyons493 08:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Made by an anon, not userfiable. -Splash^talk 14:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'd guess that this is a cut-and-paste from somewhere, which is a problem. His book (on Orthodox Christian statuary in Albania) gets three hits on Google, but I cannot what kind of press published it. Jkelly 18:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's from here. I just looked it up, now. I don't think that marking it as a copyvio would be useful because he is not notable and we don't want people wasting their time trying to get permission. Can this be closed quickly instead?-- Kjkolb 22:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: CV. Geogre 21:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete seems more like someone's personal webpage. doesn't appear to be a really notable figure.--Alhutch 23:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn CV. Shauri 13:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Geogre.—encephalon 11:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 11:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. Mention CPU speeds in Pentium article if desired/useful. Groeck 04:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep or merge Wikipedia is not paper. Roodog2k (talk) 15:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Pentium. Andrew pmk | Talk 17:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There's no information here, let alone any that's worth keeping, and no one's going to search for it. -- Plutor 17:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No additional necessary info.Amren ^(talk) 20:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as having no content. It's not an article. It's a single fact. If it's just a predicate nominative, it's not an article. There's nothing to merge. If "merge" voters are saying, "Someone mention that the P54C was a 90 MHz chip in the Pentium article," then, sure, that's good advice, but an article? An article saying that one sentence? No. Geogre 21:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Currently content-free, but this IS the Pentium that had the famous floating point bug, and as such is vaguely notable. Rsynnott 00:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• The Pentium FDIV bug is fully described in Pentium, and applied to more than just this particular processor; the CPU speeds are already mentioned in Pentium; and this title is one particular clock speed and one particular model of the processor, out of many possibly combinations. There's nothing to merge, Pentium already covering this ground and a whole lot more. I'm not convinced that a redirect would be useful, given the highly specific title. Delete. Uncle G 05:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and don't merge as suggested by Uncle G. Vegaswikian 05:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. CPU-cruft. / Peter ^Isotalo 03:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Geogre and Uncle G. Quale 07:19, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Uncle G—encephalon 11:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Paul August ☎ 03:00, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a hoax. Google turns up two hits, both WP, 0 hits for "Cherokee Moon Ceremonies," and 72 for "Cherokee Moon Ceremony," only 7 of which are considered original enough to be displayed. There may be a moon ceremony, but I doubt this is it. --Blackcap | talk 04:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article was nominated in bad faith. Is not even completed yet. _{Unsigned post by Gadugi.}
  • No, I'm afraid it wasn't. You weren't able to see my reasoning, because you posted before I had finished typing. --Blackcap | talk 04:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless sources are cited before the end of this AfD. --fvw* 04:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now that sources have been provided. --fvw* 14:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above, unless sources are provided. There are moon ceremonies, but I could not find a reference to turtles being 'extremely sacred'. Groeck 04:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources Provided as Requested. Gadugi 17:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, sources provided. Groeck 15:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: try Cherokee "Moon Ceremony", I don't know if the results are relevant, but there are a lot more of them. -- Kjkolb 05:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I actually tried "Cherokee moon OR moons ceremony OR ceremonies" and other combinations on Google, and checked several web pages. There are several moon ceremonies at different times of the year, but I found no reference to the importance of 13, nor of its relationship to turtles, nor of turtles being sacred (note that the latter claim has been removed from the article). This is why references were asked for (which would not necessarily have to be web references). Groeck 05:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Reference Added as requested. Gadugi 17:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Google is not the central repository of all human knowledge and wisdom. When was the last time YOU READ AN ACTUAL BOOK or WENT TO AN ACTUAL LIBRARY. UNBELIEVABLE. Look what TUK-KAT found. Gadugi 05:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:NPA. Calm down. There's a good reason the Google test exists, see here for some more information about it. --Blackcap | talk 08:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• It's too bad you actually never ran a google test before voting. 31,000 hits I think would pass? Gadugi 17:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I note the following Ceremonies played an important part in the life of the tribe. The Cherokee celebrated a series of seasonal ceremonies and festivities that corresponded to the food cycle of the tribe. March was the first of thirteen moons and the feast of the deer. April’s celebration focused on strawberries, and the next harvests were “little” corn, watermelon, peaches, mulberries, and then “great” corn. In the eighth moon, our October, the festival featured turkey, followed by ceremonies for bison, bear, ducks, chestnuts, and finally nuts that were used in bread. Most of the seasonal ceremonies declined in importance in the eighteenth century, except the one held in late summer that coincided with the ripening of the late crop of corn. The Green Corn Ceremony lasted several days and had significant cultural and social connotation., which may be about the same thing, from Chattoogariver.org. A search for "Cherokee seasonal ceremony" turns up 31000 hits, including [lewisandclark.outreach.psu.edu/Mankiller.pdf this] pdf from PSU. Tuf-Kat 05:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - yeah it might be easy to simply delete this article, but this article is but 2 hours old right now and while there isn't much context, I highly doubt that it is all made up. Sure there aren't alot of sources, however, google is not the end all and be all of human knowledge. I think this page has a place here on WP, and I think it was nominated just a little too quickly. Malo 06:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongly object to the claim that this was nominated too quickly. The majority of deleted articles are speedied or AfDd within a minute of their creation. This is extremely important, as if bad, unverified, information remains on the 'pedia for some duration of time it only serves to lower the general accurateness of WP. There is no time limit for articles. --Blackcap | talk 07:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The majority of deleted articles are speedied or AfDd within a minute of their creation. Yeah, obvious crap like "Johnny Teabag is the greatest guy in the world LOL!!!" or "Bumfuck Nowhere is an up and coming high-school band in Ottumwa, Iowa". This is nowhere near that level. --Calton | Talk 16:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • My point was that just because I nominated the article soon after it was created doesn't make it an invalid or even a bad nomination. There isn't any duration of time that an article has to exist before being eligible for AfD, and keeping this article for such a reason is incorrect. --Blackcap | talk 23:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless verifying sources are added before this AFD is done.Keep (but cleanup) now that sources are provided. Gadugi is certainly right in saying you can't expect to find information on everything in Google, but he hasn't done anything to show us where we can find information about this and verify it. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC) (vote changed 10:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Sources provided as requested. Gadugi 17:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- look at the link Kjkolb posted. It is a refined google search that should provide some other sources to backup Gadugi's article. I don't expect you to find many written sources, just because of how large a part oral history plays in this culture. Malo 06:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My credentials can be found on talk:cherokee. Gadugi 06:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Give Gadugi some time to edit. No reason to assume that it is suspect. Sources can be provided in time. Important to include the culture of native North Americans in Wikipedia. At the moment hugely underrepresented. _{- Unsigned post by 222.95.1.224.}

• Note: 222.95.1.224's first edit. --Blackcap | talk 08:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and assume good faith. Vizjim 08:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and agree with Malo about the speed at which this was put up for deletion. Vizjim 08:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep at least for now, and let's see how it evolves. Dlyons493 12:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now and see how it evolves. Blackcap and Gadugi can play out their personal pschodramas elsewhere, though. --Calton | Talk 16:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep article was nominated less that 20 minutes after it was first created.--Kewp 03:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Cherokee-cruft. It's perfectly acceptable to nominate an article for the subject choice alone, so please stop basing your votes by how you perceive the AfD-process. / Peter ^Isotalo 22:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this article is fine by me. Alf ^melmac 08:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, maybe it needs cleanup and a new title, but the topic seems reasonable ··gracefool |☺ 15:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to draw attention to some of Gadugi's edits of this AfD, which are now buried in the edit history ([8], [9], [10], [11]). I think they certainly qualify as personal attacks, especially the bits about me being an Irish steel worker (never been near a steel foundry in my life), and the bit about me being blocked for disruption. Considering that these posts were made here in response to my listing this article for AfD, I figured it was appropriate to mention this. I've left a message on his talk page here. --Blackcap | talk 08:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my god, I just saw an ILM forming. You posted comments I was a hoax and marked a perfectly valid article for Afd in bad faith. You also bragged on your talk page about being an Irish (Steel) "Blue Collar" worker. Dont post content on Wiki if you dont want it copied and edited. I removed those comments I made because they were inappropriate. I see conduct like this on SCOX all the time but now I see it here. ILM Alert. Gadugi 08:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I never said on my talk page that I was a steel worker. In fact, I've never said that anywhere. --Blackcap | talk 08:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. I've had some sleep, and now can respond fully. First: I have never said that you are a hoax anywhere. If I may draw your attention to the top of this page, I say, "Probably a hoax." This was a guess based on the content of the article, how unverified it is, and the fact that it is appartently not notable enough to exist anywhere in the internet except for Wikipedia, and the internet is a big place. Second: You apparently do not understand WP policies, as evidenced by the edits mentioned above and your immediate assumption that this article was nominated in bad faith. Third: You continue to say that I violated some AfD regulation and that your article is "valid" (and is therefore, I can only presume, immune from AfD), but if you see WP:AfD you'll find that I haven't violated anything and that policy is on my side, at least in terms of nominating the article. I suggest that you relax, re-read this AfD, and read WP:NPA, WP:V, WP:AfD, and WP:DP and see that I haven't done anything wrong here. If, after doing that, you still feel that I have, then at least cite some WP policy that puts me in the wrong. --Blackcap | talk 16:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You called this article a Hoax and me. You probably should actually read the articles before voting Afd. You keep quoting Wiki policy, yet Google shows 31,000 hits on this topic, then you quote NPA policies, while it was you who attacked by posting an Afd to the article accusing the author of being a hoax and a fraud without ever having read it or inquiring. Why don't you just admit, "I was lazy and was attacking Jeff because I do not like him based on the stuff I saw on the internet, and I pounced the moment I saw him post this article and I was in the wrong, AfD withdrawn." Instead you keep justifying your actions when everything you claimed, all of your reasoning, your research (or lack thereof) all indicate you did not even attempt to verify information before voting, and you were in the wrong from the start. Gadugi 17:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention his suggestion that Fvw had been reverting his edits [12], something which the page history shows to be false. _{- Unsigned post by 82.15.19.128.}

Also calling me "SCOX ILM Member" in the previous edit. I'm sure calling someone a member of a lynch mob counts as a personal attack.

Flame bait comment posted above. Also, this person is stalking as they have apparently read Internet Shell Shock. 67.137.28.187 17:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• ... or written it.

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 14:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another possible candidate for speedy/A7. Groeck 04:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Just added a context tag, with an edit summary inviting the orig auth to add some. The sentence seems to refer to a sports figure, loaned out to another team? paul klenk ^talk 04:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: appears to be an Irish soccer player. -- Kjkolb 05:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Clearly asserts that he is a footballer. Please don't list articles that need cleaning up and expanding here. Grace Note 06:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I did not know that being a footballer asserts notability. One lives and learns. Groeck 13:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't (or rather, isn't). But being a professional footballer in a major league probably is an assertion of notability.—encephalon 11:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Another comment - I don't see how this article passes WP:BIO, especially Athletes who are widely known, widely acclaimed, or highly successful in their sport. I'll stick with delete. Groeck 15:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • That needs to be looked at because it is out of line with practice which is that any professional sportsman will be kept. CalJW 15:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He's played professional league football and under-19 international football. CalJW 07:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep professional football player. Kappa 16:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. Professional football player. Andrew pmk | Talk 17:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete, but willing to be persuaded otherwise. How notable is under-19 "international" football? Covered in major media like the FIFA World Cup, or ignored like an international spelling bee? After verifiability is satisfied, this will be at the edge of WP:BIO importance for living athletes. No indication that he would meet the criterion for non-living people after he dies. "Any professional sportsman will be kept" is not policy and is not a standard practice here; it's just an opinion which some voters use as personal voting policy. Barno 19:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Which professional sportsmen have been deleted recently? CalJW 05:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and expand. Professional sportsmen are notable enough. Shauri 13:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Has appeared in the professional league system in England. Sam Vimes 18:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as above comment ··gracefool |☺ 15:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 11:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indie band with no entry on allmusic.com; if they actually have a legitimate claim to notability, I don't know what it would be. Delete or prove me wrong. Bearcat 04:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep assuming that the article's assertion that they have achieve Gold album sales in Canada is correct. According to www.phx5.com/news.htm, Homegrown has sold 60,000 units which would qualify for notability. Seem to be a Christian music band rather than mainstream - could that explain absence from allmusic.com? CLW 08:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commentno it wouldnt. The vast majority of notable Christian rock bands have allmusic entries. Haven't heard of this band before, but it's possible they're popular in Canada without notability in the USA. No vote right now. Kertrats | Talk 14:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Homegrown is a compilation album of local bands; it's not their own album, so it can't be said that they've achieved a gold album of their own. Bearcat 17:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now unless shown to meet WP:MUSIC. The record is a "compilation", this means it's one song by this band and a bunch of songs by other bands, right? This may not help their case much. If they can be shown to be notable in a verifiable way, I could certainly change my mind. Friday (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Something very fishy (and unChristian) about the boast of a gold record that is not theirs. Being on a compilation is a fine thing, and it's a world better than most failing bandity articles, but there is no verifiability for this, and verifiability is one of our minimum requirements. Geogre 21:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Vote changed to Delete as per Bearcat CLW 07:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nominated for Candian Gospel Music Association Modern Rock Album of the year in 2004. It's not a Grammy, but it's more notable than much that survives this process. Have also toured Canada, which is at least medium sized.- Jaysus Chris 09:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't even accept WP:MUSIC's overly generous definition of notability as valid. This certainly doesn't pass. / Peter ^Isotalo 03:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• So you admit you're more exclusionist than WP:MUSIC, which itself isn't even a policy? That's a good argument o_O Keep as per Jaysus Chris's comment ··gracefool |☺ 15:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Groeck 16:42, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 20:19, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep (withdrawn by nominator). Neutrality^talk 22:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem notable to me, although I invite any South African Wikipedians to vouch for its notability. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 05:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AfD withdrawn. At first, I didn't realize this was a post-secondary institution. My assumption was that it was just an acting school. My mistake. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 20:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Institution of higher education. CalJW 07:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Why bother nominating post-secondary institutions?--Nicodemus75 11:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Institution of higher education. --rob 16:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Expand --MacRusgail 18:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Oleg Alexandrov 03:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure of the point of this list, but it seems to be mainly "think up a phrase containing the word fuck and list its first initial letters". --fvw* 05:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Pointless. Jwissick 06:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Quite worthless, for only about five or so acronyms on it are real, and it is not needed. Oswax 06:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete CalJW 07:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - pointless. And someone spent so much time on this. CLW 08:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• BJAODN per effort put into article Anetode 10:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• DFD - The internal links in the See Also section give many firm examples of its legitimacy --220.238.130.44 10:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Fucking Delete I suppose? How about RTFM. Oswax 10:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fucking where in the fucking manual does it fucking say you can't have a fucking list of of fucking acronyms involving the fucking word fuck?--220.238.130.44 12:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• BFJAOFDN♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^(contribs) 11:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Utterly useless and unencyclopedic list. Carbonite | Talk 12:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sophmoric at best, only of interest to those who confuse swearing with wit. Stu 13:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• F. Has anyone else wondered what the nominator's pseudonym might stand for, give its first letter? -Splash^talk 14:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this article is FUBAR.Gateman1997 16:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Who the fuck thought up half of these acronyms? Sorry, couldn't resist. Karmafist 17:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, linked to from Fuck and too large to merge. Andrew pmk | Talk 17:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  The link from Fuck is one of only three article links (the other two are Acronym and initialism and a list). Thus far, no one has proposed merging the article, so I don't believe its size is really relevant. Carbonite | Talk 17:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, SNAFU, no encyclopedic value. But I agree with User:220.238.130.44 . Barno 19:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Carnildo 22:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as equinoctial listcruft. MCB 02:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Colloquial language is important... -- Geo Swan 05:22, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then go write Wiktionary articles about it. This is not Slangopedia. / Peter ^Isotalo 03:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unencyclopedical listcruft. Shauri 13:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Arbitrary list nonsense. / Peter ^Isotalo 03:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• DFD --58.104.8.215 02:35, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I think this list could be useful. It would be helpful if there were such a thing as a sub-article for pages as these which are too large to merge with main article's like Fuck, however such a list seems to be relevant even if it referring to the acronyms of a derogatory word. Piecraft 14:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete useless listcruft. Groeck 16:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 11:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pure advertisement. Contains more information about Rockstarpix TV than it does about Giambra (coincidentally, the page creator is Rockstarpixtv.) I'm sure advertising the awesomeness of their ... whatever it is, and all the people who work for it, on Wikipedia, sounded like a dandy idea. The problem is, it's not what Wikipedia is for. Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Jwissick 06:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. Having a job does not constitute noteworthiness. CLW 08:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 08:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait, Do not delete, please provide some input on how I could modify this to benefit this site. He has historical and biography material for numerous noteable popular rock musicians and he has been working directly with these artists for over 20 years. What about the people that have been interviewed here. He has over 20 years of exclusive interviews with musicians ranging from the Allman Brothers, Weezer, Billy Idol, etc.? Rockstarpix.TV is the next generation of music video television and V-logging (this has been said by artists he has worked with like Billy Idol, Steve Stevens, Jethro Tull). Please don't reply with some terse or snarky comment, Thanks.--Rockstarpixtv 13:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I edited the article. first problem was that it appears the text was largely from [13]. Next problem was that the article was non-encyclopedic. Terms like "impressive" and "visual showcase" make good advertisment copy, but are not neutral terms and are not appropriate for an encylopedia. I also removed the link to Rockstarpix.TV. It may in your opinion be "the next generation of music video television and V-logging", but hopefully you can admit to being a bit biased as it is your site. Those claims cannot be independantly verified, unless you can cite some sources where someone reputable has made that claim in an article.

• • Comment Check out Billyidol.com and stevestevens.net they have posted links to my interviews with their band directly praising Rockstarpix.TV and my music journalism. --Rockstarpixtv 02:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that in this edit Rockstarpixtv (talk · contribs)}} changed the first person of his previous edit to third person: "**Comment Check out Billyidol.com and stevestevens.net they have posted links to his interviews with their band directly praising and noting his production of Rockstarpix.TV and Michael Giambra's contributions to music journalism. --Rockstarpixtv 02:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)"[reply]

I'm not sure this article will survive the AfD even with the changes because there is still the question of notability. I'm not trying to be snarky by any means, but there will be the issue of being able to verify some of your claims about being published. As it stands, I'm not sure being a photographer is any more notable (per WP:BIO)than being say, a bike messenger, even if you've had pictures of musicians published. No Vote because I did the rewrite.--Isotope23 18:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• "His musical clients and portfolio include: B.B. King, The Goo Goo Dolls, Sugar Ray, Fastball, Def Leppard, (etc etc etc) - this almost had me. But then I realized that, no, these are people who Giambra has photographed. He's not a producer, he's a photographer. Is he someone like Yousuf Karsh or Matthew Brady? I don't think so (although I'm willing to be convinced otherwise). Furthermore, Michael (I'm assuming that Rockstarpixtv is Michael?), let's assume that what you say is 100% accurate, that your business is in fact the "next generation of music video television" - in that case, it's explicitly not Wikipedia material. It'll be Wikipedia material in the future, but not until it actually happens. No vote yet, but probably delete. DS 14:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply by Rockstarpixtv (talk · contribs): I edited this because it is untrue and false. Michael Giambra started as a photographer for the Associated Press later moved the NY Times as a freelancer and now currenly works as a video producer --rockstarpix.tv 23:09, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • No, this user rockstarpixtv is not Michael Giambra. I am a great fan of his work. --Rockstarpixtv 02:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment Michael Giambra started as a photojournalist and photographer, working for NYTimes and USA TODAY / AP. He currently directs and produces music videos and interviews with real top artists and musicians. rockstarpix.tv and Michael Giambra is CURRENTLY being praised by artists like Billy Idol, Steve Stevens and Jethro Tull for his video 'v-logging' interviews and video productions. You can find these references at the bands Official web sites. www.billyidol.com and www.stevesteven.net to verify --Rockstarpixtv 02:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BIO. Groeck 15:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:BIO (assuming someone rewrites it) "Michael’s traditional still silver and color photography archives have been printed, displayed & appeared in numerous publications including The New York Times, Miami Herald, Associated Press ( Miami, Florida Bureau ) Reuters News Service, Associated Press & Gannett Newspapers / USA TODAY and Buffalo Spree Magazine." Kappa 16:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless much more verifiable indication of significance is provided. A few million people may have seen some of his photographs, but I doubt that anyone paid attention to the photographer's name or studio. Agree with DS. Notability does not transfer through a camera to its user. Also, violation of Geogre's Law. Barno 19:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable. / Peter ^Isotalo 03:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep current article is fine by me. Alf ^melmac 08:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep according to current policy. ··gracefool |☺ 15:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • What current policy? It's nearly useless to say "according to current policy" because there's so many of them; you need to explain how you feel particular policy applies to the current case. In this case, I think our policies on autobiography (we frown on them) and vanity (we frown on that too) apply, and as Barno points out, "Notability does not transfer through a camera to its user". It's true that this person has taken a lot of people over the years of some very famous people. But given that that is basically the definition of his profession, that every celebrity photographer is trying to get photos of celebrities, the question becomes: is every member of his profession automatically notable; or, is there evidence that he is notable beyond the standard for his profession? -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here is Michael Giambra's media credentials when he photographed Ronald Reagan for the NY Times at the Toronto World Economic Summit. Oh, did I mention this was one of his first assignements for the NY Times when he was 18 years old??--Rockstarpixtv 02:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures of Ian Anderson of Jethro Tull on the day that Michael Giambra interviewed and photographed him. He has won a Grammy Award, is that noteworthy enough Feldspar? He was asked to photograph and interview him by Ian and his management directly.--Rockstarpixtv 02:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Anderson won a Grammy award. Did Michael Giambra? -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: No, Not yet. --rockstarpix.tv 22:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, Has anyone here ever heard of Billy Idol?--Rockstarpixtv 02:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Feldspar, what is up your ass buddy? Michael Giambra is not a "celebrity photographer". He is a working journalist and producer. You should try to get your facts straight before you try to classify others. Why don't you tell us what great acomplishments you have produced other than your snarky, anal comments here? He does not "try" to get photographs of famous people. Michael Giambra is invited and encouraged to document them and treated as a friend and a peer by them. I try to remain humble here but I can back up everything I am stating here about Mr. Giambra with his photographic evidence and historical proof. What angers me is that someone with NO credibility (other than your affiliation to wikipedia) can try to berate and belittle his 20+ years of photography, journalism and video production work without ANY knowledge of the truth or facts. --Rockstarpixtv 02:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep current article is fine by me.--rockstarpix.tv 03:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, no personal attacks. Second of all, your vote doesn't actually count for much, since you have less than 50 edits, and they fall into two categories:
    • Edits to Michael giambra and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael giambra, by far the majority of your edits, and:
    • Edits to music video and music journalism, all of which consist of merely adding material taken verbatim from Rockstarpix.tv's press releases.
  • In short, the article may be "fine by you", but as both the article's author and as someone who has done nothing for Wikipedia except use it for self-promotion -- ooh, excuse me, Mr. Not-Actually-Michael-Giambra-Or-Rockstarpix-Just-Using-Their-Name-And-All-Their-Press-Material, using it for promotion of your absolute favorite celebrity journalist who-is-not-you-really and his commercial venture but-it's-not-you-even-if-you-chose-their-name-for-your-username -- you really exhibit no knowledge of whether the article is or should be fine by Wikipedia. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Assumption. --rockstarpix.tv 22:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, actually, not assumption. We know for a fact that you are the article's author; you created the article with this edit, and you spoke of Michael Giambra's experience and credentials as your own in this edit, this edit, and this edit. Did you really think that just changing "I" to "Michael Giambra" and "my" to "his" would erase your tracks? Either when you first claimed to be him, or when you clearly denied being him, you've knowingly lied to us. That's not going to help your case -- neither is vandalizing the AfD, as you've done at least twice: [14], [15]. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • *Comment: Feldspar, I disagree with you. I have done something for Wikipedia. I have uncovered a major flaw in Wikipedia. It allows jealous users like yourself to display their hubris as they live inside a false ethos of self-created importance constrained by a fairly "neat-o" online information resource that will soon be replaced by "the next greatest Google". You have no idea who you are conversing with here and your sarcasm-speak is childish at best. Keep on assuming, you are defeating your argument and proving what fool you are. What does it matter if this is my first contribution to Wikipedia? Again, you assume I will not contribute more. I just joined the site a few days ago! Why do you choose to be a flea on the "ass of the internet"? -- comment by Rockstarpixtv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log); personal attacks struck out
• Comment: This guy seems to have a similar level of notability to Cyrus Farivar, ie not very much but enough Kappa 17:37, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Go ahead. Delete it. What a bunch of douchebags?! -- unsigned comment by 64.65.211.35 (talk · contribs), who has also blanked this AfD
• Delete, as advertising, per nominator. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 14:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Imaginary music genre. Death metal, yes, but love metal? —Wahoofive (talk) 05:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepGenre is not crap, it IS real. Love Metal was first defined by the band HIM on their album Love Metal, and if you LISTEN to their music you will notice how different it really is to other metal genres.
• Genre is crap but real. I don't know how notable it is, but I think it is notable enough for Wikipedia. Keep. Aecis 10:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do votes get discounted if they make no sense? How can you think something is notable if you don't know how notable it is? --Last Malthusian 22:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless any examples can be provided. ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^(contribs) 11:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I guess, although the brevity of the article doesn't inspire enthusiasm. Everyking 12:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per purplefeltangel. One band does not constitute a genre and unless a list of other artists of this "genre" can be provided (preferable ones that satisfy WP:MUSIC) I'd say this should most definitely be deleted.--Isotope23 14:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I thought "if this article doesn't just cite the album "Love Metal" by HIM (the Coldplay of heavy metal), I'll vote keep." Guess what, it doesn't. Delete this for the same reason as Ice metal; you can't create metal subgenres just by sticking a potential lyrical theme onto the beginning and citing a few metal bands who may or may not sing about that theme. --Last Malthusian 15:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I can't find a single use of the term 'love metal' via Google. All the matches for "love metal" are either album titles or are part of a sentence such as 'I love metal'. This is a neologism. --Last Malthusian 12:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Appears to exist... --MacRusgail 19:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, vague genre. Failing that, redirect to the album. Punkmorten 22:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep its certainly a legitimate genre. JobE6 00:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Sonjaaa 06:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. In regard to Isotope23's comments, if this were one of those countless non-notable bands who have just started out (or worse yet, haven't even started out yet), I'd vote delete as a neologism. But this is HIM, who is better known outside their home country than Urho Kekkonen and C.G.E. Mannerheim put together. It's certainly notable. — JIP | Talk 11:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm in no way refering to the notabiliby of HIM, but again... one band does not constitute a music genre. I'd have no problem with this article being about the album, but to claim that there is a genre called "Love Metal" based on the music of one artist shows a lack of understanding as to what the term "genre" actually means. A genre is a collection or group of artists with a similar sound. By definition you can't have a collection or group of one artist. Unless there are other notable bands that can be considered to have this sound and this genre is being referred to by music writers and critics in notable publications it is a neologism.--Isotope23 18:01, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep - Well, we have an article on Child pornography... --Celestianpower ^hab 12:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's that supposed to mean? That kiddie porn isn't an established subgenre or subwhatever of pornography or that "love metal" is just as famous? / Peter ^Isotalo 04:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and seriously expand and ellaborate, please. Shauri 13:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the point is that there is nothing to expand... Sam Vimes 18:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand? This is ridiculous. I could add a hundred bands to this article, but I won't, because it isn't a genre. A genre has to be defined by something they actually do that other genres don't. Death metal is notable for its use of screeching, nu metal is notable for its lack of solos and use of rap vocals, speed metal is notable for, er, speed, 'love metal' is notable for... what? Lyrics about love? Please. --Last Malthusian 09:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Metalcruft neologism. / Peter ^Isotalo 04:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• The album is notable, but you can't define a genre on one album. Reluctant delete for now Sam Vimes 18:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep according to current policy. Cleanup, not delete. ··gracefool |☺ 15:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Article must be axpanded. --KeyStorm 17:12, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can you expand an article about a genre that does not exist? Again, nobody arguing keep has even made an attempt to establish the factual existance of this genre. There is a perfectly good article about the HIM album Love Metal already, so part of the disambigious page is not necessary. The definition portion of this term as a genre is a neologism. At best this should redirect to the album.--Isotope23 20:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete one band is not enough to define a new genre chowells 18:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't know why this vote is riling me so much - I don't even mind HIM much, and God knows there are articles on Wikipedia more devoid of information than this that aren't even subject to AfD - but I despair at the number of people just posting "keep" without any apparent attempt to justify their decision or counter the arguments that got this HIMcruft posted to AfD in the first place. I hope whoever considers the final result of this VfD takes that into account. --Last Malthusian 22:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I second that completely. Nobody who has voted Keep has shown any evidence of the existance of this genre.--69.14.198.253 01:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this because it's a neologism, almost to the point of being (in its claim that such genre exists) fabrication coupled to HIM vanity. The Literate Engineer 20:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 14:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He is a businessman who is not particularly notable. -- Kjkolb 05:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete, no assertion of notability. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Who??? Jwissick 06:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Google 72 results, not noteworthy. I suspect vanity as well. -- Malo 07:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nn, vanity. Why do these folk create entries for themselves but without capitalising their names in the titles? CLW 07:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. 83.70.223.222 08:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Lack of "notability" is not a criterion for deletion. But the capitalization needs to be fixed and the article needs to be wikified... -- Reinyday, 14:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes it is, unless I read CSD A7 incorrectly. -Splash^talk 14:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correct, but CSD/A7 speedy requests are being turned down with the above argument (which isn't a Wikipedia policy - see link). Some clarification may help. Groeck 15:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. I almost speedied it, but it crams so many damned assertions in, it'll burst open next time anyone edits it. -Splash^talk 14:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't think this is a speedy candidate due to the various claims of notibility... at least they are trying to assert them. Nothing this guy has done makes him more notable than hundreds of other managers at hundreds of other companies though. He graduated from college and he worked at various companies...--Isotope23 14:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Personally, I'd call it a speedy. This guy has had jobs, and has gotten degrees. So have lots of people. But I can see why the speedy may be controversial, so I didn't tag it. Friday (talk) 15:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete either per speedy/A7 or WP:BIO. Groeck 15:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'd said "userfy" if it wasn't an anon. This guy may be nice, and may be liked by everyone he works with, but he fails the "average X" test. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn. Shauri 16:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn Amren ^(talk) 20:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• This b deleted, not notable. 142.104.36.199 00:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I got auto-logged-out somehow when I tried to vote there. It's me. Hi. Lord Bob 00:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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