Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 November 14

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< November 13 November 15 >

Purge server cache

November 14

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

The result of the debate was redirect to PaRappa the Rapper after merge. Robert T | @ | C 00:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All Master's Rap (Bathroom Rap)

As with Chop Chop Master Onion's Rap above: Video games are notable, but single levels from video games? To be fair, this is also a song from the PaRappa the Rapper soundtrack. But I still don't think it needs its own article. Delete or Merge with PaRappa the Rapper. BrianSmithson

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amioba

Article cites "Eragian mythology." There is, as far as I can determine, no such thing. Chick Bowen 01:16, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The person who made the page is User:Erag so I'd assume it's a word made up by him/her. In any case it's not verifiable. - Bobet 01:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - patent nonsense. Reyk 02:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with ameboa, not all typos are vandalism or non-notable--Etyheryery 03:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, there's really nothing to merge. It doesn't contain information about amoebas, and was clearly not intended to. Note that this user has 13 contributions, most of which are to AfD. Chick Bowen 03:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sure seems like someone's vandalism. Not patent nonsense so much as a blatant attempt at graffiti. Geogre 03:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unreferenced nonsense. - Mgm|(talk) 12:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, ungrammatical, poorly spelt nonsense. Avalon 16:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. MCB 08:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 07:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Argentina v England (2005)

Article about friendly match between Argentina national football team and England national football team seams to me not important enough to have its own article. The match was just a friendly match with no special incidents. Mariano(t/c) 09:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, sporting event with an audience of millions of people. Kappa 11:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Welcome to world globalisation. Every single episode of any medium soap opera is seen by millions. Mariano(t/c) 12:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merging to the rivalry article below would also be acceptable, as would comprehensive coverage of all medium soap operas around the world. Kappa 00:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge...I'm not sure where. Professional sports events happen every day, usually several a day in different places in the world. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 11:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep England v Argentina is not an average friendly (and it was a great match). Can't sensibly be merged. CalJW 12:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I admit ignorance of the game itself (other than what the article says); how do you mean that it wasn't an average game? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 12:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Presumedly because England won for a change! -- Francs2000 12:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • England and Argentina have a rivalry dating back to the Hand of God goal at the 1986 World Cup and spanning some key games since. Argentina are one of England's two biggest footballing rivals alongside Germany, and the something similar may well apply the other way round, with Brazil taking the place of Germany. Both countries are in the top 10 in the FIFA World Rankings. CalJW 16:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't suppose there's an article about this rivalry? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 16:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually, Hand of God goal itself seems to contain a nice little history of major England-Argentina games since 1986. It doesn't mention this match yet, so maybe it would be a suitable place to merge it to? — Haeleth Talk 18:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the respective team articles. PJM 12:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or fail that merge per above. Individual games are not encyclopedic, even if they inspire tremendous passion in fans. Dottore So 13:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Argentina national team and England national team. Simple enough. Now merged into England and Argentina football rivalry, so delete this Sam Vimes 14:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Too detailed for main articles. Carina22 15:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The nominator didn't disclose that he is a national of the losing country. CalJW 16:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - of transient interest. Nobody is going to want to read this match report in even a month's time. Individual sports matches shouldn't have entries of their own unless they are really significant (e.g. World Cup finals). --ajn (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as of ajn. -- Elisson • Talk 17:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Mariano. -- Kjkolb 18:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's only a friendly, and I can't see a merge into the national team articles in this case doing anything more than bloating the artcles. Maybe put down the result and the scoreline or something, but...I mean, that's not a merge, really. Lord Bob 19:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Hand of Gold goal as Haeleth suggested, if this can be done sensibly. Otherwise delete. Reyk 19:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as entertaining and dramatic a game as it was, it *was* just a friendly, and as such isn't notable enough for an article. There'll be plenty of match reports around online for anybody in years to come who wishes to know more about the game, as it's already covered here with a brief mention in the England team's article. It'll probably get a mention in the Hand of God goal piece soon too — a piece which I suspect could perhaps be re-named / split off into a history of this particular footballing rivalry, which *is* a notable one. Angmering 20:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, the rivalry is notable and could probably use an article (although I think the Hand of God goal is notable on its own merits even if the rivalry gets an article). Perhaps we could merge into that, although I'm hesitant to vote that way on a non-existant article. Lord Bob 20:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I've created a draft page at User:Angmering/England and Argentina football rivalry, for a possible page on the whole shebang. I know it's lacking quotes, references, etc, but hopefully others with greater knowledge can build to this start. What do you think? Worth adding to the main namespace? Please do feel free to change / add to / move to the main namespace as you feel appropriate. Angmering 22:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    That looks like the start of a really interesting article. Make sure it makes it onto the list of unusual articles if/when it's ready for prime time; when would Britannica ever cover something like that? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 22:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've now moved the piece to the main namespace, where it resides, unsurprisingly, at England and Argentina football rivalry. It's got references, etc now, but is sadly lacking an image — I tried in vain to find a free image of one of the games or even separate ones of England and Argentina teams and / or notable players from these matches, but haven't had any luck. Anyone know of such images? Angmering 13:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like Argentina has rivalries all over the place. :) Sebastian Kessel Talk 16:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - just a friendly and the 'rivalry' is well documented elsewhere. --Meiers Twins 11:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if these cricket articles are kept, why not football (which is a much more popular sport).  Grue  18:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No. Why not have an individual article for every international ever played in the history of sport? A football match does not deserve it's own article, I mean, this match was a FRIENDLY. The result means little, it wasn't even a world cup qualifier. Heck, I wouldn't even have a group stage World Cup final's game as a separate article, they should be merged! - Hahnchen 00:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Grue. Friendliness between UK and Arg is certainly notable. User:Ejrrjs says What? 07:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Wile E. Heresiarch. Mo0[talk] 09:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arun isaac

Clear vanity page, but the newspaper article is an assertion of notability so I figured it wasn't a speedy deletion candidate. Chick Bowen 03:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speed deleted. A mention in the newspaper isn't sufficient to establish notability. The "world class mathematician" bit is clearly a joke. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bad business

Had a speedy delete tag but not a speedy so placing it here. My vote is Delete for failing WP:MUSIC --JAranda | watz sup 01:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Gigging band, but unsigned and undistributed, and the article's title is incorrect. Geogre 03:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above - clearly NN. PJM 15:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 00:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Joss

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 13:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unsuccessful contestant for minor office. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 14:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Losing candidates in state or local elections maybe, college elections NO. - Randwicked 14:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Candidates that lose have to satisfy the WP:BIO criteria in some other fashion. Those that lose spectacularly usually do, for the simple reason that they garner lots of press coverage. Those that merely lose do not, however. Uncle G 15:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain Candidate in an election important to a prominent British University. Also interesting about Germaine Greer. Needs cleaned up, but still worth the effort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.112.43.89 (talk • contribs) 2005-11-14 15:01:08 (UTC)
  • Delete Doesn't say how many votes he got, so I expect it wasn't many. Carina22 15:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article cites no sources, and research turns up no published works dealing with this person, that are sourced independently from the subject, aside from one sentence mentions in articles about Germaine Greer's candidacy. The only source of information about the subject is the subject himself, in an interview. The source of the purported Germaine Greer quotation is also the subject himself, and its accuracy has already been disputed by other people. The WP:BIO criteria are not satisified. It appears that this person has not had any independently sourced press coverage, let alone as much as Mike McCue (AfD discussion) has. Delete. Uncle G 15:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no assertion of notability sufficient for WP:BIO. — Haeleth Talk 18:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain, even a google search turns up dozens of mentions other than this election incl the result, its incomplete not unnecessary. 21:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 07:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

berate

dicdef already in Wiktionary Savant1984 04:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • speedy redirect added wi tag, I am not sure if content is worth keeping.Davidrowe 09:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete blatant dic def. We don't need to redirect our empty pages already have a very clear line saying: "Look for Berate in Wiktionary, our sister dictionary project." with links and all. - Mgm|(talk) 13:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blank programming language

Not notable. The only Google hits for this seem to be the author's web site and many Wikiedia mirrors. Dalbury (talk) 01:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete promotion of personal project. Be sure to delete Andrew Turley as well (redirects to Blank programming language at present). Wile E. Heresiarch 04:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per above, no demonstration of notability.--cjllw | TALK 04:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. jni 07:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The appropriate place for articles on non-infamous esoteric programming languages is Esolang. Unsurprisingly, this article already has a more complete equivalent there: [1]. Therefore delete until such a time that it becomes notorious. — Haeleth Talk 14:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One is a series of related vanity entries -- including Andrew Turley and That show this Morning. ERcheck 03:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Past VFD archived here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blogosphere2

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 00:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

blogosphere

  • Keep I'm ignorant and came across this term only recently. I didn't know what it this was 'til i looked it up on wikipedia. So useful to all us trolls out there. --moreanon 20:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable, should be merged with blog at the very least. Skrewler 03:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep without merging, neologism in wide circulation. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. Widely used term. Grutness...wha? 05:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 17.7 million Google results for blogosphere see [2] and this is a well-referenced explanation of the concept. Capitalistroadster 08:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or at least transwiki --Swamp Ig
  • Keep. Past AfD nomination should've given you a hint. --Andylkl (talk) 10:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously notable neologism. I want a button on my keyboard that violently murders people who actually use this word, though. - Randwicked 10:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a widely used and understood phenomenon. Jtmichcock 12:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Quickly moving beyond neologism. Dottore So 12:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or transwiki. Depressingly—very depressingly—this neologism is here to stay. Please vigorously fustigate me if you ever catch me using the word non-sarcastically. —HorsePunchKid→龜 20:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Widely used term, so deletion rationale "Not notable" is wrong. Survived AfD before if I'm not mistaken. Punkmorten 21:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Because a few dozen people participate in mental masturbation on the subject, doesn't mean everyone else has to. --Timecop 01:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep in use in mainstream media. Jessamyn 02:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, even if this is the stupidest neologism since "metrosexual." Andrew Levine 04:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There seems to be an attack on blogosphere entries at Wikipedia. There's also a vfd on the Canadian Blogosphere--Simon.Pole 04:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Quantity is not quality nor notability. 65.34.232.136 05:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this one, as it describes a notable phenomenon. I would say we should merge all articles on national blogospheres into it (including Canadian blogosphere and Belgian Blogosphere) if they had anything worth merging, but they don't. — Haeleth Talk 17:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -- Femmina 22:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable term. --J. Nguyen 00:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Some might not like the term, but it doesn't change that it's in use and people want to understand it.
  • Delete. Crappy term to denote a series of shit pages of worthless garbage. --86.2.56.178 12:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since it's a widely used term. Do not transwiki to Wiktionary since the article goes beyond being a simple definition of a word. Angela. 12:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's places for stuff like this. --Depakote 12:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Only going to get more important. Carina22 12:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep this term is heavily used actualy. --Mateusc 13:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Blog. Reyk 01:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep used heavily by news outlets. Jacqui? 01:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Stirling Newberry 03:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Organized deletion vandalism merits banning. --FOo 05:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Blog. There doesn't seem to be enough here to merit a separate article. Slartoff 02:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Tend to agree with foo. Rhobite 03:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep word with widespread mainstream currency and considerable potential for encyclopedic explanation. - squibix 18:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep after rewrite.--Shreshth91 13:02, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blounts Creek

I'm not sure what this is. I was tempted to speedy it as an attack page, but probably it's some mixture of opinion, original research, and personal attack. In any case, non-encyclopedic as written. --Alan Au 06:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing 797

Speculation on an unannounced aircraft. How do we know whether the 797 will be a 747 replacement or a 737 replacement? Andros 1337 03:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This model of aircraft appears to be completely unverifiable. The only even vaguely reliable things that research turns up are nothing more than speculative "what the world will be like 40 years from now" pieces that mention, in passing, people travelling in Boeing 797s. There's not even reliable speculation on what the aircraft might be, or even that there will be such an aircraft at all. Delete. Uncle G 04:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Speculation upon speculation.Davidrowe 09:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is just speculation. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Pure speculation. A completely new Boeing plane is likely a decade away, and the name usually isn't chosen until around the time there are some customers on board. — RJH 16:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless it can be cleaned-up very well, we shoud delete it-ColumbusCrew29 00:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "as yet unannounced" WP:NOT a crystal ball. --Meiers Twins 11:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:07, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Weinberger

Vanity biography for a non-notable hacker. I would expect someone running a 25-man company would get some Google hits. Delete and clean out all the references he's made to himself. —HorsePunchKid→龜 05:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention the suspicious talk page... —HorsePunchKid→龜 05:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note further that another IP address in Illinois (where Weinberger is purportedly from) is trying to dodge this AfD.[4][5] —HorsePunchKid→龜 19:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - either non-notable, or suspicious, as HorsePunchKid said. --Bookandcoffee(Leave msg.) 05:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete under A7 as a biography with no assertion of notability. Supposedly has a 25 employee company with no web presence and hacked his high schools computer. 2 Google results for "Brad Weinberger" Hacker see [6] both refering to baseball teams containing a Brad Weinberger and Andrew Hacker. Capitalistroadster 06:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete The assertion of notability is not serious enough to circumvent A7, per above. Dottore So 13:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I'm afraid that I can't see my way to a vandalism speedy. While we may all believe that it's patently false, the IP creator/commentator might be a school, and all we're left with is something entirely unverifiable. Geogre 18:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[talk] 23:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Corney

Only two Google hits. --Ixfd64 08:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedily delete. For A7, A6. Tagged. encephalon 09:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. The only keep votes are by a user whose only contributions ever are to this AfD debate. — JIP | Talk 16:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Britlist

Non-notable website. Few google hits (39 unique), Alexa ranking stops just short of 500,000. Little more than advertising. Francs2000 17:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. One of many such sites in the UK that linkfarm to boost their Google rating. Hence, lots of Google results, but only around 40 unique hits. Nothing unique about this site to jstify it's inclusion. --GraemeL (talk) 17:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article. It's not actually link farming that gives them so many google results - it's the fact that they have so many unique pages. A lot of the results are a combination of the number of sections and towns that they cover. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.6.234.29 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 16 November 2005
  • Delete. I responded to a message yesterday on the help desk from Timp of Britlist wondering what had happened to an article he had posted. I checked the records and noticed that we had an article created by Tim Patterson of November 9 and I assume that Tim P of Britlist and Tim Patterson are one and the same. I did a search and discovered 109,000 hits so I put a notice on the UK Wikipedians notice board talk page see [[7]]. The general concensus was that this was of little value and should be listed. Further, there were only 39 unique hits for this company and it fails to meet WP:CORP. Capitalistroadster 18:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For reasons above Maccoinnich 16:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete I'd keep the article on the site - this site's big in the UK and is used by a lot of people for buying and selling who don't like to pay the fees on ebay. It's also nominated for website of the year 2005. Website of the year — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.6.234.29 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 16 November 2005
    • Note: you only get to vote once, and unregistered users don't get a vote at all. Just to let you know. -- Francs2000 01:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:09, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Budgetax

Vanity, non-notable company Swamp Ig 08:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC) (Originaly nominated by User:Rkevins82 without creating a votes page/log ect)[reply]

  • Delete as advertising, and delete the logo JPEG too. Anville 15:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CORP. -- SCZenz 04:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete as a simple re-creation of content discussed before at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buluran/2004-11-15. The article was the same content as before, simply in a different language. Uncle G 03:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Buluran

Genealogical and/or vanity Chris the speller 03:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Byron Basketball

Delete. This is a product of someone’s imagination. See the last sentence in the article. The same user contributed the related article Phillip Hambright, which is also on AFD. ♠DanMS 06:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. per nomination. encephalon 09:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per above. Dottore So 13:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, says it's a series in development, but there's nothing to verify it by and no claims of notability. - Bobet 14:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This series would be on the Camcorder network? Fantasy. Geogre 17:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; unverifiable, crystall ball. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 19:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cabury

Don't know if it's a real person, certainly doubtful if he is notable, googling 'cadbury Harold Earl Wessex godwin godfrey' yielded these results, none seem to be about the person i question. By the way, it seems to be a typo in the article title, since the text refers to "Cadbury" - Akamad 09:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as the creator did not appear to check the spelling. Jtmichcock 12:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure that's a criterion for deletion. More to the point, the contributor appears to be quite aware of the issue, since he's added the same "historical" figure to Cadbury itself. Maybe he thought this was an appropriate way to handle the fact that Cadbury already existed? — Haeleth Talk
  • Delete Trivial at best. PJM 12:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The name Cadbury although derived from an Anglo-Saxon name, is an English derivative of Anglo-Saxon and thus not contemporary for the 11th century. That alone proves this is bollocks. -- Francs2000 12:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. Not only is it not an 11th-century form of the word, but "Cadbury" is a place-name, not a personal name, as the "-bury" suffix makes amply clear... — Haeleth Talk 18:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No Consensus D/K/M -- 12/13/4. More at talk page. Karmafist 16:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian_blogosphere

Not notable, should be merged with blog at the very least. Skrewler 03:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete without merging. Canadian blogosphere = that part of the blogosphere in Canada. So what? Wile E. Heresiarch 04:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as introductory article to Category:Canadian bloggers. --maclean25 06:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but maybe move few sentences to Category:Canadian bloggers. I don't think categories for people by nationality need any corresponding introductory articles in most cases. jni 07:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed, that's a great idea.
  • Delete unnecessarily specific. Dottore So 12:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a fairly decent introduction to the topic. - SimonP 13:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, putting this in vfd shows the systemic bias towards non-American entries that has been identified in Wikipedia. The blogosphere in Canada has significant characteristics that are distinct and notable. --Simon.Pole 16:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wile E. Heresiarch. Nonsense. --Timecop 01:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't systemic bias. A similiar article about any country's blogs would have similiar problems. Certain blogs are apparently being used as primary sources, but there are no secondary sources. If sufficient secondary sources cannot be found and used, this article should go away for lack of verifiability. It's not that the article is bad, but to me it looks like original research, and as such should be deleted. I could change my mind if sources are found. Friday [[User_talk:Friday|(talk)]] 02:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is non-American systemic bias. The main articles on blog topics almost exclusively concern the situation in the USA. They are essentially national US articles. I know this is hard for some people to see, like fish seeing the water, but please try to treat other countries fairly.--Simon.Pole 04:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is thinly-veiled vanity. Of no encyclopedic value. The Tangent 00:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is the user's 8th edit. -Hapsiainen 00:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. -- You have got to be kidding, right? Not notable whatsoever. 65.34.232.136 05:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article at blog is presently very US-centric, and coverage of Canadian bloggers is required in some manner. Either keep or merge into blog as a Canadian section; the topic is most certainly not any less encyclopedic than the exclusively American examples currently cited at blog. Bearcat 06:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then perhaps cleanup of blog is in order. Not saying I should do it, but why exactly are there *examples of blogs* in an article about blogs, you've seen one, you've seen them all, a simple one-paragraph description of what a blog is should suffice. The whole blog thing is blown out of proportion. --Timecop 06:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Do we need something describing what blogs are for every country? What makes Canada so special? All of this information is just repeatative of what blogging in general is. 131.128.142.226 06:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a no-brainer in the Canadian media; this is used as part of any good barometer of Canadian public opinion. Deleting this article would be a mistake, and I think significantly demonstrates an offhand US systemic bias on Wikipedia. It *is* tantamount to saying that Canadian political debate (which naturally contains a lot of debate about US policy, for reasons any Canadian would see as obvious (US policy has arguably as much effect on Canada as Canadian policy)) is irrelevant. As a Canadian, I'm inclined to object to that. References to PB or 'Canadian Blogosphere' as 'non-notable' here seem to be offhand and poorly informed. I don't hesitate to say that an American isn't going to be naturally inclined to make an informed choice about this. There are, after all, only 30 million Canadians. . . for US perspective, that's NYC and surrounding areas, and we're a pretty politically splintered group. That said, the Alexa rankings make perfect sense, and actually don't justify deletion based on overall popularity. Overall popularity among whom? Americans interested in Canadian political scandals? "What makes Canada so special?" What makes the US so special that most references in 'blogging' are pulled from the US (and refer to it)? Is there a US or pan-global content requirement for a Wikipedia article to be relevant? I wasn't aware that there was.
    • You're making an argument to fix the U.S. bias in the other articles, not to keep this particular one. There is nothing special about Canadian blogs, and there is also nothing special about U.S. blogs, so no article should be biased towards either. Incidentally, before you go assuming I'm demonstrating bias here myself, let me add that I'm British... and I would vote to delete British Blogosphere, if it existed. — Haeleth Talk 17:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm actually making the argument that this is a form of political dialogue that is rather important in Canada, and that if, perhaps, the article ought to be about anything other than what it is (which is bewildering, IMO), it ought to be about or include a distinct section about the mechanism by which the Canadian media interacts with this specific set of blogs, and the reason why they have such an effect on the political debate in Canada. That is notable, IMO. These sites are simply not what these delete votes claim. Sigma-6
  • Keep, The article is well written, I agree with Simon.Pole, it is bias to non-Amercian articles, if there was a article of Amercian blogospheres it wouldn't of been vfd'd. To 131.128.142.226's comments, what makes Amercians so special? They bomb countries for oil? Thats all they seem noteable for. --supers 06:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge with blogging? unnecessarily subcategorising an already over-publicised subject Adamn 08:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't want to speculate on the suitability of this article itself, but I'd be a happy man if we could move this to Canadian blogs or somewhere similar. Blogosphere is such an awful, awful word, really. We shouldn't encourage its use by acknowledging its existence -- and this from a committed descriptivist. Someone think of the kittens. - Randwicked 08:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per maclean25 and SimonP above. Luigizanasi 14:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really, really hope people will explain their reasoning for keeping or deleting as it relates to editorial policies and the objections to the content. Assuming sinister anti-left or anti-Canada motives is not helpful. Also, just because there are equally unverifiable articles on other topics does not make this a proper article. This isn't written as an article, it's written as a personal essay. I'm willing to accept that blogs are significant to Canadian politics. But, this is a recent movement, and if no proper sources are available on this topic, there's no way to have an article about it. Making it neutral and verifiable is impossible without a sufficient number of reliable sources. Friday (talk) 14:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I fail to see how the blogosphere is a "recent movement". The word was coined at the latest in 2002, and one assumes what it describes was going on for some time before that. I also fail to see why a Canadian article somehow needs to be rolled into a larger American article to be valid.--Simon.Pole 20:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Has absolutely nothing to say other than "hey, there are bloggers in Canada, and they do the same stuff as bloggers everywhere else!" Except when it makes unsupported and unverifiable claims like "weblogs of a political nature have a particularly high visibility in Canada, perhaps more so than other countries". Merge any useful content into other articles like Blogosphere and Blog, to counter the U.S. bias perceived there, but there is no reason to keep this as an article in its own right. — Haeleth Talk 17:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've removed that claim for now. I still abstain. - Randwicked 01:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -- Femmina 22:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Haeleth. All this article does is assert that Canadians blog, just like people in dozens of other countries do. Andrew Levine 22:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This article does more than just "assert that Canadians blog". The article actually discusses the importance of blogs in Canada as opposed to other countries, citing examples. Is it too much to ask that people read entries before voting to delete them?--Simon.Pole 23:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Needs some claenup, but covers a surprisingly broad topic rather well. Radagast 23:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is another pointless, irrelevant, non noteworthy, redundant, self righteous blog. Take it outside and shoot it please. --Impi.za 00:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article is about many blogs, not just one blog. What are you talking about? -Hapsiainen 00:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, this is the user's 11th edit. The user has only edited AfD discussions. -Hapsiainen 00:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is clearly notable. It also analyzes the Canadian blog culture, not just describes blogging in general. -Hapsiainen 00:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is getting silly. There is systemic bias on Wikipedia in favor of all things internet-related. This article's existance is helped by the bias, not hurt by it. This is not an "American article versus Canadian article" issue- Wikipedia is meant for the whole world, not just two particular countries. There should be no such thing as an American article or Canadian article, they're all just articles. But, the big issue here is the lack of verifiability. This is a broad, new topic. I don't see how it's going to be possible to write a proper article (rather than a personal essay) on this topic unless there are good secondary sources available. Friday 00:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Until there's a consensus that there should be no country specific blogosphere article, this is a reasonable entry. If specific facts in the article are disputed or not verifiable, those items can be hammered out on the talk page. Samw 01:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per everyone, and strong rename to something more dignified. - Randwicked 02:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As for the country specific blogosphere articles, to me this is a no-brainer. Blogs, by their very nature as websites, are global. You can group them together sensibly only by their subject matter. Should we have an article about the "Pizza blogosphere" (blogs about pizza)? Until reliable sources are talking about the "Canadian blogosphere" as an identifiable thing, I still can't see how this could be verifiable. Friday 03:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • How do you know they're not? Do you read the op-ed sections of Canadian Newspapers or watch Canadian Political commentary on TV? Sigma-6
        • How much more crap do Canadians have to take here? Comparing Canada to Pizza? This is such an insult its beyond words. With such bias, and such contempt for another country, I don't how this is acceptable.--Simon.Pole 04:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Are you trolling or what? Skrewler 05:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • This whole vfd is a trolling exercise, I wonder who started it?--Simon.Pole 05:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Argh. Sorry. No insult was remotely intended. I would have the same opinion of the Shakespeare blogosphere, if such an article existed. And, of course, American blogosphere would be just as silly. Not all the english-speaking world is USA and Canada, you know. Friday 14:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. One of Wikipedia's recognised strengths is that it is up-to-date, especially on recent phenomena. We have articles on every single imaginable video game, most music albums you care to mention, practically every single piece of software out there, a number of usenet newsgroups, Wikipedia did better than the regular news media on recent events such as the London bombings and Hurricane Katrina, and so on. Where else but Wikipedia can people find hopefully neutral information on the recent and increasingly important phenomenon of blogging, especially political blogs, which are not neutral by their very nature. NPOV articles on Blogging groups (not necessarily individual blogs, mind you), perform a vital service to the world at large. Luigizanasi 04:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A group of users is systematically going through and deleting all blog-related entries. This is operating in bad faith. You can see the organizing page here. They even targetted J.D. Lasica's entry. These people are living in a cave. I'm surprised they have digits to type at their keyboards.--Simon.Pole 08:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Notice how you didn't vote keep on half the retarded articles on the list, just the Canadian ones. Now who's being "systematically biased"?
      • Comment Editors should be aware that the organizer of this purge User:Timecop, has proclaimed a "War on Blogs" on his user page. His user pages also states that he is a leader of the Gay Nigger Association of America. The GNAA are a group of organized trolls, notorious for flooding Slashdot with spam. They appear to have targetted Wikipedia.--Simon.Pole 09:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment This definately a GNAA exercise. User:JacksonBrown who has voted delete on several current blog vfd's had a huge GNAA slogan on his user page that was removed by administators (you can see it here). I don't know what else to say. The GNAA is organizing a mass deletion of blog-related entries. All blog-relate vfd's should be stopped immediately.--Simon.Pole 09:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Comment Note: User:Timecop is actually the "President" of the GNAA, as you can see in this "press release" from their website. Wikipedia, you've been had.--Simon.Pole 10:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • Comment So what? that is called a personal attack, and has nothing to do with this VFD Adamn 11:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • Comment It doesn't matter one bit if this is organised by GNAA or whoever. They give their reasons and they are following procedure. It's legitimate. - Randwicked 11:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • My personal pass-time should be none of your concern. All the VFD's for blog-related stuff that *I* created are valid though. And I didn't 'start' the effort, I simply extended it. --Timecop 11:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Vote stacking is neither legitimate nor "following procedure". Bearcat 04:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                    • But the subsequent zany antics of one side or another don't or shoudn't affect the validity of the original nomination, which is what I was calling legitimate. - Randwicked 10:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                      • The original nomintator Skrewler, however, is in on the GNAA blog-delete project, working in concert with GNAA President User:Timecop.--Simon.Pole 10:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                        • I'm sorry to say that I really don't see the relevance. So Timecop and Skrewler are big bad trolls. Point me to where they have been vandalising blog pages and I'll agree something needs to be done. Rampantly nominating blog-related articles for deletion isn't against any rule I know of, even if they are being provocative about it. - Randwicked 12:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Comment For what it's worth, yes, the GNAA has been known to vandalize [8] [9] blogs, and brag [10] about it, and express disdain for them [11]. 67.169.31.50 06:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Crappy term to denote a series of shit pages of worthless garbage from a particular country. Big deal. --86.2.56.178 12:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Not really "termable" -- unless you want every country, city, and state to have an article on it's blogging community. (makes no sense to me?) --Depakote 12:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Canada is a big place. This subject is only going to get more important. Carina22 12:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Informative, well-written article breaks free from the America-centric bias that is prevalent here (and in the general political blogosphere.) --AStanhope 04:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Organized deletion vandalism merits banning. --FOo 05:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is proactively improving wikipedia vandalism? Skrewler 07:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' Canadian blogosphere? Sounds like pompous crap.  Grue  18:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Political Culture of Canada or expand and move to Candadian political blogs. The article in its current state is informative, but sadly, that is only true in the two Political blogs sections; the Blogs and Authority and the External links sections are simply useless. However, I acknowledge the importance of the political blogs in Canada, so that phenomenon deserves an article, hence my alternative suggestion of expand/move. Titoxd(?!?) 18:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Rhobite 03:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge per Tito. --Locke Cole (talk) (e-mail) 05:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Term used on notable sites, turns up thousands of google hits as an exact match, and refers to an identifiable group - those blogs that are focused on Canada, and have events there as their synchronization. Stirling Newberry 02:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable, not simply another page "about a blog" Turnstep 03:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Where do all these morons come from? --Daniel11 01:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 00:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Nemer

Looks very much like a autobiographical piece by a, apparently, non-notable person. This ought to be moved to user space, or deleted. It's disturbing that it has not been noticed until now. JesseW, the juggling janitor 09:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as NN autobiography. Anville 15:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NN: one Google scholar hit (0 citations). Creator has done little activity other outside this article: no support for Userfy. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 19:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.  Grue  18:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cdghost

Most likely autobiographical, and non-notable. Gets 955 google hits. Interiot 19:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Seems like vanity and non-notable. On a side note... it google really a good way to measure an articles worthiness in terms of AfD? Deskana 19:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not a good way per-se. The best way is for someone who is familiar enough with the material to not just be making a "I've never heard of this" assessment, yet is detached enough to make an honest judgement. In lieu of someone like that who can make an authoritate assessment, it's better than simply saying "I've never heard of it before". *shrug* --Interiot 20:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. There are at least two problems with google hits: link exchange and the presence of unrelated topic. In this case, a search for " cdghost -site:diaryland.com" (pages mentioning cdghost but not on the site diaryland.com) gives 700 hits, but most seem to be related to Net CD Ghost V5.0 - Multimedia network virtual CD cabinet. A search for "link:cdghost.diaryland.com" (links to the site) gives 1 hit. As Interiot correctly pointed out, the opinion of an expert would be the best thing. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 20:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, the best way is to not count hits at all, but instead to read what the Google Web search turns up, and look to see whether anyone else, apart from its own author, has written about this journal. Multiple published works about the subject from sources that are independent of the subject itself are a clear indicator of notability, as they demonstrate that other people have found the subject notable enough that they have gone to the effort of writing and publishing stuff of their own about it. No experts and their opinions are required for this method. Uncle G 00:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Uncle G is correct - in part. He is correct in saying that other people having written about the journal is more relevant than the number hits. However, if there are basically no links to the journal site (besides those from the same site), it is probably safe to assume that the journal is not notable (not vice versa; I think this is his point). I assume that Uncle G is only proposing "this method" for articles on web sites/blogs/journals and similar things. If he is proposing to use it in general, I strongly disagree with him: there are some notable topics that are not covered well on the Internet (I remember a past AfD about a town in India with a population of over 100.000 and with a little web coverage). I am saying this because the original question was about using Google in general, not in particular for this kind of articles. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 11:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete.  Grue  18:24, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Censored comic's

An almost unverifiable comic book publisher which does, I think, not meet our standards for the inclusion of corporations. This is one of very few relevant Google hits I've found: [12] Adding this article was that user's only contribution. I had hoped I could clean this up but with no contact and no reliable source it seems hopeless. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 19:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Redirect Marskell 12:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cheapskate

See also Cheapskating (AfD discussion).

Dictionary definition (Wikipedia is not a dictionary). Keithlaw (talk) (contribs) 00:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Dictdef, though not a bad one. I suspect Wiktionary already has the term, so no transwiki. Geogre 03:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect to Miser. BD2412 T 03:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • redirect per BD2412. Davidrowe 09:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect per BD2412. --Apyule 11:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 00:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chewbacca Gambit

Not notable, fails google test. Fancruft - Dr Haggis - Talk 18:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was redirect to PaRappa the Rapper after merging. Robert T | @ | C 03:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chop Chop Master Onion's Rap

Video games are notable, but single levels from video games? To be fair, this is also a song from the PaRappa the Rapper soundtrack. But I still don't think it needs its own article. Delete or Merge with PaRappa the Rapper. —BrianSmithson 14:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:05, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Burns (musician)

Non-notable bio. "...slated for future release". I couldn't find an external bio.

Delete as noted. --Bookandcoffee(Leave msg.) 03:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao restaurant

This article could be about any Italian restaurant called "Ciao," anywhere in the world, and the article doesn't provide enough information for anybody (including other editors) to tell which of the potentially thousands of Ciao restaurants it is talking about. AdelaMae 07:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom --Swamp Ig 08:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Spam that fails even as spam: nobody can tell where to buy it. Durova 09:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ciao, Presto Dottore So 13:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't this qualify for a speedy under A1, given that it's (a) very short and (b) doesn't provide enough context for anyone to possibly expand it? — Haeleth Talk 14:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, CSD-A1 popped in mind when reading the article. I think it may refer to a chain of several restaurants around Italian highways, but a quick google search for Ciao ristorante reveals that are tons of restaurant with that name. As a result, this article does not provide sufficient context for even identifying what it is about, let alone expanding (that it's short is not enough for A1.) Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 17:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no sources --redstucco 09:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, definitely CSD:A1, no context. MCB 19:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:07, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"co-pilot"

Wiktionary already has an entry for copilot [14]; for the second usage, WP:NOT a slang dictionary. --Alan Au 07:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unless it's possible to redirect it to the Wiktionary article. It's late, I can't remember those things at this time of night. Mo0[talk] 09:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and the title is completely faulty. I'm assuming without checking we already have Co-pilot with an adequate definition, but if we don't the empty page provides an easy link to wiktionary. - Mgm|(talk) 13:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete slang dictdef. I think it's not technically possible to redirect among projects. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 19:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was MOOT. The previous article, a one-liner that failed to even explain where the school is, was a clear-cut CSD A1 candidate, and I'm sorry I didn't speedy it when I first saw it. That non-stub has been replaced with a redirect to an actual stub, mooting the grand majority of the delete arguments, so I am closing this particular discussion as resolved, as neither the title nor the contents of that less-than-a-stub now exist anywhere on Wikipedia save buried in page history somewhere.

That said, this is not intended to be an endorsement of the stub at Colin's Performing Arts School, as that stub did not exist during the bulk of this discussion. If someone wishes to list that stub on AFD (Eris help them), this is not a relevant precedent to protect that stub and should not be cited as such. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Colin's Performing Arts School

Article is a review, not an encyclopedia entry. Plus I don't know if its notable since googling "Colins performing arts school" only came up with 12 results. Akamad 10:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Colins Remedial Spelling School would be more beneficial.vandals are people too! User's contributions are a trail of crappy vandalism. - Randwicked 10:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please review WP:CIVIL. Kappa 11:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, for the love of... please be civil, even to anons. Everyone started out as a clueless newbie, and if this had been the reception to my first work (not the AFD, but the incivility) I would not still be here on Wikipedia. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 12:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not believe all the edits made by 212.85.15.78 are by the same person. The general style of this article seems perfectly sincere to me, and is very different from the style of some of the edits that Randwicked calls, "crappy vandalism." In any case, we should be discussing the article, as the keep/delete decision should depend on the article and not on the contributor. Good articles by crappy vandals should, of course, be kept. By the way... what, exactly, would be high-quality vandalism and how does it differ from crappy vandalism? No, never mind, don't answer that. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Utterly devoid of content, no sign that this is a degree-granting or even accredited school. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 12:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Dottore So 13:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I removed the personal and POV parts of this article and it is left with one sentence, that does not even tell us where the school is. ♠DanMS 16:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no content, no assertion of notability. Google results do not seem to provide enough information for verifiable expansion. --Aquillion 17:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, lack of verifiable info.Gateman1997 17:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of verifiability. If references can be cited before the close of this discussion I will change my vote. Silensor 23:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or userfy. Just barely verifiable and not notable. To the anon who created this: if you create a Wikipedia account, which is free, takes about fifteen seconds, and doesn't require disclosure of any personal information, you can choose any username you like. You get a personal user page, and this material would be perfectly suitable for it. Also, user pages get indexed by Google so people searching for this would still find it, just not in the main encyclopedia. It would be nice to know if this school is spelled "Collins" with two L's or "Colins" with one L. Google shows sporadic hits on both. I'm thinking this is Collins Performing Arts School and College in or near London, "trains students from 3 – 16." One of the relatively few hits is a resume of an actress named Nikki Thomas who attended Colins (with one L) and has done some work in commercials. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep this please if it can be verified Yuckfoo 00:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, schools article should at the very, very least have a location. This doesn't provide any useful content. - Mgm|(talk) 09:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's almost certainly in the UK, probably near London, possibly in Havering... to judge from the handful of Google hits. Anyone know a good online London yellow pages? Dpbsmith (talk) 13:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bingo! Hey, it's "Colin's," one L and an apostrophe, just as it appears in Ingalisa Hassler's resume.
Colin's Performing Arts Ltd
The Studios, 219b, North St, Romford, Essex RM1 4QA
Tel: 01708 766007
Classification:
Dancing Schools
Hey, would you believe that apostrophe makes ALL the difference? Google on "Colin's Performing Arts School" and you find: http://www.colinsperformingarts.co.uk/school.htm
  • Delete no sources --redstucco 09:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Now that I know what it is, it is clear that it is not notable. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A school. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A school.  Grue  18:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It exists, doesn't it? Furthermore, the nominator (and many of the deletionist vandals wishing to delete) fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of deletion. Deletion is not a judgment on the content of the article; if there are problems with the content then the article should be revised, not deleted. Deletion policy even says as much, although the deletionist vandals conveniently ignore that part of their holy book. Deletion is a judgment on the worthiness of the topic of the article itself for inclusion--and anything that exists is worthy for inclusion. Kurt Weber 14:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delay please. Can I ask this AFD not be closed until at least five days after DBsmith found the web site. I think there was good basis of deletion early on, but now I think there probably is a basis for keeping it; yet I haven't had time to know that for sure (I only noticed the fix just now). Rather than just vote "keep" I'ld rather we just pause and review what's now known (as I haven't had time evaluate what info I've read, its verifiability, and its signficance). --Rob 20:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. —Cleared as filed. 07:25, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate Executive Board

Nn 24.54.208.177 23:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete basically an ad, consisting of blurbs taken from subject org's home page FRS 00:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep although it's spam as written (tho pasted might be more accurate), Yahoo Finance shows a market cap of $3.4bn and it's quoted on NASDAQ, so I believe it meets WP:CORP. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 11:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 16:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Custom deluxe

Not notable and probably not encyclopedic ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 20:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:MUSIC. Gamaliel 20:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Custom Deluxe, although a new band, has a frequently expanding fan base in the Boston area. This page could be useful for when people catch them live at a bar & want to find out more information on the band. Hopefully the page will be expanded with more information. -64.119.141.250 20:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • We wish them the best - but currently they don't meet our criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia so we have to delete the article. Hopefully they will one day be notable enough to have an article here but until then people will have to rely on other information sources to find out about this band. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 22:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Jasmol 00:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Geelong Grammar School. The target already contains all the relevant information ("one of" is there because several were founded at the same time: but the source includes dates of foundation). -Splashtalk 00:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cuthbertson House (formerly known as Cuthbertson)

Non-notable student house, should be merged with Geelong Grammar School Cnwb 02:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. the "article" is basically unremarkable and frivolous. Menyoung Lee 02:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Geelong Grammar School. If it can't be made to fit there, then just Redirect. Don't delete it in either case as there is no reason to. --Apyule 11:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and get rid of "one of the oldest". Either it's the oldest or it's not. - Mgm|(talk) 12:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.  Grue  18:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Differation

no vote yet as nominator but this has a strong OR feel. "differation wehner" (without the quotes) gets 34 Google hits, and a lot of them look like they're either of WP origin, or link back to Wehner himself. Anyone know anything about this? --Trovatore 23:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Original research that degenerates into vague pseudoscience. Reyk 01:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete you've convinced me. --Trovatore 20:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.  Grue  18:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dooced

Wictionary entry or speedy Adam 19:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete as unimportant slang. There's no CSD for this. — brighterorange (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN slang. PJM 19:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with weblog. Kappa 02:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eight Orange Orchard

minor band. one indie ep. no media profile. noizyboy 00:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Does not meet WP:MUSIC. Cnwb 02:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete At this time, they are unsigned and undistributed and, at least so far as I can tell from Google, unwritten about. I'm sure we wish them luck, but not an encyclopedia article at this time. Geogre 03:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until they make it in the real world, they can't make it here doktorb 05:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per Cnwb and Geogre. encephalon 08:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Gatecrasher 19:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 20:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate wasRedirect to Alfred Stieglitz.--Shreshth91 12:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Emmeline Obermeyer

Non-notable on own. Husband famous. ERcheck 04:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Article does not assert notable character of subject. ERcheck 04:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Alfred Stieglitz. That article has more detail than this one which states "The wife of Alfred Stieglitz. Had 1 kid with him called Kitty." This would be a candidate for speedy deletion as an article with little or no context but a redirect is more appropriate in this situation. Capitalistroadster 05:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, agree with CR. Dottore So 13:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Captalistroadster. - Mgm|(talk) 13:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was dammit, what's Dutch for "delete"? DS 03:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Erard Oldtimersweb

this article is not only a blatant advertisement and non-notable, it's completely incoherent wikipediatrix 04:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Is the "tag line" a babelfished translation? Indium 05:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:211.245.243.189 keeps removing the AfD notice.... someone pull the plug on this, please. wikipediatrix 06:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just reverted the removal of the AFD tag again. ♠DanMS 06:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ditto. I should also say my vote is delete.Reyk 10:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just reverted the tag again, too. How many times now? Indium 07:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can it be speedied? I reverted the latest Afd removal. Dottore So 13:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete having just reverted removal of the AfD tag again, I have left a note at the user's talk page. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 13:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: So "old timer's web" is Dutch now? Pretty close to patent nonsense, but what's comprehensible is an ad. Geogre 17:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. --ApolloBoy 02:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 00:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evo magazine forum

Non-notable forum, fails guidelines at WP:WEB and contains little useful content. Hitchhiker89

  • Delete per nom. PJM 19:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Jamieli 11:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish. I learned everything I know about lifting and rwd from the Evo forum.


It's the best, least moderated car forum out there, and a very interesting extension to the best car magazine in the UK. Keep it in.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 03:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Extra of the maximum

Non-notable band. No Google hits. No mention of albums. ERcheck 23:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. ERcheck 23:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and the writing is painful. Jasmol 00:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete and speedy delete. Mo0[talk] 00:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flango and Ironlion

MMORPG characters are not notable. Delete (Articles are related and created by the same author.) --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 15:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

These pages have inspired me to keep using Wikipedia for all of my reaserch needs, keep up the good work and keep these articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.108.171.130 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete or even Speedy as vandalism.--Syrthiss 16:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Cruftcruft. - Randwicked 16:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ironlion could be speedied as a personal attack... but they're probably just 2 friends who don't know better. --W.marsh 17:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An AFD is pretty charitable for something like this. Junjk 17:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is it? What criteria for speedy deletion does it fall under, then? --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 17:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I would say it probably falls under Articles 7 (An article about a real person that does not assert that person's importance or significance), but I wasn't thinking about that when I left the comment. I was probably more just being snarky, but as per Syrthiss below, it seems logical that there ought to be a criteria for stuff of this nature. I would have a hard time imagining under which circumstances any player character in any sort of RPG would be notable. Junjk 18:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • that was my problem, I looked on WP:CSD to see what might apply...but nothing quite fits. Perhaps we need to add a criteria for RPG Character Bios (or just Character Bios in general). :) --Syrthiss 17:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • though, were I an admin I might have taken a turn at WP:IAR and speedied them. Syrthiss
        • I would support a CSD for non-notable fictional characters. But for the moment this is an AfD candidate, not a speedy. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 19:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.  Grue  18:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fondusi's

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 13:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I suppose at least this one has made alpha testing (unlike the "pre-alpha" one we saw the other day), but it's still speculative and not yet notable. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 14:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 07:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Foolcut, Dusan vanco

NN bandity. According to information in article, fails WP:MUSIC. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 23:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete two identical articles, nn.  Grue  18:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Forever faithful

Obvious vanity... WB 08:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - 'nuff said. --Ixfd64 08:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete --Swamp Ig 08:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy deleted, WP:CSD A7 (no assertion of notability), also written in first person. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, speedy userfied, it was for some reason moved out of userspace, I have put it back. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[talk] 03:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fun with 4C

Vanity page

  • I've nominated it for Speedy delete as it is pure nonsense. Akamad 00:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not patent nonsense, however, as it is quite clearly a list of pupils in an unnamed class in an unnamed school somewhere in the world, along with some non-neutral opinions of them, apparently written by their classmates. It's completely unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G 00:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 00:15, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Galexo

Adcruft by an SEO Spammer, same as Advanet, recently speedied. This may qualify for Speedy also, I'm not sure. KillerChihuahua 19:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. (per WP:NOT although this could be easily replaced with a category) -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 05:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of Socialist Realism

WP:NOT a image gallery. Transwiki to commons and Delete --JAranda | watz sup 00:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. so blatant about violating WP:NOT, too... Menyoung Lee 02:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: An illustration or two in Soviet Realism or Soviet Socialist Realism is ok, but a gallery is not appropriate even if it were an ideal gallery. This is not. Geogre 03:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per Geogre. encephalon 08:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Image galleries are not articles. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment/question- is it possible to have galleries within the commons? Sure there are categories but other types of curation/organization could be very interesting. Could we merge this to a "Gallery of Socialist Realism" there? Davidrowe 10:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and change misguided policy. CalJW 12:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The commons is made precisely for galleries and image collections and they'd be easily useable here if put in an article. Why are you calling the policy misguided? - Mgm|(talk) 12:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki images and list them at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Social Realism on the commons provided they are free and fully sourced. The commons has regular pages as well as categories, see for example [[15]]. - Mgm|(talk) 12:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki and delete per nom. Dottore So 12:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Agreed this is not an image gallery. Gatecrasher 19:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I also feel that this policy is wrong. I have proposed changing it. For my reasoning see this proposal. Dsmdgold 05:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Commons and delete. Wikipedia is not an image gallery. --Carnildo 07:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Commons and link from socialist realism or place this gallery at the bottom of socialist realism, but that seems to lack much support other than me. In any case, make sure we don't just lose this, it's excellent. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Commons, as suggested above (assuming the images are properly sourced and free). Wikipedia is not an image gallery, and I oppose the proposed policy change that would turn it into one. (By the way, I didn't manage to actually see any of the images, because the derned image server is so flippin' slow these days... yet another reason against turning the site into an image gallery) *Dan T.* 16:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I assume you have read my proposal at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Proposal to modify WP:NOT an image gallery. If so, please comment there as to why you oppose the proposed change. BTW, in my opinion, the current slowness of the image servers is an argument for allowing image galleries. Since one must see many examples of an art movement in order to understand it, if image galleries are not allowed, then the images would need to be included in the main article, making that article slow to load. However, one would not know from a link wether or not an article is image intensive. (To demonstrate this point, which of these articles includes a large gallery: Codex Aureus of Lorsch or Codex Aureus of St. Emmeram?) However when you click on an article with the word "Gallery" in the title, you know what you are getting into. Dsmdgold 18:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and transwiki the copyright acceptable images as per nom.--nixie 02:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Encyclopediac case for galleries, and the inadequacies of transwikying in cases such as this has been very well argued on WP talk:NOT. Allowing image galleries that provide valuable support to a particular encyclopediac article is not subverting the status of WP as a whole. --- Charles Stewart 21:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Pictures help the Wikipedia; the gallery categorizes a potentially large set of images; in other words we need more categorization like this list. --Ancheta Wis 01:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These belong on Wikipedia, not the Commons. Forcing them inside the article itself is not a good solution either. Turnstep 03:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Following the discussion and quick poll at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Proposal to modify WP:NOT an image gallery, the WP:NOT policy has been changed, and now explicitly includes content such as this page. Participants in this discussion who have voted Delete should indicate whether they still stand by their vote, in the interests of avoiding the possibility of unwanted bureaucracy down the line. --- Charles Stewart 20:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep Marskell 12:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Genetic sexual attraction

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 13:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Google indicates this is a genuine subject. Badly in need of cleanup, though. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 14:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, has a Guardian article about it. Kappa 18:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up. 23:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • keep this please it can be cleaned up Yuckfoo 00:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A genuine issue for a significant number of people. Denni☯ 05:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Genuine scientific subject that's notable enough. --Improv 22:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:12, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Groiset

Unverifiable: no links on Google except Wikipedia mirrors Ze miguel 09:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wikipedia is neither a crystal ball nor a repository for unverifiable stories about people who use them. Anville 15:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; non-notable, not verifiable. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 17:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 07:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Wenzeled

neologism ERcheck 05:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Being Wenzeled will be as widely known as being Owned, Pwned, Own3d, ect. It is a needed reminder to scam artist that the e-community will not stand for dishonesty.


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:22, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ghettofabulous

Wikipedia is not a slang dictonary. Delete --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 15:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as apparent hoax. PJM 15:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • TransWiki to Wiktionary, have def read: description of Uncyclopedia. Um, I mean, Delete per nom. KillerChihuahua 15:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete slang dic-def... but I can confirm through original research (heh) that this term is actually used to some degree. --W.marsh 17:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 17:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A definite Wiktionary item for TransWiki though. Jtmichcock 23:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom.--Dakota t e 00:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Grand Theft Auto. Just wanted to note that "newbie shock" isn't a good reason to redirect: that discussion belong on WP:XD or somewhere else, but it doesn't have any bearing on an AfD, imo. -Splashtalk 00:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Theft Auto wanted star system

Unencyclopedic -- too much unnecessary detail. If the consensus is that the article should be kept, info could be merged into Grand Theft Auto (series). howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ]

  • Delete Falls under 'wikipedia is not a how to', belongs at wikibooks if anywhere. --InShaneee 23:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect to Grand Theft Auto article per recommendation. Jtmichcock 23:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Grand Theft Auto. This is too detailed for its own article. Mo0[talk] 23:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with the nomination that it shouldn't be a seperate article but this gameplaying feature plays a huge part on the series. --J. Nguyen 00:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP!!! Come on guys! I worked hard on this article! Yes, I do see a point in merging it with the Grand Theft Auto game articles themselves, but then it would have to be put onto every one and here it would be more central. So just fix it up and provide links to this article from other GTA related articles.
  • Redirect. You could save the information and post it to a fan site. Durova 01:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, important aspect of gameplay in the series, helps users to understand the games. Kappa 02:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So where exactly do you draw the line on what shouldn't be included in a game? --InShaneee 02:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Somewhere below important aspects of gameplay which help users to understand the game. Kappa 02:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Walkthroughs are the penultimate example of helping someone understand every aspect of a game. Do you think they should stay? --InShaneee 03:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Grand Theft Auto series. The proper place for this sort of detail is Wikibooks, not Wikipedia; Wikipedia offers encyclopedic overview of video games, not specific mechanical details. (It doesn't help that this article is heavily biased in emphasis on the newer GTA games.) - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 10:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a description of events that are postulated to possibly occur in a videogame: there is absolutely no reason I can see for having a separate page for this. It is entirely unreferenced, violates WP:NOR, and is unencyclopedic. encephalon 13:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think a redirect is an unideal choice here because anyone looking for information on this GTA game is unlikely to search for GTAWSS. encephalon 13:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It discourages recreation, and also catches anyone who searches for "Grand Theft Auto star" or "Grand Theft Auto wanted star". - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's an interesting point, AMIB; I remember you've raised it before. I suppose I see those reasons as additional benefits to keeping a redirect that is clearly meritorious; but I do not think we should keep even poor redirects essentially only because there was once a page there. But it's an interesting point, yes. encephalon 13:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • It also reduces "deletion shock" for newbies, when their work is deleted with no clear sign of what happened to it, and also preserves the history in the off chance we want to transwiki or merge it later. (Yeah, I know about undeletion, but anyone can look at the history of a redirect.) Redirects pose vanishingly little database impact and take up so little disk space as to be a rounding error. There are lots of good reasons to use redirects any time there's a reasonable redirect target. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per A Man in Black. Youngamerican 16:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect --Mateusc 23:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greyweather_productions

Seems to be a mix of advert and vanity. Correct me if I'm wrong RattusMaximus 00:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)RattusMaximus[reply]

  • Delete. Certainly written in a mix of vanity & advert style, and even if re-written in a more appropriate way, there is no demonstration that this production company (which appears to be a one-man operation, incorporated quite recently in April 2004) has as yet any claim to notability. No mentions of it or its productions outside of its own website.--cjllw | TALK 04:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, vanity. Dottore So 12:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advert, vanity, nn.
  • Delete, vanity, all is vanity Avalon 16:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn vanity.  RasputinAXP  T C 18:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertising and vanity per nom. Gatecrasher 19:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, since the nom indicates that the term is used, and the seconder allows for redirection. Given that this is probably an ideal case for a redirect, I'm not going to relist it. -Splashtalk 00:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hegelian principle

the article is just a capsule restatement of what's in the Hegel article and adds no new information; the phrase "Hegelian principle" is not in common usage; the only thing that links to this article is the Talk page for the philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel; Hegel's ideas are also discussed in the article on dialectics Jeremy J. Shapiro 19:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or Redirectas unnecessary reiteration of material found in Dialectics article. Jtmichcock 23:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Toastmasters seems likely to satisfy all equally. -Splashtalk 00:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hellfire Toastmasters Dublin

This might be a major and well-respected toastmasters club in Ireland, but I don't believe toastmasters clubs of mostly local interest deserve their own articles on wikipedia. I don't think there are any other articles on toastmasters clubs, so what's the point of keeping this one? Graham/pianoman87 talk 02:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Toastmasters. Local chapters should be discussed with their parent organization, if they have achieved note. When they achieve note for being unlike their parent organization, they should get separate articles. Geogre 03:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into parent if it's notable enough as a local chapter to do so, if not delete as per nom. --Swamp Ig 08:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 00:33, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey!

An article about a single song that hasn't even been released yet. —Cryptic (talk) 05:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I would have held off since 2006 isn't far away. But since you nominated it... Gazpacho 05:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, recorded song by notable artist, planned for release as a single. Kappa 11:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey! I mean, delete! Wikipedia is not a crystal balll. — JIP | Talk 11:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Dottore So 13:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's not released yet. - Mgm|(talk) 13:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Hey. the wub "?!" 13:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not only is it unreleased, it's not notable until it has been released and done something. The "notable band" is a fatuous argument, as a filler track by Bachman Turner Overdrive would not merit an article about it. Geogre 17:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • A filler track would not be scheduled for release as a single. Kappa 18:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 03:12, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Holotruck

Appears to be ad-spam, a quick Google search reveals that this is identical to text pasted to several message boards. Therefore, I'm recommending Delete on principle. While the game itself may eventually warrant an article, this isn't it. --Alan Au 06:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete Ugh, nn, badvertising, crystal ball, etc. Oh and almost def. a Copyvio. Toss it. Dottore So 13:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Adverts, ugh. Jasmol 00:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 00:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperactive forums

NN web forum with "close to 300 members." --howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 19:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 00:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Integrating Lessons

The article is an opinion piece on how to make use of "Wiki" as a teaching resource. It's now in the Wikipedia Encyclopedia wikibook. Uncle G 17:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 00:35, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ipselon

This is completely unethical and shameless self promotion and spamming of Wikipedia on behalf of a useless, amateurish, and nondistinctive site called Ipselon that has just recently been launched. The person who wrote the articles, judging from the username (Ipselon), is the person who runs the very site s/he is advertising (Ipselon), and furthermore, the article is filled with simple grammatical and spelling mistakes. This spammer should be banned. 86.133.187.235 01:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete spam. --Bachrach44 01:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Not just the wikipedia article but also the advertised website itself is full of grammatical errors. Menyoung Lee 02:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertising (but not spam, which would be a speedy) and cheese. Geogre 03:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or not Delete and make changes* I'm Antonio Cantallops the person that wrote the wikipedia article about Ipselon, first of all I feel much but I confused the username with nickname when I registered myself in wikipedia I'm sorry my poor english and also i like to say you i'm sorry if you think i'm spammer but i'm not spammer, i hate spammers.

I write you here my job and you judge me: when i was 14 years old my birthday present was my first computer "Spectrum Sinclair 32k", I am a self-taught person and now i have 30 years old. I like to much the computers and i like to much internet.

I had a idea to create a metasearch engine without publicity inside the results and include results of my own engine (a version based on nutch) and last 2 years i designed and created ipselon, a very hard job and many hours of job.

I do not have million dollars as other company's that have personal for create the enterprise, nobody has helped me to create ipselon only my parents and my wife. I have made meta-search engine with my own design and logo and i'm running 4 servers with my search engine version based on nutch that crawl internet web (the first version was an average year ago Ipselonbot 0.17 and now i'm running my version 0.53). Ipselon results are the combination of meta-search (Only this engines: Google, Yahoo, Msn and Teoma/Ask) + search engine based on Nutch. Ipselon Ranking results are combination of: Google results position, Yahoo results position, Msn results position, Teoma/Ask results position and my search engine version (based on Nutch)ranking position results.

When i wrote about ipselon in wikipedia I was not thinking to promote ipselon, i just was think to write a objective information about my company ipselon similar to other internet company's as clusty or dogpile.

I tried to wrote a similar article as clusty in wikipedia (internet open enciclopedia) with information about ipselon not for my own publicity. I haven't publicity at any place because i can't pay it and i don't send millions of e-mails to the people who do not wish to receive e-mails advertising also because i hate spammers (i have 2 ipselon e-mail accounts daily full of spam), the only publicity of ipselon it was the launching of press release with prweb.com and i haven't doing any more publicity.

I'm sorry again for my ipselon article (my first article on Wikipedia) and my bad english. If you want delete my article i understand you, but try to understand to me and my job, personally i prefer you don't delete my article but it's it is truth that is necessary to make a few changes to ipselon article for it be more objective and without language mistakes.

Thanks very much for your attention, my personal e-mail is toni.cantallops@ipselon.es if you want to tell me something about it. Antonio Cantallops 22:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:14, 20 November 2005 (UTC) emasculate and retain[reply]

Gastrich, or one of his supporters clearly wrote the original entry... Cut down, emasculated, and with a healthy dose of scepticism added I think it's worth leaving a page here on him if only to provide a voice that counters the enormous spin-machine that he runs through his ministry... He's clearly an important figure in North American fundamentalism which sadly twists real Christian teaching and attitudes through power abuse, ignorance, manipulation and personal ambition... I'm sorry... from the tone of the original article, Gastrich is clearly no different... so if he wants a presence in wikipedia, so be it, and let the article 'testify' to that...

DiegoJones

Jason Gastrich

  • DeleteThis entry will not improve the Wikipedia resource.Delete

This is simply a vanity page, as far as I can see. The level of debate he has managed to stir up is actually quite limited, and his "debating" with Usenet and other users is not particularly erudite. He has been as guilty of mis-representation as some of the tele-evangelists referenced below, often quoting at length arguments made by other creationists that have been thoroughly discredited, often years ago.

If Mr Gastrich deserves a Wikepedia article about himself, then I am afraid that the whole resource may as well degenerate into a free-for-all of vanity articles and ego-massaging entries.

Please delete this article.

Rob Naylor


  • RetainThis entry will improve the Wikipedia resource.Retain

While it is true that Jason is still at a fairly early stage in his life and career for God, he already has managed to stir up so much discussion and debate about the Christian faith in the net, running one of the most visited Christian resources, and facilitating online work for many other Christians, as well as actively debating the most zealous and high profile atheists of America in Usenet and Bulletin Board discussions, so that he has actually become very high profile among them.

There exists a sizeable campaign among them to shut his mouth and make him look bad, and they usually use their overwhelming number on their forums to flood out his posts with bad posts about him, which actually in my view have no serious substance other than to serve as an excuse not to listen to the Message.

The existence of a few regrettable frauds in the tele-evangelists have enabled people to paint even sincere people in the worst possible colours, and they have been leveraging this to the hilt in defaming Gastrich, who is innocent of the matters they alledge and insinuate against him.

The existence of an officially sanctioned by Jason article about him on a resource of authority like Wikipedia would be a useful way to offer a balanced view about him, and would not detract from the quality and authority of this online encyclopedia. On the contrary, it would enhance it.

David J. James (aka "Uncle Davey) http://www.usenetposts.com

    • No, Davey, there is no "so much discussion" nor "most visited site" nor "sizeable campagin" nor any such thing involved. It's a relatively minor sideshow in the online world. Nothing to get excited about. Face it, if Gastrich were of any real significance, he and his merry band of sycophants wouldn't have to try to wedge a vanity page into the Wikipedia. Fact is, this system is not meant for self-promotion. You can whine about "persecution" all you want but there exist page after page after page here explaining what the Wikipedia is for and how it works. Deliberately breaking the rules then whining "Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!" only makes you look foolish. Mark K. Bilbo 17:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Though at an early stage in his "career for God," the only reason this "evangelist" has "managed to stir up so much discussion," which is mostly *not* about the Christian faith, is because of his underhanded and dishonest tactics as well as his methods of self-promotion. This "officially sanctioned" article does nothing more than repeat a number of his own self-aggrandizing claims. Like most such articles, it leaves more questions unanswered than answered.
  • This Entry Should Stay. Duncharris is biased and has been against Gastrich for some time. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Skeptic%27s_Annotated_Bible&action=history where he edited the entry so that someone wouldn't create a page for Gastrich (and he also made a negative comment about Gastrich in the attributions, indicating a personal bias against him).

    The Jason Gastrich entry is informative and he is notable as an author of several books, former gubernatorial candidate, college professor, etc. He is also mentioned and linked on several other Wikipedia pages. See:

    • Results of the 2003 California recall
    • Farrell Till
    • Reggie Finley
    • Skeptic's Annotated Bible
    • Louisiana Baptist University
      • Gastrich complains about bias in others, but would pretend that he has no bias. People are biased against him because of his actions and tactics, and the issues about an encyclopedia entry are just more examples of Gastrich's arrogance. Gastrich is not notable and did not author "several" books. There are two of record, one of them in three editions. Of those, both are amateurish, self-published, and self-promoted (just as all of this is about selling those books). He is not a "college professor." Having taught at a tech/trade college in undergraduate courses, assuming that's even true, does not make one a "college professor." His run for Governor of California was a joke. He got 11 votes, despite a fairly vigorous campaign. He couldn't even get the support of his local churches and fellow Christians, and that was so infuriating to him that he issued a press release, whining about it.
  • On the Internet Infidels Discussion Board, Gastrich has had several debates. IIDB's top two most popular debates of all time belong to Gastrich. They've been read tens of thousands of times and so has the commentary thread(also most popular of all time). Among the commentary threads and debate threads, there are well over 60,000 reads; more than any other member or debater or thread.
    • It should be kept in mind that part of the reason for this is Gastrich arrogance, and the general desire among the readers to see Gastrich properly roasted in these debates, which is, of course, exactly what happened.
  • On the Infidel Guy forum, Gastrich's debate is also the most popular of all time. And so is its commentary thread with tens of thousands of reads.
    • I don't know how the "debate" was determined to "the most popular of all time." It was fairly universally panned, with neither participant gaining much in the way of praise, and it's said that Gastrich charged (and, amazingly, was paid) $1,000 for his "performance." Gastrich's arguments, as usual, were eviscerated in the "Peanut Gallery" and Gastrich, himself, was unable to answer many pertinent questions about his position and about things related to him. If this was a "popular" debate, it was because there is some satisfaction in seeing one such as Gastrich humbled.
  • This certainly isn't a vanity page and even if Gastrich is a nutjob, that isn't reason to remove this entry. I'm not an admin, but I vote to keep it. --Big Daddy 11:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Big Daddy is Jason Gastrich, so it's disingenuous, but common, for Gastrich to refer to himself as we see above, just as it's quite normal for Gastrich to take on a name like "Big Daddy" and refer to himself in the third person. Wiki does not keep articles by every narcissist that comes down the pike, and Gastrich should be no different. DELETE
    • The links were added, today, by you. As for college professor!?!?!?! That's a new one Jason, a step up from the diploma mill phds eh (you can find more about Jason's academic credentials here). The books appear to be from vanity presses. You are also aware that it's going to have to comply with WP:NPOV guidelines, right? Dunc|☺ 11:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Gastrich teaching college courses at Coleman College (a nationally accredited technical school) in Psychology and Sociology is not new information. According to archive.org, while his resume was online, it was mentioned there. In fact, it's (ironically) linked from the durangobill.com site Duncharris cited above. --Big Daddy 10:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Jason, you are known liar. Did you perchance, get that job with your "degree" from Louisiana Baptist University? Do you think your bosses should know about this? — Dunc|☺ 10:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Coleman College is a small trade/tech college near San Diego, and teaching classes there does not make one a "professor." Usually the granting of the title, "Professor," has a specific criteria and meaning. Gastrich has always been impressed with the use of titles--"Doctor," "Professor," "counselor," and so on, even when he hasn't really earned the right to use those titles.
  • Delete With points for trolling other pages to create apparent encyclopedic depth, lol. Clearly nn, vanity, self-promo page. Dottore So 13:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Gastrich earned only 11 votes in the California gubernatorial election. Amazon.com does list his books but his best selling work is at rank 1,961,734 in sales.[17] Two out of three user reviews are scathing. The other looks like it was written by the author or a friend. Durova 14:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If positive book reviews on Amazon.com are actually a criteria for keeping a Wikipedia article, then the article should remain. There are far more positive reviews than negative ones. There are 26 total reviews and the book has received an average of 4 out of 5 stars. --Big Daddy 01:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Gastrich, you wrote most of those positive reviews with sock puppet accounts at Amazon. Harvestdancer 05:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, there are more positive reviews, many clearly written by Gastrich. However, anyone who bothers to give the issue any thought can see that the negative reviews are clearly the more objective and substantial, and so have the most value. Even many Christians have steered clear of Gastrich and his controversies, and of those who comment, most find is methods offensive.
  • Delete per nom. Or replace with the text "this guy is a loser and a whacknut" and lock the sucker :-) Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 14:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be contrary to our neutral point of view official policy. Uncle G 15:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sure that if it survives (er) we can arrange for it to be formulated within the NPOV framework. Dunc|☺ 22:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Such as "Some critics say he is a loser, but others say he's a whacknut"? --Calton | Talk 05:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • As Wikipedia:avoid weasel terms says, that is not appropriate either. Uncle G 16:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ungle G, you are absolutely right. Fortunately the British Parliament has similar rules - Perhaps I should look into the speeches of the late Sir Winston Churchill and collect together some appropriately Wikipedian terms :-D - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 11:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • I don't think we will have any trouble turning the article into something more objective and honest, should it be retained. There's a lot of information on the web and in Usenet about Jason Gastrich and even from stuff written BY him. We can draw on that. Encyclopedia articles are not about promotion, and if they are written about personalities, they include the warts and controversies that Gastrich clearly wants to avoid. If the article is kept, it should include those. Otherwise, it is just a vanity piece.
  • Delete per nomination. Ze miguel 14:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Avalon 16:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Jason Gastrich LEAVE IT,,, we live in a world where everyone has a right to freedom of speech. Nothing he has done is vulgar or should not be heard. Protect the right of everyone to be heard. Just because you don't agree with him you shouldn't make him take it down. Ralph by 68.7.3.138 19:44, 14 November 2005 [18]
    • That's ironic, since he's apparently resorted to the legal system himself to shut up opponents or criticism. --Calton - Talk 02:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's true. Gastrich has attempted to use the legal system to shut down critics, at least once through a frivolous lawsuit, and when it came to court, Gastrich couldn't even be bothered to show up! And Ralph...I know what you're saying about "free speech," and no one is denying Gastrich free speech, but encyclopedias are not about free speech, they are about information, and that means all the information that is pertinent, not just what the subject of the article would like you to know.
  • Delete. Self-promotion (music lessons?). -Willmcw 22:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems like an orchestrated effort to create notability for a non-notable subject. Jasmol 00:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per everyone Ashibaka (tock) 01:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obvious nn vanity (11 votes for Governor?!?). --Calton - Talk 02:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Gastrich is non-notable and a perennial troublemaker, here and elsewhere. FeloniousMonk 02:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • FeloniousMonk and Duncharris are known Gastrich-haters. If he says black, they say white. They also have a specific, anti-Christian agenda (with a particular anti-fundamentalist/creatonist slant, of which Gastrich is part of) that can be seen throughout Wiki and Usenet. For instance, see revert war and comments in Anthony Flew's entry. --Big Daddy 03:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sounds like you have a slant of your own: WP:NPA FeloniousMonk 04:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Everyone who goes to the Antony Flew entry can see the POV pushing by Gastrich. You don't want to use that as an example.Harvestdancer 05:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This Entry Should Stay. --Vera Six Dr. Jason Gastrich, college professor and internationally known even here in Germany, is an author of several books and should not be insulted here but kept and petted. He surely is an enrichment, and people love him for his numerous Wikipedia entries, e-mail devotionals, or his wonderful web site. He should really be listed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.134.120.26 (talk • contribs)
    • [P]eople love him for his numerous Wikipedia entries. I'm sure they'll continue to love him even if he has fewer, or no, entries. -Willmcw 04:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - <FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT> 12:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • this entry should stay. even in the uk dr. gastrich is a respected christian author. i love his websites and the enrichment he brings to christian life — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.48.47 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. Probably not notable enough an author. Most of the info provided (40 day fast, soccer coach, etc.) seems superfluous. If the article remains, it should at least be scaled down, perhaps only mentioning his few published works and governor run. Everything else is clearly a vanity piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.229.199.237 (talk • contribs)
  • Retain. Dr. Jason Gastrich, through his writings and debates and web pages, has become a force in Christian apologetics and evangelism. One correction seems needed, however. A few years ago he wrote of changing his middle name to "Jesus." The article should include his full legal name. -- FH, Nov. 15, 2005 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.47.36.126 (talk • contribs)
  • retain this entry should remain, As an author and lecturer we need to hear all viewpoints and not quash some because we do not agree. keep the debate going... what do you fear?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.116.200 (talk • contribs)
  • Why is this entry even being debated? It doesn't matter whether Jason Gastrich is on here or not, because it doesn't matter who is on here! Why is anybody saying he shouldn't? Do you want a totally controlled and bised site? Do you want only entries that you approve of? That is at the least, the socialistic LIMITING of free speech. The same thing happened in Germany, Russia, North Korea,even Canada and Sweden are entering that same preliminary controlling of the free press. Whoever opposes Jason Gastrich's entries here, are entering a dark and forboding realm of communistic limiting of not only free speech, but the controlling of the dissemination of knowledge...from all areas. To limit knowledge is dispicable, and robs people of the freedm to choose their path based on ALL viewpoints. --68.248.11.90 03:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)onewhoknowswhatmatters.[reply]
  • This entry should stay. Jason Gastrich has ministered to many and has had a positive impact on people in this world. He is a noteable writer and is passionate about what he believes in, for the good of all. Again, my vote is that the entry stays...
  • PLEASE ALLOW JASON TO KEEP HIS PAGE.. !! PLEASE DO NOT ALLOW IT TO BE DELETED.. THANX Rinu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.42.2.22 (talk • contribs)
  • Added some comments. I hope this is all that was required or should I also email the admins?
    • I think Jason is a cool dude. He stands for the truth and opposes the Atheists lies. Many of the Atheists hate him and this is a sure sign that Jason is being persecuted for the truth.
    • Matt. 5:11 ¶ “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.
    • Matt. 5:12 Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
    • If you want to chat about Jason please do not hesitate to email me. You may find my address on my web page.
    • http://johnw.freeshell.org/bible/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.126.198.22 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nom. Is it a personal attack to say that on good evidence, i.e., direct revelations, every time you do not form a possessive correctly God kills a kitten? Anville 11:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete these partisan rants by supporters of keeping him have swayed me. PatGallacher 19:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity page for minor religious figure, apparent "notability" pumped up by sockpuppets. MCB 20:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I already voted to Keep the entry, so I won't vote again. It should be noted though that "Jason Gastrich" has over 58,000 search results in Google, over 40,000 results in Usenet, and over 51,000 in Yahoo. Not to mention, the organization that he directs (Jesus Christ Saves Ministries) has over 221,000 search results in Google.--Big Daddy 01:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. Google only shows 196 unique hits for "Jason Gastrich". The tens of thousands of other hits may be mirrors, etc. -Willmcw 09:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While he might possibly be infamous, the sockpuppets have muddied the waters so much it's difficult to tell, and clearly it's going to be difficult sustaining an objective article when the only Wikipedia editor interested in the man is himself. Naturally AfD is not cleanup, but I don't think Wikipedia is really going to miss this article, so I err on the side of deletion. --Last Malthusian 09:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • These certainly don't look like sockpuppets. Anyhow, there are two points to consider. First, the ruling admins will be able to see everyone's IP address and he or she will know whether or not these are sockpuppets or people from all over the country and the world who are weighing in on this issue. Next, voting to delete simply on the assumption that these are sockpuppets is absolutely absurd. Votes such as these should be significantly devalued.--Big Daddy 18:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, "all over the country and the world" as in "open proxies." 213.42.0.0/16 contains a number of open proxies and at least one unsigned comment in support of this page has come through 213.42.2.22 which is very interesting don't you think? Mark K. Bilbo 20:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain: It is not difficult understanding why some people want this entry deleted. Even if some people feel they have personal problems with the entry, the information given in the entry is beneficial for many. Has someone noted the vulgar and hate speech some of those who want the entry deleted have resorted to?--Cilmin, 18 November, 2005.
  • Hi! Thank You so much for letting us be apart of the in-put! Jason as usual has gone to great lengths to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ! Yes you will have opposition. What would faith be without it in our world?. But at the same time Our great Nation depends on differences of opinion and allows each party to talk,show,discuss, But NEVER DELETES or ILLIMINATES the other opinion!Its what makes our country so great! If you know anything about any of his sites -You know the time effort and personal touch that goes into his information and discussions and sharing of Faith! Jason's site should be allowed to stay and let more people see for themselves. Thank You! - 64.136.27.225 http://TheHelpMeets.com
    • Yeah, and Wikipedia can charge him for advertising, and use the money for hardware upgrades! — B.Bryant 06:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom --DanielCD 20:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete VERY non-notable, VERY vanity, VERY self-promotion. I wouldn't be surprised if several of those voting to keep were Gastrich himself. It is not of encyclopedic value, and sould be SPEEDY deleted. The most notable thing about Gastrich is when he was involved in the edit war at Antony Flew and he tried to insert a link to his website there. Harvestdancer 05:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Harvestdancer's comments aren't only absurd, but they're willfully dishonest. Click here and see how Harvestdancer almost daily talks about Jason Gastrich (in a Google Group designed just to talk about Gastrich) and has it out for him.--Big Daddy 06:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC) "Big Daddy" is Gastrich, and there are several comments in this "discussion" written by Gastrich.[reply]
      • What has that got to do with whether his claim is true or not? — B.Bryant 06:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nothing more than an Ad Hominem attempt to defuse an argument he can't refute. Anyone who goes to that external site will notice that my criticisms are actually in the form of advice that could be beneficial to him.Harvestdancer 15:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Definitely a vanity entry, designed to promote and sell a product (the e-book) using Wiki as a free advertising platform.
  • Delete If he deserves an article it's only because he's a well-known self-promoting Usenet kook. — B.Bryant 06:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very self serving and I find the fasting claim both erroneous and mildly offensive. Erroneous because the first time he only fasted for 36 days according to the text, not 40, further, how on earth does anyone know that only a few have doen this. Offensve because there are people starving to death every day who undoubtedly beat his 40 day record hands down.

  • RetainYes it's something of a vanity page, but Jason is a coming man and Wikipedia maintains pages about many flamboyant religious figures. Both leaders and frauds, Jason will probably be one of them in a few years.

Retain.

  • Delete The only reason Gastrich posted this page is to promote his web sites and sell his "book."
  • Delete per nomination. If someone wants a vanity page, there are plenty of web hosts out there. Mark K. Bilbo 15:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Gastrich is not an important figure in North American Fundamentalist. That's how he sees himself, and I don't think it does any good to inflate his importance.

Delete********** This guy seems to be on a ego trip. He has very little credibility.

  • Delete Tuohirulla 20:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it until it stays deleted, and then Delete it again just to be sure. wikipediatrix 21:53, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination and protect the page or something. What a mess! The information in the article is clearly not encyclopedic in the least. - squibix 22:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, we agree on at least one thing, Squibix. With the addition of Dave Horn's (138.162.140.45) soap opera/editorial/opinions/conjecture, the article isn't very encyclopedic. However, before he tampered with it, it did resemble other Wiki entries on authors, evangelists, professors, etc.--Big Daddy 22:45, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, Jason, what it looked like was an advertising and promotion piece for your ministry and yourself. Can you imagine an article about Peter Popoff that didn't include his exposure as a fraud, or one about Jimmy Swaggart that did not include his famous "I have sinned" speech after being caught with prostitutes? An encyclopedia entry is not one that must needs be limited to whatever the subject wants others to see. Sometimes, it has to include things that the subject may wish to have hidden.
      • Jason, I notice you want us to believe that you have a degree in psychology, but here, on your campaign site, you tell us that your degree is in "Liberal Arts and Sciences (Psychology)," which tells me that the degree is not in psych, but in a more general area, and you probably took quite a few courses in psych, just not enough to get a degree in it. You do understand the difference, don't you?
  • Delete User:Ejrrjs says What? 23:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and lock, provisions, "vanity," and "not notable."
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 00:08, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Coventry

Vanity page, but may just have enough claim to notability that I wouldn't tag it as A7 speedy. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete c.v. of nn person; fwiw, his "personl website" has been visited 637 times FRS 23:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Once he becomes head of the music label he can resubmit. Durova 23:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN vanity page. Jasmol 00:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Alhutch 00:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. — JIP | Talk 17:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge with Unification Church. Anyone can and should be bold and perform the move at their leisure. · Katefan0(scribble) 04:21, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus and John the Baptist

This article should either be incorporated into articles about Jesus and John the Baptist, or should be retitled. I move for the former. --tomf688{talk} 19:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete, non-notable bio. — Phil Welch 21:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John bohman

NN bio Josh Parris # 04:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Quite clearly a joke/vanity article. Josh Parris # 04:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN/vanity.--cjllw | TALK 05:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • SPEEDY delete obvious joke. Dottore So 13:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn-bio. Ah, college humour. MCB 08:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 00:25, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just Me and the Lonely Road

Article about a book which is "still in progress." howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 19:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was COPYVIO. If it's a copyvio, copyvio it. Non-commercial doesn't matter. -Splashtalk 00:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kamakshi Amman Temple

copyright violation (probably non commercial)[19] but no original content. Only one real author 203.91.201.4 with a bad track record. Ben Aveling 10:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 02:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Paultur

No hits for Keith Paultur found on Google that aren't Wikipedia mirrors. Seems unlikely, considering the popularity of Goldberg and Goldberg-esque devices. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 10:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unverifiable, unless someone steps up with references. MCB 19:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep (5/1).--Shreshth91 13:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kintetsu Corporation

Please delete it after this version for a slander article. A Japanese version is similar, too.Shinkansen 09:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I'm not sure what part of the deletion policy the nominator is citing. If there is a problem with the current version of the article it should be fixed, not deleted. (Per Wikipedia:Deletion policy.) --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 14:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, nominator does not actually want the page deleted. AfD is not the place to go to request that individual versions of a page be removed from its history. By and large, we don't do that at all on the English Wikipedia for mere vandalism, since there is no reason to do so under U.S. law. — Haeleth Talk 14:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please it does not have to be erased really Yuckfoo 00:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously, but deletion of the vandalized pages -- assuming there's a good reason -- can be handled by an admin. --Calton - Talk 01:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. I'm not sure what is being complained of here. I read the cited version in the nomination, and there is all of one line of inappropriate POV material, which was quickly reverted. Let's close this and move on. MCB 19:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:07, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Klop

Neologism, probably an attack page. Delete abakharev 05:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Labuan independence Movement

This page is a hoax. No evidence from internet, media or, library search. Labuan is very real but there has been no independence movement. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_September_11#Republic_of_Labuan for more details. LuiKhuntek 00:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Google says it's a hoax. The corresponding section in the Labuan article should be deleted as well. | Keithlaw (talk) (contribs) 00:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 1 Google hit on Labuan Independence Movement namely Wikipedia see [20]. Real problems with Verifiability with this article. Capitalistroadster 01:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sounds like a madeup country--Etyheryery 03:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note the above voter is trolling.
    • Note the above user has a name, nobody likes being reffered to in the 3rd person--Etyheryery 04:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note that the honourable member can be referred to in the second person when his name becomes pronouncable. :-). Oh, and delete per nom. --Last Malthusian 11:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Note that referring to someone by name (as in "Etyheryery is trolling") is still referring to him/her in the third person. :P — Haeleth Talk
          • Note that your article is about to be deleted. Descendall 19:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Obvious deletion for a hoax. I'll see if the "contributor" has already been warned about vandalism. Geogre 03:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Contributor is a floating IP. Some edits are vandalism. Some are vandal fighting. So it goes. Geogre 03:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Hoax and an IP vandal; double trouble. doktorb 05:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hoax. encephalon 08:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in the absence of any evidence to suggest it's anything other than a hoax. — Haeleth Talk 13:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Gatecrasher 19:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 00:22, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lance-Kashian & Company

appears to be an advertisement for a not notable company Avalon 16:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nomination. Avalon 16:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; today, I like to cite from articles: “Lance-Kashian & Company is a real estate development and management firm... ”. That's enough. Such companies must be really big to be notable. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 17:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 20:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Self-promotion. Others may differ, but the article on the River Park shopping center appears worth keeping. -Willmcw 22:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was MERGE to Five Iron Frenzy. -Splashtalk 00:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Leanor Till

Low number of Google hits and no Allmusic entry; I'm not sure this musician meets the criteria for WP:MUSIC. --Alan Au 01:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: For a biography article, the subject needs to meet WP:BIO, in my opinion, which is why band articles should not link all member names unless the member is known for something outside of the band or is famous outside of the band. In this case, it's a bio of a person who has led a life. No prejudice against the musician, but she is not sufficiently notable for a biography in an encyclopedia. Geogre 03:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand what you're saying. The band did go on one Euro tour and several U.S. tours. Maybe just merge it (and Reese Roper 's bio with the Five Iron Frenzy article? Reese is probably a tad more notable than Jeff though.--Energysword 04:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Geogre. Dottore So 12:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Five Iron Frenzy (merging any useful information)... isn't that what we normally do with band members who aren't inherently notable in themselves? — Haeleth Talk 14:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: If Five Iron Frenzy is established and approved, then merge and redirect would be fine by me. Geogre 14:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • FIF is established and approved, Merge and Redirect.--Energysword 16:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect, per above. PJM 20:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 00:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lesson 1

This is apparently a stub for a teaching course module in operating systems, not an encyclopaedia article. Wikibooks already has plenty of far more complete modules on operating systems. See the Wikibooks:Computing bookshelf. Uncle G 17:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per Uncle G. I seem to have this page on my watchlist, maybe it should be redirected to Lesson to prevent recreation. Kappa 17:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 19:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 02:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of casino resorts in Atlantic City

Page is unnecessary because the same information is found at Atlantic City, New Jersey which BTW is updated more frequently then this page. Misterrick 17:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Current Vote Count - For Delete: 5 / To Keep: 3 / Abstain: 0

  • Delete. Redundant with main Atlantic City article. | Keithlaw (talk) (contribs) 18:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and remove the list from the main article. Kappa 18:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redundant and violates WP:NOT. We're not the yellow pages.Gateman1997 20:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The Atlantic City, New Jersey article is a better place because it does not violate the WP:NOT and yet remains informative. Gatecrasher 20:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this is an interesting list and verifiable too Yuckfoo 00:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Verifiable or not this list violates WP:NOT and should be speedy deleted.Gateman1997 02:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which speedy deletion criterion does it fall under? Kappa 08:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • You've got me there, it doesn't quite fit under any of the criteron nicely, though it comes close. However it does violate number 6 and 7 of WP:NOT. Gateman1997 18:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, many of these deserve their own articles. - SimonP 02:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's also irrelevant - they can have their own articles and be linked in the Atlantic City, New Jersey article. | Keithlaw [[User_talk:Keithlaw|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Keithlaw|(contribs)]] 03:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A lot of the information there is pure advertising. It also duplicates the information in List of Casinos we don't need the lists in two places, do we? All of the casinos are also resorts. Vegaswikian 06:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article looks like it was taken out of the Yellow Pages. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 02:35, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dragon Riders

Obviously something to do with some work of fiction, but since it isn't any I recognise and is so seriously lacking in context I think it belongs here. And if it doesn't get deleted please fix the capitalisation. DJ Clayworth 22:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge or link to Pern somewhere Astaroth5 22:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not merge - the names in this article are unconnected to the Dragonriders of Pern. Pern dragon riders have their names shortened (e.g. F'lar). Delete this article unless some kind of context is introduced. Sliggy 23:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone can identify what, exactly, this is. Even if it ends up being Pern, the fact that there is no real discernable context makes it hard to consider this article to be kept. Mo0[talk] 00:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete googling says it's linked to Dragon Riders (who knew). But the list seems to be trivial. - Bobet 01:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Eragon or Inheritance (trilogy). You guys got the wrong book series, even though the word Eragon appears in the first sentence. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • My fault, sorry! I'd just googled for one of the terms in the article, google suggested an alternate spelling then refered me to the Pern series Astaroth5 16:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I posted this...It goes with Eragon without a doubt.--Thewie 18:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Eragon already has a list of protagonists. Pilatus 23:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 00:22, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_songs_published_as_live_versions

This list would simply be absurd. You would be talking about tons and tons of albums. Live versions of songs, except in certain cases, are not extraordinary. It is rather the norm to have a song be released live. The scope of this list would just be so immense that it would simply be useless. THollan 16:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete useless and unmaintainable list. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete useless listcruft. Especially unmaintainable now that many bands/solo artists "publish" (to use the term in the article) all of their live concerts, sometimes the CDs are even available right after the show then sold over the web. I know Metallica does this. --W.marsh 17:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This should be a category. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 17:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Indeed useless listcruft. Punkmorten 21:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Edwardian 00:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --Metropolitan90 01:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unmaintainable, criteria so broad as to encompass completely unrelated topics. Not a useful navigation tool. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 10:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. —Cleared as filed. 02:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of villains

Due to the amount of literature created it isn't very logical to make a list of villains with no restrictions. Maybe a list of evil mythologycal cratures, a list of Disney, DC Comics, Cartoon Network or whatever company villains, a list Famous Villains of Classic European Literature or even a list of historical characters considered as villains by most people; would be logic, but mixing all of them in one same list is not very smart. It looks dumb! 201.144.142.8 09:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, if the list is divided as suggested by the nominator each subpage would still have to be linked from the top. Kappa 11:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong categorify and delete. This is an absolutely hopelessly unmaintainable list; categories are designed to handle very general groups like this. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 11:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So users shouldn't even know what work of literature they belong to? And villains in merged articles should be unacessible? Kappa 19:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Either method will be incomplete. I err on the side of incomplete that doesn't involve the waste of time spend maintaining an overly broad list. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 19:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think that "waste of editors' time" is one of Wikipedia's criteria for deletion. And a good thing, too — that's a hopelessly POV standard, and many legitimate articles would be threatened by it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • This isn't an article; it's a navigation tool. All of this information exists elsewhere on Wikipedia, so no information is being lost, merely this particular unwieldy arrangement and expression of that information. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 19:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Kappa's point still stands — even regarded as a navigation tool, this list presents information not available in a category. Why not keep the list, on the principle of belt and braces? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm disappointed that you'd want to forcibly prevent editors from "wasting their time", and simultaneously waste much user time and wikipedia bandwidth by making navigation harder. Kappa 00:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • This is inelegant and has no hope of becoming elegant. This is incomplete and has no hope of being complete. This list has far too broad a scope to ever have a significant amount of commentary. It is a failed navigational tool. I respect that you disagree, but I don't see how it's inappropriate to "force" editors to not work on navigation tools I don't feel help Wikipedia as a project, and I don't think any list so hopelessly broad to encompass both Pontius Pilate and Scarface from All Dogs Go To Heaven is useful to Wikipedia as a project. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 06:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm honestly trying to understand the unmaintainable argument - has it not already proved its maintainability? It's been a year since the last vote, and the page has improved, not gotten worse, since then. Turnstep 23:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep as it appears that a whole lot of work has gone into this and it appears that the maintainer has made this as comprehensive as possible. Jtmichcock 12:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepkeep - these are the things that make wikipedia special. And useful! I already used it to look for names of shakesperean villans. If the IP wants to go ahead with the splitting s/he has my full support. But not delete! muriel@pt 12:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split and Keep. This article is FAR too big and too generic for one list. I find it hard to believe that Pontius Pilate (Bible) and Mr. Burns (The Simpsons) have anything in common that should keep them on the same list. Additionally, the page is already 91kb in length and bound to grow exponentially. ♠DanMS 16:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Some lists are just too stupidly vague and all-encompassing to exist, and this is one of them. Where do we draw the line? A list of blondes? A list of people? A list of lists? wikipediatrix 17:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This article survived a call for deletion approximately one year ago. Turnstep 17:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This page has undergone lots of editing and cleanups, and substantial effort by myself and others to keep it NPOV. As far as I know "It looks dumb!" is not a valid deletion criteria. A category would not be relevant, as not every item listed has its own page (nor should it). Turnstep 17:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and categorise. Absolutely textbook category situation. Lord Bob 19:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and split, possibly into "List of fictional villains" and "List of historical figures portrayed as villains in fiction". I don't see that the nominator has established a legitimate reason for deletion, and as others have said, a fair amount of work has gone into it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split and Keep as above (or somehow). --InShaneee 19:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Split vote) Keep only the section about Historical Figures as villains, which at least has a strong criteria. Delete the fiction villains section that could potentially have thousands of names; unmaintainable and way too broad. 23skidoo 19:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but split entrants into sections like List of people. Add a disclaimer at the top noting that villiany could be subjective. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 20:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorize the top bit which is sorted alphabetically. Split and keep the stuff on the bottom. - Mgm|(talk) 23:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's fine --TimPope 21:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; arbitrary, inherently POV, unmaintainable list. MCB 19:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and possibly re-categorize It is a good navigation tool. CUrrently a bit sloppy, but that could be fixed by re-categorizing things. Just please do not delete, as many people use this list.
  • Keep, there are enough redlinks that I don't think transitioning solely to a category system would preserve all the information. Perhaps split the article up into lists based on genre, though, to make the size a bit more manageable. Bryan 04:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split and keep Could be interesting. CanadianCaesar 05:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

List of villains

This list potentially contains approximately 50% of all names in popular culture. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 15:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 16:22, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Leicester

Suspected self-promotion - the article originated from Florida, the subject has connections with Florida. The subject is a non-notable person (who works in public relations), and there is no evidence that he's entitled to the title "Lord Leicester" (see the article's talk page for discussion of this).   ajn (talk) 08:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hang the aristocrat from the lamppost — I mean, delete. Anville 15:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • God save the aristocracy, delete this impostor. Avalon 16:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Barons are notable. Obscure hoaxes are not notable. Given that the preponderance of evidence suggests that this article is the latter, I have no hesitation in ordering it hanged, drawn, and deleted. — Haeleth Talk 17:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notice the disambiguation at the top of the article. Research reveals that the Earl of Leicester is known as Lord Leicester. Therefore merge (only) the disambiguation to Earl of Leicester and redirect there. Uncle G 19:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Remove this rubbish article. Y control 09:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lords of the Rhymes

Does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC, only releases are MP3 files, only play is on Internet. Dalbury (talk) 00:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Bachrach44 01:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom (bah! nasty hobbits). --noizyboy 02:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not meet WP:MUSIC. Cnwb 02:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "'Do not Delete"' I will have you know as per WP:MUSIC, the Lords have played a national tour in the US, have been written about in the Village Voice and Esquire (not sure why those are not in major media publications), one member of the band authored and played on the Windows 98 install music (which sold more than a million copies in the first few months), and whilst not winning a Oscar, they played at the Lords of the Ring party after winning 11 Oscars.

They are clearly an internet phenomena, (as is Wiki), give them their due. (This is 69.86.92.184's first edit.) - Dalbury (talk) 08:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. Please cite sources that we can check to verify these claims. - Dalbury (talk) 08:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not meeting WP:NMG. There is no verifiable evidence of a tour presented and they have recorded four songs. No Allmusic.com mention. Capitalistroadster 08:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since they are worth mentioning, at least as internet memes Pictureuploader 17:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn, fails WP:MUSIC, my precious.  RasputinAXP  T C 18:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.
  • Delete per nominator, but I'm glad I heard about it. Hilarious! :) —HorsePunchKid→龜 20:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete NN: written four songs, not nearly enough. Pete.Hurd 19:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : almost all nerdcore is an 'internet phenomenon' (70.173.177.233 (talk · contribs))
That's why there's an article on Nerdcore hip hop. That doesn't mean that every nerdcore artist is noteworthy. —HorsePunchKid→龜 23:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE as patent nonsense. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lukas Baldrige

Nonsensical vanity page. Bjones 14:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; see above.Bjones 14:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:09, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Madarchod

Foreign language dictdef (and apparently vandalism magnet). Not useful to Wiktionary without the original script. —Cryptic (talk) 07:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, dicdef. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 08:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Of course it's a vandalism magnet. It's a Hindi vulgarism. Durova 09:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, like fuck, motherfucker etc. Alternatively rename to Hindi profanity, on the lines of Finnish profanity. Kappa 11:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Dottore So 13:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as dictdef. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 19:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Let's leave Hindi profanities to the Hindi Wiki. Denni☯ 04:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I have no comments to offer about motherfucker – but the name of the current article which in Hindi and several other languages of North India has exactly the same meaning (motherfucker) fails to establish any uniqueness and distinct notability to warrant a separate article like motherfucker. The contents fail to establish any “encyclopedic’ contexts. At best, the word may be included in the dictionary.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Metasphere

Not notable. —Ashley Y 01:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete neologism. Gazpacho 03:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Dictdef and ad. Geogre 03:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete —Ashley Y 19:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 04:39 (UTC)

MicroAge

Ad, Vanity (username of creator is same as officer). Word for word from "About" page on linked website WCFrancis 29 June 2005 00:32 (UTC)

Note that this was marked for speedy deletion but the creator of the page removed this without comment. --Yamla June 29, 2005 19:37 (UTC)
Note that the linked site is currently down. --WCFrancis 30 June 2005 13:56 (UTC)
  • Delete as ad or speedy as copyvio. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind June 29, 2005 01:22 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Starblind. Bubamara 29 June 2005 09:35 (UTC)
  • Delete as spam. To be thrown into the bowels of Wiki-Hell! Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 29 June 2005 11:55 (UTC)
  • Delete copyvio/ad, nuff said -Harmil 29 June 2005 12:15 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite. Reads like a copyvio, but MicroAge is a well known company with a long history in Canada. I remember buying Windows/286 from a MicroAge store. Pburka 29 June 2005 18:25 (UTC)
    • I suspect that this is not the same MicroAge. The one you remember is probably this MicroAge in Canada. --WCFrancis 30 June 2005 14:03 (UTC)
      • You're right. I've withdrawn my vote. Pburka 2 July 2005 16:27 (UTC)
  • Delete as ad. --Yamla June 29, 2005 19:35 (UTC)
  • Delete ad. --Etacar11 29 June 2005 22:35 (UTC)
  • Delete as ad unless the contributor wants to rewrite/show notability. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish June 30, 2005 13:32 (UTC)
Uhh...the original contributor registered as Markmckeever. This person also created Mark McKeever (also on VfD as vanity page), identifying Mr. McKeever as the Chief Operating Officer of MicroAge. I understand that it is preferred that any rewrite be from someone not a part of the company. --WCFrancis 30 June 2005 13:51 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. —Cryptic (talk) 02:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MicroAge

It would seem that the page has been resurrected, with the same problem. (ad). Menyoung Lee 02:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:07, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft and Wireless technologies

There is almost nothing here about wireless tech. It is essentially a product review.

  • Delete as original research/POV. Gazpacho 04:16, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, simply not an article. Can't see anything salvageable. - Mgm|(talk) 13:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pressing the "Save page" button on this delete vote with a very fine cordless Microsoft mouse. This fact is substantially more relevant to the title of the article than any of its contents. — Haeleth Talk 14:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; this is similar in style to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Microsoft .Net Sockets, but different authors. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 19:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. This is a real character but not notable enough on the English Wikipedia. — JIP | Talk 17:56, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Overboiled Lettuce

Short bio of a fictional character from a Swedish-language programme. Much as I'd like to fight systemic bias, there is no evidence this programme has been seen in the English-speaking world, and even if it had this article would be appropriate to merge to it (no such article exists). There is apparently an article in sv.wikipedia. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 13:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, but only because there's no article about Varan-TV itself. A show is more notable than any of its characters. If someone writes Varan-TV I might change my vote. — JIP | Talk 13:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know about a show being more notable than any of its characters - I'd say Superman is more notable than Smallville. Now, we're not dealing with anything remotely analogous to that here, of course, but I don't see why this shouldn't be moved to Varan-TV and used as a basis for an article on the program in general. — Haeleth Talk 18:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ......do we have any reason to believe this is even a real program and not a joke?? The person who posted the article is also responsible for such dubious gems as Navid Soltani and AIK Bowling. - wikipediatrix 18:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you see the Swedish article, there's a link to a picture of it. It looks like it's from SVT's official site, so it should be genuine. — JIP | Talk 07:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per Wikipediatrix's comment above, I poropose to merge and redirect the AIK Bowling stub to AIK, as it is pointlessly small at present and of questionable independent significance anyway. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 11:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • AfDs aren't the place to discuss articles other than those which are nominated for deletion. Please discuss AIK Bowling on its own talk page or AfD discussion. — JIP | Talk 19:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • You don't say. All I wanted to find out was if I'd be shouted down. Since nobody has done so, I have initiated the appropriate action. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 12:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 00:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mixtaping.com

Brand-new website, with no Alexa ranking at all. Fails WP:WEB. Indium 05:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's in a launch process; Alexa ranking isn't of significance for the time being. If last.fm can stay, why can't this? Keep. --CriminalSaint 05:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Explanation: Wikipedia is not the place to promote a new site, but an encyclopedia. Last.fm was created in late 2003 and has an Alexa rank of 3,098 indicating they get sufficient visitors to be consider important enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. - Mgm|(talk) 13:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further to which: if your site is as good as you say, it will attract a lot of users and quickly become notable enough to meet our criteria for inclusion. Please do come back and recreate the article when you reach that stage. — Haeleth Talk 14:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable, non-neutral. wikipediatrix 05:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn Dottore So 13:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, website advert. - Mgm|(talk) 13:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Movement Against Religious Terrorism

Article is a mission statement, which Wikipedia does not accomodate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete.

I'm deleting this now. There's an overwhelming consensus for deletion, and I don't think a single legit keep vote was cast. With all the socks and vandalism, there's no point in continuing. Several legit delete votes were removed (as if there weren't enough anyway), and rather than try to go back and cut and paste them back in, I'm going to close this to save everyone grief before the process becomes any more tainted. -R. fiend 14:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Next Gen Gaming

Anyone sent here from the forum in question. Please read: Wikipedia:Guide_to_Articles_for_deletion#Sockpuppets_are_bad and our policies at WP:NOT, WP:VAIN, WP:WEB. This is primarily a discussion and votes without comments based in policy especially by new users who don't know our policies will be discounted. - Mgm|(talk) 13:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of non-notable forum participants. Maclaine 03:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • dont be mad because you didnt get on — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.241.189 (talk • contribs)
  • there are much stupider articles, like c4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.241.189 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete - We've been over this over and over again. LUE, ZSB, and Legends boards have been deleted; this should be no exception. Hbdragon88 03:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete it. The article is useful and informative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.191.170.136 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete this article, it is pointless and has no academic merit. Also the person who made it is a douchebag — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.11.133.11 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep - I put a lot of work into this, and its just being abused by vandals --JMRboosties 03:16, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it. This has no bad effects on wikipedia whatsoever, and is actually fun. I say Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R3xus (talk • contribs)
  • Yes, it has. You guys are using our bandwidth. Get your own webspace. Wikipedia is NOT a webhost. - Mgm|(talk) 13:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, i am planning to turn this in to its own wiki, paying for it and etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMRboosties (talk • contribs)
  • Then it's not needed here. Delete forum trivia. (BTW, we can tell when people are voting more than once). Gazpacho 03:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is certainly not hurting anything, and is most definately not offensive.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.36.98.51 (talk • contribs)
  • Speedy Delete, and the sooner the better. wikipediatrix 05:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Biographies of web forum participants should appear on that web forum (if anywhere) -- not in an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 06:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Get a Geocities page, guys. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 07:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Swamp Ig 08:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - to make sure consensus is clear. JesseW, the juggling janitor 09:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article is only useful and informative to members of this group. To be encyclopedic it has to have broader appeal. Save the content, move to Geocities. And best wishes with your club. Durova 09:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above. Dottore So 13:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity of forum users. - Mgm|(talk) 13:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Sorry, guys, but this just doesn't fit in with what Wikipedia is about. Good luck if you set your own wiki up, though. — Haeleth Talk 14:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Geogre. Mo0[talk] 09:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Ortiz

googling for nicolas ortiz Pomparius yields no results. As far as I can tell this is rubbish. --Bachrach44 02:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per nom. --Bachrach44 02:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I stuck a speedy tag on the article. Does not seem notable. --BorgHunter (talk) 02:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy deleted. The article said that he lives in the US and keeps his "whimsy" on an island and that he likes to be "on Gaia," whatever that is. Some dude. Geogre 03:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. —Cleared as filed. 02:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Niki Ashton

This article was previously speedied under CSD A7, but it was overturned and is now listed here for discussion. No vote Titoxd(?!?) 22:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sure looks like vanity to me. Talking about a group she started in high school?? Come on now. However, if she wins the election, possibly there will be verifiable information about her. Can anyone comment on how important a politician she would be, if she won? Unless someone provides evidence of verifiability and significance, I'd say delete. Friday (talk) 22:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. Smart young lady with an impressive CV (all the claims in the article are repeated in her bio on the linked site, so I assume we could verify them if we tried), but I'm not sure she's achieved anything that meets WP:BIO yet. Let's come back in five or ten years when she's started her career properly and see whether there's anything to write about then. — Haeleth Talk 23:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doubt this is vanity. This is in the news because the current MP recently quit the NDP caucus over her repudiation due to the same sex marriage bill (see [21]). If she wins, keep her, but for now I suspect she and Desjarlais will split the NDP vote and the Grits or (possibly) Tories will come through. Dottore So 23:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This news article verifies that she is running for political office. She is running for the House of Commons for the Churchill Riding against the incumbent and at least one other. The House of Commons has 308 members - making it similar to the US House of Representatives. The electoral district itself has only 48k voters making it, I believe, one of the smallest districts in Canada. According to our own article, it can take as few as 50 signatures to run for this office. Taken together, those factors indicate to me that merely being a candidate for this office is not sufficient. Niki Ashton is already mentioned (in greater detail) in the section on elections in the Churchill (electoral district) article. If she wins the election, I believe she will qualify under the recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies. As a candidate, I do not think she yet qualifies. Delete but without prejudice against re-creation if she is elected. Rossami (talk) 23:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep if it can be NPOV'd; otherwise delete as vanity. It seems she won nomination by a notable political party and is not just a student politician FRS 23:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I realize she's up for a serious office. The reason I suspected vanity (and still do) is the mention of some group she started in high school. I see that she's currently (slightly) verifiable, but I still feel she's not very significant until she actually wins an important election. Friday (talk) 23:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Friday Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Something tells me she will get notable but she isn't quite yet.--Dakota t e 23:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge With Steve Ashton.

Strong Keep Is a notable candidate for next Federal election. Canadianism 04:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a fairly prominent candidate in the upcoming election, already has 13 Google news hits. - SimonP 01:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand -- credible, major-party candidate for national legislative office, passes WP:BIO. -- Mwalcoff 02:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if any of the keep votes come from Canadians, but I have to doubt it. The NDP is a national party, but let's be honest: in the VAST majority of ridings, they are no-hopers and should not be considered notable, per WP:BIO or anything else. The notability of this story comes from the same-sex marriage issue and the expulsion of Bev Desjarlais from caucus. Since the Liberals have recruited star candidate Tina Keeper [22] (from North of 60 blech), the likelihood of Ms. Ashton's winning, what with Desjarlais committed to stand again, is roughly, although not precisely, nil. A redirect to her father Steve Ashton, who is a provincial cabinet minister (and which may be related to how she managed to secure nomination form the riding association in the first place), might work if one is really bent on retaining something. Dottore So 17:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I might agree with you in many ridings, but the NDP won this one last time around. Plus, I don't want to be in the business of determining where the party has a chance and where it doesn't. -- Mwalcoff 03:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or redirect and mention in the article Maclean205 mentioned (no merge). Candidiates for this sort of office are a dime a dozen througout history. Here in the US we have 435 of these every two years. -R. fiend 04:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per SimonP. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete minor outsider in local election. Merge with an article on this election in this area if one exists. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 11:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I find Rossami's argument compelling. encephalon 13:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per above voters. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Mwalcoff. (Yes, I am an American, but my parents were Canadian, my uncle is a prominent retired Manitoba politician, and I follow Canadian politics closely.) MCB 22:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, she defeated an incumbent Member of Parliament for her party's nomination. This is an uncommon event and makes her newsworthy. At least keep until the election. Homey 05:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: "Newsworthy" is not the same as "encyclopedic". I agree that the nomination would be appropriate to discuss in WikiNews. I'm not convinced that it meets any threshold here. Rossami (talk) 18:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Winning the nomination was a noteworthy accomplishment. CJCurrie 22:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dottore So. There is so little to go on about her, that people have included such mundane information as her extra-curricular activities while in school and portions of her election platform from her website. If people want to know about that stuff, they can go to her website, rather then wasting an article on her that does nothing more then parrot what she has already said about herself. Perhaps an article listing all the federal ridings in Canada, plus each ridings party candidates coupled with links to their respective campaign websites would be in order. That sounds fair and unbiased for the other party candidates who have achieved the 'noteworthy accomplishment' of winning their nomination bids. Sub-Arctic 00:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She is a pretty high-profile candidate in the upcoming election, having beaten Bev Desjarlais. God knows she's more notable than half the (mostly Conservative) candidates who seem to have just copied and pasted their bios themselves. Carolynparrishfan 14:05, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oeunism

Non notable belief system Ze miguel 11:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, looks like an original concept. Doesn't google, no evidence of third-party interest. Kappa 11:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nonsense. Nothing in Google except this page. - Randwicked 11:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability isn't an issue here. This is simply unverifiable. The article cites no sources, and research turns up nothing at all. This is original research, the creation and promotion, via Wikipedia, of a purported new religion that has no traction whatever in the real world. Delete. Uncle G 12:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Uncle G. BrianSmithson 14:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yup, that's OR. MCB 20:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. -R. fiend 03:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oisin O'Donovan

NN Bio

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Has been extended and still received no support. -Splashtalk 00:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OUTTALINE

Please see this version. This article is a copy from another website and is currently tagged as copyvio. However, someone claims permission on the talk page. Rather than soliciting permission only for it to later be deleted, we are now posting questionable pages here before soliciting permission. (See our discussion.) As it is I don't think this band meets WP:MUSIC, they have only one album and don't seem to have been on tour. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 00:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Extended due to no input. - brenneman(t)(c) 06:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agreed, they seem a tad shy of WP:MUSIC criteria. I also have a tough time understanding the "permission" claim on the talk page: are they saying that the band will refuse to give interviews? Anville 10:11, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:22, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Patay Gutom Gang

Nnanity that should be speediable as A7 except that the current wording excludes groups of non-notable people. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Another reason for deletion policy to change. Delete. The Land 14:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn group. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 15:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A whopping 15 members? I'm all for expanding A7. Tags like 'nn-group' and 'nn-band' would make great stocking stuffers. PJM 15:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, including its 8 “Prominent Members” (out of 15 total!). Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 17:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with notability, which is not part of deletion critera. This information is unverifiable in the sense that wikipedia policy means it, and so can already be removed without the need for new policy creep. Trollderella 08:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. The Land 10:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but lack of verifiability is not a speedy criterion (nor should it be). --howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 07:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, some people use "notability" to mean exactly the point you made about verifiability (subjects analyzed sufficiently for there to be a body of work for Wikipedia to review and summarize), Trollderella, but I agree that expanding A7 wouldn't be a good idea, for different reasons. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 10:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted under CSD A7. Titoxd(?!?) 05:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paul warren

18 year old drummer. No mention of notability. Delete Rasmus (talk) 20:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as a nn-bio, doesn't make any claim to notability. --W.marsh 22:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. I'm sometimes hesitant to speedy music-related articles because of the notability standards at WP:MUSIC, but this fellow has failed to even associate himself with a band. As such, it's just a vanity bio. —HorsePunchKid→龜 23:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete db-bio. Jasmol 23:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. --Shreshth91 13:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pharmacists for life international

Article is rather sparse and feels a bit like a promotional piece. Was tempted to speedy it under A3, but thought I'd send it to regular AfD for consideration in case anyone thinks it can be improved. --Alan Au 07:16, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • On the french wiki, this morning, someone used the speeedy way... BTW, if it is improved, it could stay. 82.224.88.52 08:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, valid stub. Kappa 11:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, legit organisation and the stub is valid enough. I cannot find the French vote - link?
http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pharmacists_for_life_international&action=history
  • However, standards are very different. They enjoy consensus, for example, to delete practically all schools (as noted in one recent AfD, la plupart des lycées de France sont refusés alors pourquoi accepter les High School américaines?) Dottore So 13:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, valid stub of org in the news regularly. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per above, even though they seem pretty insane based on the website - Bobet 14:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if real Carina22 15:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, passes the Google test with flying colours. We can admire the French Wikipedia for having achieved a consensus on schools, but we'd be wrong to follow them on this occasion. — Haeleth Talk 17:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Hambright

This appears to be a fabrication. I can't find any evidence that there is a TV show called "Byron Basketball", much less that Phillip Hambright is a character on it. If not a fabrication, it is subtrivial fancruft. Delete either way. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Deltabeignet 04:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It may be worthy of note that Byron X was a contributor to this article about “Byron Basketball” The same user contributed the article Byron Basketball, which also needs to be deleted. ♠DanMS 06:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per DanMS. encephalon 09:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per above. Dottore So 13:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above (and the next vote topic). - Bobet 14:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:12, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phyiscs lab

Not an encyclopedia article. It's just a copy of someone's physics lab. Also, name of article is misspelled. 67.131.249.103 09:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Plan patriot

POV essay. --howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 19:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Copyright violation from [23] (copyright at bottom of page). I will mark it as so. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 19:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. PJM 19:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 03:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Planet Veldin

Non-notable web forum. Google brings up only 105 results [24] Thunderbrand 22:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Thunderbrand 22:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete wikipedia is not a directory of message boards.--Alhutch 00:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Geogre. Mo0[talk] 09:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pomparius

googline for pomparius Nicolas Ortiz yields no results. As far as I can tell this is all rubbish. --Bachrach44 02:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Bachrach44 02:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I put this one up for Speedy. --BorgHunter (talk) 02:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did the speedy. The grounds were that there were no claims of notability. The article said that "a Pomparius" is the most wonderful person in the world, and everyone admires him, with then a "see also" to "Nicholas Ortiz" (which seems like it needs to be here, too). I.e. it's the usual "I am the greatest man alive!" bull. Deleted accordingly. Geogre 03:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


This article was speedily deleted three times:

  1. by Moriori at 00:32, with the summary "content was: 'Pond Scum is a beggining rock band that resides in Tampa Florida.' (and the only contributor was 'Fabricsoftner')"
  2. by Francs2000 at 00:43, with the same summary, and
  3. again by Moriori at 08:09, with the summary "already deleted today".

This AFD is closed. encephalon 08:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pond scum band

Non-notable band, has only written a handful of songs according to the article and (quote) "popular arround their High School" - hasn't released an album yet. -- Francs2000 01:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • One more good reason that band vanity should be shot on sight. Sigh. Delete. - Lucky 6.9 01:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - doesn't come within a hundred yards of meeting the criteria set forth in WP:Music. --Bachrach44 01:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - are per nom --noizyboy 02:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN band vanity. Cnwb 02:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Some of the delete votes are by sock puppets, but even ignoring them, there's a consensus to delete here. — JIP | Talk 18:03, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive Boink

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 14:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete If this page stays, we might as well have a page for every website on the internet filled with private in-jokes, insults directed at others and pretentious 'hilarious' fake webpages. Have you any idea how many that would be? This site offers nothing that you can't find anywhere else.Mammal Nitrate
  • Delete I can put the word "lesbian" on a website and get thousands of hits via Google too. AMAZING! XavierVE
  • Delete I have to agree with Haeleth. The fact that the site is clearly using this entry as a way to get themselves off seals this one as a DELETE. CSendak
  • Delete Aside from the way the entry is advertising the site, the write-up itself stinks. It pretty much outlines the pointlessness of the submission with its total lack of content. Unlike the X-E/Seanbaby entries, it just SOUNDS like someone blowing their own horn.
  • Delete, Alexa ranking 74,327, 22 rated sites linking in. Sounds pretty non-notable to me. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 14:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. PB gets over 16k google hits for "progressive boink," has recievied tens of thousands of page hits for many of their articles (like the "rating the lesbians" series), and features like The Dugout have recieved a decent cult following. Plus, it's a spinoff/replacement for Whatever-dude.com, an X-Entertainment-style e/n site that I believe was fairly popular back in the day. Article still needs significant cleanup ('ve already tried to do a little, but I've been away for a few days and will continue), and I'm fairly certain that authors of the website created this article, but it is a notable website that should be kept. Also, original nominee, on article's talk page, nominated for the following: "I am recommending this for deletion, it's a pretty sad excuse for an article." Worth noting. --badlydrawnjeff 17:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I searched for link:progressiveboink.com and got 185 hits. That seems low for something as widespread as is claimed. link:progressiveboink.com -wikipedia gets exactly one hit, as does link: -site:. What am I doing wrong here? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 13:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting, I suppose. I admit to being possibly the worst googler in existence, I've never heard of that. For the sake of discussion, "link:x-entertainment.com" gets 275, dropping to a whopping 9 when "-wikipedia" is added. It's apparent I'm the vocal minority here, but I'm honestly surprised at the amount of opposition on this one. Perhaps I just know a lot of people who read it, or simply remember it better when it was whatever-dude. --badlydrawnjeff 14:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. On the one hand it doesn't seem to meet WP:WEB; on the other hand I've actually heard of this site, unlike many that do meet WP:WEB. On the third and ultimately decisive hand, however, they've got a link to "Progressive Boink's official Wikipedia entry (Humor us while we talk about ourselves, please.)" on their front page, and that earns them a big black mark for vanity. — Haeleth Talk 18:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not to play the "but but" game, but notable sites like X-Entertainment do not meet WP:WEB either, and that proposal should keep that in mind. And yes, the site does appear to have written itself, and I've already done some cleanup to rectify the apparent advertising, and hopefully we can vote with what's in the article in mind. --badlydrawnjeff 18:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reyk 19:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. WP is not a webdir, this entry adds nothing which is not basically site advertising. KillerChihuahua 20:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I've seen worse articles and things far less notable on Wikipedia. Sure, the article may have been started by staffers of the site the article examines, but it is not as if they are vainly watching over it hawk-like in Pro-Boi propoganda manner. It is a rather popular website, notable enough for Wikipedia, and has no reason to be deleted. Cleaned up, maybe, but a delete would be just plain malicious. 71.131.66.179 05:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Just zis Guy et al. MCB 21:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Psychobyte

Appears to be ad-spam, company may eventually warrant an article, but this isn't it. --Alan Au 06:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. Anville 15:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn/advert. MCB 19:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was gone. DS 13:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quackulus

Possible joke article, irrelevant Google hits. --Ixfd64 09:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, belongs in an unencyclopedia. Kappa 11:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN woulda been better wikied a bit though, sure some more humourous links could have been found by the author. Alf melmac 13:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 04:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Racetrac Gas Station in Miami Gardens

Its obvious --JAranda | watz sup 02:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Beyond obvious. Delete. Quickly. With extreme prejudice. Useless title, even more useless content. To anyone considering adding similar articles in the future: PLEASE READ THE TUTORIALS. - Lucky 6.9 03:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gas station? Oh, whatever. Strong Delete. Mike H (Talking is hot) 03:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's no reason why servos couldn't get their own Wikipedia articles ... if sufficiently, independently notable. This doesn't appear to fall into that category. JAranda, please put more effort into your nominations in future. Cheers, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Light Cigarette, Throw Near LPG Cylinder, Run The Heck Away, quick, before someone starts WikiProject Service Stations! GarrettTalk 03:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously a significant and verifiable facility that has affected thousands of people. ...just kidding, delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just trying to counter the systemic bias of Wikipedia toward gas stations by nominating this? Haven't these gas stations seen tens of thousands of people eat their burritos and pas their gas? Delete for Wikipedia not being MapQuest. Geogre 03:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, being a gas station in price competition with other gas stations? no. Gazpacho 05:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete if possible, otherwise a simple delete, particularly in light of the fact that its creator has vandalized user pages. --Nlu 05:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per all the above. - Mgm|(talk) 12:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's see: thousands of people have used this gas station and as such it has had an impact on their lives. Further it is verifiable and factual. Also, I am positive we can find some famous people who have filled up there. It has received coverage from an important and reputable media source. And the fact that it is distinguishable from its competitors by selling cheap gas means it has a claim to a notability. Oh yea, Delete. Dottore So 12:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, counters systemic bias introduced by Commonwealth Wikipedians writing about "petrol stations". Um, I don't even need to vote, do I? — Haeleth Talk 14:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as soon as possible. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 18:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, we are winning the war against gas station deletionist vandals Delete, gas stations are not inherently notable. And just about every gas station has got in a price war before. Lord Bob 18:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This has got to be the biggest piece of rubbish ever put on Wikipedia. Gatecrasher 20:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    user's ninth edit, has only edited AfDs. Lord Bob 20:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no questions asked. Alr 01:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rajkumar Kishor Shah

According to the creator's talk page, this article was apparently made by the subject's fifth grade son. There are no sources and it appears to be vanity. Carbonite | Talk 13:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No attempt to establish notability. - Randwicked 13:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Randwicked. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 14:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No relevant Google hits, either (even if one searches without the middle name). BrianSmithson 14:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: perhaps a case of not understanding the notability criteria for inclusion here. --Bhadani 15:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 00:14, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ramu doraisamy

No google hits for "Ramu doraisamy". Unverifiable and probably hoax. Saint Midge 22:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. "A person born in 1989 [...] who contributed nothing new to this world"? Looks like a non-notable bio dressed up as mythology to me. Can we call this an A7 and speedy it? — Haeleth Talk 23:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete speedily, if possible, it's nonsense FRS 23:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nonsense. - Bobet 01:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for above reasons. --Bhadani 15:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 02:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reba McLane

This is an article about a major Character in Red Dragon. One problem is that it's basically duplicate content of the Red Dragon and Manhunter articles (any content that isn't already in those articles will be by the time I've finished with them). A bigger problem is that her name's not Reba McLane - it's Reba McClane. There may be an argument for moving the content to Reba McClane, but I'd favour redirecting Reba McClane to Red Dragon. I see no reason to keep this article, and I vote to Delete. TheMadBaron 16:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as covered by the other two articles. Jtmichcock 23:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 00:07, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ReCoe

Non-notable blog (barely begun) with hints of advertising Jasmol 23:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Advertising. - N (talk) 00:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not really any assertion of notability, advertising.--Alhutch 00:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

R.J Peers

This article describes a theoretical series of books which may or may not be released in the future. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The article was created by User:82.35.220.191 who has also edited articles on A Series of Unfortunate Events which this hypothetical book series closely mirrors. It could possibly be a vanity page.

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete, but agreement that if kept, that this shall be merged with Robinson Secondary School. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robinson Rams (football)

Much to my chagrin, I know that school deletions almost never succeed, but do we really need a separate page dedicated to a high school's football team? Delete. (I also posted {{mergeto}} and {{mergefrom}} as an alternative, but I really think that it strains the credibility of Wikipedia to pay this much attention to a school team. --Nlu 03:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Highly non-notable, though I won't oppose a merge. (Aside: I've always thought the burden of notability for school articles should be on the creator.) Deltabeignet 04:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the burden on why something should be included always lies with the creator no matter what the subject of the article is. - Mgm|(talk) 13:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, even though I graduated from there. To us graduates, that football team is most definitely notable; it's basically the pride and joy of the school. However, the football team is the pride and joy of hundreds and hundreds of high schools. This one, in the grand scheme of things, doesn't stand out. Mo0[talk] 09:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, and not a football team for that matter, you silly Americans. --Last Malthusian 11:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge' with Robinson Secondary School. Kappa 11:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, agreeing with nom.
  • Merge to the school. At least that way the school article is one of the few that gets expanded. - Mgm|(talk) 13:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the school as per Kappa, obviously.--Nicodemus75 16:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 18:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the school. Jasmol 00:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to James W. Robinson Jr. Secondary School. ColumbusCrew29 00:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or baring that Merge with the appropriate school.Gateman1997 21:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, do not merge. Not notable (as well as the school).  Grue  18:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rohan krishnamurthy

Despite the hyperbole, which is unsourced, this artist has no entries at allmusic or artistdirect, and only 147 unique Google hits. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for the reasons mentioned above. Reyk 01:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Some kid (18 yo) who "has been called" a prodigy. I'm sure he's been called other things, too, but until he's called significant by verifiable sources, he's not appropriate encyclopedic content. Geogre 03:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Until he makes it out in the real world, he can't make it here. doktorb 05:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A promising talent. Could be the next Ravi Shankar (sp?). Until then, however, is not sufficiently noteworthy to fulfill article space policies WP:V, WP:RS. encephalon 08:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC.  RasputinAXP  T C 18:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Gatecrasher 19:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete vanity most probably. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SchMutzStaffel

Seems to be a vanity article by a band that doesn't appear to meet the music standards. Nothing I could find at allmusic, and google wasn't terribly enlightening. Their website has 3 downloadable songs, and that's it. -R. fiend 03:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scienticity

I checked this out and found that there are a good few hits for scienticity, but the majority of them make no mention of Donald Black, and those which do are mainly publicising him and his lectures and publications. I can't make out whether this is vanity masquerading as science, a genuine article which exaggerates the importance of one person, or genuine. The anonymous user Special:Contributions/24.75.97.69 has contributed to only two articles, this and Social space which also claims to have been originated by Donald Black, which article also credits him with having "invented" several concepts which, to my untutored eye, look to have been around for a long time. His web page at the university where he teaches does not make such claims. This article reads to me like original research, but I really can't make up my mind whether I am just being over-sceptical because of the gratingly effusive style of the various Black articles. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 12:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as delusions of grandeur, otherwise known as original research. Anville 15:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Anville... DoG as syn for OR... heh. KillerChihuahua 15:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR. Edwardian 00:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Saikiri 08:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. —Cleared as filed. 01:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Slim K

No articles in the main namespace link to it. Google returns less than 1,000 results. --Ixfd64 08:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, passes WP:MUSIC if the article is correct. Kappa 11:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strangely unverifiable given the degree to whcih notability is asserted. From Handel und Hanse [25]: SLIM K., Gewinner der Rudi Carrell Show. Er ist in Tunesien ein großer Popstar und kehrt ... mit seinem neuen Programm zur Handel & Hanse in die Hansestadt zurück. However, beyond winning the contest on the Carrell show, there is little to suggest that he really is much more than an extra in movies and a Michael Jackson imitator. I can find no references to his being a Big popstar in Tunisia. Also google searches on Slim K with terms like Rudi Carrell [26], Musiker [27], Popstar etc turn up very few hits. Delete therefore, pending evidence that this is more than just a vanity/promo page, either self-written (likely) or by an agent. At the very least, it needs to be wholly rewritten. Dottore So 13:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:22, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Social space

Pseudoscientific theory, possibly original research. Listing here for basically the same reasons as scienticity above. Anville 15:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. "Social space" is a term loosely used, primarily in psychology, not merely this narrow "concept". KillerChihuahua 16:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR. Edwardian 00:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, not-widely-accepted social theory. I don't think it's OR as such, since it comes from a book cited in the Donald Black article (but for some reason omitted from this one). And I don't think it's strictly pseudoscience in the sense usually used on Wikipedia, but something more like "academic bullshit", as in the kind of so-called research that academics publish in great quantity, purportedly to explain various social/cultural phenomena. MCB 21:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Mo0[talk] 00:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sovereign Kingdom of Kemetia

Nominated as a speedy, but doesn't comply with WP:CSD. Really can't see it surviving this AFD, but we may as well go through the motions. Delete as an impressively unsuitable topic, arguable hoax, all the usual "I have just created a new micronation in my bedroom. Also, I am sixteen" issues. Shimgray | talk | 17:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (speedy if possible; I think this fit under G1 and A7 and have added tags accordingly). --Nlu 17:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN. I'll second the "speedy delete" nom as well. | Keithlaw (talk) (contribs) 17:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; should meet CSD, but unfortunately does not (G1=text cannot be understood; A7=article about a person). Let this kingdom have its 5 days of glory here Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 18:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable-unencyclopedic-advertising-originalresearch. — Haeleth Talk 18:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spondooly

Non-notable neologism Delete --JAranda | watz sup 01:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete - admitted neologism.
  • Delete: I thought that protologisms were candidates. At any rate, no doubt about this: dictdef of a idiolect. Geogre 03:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A neologism? The term Spondooly - and its variant spondoolicks, has meant money since at least the days of the Goons in the late 1950s. What's here, though, needs deleting, as it's inaccurate. Grutness...wha? 05:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Grutness. --Meiers Twins 11:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 00:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stacey Alexander

NN author whose first novel is to be released next year. Google gets a lot of results for "Stacey Alexander" but none of them seem to be this person (perhaps I didn't look hard enough, but I went through several pages of results without a relevant hit). --howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 22:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete vanity, nn bio FRS 23:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete crystal ball, nn, vanity, take your pick. Youngamerican 16:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity. Crumbsucker 23:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus = keep' (11/11).--Shreshth91 12:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Collage

Non notable, "college" is spelt wrong, virtually no content. Reyk 00:16, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No context, and yes, spelling the title wrong is a major point against. --Bachrach44 01:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Well I think it's spelled right, it's just from a different language (turkish?) Anyway, Turkish high school with no claim to notability. probably verifiable but only if you speak turkish. --W.marsh 01:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment- It's "college" not "collage". Reyk 02:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Gee thanks for the spelling lesson. I meant I thought it was an Anglicization... but everything that mentions this or the turkish name is just a mirror of WP. Seems unverifiable. --W.marsh 02:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, didn't mean to sound patronizing, I just wasn't sure what you meant. Reyk 03:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It could turn out to be a notable collage--Etyheryery 03:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NOT a crystal ball. If/when it's notable, then it can have an article, just like people and bands. --Last Malthusian 11:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: 1. Substub (CSD for empty). 2. Mistitled. 3. No indication of the school's (or the paste's) role, composition, accreditation. 4. No indication that the school is in any way fulfilling a unique or notable function. Honestly, this should have gone to speedy delete for being empty. Anyone voting "keep" on the contents as they are is either not reading the article or not voting on the article. Geogre 03:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not quite empty enough for a speedy, I think. Besides, it's been there since last December so it probably needs to go through the process regardless of how cruddy it is. Reyk 03:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn and no attempt to claim otherwise. --Last Malthusian 11:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Useful stub which establishes what and where it is and gives alternative titles, and helps to counter systemic bias. Kappa 11:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, naming a building/organization and giving only its location is NOT an article nor is it a stub. There's a difference between stubs and substubs. If we really need an article on this school, one can fill an article request so someone can write a real stub to start things off. "Amsterdam is a city in the Netherlands" isn't a valid stub either even though Amsterdam is obivously a valid subject for an article. - Mgm|(talk) 12:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you would be voting to delete Coombe, Hampshire then? Although it would be a consensus keep... Kappa
      • Well, I would, personally. The idea of voting 'keep' just to run with the crowd is ridiculous and rather disturbing. Obviously people shouldn't disrupt Wikipedia if a democratic vote goes against them, but expressing a dissenting opinion is not even close to disruption. --Last Malthusian 14:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • With what is passing for personal attacks around here these days, this is a borderline personal attack. Claiming that people vote "keep" to "run with the crowd" with no evidence, impugns the integrity of individual editor in a condescending, disgusting and offensive manner which implies both that "I know better" and that "those who routinely nominate and/or vote to delete school articles" would never lower themselves to such activity.--Nicodemus75 16:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, Kappa I would. Substubs are evil, but if someone was willing to clean them up to a reasonable stub level, I'm always happy to change my vote. - Mgm|(talk) 23:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Delete, nn school. Dottore So 12:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any evidence that this school exists and is accredited? Absent that, delete. Any arguments about notability aside, Wikipedia is not in the business of documenting things or ideas that might exist. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 12:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can't get too many hits in English but it's been mentioned in the Turkish Daily News [28] so it does appear to exist. Unfortunately their website [http:www.tedkdzeregli.k12.tr] is under construction. Kappa 13:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looking at that, my vote stands. I can't see that as enough to build an encyclopedia article upon. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 13:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah I guess we should just restrict ourselves to stuff that googles well in english and forget about building a global encyclopedia. Kappa 13:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Google isn't the be-all and end-all of reference, we both know that. That said, unless someone comes up with some solid sources, this does need to be deleted. Wikipedia is absolutely not in the practice of having articles on things that could be verifiable. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 13:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • How is it not verifiable? It's mentioned in a newspaper, it's listed with a whole bunch of other Ted Colleges here [29], it has an alumni website [30], it's real school. We don't kill African villages just because we can't write featured articles about them. Kappa 13:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Those are more solid. We do kill articles we can't verify; if someone wrote a one-liner about an African village and that couldn't be substantiated, then yes, it would be deleted. Please shelve the systemic bias accusations, as I'm really only interested in enforcing WP:V, which is one of Wikipedia's two guiding principles. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 13:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • Here you go: Bakal, Mali. See if you can kill that, or consider interpreting WP:V in a way that doesn't increase WP:BIAS. Kappa 14:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Uh, okay. Redirected to Gao (which can clearly absorb it), plus a little bit of context. I'm not sure what your point is. (Of course, any time you want to add information to Wikipedia to prove me wrong somehow, feel free. :D ) - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 14:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hm. It seems TED stands for "Türk Eğitim Derneği," which is the name of Turkish Educational Association[31], whatever that is. I don't think there's a single TED College in the same way there's a George Washington University; I think that TED colleges may be schools accredited by this program or board. For example, look at this bio; it refers to the person going to "TED Ankara Koleji". I think we should delete this article, since the information contained therein is misleading, and see if we can't find a Turkish speaker to help the school Wikiproject make a proper article about the Türk Eğitim Derneği. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 13:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It seems slightly strange that there are so few voices arguing to keep an article on a school. Where are all the inclusionists today? That said, if A Man In Black's surmise immediately above is accurate, then this article needs cleaning up to more accurately reflect the subject-matter, which would certainly deserve an article. — Haeleth Talk 13:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Give us a chance, some of us just woke up for Heaven's sake.--Nicodemus75 16:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, considering the information here would not be a start on this article, and that this name isn't applicable, I don't think there's anything here worth saving. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 13:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand into an article about the TED College system (?) or about a specific TED College in a specific area. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:16, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this verifiable high school in Turkey. Articles such as this indeed help to counter systemic bias in English Wikipedia.--Nicodemus75 16:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn Avalon 16:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.Gator(talk) 16:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this... College? Middle-to-High school? Name for a school system badly miswritten into an article about a non-existant individual school? Not enough verifiable information to even pin down what we're talking about, much less establish notability. --Aquillion 17:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. Not enough verifiable information in the article. Gateman1997 18:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and let us not attack those who speak English as a second language, it is completely uncalled for and does not help Wikipedia in any way. Silensor 19:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As for verifiability concerns, there are over 653 hits for this school which are not Wikipedia mirrors. [32] Silensor 19:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Never heard of this place so it is non-notable and should not be included. Gatecrasher 19:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC) This vote is the 3rd edit by User:Gatecrasher[reply]
    • This is an obvious sock puppet account. All edits are to AFD and this particular vote is the user's third edit. [33] Can a developer please issue a sock check against this account? Silensor 20:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...that's not what non-notable means at all, Gatecrasher. Nobody is saying that things should be deleted just because so-and-so hasn't heard of it, and I don't see that as a very practical standard to hold any article up to. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 19:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand, as per wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Carioca 20:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this high school is verifiable and important too Yuckfoo 00:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it is then please put some verifiable info in the article. Because right now the article has no cited sources or links.Gateman1997 01:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and a link to the Türk Eğitim Derneği website has been added which makes several references to this school, so it is verifiable. [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] Unfortunately these pages are not in a language I understand. Yamaguchi先生 15:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems like it verifiably exists. Christopher Parham [[User_talk:Christopherparham|(talk)]] 16:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is an encyclopedia, not a directory. Pilatus 17:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. Bahn Mi 05:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's what TED would have wanted. —RaD Man (talk) 10:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Easily passes notability test : if this school were American/English and not Turkish, there would be 100x as many Google hits / Internet references. Searching for the very specific "Türk Eğitim Derneği" Ereğli gives 278 hits, which is pretty impressive in context. Turnstep 03:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was WITHDRAWN. Haeleth replaced the neologism with a spiffy stub. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 10:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Teelin

Neologism -Rholton 16:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep these articles are easy: “The word originated in 2005 when 17 yr old ChenYanXin...”. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 17:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC) Completely rewritten article. Speedy keep as the original motivations of the nominator does not apply any more. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 19:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an article on the Irish village; I've cleaned it up and removed the neologisms. — Haeleth Talk 18:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- nice cleanup. Reyk 19:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per above. PJM 19:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the rewrite, as real places are notable. Carioca 20:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and well done to Haeleth for the rewrite. Capitalistroadster 00:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep this rewrite please Yuckfoo 00:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Many thanks to Haeleth for making this a real page. As the original nominator, I don't see any point in extending the vote. Can we end this now, or must we wait? -Rholton 05:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep for all of the above reasons. --Merovingian 05:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Coral Reefers

Non-notable acc. to WP:MUSIC, only one self-release. feydey 20:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as an A1. See also The Fairly OddParents/SpongeBob crossover (AfD discussion). —Cryptic (talk) 23:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Fairly OddParents/SpongeBob SquarePants crossover

This needs to be deleted, any info about this can be written in the SpongeBob and FoP articles, there is not enough information, also it is a rumor and nothing else, It's also likely a rumor because the year it is coming out is "2005, 2006, 2007, or 2008" Instead of writing 2005-2008. three years is pretty far off, I mean "Uh-Oh! We might make it in 2005, but look! I think we should wait 'till 2008" --FlareNUKE 01:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 18:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Nate Rowlan Project

Vanity. CDC (talk) 19:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. PJM 19:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC. As the article says: “Copies were distributed throughout the campus”. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 20:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' be gone with you doktorb 22:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete! This is an actual band, with an actual CD. The events in the article are completely true. If it needs Editing then comment on what is either offensive, or out of bounds, and it can be changed and/or ammended. Also, at leat have enough gumption to list reasons why it should be deleted. Rowlan 21:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it's explained in WP:MUSIC. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 21:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article WP:MUSIC is vague. The close connection between The Nate Rowlan Project and the community life of Evangel University should constitute notariaty. Yes there are many small bands and groups who will never sign a major label record deal, or win an award or have an top 100 song, but this does not mean that they did not exist and that they do not hold importance to any one person and/or group of people. Furthermore it is up to us (the collective society) to establish what is History. If we do not mention it, then it dies as if it never were. Because of these reasons and because of the belief that this band in particular and the album in question had an impact on a minor community, I feel that it should be allowed to stay as a source of reference for those members of the pre-stated minor community (that being the community of Evangel University). Rowlan 21:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 01:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thevap

Other articles have defaced with ads for the site, following up on that lead me to this, which seems to be another ad for the site. Falcorian 08:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Podcast that makes no claim to notability. Durova 09:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. — brighterorange (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas M. Reid

vanity page

  • Speedy delete nn-bio Hitchhiker89 18:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Agreed; it should be tagged nn-bio. I respectfully and curiously ask: why didn't you? PJM 19:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've done it now. Speedy Delete. Reyk 19:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedied — brighterorange (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trident Swim club

Non-notable swim club. - squibix 02:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Without providing the reader a proper detailed analysis of exactly what items are available at their snack bar, including prices with state tax, this article is useless ;) wikipediatrix 02:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was COPYVIO with no consensus here, so to WP:CP it goes. -Splashtalk 00:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Varadharaja Perumal Temple

copyright violation (probably non commercial)[40] but no original content. Only one real author 203.91.201.4 with a bad track record. Ben Aveling 10:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Extended due to low input. brenneman(t)(c) 06:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 00:12, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Voice Covered

Apparently an album of John Farnham covers. Appears to be a hoax. Google search for "john farnham" + "voice covered" results in 3 hits (2 of which are from Wikipedia). This album apparently has some big names; such as Tina Arena, Stevie Wonder, Tom Jones, Stevie Nicks etc, so one would expect a few more Google hits. Cnwb 22:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have listed Duets With The Voice at AFD. --Martyman-(talk) 02:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, clearly a hoax. If Farnsey actually had an album with this name, he'd tell people. --bainer (talk) 03:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 01:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vzryv

This is an unneccessary nelogism. Vzryv in Russian have exactly the same meaning as Explosion in English. Search [42] does not show many English references, mostly the transliterated Russian ones, so I do not think the term is widespread even among Stalinist polytologists. Delete abakharev 06:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neologism, virtually unknown in English. Vzryv is the Russian for "blast". If we start adding Russian words to this project, there will be no end to it. --Ghirlandajo 07:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it's a neologism. That looks just like a random jumble of letters to me. Mo0[talk] 09:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, concept in Russian politics and not a neologism, since it was coined by Stalin who died in 1953. Wikipedia is not a English-only encyclopedia. Kappa 11:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was not coined by Stalin. Kappa, you are way too credulous. I hope you don't gamble in stock markets. mikka (t) 05:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm too lazy to put "apparently" in front of everything I quote from wikipedia. Kappa 02:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • You probably wanted to say "allegedly"... mikka (t) 02:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Baloney. KNewman 12:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree, baloney. This is not even a neologism, just a word. Dottore So 13:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. This is the English Wikipedia. I can't find any evidence that vzryv has been incorporated into English, unlike, say, glasnost and perestroika. --Metropolitan90 15:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Are you saying that if glasnost hadn't been incorporated into English I would have to learn Russian in order to read about it? What if it hasn't been incorporated into Swahili? They have to learn Russian too? Kappa 16:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. But if glasnost had not been incorporated into English, hardly any non-Russian-speaking English speakers would have heard of it, and they wouldn't need to look it up in an encyclopedia. I can't find any significant use of vzryv in English-language texts (based on Googling), which means that there isn't much need for English-speakers to look it up in an English-language encyclopedia. --Metropolitan90 04:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Del. There was no special Stalin teaching about this word. I, a staunch stalinist :-), am telling you. The expression "social explosion" in many european languages predates both stalin and lenin, although there is some interesting discussion about this in Talk:Vzryv between me and the author of "vzryv". (No, he is not Stalin :-) mikka (t) 21:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep see my reasons here Talk:Vzryv, it is a term used in English literature, just not yet on google. Whether or not Stalin put special meaning in his native language to the word is meaningless, as it came over to the English in several major books on the subject as describing his form of idea about Capitalist upheaval in particular, contrasting socialist progression. It doesn't even mean "revolution" it means any change toward or away from socialism which alters a society, which is unique to the mode of great change in Capitalism, so it is not a repetition or twin concept with 'revolution.' I am not interpretating it this way, this is what the book 'Dialectical Materialism' told me, which in itself sources many English works. Google is not an end all, there is a lot of well circulated literature which has zero representation through google.Nagelfar 05:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless more evidence turns up. To me, Nagelfar's citations look like typical translator bet-hedging, not proof that this word is used in English. --William Pietri 06:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The best I can do it cite English works & books, there is nothing online, which to me, is the most valuable use for wikipedia; adding citations of uses unfindable elsewhere on the internet, among the sources I listed in English were; "K. Mehnerts Stalin versus Marx: The Stalinist Historical Doctrine (London, 1952), The New Gospel of Stalinism, in Problems of Communism, Washington, Jan. 1953. Boris Souvarine Stalin. A Critical Survey of Bolshevism (London 1939). Which use the word 'vyzryv' in an English context to describe Stalins 'Capitalist social interruption'" Nagelfar 17:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's what I was saying in the article talk page, but the guy simply does not hear, in best practices of communists. mikka (t) 06:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Although I understand you're frustrated, Mikka, that comes across as a bit snarky. Especially with formal actions like AfDs, it's important to strive for civility. Thanks, -- William Pietri 14:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think what is more frustrating is having works before you, many decades old, which cite something in a particular way, but because people only believe the internet anymore, its considered nonsense if it isn't there "first". Nagelfar 17:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • The arguments presented in the talk page have nothing to do with internet. And by the way, FUI, all Stalin's works are on internet. mikka (t) 18:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • This has nothing to do with Stalins works, it has to do with English academic use of Stalins theories putting a key Russian word therein as an English loan word. Otherwise I'd be a place for the Russian Wikipedia. Nagelfar 18:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Also I agree it is of historical interest and quite educating to present a picture how Stalin's disciples tried to squeeze water from rock and show great theoretical contributions of Stalin into the communist theory. But this particular article is not only improper, it is even incorrect. mikka (t) 18:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • This has nothing to do with "Stalins disciples", it has to do with Anglo-western academic use, most certainly NPOV if not anti-Communist, in a great many works from the '40s & '50s, based on the Russian terminology. Nagelfar 19:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • I am speaking exactly about Stalin's disciples, regardless Anglo-academics. 22:54, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
          • Sorry, Nagelfar. I went and looked again at your citations, and I can't see them other than as the very common trick in writing about translated works where you use the original word parenthetically to make it clear what you're referring to. Also, it would be swell if you could assume good faith regarding editors' familiarity with the merits of books. --William Pietri 21:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • I am very familiar with this use of parenthetically quoting foreign terms, and wouldn't have added it if I had believed it to be that this was the case. Besides however that in the instances provided being unnecessary for those ends (i. e. there is no need to clarify there), it wasn't just used "parenthetically" in that work or others, in the overall contexts of the works presented they used 'vzryv' especially, as that moment of change, qualified as meaning a philosophically based social instability in capitalist systems, but not elsewhere as a social revolution. I only took the initative to add it for it seemed rather entrenched in Anglo-American works on the subject in the late 40's & early 50's, but maybe not thereafter. So that was my reasoning. I suppose that would make it a half-century old paleologism. Nagelfar 23:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • In other words, a neologism that did not survive. If you are so sure about this, please write an article into a reputable journal, get it peer reviewed, then come back here. At the moment we have a problem of "wikipedia:Verifiability" of your theory. Especially since your article speaks about "Russian", not "English" usage of the word. As I wrote, Stalin "discovered" exactly the opposite: "non-vzryv". And I can explain you why, although this is not the place, but for the sake of archiving; may be in future I will write the article. The "non-vzryv" was invented to resolve an apparent paradox of communism. By marxist's religion of dialectical materialism, the driving force of progress, motion and development is internal contradictions in things. In application to society, this would mean contradiction betwen classes and contradiciton between "means of production" and "relations of production". Now, communism's greatest fit would be to eliminate both and to becume an ultimate, ideal form of society. But this would leave communism without drive to progress (and you know, Marx turned out to be right after all!:-). For this reason it was necessary to invent another, non-catastrophic philosophical driving force of change. That's what Stalin's invention was about. mikka (t) 00:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Udalit' not verifiable neologism.  Grue 


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

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 01:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Western Sydney IT Cluster

Advertising cruft. The only entries in the list with pages are Advanet, currently up for Speedy, and Galexo, created by the same user as Advanet and this page, also adcruft. KillerChihuahua 15:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Anville 15:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalistroadster 17:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The buisnesses involved may not deserve their own page, but the initiative is run by the NSW government and seems to have a lot of members. I would say this is worth keeping. --Martyman-(talk) 23:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Adcruft, as Killerchihuahua said. Reyk 23:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this is interesting information and there is no reason to erase it now Yuckfoo 00:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.Gateman1997 03:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if consensus is "keep", should have the list of companies removed and a cleanup tag added: this aricle was created by an editorial group who have been banned en masse for SEO entries; as the article is it is adcruft, but if the group is determined noteable certainly it should stay and be improved. KillerChihuahua 12:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have now remove the list of companies from the article. --Martyman-(talk) 20:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no sources --redstucco 09:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, the website of the initiativ eis linked to on the page. --Martyman-(talk) 00:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN. From precedents : Malls and shops are not generally notable, Small companies are not generally notable, all thats left on this page is advertising. Agnte 23:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not a mall, shop or small buisness. It is a government initiative. I agree the article is crap but that is not a good enough reason to delete it. Show me the precedent for deleting government initiatives. --Martyman-(talk) 00:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 01:35, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What is a number system

Delete essay. --Trovatore 06:16, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also copyright violation. http://www.hal-pc.org/~clyndes/computer-arithmetic/computers.html. Speedy delete. (And a tag has been added for that.) --Nlu 06:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I took off the speedy tag based on my understanding of the criteria, because it doesn't look to me like hal-pc.org is set up to make money off the content being duplicated. Of course if I'm wrong, go ahead and speedy it. --Trovatore 06:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • hal-pc.org appears to be a profit-seeking venture (ISP), so I'm going to add the speedy back on; any additional reason why it shouldn't be back on? --Nlu 06:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, part of the A8 criterion is "Material is unquestionably copied from the website of a commercial content provider (e.g. encyclopedia, news service)". An ISP is commercial, but not necessarily an commercial content provider. If all it sells is bandwidth, then I don't think it qualifies. --Trovatore 06:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's also from a personal site hosted on hal-pc.org, not by the isp itself. See clyndes' main page. Regardless, delete this even if the author grants permission; this wouldn't even make a useful redirect. —Cryptic (talk) 16:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Whether it's a copyvio or not is a moot point. Number systems are already covered elsewhere, so we don't need this essay. - Mgm|(talk) 13:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wolodymir Dushko

Wolodymir Dushko

Google hits: [43]

Most likely a fictional character.

  • Appears to be a hoax. Delete abakharev 08:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 14:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • My nomination. Delete Fisenko 00:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hoax or vanity page. Author seems to want it gone too. jni 11:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was transwiki to Commons. Think that's the best course of action. - Mailer Diablo 00:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Woodrow Wilson Bridge/pictures

Somebody's collections of images of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. The bridge is already adequately illustrated in the main article. I'm voting to delete due to consensus policy, WP:NOT: Collections of photographs or media files. RJH 18:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the page, obviously. However, as these images are related to the author's work on wikipedia, I would support a move in his user space. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 20:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Commons. - SimonP 02:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until such time as the photos are transwikied to commons, then transwiki to commons and link from the article. --SPUI (talk) 21:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zap! FM, streaming all formats, playing almost every type of pop music

Blatant spam. We really need a speedy deletion criterion for this sort of article. Reyk 03:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Rediculous title. Gets a total of 696 google hits. Reads like spam. --Interiot 03:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. total advertisement --Comrade009 03:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advert. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence of notability presented in article with the final line mentioning the station. Capitalistroadster 04:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete With Haste - advert spam. doktorb 05:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's some possibility that this is actually a legitimate conventional radio station — at the very least, there's an FM frequency noted in the logo on its webpage. Wikipedia policy does permit articles on real AM or FM stations, but unfortunately I personally understand maybe fifteen words on the entire page: four of them are names of streaming audio software, and the other 11 are stray bits of English. If somebody who reads Dutch can confirm that this is a real FM radio station, and can clean the article up, I'll vote to move to Zap! FM and keep — but if that doesn't happen, then I vote to delete. Bearcat 07:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Really odd title, reads like an advert. jni 07:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, article is about Formatted and non-formatted radio, there's nothing to move to a page on Zap! FM. All I could find was that it's local and its frequency, but as of yet that's not enough to make a viable stub. Drop a note at WP:RA if we must have an article about it. - Mgm|(talk) 13:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disclosure: I'm a Dutch user and can read the website Bearcat was referring to. - Mgm|(talk) 13:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zap! article as per Interiot Descendall 19:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_14&oldid=1081093058"