Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 October 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 21 October 23 >

Purge server cache

October 22[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Titoxd(?!?) 06:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1st Klass Music[edit]

Non-notable: 1 Google hit that may or may not be the same outfit. Mwanner | Talk 14:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable. Mwanner | Talk 14:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --MacRusgail 17:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Insufficient context to establish notability. TheMadBaron 04:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. From the article, it sounds like they're not even producing new music, but compilations of oldies. It belongs in a business directory. TECannon 09:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedily deleted as nonsense. - Mailer Diablo 06:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

20th Century Fox slogans[edit]

This one is strange... It's obviously not a real reasonable subject for an article, so I was going to merge it with 20th Century Fox. But the slogans include 1940: "We Get Hard", 1945: "We're Getting Round", 1960: "Never Our Way to Go". They seem really unlikely, and they get no Google hits. If anyone thinks they're for real, by all means, merge. (PS, the same anon has written four other equally strange articles, all within 20 minutes on Oct 9. -- Mwanner | Talk 23:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As per nomination. -- Mwanner | Talk 23:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chickety China the chinese chicken

  • Delete per nomination. The contributor's other "slogan" articles can be found at [1] and they all look worthy of deletion. --Metropolitan90 23:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I should also note that the Columbia Tristar articles by that same author are now on CSD, so I can't see why this isn't tagged as such... Wcquidditch | Talk 17:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, possibly Speedy as vandalism. This goes for the rest of them too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. Verification issues aside, this is a totally unencyclopaedic article. Eddie.willers 00:57, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. Fox used slogans to promote its films not itself. The only slogan of any note is "Fair and Balanced" which is associated with Fox News. Capitalistroadster 01:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this content as an unverifiable hoax. However an encyclopedic article with this title could have its place on Wikipedia, similar to Coca-Cola slogans. Pburka 01:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Metropolitan90. Saberwyn 07:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --JJay 13:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Metropolitan90, if not speedy delete. These slogans seem a bit iffy to me, and could very well be a hoax. (Is it me or is there lots of hoax articles on AfD lately?) Wcquidditch | Talk 17:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

4-Inch Subwoofer[edit]

This must be a hoax. There's no evidence supporting the release of this album. --Maitch 23:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and there doesn't seem to be any evidence whatsoever of this "up-coming" event. Masterhatch 10:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hardly encyclopedic and contains too much speculation. Cool3 23:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete; would be encyclopedic if it didn't stink so much of a hoax. Of the six non-Wikipedia Google results, only one has anything to do with Aqua, and it's on a forum. User:Purplefeltangel/sig 03:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 06:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax, though possibly an unintentional one. This is unfortunate because I've always liked Aqua. Oh well. Apparently an MP3 from a similar band is going around mislabeled as an Aqua track... not a big surprise, that's happened to every song from Toybox, for example. Also seems unlikely that an album to be released so far in the future would have a complete tracklist already. Even on the very very slight chance that this is true, we should wait until it's more verifiable and less speculative. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A poor man's[edit]

dicdef (if that) Flapdragon 20:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Anville 21:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - bad dicdef. It is not used exclusively in sports either. --MacRusgail 21:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yep, I wasn't thinking when I created this... Moderator, please delete this thing swiftly --Hossmann 23:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Masterhatch 04:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or perhaps transwiki to Wiktionary. It's in somewhat common use, but it's not really article material. --Idont Havaname 00:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Deletion review nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was to delete text of Pokemon-related article. Keep recently created "possible replacement article" on abandoned ships in games in general, as no deletion debate occurred on that topic or content. Snowspinner 06:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned Ship[edit]

  • Delete - Gamecruft. The article with this title could be something a lot more notable.--Atlantima 21:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-encyclopedic JoJan 20:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 06:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. When List of locations in Pokémon (or more likely List of locations in Hoenn) is made, it will mention this. Probably a one-liner. In the meantime, delete this. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 08:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, at least until List of locations in Pokémon is made we shouldn't take this away from people. Kappa 09:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I started List of locations in Hoenn to include this location, without bothering to use any of the nascent information contained here. Can we delete this useless cruft now? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 10:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is it part of the deletionist plan to drive away contributors of information they don't like by insulting their input? Kappa 10:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • TINC, "deletionist" or otherwise, and, again, labels like that are needlessly divisive.
          Frankly, I do feel this article is near-useless and certainly cruft; it isn't even notable in the context of the game in which it appears. (It's an optional dungeon with no significant items or Pokémon contained therein.) Even given that, I'd have voted to merge this article (or just closed this AFD and merged it myself) if there was any content to merge.
          If the author weren't an AOL anon (I checked), I'd welcome him or her to help us at the Pokémon Wikiproject, just like three other contributors that have gotten a username and joined after my invitation.
          Next time, try assuming good faith, please. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 11:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Kappa, please explain how this is any less a personal attack than the one you whined about? -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't like seeing good-faith contributors driven away by insults, if that causes me to appear whiny so be it. Kappa 18:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm all for having Pokémon articles in Wikipedia, but this really isn't notable enough for its own article, especially as it is now in List of locations in Hoenn. Sonic Mew | talk to me 13:28, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect so that people looking for it will be pointed to the list. - Mgm|(talk) 15:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - too much pokemon stuff already! --MacRusgail 16:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; I'm not convinced even redirecting is worthwhile for such a generic term. — Haeleth Talk 23:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recreate the article as a stub. Abandoned ships appear in dozens of video games; there's at least one in TLOZ:Wind Waker, several in the third Final Fantasy on Game Boy... — stillnotelf has a talk page 00:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as to general for redirect (and because above noted lists already carry mostly non-notable information). Jtmichcock 05:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. If anyone objects, revert me and re-open the discussion. —RaD Man (talk) 06:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Academia del Perpetuo Socorro[edit]

Page is filled with nonsense, I am not a student at the institution so I can't cleanup the article, if anyone has accurate information about the school, please consider cleaning up the article. Miguelfp1 14:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • may I suggest going to the school's website? www.perpetuo.org
  • Delete per nomination. - Miguelfp1 14:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup - remove the nonsense (ie all but the first par) and it's not that bad. Naturenet | Talk 16:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup: If it is a real institution it seems to have some notable alumni and is wortwhile. However, needs a ton of work. Powers of i 17:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's clean now, and it just needs expansion. --rob 00:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep it is an important school with notable alumni can we stop doing this again and again please Yuckfoo 19:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep nice cleanup.--Nicodemus75 22:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I know I nominated for deltion, but the cleanup was very nice, I couldn't do it myself because POV could be argued (Is tudy at one of the "rival" schools). Miguelfp1 22:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Thank you Miguelfp1. If you come across another school in the future you can add the template "{{cleanup-school}}" instead of nominating it for deletion or add it to one of the Wikiproject Schools pages. Silensor 00:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and close now, clear consensus has formed. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Careful, the deletionists haven't weighed in yet - we wouldn't want to be accused of trying to "engineer" consensus now, would we?--Nicodemus75 01:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this school has a sufficent number of notable alumni even if it isn't notable itself.Gateman1997 20:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this school is in fact one of the more prestigious high-schools in Puerto Rico, and has quite a few notable alumni. I am by no means an expert on the school, so the one famous (non-actor) graduate that comes to mind is an ex-Governor of the island, whom I will add in a sec.
  • Keep. Significant non-non-notability established.--Centauri 06:36, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 08:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aenor de Châtellerault[edit]

Subject is not particularly notable, except for who she gave birth to. Copied from genealogy webpages. Missi 05:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion; I can't find a copyvio. —Cryptic (talk) 07:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - would say woman is also notable for who she was married to. Rather have this kind of stuff than the Pokemon fad. Add "wikify" notice and stub --MacRusgail 16:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I wikified what was there. It reads like a good stub now. Anville 18:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep At that time duchess was a rare and high title, so she's roughly equivalent to some later queens. Honbicot 23:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Member of one of the most important European families of the twelfth century. Chick Bowen 03:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Anville, Honbicot & Chick Bowen above. Unfocused 03:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alberta Angels[edit]

Yet another fantasy team and likely vanity article, though in this case the author fails to even spell the name correctly. Chris talk back 17:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, as with the rest of the teams. Canada has a separate version of "football" of its own anyway. --MacRusgail 19:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Holderca1 22:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn at best, hoax at worst. I'm in Alberta and know no such team. 23skidoo 23:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • (pssst skidoo...it's a fantasy league...) Bearcat 10:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This Cyberspace Football League thing has been sitting around un-AFDed since APRIL?!?!? Bearcat 10:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge. Radiant_>|< 00:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alma (Lolo)[edit]

nn character in a video game Delete --JAranda | watz sup 01:18, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this and the rest of the Lolo enemies. As much as I appreciate Sivak's contibutions to Eggerland articles, individual pages on these characters aren't needed. KingTT 02:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, recurring video game characters. No reason to take this information away from people. Kappa 09:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, they can't be merged into the main game article. Besides, we've got articles on recurring enemies from Super Mario (i.e. Goombas). While this game is less popular, the characters shouldn't be treated any different. If they cannot be expanded, you can make a list of enemies and minor characters from the game by copying the information to a new list and redirecting the original article. - Mgm|(talk) 14:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable and wiki not an instruction manual. Marskell 14:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect the characters' pages into Eggerland series characters or something like that. They are useful but too insignificant to keep on separate pages. Andrew pmk | Talk 15:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per Andrew and per existing policy. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:52, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per Andrew pmk. — Haeleth Talk 23:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep recurring character from a long (12-game!) series by a major publisher. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AMD vs Intel[edit]

While there has been much ink spilled about AMD and Intel, I don't see how this article could be developed neutrally, benchmarks tend biased. Additionally there are many strong competitors in any marketplace, do each of those need to be listed? Ford vs GM, Microsoft vs Apple -- Reflex Reaction 16:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete For reasons given above, though if not deleted i Weak Keep/Move Blainstar's edits show some of the potential of the article, but the rewritten content it should be move to a more neutral title such as Comparison of AMD and Intel processors -- Reflex Reaction 16:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC). updated 20:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV currently without emperical evidence and stating that one processor will be better at something is likely to be a gross oversimplification/generalisation. Can't really imagine how it can be improved. chowells 11:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Articles like this are inherently original research. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 12:52, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research and inherent overgeneralization. People who need to compare them should read the articles we have on the individual processors or let themselves be informed at the reference desk (or better yet in a shop). Articles like this are unlikely to ever be neutral. - Mgm|(talk) 15:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as inherently POV, and as chowells this is a vast oversimplification of the topic...--Isotope23 19:28, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete overgeneralised original research --Alynna 20:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There might someday be a need for an article like this, akin to SCO v. IBM, but not at the moment. — squell 00:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral As it stands the stub is less than useful, on that basis I do not disagree with the editors above. However, the concept bears promise as an expanded article. It needn't be original research: if you take a look at published sources such as older Hardware Central or newer Tom's Hardware guide you get an idea of the sort of performance information that could be consolidated here. There is no question that GHz is no longer a useful guide to processor speed, and there are so many software benchmarks that endusers have difficulty comparing them. Bringing these aspects to a single place is where a WP article can be helpful. And a completely different form of "AMD vs. Intel" article would be on their legal rivalry noted here --Blainster 09:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Expand and Keep/possibly Move. The article has been modified to show the kind of promise it may hold. --Blainster 10:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Review sites are great, but I don't consider them proper neutral or journalistic sources. For example, this incident, where AnandTech rectified benchmark results because of pressure from their readers. The lawsuit may be a notable topic in the future, but I think that is too soon to tell squell 22:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input. The AnandTech incident is a good reason for marshalling the expertise here to provide some needed education on the relative merits of performance/benchmark claims. On the lawsuit, i think it is the history of legal sparring over the years (ever since the 1986 suit over AMD building 286s) that makes it notable, not what may happen in the future. --Blainster 23:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, but could this be reworked in such detail that (compared to AMD) it would necessitate a seperate article? squell 23:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 08:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...And It's Deep Too! The Complete Warner Bros. Recordings (1968-1992)[edit]

No real information and it looks like spam. Andreww 02:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. - Andreww 02:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like my listing this page was an error. My vote is changed to keep but the page should be moved. Andreww 06:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Its a Richard Pryor greatest hits album of some sort. A messy article, but savable.—Gaff ταλκ 02:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, probably rename. but there is some greatest hits collection of Pryor with with this name [2]. I think ...And It's Deep Too! might suffice... or maybe And It's Deep Too!. gren グレン 03:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep cleanup and expand. This is a box set of Richard Pryor's comedy albums. WP:music states that compilations are not necessarily worthy of retention although I don't necessarily agree with it. However this compilation won a Grammy in 1991 albeit a technical one [3]

and Pryor is a notable comedian. Capitalistroadster 04:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have expanded the article significantly. No change of vote from Keep although although it should be moved to And It's Deep Too as per user Gren. Capitalistroadster 05:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep album (well, ok, collection) from major artist. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to the more useful namespace. 23skidoo 14:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Capitalistroadster and rename to more useful title. - Mgm|(talk) 14:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep valid article on a Richard Prior album that happens to be quite funny. Don't know how the nominater thought it was spam. Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 19:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, rename to something better, and expand. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 06:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Rename to what? Flowerparty■ 16:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete (4 deletes, 1 keep).--Scimitar parley 18:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Baio[edit]

Non-notable guy who runs a blog and is starting up a web-site. delete. —Gaff ταλκ 23:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Vanity. --MacRusgail 17:00, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. "'Andy Baio' waxy" has 58,300 results in Google. "Andy Baio" also has relevant Google news results. Plus, he's not "starting up" a website. He created a webite that was acquired by Yahoo!. How much more notable can you be? StarryEyes 08:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if the only thing he's done is create a website not notable enough to have an entry, he's not notable enough for me. Rd232 talk 08:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn bloggers.  Grue  18:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Vote. Still undecided, however waxy.org is definitely notable in the blogosphere as a link aggregator. I was surprised it doesn't have an article yet. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Venell[edit]

nom&vote delete. Non-notable young digital artist with very few works in his profile and very few references to his works in the media as evidenced by poor turn-up on google search. —Gaff ταλκ 23:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nominator. Vanity page and nothing noteworthy from Googling. Eddie.willers 01:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. TheMadBaron 06:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --MacRusgail 17:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN. *drew 06:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Tanoesoedibjo[edit]

Non-notable. Fails Google test[4]. Delete. utcursch | talk 13:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AnimeTronic[edit]

None notable webcomic, whose site seems to be down, here. A google search reveals nothing to assert notability, the top link is of some other entity named animetronic. Hahnchen 16:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Dragonfiend 19:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --MacRusgail 20:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing to indicate that this is not just another website with limited readership and influence. --Allen3 talk 20:41, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom Tony Bruguier 21:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not encyclopedaic; no verifiable assertion of notability consistent with usual Wikipedia standards for websites. See User:SCZenz/Webcomics for more on this. -- SCZenz 22:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Bliszko[edit]

  • Delete: Google search for Anton Bliszko returns 7 hits, none relevant. Possible hoax article? Varitek 09:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Powers of i 17:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Probably not a hoax - two poems listed at forwardpress.co.uk - but nothing else to suggest notability. TheMadBaron 04:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Art Food Fun[edit]

I believe it to be advertising, discovered it under DotCom People category which was inappropriate and under many other inappropriate categories. From the history it appears to be the work of one user apart from some minor corrections. Not encyclopedic Jamesmorrison 21:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. - Jamesmorrison 21:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I notice half their products have "snake oil" in the title too! :) --MacRusgail 21:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please Do Not Delete - Comment I was providing information on my business to the international internet community, I searched many other business articles and used many of the same things that I found on their wiki pages. I did not think I was doing something incorrect by copying the templates and ideas of many other business wiki pages. If I have made a mistake, I would please love to know what it is so that I can rectify the problem immediately. I worked long and hard to find and verify all of the information that I put into this page. Please advise instead of deleting. I do not wish to offend or break any rules. Snak Oil IS the name of my most popular product. I do not think a product name would be grounds for deletion? I admittedley do not know what categories to put my business' wiki page under as it encompasses so much. How id the entry not encyclopedic? I have included everything on the subject except for my business's address, and product pricing (which even I beleive would be advertising, and thus; innapropriate). I was also not aware that a person making an entry was supposed to not enter all of their knowlege into the database upon editing a page if said information did not exist in the article. Was I mistaken? I have modified the article to adapt further to the rules as I understand them. All news articles are verifyable by any person by calling the companies that printed the articles or doing a search at the Springfield public library's news archives site. I would love some assistance please. I may be contacted at kryistina@yahoo.com if anyone would like to give me additional advice. - Kryistina 21:39, 22 October 2005 (CST)
    • Kryistina - I didn't vote to delete (not yet anyway), but I thought "Snake Oil" was quite an amusing name for a product.--MacRusgail 16:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notwithstanding the comments from Kryistina, I fail to see how this comes anywhere close to WP:CORP. Furthermore, for the life of me, I can't understand the obsession of small business owners to have an advertising page on the wiki. Wouldn't you rather have potential customers go directly to your website where they might actually buy something? --JJay 16:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advert. It's also from a non notable company. chowells 18:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn, advert. MCB 20:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Atomicy[edit]

Band vanity, fails WP:MUSIC (demo in progres). Chris talk back 19:28, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Basic Equation of law of Conservation of Information[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now.

MuthuKutty's comment on tagging the article was "suspicious article, cannot find anything on Google. Wikified." What I found was this forum thread in Chinese. Scroll down to the 09-10-2005 20:12 post and we find the first half of the article, posted by the author of the paper whose abstract it is. So I'm going to call this a weak delete, not-yet notable. —Cryptic (talk) 07:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete looks like original research or a hoax. chowells 19:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research with no academic standing. /Rjayres 23:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as OR. No apparent academic support or reference. MCB 18:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete looks like OR. If cited, obviously I'd change my mind. -- SCZenz 00:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep (5k, 2d, 1m), with a bunch of sock-puppet votes discounted.--Scimitar parley 18:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Battlestar Pegasus[edit]

As much as I love the series, do we really need to have a page on here about the ship? We already have pages for every single ship that ever appeared for more then two frames of film in Star Trek or Star Wars, are we going to have pages for every single ship that ever appeared in Galactica too? Non-notable. AlistairMcMillan 18:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. - AlistairMcMillan 18:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom to avoid Battlestar proliferation. --MacRusgail 19:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge somewhere per WP:FICT — List of Battlestars or Ships in Battlestar Galactica would be good candidates. Kirill Lokshin 21:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Sorry, but the precedent has been established. But keep only if the Pegasus appears in more than one episode. I don't support articles for single-appearance ships (different incarnations of the Enterprise notwithstanding). 23skidoo 23:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So once a bad decision is made we have to repeat it forever? We already have a constant struggle to keep unverifiable information out of the Star Trek pages. Do we really need to invite this on Galactica pages too? Especially when the producers have made clear they are going to learn from Trek and avoid technobabble as much as possible, which means there isn't going to be much information to fill a page on Galactica's ships. AlistairMcMillan 23:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Per my note below, in the BSG universe, the only other Battlestar to survive was the Pegasus. Unlike Star Trek, you are simply not going to see any other Battlestars appear except in dialogue. Further, unlike Star Trek, the shows have developed four (4) episodes where the Pegasus is the central element. As the only other Battlestar to survive the Cylons, this vessel is highly notable and the entry should be kept. Jtmichcock 06:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Further Comment a Google of this shows over 1,000,000 hits. If that isn't notable, I don't know what is. Jtmichcock 06:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • You mean <bold>15,500</bold>. Nowhere even close to 1,000,000. AlistairMcMillan 05:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as the Battlestar Galactica lore, in contrast to Star Trek, only meets ONE other named ship -- the Pegasus, the only other Battlestar to survive the Cylon attack. Jtmichcock 05:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So we won't create pages on Battlestars that are seen in flashbacks? AlistairMcMillan 13:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Battlestars that are featured in flashbacks are certainly not notable enough for a separate listing. Only two from the canon survived the Cylons: Galactica (which I don't believe anyone could argue should be deleted) and Pegasus, the topic under debate. Two, and only two, survived.
        • Only two are know to have survived so far. If the series lasts seven years who knows what the producers will come up with. The Galactica page should probably be deleted too, it is already full of content that is unverifiable. AlistairMcMillan 17:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • So, you are going to put an AfD on the entry for Battlestar Galactica? I think that says enough. Jtmichcock 20:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above comments. 68.20.121.246 18:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC) (sorry, was not logged in) 18:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas Dansbury (talk • contribs) [reply]
  • Strong Keep given that there are only two surviving battlestars, the historical (old series) significance of the ship, and the story arc involving a major plotline. 70.178.99.248 23:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Because not EVERY ship in the series/fleet is to be listed, only those that are actually featured or named, and there are hundreds in the surviving fleet, this entry should be kept. SmokeyBehr
  • Strong KEEP. I fail to understand why anyone would make the argument "there is too much information here," let alone why anyone would buy into it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.46.148 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep, as the precedent has been established. Carioca 04:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per precedent and significant appearence in two series. If there were a big movement to rearrange ships from star trek, this might go with it, but I don't think that'll happen. -- SCZenz 01:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per other keep votes. Caerwine 19:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete (only vote). - Mailer Diablo 08:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Gorgenz[edit]

Does not seem to be notable. The "great works" mentioned at the bottom only get one google hit each, the Wikipedia article... Thue | talk 20:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete Probably NN. Poorly written too. Devotchka 00:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bentist[edit]

It seems to be a contrived term. --Mysidia (talk) 15:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Big Green Chuchu[edit]

WP:NOT a video game strategy book. --Mysidia (talk) 16:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom, and non-notable, no context, borderline nonsense anyway.Naturenet | Talk 16:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Naturenet. Also a "how to" article. --MacRusgail 17:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Holderca1 22:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think we have a list of all the LOZ monsters somewhere, but that list will already have all the encyclopedic info from this article. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 10:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 08:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Binary Star (rap)[edit]

plus a redirect (RHaworth 04:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Doesn't meet definition of notability at WP:MUSIC Tempshill 23:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Binary Star is one of the single most important acts of the Midwest. They performed with Eminem many times and have a huge following. They, along with their lead MC OneBeLo, are one of the single highest selling acts among acts with independent distribution. They've been offered many major record deals, but choose to stay with their home base. They are simply too important a name in hip hop to be deleted. Frank Longo 03:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. THey have an allmusic entry here: [5]. I believe AMG counts (or at least should count) as part of "major music media". THe article needs some formatting, however. --FuriousFreddy 05:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 07:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup as per Furious Freddy. Have released two records according to Allmusic.com. Capitalistroadster 09:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Notable. - Sensor 11:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable. --Holderca1 20:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. --Der Sporkmeister 09:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BinaryIdiot[edit]

Wikipedia is not an advertising vehicle; In addition, the wikimarkup source content of the article is incorrigible, with <p>'s everywhere. --Mysidia (talk) 16:41, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete speedily, platform for a link (never mind the terrifying markup). Wyss 16:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --MacRusgail 18:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per nom. --Holderca1 22:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Jtmichcock 05:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like some kid trying to learn how to use HTML, the page has no useful content, and it looks terrible to boot. ♠DanMS 04:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was dealt with as copyvio. - Mailer Diablo 08:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BizTalk Server[edit]

Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. --Mysidia (talk) 17:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks like copyvio of [6] and [7] anyway. Waterguy 17:28, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then please follow the procedure in Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Always look to apply Copyright Judo to corporate blurbs and advertisements. Uncle G 17:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, it seems obvious that the article in question is a copyvio, then. Perhaps this article is really a speedy candidate now? Marked as CV. --Mysidia (talk) 17:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Biztalk Server is a real Microsoft product which I am sure meets the criterion of notability. Content to be changed if copyvio -Ravikiran 18:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This product warrants an article, albeit a much more wikified and encyclopaedic one. Remy B 15:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Afd is not just about whether a subject merits an article, it's about whether this content is useful, and it's not.. it's just an advertising spew.. should be deleted.. --Mysidia (talk) 16:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Umm. Problem solved. Just put a redirect to Microsoft BizTalk Server -- Ravikiran 15:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BlazeDVD[edit]

Advertisement. --Mysidia (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bojiwassis[edit]

It seems to be a contrived term; no dictionary listing, 2 google hits. --Mysidia (talk) 23:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom.--Alhutch 00:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nonsense. Pburka 01:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax/neologism. chowells 12:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - dicdef, and should be on Feline language wikipedia anyway. --MacRusgail 17:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I asked the cat next door, and he had not heard of it either. MCB 21:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted by Charles Matthews as nn-bio. --GraemeL (talk) 14:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Bolton[edit]

  • Delete Appears to be vanity. No related google hits - Forbsey 08:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete hello A1, A7. --JJay 13:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cassius (Robot)[edit]

It's a personal essay on a robot from Robot Wars. --Carnildo 06:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable (and sad) Niz 09:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as personal essay. A robot from Robot Wars can be notable, but they either should've made it into the semi-finals or have a serious following outside of the show. Finalist and notoriously destructive bot Hypnodisc is a robot for which I would support a non-essay article. - Mgm|(talk) 15:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. And I thought I was "sad"! Totally non-encyclopedic to boot. --MacRusgail 19:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Throw it halfway across the arena, pick it up, fry it, and delete. TheMadBaron 03:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --JJay 12:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Celeste Marie[edit]

non-notable advertising for somebody wanting to become a porn star. Internet porn site advert. delete. —Gaff ταλκ 02:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and speedy as nn-bio. CambridgeBayWeather 10:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Perhaps we need a porn wiki to be started up. --MacRusgail 16:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Also, a porn wiki is the best idea I've heard all day. Anville 17:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There already is a wiki porn portal, listing lots and lots of porn stars. This, however does not loook to be a porn star, but somebaody starting up their own site and wanting to use WP as free advertising.—Gaff ταλκ 19:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Some of the unlikely/obscure (and probably physically impossible except for a small minority of professional contortionists) sex position articles could go there too. --MacRusgail 19:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Must be the picture affecting my brain, but I'm voting Keep. Per her website, the woman has appeared in Playboy, videos, etc. Seem at least as notable as many of the unknown actors already on the site. --JJay 12:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chaff City[edit]

Delete this non-notable webcomic, defunct after only a year and a half (Dec. 2003 - June 2005). It has no Alexa ranking at all. A Google search reveals only 112 results, most of which seem to involve an unrelated Australian city with a horse racing track. Article itself makes no claim of notability, explaining only that this is a defunct webcomic with an author and some characters. Dragonfiend 19:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --MacRusgail 19:21, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing to indicate that this is not just another website with limited readership and influence. --Allen3 talk 20:58, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Dragonfiend's thoroughness. Eddie.willers 21:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. chowells 12:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as above. - Hahnchen 14:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nothing especially interesting about this comic. The closing admin should also see User:Snowspinner/Webcomics, as I believe myself to be a subject expert on the matter of webcomics, which should be given due weight in closing this debate. Snowspinner 22:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep (2k, 1r, 1m).--Scimitar parley 18:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charles K. Johnson[edit]

This artice contains no new information, all information in the main Flat Earth Society Article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.111.129.114 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. This sort of problem calls for a redirect, not a deletion. —Cryptic (talk) 07:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He is crazy enough to have his own article. Tintin 13:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a "president and energetic promoter of the International Flat Earth Society" should have a seperate article on him. Flat Earth Society should be about the society, not him. - Mgm|(talk) 15:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Article about president of very very small society (despite their grandiose claims, this is a small society we're talking about), with very little information does not merit an article of its own. If there was more information on who the guy was, something about his life and not just his role in the society, then it would be appropriate to devote an article to him. --Qirex 12:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirected to Age of Apocalypse. This article has no useful content, and that article already mentions this (minor, alternate-universe) character. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 08:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Lehnsherr[edit]

An X-Men storylines stub. Fubar Obfusco considered it "nonsense?". R. fiend deleted it. I consider it a valid stub and have restored it. -- RHaworth 02:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete I'll respectfully disagree with RHaworth regarding the disposition of this article, insomuch as it seems to be a good match for WP:CSD Section 1.3 article 1 (eg, db-empty) speedy delete candidate, both because of the lack of content and the size. Once you trim out the conversation, it's barely a one liner in its current form. Barring that, delete of course. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ChemAxon[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. Delete, one sentence + an external link for a company = spam in my book. —Cryptic (talk) 07:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry Cola Studios[edit]

Supposedly A lesser known of the large film studios. I can't make sense of it, but unknown to google spells hoax to me. --JJay 00:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --JJay 00:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the info from Cman below, the page may now be a speedy delete as an attack and/or vandalism. Consensus has also been reached so going the five days may not be worthwhile. The problem is that the article is likely to pop up again. Admins? --JJay 20:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold on...Before deleting, may be worth some investigation, such as looking through a book on history of film-making or something more formal than a google search. Article poorly written, but fixable if can be verified as a real studio.—Gaff ταλκ 01:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well there are no hits either through print.google.com, Amazon text search, or the NY Times and LA Times archives. A bit strange for a film studio. Also strange that no location was provided by the author. --JJay 02:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if we are doing to depend on what verifiablity can be found from internet sites, without digging through archives from libraries, etc (which should probably be the responsibility of the submitter of the article), then by all means...delete.—Gaff ταλκ 07:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable as per JJay. The article claims "The studio lot was built in the 1920's and was one of the first active film studios. It had a diffrent name them but the lot was the site of some of America's most treasured early films. After the great depression, the studio closed." If the studios had a different name when it was supposedly most notable, that is the name we should use if it is verifiable. Further, the article does not state any films, actors or directors associated with the studio at that time so it would very hard to confirm in any case. Capitalistroadster 03:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax or at best unverifiable. --Metropolitan90 04:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. *drew 09:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons as per Capitalistroadster - good application of the 'Duck Test'. Eddie.willers 12:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax on grounds that if this - "the largest square feet of studio space on the east coast" were true it would be verifiable. Plus claims to have had related items on Ebay, which would surely show up in Google. Rd232 talk 12:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable. Ebay items should Google. Also, even 1920s studios have films in the IMDB. The fact it doesn't Google tells me it doesn't exist. IMDB would have it listed if it made even a minor film. - Mgm|(talk) 14:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete extremely wierd hoax article. Since much of the article deals with supposed Cherry Cola Studio shirts, and even specifically states that the shirts are valuable, this article may exist to support a collectables scam of some sort. Note also that a movie studio being called "Cherry Cola" in the 20s simply doesn't ring true. Cherry Coke is from the mid-80s, and studios from that era simply weren't named things like that. Though I'd genuinely like to know what the deal behind this article is, it's zero-Google level shows it's a hoax as written, so it must go. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm a huge film buff and I've never heard of this place, plus I agree it is unverifiable, and lack of reference in the IMDb is the key here. I agree that the Google Test is not the be all and end all for either proving notability or existence, but odds are someone would have posted something about this place, considering the article claims it was active in the 1990s. Also, unless the Coca-Cola Company owns it, odds are such a place wouldn't be allowed to have the name "Cherry Cola" anyway since that's a registered trademark for Coke. 23skidoo 23:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is, as Gaff says, reasonable to expect the submitter to cite whatever references they're working from. No cited references + no Google results = non-verifiable. — Haeleth Talk 23:19, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unsourced, unverifiable, probable hoax. No supporting facts (places, dates, films). MCB 18:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete,I can put an end to this discussion. This article is blatenly wrong. We were alerted that this type of thing may happen. Flyers have been showing up at local universities claiming to have "Origional Cherry Cola Studios Clothing" and they they will be avliable online. They aslo tell the same basic story as the article. A google brought us here. I sm co-owner of Cherry Cola Studios. (yes Virginia, there is a Cherry Cola Studios) Let me set this article straight. First - we dont make films and never have, Our business is to rent out high end video equipment mostly to local film students. We are a small A/V supply company, We do not create sets nor do we have uniforms and we do not provide crews of any kind. The building we are in was built in the late 1970's at the earliest and was a warehouse before we moved in. As far as we know, *no* films have ever been shot here. Also, we do not have a "gift shop" nor do we give tours They would be very short (Here is the office, here is the storage room, thanks for comming) We do not make clothes nor sell them and never have. Nor do we intend to. Also, Ebay has been notified that this most likely is some attempt to gather value for some worthless t-shirts by some college kid. We have not been in business since 1980 or whatever it said. We have been around just over three years. Please delete this article as it is not even *remoetly* acurate nor was it created or authorized by us. If you see an offer for cherry cola clothing on an auction site, please report it to the auction company. I hope this clears things up. BTW Skidoo... The Term "Cherry Cola" is not a trademark of Coke, but you were prob thinking of their trademark on "Cherry Coke" We apoligize for the inconvienence and we already have a lead on who the t-shirt pusher is. This article should be deleted without question. Thank you. Cman 24:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or maybe speedy) per Cman. Barno 18:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no sources cited or supporting facts. See Wikipedia:No_original_research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. --BenjaminTsai 23:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chio Bu[edit]

Original research +/- neologism. Ifnord 11:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak keep. About 2000 Google hits each for "Chio Bu" and woman ; and "Chio Bu" and beautiful. Neologism claim is iffy. Neier 11:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not a neologism, just a translation, making it a foreign language dicdef. I don't speak Hokkien, but "mujer bonita" yields 59,300 Google hits, because that's the Spanish phrase for "pretty woman"; it doesn't need a Wikipedia entry either. Delete. --Metropolitan90 00:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Point taken. Changing my vote to Delete. Neier 06:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Chio - meaning pretty and Bu - meaning woman reads like a dictionary definition. Pilatus 12:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Anetode 13:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - dicdef --MacRusgail 18:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a valid Hokkien term and is used by most teenagers (mainly Chinese) in Singapore. I myself use this term too in informal conversation. However, this is surely not appropriate in Wikipedia as it is a dicdef. *drew 01:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep rewritten version. - Mailer Diablo 09:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Choco Orta[edit]

Delete per nomination. The reasons that I'm nominating this page for deletion is because it seems more of an advertisement by EXCLUSIVE WORLDWIDE MANAGEMENT, then an article. NPOV, Fax Numbers, e-mail and newspaper reviews Tony the Marine 15:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and cleanup. Google thinks that this she is a notable Puerto Rican musician, but the EXCLUSIVE WORLDWIDE MANAGEMENT ads and the Spanish translation should be removed. Andrew pmk | Talk 03:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If this guy needs an article someone can write one from scratch. This one is utter crap. -R. fiend 22:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting. Needs more eyeballs. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 08:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She may be notable enough in a few years, but not quite just yet. Bwithh 09:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment Allmusic.com shows her as having released a couple of albums see [8]

This music of Puerto Rico article indicates that she is fairly significant in their music industry. [9] This Latin Beat magazine article states that she has performed overseas including in France [10]. In my view, she is notable enough under WP:music but this article is of little value in its current state. I would vote to keep a decent stub. Capitalistroadster 10:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I stubified a large article, and I suggest people look at the old version before they vote, since the current version doesn't include most of the details (which I haven't had a chance to verify). Also, I won't complain if somebody undoes what I did, and works with the old version. I might have gone to far, but I didn't see the old content being a good basis for an article. --rob 11:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well done to Rob for the rewrite. Capitalistroadster 11:19, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a squeaker, and a case could be made either way on this, since so much of the "press" on her is purely promotional. But, the CDs, minor film roles, and touring can be beleived, even if the hype is discounted. --rob 11:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep recycled version. Alf melmac 12:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with the rewrites. --MacRusgail 16:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep the rewrites and expand them further down the line. Thanks for your work, rob. --Jacquelyn Marie 03:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas Newb[edit]

NN neologism. Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. — Davenbelle 02:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and add context. Term seems to be in actual, if limited, use. Might want to link to related concepts such as Eternal September. Ilmari Karonen 02:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia isn't a slang dictionary. NN neologism. --W.marsh 04:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism as per above, also article is unverifiable, npov: says Christmas newbs are thought of "Being excessivly profane or racist."--Kewp (t) 04:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Also original research. Ifnord 11:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - doesn't even put the thing in context, e.g. what a "newb" is. --MacRusgail 16:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism, better suited for Urban Dictionary --Icarus 21:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neolog. Add any useful info to Newbie. Youngamerican 01:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN neologism. TheMadBaron 04:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no concensus. - Mailer Diablo 12:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Coconut monkey[edit]

A trolling attack on Wikipedia. Only one tiny nugget of information keeps this from being speedied, which is that it references a supposed method of trapping monkeys that has seen extensive usage over many decades as a metaphorical figure. However, this article does not cover the metaphorical usage (except employing to insult Wikipedia) and does not provide any citation for it as alleged fact. There is nothing here worth saving. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per own nom. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - but remove anti-wikipedia information. It resembles a technique used for trapping monkeys in Africa using holes in termite mounds. --MacRusgail 18:58, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nonsense. A coconut monkey is indeed a real thing though: a monkey figure carved out of several coconuts and widely available as novelties in tropical tourist shops and beach areas. A specific 3D coconut monkey is used as a mascot for PC Gamer magazine. When this article is deleted, a real article can easily take its place. I suggest deleting Wikipedia:Song/Coconut Monkey too, which seems to be part of the same thing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete utterly useless for the time being. Powers of i 02:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've never heard of this technique and a source would be required. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • one found at [11] which seems to verify the metaphorical use
  • Delete, unencyclopedic nonsense. MCB 20:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least as disambiguation perhaps? There seem to be three meanings of this phrase, all distinct. One is the idiomatic use reported (and now cleaned up to explain it AS an idiomatic use and include the similarity to the termite mound report), a second is the tourist shop novelty meaning, and the fact that monkeys are trained to throw coconuts down from trees to harvest them in South Asia is a third and more obvious real life meaning. There is also a well known mathematical problem involving monkeys and coconuts in its usual explanation. As for the mention of Wikipedia eating brains, judging from the fact that you all above seem unwilling to fix an article with minor problems, and describe simple humour as an "attack", and advocate taking a censorial approach to gentle mocking of Wikipedia that you would not take towards gentle mocking of Britannica, perhaps your sense of humour and of fairness has already been eaten? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.112.2 (talk • contribs) 12:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was not an "article with minor problems". It was a piece of shit with one minor scrap that would be best salvaged by incorporating it into a good article, like Trapping, instead of this piece of shit. Even if it was "simple humour", the article's POV statement that "Since the monkey will not use his brain, the hunters will happily make good use it for him" would not be appropriate for Wikipedia. The comparison following between these monkeys and "any addict" is, to put it mildly, just fucking stupid, not to mention original research. The statement following that, directly comparing Wikipedia users to those monkeys who have already been judged to have more value as food than as living beings, is in no uncertain terms an attack and an insult. There is no point in "cleaning up" this piece of shit; whatever tiny fragments of value were included (by accident, I'm sure) in this steaming heap should at best be salvaged into other articles, ones that weren't written as trolls. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment (no vote). This little tirade is not exactly the best way to welcome anonymous users to Wikipedia... please watch your wikiquette and assume good faith. Thanks. --Jacquelyn Marie 03:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed the POV/OR portion. Now perhaps we can all vote (calmly) on 142.177.112.2's suggestions? --Jacquelyn Marie 03:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC) Oh and PS: Weak keep. --Jacqui ★ 23:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and could do with some cleanup. I have read about this practice, but can't remember the source or details. A bit OT, but where I come from, the phrase monkey's fist is used an idiom for someone who is very stubborn. Tintin 11:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The practice of making coconut monkeys should alone qualify this article - it is apparently a common enough practice to warrant pc gamer using it as their mascot. i remember the coconut monkey mascot and was certainly intrigued to discover its origin.Kwalka 07:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Columbus Warthogs[edit]

4 Google hits suggests this is not a real team. Chris talk back 17:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Holderca1 22:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article seems to mix up whether it's real or fake, in fact. Delete as nonsense. -- SCZenz 01:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Costa Rican beer[edit]

The text of the article is about one brand of beer, not Costa Rican beer in general. It reads like an advertisement, at that. The beer could be mentioned at Imperial#Things_and_Products, but this article should be deleted or replaced with one about beers and brewing in Costa Rica. -- Super Aardvark 19:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 07:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertisement. - Sensor 11:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unsalvageable POV, misleading title. Nothing word keeping. - Mgm|(talk) 15:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --MacRusgail 16:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to Cross-country equestrianism. - Mailer Diablo 10:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cross Country Jumping[edit]

OR, basic duplicate of Cross-country equestrianism User:Purplefeltangel/sig 19:28, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclic Multiverse Theory[edit]

This article appears to be an alternative cosmogony created by the article's author. A Google search yeilds one hit -- a Web forum discussion where the author apparently first posted his ideas last year. The article's author and only editor has no other pages to his credit. See the Talk page for details. Shouldn't this article be moved to Wikibooks, at the very least? Ahasuerus 01:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kmarinas86 02:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)There are other places where I have posted this. They go under the name of Cyclical Multiverse Theory or Fractal Universe Theory, or just "Fractal Universe". I'll consider the possbility of moving this article to Wikibooks. First I'll need to figure out what that is.[reply]
Wikibooks is a place where all kinds of open-content non-encyclopedic texts (manuals, textbooks, etc) can be posted -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikibooks for details. I am not sure if they have more specific rules, though, so it may be prudent to ask around first :) Ahasuerus 03:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Niz 08:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research. WAS 4.250 13:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research. Andrew pmk | Talk 15:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--Kmarinas86 10:21, 22 October 2005 (UTC)The article Cyclic Multiverse Theory was copied into Wikibooks (page not book): http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cyclic_Multiverse_Theory[reply]

  • Keep - pseudoscience apparently though, and I have slapped a neutrality warning on it. --MacRusgail 16:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to the three pieces of evidence that it's original research: 1)Pseudoscience with no mass following, 2)Self-references in the article to "the author" and Kmarinas86, 3)Kmarinas having effectively admitted it's original research in this discussion. The Literate Engineer 16:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--Kmarinas86 17:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)Psuedoscience... ok, because I am not able to come up with actual data of my own. that's why I resort to proposing certain things in order to explain present day cosmological problems - without doing mathematics i'm not capable of, eventhough I find mathematics relatively easy. I don't see how it would become psuedo science just because it's new or presents an alternative. But I think it may be psuedoscience in any case, if no one accepts it. Or perhaps because its pseudoscience, it's not accepted. Is that almost the entirety of the criteria? It appears that's how the word psuedoscience is used. No matter the degree of it, I suppose most believe it requires "no explanation" other than that it is "original research" with no credentialed scientists involved, nor interpreted at the time of a real experiment's completion, making it "psuedoscience".....[reply]

--Kmarinas86 18:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)Never mind my madness... I'm going to move it to http://academia.wikicities.com/wiki/Main_Page[reply]

  • Delete as this has already been moved elsewhere. On a side note, wouldn't this be a hypothesis and not a theory? It appears the prediction have not been proven yet...--Isotope23 19:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a hypothesis if never tested; a theory if at least one verification has been made. So, looks all hypothetical.

--24.167.40.92 20:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)The problem is that the experiments that would have verified, parts, of it have already been done. My hypothesis so for is to be compatible with that knowledge, as if the hypothesis were decided before the experiment was done (and verified in this sense). Experiments, for example, include those about: Redshift of Distant Galaxies, Missing Mass Problem, and the Nature of Distant Galaxies.[reply]

--24.167.40.92 20:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)However, I know that not all of it is proven yet, and some of it is not provable or disprovable, yet. So is it conjecture? Yes, because some of the things it predicts haven't been seen yet. It is it a theory? It "predicts" a few things which have already shown to be the case - but that was after the fact. I haven't discovered all of its predictions though. So with time, I may be able to find more ways as to how this can be verified or debunked.[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 10:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Đã trao chữ yêu tới em[edit]

Vanity, mostly links to author's web site Neier 11:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Diverted Traffic[edit]

Non-notable. While they may go far eventually, the only google hit I got was their myspace page. Delete.-- Syrthiss 13:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. and WP:Music. - Sensor 14:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Powers of i 17:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The band only formed last month. A little career advice for budding musos.... make some music, promote it, become successful, and have your own wikipedia article, IN THAT ORDER. TheMadBaron 04:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

There is also a record label of the same name which is far more present in the music industry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.66.141 (talk) 22:44, 24 December 2007 (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 keep and move to Ian Duffell. - Mailer Diablo 12:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Duffell[edit]

Clearly NN. Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. nn-bio. -- RHaworth 05:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Not quite speedy. And I think there is agreement that CEOs are notable, specially of big companies like Virgin Group. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 20:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Move to Ian Duffell.--Holderca1 20:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Holderca1. IMO he was also in charge of Virgin's expansion into the Asia-Pacific market which is a tough and a competitive task. --MacRusgail 21:28, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep cleanup and wikify plus move to Ian Duffell. That is where people searching for information on him will look. He is a notable businessperson with outside interests see [12]Capitalistroadster 00:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article has been added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Australia. Capitalistroadster 00:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it stands, due to no clear claim of notability, and no links to him from other articles. I have wikified the article, but it did not demonstrate notability. Comments above suggest the person may be notable, so my vote will change if the article is fixed to demonstrate notability. --Scott Davis Talk 05:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Capitalistroadster. Many articles on this guy, thus verifiable public figure. --JJay 12:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep amd move -- Ian ≡ talk 03:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Move to Ian Duffell. Garglebutt / (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Move to Ian Duffell. Looks notable enough to me, tho' that may be because of rewrites since (for example) Scott took a peek at it. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Move to Ian Duffell. Replace with dab page. Rich Farmbrough 11:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 10:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Rauschenbach[edit]

Article gives no assertion of notability other than simply "being the wife of". Aecis 20:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC) After MacRusgail's excellent additions to this article, I change my vote to keep. If it is possible, I would like to withdraw the nomination. Aecis 21:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep - Would consider her to be extremely notable, particularly in the development of some of Jung's theories. This article should definitely be expanded (I'll have a go), as she did not play a peripheral role in my view. She was also a noted psychologist in her own right, and expert on the Grail legend.--MacRusgail 20:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Flapdragon 20:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have a copy of Jung's autobiography somewhere and will scout this out to see if any further info can be added. It would be nice to see her in an independent light, but I do wonder whether the article should be called "Emma Jung" or not. --MacRusgail 21:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Dlyons493 Talk 21:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but move to Emma Jung. I've read that Grail book! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep MacRusgail's excellent rewrite establishing her notability and move to Emma Jung. Capitalistroadster 00:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 10:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Energy spectrum[edit]

This article does not make any sense to me. IMHO I don't think anybody uses the term energy spectrum in such a sense. In my opinion, energy spectrum is synonym for frequency spectrum (due to E=hν. However I am not sure that someone in some applied science does not use this term. This is the reason I didn't directly redirect this. If nobody clear this I will. Vb 09:29, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and Expand, more detail is required, but I checked it up through my own idnvidual research and found that this term does in fact exist, so it is relevant and notable as an encyclopedic entry (see boys and girls if it were not for this article we wouldn't have learnt about it!) you find further info here: [What is the Electromagnetic Spectrum?] and [Energy Spectra]. Piecraft 14:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 12:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Er, that's embarassing. Listing for real this time. Still no opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 07:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Expand It needs work but it is relvant — Preceding unsigned comment added by DV8 2XL (talk • contribs) 02:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and Expand. A Google search for "energy spectrum" gets 884,000 hits see [13].

An Academic Search Premier search for the term in academic papers came up with just under 1500 references. It seems that this term is in wide usage in the scientific community. 17:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ephraim Ben-Uri[edit]

I believe this article is based on facts. --User talk:80.58.6.235 (the user that has been constantly adding nonsense to the Ephraim Ben-Uri article, as well as vandalising this page and my personal page. --Dan East 20:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]

I have submitted this article as a candidate for deletion because the article does not assert the importance of this individual. --Dan East 21:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've had to add the deletion template back, as it was reverted. This article is complete garbage. Take a look at the history. It did refer to an individual that was supposed to be a general, and had various activities up to the current date. Now the article is supposed to refer to someone who was killed at the age of 19, back in 1986, and who was honored by Reagan. I believe the entire article is pure fabrication. I cannot find any information whatsoever about Ephraim Ben-Uri via Google either. --Dan East 03:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion, though the mention near the end that he's a three-star general kept me from immediately tagging it as a speedy. —Cryptic (talk) 07:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry about that. I couldn't find any instructions on the page listing the delete templates. --Dan East 01:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - should every 3-star general get an entry? no. Niz 09:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Something tells me this is a hoax. Can't find him on Google anywhere. And look at the edit history. Lots of weird stuff in there. - Sensor 11:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find this person mentioned anywhere else. I think it's just a vanity page/hoax. Tom harrison 13:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - NN and seems to be wife hunting. --MacRusgail 16:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn bio. Current version of article would be speediable as CSD:A7, but previous edits weakly asserted notability. MCB 18:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete under A7. Currently about a 19year old cadet who supposedly died in an exercise at West Point. One Google hit for "Ephraim Ben-Uri" see [14] and it relates to kosher places in Spain.WP:V. Capitalistroadster 04:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • NN, D. ComCat 00:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this unless someone replaces it wih something verifiable. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 12:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Deletion review nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Either a test or nonsense in all revisions. -Splashtalk 04:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

EvolutionArt[edit]

Minor website...I think. Article begins EvolutionArt is both an article on the Wikipedia site, and a web-based art installation. The wiki architecture of the site means that the article can be added to, edited and reinterpreted by anyone' and then morphs into a short rambling philisophical treatise. Joyous (talk) 14:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete this silly, patent nonsense. Ifnord 14:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Thue | talk 21:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Expectacular[edit]

Google shoots blanks, thus this supposed fish is a Hoax. Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Seems like a hoax. Can't find anything about this being relating to the Dopefish, or fish at all. Delete with great expectacularity. --W.marsh 03:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and as speedy nonsense. CambridgeBayWeather 10:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as unverifiable nonsense. - Sensor 11:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletacular ho-ho-hoax. Alf melmac 11:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hoax. No hits on FishBase either. - Mgm|(talk) 14:52, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Possible speedy as A1. --JJay 12:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per Sensor Tedernst 18:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fat Cat Online[edit]

A reasonably new webcomic, found here. It's 17 user forum can be found here. No assertion of notability in the article, or can be found on google. - Hahnchen 18:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, to avoid proliferation. --MacRusgail 19:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Dragonfiend 19:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing to indicate that this is not just another website with limited readership and influence. --Allen3 talk 20:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not encyclopedaic; no verifiable assertion of notability consistent with usual Wikipedia standards for websites. See User:SCZenz/Webcomics for more on this. -- SCZenz 22:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now with a STRONG lack of predjudice against future recreation if the comic continues - comic has a reasonably good art sense, and has a certain indy comix groove to it that is at least somewhat promising. If the comic develops to over 50 strips of length and gets some attention from a syndicate (Which I consider plausible), it should be recreated. The closing admin should also see User:Snowspinner/Webcomics, as I believe myself to be a subject expert on the matter of webcomics, which should be given due weight in closing this debate. Snowspinner 22:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted by Joy Stovall as attack/A7. --GraemeL (talk) 17:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fdz[edit]

Hoax, vanity or both Naturenet | Talk 16:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Someone's beaten me to it. Suits me. Naturenet | Talk 16:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep and cleanup. - Mailer Diablo 12:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Food groups[edit]

Very little content; apparently created and vandalised moments later by the same user --Gurch 14:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Radiant_>|< 00:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Forge Road Bible Chapel[edit]

Apparently non-notable church MacRusgail 19:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. Pilatus 22:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, significant, verifiable, and NPOV. JYolkowski // talk 23:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete needs more on notabliity to not be churchcruft Youngamerican 01:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all verifiable churches.--Nicodemus75 02:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's an age-old copyright violation and has been sent next door to WP:CP. Pilatus 11:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Churches, like schools, are not inherently notable. Denni☯ 01:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why on earth would you vote on a nomination that has already been sent to WP:CP? Try reading WP:POINT for a change.--Nicodemus75 02:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • To prevent re-creation of what is an article on a small evangelical congregation? Pilatus 12:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you, Pilatus. Exactly my reason. Denni☯ 19:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not encyclopedaic as far as I can tell. -- SCZenz 00:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to McAfee. - Mailer Diablo 12:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Foundstone[edit]

This seems to be little more than a buisness card. Tom harrison 22:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Friends Stand United[edit]

This sure looks like a vanity page to me, Maybe I dont know any thing about the FSU 'gang' but I cant see any relevance Bedel23 09:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 07:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NN vanity article. - Sensor 11:41, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity. There are mentions in the MSM about this group but it seems like a loose association that has yet to attract the notice of the authorities. Eddie.willers 11:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - if membership can be verified as over five hundred, and it is as widespread as stated, I would consider it notable. --MacRusgail 16:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-I agree that if membership can be verified and the article can be cleaned up, it should stay. Devotchka 00:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- I can verify that the Boston authorities are very aware of FSU and they have unofficial arrest on sight status if seen in certain areas or venues. I can also verify that membership of over 500 sounds correct as they have a presence in many states. --Nimh9 00:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

G.C/T.G[edit]

This article is a hoax. There are no references in either of the WWE's Tag-Team Championships of these guys winning the belts and no references of these guys ever existing elsewhere. I made a further study and noticed the author of this article also placed a link to this on the Knox Grammar School article, which was later removed by suspicion a few months back. --Oakster 15:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Generation Sound Machine Experience[edit]

"small local band" whose CD may well not be released, according to article itself MacRusgail 17:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

George Delaportas (qtgeo/DJ RaZieL)[edit]

Vanity page with no assertion of any notability. User has removed a {{userfy}} tag once already.

KEEP IT I don't understand why you want to delete this page.The guy is PERFECT! and above all he is a VERY GOOD scientist! Have u seen the links? For God Shake. I think you are jealus! Userfy and delete --Tabor 16:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete NN --MacRusgail 17:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Speedy under A7/NN. Do not userfy. Quote from the talk page: "The reason why I am introducing my self in Wikipedia is because I am a special person." Hopefully that needs no comment. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy, and, since I've just reverted the removal of the AfD tag, ban the user. TheMadBaron 03:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity page. ♠DanMS 04:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 12:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Google Search Appliance[edit]

tautology, just a link to a commercial site. GTBacchus 18:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gumachhi[edit]

It recieves no Google hits at all and so I dont believe that the conlanguage exists. Also, the information is not referenced. (Note that this is the first time I have nominated an article for deletion) --AMorris (talk)●(contribs) 07:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. --AMorris (talk)●(contribs) 07:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - apparently original research. Tamil Esperanto? --MacRusgail 16:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not only original but nonsensical. (Object-oriented human language? I'd love to see an example!) — Haeleth Talk 23:52, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This aint Esperanto. Nice catch AMorris. --JJay 12:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Cichy[edit]

Vanity page, written by editor who claims [16] to be its subject. Unusual writing style: see article. Regarding notability: 300 Google hits for subject, of which all of those I have reviewed so far appear, by writing style or contributor name, to be his own press releases and postings to various Internet forums. Delete -- The Anome 10:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, or at the very least clean it the fuck up. Seriously, I'd rather look at a jarful of smashed anuses than that article. It's that bad. I do see that Harry Cichy has been mentioned in the news a couple of times, but those articles aren't about him, he's just a spokesman for a consumer group. Most of the hits I get for him are from his intense campaign of posting all over the place. -- Captain Disdain 10:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, no assertion of notability. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 10:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this unless someone who is not on methamphetamines can rewrite it. Ifnord 11:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn. *drew 11:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NN crank/vanity article. Googling his name comes up with a number of BB posts by him and anonymous posts about him, all about some incomprehensible paranoia he has about Maytag and Hoover. See, e.g., [17] ("Some of the Maytag representatives wear FBI- sytle [sic] ear pieces." Uh-huh, sure.) - Sensor 13:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable and vanity issues abound. Sliggy 16:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as per Angr. Yuk. Flapdragon 20:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as per above. This article made me start twitching uncontrollably. I think I better go lie down now. 23skidoo 23:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete writtern by the subject (Wikipedia:Autobiography). If he's notable, someone else will write him an article sooner or later. Also many style and POV issues. However, I must comment that some of the editors above need to observe the WP:CIVIL guideline. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 22:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Non-voting comment from nominator: Sandy Jack appears to be an offshoot of this article). -- The Anome 09:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter And The Tomb Of The Serpent[edit]

Non-notable fanfic that hasn't even been completed yet. Delete. Hermione1980 01:19, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • An impressive one Google hit! [18] Delete CanadianCaesar 01:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. --W.marsh 01:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of significance. Fan fiction is unlikely to be encyclopedic. Friday (talk) 02:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --JJay 03:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -Greg Asche (talk) 03:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fan fic can be notable sometimes, when it's finished and popular, that is. Don Diego 08:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn vanity. *drew 09:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn vanity. Neier 11:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as sheer vanity. If we start listing every story on Fanfiction.net, we'll run out of server space with a quickness. - Sensor 11:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all fanfic unless it's world famous. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 12:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fanfic is not encyclopedic unless covered by national press and world famous. There's some Dutch kid who wrote a fanfic while waiting for the sixth book. He got significant press attention and mentions on several major HP fansites. THAT is notable. This isn't. - Mgm|(talk) 14:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable fan fiction. Andrew pmk | Talk 15:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable fan fiction. Ahasuerus 22:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to Helsinki University of Technology. - Mailer Diablo 12:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Helsinky University of Technology[edit]

Misspelled and summarized version of Helsinki University of Technology Neier 10:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Possibly redirect if this is deemed a common enough misspelling. But how many people would misspell it like this? Other than that, delete. Grutness...wha? 11:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer to the above question is 216,000 according to Google (for Helsinky alone). Despite this, delete. -- Egil 12:58, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Helsinki University of Technology. 27000 results on a Google search shows that Helsinky is either a very common mispelling of Helsinki or an alternate name see [19] Redirects are cheap. Capitalistroadster 17:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per Capitalistroadster. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 20:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect I'd be surprised if this wasn't a common misspelling. This would be a proper use of a redirect if ever I saw one. --Icarus 21:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Helsinki University of Technology - common misspelling. Also, this prevents the mistake from repeating itself. --rob 22:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above though I personally have never seen this mispelling before today. 23skidoo 23:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Unlikely spelling, but a redirect would be harmless here. Youngamerican 01:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Common misspelling. --Edcolins 19:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hiatt Baker Hall[edit]

Not notable, hardly any context. Naturenet | Talk 17:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was (presumed speedy as AfD tag is already removed) keep. - Mailer Diablo 12:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hilton Sisters[edit]

Nominating for deletion. I don't think a disamibuation page for only two people who are already easily recognizable is really necesary. --Fallout boy 02:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to my nominating for deletion, this disambig was only for Paris and Nicky Hilton. Now that the hilton twins have been added to it, I change my vote to keep.--Fallout boy 01:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Not sure if this would be better off redirecting to Hilton twins (like Hilton sisters does), or whether that should be added to this disambig. If the former, Paris and Nicky should be mentioned in a disambig line there; if the latter, this should be moved over the Hilton sisters redirect. —Cryptic (talk) 07:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hilton Twins should be a redirect to Hilton sisters as the latter term easily wins on the Google duel test see [20]

    A page is useful in case as it would be a commonly searched term and both sisters are well-known. Keep with possible move to Hilton sisters with Hilton twins redirecting to Hilton sisters. Capitalistroadster 10:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Where would the content currently at Hilton twins move to, then? The vast majority of those hits for "Hilton sisters" aren't for them, but for Nicky and Paris (who aren't twins, so a redirect from "hilton twins" shouldn't go to a disambig including their articles). —Cryptic (talk) 11:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that case, Hilton twins can be left alone but Hilton sisters should redirect to this article with the Hilton twins added to the disambiguation. Capitalistroadster 11:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep disambig. As suggested, I made hilton sisters re-direct here. I'm sure most using that term nowadays, want the new girls, and not the old ones; but it's harmless to mention them all. --rob 12:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep disambig per above. 23skidoo 14:19, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep --MacRusgail 16:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep The fact that there is another set of once famous/still notable Hilton sisters proves the need. Marskell 09:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep at this point. --Jacquelyn Marie 03:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no concensus. - Mailer Diablo 12:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hunspell[edit]

Does not appear to be a notable program. —Gaff ταλκ 05:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, though this needs expansion and some cleanup. AFAIK Hunspell replaced MySpell in OOo 2.0 (I think, I heard someone rambling about this, could be wrong though), and if MySpell has a nice extensive article, Hunspell deserves one too. --Wwwwolf 10:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this convoluted piece of nn. Ifnord 11:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ifnord --MacRusgail 16:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A presentation from September 2005 OpenOffice.org Conference announced that Hunspell was going to replade MySpell in OpenOffice.org, see this PDF. OpenOffice 2.0 wasn't released then yet. I don't understand, if Hunspell is in OpenOffice 2.0 yet, though. [21] Even if it isn't, you should keep this article, because you have kept an article about Mozilla Calendar, the Calendar's version number isn't more than 0.2. Both programs are future promises from notable open source projects. -Hapsiainen 18:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hapsiainen. I wikified it and added a link to the PDF Haps. mentioned. Chick Bowen 03:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete (5d, 2k or 71% delete).--Scimitar parley 18:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Alright[edit]

This does not seem to meet the proposed guidelines in Notability and Music Guidelines. Hidden tracks, and songs about suicide are perfectly common. A Google reveals mostly lyrics pages. squell 23:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. squell 23:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no reason to deprive users of information about this song. That page you linked to doesn't discuss deleting songs. Redirecting to the album would also be possible. Kappa 00:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"There is consensus that the vast majority of songs do not deserve an article specifically devoted to them.". A better place to put this information is in Freek Show. squell 00:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes it already appears to be in Freek Show. I repeat, the article says nothing about deleting songs. Kappa 00:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This was not a single, has not won any awards and has not had any notable cover versions. The information is already on the Freek Show article where, in my opinion is where it belongs. I generally support articles on songs but they have to have at least some claim to notability. Capitalistroadster 01:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't you think there should be a redirect to help people find it? Kappa 01:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Album track from notable artist. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should Wikipedia contain seperate articles for each album track from a notable artist? squell 01:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, very few songs are notable enough for articles. -- Kjkolb 02:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is nothing here to warrant a seperate article. TheMadBaron 04:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A far better known song of this title exists, recorded by Kenny Loggins as the theme to the movie Caddyshack. That one is far more worthy of an article than this one. Grutness...wha? 01:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Squell and CR; apparently nothing new to merge. Do not redirect this title to the Freek Show article, as per Grutness there's a more notable song with the same title. At most, disambiguate. Barno 18:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Innopath[edit]

Ad. Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Heh, the IP that created this is pretty blatently owned by Innopath if you fish around for 5 seconds. Nevertheless, is this company notable? 29,000 google hits. They claim to have sold their technology on 60 million handsets. That seems to mean they meet a basic guideline for company notability. I can't really figure out how to vote at this moment, since the article was obviously written as self-promotion by someone with that company. --W.marsh 03:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: we shouldn't have to make a good article just because a possibly notable company spammed us. Someone can always write a good article later. -- Kjkolb 05:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as copyvio of this [22]. It is notable enough under WP:CORP as there are external sources of information available through Google news [23] and [24]. According to this Yahoo! Profile, they were formerly known as DoonGo Technologies and was founded as a dot.com in 1999 see [25]. Capitalistroadster 06:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not a speedy candidate because innopath.com is not a comercial content provider (like an encyclopedia or magazine). Kappa 09:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If not, why do they place © 2005 InnoPath, All Rights Reserved on their page. --JJay 12:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ad. *drew 09:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advertising. They probably "copyviod" their own text, so a speedy is not appropriate, but keeping isn't either. Feel free to put it on Requested articles with a few source links if you think it should have an article. - Mgm|(talk) 14:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 12:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Trinkle[edit]

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Wisgary's comment on tagging the article was "Personal bio, recommended for deletion". Being a department chair is enough to keep me from trying to get it speedied, but no opinion on the afd; I haven't researched. —Cryptic (talk) 07:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep a more substantive article should be written. Google Scholar is thin on the ground: [26]

but his homepage is more forthcoming [27]. He's Professor and Chairman of Department of Computer Science, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute which certainly passes the average professor test. Dlyons493 Talk 13:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Head of department at large university. I was going to do some cleanup of notable RPI professors in the near future, I'll add this to my list. JZig 21:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Appears to be copied from Trinkle's home page. If Trinkle put it up himself it's not a copyvio but he needs to say so in the article/talk page. Chick Bowen 03:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect (5r, 4d).--Scimitar parley 18:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jocular[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. Delete, will never be more than a dictdef, and already in Wiktionary. —Cryptic (talk) 07:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unless someone sees the chance to add a thorough and interesting etymologic explanation to this article (which I really doubt), this will never grow beyond the dicdef stage. Delete. -- SoothingR 07:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • An etymology would belong in the Wiktionary entry, too. —Cryptic (talk) 08:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as dicdef (and not a very good one, either). --Sensor 11:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to joke. Science3456 19:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominated squell 20:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the joke article. 169.157.229.87 16:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to joke. Earthling37 03:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to joke. The word jocular is discussed quite well in the joke article, and it relates to jokes, so it should redirect to joke. 64.200.124.189 03:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to joke. jocular is an adjective that relates to joke. CarDepot 17:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Johanessen Leow[edit]

Not notable. A search on Google yields zero result. Delete. *drew 09:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No context, nn. Impaciente 17:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Se7en. - Mailer Diablo 12:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Doe (Se7en)[edit]

This article contains no information that isn't already available in the primary Se7en artice. Unless it has the potential to be expanded significantly past what is already in that article, and past the point where further information could easily be incorporated into the main article, there is no reason to have this separate article. Icarus 21:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Se7en or in the alternative delete. Per WP:FICT this character should be discussed in the article about the movie. --Metropolitan90 00:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no vote recorded. - Mailer Diablo 12:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kapow Records[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 07:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - the company's roster can be gleaned from their downloads page: Alleged Gunmen, Almighty Do Me A Favor, Central City Transmission, Killer Dreamer, The Leeches, Lipstick Pickups, Thee Make Out Party!, The Starvations.... anyone care to assert notability? TheMadBaron 04:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Radiant_>|< 00:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Koga-ryu/rough[edit]

At first glance, I don't know what this is supposed to be. Looks very haphazard. Could be a draft for some article that was meant to be in user namespace (as suggested by "/rough"). (But if so, why not stub?) I say userfy (if necessary) then delete. Wwwwolf 22:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I took maybe a bit more time than a quick glance at it. (The external link was very helpful to help me make a first guess.) It's an article about a school (ryū) of ninjutsu, with the original article being ja:甲賀流 (Kōka-ryū, Kōga-ryū); it was probably machine-translated, explaining the hap-hazardness. According to the article ninja, the article should be titled Kōga-ryū. The “/rough” likely is a non-standard transliteration of “ryū” (major school). I would say categorize, stubify, move, and retranslate.—Wing 23:52, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about it a bit more, perhaps "/rough" does mean "rough draft". Perhaps the current title means “a rough draft of an article on ‘Koga-ryu’”. The article is not mentioned in the original contributor’s user page, though, so perhaps he/she has forgotten about it.—Wing 00:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment needs major cleanup, then renaming. Probably no need to delete. Fg2 01:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up - I see some improvements have been made. My Japanese was not good enough to work out what the original was about, but I think that this seems a worthwhile topic if some of our Japanese speakers can make a better go of it. --MacRusgail 16:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (default keep) (6d, 4k), with one keep vote discounted (anon vote).--Scimitar parley 18:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Life on Forbez[edit]

Non notable keenspace comic, found here. Is there any sort of notability? Apart from some comments on webcomic toplists linked from the article, I can find none. I think it was one time a part of the graphicsmash community, but I'm not too sure. Google search seems to throw up a lot of random webcomic crosslinking places, and nothing else. - Hahnchen 18:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, where to begin?

  1. No reason for deletion stated
  2. Deletionist did not even bother to open this discussion
  3. Deletionist did not even state identity here, it was User:Hahnchen
  4. Deletionist is a known mass submitter for deletions [28]
  5. Deletionist failed to follow Wikipedia Guide to Deletion

All in all I propse the following:

Note that format for article is closely based on that of Count Your Sheep. Thus:

  • STRONG KEEP 85.164.86.246 18:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I recommend, some patience. As in waiting for me to finish the nomination, before asking for me to be speedily evicted from wikipedia. - Hahnchen 18:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Tag was added at 16:23, 22 October 2005, and I opened this page myself at 18:28, 22 October 2005. That is a period of more than 2 hours. 85.164.86.246 19:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Yes, it was a long time before it was completed, I was busy with other nominations and other non-wikipedia stuff. But you checked my contribs, so you should have known that I knew about the afd process. To be honest, I wasn't that bothered about someone creating the page, but was bothered over what you had to say about it. ie speedily remove the tage, and to evict me from the wikipedia house. Normally, if you find a broken afd listing, it's better complete the nomination, and then to put your argument rather than just posting some rash statements. - Hahnchen 13:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Hahnchen has complied now I think, and the critic was also unregistered. --MacRusgail 19:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you wish to delete this article? Factitious 23:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How has he complied? He even fails to note that this article was initially created by following the existing edit link on Graphic Smash. Stating I think it was one time a part of the graphicsmash community, but I'm not too sure shows he has not even bothered to read the Wikipedia article on Graphic Smash. He asks for notability without even checking the links in the article under the heading Awards. The reason Google does not show up much is that the web comics has moved home several times and also been a subscription comics in the past, thus less coverage. This is not impressive. Moreover I cannot see being unregistered is a disqualification anywhere. Can you? 85.164.86.246 19:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - One of the main reasons for nominating it for deletion was the fact that I DID check the external links in the "awards" section. They're not awards, they're forum posts on webcomic toplists. Every webcomic ever has that. I'm also against the, "once appeared on some network = notability" stance. It's like giving every band who has ever been signed by the most minor of labels an article. - Hahnchen 13:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Some people may be inclined to discredit an unregistered user in an AfD vote. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#AfD_etiquette. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 20:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Dragonfiend 19:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A handful of comments on two different web-based forums hardly qualifies as reliable sources when trying to show that this is something more than just another webcomic with limited readership and influence. --Allen3 talk 20:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. NN web-comic. It's a shame these getted added as they're obviously close to people's hearts and it often offends when we have to delete. Marskell 09:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This comic is sufficiently established. Though the author moved it to his own site fairly recently, it was on Modern Tales. I agree Hahnchen was overzealous on this particular nomination. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 16:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It looks to me like some comics on Modern Tales would be notable, and others wouldn't. Without consensus-approved guidelines designed to address such things without half an hour of research for each AfD, I don't think we can take its presence there as evidence. -- SCZenz 22:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Duly noted. My vote remains unchanged and I still believe Hahnchen made a mistake on this one. I'm not fond of the deletionist attention webcomics have received lately, but this one strikes me as an error as opposed to a philosophical difference. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 18:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not encyclopedaic; no verifiable assertion of notability consistent with usual Wikipedia standards for websites. See User:SCZenz/Webcomics for more on this. -- SCZenz 22:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - comics associated with Modern Tales and other professional webcomics syndicates are notable. The closing admin should also see User:Snowspinner/Webcomics, as I believe myself to be a subject expert on the matter of webcomics, which should be given due weight in closing this debate. Snowspinner 22:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is Modern Tales really 100% professional? I see it has some free comics and some subscription comics, so it's hard to tell. That's why I think we should spell such things out in the guidelines--but we have to agree on them to use them. We shouldn't have to be experts to see that a comic is notable; this should be spelled out in the article. Incidentally, you might look at Wikipedia:No original research#The role of expert editors for Wikipedia policy on what expertise counts for; the answer is not a whole lot, unless reputable sources are cited. This is sometimes time-consuming (something I've experienced plenty on physics articles), but it makes the encyclopedia better. -- SCZenz 22:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • And I would not pretend that my say-so should be taken as a valid source for content addition - but deletion debates are a different matter - subject experts ought be taken seriously when asserting notability of a subject, I would think. And yes, Modern Tales is a professional site - it is Joey Manley's business. A given MT artist may have other jobs, but MT in general is a professional operation, the contents of which are notable. Snowspinner 23:00, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • The site as a whole may be professional, but I would still want more information about the particular artist. It also depends on how many comics are on the site, and what its criteria are for inclusion. I don't know that within an AfD is the appropriate place to discuss such questions in detail—rather, the ongoing work at WP:COMIC is. Regarding expertise and deletion, if someone was deleting a physics article, I would put up a couple of links to places the concept was discussed in peer-reviewed journals. I realize that Modern Tales may be nearly the closest thing that exists to a peer-reviewed journal in webcomics, but I don't think it qualifies as a reliable source in the same way under Wikipedia rules. -- SCZenz 23:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you want to have the discussion on WP:COMIC, fine, but it seems absurd to declare that notability issues that haven't been settled there are somehow invalid to discuss here - the article is up for deletion now. Do you propose to table the discussion until we have inclusion guidelines? As for Modern Tales, they are selected based on their merits by the editor of the particular site - in the case of Graphic Smash, that's T Campbell. Snowspinner 23:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Your point is well taken. So why did this comic move? It seems to have moved from a hosting service that might very well have made it notable, to one that doesn't (unless it's in the top 25). Where we should consider it as being from depends on why it moved, how long it had been there, etc.--so what's the story? -- SCZenz 23:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm not sure yet - it's something I'm looking into. But I'd like to err on the side of caution here. My guess, though I'm not certain, is that erratic updating made it unsuitable for a professional operation like Graphic Smash. I don't know of any other cases of strips going down from notable syndicate to Keenspace offhand, which is itself kind of notable. Snowspinner 23:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • While most comics on Modern Tales are notable, I don't think the least read comic on Modern Tales is automatically notable. Same goes for a comic that may have experienced 15 seconds of fame with a brief association with the Graphic Smash site. Is every failed sitcom pilot notable? Is a band automatically notable if they sign to a major label but then their album tanks? My vote remains "delete." Dragonfiend 23:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I would think few would object to an article on every television series to have aired on network television, considering that WP:NOT explicitly advocates articles on every individual episode of some of them. Snowspinner 23:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • I think my vote will have to remain as is, at least if you're right about the unsuitability due to updating irregularities; that would undermine the whole reason that Modern Tales would be a standard of notability in the first place. -- SCZenz 00:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • I'd just like to say that my feelings on webcomic syndication and notability are already covered in WP:COMIC. I'm against the any membership to a syndicate = notability guideline as suggested. It would be the same as saying any signed band to the most minor of record labels would get an article. OK, GraphicSmash as an entity may be notable, but how notable are the individual comics? I reckon that most people would refer to the syndicate over a specific comic, on the lines of "I'm reading graphicSmash", over the specific comic. - Hahnchen 17:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • You reckon completely and 100% wrong. I have never in my life heard of anyone refer to reading "Keenspot" or "Graphic Smash." Snowspinner 17:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Maybe that was a bad example phrase. But the point I am trying to make, is that graphic smash is way more notable than the individual comics that make it up, unlike say a record label. I doubt people would pay just to see 1 particular comic, but look at graphicsmash and say, "now, hey! There's a collection of not too bad comics that I wouldn't mind reading." Which is why I think that just because a comic has appeared on xxx syndicate, doesn't mean that it's notable. - Hahnchen 20:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                    • In my experience it is generally one or two comics that get people to make the purchase, and then they stumble upon more from that - for me it was Digger on Graphic Smash and Narbonic on Modern Tales. Snowspinner 21:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I have known people who've paid because of one comic, and found out about others that way. I started subscribing to Graphic Smash mainly for Digger, Killroy and Tina, and Fans (the webcomic), but I've been introduced to many other good comics through it. When you make claims like the one above, it makes it look as though you don't really know much about Graphic Smash. Factitious 23:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An important webcomic, and one which we should have useful information about. I've known of Life on Forbez since well before it joined Graphic Smash, and would consider it notable even if it had not been associated with the site. Factitious 23:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Webcomics are a small field. Thus, it is possible for a webcomic to be notable within the webcomic field, and yet be unverifiable notability-wise outside. This comic fulfils the guidelines on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Webcomics and its inclusion in wikipedia in no way harms wikipedia itself. If in doubt, don't delete!--Fangz 01:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. WP:COMIC is still just a proposed guidelines. And isn't "notable within the webcomic field" different than notable for inclusion in a general enyclopedia...? What this harms is our internal consistency, and possibly WP:Verifiability, if you're claiming it doesn't have to be verifiable. -- SCZenz 02:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 12:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lifestyle anarchism[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 07:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

you may want to examine the talk page for some context as to why this article was nominated and for what may be wrong with the article. several editors and i have been in a dispute with the editor who nominated the article for some time; Chuck's reasons for nominating the article are given there in the nominated for deletion section. --Heah (talk) 03:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC) and moved/modified --Heah (talk) 03:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable and nothing wrong with page. 10 000 googles when searched in quotes. Straight-forward references using it as described here. Marskell 14:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Marskell --MacRusgail 16:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Marskell. TheMadBaron 03:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above. --Heah (talk) 03:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Marskell. Perhaps some sort of mediation/arbitration could be employed to help its authors along in their disputes. --Jacquelyn Marie 03:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Linu Thankachan[edit]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 12:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of movies whose title is eponymous with a character in it[edit]

This is just extreme trivia. Whilst a small amount of trivia is interesting I really don't see how this list could be of any use to anybody. Would someone decide to watch a film based on the criterion "title is eponymous with a character in it"? I'd say not. chowells 16:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Trivia, not encyclopedic. Average Earthman 18:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it might have been useful but for "Movies whose title merely contains the name of character have been omitted"... and yet for some reason "Ben-Hur" and "Zoolander" still appear on this list!!! --MacRusgail 18:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Pointless trivia. --Ritchy 18:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Listcruft. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 20:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete self-contradictory article: "Here is a list of movies whose title is eponymous with a character who is in them. Note: Movies whose title merely contains the name of character have been omitted." --Metropolitan90 00:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think it's contradictory. I assume that what this means is that the list is intended to include movies whose title consists solely of the name of the character (e.g. the 1922 movie "Robin Hood" starring Douglas Fairbanks) but not movies whose titles include other words as well (e.g. the 1938 movie "The Adventures of Robin Hood" starring Errol Flynn, or "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves" starring Kevin Costner). Dpbsmith (talk) 02:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your interpretation of the Note appears to be correct. Nevertheless, my vote remains the same per all other delete votes above. --Metropolitan90 02:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as completely idiosyncratic non-topic. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is an interesting and worthwhile list. LeonWhite 04:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Indeed, interesting article. -- Kilo-Lima 15:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, more listcruft. MCB 20:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pointless list. Many, many movies are named for a character in the movie. This same contributor has two other similarly pointless lists also up for AFD: List of music acts whose names contain an adverb and List of movies whose title contains a fraction or non-integer. ♠DanMS 04:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the above delete votes. Per DanMS above, contributor appears to be either violating WP:POINT or following a really really different vector in thinking. Barno 18:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep very interesting list, no reason to delete.  Grue  18:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of mythological characters[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 07:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, omgsuperhuge, served just as well by a category. How many mythological characters have there been? Heck, list of Greek mythological characters is pretty huge on its own. Annotation would be little more than gravy in this case. Lord Bob 16:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article only currently lists characters in Ayyavazhi mythology, which is already better covered there. There's really no value in a big list; the characters are better incorporated into articles on the individual mythologies. See Mythology, which identifies over 100 mythologies, although many are redlinks. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to "List of Ayyavazhi mythological characters" --MacRusgail 16:52, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If moved, don't leave a redirect from this title —Wahoofive (talk) 21:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who are nearly supercentenarians[edit]

What is this article?? It appears to try to list everyone whose age either at the present or at death is 108 or 109 and has a large majority of the links ghost links. 66.245.118.178 00:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While we're at it, can we delete THIS list too?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surviving_Veterans_of_the_Second_World_War

The number of surviving veterans of the Second World War is several MILLION. Do we really need this? 131.96.15.51 00:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would like to point out that user 65.93.29.176 has fanatically pounded out MORE THAN 100 EDITS IN THE LAST FIVE DAYS, most involving the subjects of longevity. While some edits have been useful, user 65.93.29.176 has consistently favored the "myth of aging" discourse, plagiarized Guinness World Records and other sources, and refused to respond to requests for using th talk or discussion boards. I move that User 65.93.29.176 be warned that continued activities that favor anti-science positions, coupled with a refusal to discuss, cooperate, or even identify hismelf should result in a current warning of possible future suspensions of rights. Ryoung122 18:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "this table is copied..." Blatent copyvio. --CastAStone 00:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

:*Copy vio easy to fix: take down the text at the bottom and reaarange the list. You can't copyright a list of names, can you? A bigger question is, is this list useful information for an encyclopedia? My thoughts are maybe. Keep.—Gaff ταλκ 01:52, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Change my vote to delete. After reading the remainder of the discussion below, I have changed my mind on this one.—Gaff ταλκ 19:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First of all...I gave permission to use the list if the source is cited, so deleting the source is not a good solution. Second...if it's currently in order of age (109 years 364 days, 109 years 358 days etc), why not just keep it in the order that it's in?

However, the biggest argument is, if you are going to list people aged 109, why not list the 870+ people aged 110+? Ryoung122 17:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Mostly RedLinks in that list --JAranda | watz sup 02:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just because this page is on a wired topic doesn't mean we should delete it. Also, red links just mean that we can make our database even bigger. Red links are potential. I think that although this is unimportant, there is no harm in having it. Tobyk777 03:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Supercentenarian has had enough debates because its getting really long. There are even more of these people and its getting to be commonplace now so it doesn't define them as notable. The red links don't seem like they will ever be encyclopedic and that is why this should be deleted. gren グレン 03:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this, as "nearly supercentenarian" is totally an idiosyncratic non-topic. The Literate Engineer 06:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Anyone who's over 100 years old is notable. (A supercentenarian is someone who's 110.) - Sensor 11:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • THERE ARE OVER 135,000 living people worldwide aged 100 and over. BY 2050 the number should be 4 million. Age 100 is not in itself notable, which is why age 110 has become the new standard. I only agree with lising "famous centenarians" such as Bob Hope. Ryoung122 17:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Whether being a centenarian makes a person notable or not (and I disagree with the assertion that it does, especially as it becomes more common with better medicine) is, I think, irrelevant to the discussion of a list of such people. Notability would matter regarding the individual articles about specific people, but a list isn't automatically worthy of being kept (or compiled to begin with) simply because many, most, or even all, of the listed items are deserving of articles on an individual basis. The Literate Engineer 16:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as "nearly supercentenarian" is meaningless. (I'd vote delete on List of people who are supercentenarians too, on different grounds.) Rd232 talk 12:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, rename and reformat. People over 100 years old are certainly encyclopedic, but "nearly supercentenarian" is not specific enough. The article should set a specific boundary (probably 100 years) as arbitrary cut-off. - Mgm|(talk) 14:21, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are missing the whole point. The U.S. currently has 50,000 centenarians, Japan has 25,000. Age 100 in itself is NOT NOTABLE. I think age 110 might be, but we don't even have a list of 110 or older (yet). So why is there a list of "almost 110" if no list of "110+". Second, "Almost supercentenarians" means "almost." What is almost? For my list, I defined the cutoff point as anyone within 90 days of reaching age 110 (or 75% of the way from age 109 to age 110), since some people like to "round up" ages. However, this copier has added in people aged less than 109.75 years, some as young as 107. Since only 6% of people aged 107 reach age 110, I certainly would NOT consider age 107 to be "almost" 110. Incidentally, Japan currently has 101 people aged 108 or over, living, not to mention the deceased. The number of people who died at age 108 or 109 worldwide can be estimated at 3,480 (assuming 50% death rates at age 108 and 109, based on validated list of 870 people reaching age 110).

Then of course, maybe we could have a list of baseball pitchers who "almost" won 300 games, football teams that "almost" won the SuperBowl, people that "almost" died in the WTC. I decline to vote because I think a list in order of age wouldn't be too bad, but there should be at minimum source links and a consistent pattern of organization (either by age, by chronological order with an age minimum, or by alphabetical order with age minimum). Ryoung122 18:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unencyclopedic list, copyvio. Andrew pmk | Talk 15:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't really think we should have a list of people who are "nearly" anything. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Starblind. Also, Setting aside that this is a list of people who are nearly notable, this would be a pretty difficult-to-maintain and subjective list. Lord Bob 16:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People who are supercentenarians, maybe, but people who aren't quite notable for that - no. Are we going to have a list of 'people who are nearly notable scientists'? Average Earthman 20:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is just silly. I'd consider voting yes if it was "List of supercentenarians" chowells 20:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RYoung122 and Starblind. --Icarus 21:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-encyclopedic, vague in definition and possible copyright violation. Jtmichcock 05:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. As per all above there is nothing notable about this anymore. Plus problems of verifiability. Don't see how the info is even useful to anyone.JJay 11:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If there's a List of people who are nearly centenarians, can't there be a list of people who are nearly supercentenarians? --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.29.176 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 23 October 2005
  • Comment. One difference is that the list of people who are nearly centenarians is a list of famous people, plus there seems to be a minimum age point of 99 for that list. Consequently, the "list of people who are nearly supercentenarians" is mostly a list of people famous only for old age, with a few "famous" cases thrown in. My problem is not with the list per se, but user 65.93.29.176, who based on his massive time available, infatuation with stats, and immaturity (refusing to discuss issues with others, or to see both sides of an issue) suggests he is a teenager. The list, if kept, should be formatted according to a pre-set standard of who qualifies: age 109? Age 109.5? What is "nearly?" Second, shouldn't a "list of people who are supercentenarians" be tried first, to see whether it would float as a viable entity? Third, if kept, the list should either be formatted, as stated, by alphabetical order, chronological order, or by age (oldest first). The World Almanac lists tallest buildings in order of height, and highest mountains in order of height. Baseball's 300-game winners are listed in order of victories. The problem is not a list per se, but whether it is organized according to systematic criteria or no.172.159.204.208 19:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point. I'm adding that to AfD now. Lord Bob 17:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per JJay and other arguments above. MCB 18:00, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who are nearly centenarians. Chick Bowen 03:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This information may be useful if organized properly,as an addendum to a "supercentenarians" list, but the childish teenage infatuation with having one's own way precludes this list from being maintained according to standards. Lately, someone tried to add Eli Shadrack, a claim to age 108 now debunked (by his own family) as fraudulent. 131.96.15.51 23:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per arguments so far. --Jacquelyn Marie 03:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's nealy encyclopaedic, but not quite--redstucco 09:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete!!!--Too many actual supercentenarians have articles already...people notable for their longevity alone should get entries only for truly remarkable longevity and someone who's not among the top 800 ever certainly doesn't qualify.For anyone in this age bracket who qualifies for another reason,their notoriety should be filed under that,not age,and they may be listed under Centenarian.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 19:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename. It should be called, "List of people who are not supercentenarians".

HA HA HA! Let's start listing the 100 billion people who have ever lived on this planet.

NOT!

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 13:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about sex and seduction[edit]

Listcruft. Apart from there being plenty of songs about seduction (maybe a better cat), if the list compiler(s) included Heavy Metal, punk or rap songs, this list would be unmaintainable. I'm thinking of the back catalogue of groups like NWA, Aerosmith, Whitesnake, Guns n' Roses etc etc MacRusgail 22:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • You'd have to list 3/4 of the Stones' stuff, just to start. Delete. A2Kafir 23:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, you don't have to list ALL of the Stones stuff, just a few notable examples. Kappa 01:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unmaintainable list, unverifiable criteria —Wahoofive (talk) 02:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; the topic is way too broad for an article. Listing "just a few notable examples" is unlikely to happen; some people try to add every relevant song to a "list of songs", and it would be unreasonable to try to stop them. --Metropolitan90 02:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most blues and rock songs would qualify, as well as numerous operatic arias. --JJay 15:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • And some folk songs too, like a whole book of Robert Burns' work. As I say above, "songs about seduction" might not be so bad (although there are many, many of them, by every single boy band), but sex? I think my record collection as a teenager was at least half sex songs! And the list doesn't even mention "MV" by Nirvana. --MacRusgail 16:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seduction seems way too broad, subjective and really can't be separated from sex. Take Satisfaction by the Stones; is it about sex, seduction, advertising, all three? --JJay 16:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Preposterous listcruft, vastly overbroad, arbitrary criteria, unmaintainable... what else? MCB 21:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Overbroad. Uninteresting. Unencyclopedic. Could easily includes songs back to the turn of the century ("Come away with me Lucille/In my merry Oldsmobile ... You can go as far as you like with me in my merry Oldsmobile."). "Only A Bird in a Gilded Cage..." "My Mother Was a Lady..." "I Love I Love I Love My Wife But Oh You Kid..." Actually, a list of songs that are not about sex and seduction would probably be more selective. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unmaintainable list, with criteria and POV problems also. Xoloz 03:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dpbsmith and other non-Keep votes. Barno 18:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An interesting idea, but as a list it just won't do. However, perhaps an article that doesn't pretend to be exhaustive, covering some of the history of sex and seduction in popular music would be nice, if it doesn't exist already. --Jacquelyn Marie 03:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mark McGinnin[edit]

Claims notability (but doesn't elaborate), google pulls zero hits. Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Even if this could be verified (which it apparently can't be), "mayor of a small town" alone really isn't all that notable. --W.marsh 03:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No hits on google. Not notable. --Holderca1 03:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and speedy as nn-bio. CambridgeBayWeather 10:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--MacRusgail 16:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. A7, A1. --JJay 12:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete after excluding multiple-voters, sockpuppet and anonymous IP votes. - Mailer Diablo 13:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mason Stahl[edit]

Vanity page Tom harrison 23:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Identical article Spray (rapper) was created by same person as article author and has also been nominated for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spray (rapper)). --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 21:44, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. - Tom harrison 23:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete per nomination -Bostonjon 00:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity page for NN teenager. Google search for "Mason Stahl" returns no hits that mention CD's. Eddie.willers 01:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete.

Does lack of fame make a vanity article?

An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous. There is currently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required to justify a unique article being created in Wikipedia (although consensus exists regarding particular kinds of article, for instance see WP:MUSIC). Lack of fame is not the same as vanity.

Furthermore, an article is not "vanity" simply because it was written by its subject. Articles about existing books, movies, games, and businesses are not "vanity" so long as the content is kept to salient material and not overtly promotional.

Please heed the rules of wikipedia before deleting. Thank You.Bostonjon 01:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment for Bostonjon. Do not confuse 'lack of fame' with the condition of 'not being vain'. The subject of the article in question is displaying conceit (ie: 'A favorable and especially unduly high opinion of one's own abilities or worth') and this makes the article a 'vanity' article and, hence, eligible for deletion. Eddie.willers 01:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unverifiable. Pburka 01:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Insufficient context to establish notability. TheMadBaron 06:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete. The claim that this data is not easily verifiable is, in my opinion no reason to delete it. I for one have actually seen Mason "Spray" Stahl performing at several spoken word/hip-hop concerts in the Boston area. Your claims that information regarding Mason Stahl cannot be currently found on the web highlights the importance of this page on wikipedia. Stahl needs to have his name entered onto the web at sometime and somewhere and there is no better place but wikipedia to document the information regarding Mason Stahl. It does not seem fair to judge Mason Stahl's importance or significance on a google search for even if he did come up on google this does not mean that he is not important. I for one am quite sure that this page is accurate for I have actually seen Mason Stahl in performance and have read a book of his poetry. I strongly urge those considering the deletion of this page to heed my suggestions and acknowledge that while you may not have heard of Mason in your parts of the country he is known in and around the Boston area for his rapping and poetry.Bostonjon 15:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity or not this is NN. No google hits that I can find and albums do not seem to be available anywhere. If Bostonjon would like to make a case for this within the context of WP:MUSIC please do so. --JJay 15:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete. Let me remind you that I have heard Mason "Spray" Stahl rap in concert before and I own his second album "Elimihate". I too am surprised that no hits come up for him on google, however, I agree with the articles assessment of him as an "emerging rapper" for he is beginning to gain notoriety in the Boston area. I would also like to make it clear that he is a poet and actually has a poetry book currently on sale in several Boston area independent bookshops. I think that his rapping alone should qualify him for a wikipedia page but if that cannot be agreed upon then his poetic works should easily make him a candidate for a page. I would like to finish by saying that many now famous poets went their whole lives without receiving due recognition and I feel that the wikipedia page on Mason Stahl is an accurate, fair, and necessary contribution to this encyclopedia.Bostonjon 16:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Instead of making the same points over and over, please provide some citations for Mr. Stahl's work. Since you own his album, a record company and year of release would be helpful. As you have read his published poetry, perhaps you recall the publisher, year of publication etc. If someone can prove that a reputable publisher has published a book of Mr. Stahl's poetry, I would be happy to change my vote. --JJay 16:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete apparently NN; a picture without red eye would be good too. --MacRusgail 17:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. And Bostonjon, please stop voting "Do Not Delete" over and over, you're only supposed to vote once. StarryEyes 18:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete I am shocked to see that this page is being considered for deletion. I am from Dorchester, Massachusetts (a part of Boston) and can corroborate the fact that Mason "Spray" Stahl is a rising player in the Boston hip/hop scene. He has achieved a decent amount of notorioty among fans of hip/hip and poetry in the area and he is deserving of a page. I strongly urge those considering the deletion of this page to not do so since they obviously are not familiar with the Boston hip/hop music scene. "Spray" is undoubtedly an important part of the development of rap in the area and he should be recognized for his achievements.130.64.157.124 19:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete. I just noticed that Spray Stahl had an entry on wikipedia and was thrilled. I've been following this guy forever, he's going to be huge someday. I saw that the article was up for deletion and that member "BostonJon" was the sole defender for this artists page. If you want to call him just an "artist". He's really a renaissance man. He does it all. Actually if you watch his documentary its cool because he during the credits he's actually the one rapping in that song "hate this". My friend burned me all his CDs, so I dont have any of the information per se, but I know that I could find it in time. Just don't delete this page yet and I'll try and find the info. Try and be understanding, if I put a page up about my band, 23 cents, you probably wouldn't find anything online at all except the four tracks we put on Kazaa. So, stay classy, and don't forget, even Jay-Z was an unknown once too, but that's the whole point of Wikipedia, to put more accessible information on the web...right? 130.64.157.66 19:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The above two votes are from anonymous "users" and thus should not be counted. Note the similarity in IP address, probably has a DHCP connection and just switched off and switched on his modem. Also note the use of the phrase "Do Not Delete" instead of the more conventional "Keep"...much in the style of a certain Bostonjon, whom I enjoined to stop the ballot-stuffing. My guess is he's not heeding. StarryEyes 21:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a credible page and your moves to delete it are incredulous. Please acknowledge that "Spray" is a well-known rapper throughout Boston and therefore qualifies for a wikipedia page.Rapstar 19:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No grounds for deletion and therefore I cannot in good conscious vote for a deletion of this page. Arr34 19:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Above two votes obvious Sockpuppets. After my notice that Bostonjon was still ballot-stuffing by making himself anonymous and typing in the same unfamiliar-with-Wikipedia style, he altered his style slightly (retaining of course abysmal spelling) and created two throwaway identities--whose only contribution to Wikipedia are these votes. Just like the two anonymous votes above, they were submitted just minutes apart. If you think the Wikipedia admins are dumb enough to fall for that, you're sorely mistaken. Rest assured, Bostonjon, if your chicanery does manage to fool somebody, I will immediately submit to AFD again. Bottom line: all keep/do-not-delete votes have been submitted by the same person StarryEyes 20:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. Yes, Bostonjon's unbridled admiration and love for Mr. Stahl is quite amazing. As would be any evidence that Tufts freshman Mr. Stahl, despite his undeniable talent for self-aggrandizement, has ever published a poem or rapped outside his dorm room. --JJay 21:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. non-notable. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • '"Keep"' Who cares about what this kid is doing to procrastinate? Its better than doing crack or beating up women and children. So Mason "Spray" wants to beef up his "street cred" by pushing his image on wikipedia, SO WHAT? You guys have been critizing him and BostonJon (PS, a "BlowJob" joke?), giving him all this crap. Well if he's such a loser for pumping Spray on wikipedia during his free time, then you guys are just as bad for trying to get him knocked off wikipedia. WHO CARES? Honestly, I have no idea whether or not he exists, and truthfully, I dont care. But BostonJon says he knows him, who's to say he doesn't? Just go with the flow, people, go with the flow. -Zeppelin1969 {I hate you people} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.64.157.153 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep. My children enjoy his rap, and think he is wicked hot. We recently saw him rapping in the streets of Harvard Square and can not get him off of our mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.199 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 25 October 2005

  • Comment. This is ridiculous. This entire argument is ridiculous. There is no evidence that Spray exists or does not exist. Because there is no evidence that "Spray" exists, excepting of course this article, we must chose to delete. Unless of course this is his breakout article, the first of many to follow which will create the embediment of support for this up and coming rapper, then the fact that there is no evidence that he does not exist takes precedence and we must choose to keep. If, however, this is merely an attempt to create a false buzz over an unspectacular act trying to make a name for himself and his lyrical accomplishments, we must decide to delete. But, since there is at least one, and most likely more, fan of Mason Stahl and his verbal assault on the current rap scene, as evidenced by the time spent on the creation and support of this page we must assume that Mason 'Spray" Stahl has done something of a meritorious nature, worthy of his supporter's time and effort, so we must, ultimately choose to keep. -JEA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.122.49.113 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 25 October 2005
  • DELETE. Starry is right: If you'll look closely, you'll see everything that is not a delete vote appears to be from the same user. Also, take a gander at the edit history: [29] an anon user took off the "unsigned" tag from the Zeppelin1969 comment. Stop the insanity, people. (Person?) Please, someone just delete this already.Xa! 09:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep So he's unpopular as of yet. Does that mean his article should be deleted? So his 'Albums' were either self-produced or produced by a tiny company. Does that mean his article should be deleted? Google The Yorkies or Bravo Charlie. Both are unknown groups from the Boston area produced on a label so small, you won't find references online. They exist. And just because those who support him are unfamiliar with wikipedia doesn't warrant a deletion. Just keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.57.124 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. the above unsigned comment is from the same IP that authored the article Spray (rapper) on 25th October, which duplicates the content here. Eddie.willers 20:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't meet WP:MUSIC criteria and other claims are not WP:V or are "crystal ball" in nature (i.e. purported forthcoming documentary)... plus more puppets than Sesame Street.--Isotope23 21:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails guidelines at WP:NMG. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 21:44, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I must say that many of you should be ashamed of how you are conducting this discussion. Most of the votes calling for the deletion of this article are not based on anything legitimate and are simply due to a personal vendetta against Mason Stahl. Some of you are criticizing his supporters because of their lack of knowledge regarding wikipedia conventions. Others are trying to marginalize him by poking fun at the fact that there is red eye in his picture. This behavior is immature and malicious. It is comments like those that intimidate some people from making contributions to wikipedia. We should all be grateful that this article was submitted and should hope for the expansion of this incredible resource. Every contribution works towards our goal of achieving greater understanding of the universe. To those who contributed this page, which I find no reason to question, I applaud you and to those of you who are trying to marginalize Mr. Stahl shame on you. It is my dream to one day see wikipedia become a fountain of information that will educate the world and lift us out of this shroud of ignorance that is responsible for the problems facing the world today. While a page concerning a rapper may seem insignificant to some we must approach this topic in an objective manner and realize that to many people throughout the globe rap is a powerful force that is capable of great change. I once again strongly urge all of you to vote to keep this page. Muzakman 16:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC) Note: all user's edits save one in relation to article and this AFD[reply]
    • That's right. Mason Stahl killed Kenny. The bastard!!! Seriously though, have you even read the guidelines at WP:NMG? If Spray meets any of those guidelines, please provide proof and we'll gladly reconsider the case. Otherwise, the article is going to be deleted. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 15:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep!! I also attend Tufts University, where Mason is well-known for his rhymes - nonnotable he definitely is NOT. As well, I've seen him filming his new movie around campus, so whoever claims his page is unverifiable is obviously just looking in the wrong places. Xoxomandeeness Note: user's first and only edit
  • Comment i already voted keep, so i wont again. i also duplicated the page under Spray (rapper). you caught me. see, i really thought id be able to trick you. guess not. in any case, i agree (in principle) with muzakman. while i have my doubts that wikipedia will put an end to world hunger, prejudice, and hate, i do agree that the idea is to post useful information for others to read and learn about. the fact that you all dont know about spray is perfect reason to keep him on wikipedia. and the reason so many of the Keep votes are newcomers is beacuse in the boston area (particularly Tufts campus) he's well known, and theres a bit of a word-of-mouth campaign to save this page on pricniple. im not in the area right now (actually in europe), but i have some friends that are attending tufts and i did meet spray shortly before i left this year. hes real. whether or not there's other information on the internet, the stuff here is real. and thats why i duplicated it, becuase its deserves to stay up. i didnt expect the dupe to stay long, and i was right. egal. take care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.63.14 (talk • contribs) 10:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am in total agreement with the person writing above. This page has even greater value than many other pages because it is (as far as I know) the only comprehensive source on information about Mason "Spray" Stahl. The argument that since no other information is easily found on Mr. Stahl we should choose to delete him is unsound and lacks any real logical foundation. Why, I ask you, would we want wikipedia to become simply a source that replicated information already available. We want wikipedia to become a source that that not only organizes, expands, and codifies information that is already available but also becomes a source for new developments in the realm of global information. Let me posit a scenario in which those who have voted to delete this page had found existing information about Mr. Stahl on the web. Would you then have deemed this page to be one of value to the wikipedia informational catalogue. You probably would have and that is where your logic (or lack thereof) fails me. Those sites would signal to you that he is notable because someone invested time to create and maintain those pages. Well then this wikipedia page should also be an indicator of Mr. Stahl's significance in the rap community because like any other webpage this wikipedia page too took some fan's time to create. This fan had the noble goal of making previously unknown information available to the entire world. To this fan I commend your efforts to help in the education of humanity. I also want to highlight the outpouring of support and discussion concerning this page by so many people which seems to illuminate the fact the Mr. Stahl does have a following and is therefore significant. This logic that since no other pages currently exist about a person/topic means it should be deemed insignificant is both a great injustice to goals of wikipedia and is a terrible policy to abide by. Was Emily Dickinson famous in her lifetime? No. She lived in ananomity and was only discovered posthumosly. With the advent of the internet I believed that the dissemination of information would help to prevent this from happening again. I urge you not to let a whole generation miss out on the enrichment and enjoyment that can be derived from knowing about and experiencing Mr. Stahl's work. I for one will fight to ensure that Mr. Stahls messages are spread throughout the world in this present day and I will commit myself to the struggle against the inequity that would befall both Mr. Stahl and the international community should he be silenced by his opponents. Thank you Arr34 17:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC). NOTE: user already voted above.[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 13:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...Maybe Fuck You[edit]

Hoax? Claims that two singles were high on billboard charts. Then why does google seach for "Ballad of a Broken Man" Meyers return no results? Delete (unless somebody can confirm this as real). I do not think its about Mike Meyers the comedian. —Gaff ταλκ 23:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as hoax. No albums by Mike Meyers are listed at Amazon.com, for example. --Metropolitan90 00:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. Allmusic.com has no record of an album by this name. If it had generated two hit singles, it would have an article. Besides, the notable comedian is Mike Myers. Capitalistroadster 01:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Capitalistroadster. Googling on "...Maybe Fuck You" turns up zilch. Eddie.willers 01:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I tried searching for Myers, Meyer, Mayer, Meiers and Myer as well, just in case of misspelling (that can happen to anyone, especially with this kind of name) and nothing pertinent. I found a couple of musicians by the name of Mike Myers but this entry doesn't describe any work by them. So it is fake. TECannon 09:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Clearly a fake - no relevant entries for "Maybe Fuck You" or "Ballad of a Broken Man" or any relevant search terms Zarboki 09:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - presumably the person off the "Halloween" film is meant. ;) --MacRusgail 16:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Stu 02:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Total nonsence - Bwfc 12:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no concensus. - Mailer Diablo 13:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Melody Pomeroy[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 07:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as NN. She was the 2001 Ohio Junior Miss. Nothing beyond that. - Sensor 11:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: That's literally false. I can easily understand deciding what she's done since is non-notable, but please don't say she's done nothing in four years. --rob 12:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (not by a lot) for being in national touring play, which has gotten a reasonable amount of press coverage. --rob 05:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Minding My Own Business[edit]

A Keenspace hosted webcomic, found here. The site is not mentioned on the alexa report for keenspace. This is quoting the article directly, "Still, MmoB is far from being popular." No assertion of notability found anywhere. Hahnchen 18:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --MacRusgail 19:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Dragonfiend 19:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing to indicate that this is not just another webcomic with limited readership and influence. --Allen3 talk 20:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not encyclopedaic; no verifiable assertion of notability consistent with usual Wikipedia standards for websites. See User:SCZenz/Webcomics for more on this. -- SCZenz 21:57, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mischief Masters: A New Master[edit]

Seems like vanity. By the article's own admit, this movie is in limited release and not something you'd put in an encyclopedia. Ifnord 14:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Contrary to what some people say, the Mischief Masters do exist and therefor deserve a spot in the Wikipedia. The Mischief Masters haven't reached national fame yet, but they're working very hard to do so by producing products like their movie A New Master. People who don't believe it should check their IMDB page. For further proof they could look at the biggest Dutch DVD site DVD-home since they devoted a artikel to the Masters. Doubters will see for themselves that there IS a movie made. The page is written in Dutch, but does contain screenshots. I do agree that there isn't a Mischeif Masters series since there is only one movie made with a second production coming.

The url to the article mentioned: http://www.dvd-home.nl/nieuws/oud2004.htm#8 The Masters are displayed just above the "Augustus" (August) banner.

  • Delete--Cyberjunkie | Talk 16:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A direct-to-video release of a short film, by unknown very young first-time filmmakers, one that hasn't made an appreciable impact on the critics or the public at large? I have no clue whether or not it's a good movie, but as it happens, that's completely irrelevant. Bottom line: it's a non-notable movie. If it becomes a cult hit, that's different; until that happens, it doesn't merit an article. -- Captain Disdain 20:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 07:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable Bwithh 08:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 20-minute-long direct-to-DVD movie. Gets only 32 Google hits and even less than that if we don't count Wikipedia hits. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sorry, anonymous commenter at the top, but merely existing does not make something encylopedic. — Haeleth Talk 00:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 13:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MMORPG terms and acronyms[edit]

WP:NOT a slang usage guide. User:Purplefeltangel/sig 19:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, unless we're actually going to enforce a "rule" that's been widely ignored since WP began, and get rid of every glossary and list of slang terms in the place. --Bob Mellish 20:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • A lot of these lists are up for deletion, and the difference with this is that it's about Internet slang. User:Purplefeltangel/sig 20:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I fail to see why a list of terms used when playing one game should be treated differently than a list of terms used when playing another class of games, simply becase the later is played over the internet. --Bob Mellish 20:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is actually a much better article than I expected it to be from the title. I expected a poopile of neologisms and insults based on individual players. Instead, it's a tight little glossary of the nomenclature used in these games. Terms like "mob", "buff", "con", "train" and the like are certianly used a lot and aren't particularly obvious. It could still use a little cleanup, specifically removing the words that are general internet/chat terms ("AFK") or general RPG terms ("NPC", "level", "class") or generally general terms in general ("WTB"). Overall, though, this is a good article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Starblind. --GraemeL (talk) 22:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Starblind and Dr Bob. --Syrthiss 22:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Starblind, Dr Bob, GraemeL, and Syrthiss.  BD2412 talk 23:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per BD2412. Kappa 01:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepper Starblind, this is incredibly informative but could use cleanup. Powers of i 02:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Starblind, but if cleaning up the non-MMO-centric stuff, make sure that links to relevant lists (is there a List of RPG terms, for example?) are maintained, as the fringe terms are still useful for reference even if they don't belong on this page proper. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 16:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete. The article has been deleted by User:Geogre Pilatus 12:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mooka Mookason[edit]

This article was apparently created by User:Francoislamini (Contributions) about his cat. Now, I like cats, but this one is not especially notable. User has not edited since creating this article in July. Delete, along with Image:Jungle_Mooka.jpg. Joel7687 00:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as {{db-bio}}. I have listed it as such. Consider merge with Pussy. —Gaff ταλκ 02:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, one Google hit, [30], but as for this speedy business... do you really think cats are "persons"? CanadianCaesar 02:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course not. But its a biography of a cat. —Gaff ταλκ 02:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
An article about a non-noatable cat is not an unreasonable thing to have listed as {{db-bio}}. I relisted the article for speedy, but typed out {{db|non-notable story about somebody's cat}}. This takes more time, however, and just prolongs a process. The article will obviously end up being deleted, but on AfD it will require lots more effort that would be better spent elsewhere. Storys about cats are still somewhat like bios. Even you voted delete!—Gaff ταλκ 02:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete under A7 if covered by guidelines, delete as vanity otherwise and change the guidelines allowing us to delete pets, housing and other items associated with non-notable people to be speedy deleted unless they are notable in their own right. If a person is not-notable, it would be difficult to argue that their cat is notable. The claim is that a game is being written about the moggy but this game has not been completed, let alone sold. Capitalistroadster 03:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - nn - I agree A7 should include "persons and animals" JoJan 08:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete nn. *drew 09:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not, and should not be a speedy candidate, because it makes a claim of notability: Being part of "project mooka". OK, not a very convincing claim at the moment but a claim. A cat can be notable if it's the subject of a notable project, and for all we know project mooka will become one. Kappa 10:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "Project Mooka" isn't well attested; the Sourceforge link on the page is invalid. As such, the claim of notability is spurious, and it becomes a candidate for speedy deletion. (I put the speedy tag back on). Pilatus 13:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Claims of notability must be evaluated in Afd. Kappa 14:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Once the game becomes notable the cat can be mentioned in that article as the inspiration for the game. BTW the link to project Mooka leads to an invalid project page. CambridgeBayWeather 10:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete nn-bio. Neier 11:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Why should Mooka be different from any other black cat? Well, she isn't." 'Nuff said. - Sensor 11:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, author is "trying" to put the cat in a game. Cat itself is unremarkable and not different from a cartload of other cats. On top of that the project is "expected to make this idea a reality". There's thousends of projects that start and never get finished. Delete until such a time the project which is its assertion of notability actually exists (and is verifiable). Then we can reconsider it. - Mgm|(talk) 14:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, possibly speedy. Non-notable cat with a non-existent "Project Mooka". Andrew pmk | Talk 15:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete --MacRusgail 16:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete we used to say things like "What if someone wrote an article about their cat?" when debating notability as a deletion criterion. Well, I guess it finally happened. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • We are debating if the article should be deleted now or in five days from now because someone asserted that that cat is the protagonist in a video game for which no one has proof that it even exists exists. Stop the insanity! Pilatus 20:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • We are debating whether the article should be deleted with or without the community getting a chance to see it first. Kappa 21:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • For this article I see a consensus for a speedy delete. Actually this entry is a poor test case to discuss where CSD:A7 should stop, it's so obvious that the article ought to go away. (Contestants on reality TV shows tend to be kept, but should an entry on an otherwise unknown person on a planned reality TV show be sent to AfD instead of getting speedily deleted? I think not.) Pilatus 22:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • We never keep anything based on potential future achievements. Otherwise, we'd be keeping articles on babies because they might win an Oscar or Nobel Prize someday. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • So if a baby was the unique focus of a progam designed to produce a future Nobel Prize winner, it would still be a speedy candidate? Kappa 22:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • There are lots of those programs going on already. They're called overachieving parents. Seriously, this isn't Laika we're talking about here. This is some dude who kinda-sorta thinks it might be cool to make a game about his cat, but hasn't bothered to put up the Sourceforge page yet (or anything else, either, since Mooka Mookason gets 0 Google hits). Let's look at this piece-by-piece for a moment: Most games are notable, but not every one. Many game characters are notable, many are not. People/creaures on whom game characters are based are rarely notable (even Mario Segali is barely a stub). But none of that even applies here because the game hasn't even been created yet, nor even started by the looks of things. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • You're saying that we shouldn't have the chance to double check. Kappa 00:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • In this case, there's nothing to check or double-check. The linked-to Sourceforge site doesn't exist, and Google shows zero results. Neither does Yahoo or AllTheWeb. I suppose that one could go to the library and look up Mooka Mookason in the card catalog, the Reader's Guide To Periodical Literature and the Encyclopaedia Brittanica too, but since I'm not in an absurdist mood today I'll skip that step and assume there's nothing about Mooka in there either. If any of this were in the least bit disputable, I'd agree with you. Currently I read 9 "speedy" votes and 7 "delete" votes, with nary a "keep" vote in site, even from yourself. A strong consensus already exists to delete, and further voting would be no more than an exercise in beaurocracy. In fact, come to think of it, WP policy actually discourages voting on AfDs if "consensus you agree with has already been formed". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • LOL I wrote that part, the reason I haven't said "delete" is because there is already a consensus to do so. We don't need any more votes, but also we don't need to rewrite the speedy policy just because this article happens to be about a real cat not a fictional one. Kappa 00:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                    • The absurdity of the situation isn't about real vs. fictional, but animal vs. human. I've written an article about a dog, so I know something in this area. If this article were about a human, it would be an easy uncontested speedy. Since it's a cat, it doesn't strictly fit the letter of the speedy criteria, but many feel it does fit the spirit, which is why there are more Speedy votes than Delete votes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                      • If articles which claim notability are speedy deleted without scrutiny, the system is broken. Kappa 01:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                        • ...which leads us back to my original statement, that claims of notability can't be based on potential future achievements. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • If the assertion of notability of a cat is based on a non-existent online game project it should be deleted. Online game projects should be googleable. If they aren't it's speedy worthy. - Mgm|(talk) 09:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per all of the above arguments --Icarus 21:19, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not speedy, but probably should be. --rob 21:58, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per above. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 06:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Don't think this qualifies under A7, but it should. Pets can be notable, though, like if the they talk or explode. Anyway. --JJay 11:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. I think CSD:A7 should explicitly include animals, at least pets, but I guess it doesn't. MCB 18:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nettop[edit]

Article is an idiosyncratic definition of a word that's a neologism anyways; Google search of nettop + "Roland Ellis" gives no results - Squibix 13:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. If anyone objects, revert me and re-open the discussion. —RaD Man (talk) 06:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neumont University[edit]

Looks like nonaccredited. Nn, anyway.User:Purplefeltangel/sig 20:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment anyone know if this counts for something -> Neumont University(TM) Recognized by CIO Magazine as One of the Bold 100 in Annual CIO 100 Awards --MacRusgail 20:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sort of. CIO is a trade publication. I get it in the mail for free, and I'm not sure if it's actually on newsstands or not (if so, I've never seen it). Companies can nominate themselves for the CIO Bold 100, though that doesn't necessarily mean it's easy to get in. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep According to The US, Department of Education, Northface University (the former name of Neumont until very recently) is accredited with the Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --rob 22:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, established educational institution. Kappa 22:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above. Honbicot 23:41, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as verifiable tertiary university see CIO article. [31] Capitalistroadster 00:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the basis of the other comments, and my own research. --MacRusgail 16:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this is a tertiary school if they are verified we do not even debate these really — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuckfoo (talk • contribs) 19:42, 23 October 2005
  • Keep - inherently notable.--Nicodemus75 22:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - As a current student, I can say that Neumont is a fine school working to Educate the most sought after software developers. I would be happy to add more to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cordesa (talk • contribs) 05:34, 24 October 2005
  • Speedy keep as this is a university article, no contest. Silensor 18:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, this is a university. They ARE worthy of aricles. If it were Neumont Elementary their might be reason for a VFD.Gateman1997 20:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Inherently not not notable.--Centauri 06:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New World (comic)[edit]

A webcomic, found here and its empty forums, here. No assertion of notability found in the article, and a google search also fails to find any awards/critical commentary on the thing. - Hahnchen 17:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Dragonfiend 19:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Alexa gives a ranking of 1,404,864 and lists two sites that link to this webcomic, one of which is apparently off line. [32] No sources provided to indicate that this is anything other than a just another website with limited readership and influence. --Allen3 talk 19:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --MacRusgail 23:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not encyclopedaic; no verifiable assertion of notability consistent with usual Wikipedia standards for websites. See User:SCZenz/Webcomics for more on this. -- SCZenz 21:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - comic does not have any particular artistic merit, nor is it affiliated with a syndicate or ranking site of note. The closing admin should also see User:Snowspinner/Webcomics, as I believe myself to be a subject expert on the matter of webcomics, which should be given due weight in closing this debate. Snowspinner 22:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New York Stars (CFL)[edit]

Fantasy team, not to be confused with the real New York Stars, who have since moved on. Chris talk back 17:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No hats in m'buildin[edit]

where to start? no assertion of notability anyway Flapdragon 20:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agreed. Anville 21:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and leave the building. Totally non-encyclopaedic. Eddie.willers 21:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Alhutch 21:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ground, I mean Delete --MacRusgail 21:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Send to principal's office and delete. A2Kafir 22:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to BJAODN. chowells 12:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not the place for inside jokes. Devotchka 01:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Norfolk Navalmen[edit]

Sum total of 1 google hit, appears to be either vanity or a hoax. It also turns out that someone else has tried to nominate this, but did either didn't add the template or didn't add to the relevant daily page. The comment was:

  • Delete: Not noteable, vanity. Crew29, 21:24 (UTC)

Chris talk back 17:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NRA effect[edit]

No effect goes by this name. A2Kafir 22:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete because I feel like it. V M
    22:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn "I need to have sex before I get shot" politi-cruft Karmafist 23:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable; columnist mentions one time in an article and it becomes an encyclopedia entry? Jtmichcock 05:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Natural selection meets the NRA? More of an absurdist theory that fails on OR. The same ridiculous claims could be theorised for the Democratic party given their support for abortion. --JJay 16:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unsourced OR and unencyclopedic nonsense. MCB 20:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ouriel de Jesus[edit]

  • Delete vanity --Leo
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion on deletion; looks like a copyvio'd text dump, but I couldn't find an online source. —Cryptic (talk) 07:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 20:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity, POV, hopelessly non-encyclopedic. Receiving instructions from God only makes you notable if you can verify it, or at least convince enough people to establish a worldwide religion. Otherwise, it just makes you commonplace crazy. TheMadBaron 04:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn religious crackpottery. MCB 18:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this guy is just an "all-praise-to-myself" minister
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 13:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P1n3[edit]

A flash animation cartoon that is either not yet released or not widely known. Web site is just a free host. rob 10:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was No consensus (keep) (3k, 2d).--Scimitar parley 18:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pah-Peh-Rheo[edit]

This is a mildly amusing, but non-notable piece of Donald Duck fancruft. The article is also badly written, and excessively long for this piece of silliness. I have tried to prune the thing slightly, but have been prevented by the anon who acts as though he owns it, and reverts every effort to trim the article, contrary to policy. Septentrionalis 22:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, try a request for comments if you are having trouble with another editor. Kappa 01:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quack!, er...I mean Delete. Non-encyclopaedic fancruft. Eddie.willers 01:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Major cruft, with a heaping helping of fanfic-flavored OR. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 11:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I do wonder where the original research is - it's what happened in the story, one suspects. Maybe a bit too large, but as Kappa says, try RFC for that... Sam Vimes 20:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It just so happens that I've come across this page before (my question at the talk page remains unsatisfactorily answered, if you ask me.) There seem to be many of these ducks, and this one probably more notable than most of them, given his antiquity. I'm uncomfortable removing one of these without addressing all of them, and (even though I don't care for Ducktales), I admit I spent a fascinated 30 minutes avoiding work by following this genealogy. Xoloz 02:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete both. - Mailer Diablo 14:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pellet Pete, Pipe Ship[edit]

These two look like characters from a videogame programmed by the submitter.

Please see Quackoo and Pigit Bill for more characters from the same game; the AfD is here. Pilatus 22:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both, per nom --MacRusgail 22:58, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both, just more by same author. MCB 20:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pincest[edit]

Neologism/vanity submitted by anon. Never heard of it. Delete.-- Egil 11:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wheee.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 14:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Playboy Cyber Girl[edit]

Delete "Cyber Girl of the Week" for Playboy doesnt seem notable enough. Unless they have other claims to fame, the bios for cyber girls linked from this page, and created by the same user, are not notable either Bwithh 19:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - unmaintainable. Notable publisher, but list will grow longer and longer, and have little informational value. --MacRusgail 20:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment a spot check of the articles written on some entries reveal them to contain copyrighted images from Playboy.—Wahoofive (talk) 21:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • And most of them in the category appear not to be that notable apart from perhaps Brittany Evans. Still I suppose it's Playboy, rather than something more obscure. Not convinced though. --MacRusgail 21:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Psychics (gnosticism)[edit]

Illiterate attempt at a dicdef. There is already a perfectly good page on gnosticism. Corvus 04:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - nonsense --MacRusgail 16:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nonsense. TheMadBaron 03:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. A1, G1. What am I missing here? --JJay 12:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PT Toads[edit]

NN sports team of some sort. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete NN vanity. --Fire Star 02:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fire Star. *drew 09:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment listed as famous American "broomball" team here ->Broomball#United_States. --MacRusgail 16:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep, but that was added by the same anon editor who added the page on the Toads [33] Sam Vimes 10:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Broomball is verifiable (278,000 google hits). Amateur teams in a high school park are not so. Sam Vimes 10:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete both. - Mailer Diablo 14:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quackoo and Pigit Bill[edit]

See also Pigit Bill. delete both. This looks like advertising. I think that the submitter made up this fictional character and has posted this article here to increase publicity for a new video game. I could not find anything to support that this is a notable fictional charcter. Sorry Quackoo. —Gaff ταλκ 02:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please note, the bird appears in a non-notable video game published by FrancoisSoft, which appears to be an amateur who likes to make videeo games. I suspect the person behind FrancoisSoft is the same as User: Francoislamini who submitted both this article and another on a charcter in the game.—Gaff ταλκ 02:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Franco[edit]

Vanity page - the subject is entirely not notable Budgiekiller 17:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. - Budgiekiller 17:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Somewhat terrifying/hilarious level of self-indulgence and ego, however. Powers of i 17:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TheMadBaron 03:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete (2d, 1k or 66% delete).--Scimitar parley 18:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RIVF[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted as nn-bio by RHaworth. --GraemeL (talk) 12:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Roya Megnot[edit]

No content, or context Robbjedi 01:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've just gone ahead and tagged it as a speedy. A real person with no claim to notability can be speedied. CanadianCaesar 01:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. --Sensor 03:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Doesn't even attempt to assert notability. gren グレン 03:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy DELETE (as per consensus). -Doc (?) 18:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scandalous Scavenging Sugar Bombs[edit]

Very borderline CSD case in my estimation. If enough vote speedy here it probably should be closed as that. gren グレン 02:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Definite speedy. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. --Sensor 03:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. *drew 09:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy. Neier 11:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy - why is it borderline? Looks like clear nonsense/test. Rd232 talk 12:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I put borderline becaues it seems to make an attempt at saying the group is notable and it seems almost more like immature material than patent nonsense (which would make it CSD) though it is likely both. But, as I said it's very borderline and I doubt anyone would have questioned me if I had put it on CSD. gren グレン 12:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete (unanimous).--Scimitar parley 19:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Feinberg[edit]

Vanity piece on the "teenage Roger Ebert" with lots of wild claims and crystal ballism. Variety.com confirms he was one of over 50 finalists in an online contest, just not sure about notability JJay 02:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --JJay 02:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until the books have been published. His main contribution to date seems to be in online film forums. Capitalistroadster 06:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--MacRusgail 16:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this and I do not object to it being removed until the publication of the books. I do, however, resent the accusations that this is a "vanity piece" with "crystal ballism." I think further research would disprove that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.64.147.119 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 22 October 2005

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Just a platform for the external link which makes it spam which is a speedy per WP:VAND and CSD G3. Contributor has added several other articles which were patent nonsense. -Splashtalk 16:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Serminigo's Nook[edit]

Website ad

  • Delete vanity website ad or worse. Wyss 16:19, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's a pre-teen boy's blogspot i.e. zero notability. Sliggy 16:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect (unanimous)--Scimitar parley 19:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shen an calhar[edit]

non-notable gamecruft, a clan in an MMORPG that's 2 months old and "has the hightest demi-god pkills" GTBacchus 23:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Mat Cauthon, where the (fictional) organization for which the clan is named is discussed. Kirill Lokshin 23:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above — squell 00:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guest:Flint Fireforge The name was mentioned because it holds conciderable sway in the game it is played. The name has a history in that MUD that spands over 5 years. Also, the person who wrote the age of the Clan is also incorrect, the Clan was created in 2003.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Future tense. – Alphax τεχ 10:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Simple future tense[edit]

This is simply a brief French grammar lesson, which is covered in more detail at Wikibooks. Also, we already have the French verbs and Morphology of the French verb articles.

  • Delete. Andrew Levine 00:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, can be expanded to cover English simple future tense, Persian simple future tense, Russian simple future tense etc. Kappa 01:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikibooks anyone?—Gaff ταλκ 01:58, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redundant.Voice of All @|Esperanza|E M 03:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Future tense. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 10:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikibooks. Neier 11:21, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • We will delete (simple future). We will be redirecting to Future tense (that's future continuous). After that, we will have deleted (future perfect, IIRC). Grutness...wha? 11:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone wants to convert it into an article on simple future tense in general, i.e. on the tense itself in different languages, how it relates to other tenses, which languages lack such a tense etc. (And by convert, I mean "write from scratch".) Rd232 talk 12:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Future tense. This is Wikibooks material and Wikibooks already has a more extensive module on it. - Mgm|(talk) 14:28, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Future tense because Simple future tense is ambiguous (other languages have simple future tenses). Andrew pmk | Talk 15:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Per Andrew and Mgm. Simple future tense sounds like the same thing as future tense. Is there such thing as difficult future tense or complicated future tense. Don't think so. Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 02:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are "compound future tenses" since you ask. Kappa 02:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to future tense. Let readers of future tense know about the wikibooks entry, too. --Jacquelyn Marie 03:11, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete - page content was not encyclopedic, and was created to disparage its subject. Also deleted image which was uploaded to accompany article. --HappyCamper 23:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sneaky bitches[edit]

Inherently unencyclopedic topic. I feel sorry for the author if this is based on his personal experiences, though... — Haeleth Talk 22:52, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason not to make this one a speedy delete? A2Kafir 22:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
None I can think of. Speedy delete. --Nlu 23:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stefanie vuotto[edit]

Not quite speedy: Claims notability by being a spokesperson for the Make-A-Wish Foundation, but google pulls 16 hits. Delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable. *drew 09:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain. Google isn't everything. Could someone contact the Make-A-Wish Foundation and ask them for verification and more info? - Mgm|(talk) 14:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Delete'. non-notable --Icarus 21:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Spokes people are not notable. chowells 12:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable Tony Bruguier 21:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Doc (?) 11:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Straightway School[edit]

Mostly just finishing incomplete nomination. However, given that the entire content, once the external link and the mission statement from their website is removed, would be "Straight Way School in West Covina, California is an Islamic school and mosque on a single lot. Contact information is as follows: 1912 West Merced Ave West Covina, CA 91790", it seems to lack enough content to be worth keeping. Seems like Cleanup at the bare minimum. Waterguy 17:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Possible vanity. Definitely nn. Powers of i 17:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC) See Below for vote change[reply]
  • Keep, an important component of Islamic education in West Covina, California and also per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Kappa 22:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for people who complain about boring mission statements: they aim to "Provide well-planned secular subjects (Math, Science, etc) to the student which protects them from the unethical curriculums." and to "Protect the caravan of the school from any one (hypocrite) who tries to cripple it's noble mission". Kappa 23:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: At this stage, there is not sufficient sources to verify the school is licensed, or any info about the school. So, it doesn't yet qualify for inclusion. Hopefully that will be fixed. --rob 23:18, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What does "being licensed" have to do with it? It is verifiable - that is the only criteria for this encyclopedia. WP is not the government.--Nicodemus75 23:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • If a school is licensed, information about it is collected, monitored, and verified by the government. The government is our reliable source in such a case. We need at an absolute minimum one reliable source of information. The school's web site, is not reliable or impartial. It's a private site. The complete lack of verifiable on information has already caused a problem with editing, since the school's claim to accept regardless of creed is highly dubious, yet we have no way of checking this. A licensed school would have any mandatory admission rules stated in its license (or charter), and we could check what that rule is. In this caes, the school can say anything, and we can't challenge it. --rob 23:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • That might be the case with claims or details about the school, but that has little, if anything to do with the existence of the article on WP itself (and the point of the AfD process). The website has photos, extensive information which is easily verifiable through a websearch and white page/yellow page listings. If you want to debate the inclusion of it's admission rules or other specifics is not a question appropriate to AfD which deals with the existence of the article itself.--Nicodemus75 23:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • An Islamic school in California sounds interesting. So I choose Keep Honbicot 23:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Google search reveals [34] which lists the schools affiliation as Jewish. No idea if this is erroneous, but I must say that Nicodemus75's assertion that "It is verifiable - that is the only criteria for this encyclopedia." is basically false, and it is unclear whether he/she is referring to Wikipedia policy for inclusion in general or the more specific Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep referenced above, which is admittedly more open about how/why schools should be added. Given that its already engendered quite a bite of relevant discussion, I now vote Keep with Strong Cleanup.Powers of i 03:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow, that's an amazing mistake on the part of privateschoolsreport.com. I'll need to double-check articles using them as a "source". This shows the danger of us relying entirely on non-authoritative sources. Also, I have to say, mentioning a place in a bus list is not good enough either. Verification is still missing here. --rob 03:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Verifiably exists and is a school in the location indicated.--Nicodemus75 06:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, no assertion of notability. Moreover, this is a private elementary school and there's not even enough info to tell what religious curriculum is being taught. That's three strikes, as far as I'm concerned. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 10:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and please stop systemic bias it is not healthy for a growing encyclopedia Yuckfoo 22:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is it systemic bias to want to delete a school in California? Nobody nominated this because it's an Islamic school; indeed, if they were unusual in the US or in the region, that might be a reason to keep this article. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 19:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep, this is a valid and interesting article. Silensor 18:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, less then 100 student, private elementary schools with minimal verifiabilty have no business in this encyclopedia. Please stop creating these clutter articles.Gateman1997 19:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. As per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. --Vsion 04:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inherently not not notable. Keep. --Centauri 06:35, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep... and Centauri. (grins) Obviously this article needs more work... so take it to cleanup. --Jacquelyn Marie 03:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Delete and as not notable. Either now, or when notability finally becomes a reality, it's only a matter of time. - brenneman(t)(c) 08:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the end you may crush us with your iron fist, but until then every second we can preserve an NPOV encyclopedia is worth it. Kappa 09:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Viva la revolucíon! If you don't laugh at this, you're taking these debates too seriously. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 09:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • The party likes you, Kappa. So when it happens, we promise to make the end quick and painless.
          brenneman(t)(c) 09:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's all fun and games for deletionists, but in the end we are giving up our time to try and give people what they would want access to, not want you want to dole out to them. Kappa 09:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • I apologise for being droll. You'll note that I am also spending my time doing what I think best for the project. And please do not refer to me as a "deletionist", it's reductive and insulting. - brenneman(t)(c) 09:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Deletionist, inclusionist, unionist, onionist, votes-based-on-the-voices-in-his-head-ionist, everyone needs a laugh sometimes. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 09:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • You are not at risk of having wasted all the time you spent building and improving articles because someone's POV is that the information is not "notable" enough to share. You voluntarily choose to waste your time and ours in these repetitive votes, and in the end you hope to destroy all that we have built. Your elite wikipedia will always be available by technical tweaks, you have nothing to lose and we have everything. Kappa 15:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • All the more reason to calm down, breath, and laugh. (Maybe you'd like a slice of Midwestern Puppymelon.) I'd hate to have someone who clearly feels so strongly about the subject end up burning out before the worst of the tensions and sniping can be defused to pave way for a WP:MUSIC-style compromise on school articles. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 15:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • this is not funny we need a wp:city type of compromise that makes more sense to me Yuckfoo 21:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Delete --redstucco 09:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Excellent stub, interesting subject. --Tony SidawayTalk 00:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was 'speedy deleted (by Bearcat). —Cryptic (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Surly Lake[edit]

  • Delete This page appears to be a hoax by some bored kids. No hits on google for Surly Lake Canada. The external links provided lead to fake webpages. The article is full of meaningless details e.g. the town celebrates Christmas. The bored kids have asked for more time to prove their town exists, so I tagged it afd rather than speedy delete. Although according to them it only has 82 people, so may be non-notable even if real. Bwithh 09:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Again, give me more time. I will post proof. I spent lots of time writing up that page for our settlement and I don't want to do it again. Just let me have more time. Anyone who reads Wikipedia will be fine with it.

thanks J. Rainbow Jr.

  • Afd articles usually have a week's delay before the final deletion. This should give you enough time to make up some more webpages about your town Bwithh
  • Delete at the end of October. Not particularly inventive hoax. -- RHaworth 09:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (wish it was speedy) I thought it was a little invententive, but the jokes over. --rob 10:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no, not real, not funny enough either. Naturenet | Talk 16:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Hoax, and not even a good one, since the N. American broadcast television spectrum begins at Channel 2. — mendel ☎ 17:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. External web sites created by the same author as this page. --Holderca1 22:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hoax. Not funny. TheMadBaron 04:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax. If it was real it would be listed on this page which includes small towns like Bird's Point which has a population of 66 people. --maclean25 06:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax. If it was real, it would also be on Stats Canada's community profile web site, even if to redirect to a larger Census subdivision. Luigizanasi 07:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not only does it appear to be a hoax, but a search of this 'community' at the Geographical Names of Canada (government) website reveals nothing so surly. E Pluribus Anthony 10:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is such patent over-the-top nonsense. I can't decide whether my favourite part is the "Surly Lake Broadcasting Corporation" operating on a channel that doesn't exist on the television dial, the two hockey teams trading a pennant back and forth in a town that barely has the population to cobble one whole team together, the three-hour war on the Canadian government, or the civic events list that consists of Christmas, New Years and St. Patrick's Day (optional). Or maybe my favourite part is the website, where the photo of "our new beautifull town hall" clearly has Trail (which is in British Columbia) written on the water tower. Or where the town receptionist's phone number has an exchange code that resolves to North Battleford. I hereby deem this both a speedy and a "deleted protected page" until further notice. Bearcat 11:00, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. E Pluribus Anthony 11:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:01, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Surreal U[edit]

A non notable keenspace comic, found here. It finished some time in summer, this year. However, a search on google for "Surreal U" gave no links other than random webcomic crosslinking, which you would expect to get from any webcomic out there. No assertion of notability found anywhere. Hahnchen 17:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --MacRusgail 19:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Dragonfiend 19:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per nom. --Allen3 talk 20:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not encyclopedaic; no verifiable assertion of notability consistent with usual Wikipedia standards for websites. See User:SCZenz/Webcomics for more on this. -- SCZenz 21:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - comic is mildly notable artistically, but between its ending and its only mild notability, it seems unlikely to develop. The closing admin should also see User:Snowspinner/Webcomics, as I believe myself to be a subject expert on the matter of webcomics, which should be given due weight in closing this debate. Snowspinner 22:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete. I checked the "what links here", and saw that if this article was previously anticipated in another article. So someone had interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.7.10.63 (talk • contribs) 07:02, 2005 October 28
  • Keep. just remove the unverifiable parts. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Hermione1980 22:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sythe.org[edit]

Non-notable gaming website. It makes me wish that there was a speedy delete criterion for websites. Graham/pianoman87 talk 09:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but everyone has a right to know about it. It has a great community and is not 100% focused on cheating. You work for JAGeX, don't you?

user:X9Billion

Delete as per nom. CambridgeBayWeather 10:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. *drew 11:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom. Also note users are apparently vandalising this page, so watch out. --MacRusgail 17:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at any speed I don't work for Jagex, he doesn't give full health and dental. Karmafist 23:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the cheats. tregoweth 07:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was move to wiktionary and delete. Radiant_>|< 01:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology used in the Polish Scouting and Guiding Association[edit]

Very interesting perhaps, but this is really a kind of foreign language dictionary. MacRusgail 20:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to polish wiki? Interesting but agree with nom.—Gaff ταλκ 20:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Hermione1980 22:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Adelaide Cartel[edit]

Article appears to be conspiracy theory with no reference or verifiability. Scott Davis Talk 00:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable. No Google news references see [35] Less than 10 Google hits for the phrase see [36] and none of them appear to be about this supposed crime syndicate. Capitalistroadster 03:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reserved the original editor just prior to creating this article, made this edit, which I'm realy not sure about. I will ask the original editor for their input here. Alf melmac 11:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no references, no evidence. Agnte 15:21, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Looks to be a hoax. --JJay 11:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unsourced, unverifiable. MCB 18:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable. Snottygobble | Talk 02:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Ryan Delaney talk 07:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no verifiable source given -- Ian ≡ talk 03:36, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ambi 02:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate wasKept as a renomination. (If we can't argue content on Wikipedia:Deletion review for articles that got deleted, I see no reason why the querelous should be able to renominate articles that got kept until they get the desired result.) Snowspinner 04:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The College of Wooster Greeks[edit]

The last nomination resulted in no consensus. Let's see -- article that was signed until I removed the signature, about a bunch of nn fraternities and sororities. This article is longer than the article on the college itself. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. User:Purplefeltangel/sig 20:28, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep irrespective of any possible failings it survived Afd in September Dlyons493 Talk 21:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That has no bearing on its current nomination. The vote resulted in no consensus. User:Purplefeltangel/sig 21:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with The College of Wooster after some snipping. --MacRusgail 22:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, collection of fraternity trivia. Pilatus 22:58, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This could be an interesting subject. I know people who went there, and supposedly Wooster didn't have nationals for decades because of a bequest from a former student that had been badly hazed that conditioned the money on no frats. I don't know the exact story, but it did lead to lots of oddities in Wooster Greek life, like no real houses (just halls in particular dorms, usually the bad ones). A2Kafir 23:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • In an effort to build consensus I'm voting delete per nomination this time. --Metropolitan90 00:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A list of Fraternities at a small college? I really don't think wikikpedia is the right place for that sort of information. - Hahnchen 14:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn.  Grue  18:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Wooster does in fact have an unusual history of fraternities, and this article is a reasonable spin-off of the main article. Snowspinner 21:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional comment - the creator of the article, in the first deletion debate, notes that he made a trip to special collections to verify his facts. Which is to say, this article is the product of real work and real research. Yeah, there are more notable topics, and it could be formatted away from a list. But I really wish we would stop rewarding hard work on articles with "Delete nn." Multiple times. Snowspinner 22:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Good enough in its field, and in any case "delete, I don't know what this is about" is not a sensible deletion reason - David Gerard 21:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The introduction doesn't establish the point of the article, except that a bunch of things are "mysterious," and it's just a list of fraternities with a few incidents of history thrown in. I would not be opposed to a shorter article that was about history, which cited sources for necessary facts about fraternities instead of listing them all. Honestly, this sort of seems to be a FAQ (or correction of common misconceptions, maybe) about the fraternities at the college, but Wikipedia is not an indescriminate collection of information. Am I wrong to vote delete on an article that might be rewritten completely with some of the same content, but is currently not at all an encyclopedia article? -- SCZenz 01:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge per MacRusgail, after taking out all the lists of fraternities. I see no evidence the history is uninteresting, and there's no reason for the college not to have a section on fraternity history. -- SCZenz 01:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ultimately uninteresting to me and needs some cleanup, (especially in the lead) but should be kept. Unfocused 03:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (no vote). I was the person to nominate this article the first time. I go to this college. I am not a Greek student, but have no problem with Greeks. At the time, the reason why I nominated was because the article was both POV and unverified, and, at the time, it seemed like that wasn't going to change. I had no idea where the author had originally gotten his information. Those two problems were resolved during the first AfD debate. I personally have an appreciation for the article now, though there are still problem areas, but I am not voting; I think my attending the school and my interactions with greeks color my judgment too much. --Jacquelyn Marie 03:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Cyberspace Football League[edit]

The culprit for the above. A fantasy league with scant supporting evidence (Google seems to think more of the "Midwest Cyberspace Football League" than this one), suspecting vanity (and by the looks of the page, now memorial) for someone's pet hobby project. Chris talk back 18:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete and redirect to Metric System - Mailer Diablo 05:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Metric System[edit]

Mostly anti-metric rant from Rktect (this time appearing as his suckpuppet User:Federal Street). It does not seem there is any thing here that can be used or hasn't been said already, even in anti-metric movement, so delete. -- Egil 12:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete & Redirect to Metric System --Anetode 13:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Redirect per Anetode a good idea. Ifnord 14:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect per above.  BD2412 talk 16:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect per above.--MacRusgail 17:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect as per Anetode. Capitalistroadster 17:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect. I always wanted to get rid of the metric system anyway; now I get the chance to contribute to its demise. For that, I'm honoured. ;-) -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 20:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect as per Anetode. --Holderca1 22:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect. Article skirts the line of original research, looks to me. 23skidoo 23:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect as per Anetode. Youngamerican 01:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect as per Rune Welsh. --Carnildo 03:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - can User:Rktect ever be stopped? - Hahnchen 14:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above. Surely this (and the rest) constitute a breach of the RfA remedies. Does the RfA not apply to the sockpuppets noted in it unless explicitly stated in the conclusions? —HorsePunchKid→龜 00:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect to Metric system (does it really need to be deleted to accomplish this?) Tedernst 18:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Radiant_>|< 00:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Ming (Warhammer 40,000)[edit]

Fan created race. Since it isn't an official race from the Warhammer 40,000 universe, it should be deleted. Kross | Talk 23:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete.--Kross | Talk 23:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (apparently original) fiction. — Haeleth Talk 00:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-canon. Article even says so. Saberwyn 07:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. the wub "?!" 10:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not as non-canon, but because it's fanfiction (and thus OR.) Non-canon != reason to delete, OR = reason to delete. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 10:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Hermione1980 22:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Onyx Brigade[edit]

Delete this non-notable webcomic. Its Alexa ranking of 4,484,554 is far above the 200,000 proposed by WP:COMIC or the 100,000 suggested by Google test. A Google search reveals only 54 results, most of which look like mirrors of the wikipedia page. Article itself makes no claim on notability, explaining only that this is a webcomic with an author and some characters. Dragonfiend 18:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --MacRusgail 19:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing to indicate that this is not just another website with limited readership and influence. --Allen3 talk 20:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As above. - Hahnchen 14:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not encyclopedaic; no verifiable assertion of notability consistent with usual Wikipedia standards for websites. See User:SCZenz/Webcomics for more on this. -- SCZenz 21:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Radiant_>|< 00:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Quotes[edit]

  • Delete non-notable band. no hits on google. does not meet guidelines of WP:MUSIC Bwithh 05:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Delete" as per Bwithh. -- Kjkolb 05:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bwithh. --MacRusgail 16:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. One of the thousands of band articles that should be axed. --JJay 12:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete and redirect to Trombone. Hermione1980 22:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Trombone[edit]

Duplicate page, we already have an article on the Trombone Holderca1 03:28, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Hermione1980 23:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To Huy Quynh[edit]

Non-notable, vanity Neier 11:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Based on other edits, I think the subject is the author; and it doesn't seem notable enough for an article. Neier 11:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. *drew 11:52, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --MacRusgail 17:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Leeannedy 11:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete, perfect match for the vanity CSD policy... Thue | talk 20:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Truman Lorenzo Harrison[edit]

Mindless Vanity Rjayres 13:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. utcursch | talk 13:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as unverifiable crank vanity article. - Sensor 14:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Underwater megalithic structures off US coast[edit]

The page is a mis-interpretation of some ocean mapping, to suggest "structures" where none exist. No other references support the article's assertions apart from a single blog post. See the article's talk page for a fuller explanation. frankh 22:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. - frankh 22:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. Pilatus 22:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there probably are submerged pre-Columbian structures off the US coast somewhere, but I doubt these are them. --MacRusgail 23:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete all UFO landing strips Grutness...wha? 00:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, all UFO landing strips lacking credible sources. Kappa 01:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. But my reason is that it's a non-notable theory. It's probably not original research. The two "references" say nothing about underwater megalithic structures. However, the article does cite a blog, so unless 210.15.200.244 is Marty M, it's not original research. Although this is silly nonsense, this certainly could be an article if it should be shown that Marty M's theory was widely disseminated and had a large number of adherences. It would of course need to be rewritten and retitled from a neutral point of view. The fact though is that Google shows no pages linking to the blog article, and the blog article shows no reader comments. Googling on exact phrase "Underwater megalithic structures off US coast" isn't impressive either; 41 hits but most of them are to copies of the Wikipedia article. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 20:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Urban trash[edit]

Non notable webcomic. Looking on Google for "urban trash" webcomic, gives 20 or so links. Alexa has zero stats for the page. - Hahnchen 17:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Dragonfiend 19:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing to indicate that this is not just another website with limited readership and influence. --Allen3 talk 20:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not encyclopedaic; no verifiable assertion of notability consistent with usual Wikipedia standards for websites. See User:SCZenz/Webcomics for more on this. -- SCZenz 21:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now, but note that several aspects of this webcomic are interesting, if not yet notable, and that deletion now should not be taken as predjudice against recreating the article if some assertion of notability takes place. The closing admin should also see User:Snowspinner/Webcomics, as I believe myself to be a subject expert on the matter of webcomics, which should be given due weight in closing this debate. Snowspinner 22:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was MOOT. The nominated article was speedy deleted. --MarkSweep✍ 05:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalized[edit]

Original Research. Contradicts common sense. Patent nonsense. Unpatented nonsense. D. G. 05:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. D. G. 05:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Hermione1980 23:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Veronica Chateaux[edit]

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

  • Delete this woman IS A REAL PERSON but this article is untrue
  • Delete nn, still in training. RJFJR 02:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, probably vanity / fan fiction as not a single google hit. McPhail 13:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN. Diva should be reserved for singers not faked wrestling. --MacRusgail 16:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn, probably fiction. And MacRusgail, I don't pass judgement on how you choose to be entertained, please don't pass judgement on how I do the same. --HBK 20:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Even if this is a real person, training to be a wrestler and being a "distant" friend of a wrestler does not make someone particularly notable.--Darren Jowalsen 03:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE, CSD A7, an nn-bio amongst the others mentioned below. -Splashtalk 16:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vidur[edit]

Either vanity, a prank or user test

  • Delete Wyss 16:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. It is probably a prank. Wikifan42 16:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted by Splash as nonsense. --GraemeL (talk) 17:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vidur Mehta[edit]

Nonsense vanity, likely a speedy Wyss 16:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, same prankster as above, speedy if possible. Wyss 16:28, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, an almost-nonsense biography plus a confused/confusing story does not an article make. Speedy would be nice if it fits a category. Sliggy 16:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 20:49, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VinylAlchemist[edit]

My name gets more hits [37] [38] and at least credible on-line sources like the Baptist Standard can prove that I have accomplished non-encyclopedic things. I have tried to establish the notability of this indivdual, and have found no credible independent source that can verify that he has done anything meriting inclusion in an encyclopedia. -JCarriker 09:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Radiant_>|< 00:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weather weenie[edit]

Delete. At best, nn forumcruft, at worst, complete nonsense. MCB 01:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Even as a mildly popular neologism, the article could not reasonably be more than a short dicdef, which belongs in Wiktionary rather than here. If that were the article's content, I'd vote transwiki, but since it isn't, there's no point in editing it to that level and then transwiki-ing it. MCB 01:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Needs major cleanup but why not keep it? It is a topic of conversation and part of the new 21st Century vernacular among those in the Scientific Community.
  • Delete neologism, and someone keeps trying to use this as a message board (and removing the AFD tag, to boot). - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If someone wants to re-write this, then okay. But, as is, this article is nonsense. ---Aude 00:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neologism and forumcruft. Andrew Levine 01:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article is an orphan.Geni 13:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN or transwiki to uncyclopedia ;) TastemyHouse 14:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as a neologism it's no more than the sum of its parts. Wikipedia ain't a repository for netlore lists. Smerdis of Tlön 15:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nonsense. Not even funny. Bjelleklang - talk 19:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Please consider rewriting this article and keeping it. I have been a member of the forum Eastern US Weather for over a year. This group of netizens is a unique phenomenon that I believe should be included as a neologistic people-group phenomenon. I believe the article in question can be re-written and retained in Wikipedia or at least retained in one of your other wikipedian branches, such as the Wiktionary or in one of the other Wikis. Please consider my proposal. Jeb
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Hermione1980 23:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

William charles "will" connell[edit]

Asserts notability and imfamy, google disagrees. Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Now on the lam- article gone- didn't see the need to revert. --JJay 02:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment the articel was improperly blanked, I have reverted, and in the process removed the now inappropriate speedy tag. DES (talk) 03:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ifnord 11:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Attack page. Clusty never heard of such a criminal meaning online newspaper haven't either. Unverifiable. - Mgm|(talk) 14:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Either inaccuracies and vanity on the part of Mr. Connell or one of his friends, or an attack on his character by someone else. Either way, non-notable. --Icarus 21:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as an obvious whack job. Jtmichcock 05:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, CSD:A6, attack page. Anyone? MCB 18:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 20:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yer maw[edit]

totally non-encyclopaedic, not even dicdef Flapdragon 22:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - it's also suspiciously similar to Uncyclopedia's article on "Your Mom". --MacRusgail 22:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - to use another Northern Ireland expression it's a load of blah-fum! Not encyclopedic and people here say 'yer ma' anyway. Keresaspa 14:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Radiant_>|< 00:51, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zorrin Industries[edit]

mostly harmless fancruft, only "Zorin" is misspelled. Possible move to Zorin Indstries, but that should just be a redirect to the film, I would think. GTBacchus 19:41, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If it wasn't misspelled, I'd redirect to Max Zorin. I'm one of very very few people who considers that one of the best Bond movies. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Andrew Lenahan. Actually I quite like the film... good 80s theme tune, good villain (Christopher Walken), interesting plot and showdown on the Golden Gate, but Roger Moore looks a bit old perhaps. --MacRusgail 21:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Useless as a redirect due to the misspelling. 23skidoo 23:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move -- So what if it's misspelled. It's a likely misspelling for a reader to make, keep the redirect to the proper name. --Mysidia (talk) 03:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_October_22&oldid=1081093449"