Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 September 2

< September 1	September 3 >

September 2[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 was The result of the debate was Speedied as recreation. R adiant _>|< 09:19, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

2104 (book)[edit]

Non-Notable novel published online by Wikipedia member. Already deleted once here LtNOWIS 00:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy, recreation. I presume it's still also in userspace, so no need to re-userfy. If it's not still in userspace, there ought to be a very good reason. -Splash 02:24, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy as a recreation of a deleted article. - ulayiti (talk) (my RfA) 02:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Redirect to Homeostasis. --Phroziac ^(talk) 01:13, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Wisdom of the Body[edit]

Close to being {{nonsense}}. Concept is described as a theory, but no details of what that theory is are given. Esoteric discussion of chaos theory and strange attractors without describing relevance to subject matter. Final sentence "This wisdom ought to be taken for granted in the same way is gravity is" offers no supporting evidence as why this theory should be taken for granted. BillC 00:10, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Provisional delete~~. I get a lot of Googles for "Wisdom of the Body", but as it stands this article is OR of the first degree, it's only 'reference' is a...interesting...website. But the Googles indicate some possible scientific interest in the phrase. Nevertheless, here would not seem the place to start so we should remove the OR and start again. -Splash 00:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Homeostasis per Dpbsmith; I think redirect to the topic rather than the author. -Splash 18:37, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- See my comment below. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Full delete Total Nonsence and OR 70.51.172.85 01:47, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the article is completely rewritten. - ulayiti (talk) (my RfA) 02:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. Other references to the phrase as such do not seem to correlate to this OR theory. MCB 07:07, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it does sound like original research UniReb 10:48, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, OR. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Streaming organism. the wub "?/!" 13:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Chunitaku 14:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR Amren ^(talk) 14:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Homeostasis and add a brief note somewhere giving the title of Cannon's book. Cannon's book is famous, as is Walter Cannon, and the phrase "wisdom of the body" is frequently mentioned in conjunction with homeostasis. The present contents of the article is more or less nonsense and original research. I don't think there's anything that can needs to be said under the heading "Wisdom of the body" that would be separate from Homeostasis. The book itself could conceivably be worthy of an entire article but if anyone wants to write about the book the should start by writing a section in Walter Cannon and breaking it out if and when it grows big enough. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Walter Cannon might be a better target than Homeostasis then, as there is already a mention of the book in the article on Cannon. (Good comments, Dpbsmith). --BillC 17:59, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wisdom of the Body is a broadened version of the metaphor conceived by Starling and adopted by Cannon. It provides a common framework for seemingly unrelated concepts e. g., equilibrium, steady state, and strange attractor, and is applied to interpret health and disease in a new way. In other words health and disease can be expressed by these disciplines in different ways.
- (Unsigned comment is by User:84.164.247.195; most article edits from the 84.164 range; comment is likely by the contributor of the article. 84.164, it will help in communicating if you create a free account and sign your comments by typing four tildes, ~~~~, at the end.) Dpbsmith (talk) 19:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Joolz 21:59, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Caproni’s[edit]

Doesn't seem particularly notable. A dance hall that used to be popular, but doesn't exist anymore? It might be noteworthy anyway, depending on how "well known" it was, but nothing in the article establishes notability. 148.78.243.51 00:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete I which articles like those meet speedy delete but they dont. I agree with that annoynious user which is rare.Just an non Important Dance Hall that closed --Aranda56 00:49, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn 70.51.172.85 01:48, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn --rob 06:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain - the author of the article needs to provide more information about this past dance hall in reasonable time; please provide any possible notable information! UniReb 10:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As it stands, no notability asserted. Dottore So 13:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It appears that the proper name of the place was Caproni's Ballroom, and it was a venue for Irish "showbands" in the 50's-60's. But unless someone comes up with more information about notability there is no reason for it to remain. Crypticfirefly 13:49, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Chunitaku 14:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nn. UniReb 18:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- Joolz 17:15, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

World Fish-Blasting Society[edit]

completing nomination from August 5. no vote Nabla 00:33:50, 2005-09-02 (UTC)
Delete. Sorry, but looks to me like nonsense. Quite a funny idea, but no mentions on google and looks like a joke. --High ^(Hopes) 05:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. — Nowhither 22:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google returned "Не найдено ни одного документа, соответствующего запросу" Prob. Hoax 70.51.172.85 01:53, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hoax and joke. If it isn't, and there is no verification at all right now, it's so minor as to be invisible. No context, no history, no need. Geogre 10:41, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per "blasting fish"... UniReb 10:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. the wub "?/!" 13:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with fish-blasting explosives. Barno 18:53, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This, like many others, has a ?fD template that's ~~arse over tits~~ a bit confused. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 03:16, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep after rewrite. - Joolz 11:50, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting Fish[edit]

completing nomination from August 5. no vote. Nabla 00:37:22, 2005-09-02 (UTC)

Delete. Looks like nonsense and nothing to indicate of this is real. Sir might like the Uncyclopedia though? --High ^(Hopes) 05:59, 5 August 2005 (UTC) Keep - now refers to the film rather than the fanciful imaginings of someone with a curious but misplaced creative streak. --High ^(Hopes) 17:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteing this article is like shooting fish in a barrel. Keep and expand stub. Thanks to Sabine's Sunbird and Hiding for the rewrite. Capitalistroadster 23:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC) Capitalistroadster 03:33, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete:~~ Not a sport, and very unsporting. Geogre 10:49, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep rewrite, although I suppose the nonsense in the history will have to stay. What's worse is that I've seen the movie. Geogre 12:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per bullet! )----|---(( '< ... UniReb 11:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless verified. the wub "?/!" 13:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've been bold and edited it to represent the reasonably notable 1997 film of the same name. The links to this page seem to already reflect this usage. Keep. Sabine's Sunbird 21:25, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sabine's Sunbird above who beat me to it. Note page linked to from both Kate Beckinsale and Stuart Townsend. Hiding talk 21:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, after changing a previous vote to delete, per Hiding. Good catch. Deadsalmon 21:45, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as rewritten. Notable film. Flower party 21:50, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In light of newly provided information about the article, I personally deem it Wiki-worthy! )----|---(( '< ... UniReb 00:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep rewritten article. the wub "?/!" 10:07, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as rewritten, though of course it needs expanding. --Oppolo 15:32, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - major UK film. --MacRusgail 14:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was deleted. And I added it to BJAODN. Woohookitty 10:11, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wormphlegm[edit]

listing nomination from July 31. no vote. Nabla 00:39:54, 2005-09-02 (UTC)

Band...um...vanity. Only one self-released cassette. Joyous (talk) 18:51, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know your background in extreme metal, but despite it's lack of output, Woromphlegm is making MAJOR waves on the metal scene. Hellhammer released only a few demos, but it still shaped an entire genre of music (black metal). I thought it might be useful.

Whether it's useful is up for debate. It is, however, hilarious whether intentional or not. The name is fabulous, BTW. Delete and consider BJAODN. - Lucky 6.9 03:03, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I like the absurdist logic everyone is using. You're supposed to decide whether to delete a page regarding an underground culture that I can guarantee few of you know or understand, and we're debating whether it's USEFUL. All knowledge is useful.

Delete, because they'll never be even a fraction as notable as the Leningrad Cowboys. Nandesuka
Extreme funeral doom delete. Fails all of WP:MUSIC soundly. -Splash 02:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete under WP:Music given that its recorded work consists of 100 copies of a cassette demo. If it is verifiable that this band has had a national tour, produced two albums for a major label or significant independent label or make the charts in any nation, then they will qualify under WP:Music. Capitalistroadster 05:42, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: See, there's this problem with "subcultures" that nobody knows: nobody knows about them, and there can be no verification. Bathetic. Geogre 10:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Diarrhoeator??? LOL... BJAODN Roodog2k (talk) 10:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ...if their album is DOOMED !!! UniReb 11:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN (and delete), and consider starting a new section of BJAODN for funny band vanity, it just gets better and better. the wub "?/!" 13:12, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and send to BJAODN. Dottore So 13:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Chunitaku 14:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 10:15, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, America Can![edit]

Listing nomination from July 23. no vote. Nabla 00:42:48, 2005-09-02 (UTC)

Speculation, any content belongs in the main article on the campaign. (I hope I am not misunderestimating the significance of this). Ianb 23:11, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Weak keep. I know nothing about the validity of the article, but slogans seem as if they are legitimate targets for inclusion. Noisy 23:19, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Only speculation. And if it's kept, it needs to be at Slogan: Yes, American Can! RickK 23:48, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)
Delete: This belongs in a newspaper column, not an encyclopedia. Pure speculation, and no evidence. Even if it had both evidence and fact, it would be irrelevant as a separate entry. Geogre 00:07, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Slogans deserve recognition on Wikipedia.—Mr. Grinch 01:35, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Delete speculation. SWAdair | Talk 03:53, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Slogan has no meaning outside the campaign, but would make a useless redirect. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:37, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Major slogans deserve recognition. An "apparent, unofficial slogan" does not. If this one gets to the level of use of Where's the Beef?, give it an article. JamesMLane 06:39, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable, official, or in common usage. Gamaliel 14:29, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Neutral. I've written articles on slogans before (Let's All Be There), but I don't know if this is notable enough. Mike H 14:54, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)
Delete speculation and/or merge into main article. --ssd 17:14, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

10:13, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep. I re-wrote this a bit and I think it's significant. Acegikmo1 04:12, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Merge with George W. Bush presidential campaign, 2004 and delete. Unlikely to be useful as a redirect. Postdlf 04:04, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please note that at this point, 2004-08-06, the discussion was (incompletely) closed as "not deleted" by Michael Snow (talk · contribs). See Talk:Yes, America Can!. The re-opening is due to the re-application of the VFD notice to the article, without creating a fresh discussion page or listing on a per-day page, by WillC (talk · contribs) on 2005-08-08. Uncle G 14:09:19, 2005-09-02 (UTC)

Merge and redirect, as merging and deleting is not allowed. - ulayiti (talk) (my RfA) 02:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Holy crap, this is from July of last year. Redirect to George W. Bush presidential campaign, 2004, as this information is already present in that article. android 79 04:02, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep/Redirect - Redirect to Wikiquotes! UniReb 11:07, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Slogans have to meet some standard of notability like everything else. Can Yes Ameri

ca, Can!? No, Yes, America Can! can't. --Last Malthusian 11:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- Oh can it ;)
Delete Chunitaku 14:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Where's the beef?" was a significant meme - everyone knew it and understood the context. Even though I admit to the vice of following US politics closely, I never heard this alleged slogan. Even the article describes it as the "apparent, unofficial" slogan. This seems far too tenuous to support a verifiable encyclopedia article. Straight delete, no merge or redirect seem necessary to me. Rossami (talk) 21:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Rossami. -- Kjkolb 06:15, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. As per nominator. / Peter ^Isotalo 20:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Rossami Ziggurat 01:54, September 9, 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash 22:29, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zander Kauffman[edit]

Listing nomination from August 3. no vote. Notice that the user that tagged the article made no comment here. Nabla 00:48:29, 2005-09-02 (UTC)

Zander Kauffman is a great writer who has written brillint works in Black point review and his book comes out in late 05 to correct the other article writer..... Don't cast this man away just because he happens to be in the left wing. (by 68.96.140.50 2005-08-11 03:45:24)
Delete, seems to be vanity (First novel is unpublished; others not mentioned), although I had a good laugh at the picture.--Firsfron 23:58, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 134 hits on Google, all from online book reviews or online forum comments. I don't think this meets notability criteria for a bio. (I have 16,300, but do not claim notability based on online writing.) He appears to be be known in a small community of online writers, but not more widely. If his book is a best-seller, I'm sure someone will step up and write a new article. MCB 02:12, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. Sorry. Nandesuka 02:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete any article whose author doesn't even know what the title of his first yet-to-be-published work is. Zoe 05:17, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete ...unless if the author of the article can include within it of any clickable links to reliable sources that can make a suitable arguement of why this certain individual should deserve an article within Wikipedia! UniReb 11:12, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MCB & Zoe. Side note, Kauffman's real name may be "Philip Walter," didn't find anything under that name either.Crypticfirefly

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete -- Joolz 11:53, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zeleni Zub[edit]

Listing nomination from August 12. no vote. Nabla 00:51:31, 2005-09-02 (UTC)

delete...it's meaningless as it stands, and i suspect it's just a vandals nonsense--JRL 06:39, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete appears to be band vanity ("frontman").--Firsfron 00:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleted as a substub: There was not enough context to even determine what it was talking about. Geogre 10:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete that "blank" article about literally nothing..... -.- UniReb 11:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Joolz 21:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the Inconvenience[edit]

del a nonnotable supposedly webcomic, which is even not a webcomic. mikka (t) 00:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete although I disagree with the "not a webcomic" diagnosis. Nifboy 00:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nonnotable webcomic. Dragonfiend 01:07, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Man, they even got the quote wrong - it's "We APOLOGIZE for the inconvenience". Delete. R adiant _>|< 09:19, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - There wasn't much of anything on that external link I clicked on to see if the comic is actually notable or not... hopefully I didn't get my computer infected with anything... yikes! UniReb 11:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"The red monkies appeared on January 4, 2005 when one of them had sex with a decapitated ninja pirate. The body exploded and the comic was full of red monkies." Delete. the wub "?/!" 13:15, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. Amren ^(talk) 14:27, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I think the Wub says it all.--Oppolo 15:36, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was move to user space and delete. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:49, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

2104 (book)[edit]

Gets no google hits. Belongs in User:Martinultima's user space. Xezbeth 16:48, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Userfy and delete. "The book is currently unfinished as of the time of writing; however, with any luck, it should be published soon." RidG (talk) 17:42, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
Userfy as above. Might warrant an article when it finally gets published though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:47, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity ad. Wyss 01:29, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, book promo. Megan1967 02:37, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Userfy as above. Alphax ^τεχ 08:07, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
Userfy as above. Bart133 (t) 02:41, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
What about moving it to my space and then making the original article a redirect? Despite popular belief, the article was not written by me. I'm not sure who did it, but someone used my account to create this article without my permission. What puzzles me is that all the details currently released are correct... at any rate, I'm moving the article for now. multima 22:47, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

~~Keep if it gets published. It seems like it would be notable (and a good read). nanaszczebrzeszyn~~ (anonymous vote struck out by ugen 64)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep -- Joolz 12:05, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Świat według Kiepskich[edit]

Listing nomination from August 9. no vote. Nabla 00:57:14, 2005-09-02 (UTC)

Seems like something that should belong in Polish Wikipedia, but is entirely non-notable outside of Poland, aside from being a legacy of Married With Children (Google). --Howcheng 16:56, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--Witkacy 05:01, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain for now. I'll be back to check to see whether or not so much as a translation of its name into English has been made to the article by then, or whether or not any of the apparently uniquely unnoteworthy actrons are no longer red links. Witkacy, I trust you'll see to this? Tomer ^TALK 05:05, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Keep - there is whole category Category:Television series by country and it matches it perfectly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyleall (talk • contribs) August 11, 2005 at 13:34 (UTC)
Keep - if it's notable in Poland, it's notable in Wikipedia. This is not the United States Wikipedia. - ulayiti (talk) (my RfA) 02:59, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and avoid Anglocentric bias. Martg76 03:59, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just because this is the English language Wikipedia doesn't mean all of the articles have to be about English speaking countries. Zoe 05:19, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Obvious keep. Nabla, please go re-read the criterion for deletion page. —RaD Man (talk) 06:41, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable television program. Capitalistroadster 07:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. The Polish language rules. RaD Man, please note that Nabla didn't initiate the vote; he/she just listed the nomination formally. Proto t c 09:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Might be notable in Da Windy City or Linden, New Jersey. Then again, maybe not... Roodog2k (talk) 10:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Verification of notability? Referred to by what? In fact, this is the English Wikipedia, meaning that topics are supposed to be encountered by English-speakers. When the title remains in Polish and the article's claims for notability are only that it was popular within Poland, we're looking at something similar to a local TV show: it hasn't sufficient context in the English written world. It may be the greatest TV show ever, might have had a big audience in Poland, but will the anglophone reader require it, under this title, in this location, and learn sufficient amounts from this? It doesn't seem that way to me, although I would be happy to see citations in English to the show that would make it an English-language topic. Geogre 11:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More important than any of the above arguements is (of course): You can find it using Google. 212.101.64.4 11:05, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I hope they might have any possible plans to revitalize the show and do an American spin-off of it! UniReb 11:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per "if it's on TV, it must be notable." Dottore So 13:33, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Doesn't matter if it's in Polish, it's still a notable show. Amren ^(talk) 14:28, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Geogre. No evidence of notability in the English reading world. Anyone for whom this is significant can read Polish and can look it up in the Polish wikipedia. Quale 18:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is an English language, encyclopedia, not an English world one. We have a skewed view and if we can have article for individual Simpson seasons I'm sure a popular TV show works. gren グレン 19:28, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Geogre's arguments. No evidence presented that this is (yet) relevant to the English Wikipedia. A foreign language TV show might be encyclopedic here if the article were a discussion of the social impact made by the show (either domestically or abroad). This mere plot summary does not qualify. Side comment: I strongly dispute the allegation that "if it's on TV, it must be notable." Rossami (talk) 22:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if this is notable in Poland, it merits an article in the English-language Wikipedia. -- The Anome 06:21, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
Keep - it isn't perfect article, but it may be useful; it's really popular in Poland 62.69.192.55 13:10, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per Geogre. / Peter ^Isotalo 20:43, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash 22:33, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Noacniari Deluge[edit]

Not quite patent nonsense, but if anyone wants to suggest it ....--Doc (?) 00:59, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if outright deletion is key here. It looks like there is reference to a second source (the first being The Bible). This may have something to do with the "Concentric Spheres" model of the Earth devised in the mid-19th century, although a Google search turned up butkus. --NielsenGW 01:40, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I think deletion is very key here. 'Noacniari' turns up no googles - that's a crackpot theory that's not on the internet (perhaps that's notable in itself). This is a hoax - it's just too obscure for us to get it. --Doc (?) 07:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to be a hoax as per above, and verges on the nonsensical. Demogorgon's Soup-taster 08:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - To author: Please provide an authentic document/scripture saying close to word-for-word as it says in the article. UniReb 11:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards Merge -- After an exhaustive investigation (I think I exhausted Google), I would recommend to keep this article (for now). It justs needs more research. The Deluge is in reference to the flood that Noah and the animals rode out on the Ark. Noah's name in Hebrew becomes "Noach." Noacniari may be a corruption of Noachian, a word sometimes attributed to the Great Flood. Merge the usable bits into Deluge (mythology). --NielsenGW 13:56, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
- If you're right, then (delete and?) redirect to Deluge (mythology) - I can't see anything worth merging. --Doc (?) 14:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a cut-and-paste of a single paragraph on page 39 of this document (which is probably public domain since it's from a US Govt website). In the context of the full article, this appears to be an attempt to make a parenthetical comment about groundwater and mentions the "Noacniari Deluge" in passing. It is clearly not a discussion about the "Noacniari Deluge". That section of the full article is also nearly incomprehensible (proving that government-sponsored gibberish is still gibberish). I don't see anything worth keeping and except for this one article, I can't find any other verification of the use of the title "Noacniari Deluge". Without verification, I have to recommend deletion. Rossami (talk) 22:24, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Rossami. Good work. -- Kjkolb 06:29, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Based on the research mentioned above, I think that the title of this article (obviously taken from the government document) should be Noachian Deluge, which should be set as a redirect to Noah. Crypticfirefly 14:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Joolz 17:21, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Norjumtandh[edit]

15 Goggles (incl about 14 mirrors). Non-verifiable, nn, poss hoax?? --Doc (?) 01:05, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. non relevamt --SunnyD 01:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain - The article needs to provide a link to a reliable source to reference the information detailed within the article. UniReb 11:25, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge - Merge it into some article dealing with Norse mythology. UniReb 18:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't be too sure of the one possibly-reliable source that I found about this topic. I probably should have played it safe since the beginning. Sorry! It deserves a delete for now... and possibly for good... ! UniReb 19:20, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unverifiable. Jll 08:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete copyvio -- Joolz 17:27, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John tedeschi[edit]

Vanity page that looks like a cut & paste (hence a copyvio) from www.johntedeschi.net/biography/index.html Eddie.willers 01:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio this is. Tagged it and bagged it I have. To WP:CP take such things in future the nominator should. -Splash 02:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyvio. However, Tedeschi would appear to qualify under WP:Bio for a legitimate article please see his website bio. [1] Capitalistroadster 07:09, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete every copyvio! UniReb 11:27, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Copyvio. Amren ^(talk) 14:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, edge of the bounds of notability, however... deleting an article because it is a copyright violation is a bad idea, delete the content, not the article. gren グレン 19:36, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That would leave us with a blank article! You can always write a shiny new article on the /Temp subpage. -Splash 21:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleting the article is the only way to remove the copyvio from the article's history. Page-blanking does not generally meet the requirements for resolving a copyvio. Further, if the subject does deserve an article (a point supported above but not proven), that article should be created at the correct title - capitalized last name. We should allow the copyvio deletion to take precedence over this discussion. Rossami (talk) 22:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dottore So 00:56, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash 22:33, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptographically secure random number generators[edit]

Delete. This is a weird rant and/or original research. I'm sure that there's an article in there some place, but it's not written as such. Mmmbeer 01:15, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant (see Hardware random number generator and Cryptographically secure pseudo-random number generator). ManoaChild 01:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - original research abakharev 02:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - OR. (Pretty much anything with the word "I" in it is fair game for deletion, methinks). Demogorgon's Soup-taster 08:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pseudorandom or the other article noted with the almost identical name or something else appropriate. Just because the content is bad, doesn't mean that it should be deleted. Its a legit topic. Roodog2k (talk) 11:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per combination UniReb 11:28, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to cryptographically secure pseudo-random number generator. There's no content worth merging; we cover this stuff at hardware random number generator (as per ManoaChild). — Matt Crypto 11:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delte this is in effect a personal esay -- a collection of personal views on what makes a good CSRNG. This is all covered in more detail and in more encyclopediac fashion at cryptographically secure pseudo-random number generator. After deletion, create a preemtive redirect to that page, but theere is no reason to retain the current article in the page history. (If no consensus to delete, redir, do not simply keep)DES ^(talk) 18:48, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' OR. Dottore So 00:56, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. This is not only a personal opinion but sufficiently indistinct that it cannot even be tested (to the extent such things can be tested) as it stands. Actually the redirect to the CSPRNG would be best for readers looking for CSRNG should definitely be told that no such thing as a CSRNG actually exists and that the concept the term supposedly refers to is a snark. An important bit of context for the non cryptiacs. ww 18:46, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Woohookitty 10:18, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural references in Pokémon[edit]

This article is a mess, and is beyond hope of cleanup. It's a list of random pop-culture or historical references in the Pokémon anime, and doesn't offer the context to make sense of the references. Besides having factual errors and an ongoing edit war between anons about whether it's appropriate to say that smoking marijuana is bad for you, neither of which are deletion criteria, Wikipedia is WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, like lists of random, loosely-connected trivia. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 01:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has lots of lists, I betcha that there are lists that are in worse condition than this CoolKatt number 99999

I'm making the case that this list is hopeless, and cannot be improved. I've been working to try and clean it up, but I just can't see how it's not hopeless.

If you see another list that is hopelessly unencyclopedic, moreso than this one, feel free to put it on VFD. I'd be happy to vote delete on it. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 02:22, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why not get someone else to clean up for you? CoolKatt number 99999

Because I see a job that needs doing, so I'm doing it. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 03:04, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But you say you can't do it, thus negating your statement CoolKatt number 99999

I feel it can't be brought up to an encyclopedic standard. It's beyond hope to meet that standard, not beyond hope of any improvement. In the event consensus goes to keep this article, I'd hope that it wouldn't reflect poorly on Wikipedia (or, specifically, the Pokémon Wikiprojects on Wikipedia). - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 03:30, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is only what you think, were there any times you thought to give up hope, yet kept going to the end? So just let the editing duties be done by someone else. CoolKatt number 99999

Huh? - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 03:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful as a list, better than articles about each Pokemon episode. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:24, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Oh Lord, I fear we must keep this, for the alternative is mind-boggling. Could ask the WP:PAC to give it a once-over, though. -Splash 02:28, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Actually, on closer reflection, I realise that there is not value in keeping this article. The lack of inward links suggests this has not been created by repeatedly merging, so there is not much reason to suppose that will suddenly change. -Splash 20:13, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you fear we must keep it? For what it's worth, I'm a member of WP:PAC and WP:PCP, and I think it's hopeless. Others may disagree. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 02:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just because, if we don't, we'll get a bazillion seperate articles to replace it. Followed by a bazillion VfDs to merge them all again. -Splash 02:42, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - There are two different Pokémon-related Wikiprojects that are defending valid articles while helping to keep sucky ones under control. This article is not the result of merging unencyclopedic stubs, and deleting it is unlikely to result in the creation of new unencyclopedic stubs. Vote the merits of the article, not based on the consequences you fear. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 02:49, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Still, doesn't justify you to put this up on AFD instead of hiring someone else to clean-up the article CoolKatt number 99999
Keep. Best to have this kind of Pokémoncruft collected together in one article so that the Pokémon fans can enjoy it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:25, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sweet jesus that's a fun little article Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 07:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep I agree with those who said "Keep", but this should just end now. CoolKatt number 99999
Weak Keep/Upgrade - UniReb 11:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with above, it's best that it all stays in one article. Amren ^(talk) 14:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm in full support of every species of pokémon getting their own individual articles, but this one is so painfully crufty and obscure. I also refuse to vote on the basis of some spectral threat of the emergence of mass shit articles. Have a little faith, people. --Apostrophe 22:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, please! I actually liked the idea of this article (& the first paragraph is not badly written), but the more I read this article, the less I could justify keeping it. The cultural references explained in this article are so painfully obvious (e.g., "The samurai were strong warriors in feudal Japan') or trivial (e.g., "Meowth: 'James, stop this crazy thing'-reference to The Jetsons, in which George says 'Jane, stop this crazy thing'") as to be absolutely worthless. Well, maybe not absolutely: I could entertain myself for hours by making fun of what's there, & risk censure for unnecessary cruelty on Wikipedia. Lastly, there are almost no links to this article, so I doubt that deleting it will create a pokemon hydra in its place. -- llywrch 23:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been proctected as a result of the edit war going on. CoolKatt number 99999

What? No, it hasn't. You've added the {{vprotected}} template, for no reason I can fathom. It's not protected, and there's no vandalism going on. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 02:14, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete argh! Dottore So 00:58, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Warning: May be sock puppet vote CoolKatt number 99999

Delete worthless. Sabine's Sunbird 03:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Warning: May be sock puppet vote CoolKatt number 99999

Keep, list in cleanup—AFD isn't the page for these kinds of requests. The article is encyclopedic of itself, it just needs some help in its current state. Titoxd 03:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I was the one who added the cleanup tag myself, a while ago. And what do you mean that AFD isn't the place for this? - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 03:49, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, liston to Titoxd, he's right for all we know. CoolKatt number 99999
  - I mean that any articles that do deserve an article but are not in good shape should go to cleanup, not to AFD. AFD is to get articles deleted, not fixed. While it is a good way to bring more eyes into the picture and start discussion, it is not the recommended way. AFD is too large and we've been trying to make it smaller for quite a while. These nominations just clog an already clogged process. It's in bad shape, but still salvageable. --Titoxd 03:15, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh. Well, I honestly believe this list should be deleted, not cleaned up. I originally felt it merited cleanup instead of deletion (so I added the cleanup tag), but I have since changed my mind. I know AFD isn't the place for article that need improvement. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 04:37, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think my brain imploded from reading it, I think there's probably one thing in there that isn't just rubbish- and we can't keep an article for just that, really. --Oppolo 15:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Warning: May be sock puppet vote CoolKatt number 99999

Delete. There's nothing in here that could possibly be salvaged that doesn't already belong in a more specific Pokemon article. -Sean Curtin 22:39, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Warning: May be sock puppet vote CoolKatt number 99999

Delete useless. -WindFish 01:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Warning: May be sock puppet vote CoolKatt number 99999

Delete: Oh please, dear God! "Ash passes on prune juice - Prunes are said to set off bowel movements, because of its high fiber content, which is why many people don't eat prunes" That's not a cultural reference! That's called stating the bleeding obvious where I come from! Jezze 18:08, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Now, that could be removed without removing the whole article! But delete anyway. Sonic Mew | talk to me 19:43, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Warning: May be sock puppet vote CoolKatt number 99999

Something does not sound right, I think there might be sock puppets voting "delete", which is I think why most votes after Amren's are "delete," besides the last 3 votes should not count, nor should Splash's change of mind, because they came after the 5 day limit (September 2-6) to debate on this. If anyone can investigate the alleged sock puppets, I would be pleased. CoolKatt number 99999

It's a well established principle that anyone can vote or change their vote until someone closes the debate. It says as much on WP:AFD/Old.-Splash 00:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: That's a HILARIOUS list, as much as I love Pokémon I say kill. - Ferret 00:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Still, someone should investigate all "delete" votes after Amren's "keep" vote for sock puppets, which in voting, are against the rules. And saying kill would normally negate you liking Pokemon. CoolKatt number 99999

Silly - I meant kill the page not kill Pokémon. ;) - Ferret 04:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I invite you to check out the Special:Contibutions page for each of the people voting before making accusations. Please, assume good faith. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 02:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If I did that, then I'd vote what you vote (delete), which is highly unlikely. And to quote the AGF page: Of course, there's a difference between assuming good faith and ignoring bad actions. If you expect people to assume good faith from you, make sure you demonstrate it. Don't put the burden on others. Yelling "Assume Good Faith" at people does not excuse you from explaining your actions, and making a habit of it will convince people that you're acting in bad faith. CoolKatt number 99999

I'm not sure that I can say anything to allay your suspicions, so I'll just wish you a nice day and hope someone else can give you the satisfaction you desire. (Without any sarcasm,) have a nice day. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 03:21, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging all those votes is an act of extraordinary poor form. I recognise at least half of those user names on sight as AfD regulars and names I see around the Wiki regularly, and can assure they are not sock-puppets. Besides, I'm sure the closing admin is capable of determining such things for themselves. -Splash 02:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you recognize them because they could be your sock puppets CoolKatt number 99999

Nothing like a bit of healthy paranoia to start the day! - Ferret 05:10, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CoolKatt number 99999 Dude! I am not a "sock puppet". And indeed I feel slightly hurt! "I am not a number I am a free man!" (Hmm well I suppose on the internet I'm just an IP...... DAMN!) Jezze 22:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, your vote will stay, and will not be marked as possible sock puppet, and I'm sorry. CoolKatt number 99999

DELETE; most of these are not cultural references or even trivia but just obvious facts. ♥purplefeltangel 23:33, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Warning: May be sock puppet vote CoolKatt number 99999

Warning: May be overparanoid person who did not bother to look at my userpage nor edit history. ♥purplefeltangel 03:15, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If I did so, I'd be voting "delete", which I will not CoolKatt number 99999

I'm not sure as to what the revelance of looking at somebody's edit history has to do with voting to delete an article. Perhaps you should notch back the paranoia and learn English? --Apostrophe 05:32, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seriously, this is not an article worth saving. Who would visit Wikipedia to specifically look up this kind of "info" anyway? Not to mention I'm a little miffed that the Pokemon anime article is now protected thanks toCoolKatt number 99999's obsession to include content that only lowers the quality of the article. WarChild 07:34, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 10:16, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bickles cab[edit]

Known within small geographical region and non-notable wrt WP:MUSIC standards. Can only find one 7" release, one self-released CD and one indie-label CD. Eddie.willers 01:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Those 3 releases don't meet the recommendations in WP:MUSIC, and they don't appear to be stonkingly notable locally. No allmusic.com presence, either. -Splash 02:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Get them to go national and I might reconsider my vote! Please hurry!!! UniReb 11:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, so keep. -Splash 22:36, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

JTV[edit]

Not notable. brenneman ^(t)^(c) 01:28, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I rewrote and wikified this in an attempt to save it. Probably meets local/regional TV station notability criteria (is there a population criteria?). MCB 07:35, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Do we have any precedents regarding local television? - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 00:15, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - TV stations are usually notable! UniReb 11:33, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An audience of 120,000 is a little on the low side for a television station, but presumably this is because it's just a little cable outfit. I can't think of a good reason to delete this article; I'd be ignorant about JTV without it, and considering we are trying to build an encyclopedia that would be a bad thing. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 06:21, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on general deletion policy moved to talk page.

Delete, not notable. R adiant _>|< 15:32, September 4, 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was ~~NO CONSENSUS, KEEP AND MERGE moink 05:24, 12 September 2005 (UTC)~~ uhm, it's a delete consensus, if i've ever seen one... --Phroziac ^(talk) 00:48, September 13, 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter trolling[edit]

Delete. C'mon, could one get any less encyclopedic? Plus a lot of this just happens at Wikipedia... it doesn't deserve its own article and I can't picture anyone caring in two months. R e dwolf24 (talk) 01:27, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reason to catalogue all the different possible types of trolling, especially as this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:11, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete trolls. Especially boring, repetitive ones. -Splash 02:37, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Holy crap that's what happens in Half-Blood Prince? Why did I click that link?~~ Jokes aside, delete. nn Potter/trollcruft. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 02:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:RS.—Encephalon | ^ζ 07:56:45, 2005-09-02 (UTC)
Delete - It might ruin the plot for Harry Potter fans such as in the case of the user A Man In Black ! Ouch! Although, I've never read a Harry Potter book anyhow nor would I find this specific article Wiki-worthy enough anyways. UniReb 11:37, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh. I was kidding. I read the book the day after it was released, before the trolls really got going. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 18:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - So was I! :-P UniReb 00:22, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dumbledore says delete from beyond the grave. Proto t c 12:15, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have a vague, Trelawneyesque vision of a future where we have a page called 'editing Wikipedia articles', and then another one called 'editing the Wikipedia article called 'editing Wikipedia articles' ', and then...anyway what if <spoiler removed>? We'll all look like Muggles. Peeper 13:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Peeper, why'd you spoil it for me? ;) Amren ^(talk) 14:41, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry Amren...obliviate! Peeper 15:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could possibly be merged into a spoiler trolling article? Deliberately posting spoilers is hardly confined to Harry Potter. Morwen - Talk 14:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not encyclopedic. Please be careful when voting – there are people who are interested in HP that haven't read the book yet, and I've removed two spoilers from this discussion already. android 79 16:52, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete This article is Harry Potter trolling. 67.101.26.107 17:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RedWolf24, except I can't see anyone caring right now. CDC (talk) 17:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but perhaps rename to something more descriptive. If this has surfaced in radio media, roadside banners, numerous bulletin boards and blogs, chat rooms, and it appears to be a self-sustaining meme, I think this meets the notability test. I mean, Wikipedia has articles for 'pwned' and other fad terminology and phenomena. I do not recall other movie spoiling being so public or aggressive. I don't know if "trolling" is the right word, though, perhaps a neologism like "spoiler-sporting" would be better. The Hokkaido Crow 19:02, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I haven't heard it surfacing in media and it doesn't make sense if it were to, considering they'd have to spoil it, and then bad stuff would happen to that media station. Pwned is not a fad as we still keep saying it. And trolling is definitely the word just as we use trolling for GNAA. R e dwolf24 (talk) 22:16, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unencyclopedic. --Carnildo 22:35, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince as per the discussion on the article's talk page - this ~~VFD~~ AFD was rather unneccessary because there it could've been merged had the person been given a chance to do so, some of the information is verifiable and worthy of mention on the book's page, the bridge incident in particular (BBC) -- Joolz 23:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Joolz. -HX 00:28, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the definition of trolling is encyclopedic, notable examples like the GNAA are borderline, but Harry Potter zealots aren't. What's next, Wiki-cheese trolling? --Tito xd 03:49, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't a true encyclopedia article. SujinYH 23:35, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, not worth its own article, but worth mentioning in HBP. (preceding unsigned comment by Bjwebb 07:19, 5 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Merge, it doesn't deserve its own page, but it's a huge fad and should be mentioned somewhere.--Theuniversal 23:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ryan Delaney ^talk 07:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whatever content is actually important, if any, could be covered in the HBP article. Friday (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --212.149.179.127 08:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The trolling universe has no bounds. JFW | T@lk 11:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Stupid Article Evanesco! Seriously, this article IS a troll. Give it up. --DocSigma 15:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete good riddance to bad rubbish Ashibaka (tock) 15:33, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with article on the book, half blood prince. It is worth a para telling a bit more about the hype surrounding HPB, and probably fits much better there. Sandpiper 23:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

one or two of the above suggest this is about wiki reporting wiki, or just general lists of trolling. Maybe the article has been edited already, but I don't see that there. It is another aspect of the biggest selling fiction book in the world, which is quite a noteable achievement.Sandpiper 23:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 10:20, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andy dreo and Vasija Vasudeva[edit]

Claims notability, but unable to verify (Google returns only three hits for "Andy Dreo + smetka") [2], not sure if it qualifies for speedy under A7. --Alan Au 01:45, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Vasija Vasudeva is an exact duplicate and is now included in this Afd as well. --Alan Au 03:42, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Amazon's not heard of him as an author, and allmuisc.com hasn't heard of him as a musician. Under either version of the first name. Electronic releases don't really cross my bar to notability unless they're really big (though this has yet to be properly tested out yet), ergo nn. -Splash 02:36, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

so, look at slovenian pages http://karantanija.planetsi.net/dj.asp?did=97&lang=sl - music artist of slovenia http://cobiss2.izum.si/scripts/cobiss?ukaz=FFRM&mode=5&id=0904071374145203&PF1=AU&PF2=TI&PF3=PY&PF4=KW&CS=a&PF5=CB&run=yes&SS1=%22Dreo,%20Andy%22 - book authors of slovenian libary

so.. look to slovenian pages:) not at english..

Delete. While he has a number of albums they are all issued from his own label. While the same could be said for Ani DiFranco, DiFranco has developed a worldwide musical reputation. This guy hasn't as yet. Capitalistroadster 03:40, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.klosar.info is a multimedia free archive of noprofitable distributes.... you can say own label:)

Abstain - Not sure for now! UniReb 11:40, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nn enough! UniReb 00:23, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash 22:37, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ekiben (sex position)[edit]

Needs major cleanup & rewrite to establish any credence. Google hits return 'Ekiben' as a standing position (and is noted that Ekiben is a type of noodle lunch sold by peddlars) but 'Mukai Chocoball'?? PUHLEEEZE!! Weak Delete Eddie.willers 01:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a hoax/joke. "Ekiben" is an idiom for "station lunch" in Japanese. ("Eki" = station, "ben" short for "bento", box lunch). They're often delicious, but the article is a hoax. MCB 02:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.—Encephalon | ^ζ 07:58:11, 2005-09-02 (UTC)
Delete - It sounds like original research! UniReb 11:42, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It'll be Ekibill next. Alf 15:27, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (NO VOTE) Chocoball Mukai, or in Japanese Chokobôru Mukai,is on imdb. http://us.imdb.com/name/nm1905891/. imdb lists him as the main character (playing himself) of a movie called...well, Ekiben! I found a Japanese review and fed it into Google translator, and it said:
But this film festival neck < height it cut > the lunch box which it sells from original railroad reverse tus is, but seyk su one of physical condition it rips from here. That shape the lunch box sale primary meaning shape is same from railroad reverse and there is like that meaning.
Taking "seyk su" as a Japanese translation of the European word "sex", this review does seem to suggest that ekibens are linked with sex in some manner in the movie, but further than that I cannot say. -Tony Sidaway ^Talk 18:20, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's conceivable that there are some Japanese-language puns involving the word "ekiben" and sex, in that film or elsewhere, but I ran it past a couple of Japanese friends who confirm that it's not an actual term, slang or otherwise, for a sexual position. Even if this is real, and not just a one-liner in a movie, Wikipedia is not a (slang) dictionary. MCB

Delete echoining above. Dottore So 01:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion has prompted me to form my opinion, and that is Delete. --Bhadani 17:24, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep -- Joolz 11:58, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RTV Palma[edit]

User:Sasa Stefanovic put the afd header on this page, but didn't create an entry here. no vote. — A.M. 02:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - TV stations and/or channels are usually Wiki-worthy enough! UniReb 11:48, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 22:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbit rabbit[edit]

Kid show cruft.

Delete. Gazpacho 02:35, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Quick as. Moriori 02:42, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Comment - Nickelodeon did *not* invent this one. I can't find much documentation on the web but it goes back to 1940s England at least, and I suspect much further. I don't know if it's exactly notable though, so I won't vote at the moment. FreplySpang (talk) 02:45, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Now Keep - thanks for the rewrite, Starblind! FreplySpang (talk) 23:29, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Keep Interesting cultural tidbit. Isn't really the sort of thing that can be merged anywhere, though I'm open to suggestions. I know it goes back at least to the mid-80s (in Pennsylvania). If the comment above is correct, it's a part of human culture for at least 60 years and at least 2 continents. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:58, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Keep I clearly remember being told about this by my 4th grade teacher when I was a kid-- long before anyone ever thought of Nickelodeon. She explained that was the reason that the first day of the month is known as "rabbit day." If I remember rightly, she also told us that forgetting to say "rabbit rabbit" could be undone by saying the word backwards while hopping on one foot and rotating counterclockwise.Crypticfirefly 03:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC) I did a quick check using ProQuest, this superstition is mentioned in the June 4, 1997 issue of the Boston Globe at page A18 as an example of a common superstition. And according to the May 13, 1992 issue of the Los Angeles Times, it is in a book about children's superstitions called "One Potato, Two Potato," by Mary and Herbert Knapp. Maybe that's where Nickelodeon got it?Crypticfirefly 03:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep I wish this article were sourced and accurate (I'm pretty sure this predates Nick, based on my own memory). As it is, it's sort of a wash. Brighterorange 03:20, 2 September 2005 (UTC) (now rewritten; revote below)[reply]
Keep if sources can be found for it, otherwise delete. Definitely older than Nickelodeon (I heard about it in the 1970s). --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 05:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Scource example -- Dornford Yates, in one of the early short-story collections, probably Brother of Daphne --Simon Cursitor 13:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC) Can verify w. page refs if necessary.[reply]
Badger badger, for the usual reasons. —RaD Man (talk) 06:42, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've learned this saying from my primary school teacher more than a decade ago and ever since then. I haven't forgotten it, especially since I heard it from many different other sources. UniReb 11:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have completely rewritten the article, added a lot of material as well as references. This took a huge amount of research (I was almost surprised to find it in actual reference books) but hopefully the concerns about this article have been addressed...it is certainly nothing to do with any kids' show, and is at least a century old, possibly much more. I still consider the article a work in progress, and I plan to add more and possibly move it to Rabbit superstition or similar, as "rabbit, rabbit" is just one of many key phrases for this folklore. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:52, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Definitely keep it now; kudos starblind! Brighterorange 13:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even my wife has heard of it. (You should have seen my baffled look when she said it to our kids yesterday.) Al 14:56, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, same kind of thing with Bloody Mary in the mirror... wortwhile cultural article. gren グレン 19:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Good folklore article. I added category:folklore, too. MCB 19:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep —Ashley Y 07:29, September 5, 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, so keep. -Splash 22:43, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Diaz[edit]

Non-notable radio personality. Denni ☯ 02:42, 2005 September 2 (UTC)

Keeep - Keep this article here. Do not merge it with the Ron and Fez one.
Keep - I think I've heard of that show many times before, but I certainly heard of that station; even though I've never been to and anywhere near Florida and never listened to either the station or show! UniReb 11:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect (what little info there is) to Ron and Fez. Ron Diaz is Ron Bennington's former partner, when the show was Ron and Ron and, although he still does talk radio, he's nowadays mainly remembered as a footnote to the later Ron and Fez duo. (It frightens me that I know this stuff!) --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 17:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:BIO for an entertainment figure. -- BD2412 ^talk 19:34, 2 September 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. KEEP WITH POSSIBLE MERGE. moink 05:38, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reopen911.org[edit]

Delete. Non-notable conspiracy theory website. Alexa ranking: 138,699. android 79 02:56, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per above. It's also POV ("exposing the lies . . ."). Demogorgon's Soup-taster 08:59, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to James W. Walter, the website's founder, who is notable. I would also argue that the website is notable, despite the Alexa Test. Roodog2k (talk) 11:28, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm wondering whether Walter is actually notable. In any case, his article needs serious de-POV-ization and fact-checking. If he is notable, the external link in the article is probably good enough. android 79 12:12, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Abstain - I might've heard of it on a major liberal news network such as Fox News but I'm not certainly sure; therefore, the author needs to provide more links to reliable sources about this "supposedly-existing" organization! UniReb 11:59, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Fox News is liberal??? Merge as per Roodog2k. --Tito xd 03:52, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hogan & Hartson[edit]

This article does not establish the importance of this law firm. Denni ☯ 02:56, 2005 September 2 (UTC)

Keep largest law firm based in Washington, DC. -- DS1953 04:21, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Denni. Deadsalmon 04:45, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Large multinational lawfirm. 136.153.2.2 05:02, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That was me. A Google search for "Hogan & Hartson" gets 106,000 results. [3] Capitalistroadster 05:06, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please play again. —RaD Man (talk) 06:42, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The failure of the article to currently establish notability does not infer the subject of the article is not notable. If it's broke, {{sofixit}}. Proto t c 09:20, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Prove more notability. Roodog2k (talk) 11:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Expand - It seems to be Wiki-worthy! UniReb 12:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, expand - U.S. Supreme Court nominee John Roberts was part of this firm for several years in the 80s and again in the 90s, arguing several cases before the Supreme Court for them. -- BD2412 ^talk 19:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
strong keep notable for being large, and for being Roberts's former firm. —brighterorange ^(talk) 21:00, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash 22:44, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dee deedee[edit]

This article is about the "phrase" Carlos Mencia uses when making jokes about stupid people. As the author of the Mencia page, I feel this isn't even close to notable - it hasn't been in heavy use by anyone other than Mencia, and does not warrant its own page. Marked for speedy while I was doing the ~~VfD~~ AfD, but keeping it on ~~VfD~~ AfD to be safe. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> - 03:09, 2 September 2005 (UTC).[reply]

merge into Carlos Mencia, since it seems there's not much more this article could say. Brighterorange 03:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dee deedeelete. --DavidConrad 03:28, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It sounds like original research! UniReb 12:02, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Include as 'trivia' on Carlos Mencia article. Alf ^melmac 13:40, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete --Ryan Delaney ^talk 22:15, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

HyperFlexed[edit]

"little known independant (sic).." = band vanity. Brighterorange 03:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy as CSD A7. android 79 03:43, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Comment. As individual, deserving of A7 speedy. If we had it for musical artists he would warrant it as well. Most of his "musical activities" are conducted in forums thus he fails WP:Music dismally. Does assertion of musical participation protect you from A7 speedy even though it is clearly warranted. Capitalistroadster 04:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Clear delete, speedy under A7 if appropriate. Capitalistroadster 04:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

comment In the recent CSD reform vote, there was a an item like A7 for bands, but it didn't fly. I'd say that's pretty good evidence that bands can't be speedied under A7, sadly. Brighterorange 13:25, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't describe its subject as being in a band. It's an article about one person; A7 applies. android 79 13:28, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

I'll buy that--changing my vote to speedy with all deliberate speed. Brighterorange 18:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain - UniReb 12:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't vote on every nomination. If you don't have an opinion on this article, there is no need to cast an abstain vote. android79 12:22, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
  - It's my right, civic duty, and obligation to voice my opinion and cast any vote I deem necessary. :-P UniReb 12:49, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - What opinion? android79 12:52, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
      - "Abstain" status is my opinion that I don't abuse, because I'm either not sure if the information is factual, gibberish, Wiki-worthy, it's missing cited sources, & etc. Although, I do plan on checking back and considering on changing my vote, depending on the circumstances provided. UniReb 12:57, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Might I suggest waiting until you have formed an opinion before casting a vote? android 79 13:03, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
        perhaps... UniReb 13:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Verf[edit]

Non-encylcopedic. There's no context, and if there was, I don't think it would merit an article. I think this is also copyvio, but we'll ignore that for now. -- Reinyday, 03:25, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete - It doesn't sound to be Wiki-worthy! UniReb 12:05, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Through and in the work of Verf, the visitor is invited to delete this article. Cmadler 12:10, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't give any context or definition. --DanielCD 12:12, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't understand anything they're talking about, no definition. Amren ^(talk) 14:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He's a Robert Mapplethorpe style photographer, this is a copyright violation from this page, I've tagged as such. Might be German, I suppose it might fit in if someone wants to look into it and write it in a way that shows context and notability...but then again....Rx StrangeLove 19:45, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash 22:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rogers City Wrestling[edit]

Long article Needs Nearly Impossible Clean Up for a Non Notable Wresling Program that all they do was win a few state champs Delete --Aranda56 03:42, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Congratulations for Rogers City Wrestling's accomplishments, although sorry to say that it isn't Wiki-material! UniReb 12:09, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I hesitate to say that this is non-notable, although the article doesn't do enough to assert that notability. Has this wrestling team achieved notice outside of 1)the local community or 2)the state's wrestling community? From the history on the wrestling team's website [4], it seems that they may be on the verge of notability, but not quite there. Cmadler 12:30, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash 22:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stenchgantor[edit]

This article seems bogus to me. If it can be verified and improved great, if not it needs to be deleted. Dapoloplayer 04:03, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

The book is certainly real, see Amazon's entry. I don't know if it is a notable book though, most of the reviews on that page seem to suggest that it is just rubbish. No vote. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain - Not sure of this time of where my vote stands... UniReb 12:11, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The book is real, but this charachter is not notable. Cmadler 12:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. UniReb 13:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin Philbrook Phelps IV[edit]

May or may not be an attack page. Definitely is a hoax. Denni ☯ 04:23, 2005 September 2 (UTC)

Delete. Borderline {{nonsense}}. Thatdog 04:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not even borderline. -- DS1953 04:35, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete. May be an attack page? Seriously? Deadsalmon 04:47, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleted. Obvious attack page. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:02, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bjam Man vs The World[edit]

nn student film. Zoe 04:59, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Delete nn Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 07:24, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete all nn student films Roodog2k (talk) 11:36, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's not Wiki-worthy! UniReb 12:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete student films Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:06, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete --TOBY 04:24, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 22:46, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Rosa Nales[edit]

Vanity/Unverifiable facts. The page's claim that Nales is a member of the Martial Arts Hall of Fame is doubtful, since I didn't find him listed among inductees, and many of his other claims are difficult or impossible to verify. This page seems to be vanity; however, there remains the possibility that his work as a newsanchor could cause some to feel he is notable enough to merit an entry. Deadsalmon 05:02, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Clean up - It sounds notable enough to be on Wikipedia although it needs to be cleaned up a bit. UniReb 12:15, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Cleanup Pedro Rosa Nales is an important investigative reporter in Puerto Rico. He received an Honorary Black Belt for his continous news section " Defiendete con Ju-Jitsu" ("Defend yourself with Ju-Jitsu") [5](spanish article) . His induction onto the Hall of Fame is indeed an unverified fact which must be deleted Joelito 12:28, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Most of what I found is in Spanish (this page appears to have been translated from Spanish Wikipedia), but he certainly seems notable for (among other things) his reporting about Vieques. Cmadler 12:49, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Nufy8 22:04, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doormatism[edit]

non-notable term (gets 42 hits on google), original research, non-NPOV delete Alynna 05:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I actually got 87 hits, but it is a neologism, and not a very notable one at that. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:15, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It sounds gibberish! UniReb 12:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable neologism. Amren ^(talk) 14:45, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If being a doormat was in more common usage, this entry would make sense. Neologism, bad entry. Alpine 02:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable neologism. in addition, the article is poorly done. --Mairi 08:57, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was COPYVIO, without offer of a rewrite. -Splash 22:48, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

8888[edit]

Unencyclopedic list of people, name whose title is not intuitively obvious (and could be confused with a year, considering Wikipedia's policy on number naming). Zoe 05:14, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Transwiki to Wikisource, perhaps? (Would still need to be renamed per nom.) --Alan Au 05:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and rename as per the above. - ulayiti (talk) (my RfA) 08:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as copyvio. - ulayiti (talk) (my RfA) 18:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This page struck me as strange, so I decided to look into it in detail. It was created 2005-08-09 by 219.122.37.209. On the day it was created, Jtkiefer SD-tagged it as nonsense [6], probably while on NP patrol. However, 219.122.37.209 removed the tag, and it apparently went unnoticed. The only article that was linked to the page was the Myanmar article, in reference to a violent repression of Burmese citizens that took place 17 years ago. It turns out that the title, 8888, is the way that date is remembered by those in the region (it happened on 8.8.1988). It was a pivotal event in the bloody tragedy that has marked that country all these years. The entire content of the article space was taken from a website [7], which appears to be that of an organization devoted to Myanmar's troubled history. It is copyrighted material. I have done the following: Edited the Myanmar article to delink it from 8888, and placed an in text external link to the original website. Placed a copyvio tag on 8888, and blanked the page. With the technical conflict of AfD and CVio rules I wondered whether to leave it, but I'd say the copyvio takes precedence, and the history is available in any case. I listed it on the eternally slow copyvio, but if Zoe or another closing sysop decide to go ahead and delete the page, this can be delisted. I don't think I've ever felt this sad in blanking & copyvio tagging a page.—Encephalon | ^ζ 09:21:33, 2005-09-02 (UTC)
Now tagged as copyvio. But anyway it's a list of people killed in a Burman uprising - WP:NOT a memorial, and neither in fact is Wikisource. Delete. Oh, and to answer the above - CP usually takes precedence, but given its slowness, if it happens to have consensus to delete here it can be removed nonetheless. R adiant _>|< 09:24, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Yes Radiant. That's what I thought, and that's why I did it. Thanks—Encephalon | ^ζ 09:27:48, 2005-09-02 (UTC)

copyvio else very weak transwikisource only because we do not know the privacy concerns of this list, we do not know if we can USE this list. If we can use the list, I would argue that it is NOT a memorial if we removed the names replicating the data and created metrics from the data. Roodog2k (talk) 11:42, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
comment Ummm... just thought of this... Is this list verifiable? That is the paramount question, I think. Wiokipedia is not a propoganda machine. Roodog2k (talk) 11:44, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per copyvio. UniReb 12:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if it wasn't a copyvio. The event, if verified/verifiable, is certainly notable. A big list o' names isn't. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:09, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Copyvio. Amren ^(talk) 14:46, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How can you copyright a list of facts? Zoe 18:32, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

where there's a law firm, there's a way. Delete per nom. Dottore So 01:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash 22:49, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Teenage phsycology[edit]

Unencyclopedic and incoherent; not sure if it's supposed to be "psychology" or "physiology". Can't credibly be expanded, not worth merging. MCB 07:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm on the sidelines on this one... I can see it being a great article, but not like this. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 07:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, misspelled title, pretty incoherent. I agree that a great article could be created at Teenage psychology, but there isn't really any content here worth saving in my opinion. --TM ^(talk) 07:47, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain This has already taken more manhours than it took to upload it. --Wetman 08:45, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research, not worth keeping. Sietse 10:35, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It does sound like its original research! UniReb 12:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research???? Looks like illiterate gibberish to me. Peeper 13:42, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Speedy. From the article: "Teenage is the time of explosion." Oh, really? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:16, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. If an article existed at Teenage psychology, I would say redirect there, but lacking it, kill with fire. --Tito xd 00:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, might be an interesting article if it was done properly at Teenage psychology, but this probably isn't a good starting place.--Oppolo 15:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, a redirect from Teenage psychology to Adolescent psychology should be created – but someone, may be myself, will have to create at least a stub for Adolescent psychology. In case, I try and succeed, I will surely do that in few momenets. In the present form (as the article exists) and with the wrong spelling, I have to vote for delete. But, the topic is really encyclopedic, and my thanks to the creator of the page for giving the idea. I agree with the opening comments of Ryan Norton. --Bhadani 17:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I created a 8-9 paras of a stub stub Adolescent psychology with 2 images. Further suggestions / edits are requested. --Bhadani 18:05, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. I'll not make the redirect however as I'm not really persuaded of the case for it. Someone else can if they want to. -Splash 22:52, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Confusionism[edit]

Some kind of weird nonsense. Ryan Delaney ^talk 07:25, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WTF!!! errr... I mean, delete. Sasquatch讲看 08:02, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete seems like a mix of nn vanity, promotion, and hoax. --TM ^(talk) 08:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Confucianism. Proto t c 09:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all the above (especially Sasquatch :)); I vote to have the contents of this page blanked, and the page redirected to Confucianism, with whose spelling it is often, um, confused.—Encephalon | ^ζ 09:32:52, 2005-09-02 (UTC)
Keep What's wrong with pages about new philosphies/religions/whatevers. whould you try and delete articles about scientology or buddhism?

On second thoughts, perhaps we should delete the scientology articles as well. 212.101.64.4 09:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The problem it's not really a religion... it's a blogigion.... or something... let's just say it confusionism confuses me (though I suspect that is one of their goals). There is also, of course, the question of notability in this case. Sasquatch讲看 02:23, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Delete - It sounds gibberish, swaying me to believe that its original research and/or nn. UniReb 12:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a heretical copyvio against Discordianism! Hail Eris! the wub "?/!" 13:41, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete almost a Speedy but not quite. Definitely a delete though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:19, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Nothing more than a bunch of external links. I will vote delete.--Scimitar ^parley 15:24, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonsense. "aspire to become the official religion" of what? Zoe 19:24, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, probable hoax. Maybe even speedy since it looks like a test page. Punkmorten 21:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, tired pun, likely hoax. Fire Star 03:36, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Confucianism, per Proto Alf ^melmac 13:57, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments only, no vote - this article has nothing to do with Confucianism, and any redirection will be misleading and a great injustice to Confucius. --Bhadani 17:38, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Bhadani. I agree with you that they're obviously not the same (I'm sure everyone who voted agrees too). However, the idea behind the redirect vote is that the spellings are often confused, and people looking for Confucianism will often type in Confusionism. A redirect will send them to the correct article. Creating redirects for common misspellings is apparently done fairly often on WP. However, it is likely this page will be deleted outright.Best wishes—encephalon | ^ζ 17:49:33, 2005-09-03 (UTC)

Hi, I understand and readily agree with you and all others, for the redirection, if done. That would be fine in the light of existing practice and your clarification. Thanks.--Bhadani 07:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect. -Sean Curtin 22:40, September 3, 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Speedied by Starblind. android 79 14:27, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Chris Remo[edit]

Delete A nn contributor to a website. A google search of "chris remo" shacknews returns 24 unique google hits. Most of the article's content would fall under hoax anyway. TM ^(talk) 08:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've put up a speedy tag on the article since it was suggested during discussion. --TM ^(talk) 14:16, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He is an official staffer at Shacknews.com who has a certain lore about him that is well seperated into a seperate section. Maybe the article should be LOCKED but not deleted. Since he does have a history of good stuff at idle thumbs, since it wasn't put up by shacknews officials, and since it is pretty clear what is goofy lore about Remo as it is seperated and what is fact, deletion would be wrong. Some of the related articles are junk and could be deleted, thats for sure. But the actual Chris Remo part should stay the same.

If anything, the now re-branded 'lore' section should be deleted and the article locked for a period.

I think the fable's of Chris Remo should be kept for future reference about the great man that is Chris Remo.

Yes he is a great guy but that is not the point of wikipedia. We don't need to infest this part of the internet with our diseases.

Delete. Not notable, hoax, attack page. android 79 11:26, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - This should've been speedied... ! UniReb 12:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy as hoax/nonsense. the wub "?/!" 13:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedied it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:35, September 2, 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Speedy as patent nonsense. R adiant _>|< 09:23, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

The Theory of utter nonsense[edit]

Delete take your pick of OR, hoax, neologism, or joke. Didn't think it quite qualified for speedy so brought it to AFD, but if it qualifies by all means speedy. (A google search of "michael dahm" nonsense returns 0 results if anyone was curious.) TM ^(talk) 08:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain Not an entry to vote on. --Wetman 08:36, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was RESULT. Woohookitty 03:58, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Michelle Bachelet Scandals[edit]

I am renominating this for VfD, because the previous VfD was trolled by same user posting anonymously to Keep, using different IPs. I consider this article to be wholly irrelevant. This is the same as having a full article on Bush choking on a pretzel.

Delete - Irrelevant. Undermines Wikipedia. —Cantus…☎ 08:33, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Should have been deleted the first time round (all votes to keep were sockpuppetry). Proto t c 12:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with user Cantus that this is "irrelevant!"
Delete as per nominator.--nixie 12:28, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and re-direct to Michelle Bachelet. Once in the article, the editors can decide whether to keep/edit/remove information, based on how much it was noted in the domestic press. --rob 14:07, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but Cantus, you doofus, we could've just merged the page today if you hadn't renominated it. Now it lives on for another week. Eliot 14:28, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete By the sound of it, even the Bush pretzel incident was a bigger deal than these "scandals". Not everything mentioned in some newspaper somewhere needs an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:41, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, this is not a political scandal. As I said when I originally nominated it. Zoe 19:28, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per my original vote. Any relevant and lasting content will find its way onto the Michelle Bachelet page, esp. if she wins. Dottore So 01:08, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge I've said this one AND I WILL SAY THIS AGAIN: this event was important to us Chileans. I understand this American-centrist encyclopedia will not understand this scandals' importance, so I propose that this is merged with the Michelle Bachelet article.200.55.213.30 16:07, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete, possibly the first part deserves a sentence in the Michelle Bachelet article, but the rest is pure irrelevancy. Thryduulf 16:19, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Joolz 17:36, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ballsoc[edit]

AFD notice added by user:132.181.52.115 with edit summary "This page adds nothing". I tend to agree. Article about a now defunct university club. Evil Monkey∴Hello 09:37, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nn. UniReb 12:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Author has not provided verification; it should not be our job to do so. paul klenk 12:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable and nearly impossible to expand. Amren ^(talk) 14:47, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Joolz 17:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weirdo beardcore[edit]

According to the article, a Village Voice columnist coined the term for an article. From Google searching, use hasn't spread. [8] delete lots of issues | leave me a message 09:42, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, apparent neologism. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 09:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nn./rubbish! UniReb 12:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as arcane, pop-subculture reference. paul klenk 12:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, anyone can make up a music genre. the wub "?/!" 13:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn. -- BD2412 ^talk 13:46, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, I agree with reasons stated. Punkmorten 21:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash 22:54, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bifauxnen[edit]

delete. Neologism. Google search for {bifauxnen -wikipedia -GFDL -encyclopedia} returned less than a dozen non-Wikipedia mirror usage. Specifically, the Google results were (in order listed by Google search results):

[9] - (semi-)independent, links to Wikipedia
[10] - independent
[11] - mirror
[12] - no reference (google cache shows independent usage)
[13] - mirror
[14] - no reference (google cache shows a search result page)
[15] - copy-n-paste from Wikipedia, foreign language forum
[16] - independent, foreign language blog
[17] - mirror
[18] - website down (google cache shows only a page full of links)
[19] - ~~independent~~ derives from Wikipedia
[20] - ~~independent~~ derives from Wikipedia
[21] - mirror
[22] - mirror
[23] - mirror
[24] - mirror —Tokek 10:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nn. UniReb 12:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the name may be BS, but much of the content seems valid - perhaps it's a mis-spelling? Or maybe there's a proper name to which it could be moved? -- BD2412 ^talk 19:59, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps a merge to Yuri (animation) or Homosexuality in Japan, or a rename to Androgyny in manga, or something broader like Transgenderism in Japanese media. —Tokek 20:50, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I thought I'd come across the term, but that must have been on Wikipedia, I realize, after checking out the sorry Google hit list above. Note to self: be less gullible. Tokek, thanks for alerting me to this (I obviously take a personal interest :-)), and please also note that hits 11 and 12 above, the Hentai Dictionary, aren't independent. The definition that they click through to refers right back to Wikipedia. BD2412, it's not a misspelling, it's offered as a portmanteau of faux (French: fake) and bishonen. Bishonen | talk 13:30, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Joolz 17:39, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Gu[edit]

The article says this guy isolated a gene that causes schizophrenia in some people. It looks like a hoax to me. Sietse 10:24, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable. Two Google hits for mention of name and disease; one was from a WP mirror site, with an article called Eugene-Gu. klenk 12:27, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain - The information needs to be verified! UniReb 12:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This would be major news if it was true, but Google doesn't find any news articles about the discovery. The article doesn't provide any sources either, so it's essentially unverifiable. The claim also sounds unlikely, considering that much research on inheritance of schizophrenia has already been done. Sietse 13:15, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia doesn't have to be a breaking news source. If this does resurface, which I seriously doubt, then it will no doubt reappear. In the meantime it looks like a hoax to me as well. Prime suspect: some guy called Eugene Gu. Peeper 13:30, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No mention of this guy as even a co-author of any article indexed by the National Library of Medicine. There is, however, a listing for him at Stanford as an undergrad employed by the Department of Undergraduate Advising Programs.Crypticfirefly 14:41, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - So far, it seems to be a possible hoax! UniReb 19:33, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-verifiable and possible hoax. Hall Monitor 21:37, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per research above. Dottore So 01:10, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, so kept. JYolkowski // talk 13:56, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Windsor North School[edit]

Nominated by Kapa who I immediately blocked as an impersonator of Kappa. I am finishing the nomination. Most likely a bad faith nomination, but the article is a very short one. My vote is merge with Invercargill. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Yeah I can't find much else about this place, so redirecting seems reasonable (the info is there already).~~ Kappa 11:05, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Vote keep after improvements by Grutness. Kappa 14:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Might want to mention that even though the history appears to show Kappa as the only contributor to this article, it was actually made by User:202.74.213.236, under the title Windsor north school. It was then apparently deleted and moved simultaneously. So please don't start spamming Kappa's talkpage asking for an explanation of why he is making such substubs. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, leave a redirect as per Kappa. Proto t c 12:12, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep unless we are giving no schools their own pages. Very little is on Google, but enough to learn that Roger Stephenson is the principal.
Keep - Schools are notable too! UniReb 12:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a one line article, and no one yet has found any information to expand it sufficiently. (Of course, the avenging might of Tony Sidaway may.) Perhaps you could actually look at the article before voting 'keep' unthinkingly. Proto t c 12:42, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article establishes that it's a school, and as UniReb says, schools are notable. We keep one-line articles on villages, rivers, universities etc for the same reason. Kappa 12:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree with Kappa. I do look at the articles before determining if it should be kept or not and I felt this particular article can be very much expanded but also kept. Thank you very much!! :-) UniReb 19:37, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've substantially enlarged the article. Hope it's up to standard now. Grutness...wha? 13:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - based on improvement done since nomination. --rob 14:28, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — RJH 15:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, still not notable per Schools for Deletion.Gateman1997 15:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Thsi is a primary school and nothign in the article in any way indicates any unusual notability as far as I can see. DES ^(talk) 16:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DES and Gateman.--encephalon | ^ζ 16:52:54, 2005-09-02 (UTC)
Merge with Invercargill. That's the town it's in and there is an Education section already denoted. NeevaN 17:04, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Keep Schools are notable. Details about schools should not clutter town articles. CalJW 17:35, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs a lot of work. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 17:42, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep please this school is really important so why erase it Yuckfoo 17:53, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Super strong delete - primary schools aren't usually notable. This one isn't an exception. Dunc|☺ 18:20, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep the rewrite. I'm in the "schools are notable" camp. Brighterorange 18:30, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Primary schools are not inherently notable, but the article establishes notability. Sdedeo 21:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Soltak/Views#Schools Soltak | Talk 22:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article contains some small, but notable events. Evil Eye 23:24, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Klonimus 23:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. CDThieme 00:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another unmentionably insignificant school. Dottore So 01:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most likely a bad faith nomination as already suggested. —RaD Man (talk) 03:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established. Hamster Sandwich 05:24, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Being at one time the largest primary school in a province is pretty notable! Grutness...wha? 11:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Non-notability not established. --Nicodemus75 10:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete ni --TimPope 18:26, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Enough of this pointless, time-wasting, impositional deletionist nonsense! Keep. --Gene_poole 13:31, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete old does not equal notable. --Kennyisinvisible 00:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Schools/Delete arguments. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 01:15, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although, given the age of the school, I suspect that there may be an argument for notablity, this article does not make that argument. Cmadler 19:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is fascinating yet sad that there are factions of Wikipedians bent on deleting important school-related articles. Silensor 19:41, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The same could be said for factions that are bent on keeping some unimportant school articles. It cuts both ways on this issue.Gateman1997 21:13, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - To a certain extent I must disagree. No rational argument can be made to support the idea that all schools are unimportant, yet there are people voting delete regardless of how well things such as notability and importance are conveyed within the article. Silensor 21:21, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - While that is true, again look at prior VfD's, we've had people who desire to keep any school, just so long as it's a school (some of them even voted to keep a local grocery store just because it existed). By that logic my house should be kept as an article as learning takes place there and it's multicultural. I'm not defending the 100% deletionists by any means, but I'm also very much against the 100% keep people as well. Neither position is tenable. Gateman1997 23:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and stop nominating schools until consensus is reached on them --Ryan Delaney ^talk 10:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest that people continue to nominate any article they genuinely feel should be deleted. Discussion is ongoing and,
  as long as everyone is civil, an AfD aids that discussion. - brenneman^(t)^(c) 23:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I suggest that people get on with the business of editing and creating articles. Meaningful discussion has long since ceased and a number of people are no longer civil, an AfD merely exacerbates that lack of meaningful discussion.--Nicodemus75 10:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm going to concentrate my efforts for a few days on cataloguing the current rate of growth of school articles on Wikipedia. I've a feeling that when we all get a clear picture of the raw growth rate we'll all agree that any efforts made on AfD, except those that result in improvement of articles during a discussion, are unlikely to be effective in restraining the growth rate of relatively low quality school stubs.
  - I don't decry the listing of articles on AfD, at least at the reasonable rates that have pertained since the mass nominations of mid-May, but neither do I believe that it's possible to represent the AfD process truthfully as posing a quality control on school articles insofar as it deletes articles of poor quality.
  - I support school AfDs (although I nearly always vote keep) for a different reason: the discipline of the five day discussion followed by a life-or-death decision is useful in focussing attention and driving the research and expansion process of school stubs. Without that process, I don't think so many articles about schools would have attained of good quality in so short a time--some of them only days after first creation. I'm convinced that school articles will nearly all converge to a good quality as the decades pass, and that the number of school articles on Wikipedia will continue to increase for many years to come, but the AfD process has been useful in driving the process and pushing thw quality up early in the game. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 12:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Er... did anyone noice the reason I submitted this article to the AFD list? Perhaps if you read my "nomination"... Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:26, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for my usual reasons. --Idont Havaname 14:35, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted -- Joolz 17:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jack mock[edit]

Vanity, and even if not vanity, complete rubbish. Enochlau 11:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and tagged as such. klenk 12:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It sounds rubbish! UniReb 12:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:40, September 2, 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete, joke article. Thue | talk 18:36, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Powelly[edit]

Looks like a bad joke Enochlau 11:59, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete -- it is a penis masturbation nonsense rant. I have tagged "Speedy delete." klenk 12:10, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article also sounds rubbish! UniReb 12:40, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Nufy8 22:06, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Public response to the September 11, 2001 attacks[edit]

Contains nothing except a personal observation, that the attack "seemed to many like a movie becoming reality. Apart from which, it was a national tragedy." The subject is already covered in a section of the main page for the September 11 attacks. klenk 12:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This particular article about the September 11, 2001 attacks doesn't qualify for Wikipedia, unless if any contributing author can provide so much more information upon this topic. UniReb 12:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Says almost nothing, and what it does say it says badly. And weirdly. Get rid. Peeper 13:27, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Chunitaku 14:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Contains nothing of importance besides some originally researched sentence. Amren ^(talk) 14:49, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research, some good writing but no useful encyclopedic content. Andrewa 07:26, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Joolz 17:49, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Masters of Wisdom[edit]

Very, very, very POV, and unsalvageably so. I think that the path of wisdom would be to get rid of it. DS 12:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Master DS. klenk 12:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It sounds like a hoax or a new cult! UniReb 12:45, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Tom Cruisecruft Just kidding.... Can this be verified? Roodog2k (talk) 13:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Chunitaku 14:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When the Masters of Wisdom become enlightened enough to spell "enlightened" correctly, maybe they'll have achieved some claim to notability. --Last Malthusian 16:08, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The claims seem to be of a general kind, and not about a specific group. It is wise to delete, unless new revelations compel a change of course—encephalon | ^ζ 16:11:59, 2005-09-02 (UTC)
Delete as unverifiable, likely to be only so much equine excrement. 03:38, 3 September 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash 22:55, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blinklist[edit]

Duplicate Sleepyhead 12:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with BlinkList. --Sleepyhead 10:59, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wasn't there a VfD discussion here earlier? Why is it deleted? --Sleepyhead 10:59, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It wasn't deleted. It was ignored, probably because you didn't put a section header on the discussion page or transclude the discussion page into any per-day page. i.e. You didn't properly perform all of the steps for nominating an article for deletion, so only those editors who had actually read the article were even aware of the nomination. Uncle G 14:26:11, 2005-09-02 (UTC)
Delete Chunitaku 14:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion is not the place for dealing with duplicate articles, such as this. Wikipedia:duplicate articles is. Uncle G 14:26:11, 2005-09-02 (UTC)
Delete this and BlinkList. The articles appear to be adverts and neither assert nor demonstrate notability. Naturenet | Talk 10:56, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with Naturenet: even social bookmarking does not suggest that this item is notable. -- llywrch 19:31, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash 22:56, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Streaming organism[edit]

Appears to be OR linked to Wisdom of the Body, also on AfD. Could possibly be some salvageable info for other articles in there, but biology is not one of my strong points. the wub "?/!" 13:27, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Chunitaku 14:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- commentWhy do you think that this should be deleted?" Roodog2k (talk) 16:41, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
verify that this is notable and/or not a crackpot slant of another accepted theory Roodog2k (talk) 16:41, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research. Only references provided in the article are to a website, http://www.what-is-cancer.com/, developed by Gershom Zajicek, MD. The site presents a nontraditional medical theory which as of 2005 does not have any widespread acceptance. A Google search on sites that link to www.what-is-cancer.com yields only 75 hits, only 18 of which are displayed, most of which are internal links within the site. The site's link entitled Recent papers does not refer to peer-reviewed print papers in medical journals, but to pages within the site itself. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Online search of the Proquest Research Library shows no hits for "non-linear medicine" and no hits for "Gershom Zajicek". This database indexes about 2000 research publications, which means that it is not all that comprehensive but does cover all the big guns like Science, Nature, JAMA Dpbsmith (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Entrez Pubmed search for "Gershom Zajicek" shows only one hit, for "Prophylactic administration of topical glutamine enhances the capability of the rat colon to resist inflammatory damage." See below, I stand corrected. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:37, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research and non-notable crackpottery. Thanks to those who researched this. Quale 05:58, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The search in PubMed under the name of Zajicek G yields 180 references of which about 40 are on streaming in various organs

It does.

Most of the most relevant papers were published in Medical Hypotheses. This journal is published by the well-known publisher Elseviers, and has an editor, but describes itself as follows:

"Medical Hypotheses takes a deliberately different approach to peer review. Most contemporary practice tends to discriminate against radical ideas that conflict with current theory and practice. Medical Hypotheses will publish radical ideas, so long as they are coherent and clearly expressed. Furthermore, traditional peer review can oblige authors to distort their true views to satisfy referees, and so diminish authorial responsibility and accountability. In Medical Hypotheses, the authors' responsibility for the integrity, precision and accuracy of their work is paramount. The editor sees his role as a 'chooser', not a 'changer': choosing to publish what are judged to be the best papers from those submitted. Papers in Medical Hypotheses take a standard scientific form in terms of style, structure and referencing. The journal therefore constitutes a bridge between cutting-edge theory and the mainstream of medical and scientific communication, which ideas must eventually enter if they are to be critiqued and tested against observations."

Our ban on "original research" is usually taken to apply to material which has not been published outside Wikipedia. I would describe this as material that has been published, and has been been published in a "medical journal," one significant enough to be indexed by PubMed... but a rather odd "medical journal." I think it is accurate to say that it is not peer-reviewed. "Medical Hypotheses" seems to be intentionally set up for the exposure of not-yet-accepted theories. If so, that material would not yet be ready for inclusion in an encyclopedia.

My "delete" vote stands—but on shakier ground. Dpbsmith (talk)

Comment Nearly all publications on streaming organs were published in peer reviewed journals here are some data on the streaming liver

 Dig. Dis. Sci. 1 publication
 Liver  8 publications
 Gastroenterology 2 publications

Gentlemen, it seems to me that your arguments are not serious. The Streaming Organism theory is based on reliable experiments which were published in peer reviewed journals. You may not like it which does not mean that you may censor it. Such an act would undermine the free spirit of Wikipedia.

Prof. Gershom Zajicek M.D.

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash 22:57, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Albino Squirrel Preservation Society[edit]

This is at my school, the University of North Texas. They exist to promote the uniqueness and rarity of albino squirrels, which are very uncommon.

NN Student organisation with 7 other 'chapters'. Hard to see or say why they exist, other than for self-serving reasons. Delete or move to BJAODN Eddie.willers 14:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redundant with squirrel, which, to my surprise, already provides full coverage of this. --rob 14:36, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Blank the page and redirect to squirrel.—encephalon | ^ζ 16:14:16, 2005-09-02 (UTC)
Delete, nn. Zoe 19:34, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, don't redirect or merge - that would be wrong. Dunc|☺ 23:16, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because if I searched for 'Albino Squirrel Preservation Society', I'd be extremely disappointed to end up at squirrel. Flowerparty 02:09, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL. Yes, fair point. The squirrel article, however, does mention them, and in so far as there's mention of something in a legitimate WP article, it may be more helpful to be able to direct interested readers to that article rather than make it somewhat more difficult (that was my reasoning anyway). It is likely that the mention of the society in the squirrel article is the work of one of its members (although not the creator of the ASPS page), but since the editors of the squirrel article do not object to its mention, and it has remained in that article, I don't see why a redirect to this information is a bad thing. There should not be an article in this space, however; with that I agree.—encephalon έγκέφαλος 09:25:26, 2005-09-09 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was MERGE with one of several suggested articles. moink 05:46, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

George W. Bush's response to Hurricane Katrina[edit]

Unless this can be brought to a higher standard, and if there is any way of keeping it NPV, it is not something for Wikipedia Donovan Ravenhull 14:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've looked over the new version, and I still don't see it being a valid wikipedia article. If it were expanded vastly and turned into Hurricane Katrina Timeline, maybe, but not as it is. And if you are wondering, I am no G W Bush fan, registered Democrat even, but this article does not seem necessary in its current form. Donovan Ravenhull 10:56, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a Vote to Rename or such avialable? Turning this into the above mentioned Timeline of... might be better than deletion. Donovan Ravenhull 11:31, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Merge now that I see that there is a Timeline of Hurricane Katrina already. Donovan Ravenhull 11:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain for now, but will watch. This strikes me as ripe for skewing any way you want it, but I could be wrong. Also not sure it needs to stand alone as its own article. And what do we mean by response? Verbal response? Financial response? Behind-the-scenes of giving orders, which one could never know? Opens a can of worms. paul klenk 14:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Also watching. I don't see that this article is very useful as is. Possibly merge into Political_effects_of_Hurricane_Katrina?? Friday (talk) 15:25, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Bound to be PoV, and can be covered in the hurricane article. Besides it doesn't include his sacrifice of the last two days of his five week vacation. LOL — RJH 15:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Any relevant information about Mr Bush's response to Katrina should be contained in the article. Agree that it can't be comprehensive and will inevitably have a POV skew, and is of little use as its own entry. Could argue for a merge, but I don't see that it has any use really. Peeper 15:35, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely delete. What a strange thing to have an article about; what on earth can be written here that cannot be written far more appropriately, and in better contexts, in the main articles?—encephalon | ^ζ 16:19:09, 2005-09-02 (UTC)
weak transwikinews I'm only saying it, because it seems like its trying to detail a timeline of the response of the President... Roodog2k (talk) 16:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- We can't transwiki to Wikinews, which is public domain, not GFDL. —Cryptic (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd say we can, actually, because the mere list of activities and corresponding dates is probably not copyrightable (ergo, not actually released under any "license" at all). -- BD2412 ^talk 20:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Currently is a rather terse timeline. Encyclopedic, verifiable, neutral. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 17:40, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Discussion of Bush's response belongs in the Hurricane Katrina article where it has context. Quale 18:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Hurricane Katrina. Zoe 19:38, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Merge into ~~Hurricane Katrina, and/or into Political effects of Hurricane Katrina to the extent that his timeline of activities has become a political issue~~ Timeline of Hurricane Katrina. -- BD2412 ^talk 20:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete echoing Encephalon. Dottore So 01:13, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is it just me or is there like about 100 pages on Hurricane Katrina? I think people are overkilling the coverage on it... Sasquatch讲看 02:25, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
Keep or merge Bush is going to take a lot of flak on this one, and yes there's a lot of coverage, the expected casualty rate is looking like 3 times 9/11's. --TimPope 09:57, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Hurricane Katrina, where it has context. −Woodstone 17:07:41, 2005-09-03 (UTC)
Weak Merge if necessary into Hurricane Katrina --PhilipO 22:29, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per Tony Sidaway. El_C 01:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a timeline of happened events, how much more NPOV can you get? It maintains neutrality by presenting only verifiable facts. --Gebuhuka 01:51, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough detail. It also includes events other than Katrina response which are POV without details such as whether a 5-minute speech was surrounded by 13 hours of Katrina activities. Maybe this article can be written when more information is available. (SEWilco 02:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Merge into a "responses to Hurricane Katrina" article or section. There are currently a few suitable articles and sections; I would like to see all of those merged into a Hurricane Katrina disaster relief and Hurricane Katrina#Responses, each of which would have both "United States" and "Global" subsections. +sj + 03:21, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Political effects of Hurricane Katrina or delete. This article appears to be a list, and I count four items actually relevant to its topic. Regardless, this definitely has all the makings of a POV can of worms; I can see how a lot of activities could be conveniently overlooked. --timc | Talk 04:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's hard to ignore the irony that Russian response to Hurricane Katrina is up and running, while George W. Bush's response to Hurricane Katrina is VFDed due to a lack of content. --Gebuhuka 04:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Keep an eye on Vladimir Putin's response to Hurricane Katrina and see how much information is available for that. There is a difference between the action which a leader can cause to be done as opposed to how much he can do with his two hands. (SEWilco 05:57, 8 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Comment: Article is expanded, please reconsider. I don't really object to the idea of merging it, but I'm not sure how this can be done with the existing articles. Gebuhuka 08:19, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Tony Sidaway. --Tsaddik Dervish 11:23, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: But only if it can be kept as a separate line of events. Rename as "The President's Activity During Same Time Frame" or something like that. Being named as his "response" doesn't allow the article to fairly include activities not directly related to Hurricane K. Rather, it forces an implied non-response which I'd rather not see in the Wikipedia. By renaming it, the same details could remain and the reader could decide for her/himself the relevance to Hurricane Katrina. Wynote.blogspot.com 08:16, 8 September 2005
Merge into Timeline of Hurricane Katrina -St|eve 20:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge into Timeline of Hurricane Katrina Alan 23:51, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Timeline and Political effects of Hurricane Katrina. --PHenry 01:50, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash 22:58, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Introdujos[edit]

Que? PubLife 14:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - for not being English. I made out "pop", "punk", 90, and "Records". So, I'm gonna guess this is some lame vanity band article of musicians in the 1990s. But, it doesn't matter, since at best, it's on the wrong wikipedia.. --rob 14:53, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for exactly the same reasons. — ciphergoth 15:03, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete If the probelem were just that it was not in english, a translate tag would be all that is needed -- that is not a good reason to delete. But i did a bablefish translation on this (and put the result on it's talk page, for anyone else to view) and it is indeed a band vanity article, and a particularly lame one at that. Delete for that reason. DES ^(talk) 16:12, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, DES. Delete.—encephalon | ^ζ 16:22:39, 2005-09-02 (UTC)
Delete. No evidence is given that the group satisfies WP:MUSIC. --Metropolitan90 02:47, September 3, 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

www.introdujos.com

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Joolz 17:51, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Mason[edit]

A very skillful, very well-done hoax. However, there are no relevant hits for either "charlie mason" + korea or "charles mason" + korea. Nice try. Kill it with fire. DS 14:40, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or speedy Yet another lame-o hoax. Note the name of the supposed album: Bluff and Hokum. Ohh, well done, there. So subtle. *golf clap* Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:56, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Incidentally, hoaxes are not actionable under CSD.—encephalon | ^ζ 16:29:58, 2005-09-02 (UTC)
Delete, stupid hoax. His wife's name is "Shiraz, nee Colombard" and his children are Chardonnay and Barbera? Dumb. Not even BJAODN-worthy. Zoe 19:41, September 2, 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was COPYVIO, without a rewrite. -Splash 22:59, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Acacia Safaris Uganda Ltd[edit]

Nothing but an advertisment including links to all of their tours.-- GraemeL ^(talk) 14:40, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Speedy Totally unsalvagable adspam, attempt to Googlebomb (many links to same site in one article). Also, it's a copyvio of http://www.acaciasafari.co.ug/ ...apparently just a cut & paste job. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:52, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, it did look like a copyvio to me, but I couldn't find the correct source. Hence the AfD. --GraemeL ^(talk) 15:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. For future reference, my favourite way to check for web copyvios is to pick an uncommon phrase (in this case I used "Please feel free to inquire about any custom-made tours in Uganda") and Google for it in quotes. It came right up. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:29, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

delete as ad-spam. I have tagged this as a copyvio, replacing the content, so others here will need to look at the history to see what was there. This is a good way to avoid spam being picked up by search engines whle the deletion process plays out. DES ^(talk) 16:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted as an admitted hoax. Scimitar ^parley 19:40, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Negroid Pack-Mule[edit]

Delete: Google returns nothing for the term or the supposed author. Suspect hoax. --Durin 14:50, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probable hoax, and even if true (unlikely) I don't see how a one-time comment from 180 years ago and apparently not used since could be notable anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:59, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
- On closer inspection, I'd say to speedy this. Every edit from the IP who created this article was dumb vandalism over a period of an hour or so yesterday (adding "poop" to articles, etc.) Strongly suspect this is vandalism too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:05, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Delete: You are all absolutley correct. This is a hoax, and I am the perpetrator. Please delete it. Sorry about all the vandalism yesterday. We all need to be immature sometimes. I would also like to request in my defense that I not be banned from editing. This won't happen anymore. I feel really bad about the whole thing. I love Carl Jung :(. He is most certainly not Carl Poop. --AnAstralCabbage

I don't think a ban will be necessary over one hoax article and a short lame vandalism spree. I'll take it as your word not to do any more hoaxes or vandalism. The article is deleted as an admitted hoax. Here's to better editing in the future. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:26, September 2, 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash 23:01, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Wyer[edit]

Kevin was listed by an anon as the Time Man of The Year for 2005. DavidLumsden 14:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax. Can't we speedy it? Punkmorten 21:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect. Decision taken unilaterally by RHaworth. NB. If this was actually a nomination for deletion of the content on grounds of non-notability or whatever, then feel free to re-open this discussion. -- RHaworth 07:27:12, 2005-09-03 (UTC)

Persiangulfonline.com[edit]

Article is of a web site address which is not valid though it does provide a link to another similiar domain which is. However I'm not sure if that qualifies for an entry unless the entry itself was for the organization name and not a web site address. Nycmstar 15:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note also Persiangulfonline.org - choster
Moved Persiangulfonline.org to Persian Gulf Organization --Outlander 15:18, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
DELETE Persiangulfonline.com as redundant with Persian Gulf Organization--Outlander 15:20, September 2, 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.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Nufy8 22:08, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Carly McCall[edit]

Vanity, pure fiction and complete nonsense. The original article was also very poorly written. McPhail 15:10, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can we hurry up and delete this? The original editor has now added details of her alleged career as an actress on "Desperate Housewives". McPhail 16:52, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Patent nonsense? --Jtalledo (talk) 16:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete likely hoax. No IMDB entry under either of her two names. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:29, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
And to think I assumed good faith and reverted a speedy deletion. The initial entries were full of the example images. Delete as hoax. - Lucky 6.9 06:21, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete... Completally fictitious --- Paulley 14:00, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree — Moe ε 18:02, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fiction and very bad fiction at that. Her maiden name is Hemme, but she claims to Rey Mysterio's (Óscar Gutiérrez) sister?--Darren Jowalsen 02:49, September 7, 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Nufy8 22:09, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Defibration[edit]

No matches in google for a medical term called 'defibration'. The term is used to describe a process for removing fiber from pulpy mass. This appears to be a WP:NOR issue. CHAIRBOY 15:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. - CHAIRBOY 15:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Original research or hoax - delete. Demogorgon's Soup-taster 15:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (possibly redirect to Defibrillation) --Doc (?) 18:28, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No useful content. Original research. I think redirect to Defibrillation because that's what I thought it was at first glance and it's a very plausible misspelling/typo/misunderstanding. But Delete would be fine, too. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:53, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but don't redirect. A legitimate article could be written with the same name as it appears to be an industrial process. -- Kjkolb 07:03, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It's completely bogus as written. - Nunh-huh 07:09, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but don't redirect to Defibrillation because the definition of this bogus 'article' is not remotely related to defibrillation, it will only cause confusion.

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Will make the redirect. -Splash 23:02, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Music copyright[edit]

Original research. Replacing with a redirect to copyright is possible. Zeimusu | Talk page 15:13, 2005 September 2 (UTC)

Delete smells like an ad for a "register your work here" scam, but doesn't directly link to such a scam. Does however link to the purported author. After deleteion, recreate as a redirect to Copyright, but do not retain this in the page histroy. DES ^(talk) 15:46, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then create a redirect page per DES. There probably should be an article on music copyright at some point, but this is not it and there is no good reason to keep this article or the history. -- DS1953 16:05, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, then recreate as a redirect, per above. -- BD2412 ^talk 20:09, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, recreate as a redirect and put a Music copyright on the lyrics. Alf ^melmac 13:50, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, add a link to Copyright page and expand on this one. The scenario is factual. Author: A. Raines. 21:17, 5 September 2005 (PDT)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Nufy8 22:11, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Chookpen[edit]

What can I say? No redeeming features in this article whatsoever. Refers to Aussie Rugby League, but in a way that could be the boast of a fan or a derogatory comment from an opponent. Who knows? Who cares? Possibly speediable, definitely deletable. Grutness...wha? 15:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Alomst a speedy under A1 or A6, but not quite IMO. No value to the articel as it stands, and the stub tag does not match wht content there is. DES ^(talk) 15:40, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm gonna Speedy it under A1, for those curious the whole article is "The Chookpen is a place for all fanatical Sydney Roosters fans!". Its easily an A1 because it gives no context even to explain what it describes: is it a web forum? a bar? a public-access TV show? a restaurant? a mailing list? part of the stadium seating? a chat room? Context, people. Context. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:22, September 2, 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Nufy8 22:12, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Raffles Strings[edit]

Articel about a secondary school musical ensemble. Article does not appear to establish notability. Group does not appear to fulfill any of the WP:MUSIC criteria. Seems like a vanity article. Delete unless notability cxlearly established. DES ^(talk) 15:36, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete school music group. Note to future voters: the article does mention that the group has won an award at the "Singapore Youth Festival", but please do not mistake this for a claim of notability. Every school in the universe has a trophy case somewhere with awards for bands and sports. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:08, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Heck, I even have multiple music awards, but that doesn't mean I should have my own article. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Regardless of what one thinks about the notability (or not) of schools, their musical ensembles are definitely not notable. --Idont Havaname 01:33, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, so keep. -Splash 23:04, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tavis Stanley[edit]

Does not meet notability guidelines set in WP:NMG. --Howcheng 16:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — ciphergoth 16:20, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Member of notable Canadian band Thornley. Needs a rewrite, though. Crypticfirefly 18:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Member of notable band; rewrite but keep. Bearcat 00:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash 23:04, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SNAG[edit]

Delete, advertisement, open-and-shut case. FreplySpang (talk) 17:38, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

delete; the magazine is not even out yet! Brighterorange 18:25, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash 23:06, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Laodice I Princess of Syria[edit]

OR; cf Laodice I. Not useful redirect Septentrionalis 17:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep tell us more information .... dates would be useful ... as it stands the article is uninformative, can it be expanded? Rhyddfrydol 21:06, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- revise vote to delete there is Wikipedia policy not to include biographical details of fictious persons I believe. Thanks for the extra info Rhyddfrydol 23:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No vote (for now) there is certainly nonsense here, this article claims Laodice was daughter of Laodice I and mother of Laodice of Pontus. Yet, the article on Laodice of Pontus claims that these same women were sisters. Yet, this [25] tends to bear out this current article. Septentrionalis, can you explain what is going on here? I think we need some expertise to settle this one. --Doc (?) 22:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The writer invented a new history of Syria, including ruling queens who never ruled, and descents that never existed. The five women dabbed under Laodice appear to be real, and their contents check out with standard classical encyclopedias. This is a figment. Compare the original version of Laodice I Queen of Syria, which I salvaged as a useful redirect Septentrionalis 22:44, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK I'm satisfied that Septentrionalis knows something about Hellenistic History - so unless someone provides evidence to refute him/her (and I think that unlikely) safest thing to do is delete. Hope some more folk vote, because if this is bogus, a 'keep no consensus' would be disastrous. --Doc (?) 22:49, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like a hoax based on the other WP articles on the subject Sam Vimes 11:35, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. NSR (talk) 12:16, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Pakosh[edit]

i don't think this is notable, but i could be wrong.-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 18:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Notable in the history of agriculture. Keep. DS 21:48, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(and I just cleaned it up a bit more.DS 21:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Keep - The individual seems to be notable. UniReb 00:36, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Being named one of the 100 most significant contributors in history to the mechanization of agriculture and creating a company that owned over 50% of the 4WD tractor market in the 70's is not notable? Versatile, Ford Versatile, New Holland Versatile, Fiat Versatile? I suppose you really need to know farming history to understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bunge2212 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above Sam Vimes 11:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted by me. Scimitar ^parley 19:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rapedome[edit]

Article appears to be original research (WP:NOR) and there are no matches in searchable media outlets for this term being common enough to merit an article. Finally, the figures given are questionable and are not in line with currently known data. If this changes substantially in the near future, this may be worth revisiting. CHAIRBOY 18:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. CHAIRBOY 18:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard this term repeadedly on the LiveJournal community since the attacks started taking place. It's also working over on Myspace.

Unsigned comment by 65.80.52.246, users third edit, the other two of which are also 'rapedome' additions.

Delete. The comment "largely young black men raping young white women" indicates that this is original research because it doesn ot appear in media reports. Even if this term is appering in on-line communities, that makes it a dictionary definition for Wiktionary, not an encyclopedia entry. Even in that case, it is unlikely that the term will be a part of the American English language beyond the end of October. Ground Zero | t 19:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted it. It claims 2000 rapes in one day- not terribly likely. However, the reason for speedying it was the aforementioned racist comment, indicating it is primarily an attack page.--Scimitar ^parley 19:36, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Nufy8 22:13, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

E.G.G.M.A.N.[edit]

This page contains only the lyrics of a song from a video game, as well as the artists that wrote and recorded it. I don't think that warrants a complete article, and I'm not inclined to merge it into any other article either. -- Supermorff 18:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom -- probably also a copyvio, but I havn't bothered to search for the source. DES ^(talk) 18:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we don't need to detail each little jingle in each computer game. Plus, I'm confused. Last I played Sonic, he was called Dr. Robotnik, no? -Splash 20:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even if this weren't a copyvio, it'd still be non-notable gamecruft. — JIP | Talk 10:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As an update, someone *has* checked, and has removed all copyrighted lyrics (i.e. all of them). This page is now nothing more than a short paragraph about who wrote a song in a game. Also, he was once called Robotnik. Now he's called Eggman. -- Supermorff 20:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Nufy8 22:14, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jedi robe[edit]

Minor detail that belongs as part of a larger article, if anywhere. Sounds like original research as well. Delete. DES ^(talk) 18:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DES.--Scimitar ^parley 19:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: without sourcing that's original 'research'. Do not merge unless sourced, and if it is, do not retain standalone. -Splash 19:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because... just delete. Relevant content is already in Jedi. -- BD2412 ^talk 20:13, 2 September 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was only two votes, but delete anyway since nobody seems to want to defend it and it contains no useful information. moink 05:57, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OTF[edit]

A specific subforum (and the off-topic one, at that!). Not remotely notable. —Cryptic (talk) 18:37, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subpartofforumcruft. Nn. Alexa not useful as it's within a domain (that anyway has a rank of about 12 300th). -Splash 19:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash 23:11, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bang bang-jin[edit]

Yawn, nnbv --Doc (?) 19:02, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. -- BD2412 ^talk 20:15, 2 September 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate wasdelete. Woohookitty 10:22, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rameen[edit]

Wikipedia is not a genealogy database KeithD (talk) 19:09, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT as nominator says. We do not currently have any articles containing the terms (according to the Google search; real search is disabled right now), so no need for a dab page. -Splash 19:24, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per outcome of Wikipedia:Deletion policy/names and surnames. -- BD2412 ^talk 20:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete and leave a redirect to Ramen. Proto t c 10:05, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wiktionary and then delete. Nabla 00:39:45, 2005-09-09 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. NSR (talk) 12:15, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abebooks[edit]

~~Badvertising. Nothing particularly worthy of a Wikipedia entry.-- GraemeL ^(talk) 19:15, 2 September 2005 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdrawn. thanks for the re-write. --GraemeL ^(talk) 19:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio from their website. Tagged and bagged. See WP:CP. -Splash 19:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently not copyvio. The author released it by email. check the history. My fault, I should have mentioned this in the initial AfD message. --GraemeL ^(talk) 19:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Untagged and debagged. My bad. -Splash 19:33, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and cleanup a lot: If kept, this needs massive cleaning. I struggle to believe their claims: I'll bet good money that Amazon are bigger. Abebooks' Alexa rank is about 1800th, Amazon's is 13th. I don't like the tone of the article, or the linkspam all the way through it. As written this is pure promotion. I might even give it a go myself. -Splash 19:33, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Deserves an article, but don't keep this one.~~ It's one of the biggest names in the used-book market (along with eBay, Amazon, and Alibris) and gets 1,440,000 Google hits. ~~But this article reads like an ad and is unacceptable for an encyclopedia.~~ Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:39, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
- UPDATE Keep as rewritten. Original article was pretty bad though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:09, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Is sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The article needs a lot of cleaning up though, and fact-checking. KeithD (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've rewritten it, just keeping the encylopaedic content. The article still needs improvement, but it's better than it was. KeithD (talk) 19:53, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~but drastically rewrite.~~ i agree with User:Starblind's statemetns, but not his conclusion. DES ^(talk) 19:44, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Now a clear keep. Rewrite has created a fine article. DES ^(talk) 19:59, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I just edit-conflicted on the rewrite! I expanded it a little. -Splash 19:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the rewrite. Meelar (talk) 20:12, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, notable business. Tone down the advert qualities. -- BD2412 ^talk 20:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep as rewritten. Crypticfirefly 22:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the rewritten article. Mindmatrix 13:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thanks, KeithD. Best used-book Web bookseller I know. (I used to like Bibliofind, but they folded). Amazon rarely has anything not listed in Abebooks and their prices are usually higher. I've probably bought twenty books from their network of booksellers. Very reliable. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:30, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable bookseller. Capitalistroadster 23:33, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 23:11, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Cooke[edit]

~~Is one sitcom appearance enough for notability? Seems thin to me. Delete or establish notability. Cje 19:15, 2 September 2005 (UTC)~~[reply]

- Lead role is notable, so Keep Cje 07:15, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; had the lead role in the TV series and has had several other appearances. -- DS1953 02:29, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
Keep per DS1953. --Metropolitan90 02:54, September 3, 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. moink 06:00, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NVH[edit]

It might be so but not verified that it is described as NVH. Definitely more needed to demonstrate it's a verfiable term. gren グレン 19:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but expand muchly (this could almost be speedied as A1 or A3 at present). Google finds 26,000 hits for it, and at least many seem to come from Universities' course titles and the like, as well as various commercial sources. The acronym does also appear to be used. I wonder, however, if this is already in a mechanical engineering article somewhere? -Splash 20:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree - Google does show it to be real term, and a real acronym. Jll 19:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Nufy8 22:16, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Manker[edit]

Non-notable--this is the spell-checking bot for the Filesharingtalk.com Web site, whose page is also up for deletion. GinaDana 19:25, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete as nn; btw that sure sounds like an annoying bot! Brighterorange 20:06, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just a piece of code. Doesn't even sound like it corrects slepping, just leavse an anynoing messgae behidn. -Splash 20:24, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. moink 06:06, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian Digital Info[edit]

Doesn't assert sufficient notability. KeithD (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one of 8.1 billion websites indexed by Google, all but the fifth decimal-place of which are nn. Note the Alexa rank of about 27,000th but then see their front page: it's alive with banners which presumably are reciprocal "list me and I'll list you to boost each others traffic and pagerank" things. -Splash 21:40, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 23:12, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ardzruni[edit]

VfD tag added to article on August 20 by Aranda56, but nothing else apparently done at that time. Came across article while looking through history stubs. No opinion myself as of yet on whether it should be kept or not. Caerwine 20:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry, I forgot about that page. There is no hope for the page. It had been tagged for cleanup since Oct 2004 - almost a year - and i searched Google for some of the rulers of Ardzruni and there werent even listed there not counting the wikipedia pages. I have this feeling that this might be nonsense in the rulers side even Ardzuni all its info I found in Google was also from wikipedia pages Heavy Clean Up Or Strong Delete--Aranda56 00:52, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- That's okay, it happens to all of us sometimes. Anyway, I did some research of my own, and, ~~although~~ "Ardzruni" does seem to be {[26],[27], [28]) a legitimate name in Armenian history, I'm forced to concur that this page is so incoherent as to be unsalvageable - unless someone wants to rewrite it from scratch, in which case we might as well just delete it anyway and start over with a clean edit history. DS 14:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC) Nice work. Vote changed to keep. DS 17:32, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have cleaned up the English. No justification for deletion. Linking one name to another article has given some corroboration. Charles Matthews 07:54, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although I can't find a secondary source confirming all the names, there is no doubt from a search of Google and a few hits in articles on JSTOR (search Ardzrouni as an alternative spelling) that this was a significant dynasty of regional rulers in Armenia during a the first millennium. Edit or comment out whatever seems difficult to confirm; there is no reason to delete the entire article. Uppland 09:06, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After Charles' cleanup, this is an acceptible article. As for verifying the info here with Google, I'm not surprised that a topic like this (i.e., detailed or esoteric) would get short shrift from a search there. (I do wonder about whether we'll be able to keep this article from becoming a target for hoaxes & cranks, though.) -- llywrch 19:19, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete -- Joolz 11:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriela magda[edit]

Delete. Vanity page. --Ian Pitchford 20:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete via CSD A7. Brighterorange 20:36, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleted CDC (talk) 21:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Nufy8 22:17, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gemma tierney[edit]

Delete Vanity [29] PhilipO 20:51, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, I don't find anything for "Gemma tierny" + irish dancing for instance. Someone by that name won a minor art prize once, but that's all.(Note adherence to Geogre's Law, too) -Splash 21:35, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity. Flower party 21:47, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Nufy8 22:18, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cowboy crew[edit]

Delete Vanity PhilipO 20:54, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, it's about a website (or maybe two). One of them has no Alexa rank at all, and the other is 3,900,000th, which is nn whichever way you spin it, cowboy. -Splash 22:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC) (yes, i only just noticed I hadn't signed)[reply]
Delete, pathetic ColumbusCrew29

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. -- BD2412 ^talk 04:52, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Northern Ireland naming dispute[edit]

This is fundamentally a [POV] issue, not something worthy of academic or encyclopaedic record. So long as the "occupation" continues, one side will insist on pan-Irish nomenclature. So long as one "Ulster loyalist" lives (in Derry, Glasgow or the farthest reaches of Antarctica), the other side will insist on nomenclature to reflect its belief that the counties are at the heart of the English suburban sprawl. Politics will solve this, not rational argument. The answer may also lie with EU decress, since both England and the Free State have joined the Union, and therefore have abrogated the final say on their nationhood to Brussels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.196 (talk • contribs) 08:07, 1 September 2005

The point of the article isn't to "solve" the issue, just to catalog it. I found the article interesting. Have you seen the treatment of other "POV" issues on wikipedia? MisterSheik 09:44, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. There's no reason to delete this article. It doesn't try to say what the place in question should be called, merely to document that there is a dispute. It seems to do that pretty well, and (though I'm not an expert in the area) there doesn't seem to be anything here that either side would object to. I found it interesting. PeteVerdon 09:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep. I can't see any big bias in it Bolak77 10:56, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I created this article in order to document a major part of the conflict in Northern Ireland. As PeteVerdon said, this article is documenting the naming dispute and of course will not take a particular side. Talrias (t | e | c) 13:34, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The page describes the various POVs, it doesn't endorse them. Derry/Londonderry name dispute is a precedent. Demiurge 11:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a good example of how NPOV can be achieve by a balanced demonstration of all the different POVs. -Splash 21:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article can be kept NPOV, and it's informative. Punkmorten 21:30, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Exemplary way of treating a touchy subject in an NPOV way. −Woodstone 17:14:55, 2005-09-03 (UTC)
Delete. As a citizen of the Republic of Ireland I never knew that a naming dispute existed (apart from that of communists and facists making) until I read this article, it is of little note and not worthy of wikipedia. Djegan 20:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment moreover its no wonder that the only article that points to the article is Sinn Féin. Whilst I don't doubt the committment and sincerity of those who have so far assisted in the article I must conclude that it only serves as a kind of media hype of something very abstact. Djegan 21:02, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The article is quite new. I imagine links from appropriate articles will be added in the future. Talrias (t | e | c) 21:26, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This has long been a major point of dispute and needs documenting. Timrollpickering 21:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reasonable article on noteworthy topic. Capitalistroadster 23:30, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. As the originator of Category:Geographical naming disputes, I could hardly say otherwise. I think the nominator misunderstands what WP:NPOV means; we certainly do discuss various POVs, we just don't take one.--Pharos 01:13, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - a big bone of contention!!! --MacRusgail 14:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Nufy8 22:20, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Inner light theory of consciousness[edit]

Marked as a speedy delete, but doesn't really meet the criteria. It may well meet the slow-delete criteria, though. CDC (talk) 21:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete , just one of (tens of) millions of books. Website has an Alexa rank of 1,550,000. Plus, it only gets 90 Google hits, and has an Amazon sales rank of 1,250,000th. It's also a bad book: it has a score of 2.5/5. I don't feel inclined to turn Wikipedia into Amazon for nn texts. -Splash 22:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV ad for bush-league book. Fire Star 03:40, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Fire Star --NeilN 13:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Nufy8 22:21, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Katrina, How I Love Thee[edit]

Bnad/song vanity. If it's made it "on the charts" (what charts?), how come there are zero references on Google, Google news, or Usenet? Zoe 21:29, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. If it exists, nothing's heard of it. Allmusic.com hasn't heard of either artist, and neither has Wikipedia so there's no need to merge it anywhere. -Splash 22:02, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as above (if this is a hoax, it is in very poor taste) --Doc (?) 22:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Joolz 16:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Impossibale[edit]

Delete. dicdef, unneccessary as the meaning explained here seems to be the exact same as that of impossible. Punkmorten 21:47, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and recreate as redirect to impossible, I suppose. -Splash 22:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no, I was being too generous. We don't need redirects for every conceivable misplaced letter. Delete. -Splash 22:20, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Impossible is a redirect as it is. Redirect to possibility if this is a genuine variant spelling. Flower party 22:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a place to list illiterate misspellings. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. Possibly redirect to possibility, but I'll pass. (And that says something, because I otherwise create redirects left and right.) - Mike Rosoft 16:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Nufy8 22:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The american black lung[edit]

Semi-literate band vanity with no allmusic hits and no relevant Google hits. - Lucky 6.9 22:15, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. allmusic doesn't have them. Friday (talk) 22:16, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 10:23, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MediaTechnologyArt[edit]

Advertising. Note the registered trademark sign. Zoe 22:18, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Delete also a neologism: the article admits to not even knowing what it is! TooMuchCamelCase, and NoGoogleHits. -Splash 22:25, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
UNdelete / Keep MediaTechnologyArt by ZADOK is definitely no company at all, even no priest, but a reliable artist. See it's work.
delete nn artistic genre. Brighterorange 23:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dottore So 01:14, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep Mediatechart is one of LIACS' faculties (Leiden Institute for Advanced Computer Science) Mediatechnology, LIACS, Leiden University User: Bb-king 01:15, 3 September 2005
delete, neologism. -- Solipsist 07:09, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Nothing like sockpuppets. Woohookitty 10:25, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ZADOK[edit]

Delete the founder of the company creating the adologism just up there ↑ is as nn as the ad and nelogism. -Splash 22:27, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UNdelete / Keep MediaTechnologyArt by ZADOK is definitely no company at all, even no priest, but a reliable artist. See it's work.
Delete as with MediaTechnologyArt. Zoe 23:24, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
delete nn artist, possible vanity. Brighterorange 23:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nn. UniReb 00:38, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dottore So 01:15, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - is a reliable artist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bb-king (talk • contribs) 23:28, 4 September 2005 - Mediatechart is one of LIACS' faculties (Leiden Institute for Advanced Computer Science) Mediatechnology, LIACS, Leiden University 01:15, 3 September 2005
Not an encyclopedia article. Delete unless rewritten. - Mike Rosoft 14:43, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. No consensus on what to do with this article. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 08:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Atatürk[edit]

POV fork of Kemal Atatürk. --Carnildo 22:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whole article about Mustafa Kemal is positive-POV. This so-called hero wasn't saint. Keep and cleanup to higher standard. -- Darwinek 10:33, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The page is largely unencylopedic, the most valid points from this article, criticism by Kurds and Islamists, is covered in Kemal Ataturk under "Criticism of Reforms". No respectable source accuses Ataturk of sanctioning a genocide. --A.Garnet 12:02, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Usually I will want this article deleted, because ciritics of Ataturk should be included in his own entry. But since Turkish nationalists consider that dictator as more suprem than Allah, and will not premit criticism in his own entry, I don't know what other alternative there can be. If Ataturks entry was to be like how articles should be written, than I will be the first placing this article to deletion. For now, I don't know if this article should be deleted or not. Fadix 16:10, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, i have more than three times tried to add a more a encylopedic criticism section to Ataturk here, here and here (dismissing much of the pro-Turk rhetoric such as Kurds dont exist) only for it to be replaced by this article. --A.Garnet 16:27, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Kemal Atatürk which could do with an expansion of the criticism section. Martg76 12:26, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Darwinek's above comment. -- Karl Meier 12:25, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Kemal Atatürk moink 06:15, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Nufy8 22:23, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

T-Bone (wrestler)[edit]

Patent nonsense. This wrestler doesn't exist. --Jtalledo (talk) 22:40, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. TWA links to Trans World Airlines. If it's the [trampoline wrestling association http://www.angelfire.com/oh/extremeTWA/], it's a bunch of kids in their back yard. Zoe 23:26, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per above. McPhail 02:16, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ditto (as above). --- Paulley 17:23, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all abore -- Cdyson37 17:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. -- BD2412 ^talk 04:22, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Hufu[edit]

Delete, I think. Ok, this is what AfD is for. I do not believe that the website linked here offers anything but a hoax product. Googling for "hufu hoax" means I am not alone. I can't find any evidence that this product has ever been manufactured, sold or despatched, although one supposes that one might be arrested for likely being a cannibal if one were to so order. At the least, we have verifiability problems, at worst we have an internet hoax that is nn. -Splash 22:53, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep. I've heard about this many times from multiple sources, so I think this is famous enough to warrant an article. If there is doubt to its legitimacy, then that information should be in the article, of course. Brighterorange 23:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Strange, exotic, and controversial enough to be Wiki-worthy! UniReb 00:40, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional Keep. I've heard of this, and am not sure that it isn't a hoax, but even if it is a hoax it still might be wiki-worthy. I did turn up an interview of the creator of this product in the "Valley News" (local newspaper of White River Junction, Vermont) dated July 5, 2005 by Jessica T. Lee. It reports that the company only had 144 boxes of the product to start and sold out in two days. Crypticfirefly 05:32, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this got some news coverage [30] and should be considered verifiable. Probably the article should be cleaned up to indicate that it is basically being marketed as a novelty/joke product with corresponding T-shirts as the primary product being offered by the seller. --Metropolitan90 06:21, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
'Keep, seems like there a lot of hits out there, but rewrite to make it clear it's a hoax. Zoe 21:51, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
Keep per Metropolitan90 and Crypticfirefly. Nothing to indicate it is a hoax that I can find.—chris.lawson (talk) 19:14, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Nufy8 22:24, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RentalMonster[edit]

A website with Alexa rank 1,876,404. Spam. —Cryptic (talk) 23:11, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete as WP:NOT a web directory. Brighterorange 23:28, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another easy one. Quale 05:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obvious and inevitable outcome--Oppolo 15:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- Joolz 11:10, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Easyrez[edit]

Spam. —Cryptic (talk) 23:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete obvious advertising. Brighterorange 23:24, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advert for a non-notable site. Quale 05:49, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam. Mindmatrix 13:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as all above --Oppolo 15:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus - kept after rewrite by Sam Vimes. -- Joolz 11:17, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of religious leaders in 1911[edit]

I looked at this article expecting to find a list of religious leaders -- okay, maybe just one & a note that this was an incomplete list. Instead I found this biography of someone who is described as a "great muhaddith of islam". No mention of him on Wikipedia, & a Google search turns up this, which suggests that he may be an Urdu poet. however, if that is the case, then this article gets so much wrong about Mr Azeemabadi that we might as well delete what's here, & write a new article on Azeemabadi from scratch. llywrch 23:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Quale 05:49, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without any research, I can tell this list is short a pope, some archbishops and a few mullahs. --Doc (?) 09:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note: There exists a series on "list of religious leaders", and there's one list from 1910, so I copied that into this article. Hope I didn't do anything wrong - just felt that the content which is there now is more appropriate to the title Sam Vimes 11:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This page needed to be fixed, & IMHO this is as good as any solution. My initial concern in nominating this article was to note that I could find no justification for saving the original text, & get a sense whether anyone else could rescue it. -- llywrch 17:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the fixed page is perfectly in order. Martg76 12:27, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete after discounted votes. -- Joolz 11:37, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Originaltrilogy.com[edit]

nn website, nn petition, advocacy. Zoe 23:22, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Delete all articles about online petitions, particularly those involving Meow Skywalker. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 23:26:14, 2005-09-02 (UTC)
Delete this. Nonnotable. Nandesuka 23:40, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The page was created by the fans for the fans. It is a rather significant petition, not to mention an almost constant active one with over 71,000 signitures. Hmm. I thought Wikipedia wasn't a paper dictionary. You guys seem to make it to look that way. Maybe that's just how it looks on paper, huh? Adamwankenobi 01:14, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't a paper dictionary, or an online dictionary, or (more to the point) a web directory. Alexa rank 298,170. Delete. —Cryptic (talk) 01:35, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, 71,000 signatures is notable. Kappa 01:39, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Utter nonsense. Zoe 18:33, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
Keep There is *much* more to the site than just the petition, and it is a significant and active part of the sci-fi online fan community.
- THX1138's first edit. —Cryptic (talk) 02:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a significant petition and a passionate fan community that works to perserve the films in their original versions. 3 September 2005 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.170.172.162 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The petition may be notable, but the website is not. If we do keep this article, it needs to be rewritten. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 05:23, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coffee 19:26, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep .seanwookie it is important to all star wars fans to keep this up--Seanwookie 20:26, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Seanwookie's only edits are to Originaltrilogy.com and this vote. Coffee 20:35, 3 September 2005 (UTC) [reply]
  - Including deleting the afd header. Zoe 21:18, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
    - Oh, and BTW, I'm a Star Wars fan, and it's not important me, so don't try to speak for people you don't know. Zoe 21:19, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
      - All votes are equal here. Next Coffee will be saying only non-star wars fans are allowed to vote! Adamwankenobi 21:27, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        It is not true that all votes are equal here. It is up to the closing admin to decide whether or not to count anons and users with minimal numbers of edits. Zoe 21:52, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
        
        I doubt I would say that, Adam. I'm a Star Wars fan. Coffee 04:38, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It needs to be rewritten, but I'd personally like to see it stay. 05:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.172.51.132 (talk • contribs) , his only edit
Delete. Not notable. Please note - this is NOT a vote. Unless accompanied by compelling arguments, input from very new users may, at the closing admins discretion, be ignored. Further, some people get really pissed off and vote delete when they see a large number of such votes. - brenneman^(t)^(c) 03:13, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to put here some remarks by a guy from that site that was deleted from the page: "IT'S PRETTY BAD WHEN A SITE LIKE WIKIPEDIA BECOMES NOTHING MORE THAN A NAZI REGIME TELLING US WHAT IS ACCEPTABLE AND WHAT IS NOT.-PSYCHO_DAYV@originaltrilogy.com" I couldn't agree more. Adamwankenobi 10:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please do not encourage the vandals. —Cryptic (talk) 17:30, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - He;s not a vandal, he created the page. Adamwankenobi 22:37, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Are you claiming that this is not vandalism? Furthermore, Wikipedia is not for self-promotion. —Cryptic (talk) 23:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
seanwookieThey created this site to bring together all kinds of star wars fans across the world together not so we can tell people what they can and can't say this is america isn't the freedom of speach important. WIKIPEDIA IS OPPRESSING OUR RIGHTS!
Delete. I haven't heard any reason why this is notable. We don't create articles for every petition online vote either. And can we please stop the "you're just against starwars fans" argument, that's just silly. I'm not even going to comment about Nazi comparisons. Please see Godwin's law. Jacoplane 22:27, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
seanwookieI never vadallised this site I never even edited it after they put the sign up.
DELETE not notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by G Clark (talk • contribs) 23:28, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Really, if anyone wanted info on OT.com then they would visit OT.com. --Kineticpast 09:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Kineticpast's only edit. —Cryptic (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Not if they didn't know what the address was! Adamwankenobi 05:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator.--nixie 05:26, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable in any sense of the word. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:24, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. But with textual modifications. This site has roots in film history and film preservation and goes beyond just fanboy love. kapgar 15:17, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- kapgar's only edit is for this vote. Jacoplane 21:16, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just to help you guys out, this is our discussion page over at OT.com on this possible deletion. Adamwankenobi 23:02, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the page. Word of mouth only goes so far, and friends have a tendency to forget what you were telling them about in the first place.

Delete. NN add a note about the campain to the List of changes in Star Wars re-releases and begone with it. - Dr Haggis - Talk 17:56, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash 23:15, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Turnbull[edit]

I'm not sure how notable this person is. She doesn't seem to have anything to indicate that she qualifies for an article. Zoe 23:51, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

She's not that notable yet, although she seems to have a blossoming career ahead of her. Maybe in a few years... At least we know from the generally illiterate article that it's not vanity. Delete for now. Dottore So 01:20, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable. Partly responsible for HabCat; also see mention on Planetary habitability. I'll wikify the page and provide appropriate links to it soon. Also, "generally illiterate" is unfair-"uncertain newby" probably more accurate. Marskell 15:38, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Marskell has asked me to review my nomination based upon his edits, but I still find a postdoctoral fellow as nn. Zoe 21:36, September 4, 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was no consensus so kept. -- Joolz 11:25, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cockeyed.com[edit]

Completing nomination below. I abstain. -- Norvy (talk) 23:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising or other spam 70.187.166.113 04:46, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cockeyed.com is a website that has moved beyond the standard personal website, blog, or advertisement venue. It has become an important part of internet culture by combining humor, science, and a slice of life in non-coastal California. Its creator has been featured on MTV2 with a segment titled "How much is inside Dave Grohl?" While the website does feature advertising, it is a mecca of anti-spam, anti-pyramid scheme information. The creator's research on the Herbalife pyramid scheme is an excellent piece of journalism that rivals any main-stream media investigation. This website is important enough to internet culture that it deserves recognition in this Encyclopedia. Crazym108 00:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete nn/vanity Considering the above arg, there are 100,000's of sites that would warrant a spot here if this one were allowed. Although I like the site, I personally don't see that it's wiki-worthy. It's time this was removed. RR68 00:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep If you argue that, we'd have to get rid of many of our excellent webcomic articles, like the penny arcade or megatkoyo articles. --Setrajonas 23:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nn., although it looks like an interesting site! UniReb 00:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nn as above 62.197.126.10 02:14, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Notable website. Just did a search of newspaper articles on ProQuest and found reviews/references to the site in several different newspapers including the New York Times and the Guardian. The creator of the website was also interviewed on NPR's All Things Considered on February 26, 2003 about the ongoing "How Much Is Inside?" feature on the site. Crypticfirefly 16:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I get zero results when I try to find this site using ProQuest. Could you link to your search results? I also get zero results from Google news. Alexa ranking of 30,108. Zoe 21:55, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
  - Unfortunately, I can't link the ProQuest results because I am using a subscription service. I just searched for incidents of "cockeyed.com" anywhere in article text (searching national newspapers database). If you have some way to view it, try:
    - "WEB WATCH; It's a quantification sensation" Christine N. Ziemba. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Aug 8, 2004. pg. E.3.
    - "WHAT'S ONLINE" CAY DICKSON. Houston Chronicle. Houston, Tex.: Jun 10, 2003. pg. 4.
    - "Detroit Free Press Home Computing Column," Heather Newman. Knight Ridder Tribune Business News. Washington: Jun 7, 2003. pg. 1 (reporting Webby Awards People's Choice win by cockeyed.com).
    - "The Man Who Would Buy Everything, Everywhere" David F. Gallagher. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Mar 10, 2003. pg. C.3 (subject of story is a prank/joke found on the cockeye.com website).
    - "Interview: Rob Cockerham discusses ways to quantify the contents of everyday containers," All Things Considered. Washington, D.C.: Feb 26, 2003.
    - "Online: Web Watch: New & noted," Jack Schofield. The Guardian. Manchester (UK): Jun 20, 2002. pg. 7.
    - "Having Customers Say No to Tap Water," David F. Gallagher. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Aug 20, 2001. pg. C.4 (reporting Coca-Cola's response to story on cockeyed.com site, aslo appears on p. 1 of Sacramento Bee the following day) . . . etc.
      Sufficient? Crypticfirefly 01:09, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable site referenced in many media outlets, plus it's just plain cool. FCYTravis 08:06, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- Joolz 11:08, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blair McKenzie Blake[edit]

I'm not sure if the title of official webmaster confers automatic notability or not, but another user seems to feel so, hence this article here. Denni ☯ 23:59, 2005 September 2 (UTC)

delete there really isn't anything more that needs to be said Bandraoi 00:24, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hey, we all update a website with information too, I guess everybody gets their own article. Oh wait, no they don't. --rob 01:35, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Quale 05:47, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN — RJH 19:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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