Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 September 15

Guide to deletion

September 15

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 04:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

George Underwood

I have nominated this article for deletion because all the info in it is already in David Bowie and he seems not to be deserving of an article (unless someone wants to add a paragraph or two) --Clawed 13:01, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If he has any notability as an artist, weak keep, but if none can be found and if this sub-stub is all anyone is willing to devote to him, then delete. 23skidoo 19:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless there's something pretty significant missing. Tuf-Kat 06:44, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^{(Contributions)} 20:53, 20 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 10:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zombie monkey

Seems to be nonsense (tho' not patent nonsense). Looking at the first few pages of hits I didn't see anything encyclopedic; mostly forums and coincidental pairings of the words. It might refer to a video game species--if anyone can figure out which one, maybe a redir is in order. Niteowlneils 00:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete coincidental pairings would be my guess as to the number of google hits. Dismas|^(talk) 00:16, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 01:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-sense. *drew 02:24, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Probably some sort of D&D monster or some enemy from a computer game, but the article doesn't say. Such things should ordinarily be merged into the main article on the book/game/universe or a list of characters or monsters but without any clue as to where, this article should go. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Funny, but sadly, nonsense. (I love the tone, by the way) Alas, it appears non-notable. -[[User:Mys e kurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]} 23:20, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete..::Imdaking::. ^{TLK | Y!} 05:26, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom--Isotope23 20:24, 16 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. android 79 01:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Camino Real Marketplace

Seems to be a run-of-the-mill strip mall. Article doesn't make any particular claim of notability, and scanning the first few pages of hits didn't turn up anything either. Wikipedia is not a general business directory (#7). Niteowlneils 00:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Nom --Aranda56 00:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 01:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. TheMadBaron 02:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or keep, locally important. Kappa 13:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reason for notability given, stub or sub-stub in information content. - Andre Engels 13:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn --TimPope 21:16, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Can "locally important" be demonstrated? Even the marketplace's website makes no claim to any noteworthiness except "Camino Real Marketplace is the South Coast’s most diverse shopping center." I don't think that overcomes the policy cited by the nominator. Delete unless greater significance is shown. Barno 23:20, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. .::Imdaking::. ^{TLK | Y!} 05:37, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Quale 20:28, 17 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. android 79 01:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cabrillo Business Park

Seems to be a run-of-the-mill business park. Article doesn't make any particular claim of notability, and scanning the first few pages of hits didn't turn up anything either. Wikipedia is not a general business directory (#7). Niteowlneils 00:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 01:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Goleta, California. JYolkowski // talk 01:58, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. TheMadBaron 02:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or keep, business parks are important. Kappa 13:06, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Too low on content, does not state notability. - Andre Engels 13:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I see no purpose to a redirect. What's next, apartment buildings? Friday (talk) 14:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn --TimPope 21:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Quale

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 22:16, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exile's Song

Im not sure what it is but it looks like a very bad promotion from a book or a covyvio from the back cover of the book in which i cant find in Google Strong Delete this junk --Aranda56 00:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty obviously the back cover of a Marion Zimmer Bradley Darkover book. I'd support making it a redirect or a delete, either one. DS 00:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as non encyclopedic and likely copyvio. TheMadBaron 02:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR / Copyvio / Unverifiable. --Apyule 07:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But we need to know what happens next! Will Margaret ever... oh, hold on, I don't care. Delete CLW 07:48, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, what a waste of space. Colinmac 08:16, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no useful content. - Andre Engels 13:31, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Uhm, yeah.... about that.... CLW got it completely right. -[[User:Mys e kurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]} 23:22, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No encyclopedic reason to redirect this title, no matter how cheap redirects are. Barno 23:23, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 22:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Peppy Ankylosaurus

No. NO. ABSOLUTELY NOT. We are NOT going to have an entry for this fanfic character, along with speculations about what video games he might best fit in and what characters might like him. DS 00:30, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LOL it maked me laugh so hard still BIG TIME HOAX lololollol still laughing Delete Bye Bye Peppy --Aranda56 00:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Better Yet add it to BJAODN --Aranda56 00:45, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 01:11, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. TheMadBaron 02:01, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Somewhere someone is crying because they read this. --Apyule 07:11, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sometimes it's the kindest thing to do. CLW 07:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, would be gamecruft even if it actually existed, but this - sheesh. — JIP | Talk 11:22, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as the article itself says "one of the many". - Andre Engels 13:32, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and don't give them ideas, Andre ;) Alf ^melmac 15:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but I am so glad I caught this, it is too funny!
Delete because article fails to address how Peppy would fit into Tekken. -- BD2412 ^talk 20:49, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
bwahahaha. Keep. Yes, I'm being serious - I found it funny, while still being informational/encyclopdic, which makes it notable. At least to me. (and if you do delete, move this to 'Wikipedia:bad jokes' at least). Wandering oojah 20:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry, momentary lapse of sanity. I would be for the creation of a video game fan fiction article and merging this article with that one. Wandering oojah 21:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wow, this is slightly pitiful! In response to Wandering oojah, I doubt any of this is notable enough for its own merged article, but maybe I'm wrong. I can't wait to see this on BJAODN ;) -[[User:Mys e kurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]}_{23:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)}[reply]
Delete, and I am mentally prepared to see a "Yoshizilla" article any day now. Nandesuka 13:28, 16 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. It's been on Copyright Problems for more than the requisite 7 days. -Splash^talk 19:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Grant Magnuson Clinical Center

nn clinic and also sounds like a self-promotion for it Delete --Aranda56 00:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite as it stands it looks like self-promotion. Dlyons493 01:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I took a look at it for a rewrite, but there is no real information there. Its all speculation about all the great things their going to do. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 03:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This is a hospital. Just need to rewrite the self-promotional portion. --Vsion 05:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
When you see this kind of self-promotional material, it is more often than not a copyvio, and a quick Google check on portions of the text is advisable, the possibility for a listing on WP:CP should be investigated before the possibility for a listing on AFD, see Uncle G's excellent advice here. I have found two pages from where the text is most likely copied verbatim, and I have tagged the article as such. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:01, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delay voting until the copyright problems have been sorted out. - Andre Engels 13:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Speculation, Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 17:39, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 22:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ponting defends his position

News article cut-and-paste. Possible copyright violation. Jkelly 00:55, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as copyvio. The potential threat of Ricky Ponting losing the captaincy of the Australian cricket team should be discussed in his article. Capitalistroadster 01:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think we even need a redirect. --Apyule 07:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Capitalistroadster. Demogorgon's Soup-taster 09:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above arguments. No redirect. Punkmorten 19:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Stupid title. Molotov (talk) 22:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 21:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Longcat

I did all the strike out and disregard notices myself, not all votes that are disregarded are both struck and noted due to the huge job of trying to find and mark each one, All IP's are automtically disregarded under my criteria as well as any user with very few edits (I don't keep a hard rule to how many that is) as well as any vote that includes a personal attacks. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 21:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Longcat deserves as much a page as any net meme, f nevada-tan or limecat belongs, so does limecat — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.34.173 (talk • contribs) September 19, 2005

- Above was user's second edit. User also vandalized the 4chan page [1] on 9/11/05, deleting all text and replacing with the word "pwned." | Keithlaw 13:29, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

:vote disregarded by closing admin Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 21:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Delete. Funny, but no. I almost speedied it, but there's a chance its true. -Splash^talk 01:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is most definetly true. Longcat is our pride and joy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.96.57 (talk • contribs) 01:24, September 15, 2005

*Keep This is not a joke. This is an infant of a wiki of a cliche spawned from the website 4chan.org. --Longcat 01:28, 15 September 2005 (UTC) [reply]

This vote was made by User Akor by changing his signature to try and double vote.NSR (talk) 15:30, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a blatant lie. My only vote is below. Akor 21:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Longcat contribsoriginally posted the above comment, [2], then modified it, [3]. Then Longcat signed the post manually, but linked to User:Akor, by copying the text of Akor's signature from the edit immediately below Longcat's, and changing the name to Longcat but not the user page link [4]. Unravelling the truth behind the various edits to this debate has been a bit ridiculous, but know that every single edit is recorded, and the truth is open for all to view. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 22:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you had to take the trouble going through all the edits, I would have expected this from NSR who made that claim. However this obviously is an indicator for Longcat's unawareness of the signing function. Also I am sure this can be proven by logged IPs. Akor 23:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

:vote disregarded by closing admin Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 21:53, 21 September 2005 (UTC) *Keep. This is a good example required to understand the creative process that's happening on imageboards such as Futaba_Channel or 4chan --Akor 01:28, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- Note: User:Akor's first edits are to this discussion: contribs. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 18:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note: This does not make my argument invalid. Akor 21:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - However, votes from users whose first edits are after the beginning of a deletion discussion are generally disregarded. The consensus of this discussion thus far has been overwhelmingly in favor of deletion. Very few legitimate support votes have been entered for this article. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn!

:vote disregarded by closing admin Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 21:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC) [reply]

delete obviously as forumcruft. There have been a few 4chan articles on afd recently. 4chan users: wikipedia really isn't the right place for articles about memes/people/etc. from 4chan; they're going to get deleted. Why not set up your own 4chanwiki instead? I'm sure it would be quite popular. — brighterorange (talk) 01:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Longcat extends beyong merely the realm of 4chan. Longcat is not exclusive to one site only. I truely believe that there should be an article explaining what Longcat is so that when they here mention of it, they can find information on the subject. It also helps to find information about the legend if one should ever need it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Longcat (talk • contribs) 01:33, September 15, 2005
  - And a little known fact: Longcat is so long that he can dig from Ohio, through the center of the Earth, and just almost reach China, not quite but almost, by about 2 miles lacking. Longcat is, indeed, long. However, I don't think this would be relevant to the article, considering, as far as I know, cats do not burrow like dogs and rabbits do. --I am not good at running 09:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Something tells me that this comment is a preview of the sort of silliness this article is likely to attract if kept. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs)
      - If I knew the exact name of that fallacy, I'd link to an article about it. I thought it might be Straw man but that was more about conveniently predicting an uncertain future to win an argument, which I guess is like a Straw Man going into Christopher Lloyd's De Lorean DMC-12 before attacking it. --I am not good at running 16:39, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Would you like an example? - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 00:44, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing worth mentioning in article. --rob 01:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sounds like nonsense to me jmd 01:40, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Please show your proof that this article is nothing but falsehoods. --Longcat
Delete Patent nonsense, and not even good patent nonsense at that. Even if this is a real meme from one small message board, Wikipedia's not the place for that stuff. | Keithlaw 02:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Longcat is forever, and while has a convoluted background, does appear from time to time in unexpected places. I think people deserve to know of the longness.--IntensityBill — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.152.54.55 (talk • contribs) 02:02, September 15, 2005 :vote disregarded by closing admin Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 21:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Delete Nonsense/Hoax and Please do something with those socks give them an hour ban or something --Aranda56 02:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You are speaking about something in which you know nothing about. This is not a hoax. We wouldn't waste our time on something as pointless as a hoax. If you actually read, you'll learn the truth of the subject -Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longcat (talk • contribs) 02:06, September 15, 2005 diff.
- Wikipedia:No personal attacks :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akor (talk • contribs) 02:13, September 15, 2005 diff
Delete. 4chan memes aren't encyclopedic, unless they have significant news coverage or pop culture impact. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 02:11, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Think of it - Wikipedia articles for every amusing photo every displayed on the internet. May be true (the photoshopped image of LongerCat will show up later to be deleted also, oops did I say that out loud?); but not encyclopedic. -WCFrancis 02:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Please understand that this is not "every amusing photo every displayed on the internet", but and outstanding, if not _the_ creative offspring of 4chan. Consider that Giko, Shii-chan, and Mona, similiar work from 2ch each got their own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akor (talk • contribs) 02:31, September 15, 2005 diff
Delete all catcruft. TheMadBaron 02:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this 4chan cruft which, being known to only ~1,000 people, has no place in an encyclopedia. Ashibaka (tock) 02:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)02:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thought, Keep. 1,000 people is far more than the number of people who know about, say, Gemini Bright or The Adventures of Richard E Grant. Ashibaka (tock) 02:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I second Akor's motion. I figure if this Giko cat is notable, so is Longcat.Canar 02:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. Longcat forever, as above, it shows the evolutionary process of image boards.Grimmie (preceding unsigned comment by 82.37.241.212 (talk · contribs) 02:33, 15 September 2005) :vote disregarded by closing admin Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 21:51, 21 September 2005 (UTC) [reply]

- Comment: I don't know enough about this topic to vote. But perhaps it would be better added to an article about image boards? 68.20.28.234 03:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. Wow, gg no re Wikiassholes. See if I ever donate again. The Wikipedia is the encyclopedia for everyone. Seriously, tell me what's wrong with this article. The text is fine, not great, but better than a lot of stuff here at the Wikipedia. If it were just the picture with "omfg lol roofleskates" for body text, then sure, I could understand candidacy for deletion. This is a fine article. To say Longcat isn't notable is extremely snobbish. Leave it be and go do something useful. (preceding unsigned comment by 66.74.195.104 (talk · contribs) 02:36, 15 September 2005)

I've merged the content into 4chan, since it's really only relevant in that context. I move that this article be redirected to 4chan. --Slowking Man 03:20, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- hey, genius. longcat is a 2chan thing as well. know what you're talking about before moving stuff! KeiKusanagi 9:27PM 15sept
  - No Personal Attacks. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 18:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

:vote disregarded by closing admin Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 21:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC) [reply]

- Delete. I agree that 4chan is the place for Longcat. It really originated there, unless I'm mistaken. The article isn't long enough or relevant enough to be anywhere but 4chan. However, please keep it there, rather than deleting it. Canar 05:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Waiter, there's a Longcat in my wikipedia! Tainting its internet purity! Getting in the way of my serious internet business! How can I be expected to endlessly refresh wikipedia articles for the next ten hours in case someone slips an errant figure in with a cat THAT LONG hanging around? It's worse than gays marrying! Bosphorus

- Note: User:Bosphorus's first contribution is to this discussion: contribs. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 18:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Since several "Keep" voters here can't seem to express themselves without making personal attacks on their opponents, let me ask this: Why is it so bloody important to all of you to have Longcat in Wikipedia? Don't any of you have anything better to do than come here and call other people names? | Keithlaw 03:55, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, they don't. However, this does not alter the validity of Longcat. Canar 04:10, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

:vote disregarded by closing admin Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 21:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC) [reply]

KEEP this has no need for removal KeiKusanagi 9:27PM 15s*ept
- Note: User:KeiKusanagi Joined Wikipedia on September 12th, and has 31 edits. Kate's Report. Interpret suffrage at your discretion. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 18:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - um, excuse me? i have more than the minimum of 25 before doing AfD.... AND the ENTIRE reason i joined wikipedia was to start and maintain SEX MACHINEGUNS which if you go and look, is an article with picture, more than a stub, and pretty damn good. imply that i'm a sock again and i might just leave.... i already don't like you elitist types. ugh. KeiKusanagi 07:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not trying to imply that you're a sock, I don't think that you are, only that you're new. There are some who prefer a higher margin of edits to determine suffrage, I'm not sure if that debate ever got settled or not. I'll have to check on that 25 votes thing, I couldnt remember what the stated minimum was when I posted the comment, thanks for reminding me. I'm simply trying to unravel a lot of confusing posts to this discussion, and anytime I have found a user that is not an established editor, I have noted that in this discussion. If you'll note a bit further down, I tagged one other editor similarly to how I tagged your vote, and that editor was voting Delete. I'm not trying to be partisan, only reflect the truth behind every vote to this discussion. In your case, you seem to have enough to count for a bare minimum. The closing admin may not take your edit count into consideration at all. I hope you don't decide to leave Wikipedia. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 16:20, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

:Vote included in the good faith that this user is not a sock, and no the debate about suffrage is still ongoing I believe. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 21:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC) *KeepI see nothing wrong with this entry. Certainly I've seen worse and less relevant kept here without controversy. A rewrite of all that pseudo-philosophical stuff, yes. Deletion? No. -Ganson316 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.211.230.176 (talk • contribs) 04:52, September 15, 2005 diff. [reply]

Please point to the "worse and less relevant" articles, so we can list them, too. User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As someone else pointed out, the articles about 2chan memes Giko, Shii-chan, and Mona would, by the logic of many Delete votes here, be even more irrelevant. Unlike Longcat, I haven't seen any evidence of those memes spreading beyond the borders of their original birthplace into any other forums; forumcruft indeed. --I am not good at running 16:39, 15 September 2005 (UTC).[reply]

:vote disregarded by closing admin Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 21:51, 21 September 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Keep long cat keeps me happy on the inside, long live long cat - emiechan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.1.184.13 (talk • contribs) 05:11, September 15, 2005

:vote disregarded by closing admin Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 21:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Redirect to 4chan, as Longcat apparently originated from there. Also, although this has little to do with my argument, people should stop with the personal attacks and try to bring up valid points for keeping this article on its own. -Nameneko 05:13, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Longcat has become an integral part of the 4Chan community, and seeing as to how 4Chan's /b/ has considerable weight in it's group of peers and counterparts, it's quite safe to say that Longcat will have notable long-term impact that will no doubt be seen beyond 4Chan. --BloodyEggroll 05:30, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- User's first edit. User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:39, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Need to start somewhere, don't you think? --BloodyEggroll 05:52, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Generally, votes from users whose first contributions are to a AfD discussion that has started prior to the user joining are looked at as alleged sockpuppets, and either way, are generally not given as much weight as votes from established users. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 18:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

:vote disregarded by closing admin Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 21:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Delete, nn forum denizen. No redirect. User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:37, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 4chan, where there is already quite a loooooooooooong enough paragraph about Longcat. (And honestly, the cat isn't all that long. If I hold either of my cats like that, both of them are just as long.) --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 05:39, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Longcat represents the potential within all of us. If we learn to stretch our minds as Longcat has stretched itself, we can enter a new age of enlightenment - CheeZ - Sept. 15, 2005 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.138.166 (talk • contribs) 06:25, September 15, 2005 diff :vote disregarded by closing admin Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 21:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Delete as per nominator.--nixie 06:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn forumcruft. -- MCB 06:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at least Redirect to any relevant article about 4chan memes. This so-called "feline" seems to be somewhat of a lurking meme in certain anime and IDM forums. --I am not good at running 07:11, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nonsense. —Cleared as filed. 07:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator. Colinmac 08:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as forumcruft. And, seriously, my cat is way longer. Karol 09:22, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Internet Memes as such can be notable. Things like the Bonsai kitten, Dancing banana, or Limecat are really well known to a lot of people, meaning millions. Longcat does not seem to be so popular, which is the matter of this debate, I guess. Karol 07:00, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Precisely. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 16:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We've gotta save this article because our petty forum is the most important thing on earth! Yeah, anime forum is the centre of my world, let's all spam keep. Come on, faster, if this article gets deleted, it'll make 4chan look like a bunch of absolute losers! Go back to your forum. - Hahnchen 14:32, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Hahnchen, please refrain from personal attacks. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 18:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete forumcruft. Usrnme h8er 14:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and make the sockpuppets go to a remote island and give themselves a good talking to. The JPS 14:59, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and close the sock drawer, fast. They're spilling out all over the place. Friday (talk) 15:01, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm... three delete votes within a 10 minute period. Very curious indeed :) I bet the Keep voters aren't the only sock users around here. 4chan, after all, does have its rivals. By the way, how's Lowtax doing these days? --I am not good at running 16:22, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no, wait! I have seen the genius of Longcat! Deleeeeeeeeeeeeeete. Vizjim 15:06, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmmmm... Longcat, side order of fries, mayo, deleteous! Alf ^melmac 15:52, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So rather than us being people, we are merely thrown int oa class called "sockpuppets"? Is our opinion of less value than the majority of wikipedia (aka elitest bores)? Why not allow the minority to participate? Why squelch us just because we aren't as WIKI-ELITE as you? -eepberries — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.124.124 (talk • contribs) 16:47, September 15, 2005
- The ability to vote in AfD discussions is given to Wikipedia users in good standing. Anonymous IP's votes are not counted, and new users whose first edits are to deletion discussions are generally disregarded as well. Please see the Articles for Deletion page for more information. If you would like to join Wikipedia and begin to contribute meaningfully to the project, we would welcome your participation in RfA discussion. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 18:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wow, are all of you like this? I can't believe I donated to this project. Longcat is notable. How are memes not encyclopedic? This is completely ridiculous. I'm very disappointed. 4chan and /b/ in particular are right up there with the likes of Genmay and Something Awful -- notable. If memes don't belong in the Wiki, then what exactly is Category:Internet_memes supposed to be? If anything, tracking and documenting memes should be one place the Wiki excels in particular over other encyclopediae. If you were unfamiliar with Longcat (as most of you seem to have been! Guess what, you'd still be unfamiliar with Longcat if it weren't for this Wiki article) and wanted to learn about it, where's the first place you would look? That's right: the Wikipedia. Stop being such elitist pinheads. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.239.142.229 (talk • contribs) 22:23, September 15, 2005
    - Yes, we generally are all like this. We are interested in facts, and articles of encyclopedic interest. There is disagreement on whether this article is notable enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia. That is why we have the current deletion process in place for Wikipedia. Our goal is to build consensus on what should be done with questionable articles. If you'd care to look around at some of the other articles being discussed, you'll note that some will probably be deleted, while some will be kept. It's all part of the process. If you want to voice your opinion, you're welcome to, but be aware that we frequently delete articles about various internet forums, and are frequently flooded with anonymous edits from members of that forum seeking to keep the article. That certainly seems to be the case here. We're not really elitist, anyone can get a username, anyone with a username can vote, and votes from established users are considered, no matter what side of a discussion they are on. Votes from anonymous users are not. That is longstanding Wikipedia policy. If you feel there are holes in Wikipedia's coverage of Internet phenomena, I would encourage you to join the site and participate in the process of building an encyclopedia. However, some of the behavior that has been seen in this discussion, such as engaging in sockpuppetry, is quite frowned upon. As far as 4chan, 4chan does have an article, but this discussion is not over that article. Personally, I've heard of Something Awful, but not 4chan. But that is not what this discussion is about, this discussion is about whether Longcat is notable enough for it's own article. Best regards, Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 22:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Memes are not encyclopedic. Bikeable 16:53, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 17:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I just heavily re-factored the discussion, and rolled over some changes. I'll try to make sure nothing gets left out. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 18:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Actively supported but still irrelevant forumcruft Ziggurat 23:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
redirect and merge with the 4chan article, it is relivent but not in it's own right — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.175.194.29 (talk • contribs) 00:14, September 16, 2005
Delete - Non-encyclopaedic --Camw 01:05, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: User:Camw has 25 edits[5], though mostly to AfD discussions. Interpret suffrage at your discretion. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 01:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. -- Reinyday, 06:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
- Please use ~~~~ to sign your comments, it would be helpful to have a link back to your user page. Thanks. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 06:55, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that Special:Contributions/Reinyday seems to be one of the few none-sockpuppets who vote "keep". --Aleph4 09:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for being an irrelevant and stupid meme. The cat's not even particularly long. He's maybe a bit larger than your average cat. Tuf-Kat 06:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Non-encyclopaedic. (Hm, instead of writing "delete" once, I could create lots of sock puppets shouting "keep", this might have the same effect... :-) -- Aleph4 09:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but if it's any consolation I will say that the cat is kinda funny looking. Everyking 13:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a major meme/internet phenomenon. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and take the photoshopped Longcat Ness Monster pic with it. DS 18:46, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep good article alongside Limecat and others... Grue 17:37, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Even though I have an incredibly low chance of being accounted for in this vote, I would like to offer my vote anyway as well as propose a topic for discussion. Why, exactly, are anonymous contributors to this site held in such low regard? Does one's opinion become effectively null when its source is unknown? Whatever happened to the concept of judging one's opinions on their own merit rather than the eminence of the name of the one who speaks? It seems a bit counterintuitive to me to have anonymous posters able to speak their mind freely and yet be completely disregarded. Why are the posters here so dead-set on furthering the perceived values of their internet identities, which at their very core are indeed effectively anonymous? Anonymous-san 02:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- User's third edit. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 21:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Anonymous contributions are welcome at Wikipedia, but anonymous users are just as likely yo have their contributions to articles edited as regular users. That's the nature of a wiki. Our policy is to allow established Wikipedia users to vote. Why? Because we are trying to establish a consensus, and we want each person to be able to express their opinion. We do not want that distorted by one person trying to appear as several people. If we allow anonymous votes, what is to stop someone from posting multiple votes from different IP addresses? We have no way at all of trying to ascertain if ten anonymous votes are posted by ten people, or two. So, if you want to vote in RfA discussions, feel free, but you will need to have a username at Wikipedia, and not merely be coming in because of one particular article. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 21:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

:vote disregarded by closing admin Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 21:41, 21 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. android 79 01:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Healthy life

Instructions for living a healthy life, which is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. -- Kjkolb 01:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as non encyclopedic, POV, OR etc. TheMadBaron 02:19, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete....WP:ISNOT a how-to. -Splash^talk 02:19, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -GregAsche (talk) 02:31, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it's unscientific rubbish (otherwise it would've fit better to some other place). Nexusstar 04:24, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously delete per above. I am tempted to add the speedy modifier, but the only reason is because the person spelled it "a due," and that isn't really fair. :) --Jacqui M Schedler 13:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -feydey 22:00, 15 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. android 79 01:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Paya

The article mentions this guy's profession, but doesn't even assert notability. jmd 01:37, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Based on this and some more hits in google, I think the guy is an author of multiple published books, and contributor to different publications, and also a speaker at various symposiums. So, he meets the notability requirement. --rob 03:40, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per rob. But someone should add that info to the article! Crypticfirefly 04:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments only: I think if he has so many published works, he should be notable. Someone more familiar with his work is requested to please give more appropriate comments. --Bhadani 12:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if not expanded before close. Wikipedia is not a listings directory, and many academics have many publications. Change my vote to keep if someone greatly expands the article to establish notability (cf. Norman Fairclough) and contributions to human knowledge. The JPS 15:11, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per rob Dlyons493 16:46, 15 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. android 79 01:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

HowWasTheShow.com

WP:NOT a web directory. Alexa rank 800,000+ — brighterorange (talk) 01:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment only:The article is restored for due delete voting process .--Jondel 02:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -not a web directory.--Jondel 02:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mindmatrix 13:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^{(Contributions)} 20:55, 20 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. android 79 01:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Genrelization

Protologism, on Wiktionary:List of protologisms#GZeimusu | Talk page 01:46, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What does this mean? And if "Protologism" can be a word, why can't "genrelization" be a word. Neither are wildy used or accepted as words, however, I'm sure both have equally strong and well iterated definitions. rm81dragon 13:14, 15 September 2005 (EDT)
Comment see Wiktionary:Protologisms. Google suggests the word has been independently created many times, with various meanings. Still wikipedia is not a dictionary. Zeimusu | Talk page 00:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor has aimed for the dictionary and missed, hitting the encyclopaedia instead. Even if this were cleaned up to be an encyclopaedia article, it would be an article on "genrelization". But the article cites no sources and no sources can be found that show that there's any such concept. This article is unverifiable. The only things that Google Web turns up are mis-spellings of "generalization". We usually only do mis-spelling redirects when someone has actually made the mis-spelling and created a duplicate article, which is not the case here. Delete. Uncle G 23:42, 18 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. android 79 01:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pound to currency conversions

This page is a snapshot of currency conversions from GBP made at an unspecified time. The article purports to be useful to those wishing to make currency conversions. Since exchange rates against GBP are not fixed, the article is not useful and is highly misleading. Delete Lupin|talk|popups 01:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nom jmd 01:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ephemeral data --TimPope 21:20, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article with transient data. Mindmatrix 13:44, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^{(Contributions)} 21:28, 20 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. android 79 01:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1530s in architecture

~~Only one Event happened in that Decade and I merged the info already to Architecture timeline 1530s with nothing else to do here Delete --Aranda56 01:53, 15 September 2005 (UTC)~~ Keep per expansion good job resucuing the article from deletion the other decades need info though . --Aranda56 22:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ If there are other things that happened in that decade of note, we can keep it. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 03:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep with additions. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 16:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. When I saw this, my reaction was that more than one notable thing relating to architecture had to have occurred in that decade. I've added a few, I'm sure others will add more. (The 1520's could use more entries as well.) Crypticfirefly 04:01, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With the addition of a few more events, the article already becomes larger than many other "Decade in architecture" articles. -Nameneko 05:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. I am sure that more could be added especially as the Renaissance was well underway during the period. Capitalistroadster 05:32, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to a slightly longer time frame --TimPope 21:22, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , with recent expansions, and potential for future expansions. Also becase this article has a place in the larger context of "Decade in architecture" articles -- LiniShu 04:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep must be plenty of potential for more expansion. CalJW 09:14, 18 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. android 79 01:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crewtherian Entropy Law

A bit of nonsense by one of Rod Crewther's students at the University of Adelaide. Possibly written while he should have been taking lecture notes (note the references to lecture-speech, etc.). I think it is really a speedy candidate but I'll put it here just in case. -- RHaworth 01:59, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a very educational page. Note that the links to the mathematical and physical concepts introduced are real. -- 192.43.227.18 2005-09-15 03:21:11 (Author of the article)

Tell you what Mr/Ms 192.43.227.18 - create an account and we will happily let you move the article to User:your user name/Crewtherian Entropy Law. Creating an account also means you will be able to disassiociate yourself from vandalism by other undergraduates. -- RHaworth 04:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While there might be some logic in the article, it seems to be esoteric; and possibly secluded to only the school mentioned. Furthermore, not to claim that I am an expert, but I collect ‘Second Law Variations’ (see list) and I have never heard of this variation. Also, I checked Gribbin’s Encyclopedia of Particle Physics, Baierlein’s Thermal Physics, and Seiden’s Particle Physics, and found no results. No results at Dogpile.com either. To me, it seems like an article that needs to be published somewhere (with example applications included) so that I could read it as a thought piece. --Wavesmikey 06:31, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is a j-o-k-e, sir - don't even look for sources - even Rod Crewther has never heard of it. -- RHaworth 07:59, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. Colinmac 08:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete see: "Let C be the space generated by the Weyl characters in the representation of the lecture-speech of Rod Crewther, known as the Crewther-space" and "This has been physically interpreted by Murray Gell-Mann, Crewther's supervisor, to imply that the exposition style of Crewther is completely non-deterministic, and infinitely discontinuously incomprehensible." This is an elaborate (though I think good-natured) joke about the man's lecturing style. Marskell 09:40, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, inside joke, not encyclopedic, not BJAODN material. Barno 23:30, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Don't knock it until you've tried it. Sit through a lecture series by Rod, then and only then can you delete it!
- I'm sorry I don't know if we can count this unstamped vote which seems to imply "if its a fair joke, leave it!" Marskell 09:25, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --HappyCamper 02:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is a quality piece of scientific work Blnguyen

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. R e dwolf24 (talk) 01:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chris_Jack/Temp

Vanity page, entry of a person of no reasonable encyclopedic importance. Spookfish 02:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. New Zealand Rugby Player of the Year is good enough for me. Pburka 02:37, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Capitalistroadster. It looks like the original Chris Jack article was deleted as a copyvio, but the temp version wasn't moved to replace it. Pburka 03:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Cleanup Very Notable Rugby Player but a bad article --Aranda56 03:11, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Chris Jack which is a substub. Jack is a notable rugby player having played nearly 40 tests for the All Blacks and in a number of Canterbury Crusaders sides that have won the Super 12 competition. See [6]. Capitalistroadster 03:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (why is there both Chris Jack/Temp and Chris Jack? Something went wrong there...) This "Person of no reasonable encyclopedic importance" is probably one of the world's 10 top current rugby union players. Given the lck of user page or talk page for Spookfish, I suspect this may be a bad faith nomination. If not, then considering the number of countries which play rugby and his prominence within the sport, he is probably as notable a sportsman as, say, David Ortiz or Corey Dillon, and is far better known on the world stage than either of those two. Grutness...wha? 03:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This was not a bad faith nomination. I don't see the need for Chris Jack/Temp anymore. Maybe merge some to Chris Jack, but I still vote Delete on this article (Chris Jack/Temp). Spookfish 06:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rugby union is New Zealand's main sport. CalJW 03:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge per earlier arguments Sam Vimes 17:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 22:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ncc anime club

Non-notable and unencyclopedic college club. FCYTravis 02:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Oh please. I can't talk about a club, yet there are countless worthless articles on things like video games and TV shows? I don't understand this. How is this unencyclopedic? Explain this to me, please. Can't this just be linked to the entry on anime or something instead of being outright deleted? Starwind Amada 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Comment - Video games and TV shows are viewed by millions of people. The club in question, maybe dozens. Don't take it personally. College clubs, by and large, are not encyclopedic unless they've done something notable. What has this club done that is notable? FCYTravis 02:44, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My own college anime club isn't notable either. Nifboy 02:46, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - We were in the paper. I think that's notable. Starwind Amada 15 September 2005 (UTC)
I was in the paper. That doesn't make me notable enough to warrant a page on wikipedia. From the info on the page this club is in absolutely no way remarkable. Delete. --Miborovsky 03:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As FCYTravis said, it's nothing personal. It ain't a bad article, either, but there's a difference between "newsworthy" and "encyclopaedic" in many opinions. I've been in the newspaper, like many people, but that does not make me encyclopaedic either. Until "gets in unnecessary flamewars on AfD" becomes a criteria for notability. When that day comes, I am so there. Lord Bob 03:46, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's nothing personal, mind you, and the article is written better than other articles on Wikipedia. However, there needs to be something notable about the club. Simply being in the newspaper does not make something notable. I'm sure hundreds of people and organizations are featured in their local papers daily, but they just aren't notable enough for their own article here. -Nameneko 06:39, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, just like 99.99% of college clubs. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. You can talk about whatever you like, on your own website or a forum, or at your meetings. Here, we're trying to make an encyclopedia. Friday (talk) 15:07, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd love it if a new general article on anime clubs was created, and some of what's in this article (such as that great picture of people watching Bebop) was moved to that. Wandering oojah 20:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that's a great idea. Think I should start something like that (I'll save the NCC page just in case so I don't have to redo it). And we don't need your kind of comments, Friday. Starwind Amada 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here for people to promote their fanclubs. If you can't grasp this elementary fact, don't edit. --Miborovsky 00:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whatever, jackass. And I didn't edit it, I CREATED the page. Of course, though, you're too busy acting like you know everything to notice. You're too lazy to even mark your message as a comment or a delete request. I don't need rude comments like the ones you and Friday have given me. You have nothing to contribute. Starwind Amada 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Whoa, stay cool. First off, I think you're taking comments worse than people are meaning them. Second off, even though Miborovsky was probably being a little rude, that's no excuse for making a personal attack. Third off, it is fairly common for people to make comments and otherwise discuss things on AFD pages without explicitly marking their posts as comments. Wandering oojah 23:04, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Okay, sorry. At least you agree he was rude. Starwind Amada 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment Whether he was rude or not, responding by calling him 'jackass' is similarly rude and does you no favours. chowells 01:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an encyclopedia; ALL information is appropriate for inclusion. Kurt Weber 20:08, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually it's not: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information chowells 02:39, 21 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. android 79 01:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gagan Gonzales

I placed the Speedy on this first via A7 but i guess it didnt qualify but still Varity Strong Delete--Aranda56 07:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vanity. The picture looks like a poorly done fake. -- WCFrancis 01:27, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a vanity page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wdragon (talk • contribs) 20:50, 2 September 2005

I am relisting this as a made a mistake while i was still in my newbie stage of wikipedia and made a few mistakes relisting so im getting the extra votes I need for someone to delete this --Aranda56 02:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn (<1k google), possibly vanity? -GregAsche (talk) 02:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fakey-looking picture, 4 unique google hits (including WP), certainly unverifiable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^{(Contributions)}21:30, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 22:22, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ladying

pick-up lines? Slang for chasing women? Delete not appropriate for encyclopedia. WCFrancis 02:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete agree -- (☺drini♫|☎) 02:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This could be a very informative topic for people stuggleing with this issue, please don't delete! -- _{unsigned comment from 207.69.139.150, other editor on this "article"} No keep ladying, its informative and helpful! _{unsigned comment from 204.39.209.99, creator.} See? People can add more pick-up lines, and techniques, it'll be great! _{more from from 207.69.139.150,}

Comment I made a bit of a mistake sending this AfD since this has been deleted and recreated, it qualifies for speedy deletion. Sorry, it could have been gone already. -WCFrancis 02:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Does not apply here:

A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted according to the deletion policy. Note that: * Administrators faced with a recreation of previously speedily deleted content must determine that it did in fact meet a criterion for speedy deletion and had been appropriately deleted before they delete it again;

It was speedied as nonsense, but this is not nonsense (in the wikipedia sense ;) -- (☺drini♫|☎) 02:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

God! Your not even giving me a chance!

Here's your chance: put it on Uncyclopedia, which allows all sort of stuff, whether original research, verifiable or just made up stuff. Check Wikipedia's deletion policy to see why this has been nominated here. See policies and guidelines for further guidance on what fits here. -WCFrancis 03:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unencyclopedic. Joyous (talk) 02:58, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wikibooks, or wherever in Wikimedia how to guides are supposed to go? Though it seems that there is potential for a real encyclopedia article on the topic. 68.20.28.234 03:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain. I like it, but WP policies dont allow this. BTW Try [7] for howtos like this. --2mcm^Gespräch 03:16, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as Wikipedia is not a how-to guide (nor is it a list of Strong Bad E-mails, although that e-mail was technically called 'lady...ing' and is not the subject of this article). Lord Bob 03:49, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks who said abstain, even thought it will prolly be deleted, that really means a lot to me. And, yeah, that Strong Bad email is what inspired me. But, correct me if I'm wrong, but arn'e ther how-to giuds here? Like how to biuld you oun compy? I've at least seen that one. One more thing before I go to bed: I know it's kinda short, but I was planning on adding a lot more, but I don't want to put in the work if it will be deleted. I must beg once more to give it a chance, if its still up tomorrow, I'll improve on it.

If such articles do exist, then they too should be deleted. WP:NOT states that "Wikipedia is not instructive. While Wikipedia has descriptions of persons, places, and things, Wikipedia does not contain advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or how-to's. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, and recipes. Wikibooks is a Wikipedia sister-project which is better suited for such things." You aren't the first well-meaning person to put up a guide on Wikipedia and you won't be the last, but, unfortunately, that stuff doesn't fit within the scope of the project. That said, I do encourage you to find a place to put this guide and any others like it (Wikibooks, I believe, does how-to guides as mentioned above). I, of all people, could probably use a guide like this. :P Lord Bob 04:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. TheMadBaron 06:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not here to provide advice on how to date. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:06, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as badly-written, POV, near-nonsense and unencyclopedic.Vizjim 15:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dammit, this is flamethrower engingeering all over again. I'd love to keep it, but it's in clear violation of policy. It's times like this that I wish there was something in between Wikipedia and Uncyclopedia. Maybe it could go to Wikibooks. --Apyule 00:08, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not even appropriate for slang. .::Imdaking::. ^{TLK | Y!} 05:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for at least liking the idea, sorry it's agianst the rules...But I have a question, I expanded a stub, and in case you wondering, it was NOT nonsense, it was pretty good, but I checked it today to add somthing, and it was back to the stub, what did I do wrong there?

This is not the place for this kind of question - please see my talk page. -WCFrancis 18:21, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; Homestar Runner slang. ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^{(Contributions)} 21:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely not encyclopedia material 84.9.223.82 03:45, 21 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. android 79 01:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crazyboutgod

175 registered users? The forum does not seem notable enough to be have an encyclopedia article. --Mysidia (talk) 02:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have a remarkable gift for understatement. :) Delete. - Lucky 6.9 03:16, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's surprising there are even 175 users for a Christian teenagers website. I mean, the profile is pretty thin... Ah well, delete. --Miborovsky 03:37, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you kidding? Christian youth groups are common as all get-out. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 00:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all crazies. Except me. TheMadBaron 11:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn small forum. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:24, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn forum. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 00:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've coughed up more encyclopedic stuff than that. --Apyule 00:54, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
crazyboutDeletingthisarticle. Non-notable. --Camw 01:12, 16 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. android 79 01:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brain Drain (Charmed Episode)

This might be vandalism, but I'm not familer with the topic. I can't understand a word. Banana04131 02:48, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Banana04131 02:51, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Vaguely remember something about Phoebe et al. Seems like standard Charmed plot. Affix {{cleanup-importance}} instead. --Miborovsky 03:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless cleaned up to coherence by the time the AfD id processed. It may be possible to create an encyclopedic article about the episode, but this isn't a useful start in its present state. Niteowlneils 06:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but clean-up. There's plenty of precedent for episode articles. 23skidoo 19:22, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per 23skidoo... is there a Charmed wikiproject? --TimPope 21:23, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (and cleanup to provide context and improve coherence) to Charmed or a Charmed episode guide per WP:FICT. Barno 23:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^{(Contributions)} 21:32, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteBrian1979 22:06, 20 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. Grue 20:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Bidwell

Ann Being the former Wife of someone notable does not make her notable Delete but i may accept a Merge to John Bidwell --Aranda56 02:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Most of it is already merged to John Bidwell Just Delete Plainly --Aranda56 03:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to add more like this: [8]-- Unsigned Comment by 132.241.245.49, the author of the article --Aranda56 22:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article, but some of the content may be a copyright violation; see the article's talk page, and the remaining text requires some copy editing. I think we should keep an article on this woman, because, although I had never heard of her before coming across this Afd, I found:

190 Google hits on "Annie Ellicott Kennedy Bidwell"

(OK, this is actually not a very high amount :P, because many of them are near duplicates, but the info about her on the few distinctive sites does give evidence of notability, and she is a historical figure, not a contemporary, also searching on other variations such as "Ann Bidwell" results in different hits. LiniShu 06:24, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Her name is still known 80+ years after her death.
There is a biography written about her [9]
She seems to have been a somewhat prominent social figure in California in her time.
She seems to have been known for being a civic leader, philanthropist, suffragist, and temperance reformer, in addition to being the wife of John Bidwell -- LiniShu 05:40, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: She is extremely well-known locally in the Chico, California area, but I don't know how local notoriety applies to notability. If the article is kept, it should be moved to Annie Bidwell, which is the name she is known as. User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:42, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Zoe's suggestion to rename if the article is kept -- LiniShu 06:34, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have reworded and expanded the text that was a potential copyright violation. -- LiniShu 06:18, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hmm. Looks good as is; keep as Annie Bidwell. DS 14:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This woman accomplished things during her lifetime. To sluff this article off into her husbands really negates her contributions and suggests that she was no-one save for the fact she was "just" some guys wife.. Stu 12:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Grutness is presumably a rename, which is a form of keep. There is a clear leaning towards deletion, but not clear enough for a consensus. It very much does need its name improving (and capitalising properly) however. -Splash^talk 19:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List Of Sports Busts

I never been certain about this article that I created It might have reached POV for a few people even though its mostly accuarate. No Vote as I want other users to voice their opinion in this article. I going to try to expand it also if u guys say so. --Aranda56 03:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup and move to a better title, such as List of famous sports busts. Like our entire lists of flops series, it is subjective, but with citation from respected sources (and they're not hard to find for this subject) it can be fun reading. Lord Bob 03:59, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename or delete. At present it could mean three things - 1) people who have been arrested while playing sport; 2) head-and-shoulders sculpture of sportspeople; 3) Anna Kournikova. Yet this seems to be a list of sports people - most of them men, and therefore not really having busts as such. Can someone explain what it's meant to be? At least Anna is on the list... Grutness...wha? 06:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too subjective and ill-defined. If retitled, "busts" is slang (and ambiguous); better something like List of athletic failures or List of failed athletes or List of athletes that didn't live up to expectations. Niteowlneils 06:48, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah. "Sports Busts" (all caps) is a term for sporting failures? is it a U.S.-only term, by any chance, because I've never heard it here... Grutness...wha? 06:55, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not necessarily with caps. "bust" is U.S. slang for failure/flop/what-have-you. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 13:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)pand[reply]
    - comment Bust also gives the meaning A sports athlete who was projected to be a great player and failed to live up to that potential. Wiktionary doesn't know about that meaning yet, and neither does my "Random House" dictionary. -- Aleph4 13:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Rename/Cleanup. As noted, subjective lists like this have a precedent. I like Niteowl's suggestion to avoid "busts" in the title. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 13:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete. The name has to be changed, because "bust" is too ambiguous. The contents have to be changed -- the article should start with a definition, or we will have a "list of people in sports that failed at least once". All entries need a comment explaining why they got on this list. So, better to start over. Also, we should consider whether a category might not be more suitable. -- Aleph4 13:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Far too subjective - was Ankiel a bust when he had one outstanding year? should we equate players who got hurt with players who just plain stank? And I'm not comfortable with the schadenfreude/POV aspect of it either. Let the individual players' pages here tell their stories without a POV and leave it at that. | Keithlaw 15:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So disappointed that this isn't a list of Great Sportwomen's Chests Of Our Times. Inherently POV, delete Vizjim 15:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I may rename it into List of athletes that didn't live up to expectations and expand into why the player was a bust if the page surives VFD which so far looks like a no consuesus. But to do that I need fellow wiki users to help me in that page and help me expand it to include players from sports like rugby and soccer in which i dont know nothing about and explain why the player was really a flop - not add into the list for bad faith like ex: Dan Marino because i dont like him or Pele because he just was and of course that whould be HEAVY POV and a page like this whould be a target of vandalism and hoax of course and I want to avoid that. What You say about that --Aranda56 22:30, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Aranda, I don't see how that revision solves the core problem that most of the Delete voters have identified: The subject, regardless of name is inherently POV. It's a commentary, not an article. That's why I think we're better off deleting the page. If you believe Player X failed to live up to expectations, then I would suggest going to Player X's article, documenting the high expectations (e.g., he was named the best prospect in his sport in 1995 by Some Sports Publication), and then documenting his performance subsequent to those expectations, thus letting the reader decide for him/herself whether those expectations were met. | Keithlaw 23:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I cant Vote Keep or Delete cause im the author but I looked in the list of flops series and i didn't notice a list of sports flops around maybe merge or create because i found Plenty of articles via google and that name them. You dont what the whole list of flops series in VFD right because this could be part of it easily --Aranda56 23:40, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - If someone put any of the flops articles up for VfD, I'd probably vote Delete there as well. Subjective articles don't fit Wikipedia's mission, esp. not the NPOV policy. As for this article, better to delete it now before it gets developed and established. | Keithlaw 02:36, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverifiable list —Wahoofive (talk) 00:24, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just as verifiable and neutral as our list of flops series. — Phil Welch 01:44, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another ill-defined list with completely subjective inclusion criteria and no sources provided. Wikipedia needs a lot fewer of these, not more. Quale 20:36, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename, and clean up, per Lord Bob. Players like Ryan Leaf, Heath Shuler, Darko Milicic, and the countless MLB #1 picks that never reach the majors are well-known to readers/viewers of sports pages and shows, so it's certainly a valid list. It just needs some improvement. --Idont Havaname 01:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ill defined list--User:AYArktos | Talk 01:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is a matter of opinion, and unless there is a common definition for sports bust that is equal to all sports (and I doubt there is) this page cannot work. Also if this page for some reason doesn't get deleted, it should at the very least provide some evidence as to why an individual player is a bust (draft position, stats, etc.). Croat Canuck 22:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is complete rubbish. delete, not relevant.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 16:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Portalcinta

Web site advertising for an online dating service Cloveious 03:14, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "East meets West" gets abused too much nowadays... --Miborovsky 03:48, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; WP:NOT a web directory. Mindmatrix 13:53, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^{(Contributions)} 21:33, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. The nominator appears to retract in their later comment (perhaps an accident, but important nontheless) — since some cleaning has been done their later comment certainly leans in the direction of a keeper. Given the work that was done and the wavering of the nominator, and the lack of an outright consensus to delete, I'm not persuaded that there is a rough consensus on what should be done, so I shall do nothing. -Splash^talk 21:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The College of Wooster Greeks

No way to verify, as far as I know, and any attempts to get original poster to edit the page have met with silence. --Jacqui M Schedler 03:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC) (Sorry, signing things is generally considered good Wikiquette)[reply]

Merge anything useful (i.e. not the whole thing) to The College of Wooster. --Metropolitan90 07:40, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting in search of more discussion. -Splash^talk 01:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Don't see that there's antyhing worth keeping (neither does its author apparently). Dlyons493 03:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. College cruft. TheMadBaron 05:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (no vote). Some attempt at verification has been made, though the listings could sure use some author names. I personally would like having an article on this topic once it were properly cleaned up, but as I am indeed a College of Wooster student, I believe my opinion to be biased. --Jacqui M Schedler 00:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I cited my sources (and recited once I had time to return to the College of Wooster special collections to find the Independant Study and Book authors names), and worked to clean up any hint of an agenda (I had none in creating the page except to create an easy-refrence guide to the greeks for students and others; as I belong to none of these groups, I have no benefit from setting any agenda in regards to them. The problem probably stemmed from writing too late at night...). This was only my second major edit to a Wiki page, so excuse the mess if the page started out poorly; I feel my changes have improved it significantly.--CastAStone 21:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, if you don't keep, userfy, as I researched exhastively.CastAStone 18:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. android 79 01:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PokéSensei

Article based on forum usernames and a non-notable individual. Delete redirect PokeSensei as well. --Apostrophe 03:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless PokéSensei is a term used by the official Pokemon franchise. Delete the forum thingy, regardless. --Miborovsky 03:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 04:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:24, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a non-notable forum user. The word does not exist elsewhere. [10] [11] Sonic Mew | talk to me 12:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The term is neither official nor particularly well known outside of its supposed use in certain forums. Mahybe it would be worthy of inclusion if used in EVERY Pokémon forum, but even if the rest stays, the part about the non-notable individual definitely has to go. For example, I am registered to many forums as BuzzBomber, but I don't see fit to add information about myself to the pages regarding the robots in Sonic the Hedgehog. L T Dangerous 21:53, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor nickname on a forum of little importance. This term isn't used in the Pokémon fandom as a whole. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 04:38, 22 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. Grue 20:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Taliban treatment of children

Original research, appears to be copied from someone's school report. Delete Mr Bound 03:52, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Delete. - Lucky 6.9 04:46, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Doesn't look like original research to me. Some sources ought to be provided, but the subject is valid. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the appropriate section in taliban. Karol 09:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless verified/sourced. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not original research. Kappa 12:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as per Andrew Lenahan - Starblind. --Jacqui M Schedler 14:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Taliban, as sugguested by Karol, and source all points. -[[User:Mys e kurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]}_{00:51, 16 September 2005 (UTC)}[reply]
Keep. Original research claim not established.--Nicodemus75 04:37, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^{(Contributions)} 21:34, 20 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. android 79 01:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Lemon Trees

It barely met the WP:MUSIC Guidelines because a so-so notable person Guy Chambers was in it but when i Did the Google Check only 229 Results and not one of those pages might help that article get out of a stub. No hope for the page that I know of. Expand if not Delete --Aranda56 03:52, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have checked Guy Chambers' credits on Allmusic.com see [12]. It shows credits for World Party also cited in our article. Galenet's biography for The Waterboys shows Chambers as a member of that band at the time of Fisherman's Blues. He is best known as a songwriter of Robbie Williams best known songs. However, there is nothing in his credits to suggest membership of this band which doesn't have an Allmusic.com article. While the EMI publishing page for Chambers claims that he wrote, produced and performed with them between 1993 and 1995, see [13], his own page doesn't list them as an album that he worked on see [14]. An article on this band will not say much more than he was a member which is in our article on him. There is no other claim to notability according to WP:music other than his membership of the band. Capitalistroadster 07:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V, WP:MUSIC as noted by Aranda and CR. Barno 23:37, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or, if the band's existence and connection to Chambers can be verified, redirect to his article. Note that satisfying one or more of WP:MUSIC's criteria does not mean a band deserves a separate article. Tuf-Kat 06:54, 16 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 MERGE to List of North American area codes. In fact, it already has its entry there so I'll just redirect. -Splash^talk 20:02, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Area code 757

Completely unencyclopaedic entry that couldn't even be merged in to 'Telephone Numbering Plan'. So what if there's folk misty-eyed over their phone numbers in a small area of Virginia? Delete Eddie.willers 03:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete before every other area code with a similiar story gets an article. --rob 04:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC) Abstain - Many much more valuable articles have been deleted, but apparently a (bad) precident has been established and should be respected. But, I can't bring myself to vote for keeping something so useless, so I'll just stand aside. --rob 19:59, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unencyclopedic phonecruft. Bunchofgrapes 04:37, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/keep. Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Area codes outlines what should be done in these cases. If there isn't much worthwhile content, as appears to be the case here, the article should be merged and redirected to List of North American area codes. If the article is improved and expanded it should be kept.- SimonP 05:32, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup per SimonP. Just FYI, Rob: A whole lot of similar area code articles did get their own articles. More than 85. If anyone's got a problem with that, I encourage them to discuss it at the Policy discussion.-LtNOWIS 19:45, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge as it is not encyclopaedic on its own --TimPope 21:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or I guess merge if someone really wants to. How could it ever be expanded? Tuf-Kat 06:55, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of North American area codes (as SimonP says - there's not much to merge); if the article is updated to reflect its importance, like other area codes with their own articles, I may switch my vote to keep. Personally, I think only a few area codes deserve their own WP article, but once you let one in... Mindmatrix 14:24, 16 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. Grue 21:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blah

Already has an entry in Wiktionary. Eddie.willers 04:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the wictionary entry is pretty terse, as befits a dictionary. This article has had quite a bit of editing, and seems to me to carry more content than could usefully be on Wiktionary. Naturenet | Talk 07:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Demogorgon's Soup-taster 09:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this isn't a dicdef - and there's definitely more comment that could be added.Vizjim 15:28, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'll even expand it a tad... Mindmatrix 14:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not a dictionary definition. Kosebamse 08:36, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: — This article is blah. This is better suited for a dictionary. Should we have a Wikipedia article about every word (or sort of word) in every language? I don't think so.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maylett (talk • contribs)
Keep - I point non-english speakers here... I guess I could point them somewhere else if it ceased to exist. 20:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joebeone (talk • contribs)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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. Grue 21:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bawls=

Advertising (and balls!). Delete Eddie.willers 04:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it--not everyone knows what it is, and Wikipedia is a good place to find out what stuff is.
Keep notable beverage. i did some cleanup, took out the nutritional information and removed a lot of marketing-speak. Nateji77 06:53, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was the article's creator, it does admittedly need cleanup, though I had originally made it fairly clean. I figured it's well known enough for more people to keep it clean and contribute than have been offering support, though I personally haven't had the time to maintain as much as I'd like. Though I felt the nutrition information was relevent and wonder why it was removed. Ice 19:49, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I had created the page as a related page to energy drinks and had not intended for it to be advertising, but rather a related article simular to the other drink pages listed there. Ice 19:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable drink, responsible for keeping half of my school awake during school hours. -[[User:Mys e kurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]}_{00:57, 16 September 2005 (UTC)}[reply]
Keep Notable enough for an article --Camw 01:20, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep please we have articels about all kinds of energy drinks so why not this one so lets keep it Yuckfoo 07:15, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's fine, no reason for deletion
Keep This is the best energy drink in the world... It needs to be kept.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 16:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tap Dancing Disco

Vanity. Especially with the myspace link and the first names. Kushboy 04:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nn vanity. Demogorgon's Soup-taster 09:14, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Kushboy CLW 18:45, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this silliness. Friday (talk) 20:09, 15 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 16:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lonesome Bob

Previously speedied (not by me), anon author complained at helpdesk, so I have restored and nominated for Afd instead. Gets some Google hits. No vote. -- Curps 04:22, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but clean and wikify. Ive heard of the person once or twice, and google gets over 10,000 hits for the exact phrase. A cleanup with some interwiki links would help. Trjn 04:31, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the people who know how to check a musician's notability can look into him, but Googling the name makes him seem noteworthy enough. I'll say keep (but cleanup and wikify, obviously). --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 05:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. The first Google hit for "Lonesome Bob" "things fall apart" is for allmusic, so that makes him notable. The second hit is a review by Robert Christgau, so definitely notable. User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:46, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ive heard of him, my folks listen to a lot of country and have his CD --Cloveious 05:48, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep expand and cleanup. According to Allmusic.com see [15] he has recorded two albums and a national tour as well as playing at the Grand Old Opry in Nashville and opened for Dwight Yoakam in Austin. Capitalistroadster 05:55, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. --Andy Janata 15:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand.

Keep and expand: meets WP:MUSIC as verified by CR. Barno 23:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons stated above. obviously needs some work, but look at all the other articles that do! Adz 07:39, 16 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 16:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CCFIILE

Advocacy, rant, first person, some group with two cable access shows. nn. User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn local group. -- MCB 06:48, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - go place your free ads somewhere else CLW 13:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Friday (talk) 20:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not for advocacy or self-promotion ("we"), no evidence of encyclopedic notability, and some extremely dubious data (17,000 illegal aliens from one "sister city" in Brazil to a Massachusetts small city?) Barno 23:45, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nobody likes Framingham anyway (I would know), and certainly not enough to move in illegally. There's enough people stealing cable! (oh yeah, I agree with the above...) -[[User:Mys e kurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]}_{01:00, 16 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 16:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vice City Killaz

Vanity written by a member of the group; no assertion or evidence of notability. paul klenk 06:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable. CambridgeBayWeather 06:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. Would have been nice if they had given us a geographical ___location and a timeframe. User:Zoe|^(talk) 06:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. It's a stupid computer gaming group. Postdlf 06:16, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete incomprehensible nn gamecruft. MCB 06:49, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn CLW 13:53, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvoious POV, and not that notable anyway (but Vice City did kick ass...) -[[User:Mys e kurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]}_{01:02, 16 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 16:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Xi

nn group of college badasses. Vanity. User:Zoe|^(talk) 06:30, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:31, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn group of self-proclaimed badasses. Nateji77 06:40, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nuke(Delete) Vanity--Jondel 06:59, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - student drivel NN The curate's egg 07:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy - surely it is just twenty times nn-bio. -- RHaworth 07:07, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - although I'm sure the honorary members listed will be most disappointed. nn CLW 13:48, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These badasses are about to get their bad asses kicked. -[[User:Mys e kurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]}_{01:03, 16 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^talk 20:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff chemerinsky

Non-notable, prank, and/or unverifiable. Zero hits for chemerinsky trinidad cricket -erwin, and none relevant for "Jeff chemerinsky". Niteowlneils 06:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If Mr chemerinsky isn't even notable enough to warrant a capital letter for his surname, he surely isn't notable enough to warrant an article here. CLW 13:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yeah, it would definately help if he had that capitalized. It seems like this guy is great, and Trinidad and Tobago are awesome, but without any varifiable information on his notability, he cannot be considered for an article. -[[User:Mys e kurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]}_{01:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC)}[reply]

I can verify that Jeff goes to Hamilton College for I am in the Democratic Union with him. - Steve Silverman

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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^talk 20:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Intermetics

Delete as nonexistent/neologism. Zero Google hits for word as defined. My theory is that the article is spam for 4chan. --MCB 06:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Update: a subsequent edit removed the 4chan stuff, but article still describes a nn neologism. MCB 18:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neologism. Quale 20:43, 17 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 16:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph R. Avon and Bankers from Boston

Band vanity. nn. Note that The Avons linked to in the Joseph R. Avon article refers to an entirely different band altogether. User:Zoe|^(talk) 07:01, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN Vanity The curate's egg 07:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, band vanity. — JIP | Talk 07:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, definite candidate for speedy. (Although apparently Mr. Avon did work at a Holiday Inn (!)) --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 14:05, 15 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!) 12:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chong stock trading system

Unable to verify, fails Google test with zero hits [16]. Besides which, the article reads a lot like an advertisement. --Alan Au 07:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

abstain. No google hits, but apparently not a scam. Some apparently sensible content. Mystifying. Robinh 07:13, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Last line of article reads "For more on the stock market, visit me at harrychong.com, just joking i dont have a website." --Alan Au 07:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it certainly does read like an ad. Apart from making us all rich, I don't see what good this article can do anyone. CLW 13:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think this guy will make us all rich, CLW. Karmafist 13:52, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Snakeoil - read a Random Walk down Wall St or, even better, a book on Markov Processes instead. Dlyons493 19:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems like a reasonable test of Wikipedia. The test worked! — Phil Welch 01:31, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You didn't search the only possible search but I tried both what you searched and adding the word stock before trading on Ask Jeeves Google and Yahoo and while I got some results all were here pages that ceased to exist or results that didnt have the word on the page just in the meta tags.--Shimonnyman 22:59, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability not established. Seems like a vanity/campaign, because links have been made to this by the same person. They should go when the article does. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete. I abstained above, just after the page was created but following the discussion it's clear that the page is, at best, original research. If it actually works, why does't the author use the method and keep quiet about it?

Robinh 08:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unverifiable OR. --Apyule 04:52, 22 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 16:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures of Richard E Grant

Vanity? Presumably added in order to drive traffic to linked site CLW 07:59, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Not anything, really. TheMadBaron 09:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Rubbish websitecruft PubLife 15:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Richard E. Grant if this is real and more widespread than just a fansite. Would make an OK trivia item under the actor's article. 23skidoo 19:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think that this would only be a worthwhile redirect and trivia entry if it were notable in any way. And I'm not convinced it is... CLW 19:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. — Phil Welch 01:37, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete Actually funny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.246.6.77 (talk • contribs) 05:26, 17 September 2005
Don't Delete Hey fans! Its us! Jay Pegg and Brian Giff! Protest this deletion! We'd hate all our frankly super work to get flushed away by wikipeople! Remember- tell the cops where we are and we'll rearrange your faces! Jay Pegg and Brian Giff 5:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.79.82.212 (talk • contribs) 05:49, 18 September 2005

Do Not Delete. Very Notable Site, Im am A fan of the comics myself and lost of money is made from them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.55.230.17 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 18 September 2005

This is the guy who made wikipedia speaking this is an offical order. Do not...I repeat do not delete this page or I will

close this site PERMANTLY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.55.230.17 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 18 September 2005

Hi come to www.Ofiend.tk to continue this argument. Thankyou bon voyage!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.55.230.17 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 18 September 2005

What intelligent supporters I have. Way to advertise, guys.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.246.2.42 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 19 September 2005

Don't Delete This actually has a minor fanbase.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.55.230.21 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 20 September 2005
Delete as unencyclopedic. --Apyule 05:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has notable history. --Max_A 11:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 20:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gemini Bright

Vanity? Presumably added in order to drive traffic to linked site CLW 08:01, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN webcomic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you see as a good standard for notability for a webcomic? I have useful standards for books and people, and for bands there is WP:MUSIC. Surely some webcomics are noteable enough that an articel makes sense, and others are not. How do you draw the line? No vote yet DES ^(talk) 16:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good point. Don't know how reliable it is, but I found [17], which gives stats for webcomics. If it's to be relied upon, at the time of writing Gemini Bright has been viewed 15 times this month. Not sure how real-time the stats are, but two of those should be me today, giving a total of 13 views. And some of them are bound to be the comic's creator, and a couple more would probably be fellow Wikipedians investigating an article listed on AfD. If this is basis for making a judgment, I'd say this made it nn. CLW 16:55, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - I visited that site, adn read their FAQ. I am note sure, but it looks to me as if they only record "views" made after they refered a user to a webcomic site. viewers who came in by a direct URL link or say from wikipedia, will probably not be included in their totals. Since they can add a listign without havign a change made to the content of a listed page (such as a hitcounter requires) I am prety sure this is the case. If that si so, these stats are not a good method of judging notability. DES ^(talk) 17:16, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good question. I'm against simple "x hits per month" (or similar) metrics, as such are easily cheated at and don't mean much anyway. I think webcomics for inclusion should have a decent Alexa score and some recognition outside the webcomic crowd or otherwise impact on the outside world. For example, Penny Arcade is well known among gamers who aren't also webcomic buffs, and appears in gaming publications on occasion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:11, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Another question would be whether or not a site is notable outside the webcomic community, or merely within it. Ghastly's Ghastly Comic, for example, isn't very significant in a cultural or pop-culture sense, but it and its creator have been involved in a lot of feuds and controversies within the webcomic community. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 05:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Questionable, but likely to be nn. If evidence of notability *does* crop up feel free to leave one on my talk page and I'll review my vote. — Phil Welch 23:44, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as nn webcomic, as I know that it isn't significant even in the webcomics community. If this has some sort of significant impact in the fur community or some other claim to notability, I will revise my vote. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 00:39, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I had a look at List of webcomics yesterday and it is just a webcomic advertising portal, I randomly clicked on some, and then google/alexa checked them, and so much there is non-notable. It's going to be a chore to dig through all those webcomics and find out which ones are actually notable, but I think it's a job that has to be done, or it'll just get worse, with wikipedia being the first port of call for webcomic advertising. I put up 13th labour up for deletion without knowing about this one, but there are many more still there. - Hahnchen 00:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 16:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Timid boy

I have no idea what an "Internet series" is, but a Google search for "timid boy" + either "clevage girl" or "cleavage girl" returns zero hits, and "timid boy" + "the valedictorian" comes up with nothing useful. User:Zoe|^(talk) 08:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sounds dreadful, but not notably so. TheMadBaron 09:45, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agreed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn tosh. The Timid Boy Homepage linked to in the article includes "an ever growing list of our herpes and villains." Quite possibly my favourite typo ever. CLW 13:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN'. — Phil Welch 23:43, 15 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^talk 20:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ZonkerMatch

Advertising (although, surprisingly, they didn't include a link to their website) created by User:Zonkermatch. Has no Alexa ranking. User:Zoe|^(talk) 08:16, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Alexa rank. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:30, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhere between Userfy and Delete for me. Karmafist 13:55, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't want to userfy it, because it would just move the advertising into User space. User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the funny people. TheMadBaron 16:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there seems to be no google hits at all, beyond paid advertisement and wikipedia. Autrijus 18:49, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
transwikied to Yellowikis--Payo 06:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Joolz 16:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Holocaust Complicity Views

This is a stub created by User: Robert McClenon "to permit building of article" on 23 July 2005. Since then there have been no meaningful additions to the article. The information is already covered on various other pages. Str1977 22:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While there might be merit in having the information on the subject on one page, this is not a suitable stub nor an NPOV title to build upon. Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:18, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with conclusion. Was originally created to try to deal with conflict, but appears not to be useful. Delete Robert McClenon 23:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 08:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a classic example of how not to start an article. It lists one 'argument' in favor of complicity, and none against. Er, well, I guess that proves it, then.... TheMadBaron 10:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Kelete. The present text is atrocious, but a valuable article could be written here. — Phil Welch 23:40, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We've been through a bunch of these conspiracy-theory articles on this topic before. The only argument presented is that the Catholic church didn't stop a political party from coming to power. How would it do that? Wouldn't it be a far greater cause of righteous indignation if a church did stop a political party from coming to power? Assuming there's a surviving legitimate article existing on the topic, it would already contain the only source (Hitler's Pope) cited here, so no need to merge. Delete. Barno 23:55, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Information is already on other pages, so this article serves no real purpose now. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 15:22, 18 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 but COPYVIO. I'm afraid that this is still a practically verbatim copy-paste, and so I am going to copyvio it. That gives 7 days for a rewrite on the /Temp subpage. I'll put a note on the talk: page to the effect that a rewritten article should be kept. -Splash^talk 21:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clifters

why is this in the english wiki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WillC (talk • contribs) 21:59, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete this is neither english nor finnish, its some crappy unreadable combination of the 2 Drdisque 07:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 08:14, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A trawl through Google suggests the band pass the notability criterion. However the entry at present is an unreadible mish-mash of English and Finnish and may even be lifted from the band's home page. Demogorgon's Soup-taster 09:23, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the English bit was lifted from the English version of their homepage. Still, I've removed the Finnish bit and tidied up the rest. TheMadBaron 10:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that Mad Baron has keleted the article. — Phil Welch 23:39, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Going by your definition of 'keleted', I don't think that's what I did.... I just edited it. It's still arguably copyvio, though I can't see the author objecting. TheMadBaron 09:47, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, they appear to meet WP:MUSIC Tuf-Kat 06:58, 16 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 16:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ComputerPREP

Advertising Groeck 18:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 08:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --Jacqui M Schedler 14:10, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Product of company deleted in Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Prosoft_Learning_Corporation. If Prosoft Learning Corporation is re-created (and it seems like maybe it should be), redirect. — Phil Welch 23:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly an ad. Mindmatrix 14:24, 16 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^talk 21:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutional monarchy with autocratic reserve powers

Too short and very unnecesary. The fact that there is no name for this sort of government other than a long term that sums it up shows that it's not needed to have its own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.123.220.103 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 08:16, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. TheMadBaron 10:46, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The title is not commonly used either in political science or in the wider community. The Constitutional monarchy deals with the topic of constitutional monarchs in authoritarian systems in greater depth. Our Reserve power article is detailed and outlines countries where the ruler has reserve powers including republics. Contrary to claims in the article, Roman emperors were not constitutional monarchs nor did they have reserve powers although ir could be argued that the tradition of giving Republican leaders 6 months dictatorial status in event of an invasion or war was a reserve power. Capitalistroadster 11:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in agreement with CR. No significant content other than what could be inferred from the title. Appears to be original research, with no citations. Barno 00:01, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was MERGE to Consumerium. -Splash^talk 21:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ConsuML

ConsuML is not notable and never was and will likely never be since the design paradigm of Consumerium was changed to heavily utilizing wiki on August 31 2003 --Juxo 14:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 08:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Consumerium. Not notable as a separate article but notable as an aspect of Consumerium history. — Phil Welch 23:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting in search of more discussion. -Splash^talk 01:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Consumerium as per Phil Dlyons493 03:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to consumerium because it is defunct. Andrew pmk | Talk 18:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crowswing Books

Delete Promotional and not information. Connor Wolf 18:05, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam from an editor who is throghly spamming his vanity publishing effort. DreamGuy 05:49, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 08:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep extremely tiny book publisher, but does have decent Google presence and some mainstream news mentions. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Could use some NPOV & some additions of weblinks etc.Vizjim 15:35, 15 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, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hummer Galleries

This is not a "list of galleries", this is a gallery. Why does this excessive group of pictures need a separate article? User:Zoe|^(talk) 08:30, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Zoe. This is not even a gallery of pictures of different models, that might be encyclopedic. This is just 'my favourite hummer picutes', that is not. --Doc (?) 08:40, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a photobucket. TheMadBaron 09:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, helps users to better understand the variety of hummers which exist. Rename as appropriate. Kappa 12:49, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kappa, have you examined this article? If it were a list of Hummers with illustrations of each type, I could agree with you. But this gallery contains pictures like 'Destroyed Hummer' and 'Hummer firing a Hellfire', it's just a random collection of hummer pictures. --Doc (?) 14:45, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Friday (talk) 15:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I understand there are free photo galleries available elsewhere. WP is not one of them KillerChihuahua 21:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if they are all PD, they can go to commons. This is not an article --TimPope 21:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in agreement with everyone except K. Article creator seems not to understand what a list is, nor the difference between Humvees (military) and Hummers (civilian), nor what Wikipedia is. Barno 00:05, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. This isn't an article, but maybe it could be used at the Hummer page? -[[User:Mys e kurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]}_{01:14, 16 September 2005 (UTC)}[reply]
A complete hummer of a "list" of hummer galleries, so good that it it hums. Why is there no Arnie in his Hummernator? Delete --81.77.183.210 18:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: — This is collection of images, not an encyclopedia article. — Cory Maylett 04:02, 19 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^talk 21:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Julius Westheimer

Self-Advertisement. If proven encyclopedic or notable, then pls disregard and provide sources, links, etc.--Jondel 08:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It can't be Self-Advertisement, as the article wasn't created until after his death... [18] --David Edgar 10:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and expand. I Googled him. He's real. Dead, these last couple of weeks, but real. I hope this isn't self-advertisement, because that would be a bit scary. TheMadBaron 10:59, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, legitimate journalist. Kappa 12:52, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've expanded somewhat, working from obits and rephrasing to avoid copyvio. TheMadBaron 15:24, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep some sources are highly desirable ofc --TimPope 21:32, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'll think about it.... it occured to me that it was a good idea to write this while the body was still recently warm, and the information was available in so many obits.... the problem with citing sources is, being online newspaper articles, the links will probably expire in a couple of weeks. It might be useful to Google him again in a month or two, and see how much info is still out there. TheMadBaron 10:01, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Journalist on nationally syndicated programming. Quale 20:48, 17 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^talk 21:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cadillac Galleries

Another galery (not list of galleries) containing an excessive number of images with no text. I didn't bother to try to figure out if all of the copyright claims are valid or not. User:Zoe|^(talk) 09:31, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. TheMadBaron 16:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per 'List of Hummer Galleries' WP is not a free image hosting service. KillerChihuahua 21:20, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-article --TimPope 21:30, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as with the Hummer one like it. Indiscriminate collection with no context. Includes the rebadged Opel Catera; didn't Cadillac at least put a different model name on their version, rather than "Cadillac Catera"? Barno 00:11, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete in agreement with KillerChihuaha. -[[User:Mys e kurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]}_{01:15, 16 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^talk 21:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bolcono

I am all for keeping real populated islands. But this island is not real. I would expect a real island to have a ton of Google hits. In fact, Google gives Bolcono three hits. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, created by permanently blocked vandal. User:Zoe|^(talk) 09:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bolcono is not Spanish for 'float'. Bolcono is not Spanish for anything. TheMadBaron 15:55, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverifiable info. Mindmatrix 14:33, 16 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 18:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chevrolet Galleries, List of Eagle Galleries, List of Eagle Galleries, List of Pontiac Galleries, List of Oldsmobile Galleries, List of Ford Galleries, List of GMC Galleries, List of Mercury Galleries, List of Lincoln Galleries, List of Geo Galleries, List of Jeep Galleries, List of Buick Galleries, List of Chrysler Galleries, List of Saturn Galleries

A bunch of galleries (not lists of galleries) which contain nothing but images. Excessive numbers of images. I have not checked the copyright statuses of all of these images. User:Zoe|^(talk) 09:40, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, what's the policy on these types of pages? Enochlau 10:58, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Delete all. Enochlau 01:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno, but let's delete these and call it a 'policy-making precedent' (this is an encyclopedia - these are image galleries, ergo they don't beliong here). --Doc (?) 12:01, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, encyclopedic. "Nothing but images" is not true. Kappa 12:46, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, they should be (and are) in commons.wikipedia.org with a link in the relevant articles --Clawed 13:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and move to commons if they haven't been already. - SimonP 15:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. TheMadBaron 16:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Clawed Dlyons493 17:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to commons, if someone cares enough to do the work. Otherwise, delete. Dunc|☺ 18:14, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all non -articles --TimPope 21:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Zoe.--nixie 00:10, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information . Don't transwiki to WikiCommons unless copyright status is verified. Few of these photos' subjects have significance in automotive history or in culture, and where there is any, it's not provided. Barno 00:15, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Let this set some sort of precident. -[[User:Mys e kurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]}_{01:19, 16 September 2005 (UTC)}[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. Mindmatrix 14:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --ApolloBoy 07:13, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the gallery should be avaliable somewhere. Maybe Common is a better place though. --Boivie 10:29, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Use the "Category" feature to group these images and create a gallery. The scant information with each image should be in an article the image is linked to. --Nv8200p (talk) 13:55, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Should be on commons. RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 02:35, 20 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. Hearing no objections, and the author saying below they no longer need them, and at least one of them being an nn-bio, these are gone. -Splash^talk 01:12, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adsfat and Gradrap and Flathump Desert and Bros. Czap

'Adsfat and Gradrap' zero googles - and confessed to 'using Wikipedia'. Flathump Desert - no googles. 'Bros. Czap' no googles and states 'using' wikipedia as a medium. As far as I can tell this is some sort of vanity trying to get notability through WP, but I could be wrong. --Doc (?) 09:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete I am the author. I apologize. These are for a class project due today. Can I please make a request that these stay up for at least 5 hours? After that they can be deleted. Lancewilshire | talk

Apology accepted - they will stay up for a while (indeed 5 days if nothing is done). You can't actually delete these, you can only blank them and it isn't helpful if you do that. When you are finished, please post a message here requesting deletion, and they should be speedily deleted by an admin. --Doc (?) 13:32, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If this is for a class project, are there other vanity pages from other class members that we need to start looking for? BlankVerse ∅ 15:22, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- I wish my class projects had included creating articles on Wikipedia. But then, when I was still in school (other than university), the WWW was still quite unknown in my country. — JIP | Talk 16:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete them all. Vanity - UtherSRG (talk)
Delete the lot of them, self-admitted vanity. — JIP | Talk 12:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agreed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:19, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above arguments. Thue | talk 13:14, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity CLW 13:32, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity. Ral315 16:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Does anyone mind if I speedy the lot now they've had their 5 hours of glory? -Splash^talk 18:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, but perhaps leave a note on talk. If they have any more use for them, they should be userfied --Doc (?) 18:06, 15 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. Article not edited since AfD tag, so no conditions below are triggered. -Splash^talk 21:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Findfile

Unsubstantiated story about how Peter Norton supposedly stole a program. Found nothing on Google; subject otherwise is too minor for its own article. Don't know to where it could be merged (The Norton Utilities program is apparently called "FileFind", not "Findfile"). Evil saltine 09:30, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, unless sources can be found. If this is verified, keep, with wikifying and NPOVing. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 09:49, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, unless sources can be found, than maybe consider. Also, this looks like a copy/paste to me, but I can't prove that yet. I'm skeptical that somebody wrote this much content, from scratch, for an event in 1982. Also notice the lack of wiki-links for that amount of content (signal of copy/paste). We need to see the source of the information both to verify it's truth, and to have a little assurance it's not a copyvio. If kept, it needs a better name, since this is a pretty common name for utilities and functions. --rob 11:06, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If verified, merge, else delete. — Phil Welch 23:32, 15 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 and REDIRECT to Expression (mathematics). -Splash^talk 21:57, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Algebraical quantity

This article makes no sense to me. The list 1.,2.,3. seems to describe polynomials, but later on the article claims that this is something different. 1,2,3 do not allow division, but later on division is allowed. Aleph4 09:46, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

5 days later: The article still makes no sense to me, but redirect to Expression (mathematics) seems to be better than deletion. -- Aleph4 10:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think the distinction being made with polynomial is in part that between an algebraic expression and a function; but this is all very old-fashioned, and very confused. Septentrionalis 15:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While I agree with Aleph4, I think that first the author of the article should have been contacted to see whether this issue can be cleared up. I copied the comment to Talk:Algebraical quantity, User talk:219.64.184.191, and User talk:219.64.184.180. The same author has written the related articles compound expression, simple expression, and trinomial; it seems like he/she is trying to build up a classification of mathematical expressions. I first want to see whether we can establish contact with the author; if not, I think the article (and the other I mentioned) can be deleted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I had not thought of that. I have added a request for input at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, natural science, and technology. -- Aleph4 13:16, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this RFC was what brought me here, thanks for that. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:40, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete; hardly any google points for "algebraical quantity". I feel like I should be able to understand an article about something this simple, but I think it is very confused. — brighterorange (talk) 15:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it's verified by the math geeks responding to aforementioned RFC. — Phil Welch 23:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No vote yet. I want to see what Michael Hardy says. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:08, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article is not clearly nonsense, but it seems to give a rather narrow definition of an idea that could admit a much broader one, and it is not so clear that the concept of "algebraical quantity" is really needed. "Everyone" needs to know what terms are (things that get added or subtracted) and what factors are (things that get multiplied) and what polynomials and rational functions and various other sorts of expressions are, but I don't see any clear need for this concept. The word "algebraical", as opposed to "algebraic", seems archaic, and I suspect it came from a somewhat out-of-date book — maybe published in 1840 or so? Michael Hardy 01:47, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Algebraical continued to be used for a while; this reads to me like the first attempts at universal algebra around 1880. And, oh yes, 'Redirect as below. Septentrionalis 15:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete per Michael Hardy. "-al" is redundant, and the concept isn't useful. JPD 14:34, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find this: "like terms" are defined as "Multiples of the same algebraic quantity. Hence if terms are not of the same algebraic quantity they are unlike terms." For example, n, 2n, 0.5n, 4n, are like terms and thus presumably are "of the same algebraic quantity" while 2, n, n² and n³ are unlike terms and presumably of "different algebraic quantity." In other words, "algebraic quantity" is the answer to the question "what is it that is 'alike' between 'like terms?'" This resonates with me, because I think that in physics—specifically, in the context of units, dimensions, and metrology—"quantity" has a similar meaning. Feet and inches express the same "quantity", namely length, while feet and acres do not. I think. I could have that garbled. So, ok... my vote is...
Mark for cleanup and move to Algebraic quantity. Put a note on the Talk page linking to this discussion. If nobody can make anything sensible out of it after a few months, nominate it for deletion again. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:24, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace by redirect to Expression (mathematics). This seems preferable to the solution proposed by Dpbsmith which would leave an unintelligible article on Wikipedia for months; a merge is not possible since I would not know what to merge. It seems to me that the website found by Dpbsmith means something else by algebraic quantity than the author of the article, who would presumably consider n and 2n as different algebraic quantities. The definition of mathematical expressions and its representation is crucially important in computer algebra (and probably also in other disciplines that I'm less familiar with like logic), and there is an article waiting to be written here, but it should not be called algebraic quantity or algebraical quantity. By the way, there are also articles on algebraic function and algebraic number; both seem quite different from what the author had in mind. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but only because its poorly written. However, we do need a high-school level article for Category:Elementary mathematics or Category:Elementary algebra. Jitse's sugesstion is good, except that expression (mathematics) is too high-brow. If someone re-writes this so that its a nice article, I'll change my vote. linas 04:29, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree that Expression (mathematics) is the best place for the concept the author seems to be getting at. I think it is actually similar to the concept used on the website mentioned - it wasn't saying that terms such as n and 2n were "of the same algebraic quantity", but that they were both (scalar) multiples of the same algebraic quantity n. JPD 12:49, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Delete and replace by redirect to Expression (mathematics), per Jitse Niesen and JPD. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:02, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if you're going to redirect, you don't need to delete. Just replace the article with

#REDIRECT[[Expression (mathematics)]] --Trovatore 04:58, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for now. If someone later wishes to write a better article and put it at "algebraical quantity", it's fine by me. --05:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment: should Expression (mathematics) be moved to algebraic expression? I've opened Talk:Expression (mathematics) with the question. Septentrionalis 15:45, 20 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, and move to Schaarbeek cherry. -Splash^talk 21:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scharbeek Cherries

The page has little useful content. The title is incorrectly spelt (should be Schaerbeek or Schaarbeek). No pages link to it. The little information on the page is already included in the Kriek article. David Edgar 09:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Schaarbeek cherry (or "cherries", I am uncertain as to preference), then redirect to Kriek. This cherry appears to be the distinguishing characteristic of Kriek, so a redirect seems appropriate. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 13:16, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've also cleaned the article structure template out; consider this to now be distilled substubbery. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 13:16, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Go with the singular, for consistency with Cherry, Wild Cherry and Morello Cherry. David Edgar 11:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Move and redirect per Lomn. — Phil Welch 23:24, 15 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^talk 22:01, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lars Reichenbach

A collection of nonsensical comments on some unknown character. Completely unencyclopaedic entry. - Shauri Yes babe? 10:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nonsense. --rob 11:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - smells hoaxy to me... CLW 13:28, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article and feed author to the nefarious Space Whales. TheMadBaron 16:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN. — Phil Welch 23:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN, otherwise just delete. Mindmatrix 14:37, 16 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 speedy delete g4. A dmrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 05:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regular Grand Lodge of England

None of it is verified, it's full of "weasel words", and finally it was voted to be deleted previously. Wikipedia is not a) free web space b) propaganda c) original research d) an indiscriminate collection of information or a junk yard. Delete and protect Ardenn 05:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete CSD G4, recreated material. Tagged as such. -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 05:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 -- Joolz 18:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Didley squat

Delete. Local band that does get some minor googles but doesn't make the cut on WP:MUSIC guidelines. Marskell 11:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, merits didley squat. — JIP | Talk 11:10, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have to agree it doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. From what I see, they've gotten out of the garage, but not out of the city, so they're not quite there yet, but have more potential than most of the nn-bands. --rob 11:22, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Friday (talk) 15:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. — Phil Welch 23:28, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too bad, it's a good name (I'm refraining from any jokes that could be made). -[[User:Mys e kurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]}_{01:26, 16 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 18:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moon fear moon

Musician vanity. Delete unless notability can be established. — JIP | Talk 11:19, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article pretty much concedes that he's just starting out, and hasn't been recognized yet. --rob 13:48, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Friday (talk) 15:22, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn unverified. — Phil Welch 22:10, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't meet WP:MUSIC Tuf-Kat 07:02, 16 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 18:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Television director - Director

For some reason someone has produced a virtual word-for word copy of Television director. Would seem an obvious candidate for a speedy, but I couldn't work out which category it would come under. Demogorgon's Soup-taster 09:40, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete duplicated content under useless title. — brighterorange (talk) 14:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I smell a sandbox. 23skidoo 19:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant. — Phil Welch 22:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant article. Mindmatrix 14:38, 16 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^talk 22:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Piso mojado

NN, created as self-promotion fuddlemark (talk) 18:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As seen above, Piso mojado was nominated for deletion on September 5, but since then no further input has been given to the debate. I am therefore resubmitting this one to the September 15 AFD log. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete AFAIK there are no established standards for the notability of comedy troupes on WP; more information might persuade me, but it's too hard to search for on google and the web page is "under construction." Therefore I say not-notable enough, perhaps vanity. — brighterorange (talk) 14:55, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete nn. Usrnme h8er 15:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete, does not establish notability. good points by brighterorange (annoying signature though, no offence). --129.217.139.252 16:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn unverified. — Phil Welch 22:19, 15 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^talk 22:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SoundTechNarrative2

No context, very strange name, apparent duplication of From Sound to Image. Probably a good faith newbie experiment, but not doing anyone any good here. Alai 18:05, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As seen above, SoundTechNarrative2 was nominated for deletion on September 5, but since then no further input has come. I am therefore resubmitting this to the September 15 list. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks necessary context to be understandable. - Andre Engels 13:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant. — Phil Welch 22:24, 15 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 18:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Silas lescartes

Vanity page about a rpg game character ReyBrujo 12:22, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nn CLW 13:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - would wanted to vote to redirect to The Allerian Empire, but that article does not exist. - Andre Engels 13:40, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverified cruft. — Phil Welch 21:57, 15 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. -Splash^talk 22:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Van Nooijen

Another losing general election candidate, reads like a CV, completely unnotable. delete. Joolz 12:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree. - Andre Engels 13:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Defeated candidates at elections are not ipso facto notable. David | Talk 13:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per nominator. - Shauri 18:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete come back when he wins an election --TimPope 21:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, major party candidate for Parliament. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but cleanup. Borderline notable, verifiable. — Phil Welch 21:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- How sure are you that it's verifiable to the extent where an article can be written? -- Joolz 00:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Candidates who stand for office are ipso facto notable.--Nicodemus75 04:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Major party candidates for parliament are of interest to those who want to find information on British politics, therefore such candidates are notable, even if they lose the election. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:13, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are tens of thousands of people who have run or office of this caliber, and even those who get elected weild little power individually. While anyone who serves as in a national Parliament or similar assembly warrants some sort of article, there is little of note to be said about most of them. Those who didn't even make it that far are insignificant. Are we going to see an article on the guy who ran for the Parliamentary seat of Twiddle-Upon-Spry in 1732? No? Then why his contemporary equivalent? Really why is the fact that he "was responsible for a successful campaign to refurbish the common room facilities available to students at the college" in an encyclopedia? If that doesn't jsut scream nvanity/promotion I don't know what does. I redirect (no merge) to an article on the election is somewhat precedented, and might be an option. -R. fiend 17:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity. Losing 3 elections and winning none is not sufficient for notability. If he loses 10 more elections without winning I will reconsider. Quale 21:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn loser. Grue 17:53, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A major party candidate for a national legislature is at least as notable as Cyrus Farivar. I made some edits so the article will read less like a campaign bio and more (I hope) encyclopedic. - Jaysus Chris 21:21, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Zoe. --Apyule 05:24, 22 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^talk 22:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SuperCard (wrestling)

Results of a non-notable annual wrestling card. ErikNY 12:45, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Backyard wrestling-cruft. / Peter ^Isotalo 13:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone shows me it's considered an important annual match within the sports. - Andre Engels 13:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Impressive longevity for a backyard wrestling group, but unless one of its participants has managed to hit the big time, I can't see any way this would be notable. Even I doubt that it would be notable enough to deserve this level of detail. Caerwine 14:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverified and nn. — Phil Welch 21:54, 15 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. Rob's abstention reads on the deleterious side since the article hasn't been expanded at all, but is nevertheless not a requst to delete the article. The author gets to want to keep their article, since they took the time to participate in its AfD. -Splash^talk 22:34, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Holmes (mercenary)

Non-notable 19th century mercenary colonel who participated in a relativly obscure Anglo-Indian conflict. The article gives no indication as to why this Holmes deserves an article. Delete. Peter ^Isotalo 13:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, and I think not verifiable either (which is worse). If he has a unique story that can be verified and fully developed, I would reconsider. --rob 14:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Probable hoax, given who the real John Holmes is. — Phil Welch 21:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication of notability unless he had a foot-long you-know-what. Barno 00:20, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not delete. It is not a hoax, and it is verifiable. The service of John Holmes in the Sikh army is known and documented, see e.g. here and here. The stub should be further developed though... Havard 12:18, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Verifiability is not a valid argument to keep, Havard. It's a requirement that must be fulfilled, and just because you've proven it's not a hoax, does not mean it's notable enough to keep. Please explain why we need to keep this article. / Peter ^Isotalo 09:43, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was answering Thivierr and Phil on the unverifiable/hoax issues, not using it as an argument. As I said, I agree the stub needs some expanding. ~ Havard
    - There's still the problem that nothing indicates why the guy is notable enough to deserve an article. This one just seems like one of tens of thousands of non-notable colonels throughout British history. / Peter ^Isotalo 10:12, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - If he fought *against* the British side, that might make him different from other Brits in the same place and time (though he was just part British). However, its not clear to me who was on who's side at what time. --rob 11:01, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes. He was a British officer who fought against the British. ~ Havard 11:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain: I can now beleive the guy did actually exist, but I still know nothing about the person. I don't see the notability. But, there seems an itty bit of potential for historic signficance or at least interest in the person. I think somebody has to substantially expand the article if they want it to survive. --rob 12:36, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a notable historical figurepossibly of interest to someone reading an encyclopedia. --Apyule 05:26, 22 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^talk 22:40, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lyndsey

Not only was Dan100's closure of the first nomination grossly improper, he didn't even finish the job. Has been transwikied, like consensus was to do last time. Now we get to stare at this for another week. —Cryptic (talk) 13:44, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll get the ball rolling then - Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Demogorgon's Soup-taster 14:32, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whatever this is, it's not an encyclopedia article. Friday (talk) 20:06, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, easily. — Phil Welch 21:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, disambiguate or do anything to retain the name as a link. Lindsay is apparently a disambigaution page, you could redirect it there. (unsigned comment}
- Lindsay is disambiguated because it is a surname and a ___location. Lyndsey is neither. We don't disambiguate given names. —Cryptic (talk) 06:23, 17 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^talk 22:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tambalane

Does not seem to meet WP:MUSIC. Punkmorten 13:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: are they real? The article asserts things which could make them notable, yet allmusic doesn't have them. Friday (talk) 15:23, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~. I've not heard of Tambalane, but Silverchair are certainly notable and internationally known, and Ben Gillies even has his own entry. However, if kept, the text in the current Tambalane article should go, and be replaced with a proper Tamabalane article. Not hugely notable, but perhaps teetering on the brink of notability CLW 15:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Change vote to keep - looking at their website (which looks far more professional and authorative than most of the band website on AfD band entries), it would seem that they are up for a Channel V Oz Artist Of The Year award and have been interviewed by the Sydney Morning Herald. But the current article content still needs to go! CLW 16:32, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kelete—delete present article and submit new article on the same subject, better written. I'd usually advocate blanking but there's no reason to keep that crap in the database. — Phil Welch 21:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Why delete then? Anyone is welcome to improve the content right now. Friday (talk) 21:52, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, expand and cleanup by removing copvio. Ben Gillies is certainly notable enough so they meet WP:Music. The band is signed to Eleven music which has number of notable Australian artists including Missy Higgins, Silverchair and Little Birdy and is touring to promote the album.Capitalistroadster 00:26, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup, meets WP:MUSIC criteria #4 and #5 --Camw 01:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but remove pretty much everything, leaving a substub. Tuf-Kat 07:03, 16 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!) 07:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Peasant revolt

Transwiki As far as I can see, this article consists of two parts, a dictionary definition which should be placed into the Wiktionary (I think I did a reasonable job of doing that), and an incomplete list of peasant revolts that are a subset of the ones included in Category:Peasant revolts and Category:Medieval popular revolt. Frankly, I don't see how the present article could hope to be more than this, as the individual revolts have nothing in common except the dictionary definition, but as a first effort to see if anyone might have more imagination than me, I applied the {{Move to Wiktionary}} template to the article, only to have it repeatedly removed, so I'm bringing this to AfD sooner than I otherwise would have, as I would have preferred to give it longer for someone to make a real article of it if possible. Caerwine 14:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—an important historical phenomenon that must have an article. The fact that the article is presently so poor is shameful, but now someone's trying to get rid of it altogether? Needs expansion, and lots of it, not deletion. Everyking 14:22, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and make it a Disambiguation page. Lists of Revolts are handled by Categories. Essays about Revolts are handled by articles where revolts have common features (such as the medieval period). Other revolts (Latin American, Russian, SE Asian) should have their own articles. The topic is very wide and this should disambiguate the reader to the correct ___location. Stbalbach 14:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An extremely important topic that has drawn much attention from historians in recent years. There have been several important studies looking at peasant uprisings in a global context, which is what this page should cover. - SimonP 15:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. — Phil Welch 21:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per everyking :). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 22:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand as notable histiorical topic. Capitalistroadster 00:31, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep What's next an AfD nomination for "War"?--Nicodemus75 04:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Might consider a move to Popular revolt though Fornadan (t) 23:56, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep CalJW 09:17, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is clearly more than a dicdef. See: It is most well known in European history, but also has application in the history of other regions of the world, as well as modern day use... this clearly shows a way to obvious expansion is for the article to explain the documented history, and explain the modern day use -- it is at least a stub. --Mysidia (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. --Apyule 05:28, 22 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!) 07:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shemale ZERO

No assertion of meeting WP:MUSIC. Punkmorten 14:11, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - looks like a vanity article written to drive traffic towards linked website CLW 15:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Friday (talk) 16:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn vanity advert. — Phil Welch 21:39, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for non-notability Tuf-Kat 07:04, 16 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). Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval Chronological Timeline

List of dates for 1000+ years of European history with no qualifier. Too open-ended, allready handled in the 1000 AD style pages. Any dubious notion of significant or important date is POV, Medieval history is as complex as modern history (ie. its not just politics). Every year, indeed every month or even every day can have a notable date. Normally these types of lists are found in books that have a defined scope, not a general purpose unlimited scope encyclopedia. Stbalbach 14:10, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant. — Phil Welch 21:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments above (not sure if that counted as a vote). Stbalbach 23:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep expand and cleanup. Notable historical timeline although should advise the beginning and end of the medieval period and should outline significance of these events. This would be highly useful for people studying the medieval period. Capitalistroadster 00:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pointlessly simplistic duplication. But if it keeps listmakers from crayoning on the walls, then it's harmless. --Wetman 08:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Medieval history is complex, and this page can be expanded to include more artistic and scientific breakthroughs. I did not create the original post, but updated it significantly (I did not realize pages could be deleted, actually). I am prone to such lists, as that is the way I order my historical studies. I don't agree that such a thing is handled in the AD pages, as suggested by the first user (above), in that I find them to be woefully inadequate and difficult to follow. I also agree that an intro be added describing the medieval period, as well as delineations for the Low, Middle and High ages. egthegreat 18 Sept 20050
Keep I can see no reason to delete this. --Apyule 05:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The problem is there is no universal agreement of what should or should not be on the list. So, I might add the birthdays of 45+ Gothic artists from the 12-14th century, doubling the size of the list. Or, perhaps the founding date of 100s of Crusader state castles. Does that make it a better list? What should not be on the list? It is so open ended as to be of no value. These types of lists are usually personal in nature, dates that are important to you. Stbalbach 14:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- While you make interesting points, I don't think that they are enough to delete the article. A consensus for the content of the timeline can be developed on the talk page using standard wiki process, like for individual years. Just because there are some bad lists out there doesn't mean that this timeline should go. --Apyule 01:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete, Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Sanders

This is likely an autobiography. Not notable enough to justify an entry. --Vossanova 14:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the end sentence "Currently he works a boring salary job in the Washington D.C. metro area." sounds rather like vanity to me... CLW 15:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability that I can see. Friday (talk) 15:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, A7, article about a real person that does not assert that person's importance or significance. Marked as such. — Phil Welch 21:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable - Tεx τ urε 22:19, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, borderline speedy. I almost pulled the trigger, but since this discussion is already here... android 79 23:19, 15 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!) 07:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ioh

I've never heard this term. As a trigram, it's pretty damn unGoogleable, and adding "e" to the search terms doesn't help a bit. But none of the first several dozen links looked pertinent, acronymfinder doesn't give anything relevant, and neither does a search through the archives of sci.math. Hoax? DS 14:23, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Never heard of it, search gives nothing relevant, definition does not make sense. --JahJah 15:19, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete probable hoax. — Phil Welch 21:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nonsense. By the way, what is e~³ is supposed to mean? Let me put it this way. If the article is not nonsense, it is something sufficiently advanced, unfamiliar, and arcane that it is not credible that anyone would toss off the sort of one-liner and expect people to make sense of it. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:13, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete, does not provide enough context --MarSch 11:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm trying to guess where this may have come from: does the initial i refer to the imaginary unit whose square is −1?; does the "oh" refer to the little-o notation? But none of it makes sense. If there's anything to make this worth keeping, it's not in the article. Michael Hardy 20:17, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Aoh, D'oh, Uhhh-oh Speedy delete. linas 04:33, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonsense --Trovatore 04:56, 20 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^talk 22:57, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings

Substub for an album by a Dr. Robotnik (which redirects to a cartoon character, totally unrelated to this album). No articles link to it. Punkmorten 15:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You mean video game villain? Anyway, delete unless someone can create an actual article on it. Sonic Mew | talk to me 16:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unfunny. — Phil Welch 21:28, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait...Articles are supposed to be funny now? Sonic Mew | talk to me 15:54, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. paul klenk
Delete and redirect to warning. -Sean Curtin 00:22, 19 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 18:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stobbster

Non-notable. Rmhermen 16:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Friday (talk) 16:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, borderline A7 speedy. — Phil Welch 21:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An inverted triangle may have saved it. paul klenk 23:49, 15 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^talk 22:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vivid Prophet

Band name is listed in allmusic, but no bio, discography, or any information. I did find a bit of info elsewhere and it looks like the records are self-released. No assertion of meeting WP:MUSIC, so I think they fall below the notability threshold. Friday (talk) 16:24, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unverifiable. — Phil Welch 21:30, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if it is correct that those two albums were self-released and the article does not change in such a way as to establish notability. Tuf-Kat 07:05, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, still not notable. -feydey 15:09, 20 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^talk 23:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Rhodes

Apparent hoax. Claims to document a very poor footballer for Port Vale Football Club in the 1890s, but can find no reference to this person in Google. It may be significant that the first result of a Google search for "Adam Rhodes" is adamrhodes.co.uk/blogger/, who resides in Newcastle-under-Lyme i.e. very near where Port Vale play! Created by an anon user 28/29 May and not edited since 30 May. There is a footballer called Adam Rhodes who currently plays for Chinnor Town FC in the GLSFootball Hellenic League (http://www.hellenicleague.co.uk/club_news/chinnor.html ) but this ain't him! -- Arwel 16:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Probable hoax. — Phil Welch 21:28, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Playing poorly does not make one notable. At best, it is junk; at worst, a hoax. paul klenk 23:46, 15 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^talk 00:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of massacres/temp

Created as part of a revert war. But the text is now in the main page List of massacres so the temp version is not needed Philip Baird Shearer 16:39, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why not simply redirect to List of massacres? If changes from the temp version have been moved to the main article, keeping the history of the temp article is important. dbenbenn | talk 18:39, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to maintain attribution history. GFDL demands it. — Phil Welch 21:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Did either of you look at the history of the page? Or the history of List of massacres or Talk:List of massacres page of before casting you VOTE on this?. List of massacres/temp was a copy of the live page made during a revert war. No text was copied from the temp page to the live page it was the other way around. What is GFDL?
- There is no merit to the page. There is no history to the page [19], So why VOTE to keep it? Philip Baird Shearer 09:14, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fine, delete then. — Phil Welch 20:49, 17 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. This has in fact been copy-paste-moved to Food/Water/Energy Run (Pardus), which I shall take as a delete as well. -Splash^talk 00:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Food/Water/Energy Run

Not notable enough to warrent its own article. No Google hits. [20] Sonic Mew | talk to me 16:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the article on the MMOG in question or delete. — Phil Welch 21:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What is this? Is it our job to figure that out, or the author's to do that for us? I say the latter. paul klenk 23:42, 15 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. Not clear from this if there is consensus to merge or not, so I'm not going to do anything. -Splash^talk 00:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Hargrave

Not relevant, only the namesake of two not encyclopedia-worthy boats.--Carabinieri 16:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if expanded. This dates back to the 19th century, so it's clearly not vanity. — Phil Welch 21:24, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:It not being vanity doesn't make it relevant.--Carabinieri 12:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Paying for two lifeboats and then naming them after yourself is not notable today; doing the same thing a hundred years ago makes it less notable, not more notable. paul klenk 23:40, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it makes a difference either way. It only makes a difference to how much current interest there is in the matter, which isn't the same thing at all. CalJW 09:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or Merge - Kingsdown Kent suggests this was one of only 5 lifeboats a place had -- this is a small number, and easy to justify enumerating them, if the place itself is notable. --Mysidia (talk) 14:02, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Kingsdown Kent. siafu 23:19, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how a lifeboat from the 19th century, which cost 650 pounds is relevant. If we were to make an article about every average-sized lifeboat (there is nothing to indicate that this one was anything more than average-sized), which has existed since the 19th century, we'd have to really start writing.--Carabinieri 07:28, 21 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^talk 00:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How to be a Hardass Gangsta

Deletizzle this mutha. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 17:31, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully this can be speedy deleted as nonsense. I've tagged it as such. Friday (talk) 17:40, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not actually nonsense, nonsense is more like random characters that are completely unintelligible, ie "GFGD^%$$WW" would be nonsense. That seems to be how it's generally been explained to me. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 18:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:48, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
70.32.1.205 17:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC) Keep it. It serves a purpose as a humorous entry. It can be relocated to a humor category which would serve a more appropriate purpose.[reply]
- We have no sense of humor here on Wikipedia. Unless you count BJAODN. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 18:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense/link spam for thedilly.com. -- MCB 18:55, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I know it doesn't fit the actual definition of nonsense, but some admins are willing to interpret CSD liberally. It seems clear that there will be no serious discussion of keeping this, so a speedy would certainly save time and effort. I'd rather see AfD used where there might be useful discussion. Friday (talk) 19:24, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't disagree, but I'm simply going on general interpretation of CSD criteria. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 20:07, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know what you mean. There is a distinction between "patent nonsense" like random characters/words, and "nonsense in the context of an encyclopedia" which contains actual sentences, but they are more or less incomprehensible in the context of being a WP article. The former is apparently what is meant in the CSD, but there should be a way to refer to the latter as well, and streamline its deletion. MCB 21:59, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Hardass Gangastas can write how-to wikibooks if they wish, but not articles. --Quasipalm 19:28, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy if that would help. ~~If the anon who created this would like to create an account, I'll happily move this article to your user space where it can live in humorous peace.~~ Ooops, got confused. This article was created by a logged-in user. I've copied the content there. Friday (talk) 19:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delizzle. Fo' shizzle. — Phil Welch 21:23, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bring in Arnie with his Hummernator --81.77.183.210 19:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT a how to guide. --Apyule 05:34, 22 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^talk 00:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scandiwegian

Dicdef, already transwikied to English Wiktionary. Delete. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. paul klenk 23:01, 15 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. R e dwolf24 (talk) 01:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Hirning

Not notable--Carabinieri 17:48, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN --Quasipalm 19:22, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but change the ridiculous photo caption. Hirning is mentioned in WP's Encarta article, and on the Web. paul klenk 23:00, 15 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^talk 01:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Laruunash

A new religion, with a blog page all about it. No indication that this has gained any kind of currency. Looks like an attempt to use Wikipedia to gain legitimacy. This is not what Wikipedia is for. Friday (talk) 17:49, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Laruunash, Anseynol, the Laruunis and all other luunies and anusoles. TheMadBaron 18:23, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I am Anseynol. As there is already a blog page for the religion with far more information, a brief note on Wikipedia would not be essential for the future of Laruunash. However, it must be clear that 'gaining legitimacy' is clearly not something that laruunis seek, especially when they are required to question and challenge the authority of nation-states and existing churches.
- I openly admit that the religion has not gained 'any kind of currency'. If this is indeed a prerequisite for a half-page entry on Wikipedia, by all means delete it. As a philosopher and a scientist, I understand that some encyclopedists emphasize the need not only to report the present level of knowledge, but also to give an impetus to some readers to rethink (matters of science, morals, aesthetics, etc.) and to advance the existing pool of knowledge.
delete looks like a vanity religion page, the only thing this religion has going for it is the blog linked to in the (advertising-copy-like) article. maybe in a few years, we'll see if the blog/religion lives or dies, but right now this looks like vanity advertising in order to get a new religion off the ground, or improve blog rankings. Sorry Anseynol, legitimacy *is* a standard for an encyclopedia article. KillerChihuahua 19:52, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Anseynol writes: Please do not feel sorry for me Mr./Ms. Editor. I feel very fortunate in many ways, and I do feel an obligation to serve those who are less fortunate. My religion makes it clear that this is not a 'habit' on my part, nor an unexamined remnant from my Muslim past. I am aware of the sense of the word 'vanity' in publishing lingo. I hope it is clear that there is no vanity in somebody's declaration of readiness to improve the lot of humankind --which, in the midst of electronic affluence, appears pretty miserable to me.
- As I state on the blog site, many people will understand our religion better 'by the fruits of our work'. You can choose to be a facilitator of that kind of service, or you can do otherwise. Not only are good and evil options available to us, but also the sublime and the ridiculous --among others. Regards, Anseynol
Delete, NRM-cruft. — Phil Welch 21:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unverifiable. --Apyule 05:36, 22 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 Speedy delete, nonsense. Thue | talk 19:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

5th_Avocado

Wikipedia is not a lyrics database or a poetry archive. This is unencylopaedic, and hence has no place here. 195.172.14.67 18:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and don't take the brown acid. TheMadBaron 18:19, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as patent nonsense disguised as poetry. Will add additional tag. paul klenk 18:26, 15 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 keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Emerson

Not yet notable 85.210.20.230 18:10, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN, but getting there -- perhaps in a few years, when more than a single person can keep an eye on the article. --Quasipalm 19:23, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Borderline but notable. — Phil Welch 21:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Notable and accomplished songwriter, producer and multi-instrumentalist. TheMadBaron 16:03, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nyn, sounds like a resume to me. Some of these references are obscure and/or unverifiable --85.210.37.31 17:05, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Most of them are Meat Loaf and Bonnie Tyler albums.... neither obscure nor difficult to verify. TheMadBaron 15:25, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NYN Neebody 09:03, 21 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^talk 01:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Pearcy

Not notable--Carabinieri 18:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless more notability can be established, and assertion of "well-known" can be verified. paul klenk 19:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Friday (talk) 19:49, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, potential for expansion. — Phil Welch 21:19, 15 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. This is very annoying that they're grouped in one afd and they should each have their own section. Some people just said delete all, and so I will do as such. Some colors here should stay probably, and thus someone should list them on VfU. However I am just gonna delete every color in the heading.. R e dwolf24 (talk) 01:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chili powder (color), Feldspar (color), Fire brick red, Fire engine red, Metallic Rose, Olive-yellow, Pale gray-red, Persian Sunset, Pink-cerise, Red-pink, Raspberry (color), Rose (color), Sphaerocobaltite (color), Terra cotta (color), Tomato (color)

NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN - in order to make your job easier, I have attempted to quantify the votes cast for the various colors on this AfD's talk page. If I have misunderstood the votes of any of the editors above, I hope that they will correct my error. Cheers! -- BD2412 ^talk 03:13, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

A bunch of fake shades of red. You can make up plenty of names (e.g. cherry red, lipstick red, strawberry red, rhubarb red, etc.) but that doesn't mean there is an objective, notable color by that name.

Chili powder (color) (Supposedly the color of chili powder. I don't think a redirect is appropriate here.)
Feldspar (color) (Supposedly the color of feldspar. Of course, feldspars have varying colors; I don't think a redirect is appropriate here.)
Fire brick red (Supposedly the color of a fire brick. No evidence the name isn't simply made up, and of course fire bricks vary in color. I don't think a redirect is appropriate here.)
Fire engine red (Supposedly the color of fire engines, which, of course, vary in color like any other physical objects. As far as I can tell, "fire engine red", when used in English, isn't a particular shade of red, but simply means "bright red".)
Metallic Rose (It's a color.)
Olive-yellow (It's a mix of olive and yellow.)
Pale gray-red (A pale mix of gray and red.)
Persian Sunset (I can't find any evidence that this color name exists.)
Pink-cerise (It's a mix of pink and cerise.)
Red-pink (It's a mix of red and pink.)
Raspberry (color) (Supposedly a color that resembles raspberries.)
Rose (color) (Supposedly a pinkish-red color.)
Sphaerocobaltite (color) (Supposedly the color of a mineral, sphaerocobaltite.)
Terra cotta (color) (Supposedly the color of terra cotta. I know people use this phrase as a color name, but I doubt it refers to a specific shade, and more than "tomato red" does.)
Tomato (color) (Supposedly the color of a tomato. I don't think a redirect to Tomato is useful here.)

Most of these are only linked from list of colors. If deleted, the entries there should be removed, too.

Finally, sorry for the mass listing, but I thought this was better than 15 separate nominations. dbenbenn | talk 18:30, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, except possibly Terra cotta, which is a widely used term and could perhaps be expanded. All articles contain no information at all. Laur 18:39, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete exhaustive list. If "cinnamon stick red" gets posted, delete the user. paul klenk 19:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Laur except that Rose is a definite Keep in my mind (a rose-red city, half as old as Time re Petra). Dlyons493 19:11, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Delete based on what? Colors are certainly notable. Yes, maybe this is taking it a bit too far, but I personally think it's a great reference. I tend to err on the side with more information than on less. --Quasipalm 19:13, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I prefer more information rather than less, too, but this "information" is misleading. For example, on what basis could you assert that "tomato" is the color #FF6347, and not any of the other 2²⁴ other possible RGB colors? dbenbenn | talk 21:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Example of the color raspberry - the kind you find in a second-hand store

Keep Fire engine red, ~~Terra cotta (color)~~, Raspberry (color), and Rose (color). Delete the rest, which are either novelties or merly combinations (do we want to open the door to metallic pinkish blue with a tinge of taupe?). -- BD2412 ^talk 20:14, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
- Postscript comment - if raspberry isn't a color, then what the hell was Prince singing about in Raspberry Beret? See also the lesser known Fire-Engine Red Corvette. -- BD2412 ^talk 04:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  - Note - in retrospect, I would also agree with merging Terra cotta (color) into Terra cotta, which is presently a very short article anyway. -- BD2412 ^talk 19:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
    - Having spent waaay too much mulling over this question, I've concluded that Terra cotta (color) should definitely be merged into Terra cotta, as the color is one of the defining characteristics of the clay. -- BD2412 ^talk 00:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge to Red. Most of these articles are very short on their own. — Phil Welch 21:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Philwelch --TimPope 21:37, 15 September 2005 (UTC) see also below[reply]
Merge what? The arbitrary color values? Unless there is a standard that can be referenced, these are OR. Delete unless sourced. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:52, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair comment, merge those which can be sourced as official names, delete rest --TimPope 21:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep those mentioned by BD2412 + Sphaerocobaltite (color) & Feldspar (color) (sure the minerals vary in color, but so does gold) -- Anetode 22:32, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - well, Rose is a color, but my google search found it refered more than once as hex #FF00CC, which is not what the article says. Is there a definitive standard for defining colors? -Satori ^(talk) 23:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are various shades of any such color (for instance, this gimp pallete[21] features many versions of rose) and the Terra cotta (color) mentions two different RGB coordinates. If there are variations on a specific "named" color, they should be listed as well. Anetode 06:46, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete those where a definitive standard/reference/something cannot be found. As it is they all look like arbitrary original research. Note I don't mean A Big Book, a simple image is good enough for me (for example Falu red). Sliggy 00:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Shades of red —Wahoofive (talk) 00:19, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research. No source is given for these, although "Fire brick red" is apparently from X11. I and another user asked User:67.85.2.175 for sources on the others, but received no response. The perception and identification of colors is often more subtle than finding a set of RGB triples that "look right." Gazpacho 02:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
and besides that, why have articles about colors named after things, when we could just get pictures of the things? Gazpacho
Look, I could care less about RGB coordinates - red, green, and blue existed long before there were agreed-upon numerical standards to measure them by. The fact is, when you say someone's car was fire-engine red, it evokes a particular shade of red (or range of shades) based on our common experience with fire engines (even tho those in my town are light green). Same thing with Raspberry - the fact that its used as a descriptor in a hit song is verification enough for me that it deserves an article. -- BD2412 ^talk 19:53, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Ugh. Delete all, because trying to reach consensus on which of these we've each heard of and which we haven't may be impossible. (For what it's worth, I've heard of "Rose", "Fire Engine Red", "Terra Cotta", and Raspberry", so I wouldn't mind "merging" those (basically just mentioning their names) in the Red article.) The particular color samples and RGB values have got to go - they are either a choice from an arbitrary source, or OR. Bunchofgrapes 04:45, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete them all. I can't imagine any but at most a dozen or so colors could have more than a substub and a lot of arguing about the precise shade. Tuf-Kat 07:10, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the following - Terra Cotta, Rose, Fire Engine Red, and Raspberry. Delete all others. Mindmatrix 15:40, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. Actually a sufficient article already exists List of colors so no merge is necessary. I feel I should mention that today someone reverted List of colors so it only includes colors that have their own article. I think we should do quite the opposite and delete all the articles (with a few notable exceptions) and use only List of colors. Vicarious 01:17, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fire engine red and Rose (color). No vote on others. Merging and redirection may be appropriate, although this is probably not the proper forum for that discussion. — Knowledge Seeker দ 13:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fire engine red, Terra cotta (color), Raspberry (color), and Rose (color). Delete everything else. BlankVerse ∅ 16:20, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Non-encyclopedic. Peter ^Isotalo 17:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this shouldn't be a single vote, theseshould be deleted on case-by-case basis. Like Carl Sherer's puzzles some could be notable and I can't be bothered to check them all. Grue 17:57, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Feldspar (color), Fire engine red, Raspberry (color), Rose (color), and Sphaerocobaltite (color), and merge Terra cotta (color) to Terra cotta. No opinion on the others. -Sean Curtin 00:25, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fire engine red but change it to a different shade. In psycholinguistic literature "fire engine red" is frequently used to refer to the "focal" red color, i.e. the kind of red that most people would agree is the reddest red. I've always thought of "fire engine red" as being more like FF0000. The color on the page is more like maroon.
- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.164.55.72 (talk • contribs) --BD2412
Comment: the few that I have checked were all created by 67.85.2.175 (talk · contribs) aka Latitude0116 (talk · contribs) who has proven remarkably resistant to polite enquiries as to the source of his information. I suspect that when my round tuit arrives, the remainder will prove to be from the same source. Unless otherwise stated, my vote will be to keep the X11-derived colours, with a possible view to later merging of similar shades into various [[Shades of...]] articles, and to delete those others for which no sensible derivation can be found. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 13:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- NB - the only colors in this nomination on the list of X11-derived colors are Fire brick red and Tomato (color). Vote count on the talk page adjusted accordingly. -- BD2412 ^talk 15:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete the lot. good catch. --fvw * 19:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge terra cotta as above - useless on its own, keep fire engine red but delete (or redirect as appropriate) the rest. --Celestianpower ^hab 21:32, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also keep rose, missed it, sorry. --Celestianpower ^hab 21:34, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. It seems to be quite useful. The names are merely out of common use. I might find this useful when I'm writing web pages. ;-) It seems appropriate for an encylopedia. -- Natalinasmpf 00:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN - in order to make your job easier, I have attempted to quantify the votes cast for the various colors on this AfD's talk page. If I have misunderstood the votes of any of the editors above, I hope that they will correct my error. Cheers! -- BD2412 ^talk 03:13, 18 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^talk 00:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kibosh

dictdef, already exists in Wiktionary - Laur 18:28, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or, "put the kibosh on" it. paul klenk 18:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Kibosh. — Phil Welch 21:18, 15 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 18:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paladins of Guthix

vanity NeilN 17:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete vanity/advertising. —brighterorange ^(talk) 20:19, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is more than 2 people agreeing with each other. Do more people agree with them? (i.e. I'm relisting an old debate from 5th Sept.) -Splash^talk 18:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete delete delete. Is it consensus now? :-) Friday (talk) 19:59, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete gaming clans are nn. — Phil Welch 21:16, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not encyclopedically notable. While I concede that a gaming clan could become notable, none ever has (to WP's standards) and I doubt that any ever will. Barno 00:28, 16 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^talk 00:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Little Bayou

While it's so sketchy it's a bit hard to tell exactly what it's about, it appears to be about a movie that hasn't even been made yet (judging from the linked official site, flash-only [yech!], which has a casting call), and is not significant enough to have an entry in IMDB. Maybe after the movie is actually made and released, it can be considered for an article here. *Dan* 17:25, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

This is a problem because many people from the General Hospital message boards keep coming to change the content. They are doing this in order to spread rumors that Tamara Braun is coming back to General Hospital.

Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is more than 2 people agreeing with each other. Do more people agree with them? (i.e. I'm relisting an old debate from 5th Sept.) -Splash^talk 18:37, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not listed at IMDb, even as "in production". When it premieres, bring it back. For now, delete it. paul klenk 18:46, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverified, crystal ball. — Phil Welch 21:16, 15 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!) 07:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Digital swordsmen

Non-notable website, not on Alexa NeilN 17:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete nn. —brighterorange ^(talk) 20:18, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is more than 2 people agreeing with each other. Do more people agree with them? (i.e. I'm relisting an old debate from 5th Sept.) -Splash^talk 18:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as obvious advertisement. We get "alot" of these. paul klenk 18:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "not widly used" by the author's own admission. TheMadBaron 19:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity, advert, nn. — Phil Welch 21:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. -feydey 22:30, 15 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 actually somwhat ambiguous. Despite the clear vote count showing a lot of "deletes" vs. only two "keeps", things are not all that clear, because there are two different reasons given to delete.

Saleha Zhowandai is not notable.
The content establishing notability in the article is not verifiable.

There is no consensus that the subject is not notable, had the article been fully verified, so the issue of whether to delete or not boils down to one of verifiability. I have done a bit of searching for other sources about Saleha, and I have not found any other sources except Wikipedia and its mirrors either. Because of that, I am going to call this a delete, but if any other sources verigying the content can be provided, an undeletion request might be in order. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Saleha Zhowandai

Non-notable (vanity?) page on an unknown Afghan person. Hits several results on Google, but all of them come from Wikipedia and its mirrors. Delete. Shauri 19:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Shauri's research, unless getting a masters degree is considered sufficiently notable to appear in Wikipedia. Perhaps we should start WikiGrad, where everyone can post their grade point averages? paul klenk 19:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete, the "first fulbright scholarship" appears to be a claim of notability, but I don't think that makes her notable enough. — brighterorange (talk) 19:37, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She's from Afghanistan and she's a woman; her achievements take on a different significance. The objections are a little like saying: "why do we have an article on Rosa Parks? So she wouldn't give her seat up on a bus — I do that all the time..." --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, Mel, there are Afghan women in the post-Taliban era who have obtained much greater achievements, like being appointed at both public and private institutions and organizations. A person who has just graduated and has not made anything significant other than teaching at an university and publishing one paper is not notable enough to deserve an article, not even taking the circumstances that you mention into consideration. This is specially true when nobody on the web seem to have knowledge of her other than from WP. My two cents. - Shauri 20:31, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete per Shauri. If there were any sources, or even where she teaches, or any stronger reason for noteability than graduation, then I would say keep, but right now we are speaking of keeping the only source, undocumented and unconfirmed, about this woman's achievements at all. I don't mean to disregard her accomplishment, but as an encyclopedia, *some* source/confirmation is necessary. --KillerChihuahua 20:44, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, subject to verification. This is borderline, but given her circumstances that Mel pointed out she's worth keeping. Barely. — Phil Welch 20:46, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

kindof on-topic, I noted we don't have an article for Sakena Yacoobi who is surely more note-worthy. -KC

Weak delete for both significance and verifiability. Barno 00:31, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Shauri. The "first Fullbright scholarship for an Afghan woman" part actually says "first Fullbright scholarship in Economics for an Afghan woman" and that's just too weak to confer any notability. The first Fullbright scholarship overall for any Afghan woman might be encyclopedically notable, but this isn't. I don't want to see "first Fullbright scholarship in field xxxx for a woman from country yyyyy" articles for all fields xxxx and all countries yyyyy in wikipedia unless the subject meets WP:BIO standards for other reasons. Quale 21:27, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Her supposed achievement is great. But the lack of online source is very suspicious, especially since she has publication in the US and received a Fullbright scholarship. I may be wrong, but I suspect it is a hoax to test our credibility. --Vsion 09:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1987 TV series). I'll add a link to the dab page, too. -Splash^talk 21:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Carter (Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles)

This article states the name of a character from an old tv show, but provides no other data. It doesn't even say whether "Carter" is a first name, last name, nickname, etc. I don't think it adds anything to Wikipedia. -- Supermorff 19:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1987 TV series) where the character is mentioned in more detail. — Phil Welch 20:49, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting in search of more discussion. -Splash^talk 01:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as originally suggested by Philwelch. Shauri 01:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no redirect, no one's going to search for that. -- Kjkolb 02:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as per Kjkolb. If anyone knew enough to search on Carter (Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles) rather than Carter then they'd have gone to Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles in the first place Dlyons493 03:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete outright, per Dlyons493. --Calton | Talk 08:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested and link it on the Carter disambiguation page, where people looking for the character are likely to start their search. It's bracketed disambiguation info is needed to distinguish it from other Carters. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as per Mgm|^(talk) That seems best solution. Dlyons493 15:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects are cheap. Making a redirect helps discourage recreation, and directs the original author to the correct place, if he or she needs some encouragement. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 11:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect — easy and cheap. Andrew pmk | Talk 18:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. ~~ N (t/c) 21:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ripclaw

Non-notable AFAIK, but who the heck am I? Does anyone know much about this? Is it noteable and I'm clueless? thanks --KillerChihuahua 19:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If Cyberforce doesn't warrant an entry, then neither does Ripclaw. TheMadBaron 19:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sentence fragments are not encyclopedic. It should not be our job to research and justify deleting such trifles; it should be incumbent on the original author to post enough info to show that notability is warranted. paul klenk 19:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as very short article with little to no context. Tagged as such. — Phil Welch 21:14, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. ~~ N (t/c) 21:29, 15 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^talk 00:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quark city

Advertisement for a business park. TheMadBaron 19:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, ad. Thue | talk 19:55, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per MadBaron. Shauri 20:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advert. — Phil Welch 21:14, 15 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^talk 00:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dimension X (disambiguation)

Supposedly a disambiguation page, but not a useful one. There are only two meanings of the term as far as I can tell, and I've already added a disambiguation heading on top of the Dimension X page, which this disambiguation page doesn't even link to. -- Supermorff 19:22, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redundant with Dimension X. — Phil Welch 20:37, 15 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 19:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Blackout

A self edition CD is not enough for WP:MUSIC criteria. Interesting article history... Nabla 19:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, speedy if possible. Nothing of value here. Friday (talk) 19:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely non-noteable. --KillerChihuahua 20:30, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, garage band. — Phil Welch 20:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "...six of the most gorgeous boys in the South Wales hardcore scene"? Maybe Michael Jackons will sign them. paul klenk 22:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for not meeting WP:MUSIC Tuf-Kat 07:10, 16 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^talk 00:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exocet (band)

No assertion of meeting WP:MUSIC. allmusic has never heard of them. Friday (talk) 19:45, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Band articles don't have to assert any of the WP:MUSIC guidelines... but this band is not notable enough to merit inclusion anyway. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 20:07, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unverifiable crap, sub-BJAODN quality bad jokes, article consists largely if not entirely of patent vandalism. — Phil Welch 20:39, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No last names?! Is "Crust Punk" anything like "Cruft Punk"? paul klenk 22:55, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for not meeting WP:MUSIC Tuf-Kat 07:11, 16 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^talk 00:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Arthurs

Member of non-notable one man band. Punkmorten 20:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. — Phil Welch 20:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability. Friday (talk) 20:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. One man is not a band, it is one man. How can one guy "band" together? It takes two to band together. This is illogical. He is a musician. A lonely musician. paul klenk 22:52, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for not meeting WP:MUSIC Tuf-Kat 07:11, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet existing guidelines per Tuf-Kat. Comment: see One Man Band; multi-track recording is a more modern concept. WCFrancis 21:20, 21 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^talk 00:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Dunseith

Wikipedia is not a place for every radio host. "David Dunseith" gets 545 google hits. Punkmorten 20:19, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. — Phil Welch 20:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. If more material can be supplied in the future, they should be welcome to re-add this page. For now, there is not much to go on. paul klenk 20:48, 15 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 with 5 delete votes and 1 keep vote. moink 21:24, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am temporarily undeleting this as it is being used as evidence in an ongoing RFA. It will be redeleted when that RFA is closed. Dragons flight 01:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Kinkella

Non-notable highschool sports figure. This article has been speedy deleted, recreated, tagged for another speedy, and that tag disputed, so it comes here. Delete DES ^(talk) 20:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. (Thanks, DES, for supplying the "bullets" for us on this page.} I trust Mike has a bright future, but for now, the future for this page is bleak. paul klenk 20:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. -- Phil Welch 21:10, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn-bio. The first time I read the article I though it was saying he was the star QB for the Grand Rapids AFL team, which might be notable, but they're the Rampage, not the Eagles. -- MCB 21:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable yet, delete. -feydey 22:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep please this persons whole family seems notable Yuckfoo 07:19, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Surely this must be speediable. None of the claims even if true would even come close to confering encyclopedic notability. Quale 21:29, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That was my view, but since at least two people disagreed with thsi view, the claims are evidently "disputed" DES ^(talk) 21:48, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The previous version of this article, which I speedied, did not make the claim of him being the starting QB for any team. I suspect this was added to provide a claim of notability, the veracity of which I doubt. android 79 05:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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^talk 00:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Postool

Clearly an advertisement for a web site. WP:NOT advert. RJH 20:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- reluctantly, as Postool seems to have so much in common with WP. WP also "dosen't require ads", and "is getting better in any second." In any second, this page will be deleted with "personal help" from one of our administrators. paul klenk 20:44, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advert. — Phil Welch 21:11, 15 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!) 07:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arno Maasdorp

nn artist Punkmorten 20:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If, as the author states, "[m]ore information about his biography, exhibitions, commissions, calendar and contact details can be found" at the website, I encourage the author to refactor that info and add it to the article. paul klenk 20:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advert, notability not established. — Phil Welch 21:11, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Molotov (talk) 22:31, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am the author of the article. The article was created as part of an effort to put the artist and his works on the internet, largely to provide presence and factual record for anyone seeking further information having seen his works, or otherwise. The artist does have his own home page (which I created for him), but that home page may not survive indefinitely, whereas the Wikipedia will, and the artists works will. In 10 years time, someone seeking more information on the artist, based on one of his many works, may find nothing other than a Wikipedia article - which is far better than finding nothing at all. The article is not an advertisement (it does not induce or solicit trade, etc - it merely states fact). I agree that the article lacks detail, perhaps in 5-10 years time, it will also lack detail - and then it may be more relevant to remove the entry, but deleting the article within 12 months of its existance seems shortsighted. Perhaps in 5-10 years time, the artist will have grown in stature and relevance. In terms of "notability", the artist does have a reputation, admittedly not as large as other artists, but probably larger than some of the trival news events and detail in other articles.
Delete - Using WP to create a web presence for an otherwise non-notable artist is vanity, pure and simple. Unencyclopaedic, and WP:NOT a crystal ball. If he proves to be notable in 10 years time you can write an article about him then. Natgoo 03:46, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication that this artist meets WP:BIO. Quale 21:30, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As the original author of the article, I have now read WP:BIO and agree that the artist does not meet the criteria. I completely disagree with the assertion that creating this article was for reasons of "vanity". Mgream

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. The unanimity of the vote outweighs the low participation. moink 21:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold DeGraaff

Delete, nn Punkmorten 20:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice. Encourage author to re-add new, more notable article later. paul klenk 20:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Borderline CSD A7, but not enough for me to feel comfortable tagging it as such. — Phil Welch 21:10, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Molotov (talk) 22:29, 15 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 unanimously. moink 21:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nayla bint Farasa

To repeat the oft-used AfD justification: being the wife/gf/so of somebody does not make a person notable. She is already covered on the Family tree of Uthman ibn Affan page (which really should be merged with Uthman). This page does not appear to add anything if significant value. Delete :) RJH 20:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Who is Uthman? paul klenk 20:52, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Uthman ibn Affan, one of the "Four Righteously Guided Caliphs" and Muhammad's secretary. — RJH
Delete as per Paul Klenk. Molotov (talk) 21:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Almost speediable as a very short article with little to no context but let's do it this way. — Phil Welch 21:06, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then also those links in should be removed? -feydey 22:08, 15 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 with four keep votes and the nominator voting delete. moink 21:01, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin L. James

Who was he? What did he do? Neither the article nor Google quite helped me answer that question. --Joy [shallot] 20:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I googled and found this: bogdan | ^Talk 20:59, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Edwin James was managing editor of The New York Times
Keep but please expand. Managing editors of the NYT are notable. — Phil Welch 21:01, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not just a matter of notability, the article as it is now is simply useless. If you want it kept, please expand it yourself, otherwise it will remain a borderline speedy deletion candidate. --Joy [shallot]
Keep Molotov (talk) 21:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It now says he was managing editor of the New York Times. CalJW 09:21, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Weak mainly because the extreme stubbity of the article. Caerwine 09:02, 20 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. ~~ N (t/c) 21:20, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A Time to Dance: The Life and Work of Norma Canner

Problem: Nothing even posted, and the title itself pretty much deems the proposed subject somewhat unnotable for an encyclopedia but rather a Reader's Digest. Molotov (talk) 20:59, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as no meaningful content and history (blank page other than deletion notices). Tagged as such. — Phil Welch 21:07, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as physically empty. (Molotov, it is not necessary to submit pages like this to AfD.) -- MCB 21:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleted. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:20, 15 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--Doc (?) 21:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Einar Rossavik

Why is he notable? --Joy [shallot] 21:14, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article does not assert notability for Einar Rossavik. Punkmorten 23:59, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, see above--Carabinieri 12:57, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — no evidence of notability. — RJH 15:00, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Why does AfD this keep showing up as locked? — RJH 15:04, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Jaxl | talk 00:57, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above--Carabinieri 12:05, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the company that this individual founded isn't notable enough to have an article, then he can't be notable enough, as a result of founding it, to have his own article. siafu 00:03, 20 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 by Texture. Note that this does not preclude a new article with different content being written. -Splash^talk 00:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Toad's Place

Problem: Simply the text above within article area and nothing else. I added a speedy template also. Molotov (talk) 21:49, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete empty & pointless Anetode 22:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. A well-known music club in New Haven, CT. where major performers (Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan, U2, David Bowie, Bruce Springsteen) have played. Nearly 100,000 Google hits. Monicasdude 23:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Monicasdude, although it seems to have been speedied already. This is a very notable club. Bikeable 02:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This shouldn't have been put on vfd, as it was a clear speedy candidate, but if anyone were able to write a real article, it might be kept. Meelar (talk) 03:36, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sorry if this is a dumb question, but how would we do that if it's already been speedied? The information in Monicasdude's vote above would be sufficient for a stub, and it'd be easy to add more. Bikeable 23:44, 18 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^talk 00:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

640k

NN business. Unable to locate in Google (search for "640k informatica" or "640k Argentina") or business sources. Does not seem to have even its own ___domain name. Appears to be a local computer services company. Article is in Spanish. MCB 21:51, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. How do you say that in Spanish? paul klenk 22:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Borre. No inglés, y no notable. TheMadBaron 10:34, 16 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. The unanimity outweighs the low participation. moink 20:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indiawhites

NN business. No Google hits. 3 sentence article, 2 of which describe the founder. No idea what the business does, if in fact it exists. MCB 22:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Far too vague. paul klenk 22:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Molotov (talk) 22:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No attempt to assert notability. TheMadBaron 10:36, 16 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.