Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 September 18

Guide to deletion

The result was keep. The actual discussion has been hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. IceKarma ॐ 01:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cheapass Gamer

Delete. Non-notable website. android 79 23:55, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; non-notable. Jaxl | talk 02:42, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
D Fawcett5 04:53, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Nandesuka 18:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. --High ^(Hopes) 19:58, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cheapass Games is notable in its field. This unrelated gamers' forum (whose spelling switches between "Cheap Ass Gamer" and "Cheapass Gamer") is not notable in its field, in any way that is asserted nor that I'm aware of. I know a number of game producers' forums, game distributors' forums, and game hobby forums, and I hadn't heard of this one. Can any BoardGameGeek member or someone supply any verifiable importance? Barno 06:58, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I have moved the large amount of text that was appearing up above to the talk page. Please confine discussion of it to there; having it in here clutters the discussion considerably. -Splash^talk 01:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - A user with two anon IPs, who text-signed as Ashida Kim, made two disruptive edits to this page. The second one was a WP:POINT section header and a big source-text dump, chapter one of a famous tome. Splash was correct in moving it (and my reply, attempting to calm the editor into stopping disruption) to this AfD's talk page, to keep this AfD section small and on-topic. Barno 01:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - If "Ashida Kim" continues to spam this or other AfDs with junk, I'll block him for disruption. android 79 11:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dottore So 15:34, 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. IceKarma ॐ 01:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sheffield Forum

Delete. Non-notable website. android 79 23:54, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

D concur NN. Fawcett5 04:54, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It turns out that the article is not spam - the link at the bottom leads to the Sheffield article on Wikipedia. So delete not just as vanity, but as providing no useful information or context. Candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 06:51, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dottore So 15:34, 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. IceKarma ॐ 01:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welkies

Delete. Neologistic slang dicdef. WP:WINAD, and I doubt Wiktionary would want this. android 79 23:54, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neologism. --TM ^(talk) 00:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I marked it for speedy, as I thought it was a common sense case, so obviously I vote delete. Jkelly 01:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Too cute to shoot. Delete. Denni ☯ 02:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism. Jaxl | talk 02:44, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
D neologism Fawcett5 04:55, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - not notable, and belongs in wiktionary - if anywhere. --MacRusgail 15:51, 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 Keep Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 04:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Public holidays in the Solomon Islands

Most useless list of all time—Wahoofive (talk) 00:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, part of a series. Gazpacho 00:22, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Is this a serious nomination? I find it incredible that someone interested in creating an encyclopedia would think it could possibly be better without information about national public holidays. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 00:41, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think a merge would be sufficient, but since it's part of a series, I'll go ahead and vote keep. And let's not assume bad faith about the nominator! --Idont Havaname 01:13, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, apologies for any inadvertent imputation of bad faith. But I still cannot see how this article got to be listed. It defies logic. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 01:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - is this part of WikiProject Increasing Systemic Bias? I think Tony had it right the first time. Guettarda 01:18, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete substub, not even a sentence. -83.129.10.164 01:20, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The seventh edit by 83.129.10.164 (talk · contribs), all edits made today. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 01:25, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ever heard of a think called dynamic IP User:Guety, commons:User:Guety and de:Benutzer:Guety aka -83.129.10.164 01:33, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Solomon Islands only one holiday in the list --Aranda56 01:27, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Solomon Islands. I presume that the nominator felt that a list page with only a single item in the list is of, er, limited value. i tend to agree. If the list fills out while merged, it could perhaps be split off again. DES ^(talk) 01:32, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, sorry, I just added a dozen more public holidays. Sorry. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 01:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - No need to apologize for adding worthwhile content which your additions are. And no need to be snide if that was your intent. After the additions, IMO there is no plausible reason to delete. i still think the info would be better if mereged into Solomon Islands -- users would IMO be more likely to find it there. DES ^(talk) 01:57, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - I apologise for my unproductive snarkiness. AfD could do with a lot less of that and I'm sorry to have contributed to it. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 12:05, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - If they look for it there, they would still find it on a separate page long as there's a link. Kappa 03:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good save, Tony. Chick Bowen 01:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - as above. - Hahnchen 02:09, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Solomon Islands. Denni ☯ 02:13, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as part of category:Public holidays by country Kappa 03:17, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
K easy one. Fawcett5 04:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. As per Denni. – AxSkov (☏) 05:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Articles which are part of a global series should never be merged - it ruins the effectiveness of the category system. CalJW 09:07, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Consistent with treatment of public holidays in other countries. Contrary to the nominator, I'm sure its useful to Solomon Islanders. Capitalistroadster 09:09, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- At nomination time there was exactly one entry on this list, not useful to anyone on the planet. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many other nations have seperate articles detailing public holidays. As above, to delete this article is reflective of systemic bias.--Nicodemus75 10:36, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No good reason why the Solomon Islands should be singled out. Qwghlm 12:00, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, then delete. Are you serious, guys? You're wasting time, protests and effort for what? Holiday trivia? No one would actually search for these kinds of articles unless we told them to. / Peter ^Isotalo 16:44, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain why you are suggesting that we do an (irreversible) history merge? Is there some reason why think that this page, post-merge, should not be in Wikipedia at all? Guettarda 18:02, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "No one would actually search for these kinds of articles unless we told them to"--if this were an appropriate criteria half of Wiki could be deleted. Marskell 16:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I mean this literally. It's not just highly unlikely that anyone would search for this (like searches for subtlety or Hans Basbøll), but downright bizarre. No person expects to find themselves in a separate article called "public holidays in the Solomon Islands". People will search for "Solomon Islands" and expect to find it there. The only exception are Wikipedia editors with too much experience of AfD... / Peter ^Isotalo 17:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - They can find it in Solomon Islands and then click on the link, but 99% of the people looking at Solomon Islands won't want this information cluttering up the page. Kappa 17:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Clicking a link just to get a sub-stub that easily fits in the main article is a waste of time both to the average reader as well as the editor who has to keep an eye on the article. A lose/lose situation with only inclusionist dogma to keep it afloat. / Peter ^Isotalo 18:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - This isn't about inclusionism, since the information is preserved whether merged or not. The "average reader" of Solomon Islands saves time by not having to download and then skip over irrelevant detail. Kappa
Keep, it's been expanded to contain a significant amount of info, which in my opinion is enough for a seperate article just like all the other articles in Category:Public holidays by country. Merging would only clutter up the article. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:53, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mgm, merging would clutter up main article. Sabine's Sunbird 23:51, 18 September 2005 (UTC) Keep For most people this would be clutter in the Solomon Islands article and there are several logical entry points for this one. Idea should be extended to other lists of public olidays in various countries. Caerwine 06:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Useful list. Part of a series. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and don't really understand the arguments not to.Vizjim 10:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it would be nice for some background on the items rather than just a base list, but it can grow --redstucco 10:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ··gracefool |☺ 07:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Each nation has a similar list on WP. PRueda29 02:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. IceKarma ॐ 01:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Angry Spurlock

I'm suspicious of an internet comic strip with absolutely zero Google presence. Joyous (talk) 00:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --TM ^(talk) 00:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- some Google searching suggests that many of the terms in the article come from Pokemon or related stuff. Might this be a very subtle hoax? Chick Bowen 01:55, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No external link makes me a little suspicious too. Denni ☯ 02:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Jaxl | talk 02:45, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Edited giving external link to the comic (I didn't think I was supposed to) Orangebox3 21:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The lasagna will always fall where someone loves you, and there's no shame in braiding a snake. If this is a comic strip I am an adam's apple. If this is a notable comic strip, I will eat my lips. Denni ☯ 00:16, 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. IceKarma ॐ 01:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pocreas

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Joyous (talk) 00:21, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "soon to be franchise" with 1 google hit aside from wikipedia. --TM ^(talk) 00:33, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possible speedy as nonsense. "Pocket creatures" might be a ripoff of "pocket monsters". --Idont Havaname 01:25, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Jaxl | talk 02:45, 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 article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:29, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Tontie

Newly-created entry about "A flash based version of the classic "whack-a-mole" games." (this is entry's entire content). Googling for "tontie"+"wack-a-mole" returns 167 hits. It seems to be just another one of those games that someone programs, everyone plays for a week, then is quickly forgotten. jglc | t | c 17:10, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete I've played that! It's sort of an advanced wack-a-mole. Not really a notable Flash game, especially since it's just an enhanced version of a game seen so many times before. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:21, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
Delete non notable games cruft. JamesBurns 01:05, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 03:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brown hat

Fails Google test with only three hits [1], making me believe this is a neologism. At best, merge/redirect to Black hat. --Alan Au 00:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Black hat. Jaxl | talk 02:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Black hat. – AxSkov (☏) 05:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Brown"... *heeheehee* Peter ^Isotalo 16:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no merge, nn neologism, unverifiable, etc. — Phil Welch 21:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Brown hatting" is, incidentally, a sexual practice (and a way of getting on the boss's good side) in UK slang.Vizjim 10:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Black hat ··gracefool |☺ 07:22, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Black hat, notable term. Piecraft 01:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. IceKarma ॐ 01:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Misconceptions about goth culture

Seems like more of an opinion essay than an encyclopedia article. Most of the article is nonfactual and probably unable to be merged with Goth or similar. Quicksandish 01:04, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NPOV subjective and unsupported. Seems to express the particular view of an individual or group.
Delete. completely nonfactual. It's not the kind of article you would see in a print encyclopedia, and therefore has no place here. - Gregory
Delete. There is already a misconceptions section in Goth, and there probably should be more mentioned about misconceptions in that article. However, this article looks like original research. --Idont Havaname 01:23, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems POV, and as Idont havaname pointed out, there is already a misconceptions section in Goth. -GregAsche (talk) 01:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research.--DNicholls 02:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The author mentions in a preface that the article only applies to a small subsection of a particular subculture. This is in addition to the above mentioned reasons.
Delete. False, POV, and ageist. --DJH47 06:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV, not factual. Should be called 'preconceptions about Goth culture. Is typical of American intolerance. 81.169.147.23 10:02, 18 September 2005 (UTC)Suzanne#[reply]
Delete in its current form, but perhaps the Goth article could include some of the NPOV and encyclopaedic material from this article. --Sanguinus 10:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-neutral, one-sided, prejudiced point of view, and therefor not something that should belong in an encyclopedia. - THF
Delete. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. / Peter ^Isotalo 16:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I stand upon this windswept moor, thinking of my lost love, Lenore, sorrow weighs on me like sleet. I sigh, I die, I cry: delete. Nandesuka 18:23, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article meets no factual needs.
Delete per Nandesuka; best vote I've seen in a long time. Barno 07:04, 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. IceKarma ॐ 01:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hacked board

nn forum on an hardly notable website 83.129.10.164 01:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to need deletion as it lacks sense or purpose.202.101.173.68 01:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn forum agree with the annoyminous users --Aranda56 01:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. — Phil Welch 22:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to GameFAQs, but keep the list of members out of it. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and don't merge. Forumcruft. / Peter ^Isotalo 12:19, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Zoe's comment ··gracefool |☺ 07:30, 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 speedy delete; after merge, by request of author. Friday (talk) 14:43, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of ACIM interpretations related to Charles Buell Anderson

Original research; this is just a personal essay comparing two religious systems. Tearlach 01:09, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Charles Buell Anderson. The original research was what made it a distinct topic. Chick Bowen 03:20, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am the creator of this article, and after just having finished merging the article, I have just listed it for speedy deletion. Thanks for the suggestion Chick Bowen. :-)

-Scott P. 04:03, 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 merge with École nationale supérieure des mines de Paris. Anyone should feel free to perform the merge at any time. And pass the wine. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cercle des Amateurs de Vin

A school wine club. Denni ☯ 01:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with École nationale supérieure des mines de Paris. Tearlach 01:27, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: apparently unresearched nomination, since École nationale supérieure des mines de Paris is not a school in the more obvious sense of the word. Kappa 03:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect as per Tearlach. And in response to Kappa, the use of "school" to mean university or professional school (as this one is) is perfectly common and accepted. Chick Bowen 03:23, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Common and accepted, but not at all obvious in this context. Kappa 03:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to École nationale supérieure des mines de Paris. – AxSkov (☏) 05:15, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. ··gracefool |☺ 07:31, 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 KEEP. IceKarma ॐ 01:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Coipel

~~Definite hoax.~~ Keep, now that DS has very kindly rewrote it. Quicksandish 01:21, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agreed. Jack Meoffsky?! Oliver Coipel appears to be a mildly notable comic book artist.

Keep as rewritten. Tearlach 12:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy as nonsense/attack? --TM ^(talk) 01:37, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep DS' rewrite. --TM ^(talk) 23:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, boarderline speedy. Could be an attack page. Jaxl | talk 02:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep after rewrite. Jaxl | talk 20:58, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - various comic book articles link to this article, or contain Coipel's name but don't link. Should be replaced with at least a stub with Coipel's professional info (available here:[2]). Chick Bowen 03:30, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy. Nonsense/nn. – AxSkov (☏) 05:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand. At the moment this article looks like a stub and hence needs to be expanded. – AxSkov (☏) 03:41, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've said it before - creating a nonsense article for a genuinely notable person, which then gets deleted as nonsense so that later iterations of the article will get speedied as "recreations of previously-deleted articles", is a very subtle form of vandalism. I just rewrote it; keep. DS 15:46, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, that criteria only applies to reposting the deleted version of that article ie. the exact same content. Even if this had been speedied someone would have been welcome to write a new, accurate version of the article without risk of it falling under WP:CSD. --TM ^(talk) 23:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in light of DS's rewrite. Chick Bowen 18:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as rewritten by DS. Hall Monitor 21:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no prob. Alf ^melmac 19:23, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ··gracefool |☺ 07:32, 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. IceKarma ॐ 01:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DigitalDreamDoor.com

Article about a non-notable website-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 01:23, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --nn, vanity, advertisement --DNicholls 01:27, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. — Phil Welch 22:37, 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. IceKarma ॐ 01:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Nexus

I'm not entirely convinced that college newspapers are sufficiently notable and thought I'd submit this to the community for discussion. --Alan Au 01:25, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I feel this is a worthwhile contribution, as it's a longstanding paper that's been producing daily news for the last 35 years. This is no flash-in-the-pan publication, but an institution that has eeked into national news more than once. Aside from that, the paper is the primary news service for people living in and around Isla Vista, California. It has a daily circulation of 20,000. So in that light, I feel that the Daily Nexus is entirely deserving of an entry. --Kidicarus222 04:57, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep. A daily circulation of 20k passes my notability threshold! — brighterorange (talk) 13:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've heard of it, and I didn't go to UCSB. Nohat 18:45, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. — Phil Welch 22:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A student newspaper with a 20,000 daily circulation is notable enough for mine and the article is of a high quality. Capitalistroadster 23:44, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See Orion (newspaper), The Stanford Daily, Daily Illini. . . Chick Bowen 04:28, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is no bigger than your average corporate newsletter, which I wouldn't dream of accepting as a separate article. Summarize and merge with UCSB. / Peter ^Isotalo 12:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 20k readers don't deserve an article? Peter must be an exclusionist. ··gracefool |☺ 07:33, 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. IceKarma ॐ 01:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scaffold (GNOME)

Odd and misleading title (a Pillory is not strictly speaking a Scaffold, and what does GNOME mean in this context), and there are many instances of such structurres other than in The Scarlet Letter. Delete I don't think this contnet would be useful to merge into The Scarlet Letter, but that is the only plausible place if it were to be retained. DES ^(talk) 01:26, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I believe that GNOME is refering to the GNU Network Object Model Environment, which contains a "scaffold" module. However, this article does nothing to explain that. My guess is that it was created as part of an effort to fill in redlinks, as the page is linked to from a handful of other articles. --Alan Au 01:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You are quite correct. This article links to List of GNOME applications. It is clear the contributor either did not know that or chose to ignore it. Since the title and the contents are not congruent, I suggest it be deleted. Denni ☯ 02:29, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - someone is more likely to write the real article if it is returned to a red link. Chick Bowen 03:33, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or kelete per above. — Phil Welch 22:41, 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 Speedied as a joke article. Thanks for the laugh, Gazpacho. android 79 02:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs that are six words long

Currently a singel item list. Unmaintainable. pointless. unencyclopediac. delete. DES ^(talk) 01:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There has been a flurry of absurd song lists in the last couple of days. Jkelly 01:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--DNicholls 02:18, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Lists of songs regarding appropriate and inappropriate topics. I guess this would be a good example of the latter. Delete. Denni ☯ 02:33, 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 to list at WP:MD instead. IceKarma ॐ 01:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Verb

Seemingly purposeless 'stub' in the WP namespace. Not a policy page; not a policy proposal, or indeed an anything proposal. Long-standing merge notices, but little real content to actually merge. Alai 01:34, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this ought to listed at WP:MD, since AfD explicitly does not cover the wikipedia namespace. DES ^(talk) 02:44, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Moved to Wikipedia:Miscellaneous deletion/Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Verb DES ^(talk) 02:52, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with DES's move to Miscellaneous Deletion page. Concur also with nominator's description; it looks like someone was blustering, perhaps trying to hoax. Let's not "spread the meme!" requested. Barno 07:12, 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. Paul August ☎ 01:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pete V. Domenici United States Courthouse

nn courthouse Delete --Aranda56 01:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, courthouses seem inherently notable, and it seems like it is the district headquarters for all of New Mexico.[3] -GregAsche (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per GregAsche. Chick Bowen 03:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GregAsche. --TM ^(talk) 03:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - U.S. Federal courthouses are definitely notable. I can't say the same for every town or county courthouse, but on this score I'm quite confident. -- BD2412 ^talk 04:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- I whould change my vote if at least 2 signifacent cases have happened in the courthouse which so far havent seen any. Unless 2 of them happened there my vote stays --Aranda56 19:59, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All courthouses are inherently notable.--Nicodemus75 10:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, part of judiciary institution and landmark in Albuquerque, New Mexico --Vsion 11:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the 10th tallest building in Albuquerque. Kappa 12:32, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Random federal courthouses are certainly not notable. The article adds nothing to information about US law that we already have. / Peter ^Isotalo 16:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Federal courthouses. -- DS1953 16:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if I can trust the assertions by GregAsche and Kappa, this is both the district headquarters for all of New Mexico and the tenth tallest building in Albuquerque. That's enough notability for me. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:03, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going by what the article says. Kappa 22:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I provided a source for my statement, check my vote. -GregAsche (talk) 00:28, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. — Phil Welch 22:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Philwelch, DS1953 and others. --WikiFanatic^{Talk Contribs 18:56, 18 Sep 2005 (CDT)}
Keep. Courthouses are at least more notable than high schools. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Public buildings, such as courthouses, are worth including, even if they are of very limited interest. Dottore So 15:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ··gracefool |☺ 07:35, 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 KEEP. IceKarma ॐ 02:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking Out Is Hard to Do

I'm completing a nomination for 202.101.173.68. I'm assuming because it's contextless. I vote delete. DNicholls 02:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can figure out what this is. Jkelly 02:25, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Family Guy episodes. Jaxl | talk 02:52, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep after cleanup. Jaxl | talk 03:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but cleanup to the format used by other Family Guy episodes with their own pages, like Brian the Bachelor Tearlach 02:58, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep All Family Guy episodes have their own article. I'll clean it up. Most episode pages start off like this, and it's much more useful than a red link no matter how messy it is. --TM ^(talk) 03:18, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per TM. --Andy Janata 17:36, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's a keep now. — Phil Welch 22:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. More Family Guy-cruft. Delete. / Peter ^Isotalo 12:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Family Guy has quickly become an important part of American folklore. This article about this particular episode has been cleaned up in accordance with other Family Guy episode articles. ShutterBugTrekker 21:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. I like this episode. Beside, do you know how long it took me to make the freakin page?!?!--The Republican 23:56, 21 September 2005 (UTC)The Republican[reply]

Not long enough. You should have taken the time to look at how the other Family Guy episode articles are structured and copied that structure. Robert Happelberg 21:10, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now that it's been cleaned up. Robert Happelberg 21:10, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, thanks for the cleanup. the wub "?!" 10:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ··gracefool |☺ 07:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Every other Family guy Episode has an article, there's no reason this one shouldn't. --Chupon 18:36, 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. IceKarma ॐ 02:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Insane_Reuben

nn website Jkelly 02:23, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. No attempt to establish notability. Chick Bowen 03:37, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but not a CSD (not a biography, and just barely enough context.) — Phil Welch 22:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Clear as Day Delete speedily if possible. Dottore So 15:38, 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 Delete Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 02:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Killer Japanese Seizure Robots

Prior nomination was found with no consensus: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killer Japanese Seizure Robots/Archive --AllyUnion (talk) 05:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article about a single page website Do not click if prone to epilepsy or bad taste. The article references a small part of a Simpson's episode, Thirty Minutes Over Tokyo. I really don't think that the website warrants an article of it's own. It was previously nominated for deletion here. The discussion in the previous nomination tended towards a merge, but I feel that there is already sufficient text in the Thirty Minutes Over Tokyo Trivia section. Does this prank webpage warrant an article? Is there sufficient text in the Thirty Minutes article? I don't think that merging is a good idea, especially given the backlog. - Hahnchen 02:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's verifiable and wiki isn't paper. ··gracefool |☺ 07:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- We can verify lots of none notable websites, just because we can verify it doesn't mean it deserves a wikipedia article. I could provide photoevidence for the existence of a local cul-de-sac, it's verifiable, wiki isn't paper, so let's do cul-de-sac articles! No. - Hahnchen 14:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well I'd say it's notable enough. Tens of thousands of people know what it is. Whereas a local cul-de-sac is probably of interest to only a few hundred people. But in any case, I don't see how an article on a local cul-de-sac could hurt Wikipedia. ··gracefool |☺ 13:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This AFD was deformed for its first few days and garnered no votes at all during the most popular voting period. Is it possible to relink this to the current day of voting? I would be grateful if it is allowed. - Hahnchen 18:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm relisting this as it was deformed the first couple days and didn't draw as much participation as it might have. Rx StrangeLove 04:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Groeck 04:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Thirty Minutes Over Tokyo. I'm sure I've seen something about this already. Brrr, Déjà vu. Proto t c 08:49, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 10:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one-joke spamalicious fancruft. --Calton | Talk 10:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Individual episodes are debatable enough but individual scenes? I think not. Marskell 11:37, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete do not redirect, as I'm pretty sure they're not called that during the show. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Thirty Minutes Over Tokyo. Owen× ☎ 18:01, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I was against this article when I nominated it for deletion awhile back[4], and I still am. I love The Simpsons, but this is cruft, plain and simple. Karmafist 20:24, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A small joke in an episode doesn't deserve an article. Fancruft. Wikipedia is not a web guide. --J. Nguyen 20:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Thirty Minutes Over Tokyo --Apyule 06:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not significant to be merged with ep of simpsons. Great episode, great joke, useless article. alf 11:31, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the episode article. I think it deserves a place here.--Tedzsee 05:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-I'm not epileptic, but it had some negative physical effects on me. Imagine what it would do to someone who is epileptic.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. IceKarma ॐ 02:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Giuseppe Tarantino

Delete Relevant? Necessary? Possibly vanity. mu5ti/talk 02:32, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged it for speedy as vanity. --TM ^(talk) 03:41, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- And I've untagged it. A rector is "the highest academic official of a university in many countries". Definitely an assertion of notability. No vote. android 79 03:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. - Not a vanity page--the philosopher Giuseppe Tarantino is long dead (there's also a violinist with that name, even longer dead). I've rewritten it as a stub, based on this publisher webpage: [5]. Chick Bowen 03:53, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the rewrite. --TM ^(talk) 04:09, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as rewritten. -- BD2412 ^talk 04:17, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. – AxSkov (☏) 05:18, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as rewritten by Chick Bowen and thanks to him or her for the rewrite. Notable academic and philosopher. Capitalistroadster 09:17, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but I am questioning whether the name of the university in the article isn't a conflation of two institutions of higher education in Pisa, the University of Pisa and the Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa. Uppland 19:27, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right: he was apparently at U. di Pisa. I've made the correction. Chick Bowen 02:03, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as rewritten by Chick Bowen. Hall Monitor 22:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons above, although I am not sure I agree with android's assertion that holding the post of rector at a University is on its own sufficient grounds for inclusion. Dottore So 15:41, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I never made any such assertion. I said the article makes an assertion of notability, and therefore does not qualify for speedy under CSD A7. Whether holding such a post is sufficient grounds for inclusion is something I have no opinion on, and I have not voted here because of that. android 79 17:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ··gracefool |☺ 13:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. IceKarma ॐ 02:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paula Houston

~~12,000 Google Hits for Paula Houston/Porn Czar But Still But I dont think that this is a wiki worthy article Delete for now May change Vote --Aranda56 02:37, 18 September 2005 (UTC)~~ Vote Change into Weak Keep I wanted to check if this article deserved to be here and I guess it does after 3 votes. I dont think that person deserves and article in here at least but if CNN and USA Today wrote about her it Keeps on my standard --Aranda56 04:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If she's worthy enough for USATODAY and CNN I'd say she's wiki worthy. --TM ^(talk) 03:45, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, expand (which should be easy w/ 12k hits) - sounds fascinating. -- BD2412 ^talk 04:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep This ex anti-porn czar has far more notability than many porn stars who are articled. I don't think the relevant unique hit count is close to 12,000; but there's still more than enough. --rob 04:45, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as former public official of some interest. Capitalistroadster 09:21, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ··gracefool |☺ 13:41, 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. IceKarma ॐ 02:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Resort at Summerlin

Comes accross as an ad. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, vanity. -GregAsche (talk) 02:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A notable Vegas hotel and casino. Mark it with a cleanup tag if you like, but it didn't seem like an ad to me. HollyAm 03:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pretty notable despite any questionable prose. — Phil Welch 23:05, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Vegaswikian 07:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I visisted Vegas around the time this thing opened, and I never heard of it before reading this. Many casinos and hotels in Vegas are notable, but this is not one of them. / Peter ^Isotalo 12:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ··gracefool |☺ 13:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 18:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Endless_Online

Comment Article name is actually Endless_Online/VazzVersion. Jkelly 03:03, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

nn MMORPG, 300 players. Image is probably copyvio. Earlier nonsense version was speedy-deleted. Jkelly 02:52, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked for permission from the Image owner, and my version is actually all correct, unlike the rest

Vazz 02:57, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please enter the copyright information for the image file, in that case. Jkelly 03:57, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Recreation of obvious MMORPG-cruft. / Peter ^Isotalo 12:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's verifiable and wiki isn't paper. It doesn't hurt Wikipedia by being included. ··gracefool |☺ 13:42, 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 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. IceKarma ॐ 02:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2578

I believe this isn't legitimate fancruft, but instead relates to a user mod for some Star Wars game or another. Star Wars canon doesn't overlap Earth's future, as far as I know. See also Darcious. --Bunchofgrapes 03:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or we'll have to disambiguate in 573 years. Jkelly 03:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --TM ^(talk) 03:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. RJFJR 15:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article doesn't state which fiction this is from, so notability cannot be established.-LtNOWIS 03:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most likely fanfiction or a fanmod. As nominator implies, there is no 'Earth' within the Star Wars 'universe'. Saberwyn 10:52, 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 discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - no consensus - SimonP 05:37, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Saturday Night Live Number 466

Same reasons as the Votes for Deletion for episode 548 and the one for 364: non-notable, useless, unencyclopedic. /sɪzlæk ˺/ 09:19, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comment. And just how much space will having every episode of SNL for the past 30 years take? -- Riffsyphon1024 09:22, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. See my reasoning at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of Saturday Night Live episodes. Tygar 10:20, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Samboy 10:36, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, covering every episode of SNL for the past 30 years will take up a negligible amount of space. Kappa 11:57, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge into an article on each season. - SimonP 17:38, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, for the same reasons at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of Saturday Night Live episodes. DaveTheRed 19:29, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Saturday Night Live episodes are not like episodes of dramas or sitcoms. -Aranel ("Sarah") 19:58, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable as an individual episode. Megan1967 01:27, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I've never seen an article use so many words to say absolutely nothing. "Action 8 News Watch: Anchorpeople and reports make references to stories coming up at "later in" or "at the end of" the hour." WTF???? To those who take the stand that wikipedia should never delete any information, please explain to me how that qualifies as "information". -R. fiend 02:23, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep - verifiable and of third-party interest - David Gerard 14:52, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, my reasoning is already expressed in the other SNL episode VfD entries. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 21:44, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep interesting information not easily found elsewhere Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:50, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep; comments at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Saturday_Night_Live_Number_548.
Keep: Information is verifiable, informative, and of interest to end users. —Caesura 17:25, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Comment: If anyone is even going to think about keeping this page it needs major work. It's written assuming the reader knows exactly who all the recurring characeters are, and most of the brief synopses are utterly uninformative. You know how sometimes a friend will try to tell you something really funny he saw on TV the other night, but screws it up so badly that it's not only unfunny but nonsensical? That's this article. I also wonder if this article is even accurate. There's an entry (a sketch I guess it's suppsoed to be) that only reads "1-800-EAT-SHIT". It says absolutely nothing, and is very possibly a prank. You can't say "shit" on TV, even after 11:30. A few hundred other articles written like this would be a travesty for wikipedia. -R. fiend 22:00, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - no consensus - SimonP 05:39, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Saturday Night Live Number 364

More of the same: non-notable, useless, unencyclopedic. /sɪzlæk ˺/ 09:21, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why don't we delete them all then? -- Riffsyphon1024 09:24, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. See my reasoining at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of Saturday Night Live episodes. Tygar 10:20, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
Keep Star Trek individual episodes can have Wiki entries' why should SNL be any different? Samboy 10:41, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Yea, but then everyone will want an episode list. The trek episodes should really be in Memory Alpha. -- Riffsyphon1024 10:48, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Star Trek episodes have a unifying plot. SNL does not, so needs no article to describe each episode. DaveTheRed 19:27, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, episodes of star trek, and notable comedy shows are important enough for an unlimited encyclopedia. Kappa 11:55, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I have a strong suspicion that most Star Trek episodes shouldn't have their own articles, and that we would be better served by a few articles summarizing key plot arcs and characters. As I've mentioned elsewhere, we already have articles on notable SNL sketches and characters, and a list of all the hosts and musical guests. This is too much granularity. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 15:26, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. What encyclopedic value can there be in just a list of sketches that were done in the same show? --BM 19:58, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable as an individual episode. Megan1967 01:29, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Everyking 02:05, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Utterly useless, as above listing. Not encyclopedic at all. -R. fiend 02:25, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep - verifiable and of third-party interest - David Gerard 14:52, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep interesting information not easily found elsewhere Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:50, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, no potential to become encyclopedic--nixie 01:13, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep; comments at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Saturday_Night_Live_Number_548.
Keep: Information is verifiable, informative, and of interest to end users. —Caesura 17:25, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP.

List of Saturday Night Live episodes

Rather perplexing, this list contains two episodes (both now on AfD), plus another episode which does not have a page. Delete for uselessness. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Better that all SNL episodes should have articles than that any should be deleted. -- BD2412 ^talk 04:15, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand to include more episodes. - AxSkov (tel) 05:21, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. This is a worthy series for an episode listing, but it needs more content. 23skidoo 05:27, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't a directory of episodes for $TV_SERIES. Pilatus 20:09, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. God Forbid that we should end up with another 500 'articles' on this list as bad as the two that already exist. TheMadBaron 21:29, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. WP already has too many episode guide type articles to start deleting them. Comprehensive articles on SNL episodes would make a decent addition to Wikipedia. Let's not eat our young. -- Phil Welch 23:27, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- How about we start cleaning up this fancruft mess instead of trying to expand it? One bad move does not deserve a few thousand more. / Peter ^Isotalo 12:43, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete plz; let's stop the nonsense. ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ _{(Contributions)} 23:51, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - strikes me as interesting. Better than articles about every article (like, say, Star Trek). Guettarda 00:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No information here if the articles this page links to get deleted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm frankly getting very skeptical to the vast majority of the lists we have. This one is just an excuse to keep SNL-cruft. / Peter ^Isotalo 12:43, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep please we have lists on many television serioes like Simpsons so why not this one erasing it makes no sense at all Yuckfoo 22:25, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Isotalo is quite right: using existing cruft as a precedent for further inclusion is not a good idea. Dottore So 15:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Re TheMadBaron's comment, it doesn't come under any point at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - or any other point on that page. ··gracefool |☺ 13:48, 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 REDIRECT to The Open Mind. IceKarma ॐ 02:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Open-mind

Dictionary definition, and a terrible one at that, so perhaps not suited for wiktionary. I can't picture this being expanded into an encyclopedic topic. Bunchofgrapes 03:13, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone comes up with a useful redirect. Jkelly 03:21, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Open Mind? Open Mind currently redirects there as well. --TM ^(talk) 04:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki. This sounds like a dictdef. – AxSkov (☏) 05:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's already an entry at Wiktionary. --TM ^(talk) 05:29, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's an idiom that involves the word "mind". Transwiki to mind or not at all. / Peter ^Isotalo 16:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per Cryptic. / Peter ^Isotalo 17:52, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect this and open mind to The Open Mind. Deletion is acceptable too; this is an unexpandable dictdef. No need to transwiki; Wiktionary already has open mind and open-minded. —Cryptic (talk) 16:58, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per others. — Phil Welch 23:27, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ _{(Contributions)} 23:52, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect → Tolerance, perhaps? The subject and what is known and written of the psychological phenomena of open-mindedness would be encyclopedic, but the article as it stands is just useless. --Mysidia (talk) 02:24, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That would either be an essay or an expanded dicdef, Mysidia. The Open Mind is the obvious article to redirect to. Anything else would be blurring the distinction between Wiktionary and Wikipedia. / Peter ^Isotalo 12:40, 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. IceKarma ॐ 02:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AmericanSights

Article states this is describing a "small group on "Yahoo!.com" [sic]. Clearly non-notable. The article includes some crystal-ball claims about future notability, but, you know, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The article doesn't do itself any favors by being near-incomprehensible, either. Bunchofgrapes 03:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Jkelly 03:58, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --TM ^(talk) 04:15, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nom. – AxSkov (☏) 05:25, 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. IceKarma ॐ 02:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Funeral Sciences

Band, does not meet WP:MUSIC criteria. Bunchofgrapes 03:30, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nom. Jkelly 03:58, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Clean up, and merge into Schoolyard Heroes. ~~Then if Schoolyard Heroes appears delete-worthy, delete that article. (I'm not sure if that band meets the guidelines of WP:MUSIC or not.)~~ --Idont Havaname 04:05, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sticking with the merge vote, though I wouldn't oppose making it its own article if the band's article starts getting long. The band's article is pretty short right now, so it might be best to keep all of the content in one place. Thanks for doing the cleanup. --Idont Havaname 22:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator Comment: Yeah, I goofed, thought "The Funeral Sciences" was the band name. My vote is now merge, per Idont Havaname. --Bunchofgrapes 04:17, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Precedents#Music. Albums have their own page. If someone wants to nominate the actual band for deletion then this page would also be deleted as a matter of course. But until then it should be treated like any other album. --TM ^(talk) 04:22, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned it up a bit if that helps. --TM ^(talk) 04:29, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep albums separate. Thanks for the cleanup TM. Kappa 16:59, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; albums are separate from bands. On a related note, it looks like Schoolyard Heroes pass WP:MUSIC; their website mentions a national tour, and they have two non-self-produced albums. Meelar (talk) 03:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep added stub and cats. Mmmm cats. Alf ^melmac 10:38, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Extreme Keep. I am obviously not some sock who's a member of the band... This band is actually pretty big here in Bothell, 20 miles away from Seattle. They have 2 albums out, so they meet WP:MUSIC, and they're obviously not a hoax. They belong in our 'pedia. R e dwolf24 (talk) 08:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ··gracefool |☺ 13:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. IceKarma ॐ 02:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Woo

Memorial of non-notable Hong Kong teen who recently killed himself. Wikipedia is not a memorial. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per that wonderful WP:CSD, our friend A7. :-) --Idont Havaname 03:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Tragic, I'm sure, but not notably so. TheMadBaron 16:42, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Very sad, but Wikipedia is not a memorial for otherwise non-notable people.- Mgm|^(talk) 22:09, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and tagged thusly. — Phil Welch 23:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy. Write me a song, emo kid. ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ _{(Contributions)} 23:53, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I removed the speedy tag as I dunno, not a clear cut case. Let this AfD sort it out. R e dwolf24 (talk) 03:43, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Could have been speedied, I see no assertion of notability. Plus I suspect a hoax: the last paragraph is bizarre. -- MCB 03:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Quite possibly a hoax, certainly not an article. Appears to be about a missing/dead kid who's friends miss him. Sad, but it sure looks like an A7 speedy to me. Friday (talk) 14:13, 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. IceKarma ॐ 02:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The whiskey robbers

Band vanity page, doesn't meet criteria in WP:MUSIC Bunchofgrapes 03:42, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, perhaps as a "little or no context" speedy (all it says is that they're a band from Oregon formed last year) or an A7 speedy. It's band vanity at any rate. --Idont Havaname 03:52, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Jkelly 03:59, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, speedy if possible. Complete waste of space. - Lucky 6.9 04:21, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable band. – AxSkov (☏) 05:27, 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. IceKarma ॐ 02:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Es (Perry Rhodan)

Only the first sentence is about the Perry ES, the rest is bla about the Ancient astronaut theory. Of course it might be boiled down to this, but if the crackpot stuff is removed I don't think its noteable for the en. Wikipedia 83.129.10.164 03:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:59, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research if nothing else. If someone more well-versed in Perry Rhodan than I wants to write a proper article on Es, feel free. 23skidoo 16:03, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete crap. — Phil Welch 23:39, 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. IceKarma ॐ 02:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dj synergy

NN, Band Vanity, Ad. Bananadity. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:58, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Jkelly 05:01, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable band. – AxSkov (☏) 05:29, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable DJ. — Phil Welch 23:45, 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. IceKarma ॐ 02:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy_Nimmo

Fake bio. Asserts notability for harmonica career. Google for "Jeremy Nimmo" "blind cat" returned 0 hits, as does "Jeremy Nimmo" harmonica. "Jeremy Nimmo" returns 113, from internet forums. Jkelly 04:07, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- BD2412 ^talk 04:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Complete Garbage. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:18, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
From Author, sorry I dont know how to make my own reply to this so i'm adding an edit. Jeremy Nimmo is a hidden legacy and none of his work has been properly released, we are trying to get the word about him out but people like you are hiding it from the public to see, things like this lead to his demise. Please keep the article. Internet publicity is very sparse and you cannot rely on it having all the information, including very small time musicians.
- I'm very sorry, but Wikipedia is not the right place for you to get the word out. (See Wikipedia:No original research for a discussion of a specific reason why not.) I'd suggest you try making a blog or something. Oh, I'm voting Delete. Bunchofgrapes 05:03, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable person. – AxSkov (☏) 05:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly more suitable for WP:Alternatives. Kappa 15:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 05:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Blatant Hoax. --193.166.11.251 07:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What a load of nonsense! Ok so 10 people attending his tour was a bit of an understatement, there were probably 15 at Tom's Cafe when I was saw him. Man... him dying is a bit of a shock - I.. well I only just found out reading this now. Wish I had talked to him when I saw him, sounds like a cool guy. RIP "blind cat"

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. IceKarma ॐ 03:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Northamptonshire v Somerset 29 June 2005

Stub about a single cricket game. Notablility is not established. (Unless we want articles about every individual game played by every pro-sport team accross the planet, that is.) --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:58, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete User appears to have more than one article like this (Durham v Kent 4 September 2005) - Jaysus Chris 05:58, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a useful way of writing summary articles for each team and competition while the season is underway (see Northamptonshire County Cricket Club in 2005, Somerset County Cricket Club in 2005 and Twenty20 in England in 2005) as the content is transcluded onto those pages. Also, see Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Essex_v_Glamorgan_15_May_2005 and Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Nottinghamshire_v_Yorkshire_26_June_2005, which both ended in keeps. 07:22, 18 September 2005 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Vimes (talk • contribs)
Keep as per every previous time this has been discussed. --Ngb^?!? 07:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, see previous discussions. Stephen Turner 08:45, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not again. CalJW 09:08, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's true, it's verifiable, it's going in an article. Why on earth delete it? [[Sam Korn]] 11:04, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why would you delete a perfectly useful article? -- Ian ≡ talk 11:45, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Kappa 12:29, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. WP:ISNOT the daily sports report. I have no idea what the justification is for articles about utterly routine results of sports contests. Shouldn't this be in Wikinews or something? Thousands of sporting contests are played every day all over the world, but for some reason English cricket matches are considered notable. I think maybe this should be one of the Centralized Discussions and not just individual AfDs. There is absolutely nothing encyclopedic about a report of a minor sporting match. We're not talking about the FA World Cup or even international test matches here. -- MCB 18:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This is becoming seriously annoying. We have had many discussions over this. I can recall five off the top of my head. The end result was "no consensus". I simply cannot believe people are still nominating them. Perhaps they are just ignorant of what has gone before. If so, allow me to summarise. These articles are not going to last forever. Shortly, at the end of the English cricket season, they will be merged into relevant articles. In the meantime, they are being transcluded onto various other pages so we have something on these pages. This accounts for the odd formatting. Thus they will not stand forever as articles in their own right. On the other hand, it's true, it's verifiable. Why delete? [[Sam Korn]] 19:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sigh. Perhaps the fact that you are getting lots of AfDs on this matter is a sign you are doing something wrong? The idea of keeping temporary articles on something that are later merged and deleted is definitely non-standard practice. One thing to do is to keep them on temporary pages outside of the main wiki space. I struck out my delete vote, but please think about these things next time. Sdedeo 20:17, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Maybe it's a sign that what we're (sorry, Sam Vimes and jguk with our support) doing is controversial and unusual. Non-standard, certainly. But what's so wrong with that? [[Sam Korn]] 20:27, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Besides, where would we "ask for permission" to do such a thing? It's a wiki. There's no one holy god to ask permission for every single gritty thing we want to do. If we did it on the Village pump, people might argue that "oh, not everyone reads that stuff" and list it on AfD anyway. Sam Vimes 20:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Not really being critical, and definitely IAR, I agree. You can probably avoid all these annoying AfDs from people who aren't up to speed if in the future you put them in a temp space, e.g., User:Sam Korn/Northamptonshire v Somerset 29 June 2005. It is very unusual for articles to be created in the main space with the expectation that they will later be deleted -- hence all the delete votes from people who think it's a permanent article. All the best, Sdedeo 20:51, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Cheers. Trouble was, we actually did that originally, and it gave problems with mirror pages such as answers.com, so they were moved into the main namespace. Definitely something to think about for 2006, though. Sam Vimes 20:59, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you argue that the 2005 English cricket season is non-notable? If so, sorry for wasting your time. If not, then these articles are valuable in creating the pages on the 2005 English cricket season, since it eases the strain on editors and creates good summary pages from different perspectives, as I have outlined above. Some might come here to see how the Twenty20 Cup went, others would perhaps have an interest in how Somerset's season were. That's how these articles are structured - and just FYI, WikiProject Cricket were planning to merge them into the consistuent articles once the season was over. 19:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC) (preceding unsigned comment by Sam Vimes (talk · contribs) 19:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  - Delete - If the editors can't take the strain of their editing, they shouldn't be doing it. --193.166.11.251 07:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MCB. Routine sports event, nothing notable. Sdedeo 19:12, 18 September 2005 (UTC) (see above)[reply]
Delete per WP:ISNOT. WMMartin 22:08, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy, or move to Cricketpedia or just plain delete this. WP:NOT a webhost or news service. Pilatus 23:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete plz!!! What is with all this "oh let's include a stub about EVERYTHING THAT'S EVER HAPPENED EVER" nonsense??? ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ _{(Contributions)} 23:54, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, yet again, like all the rest of this series. See them for the arguments to keep. Guettarda 00:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Important Comment: I have created a centralized discussion for this issue, in an attempt to reach consensus and not have the issue raised in a large number of individual AfDs. Please go to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Sports results and discuss on the discussion page. -- MCB 03:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Shameless sportscruft. Wikipedia is not a sports almanac. / Peter ^Isotalo 12:46, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep We have discussed this before and agreed keep each time. Remember that this article is part of a series about the 2005 English cricket season. Effectively WP:Cricket is creating an almanack that will, in time, exceed Wisden in depth (though probably not renown). It's an excellent source that I use myself for checking on the season. Series of articles such as this are good for Wikipedia - and isn't that what we're all here for - improving WP? jguk 18:11, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep once again, see previous arguments. Hiding talk 18:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ludicrous sportscruft. And if you need rough drafts, don't you people habe hard drives? --Calton | Talk 21:01, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete I fail to think of any possible argument to keep it. Did you even heard about Wikinews? Grue 12:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- We've rehearsed the Wikinews thing endlessly over and over in all the previous VfDs on this same set of articles. If I can borrow your quaint phrasing, did you even heard about respecting previous consensus? --Ngb^?!? 14:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - So why these articles weren't transwikied to Wikinews? They'd like them there very much. Problem solved. Cricket fans can do their original reporting and Wikipedia gets free of this POV ridden stuff. Also there was never a consensus on keeping these articles. Ask any Wikipedian not affiliated with cricket what he thinks about it? He'll probably say: original reporting, not suited for Wikipedia. And he'll be right. Grue 14:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, they wouldn't like them very much, because of licensing problems. Unless the writer of the articles (well, ok, me) agreed to license the articles in the public ___domain. As for "original reporting"? The policy is: "The phrase "original research" in this context refers to [...] data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication'". The data it is based on is published in a reputable publication, and even linked to in the article. Of course it has to be rephrased and put it in a new form, otherwise someone would slap a copyvio on the page! As for "ask any Wikipedian not affiliated with cricket what he thinks about it" - that's how TWO successive VfDs have ended in keeps, with many votes from people not even on WP:Cricket? Sam Vimes 15:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Imagine wanting to read this in twenty years. Come on. Dottore So 15:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't that be great? Kappa 16:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I think this may reveal one of the reasons we're having difficulty reaching consensus either way on this issue. I suspect people who are voting "obvious delete" are thinking in terms of this one article standing on its own. Whereas people who are voting "keep" are thinking in terms of the season reviews that these articles will make up. See the Centralized discussion for more on this point. Stephen Turner 16:26, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I can! I have Wisden going back fifteen years and many followers of cricket have it going back much further than that -- some even to 1864! --Ngb^?!? 16:46, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Same here. Dottore So's comments tells a lot about the difference between followers of cricket and other games like baseball, and why they can't understand our POV. I often spend hours browsing through random scorecards of matches of 50-100 years ago. Tintin 10:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Cricinfo has all the articles going back to 1864. Some are quite interesting. Also, I have a feeling that some matches in the 2005 season will be talked about for many, many years to come (see the 2005 Ashes, jguk 18:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - See discussion on previous VfDs. --Peripatetic 13:46, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Peripatetic above. Can't be bothered to give the reason yet again Tintin 10:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's verifiable and wiki isn't paper. It doesn't come under any point at What Wikipedia is not. ··gracefool |☺ 13:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. IceKarma ॐ 03:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie_Gillon

Hoax article. Google for "Jamie Gillon" "Batman" gets 2 hits from an Internet forum on image creation. Article contains created image of a Batman cover. Funny that. Jkelly 04:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. JamieGIllon probably would not care. -- PFHLai 09:12, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Author (User:Thegill13) has twice changed the hoax of the article -- currently claims to be a chess champion. NN, vanity, hoax. --A D Monroe III 19:52, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax. — Phil Welch 23:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zach (Sound Off) 00:08, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax. Mindmatrix 18:08, 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. IceKarma ॐ 03:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kbroker

advertising 67.184.193.190 04:32, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Jkelly 04:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bunchofgrapes 04:57, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. TheMadBaron 21:18, 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.

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as nn vanity and as completely lacking in content; anon was trying to leave same non-entry under "Ken Pangborn"

Kenneth Pangborn

No vote. Apparently a usenet personality of some note, but not certain whether or not he is notable enough for an article. Also, a repeat deletion, but not sure what was on previous page. --Alan Au 04:35, 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 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. IceKarma ॐ 03:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brave_Knaves

Band, formed in 2005, yet to release an album. Perhaps non-notable band should be a speedy, just as nn-bio is. Jkelly 04:41, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, even if their unreleased album has met with "critical acclaim." Bunchofgrapes 04:54, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if evidence of critical success can be provided. Kappa 13:29, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Brave Knaves"+"The Bluesman Cometh" receives 0 hits. Jkelly 17:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - neither "Brave Knaves" Wichita nor "Brave Knaves" Blues get any google hits ([6] [7]). Chick Bowen 18:22, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Routine delete nn unverifiable. — Phil Welch 23:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per not verified. --Vsion 00:25, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. / Peter ^Isotalo 12:47, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Kappa's comment. ··gracefool |☺ 13:58, 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. Neutrality^talk 01:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crescent Park Elementary School

If it was a high school I would have kept but it is a nn elementary school that like all other elementary schools normally get erased in VFD and this one is no different Delete --Aranda56 05:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We won on high schools in the end, and I am confident of the same long term result for primary schools as people gradually let go of the idea that Wikipedia should somehow resemble Britannica. CalJW 09:11, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You won? I had no idea wikipedia was a game or contest. Sabine's Sunbird 00:05, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep we winning the fight aginst school deletionism. Klonimus 04:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - I can just picture the War on School Deletionism joining the War on Drugs and the War on Terrorism in American history textbooks in the 'Battle Against Nouns' series. Next week: the War on Litter. Lord Bob 05:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is a defensive action in the War against a comprehensive wikipedia which have no choice but to fight. Kappa 09:16, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - A comprehensive wikipedia includes every band that ever existed, including garage bands and every non-notable person on the planet. --Prosfilaes 12:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Interesting thesis. However such claims have nothing to do whatsoever with schools.--Nicodemus75 14:16, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        It is a logical consequence of the argument that schools should be kept because Wikipedia should be comprehensive.--Prosfilaes 14:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        No it isn't.--Nicodemus75 15:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        The War against a comprehensive wikipedia doesn't really assume good faith now then does it? Perhaps you would benefit from thinking of it as the Ongoing debate and discussion on what level of detail is needed to create a comprehensive wikipedia, which while not trpping off the tongue at least frames the disagreement in a way that shows that we have the same goal (a comprehensive wikipedia) with diverging views on how to get there. Sabine's Sunbird 15:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Discussion is a non-destructive activity, unlike deletion. Kappa 23:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because this is an elementary school which is notable. The statement that "all other elementary schools normally get erased" is patently false. Evidence of the contrary is clearly documented at Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Votes for deletion archive and User:GRider/Schoolwatch/Archive. There only appear to be 2 elementary schools deleted since improvement efforts targeting school-related articles began in March 2005. Two elementary school articles deleted, out of roughly 180 school-related pages nominated for deletion. I do believe you are right on one point though; the outcome here will be no different. Bahn Mi 10:34, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Almost all those schools that was nominated was High Schools. Saw a few elementary schools around and like half of those were deleted --Aranda56 19:37, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please either cite specific figures and ranges of time you are referring to or stop making up false statistics altogether. And "half" does not equate to "normally". Bahn Mi 20:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/York Hill Elementary School is an example --Aranda56 21:37, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Horace Mann Elementary School is another example --Aranda56 21:44, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, those are the two specific examples I was referring to above. Contrary to what you may believe, two out of 180 school-related pages nominated for deletion does not amount to all other elementary schools normally being erased. Bahn Mi 00:50, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, with Tony having abandoned the Schoolwatch program as well as his not voting or improving school articles, elementary schools are in great short-term danger on an article-by-article basis. However, the long-term situation is that all schools will be part of WP due to the great rate of school creation.--Nicodemus75 10:44, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - As will all bands. Moreover, not all schools, only schools in areas that have a large Wikipedia presense, that have Wikipedias going to them. It's not an argument for vanity articles that they were overwhelm the good ones.--Prosfilaes 01:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a school.--Nicodemus75 10:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and stop nominating schools. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 11:13, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something is a school doesn't mean it should never be nominated for deletion. Articles on people need to show some reason why they're important and so should schools. As long as short school articles with no such info pop up, people will keep nominating them. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, important school for education in Bethel, Maine. --Vsion 11:21, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Bethel Maine is a town of just a little more than 2000 people so it is only important for only 2000 people so its still very non-notable. The elementary school nearby got about 2000 students but that doesn't mean it is still notable. There should be a limit on schools I belive. All High schools and higher should be kept and im willing to expand on it but under that it is Way to much unless it is signifantly expanded in which in this case it won't too small of a school.--Aranda56 19:21, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pilatus 11:23, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another primary school of utter nonimportance. Dunc|☺ 11:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, another important primary school. Please think of the users. Kappa 11:53, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the fact that this article is about a school should wrap this one up. See WP:SCH. --Celestianpower ^hab 13:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia content is not and should not be determined based on the arbitrary application of such vague, relative concepts as "importance" or "notability". Keep.--Gene_poole 13:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So what are you basing your vote on? - Mgm|^(talk) 22:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it is an enduring public facility whose existence is verifiable, obviously. It's the same principle that we apply - without any of the controversy attending schools - to articles on railway stations, bridges, highways and other public institutions and infrastructure. --Gene_poole 00:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We delete a lot of roads, and there's a couple orders of magnitude fewer highways than schools.--Prosfilaes 00:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So schools are less encyclopedic than highways because there are more of them? Fascinating "logic". --Gene_poole 03:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Things that aren't rare aren't interesting. Every one knows about the nine planets, but how many people really know anything about any of the asteroids? No one even bothers naming every ant in their ant colony, but everyone names their dogs and cats. In any case, did you or anyone else actually go to Crescent Park Elementary School and go "oh, cool, I didn't know that"? Or was it just another elementary school you'd have to fight over?--Prosfilaes 12:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm amazed at the staggering presumption of people who believe that because something is of no importance to them, personally, now, it is never going to have any significance to anyone, ever. As Wikipedia editors we have a responsibility to future historians, social scientists and our descendants to document precisely this sort of data as a record of our times.--Gene_poole 04:46, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you whether it was of importance to you; you didn't answer. I'm amazed at the staggering presumption of people who think they know what future historians and social scientists will care about (our ancestors certainly didn't), and at the gall to assume that Wikipedia must be hijacked to serve the needs of future historians. I'm sure if they want to know about the school system, there's a Department of Education report that gives more useful information then Wikipedia, and that for every school. Personally, I think that future historians might be very intersted in garage bands and what they mean about the role and level of average people as artistic creators, and find it much harder to get their hands on the information. But I don't think that's a hole that Wikipedia is designed to fill.--Prosfilaes 12:46, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid your comments betray a rather limited understanding of the social sciences, and the historic foundation and purpose of encyclopedism. --Gene_poole 23:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes. When in doubt, sneer at your opponent's alleged lack of knowledge instead of addressing the claims. Avoid explaining anything, since that might undermine your case. I don't see anything on Encyclopédie that would include listing any schools at all.--Prosfilaes 02:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lest Wikipedia become a second rate directory. Jonathunder 15:27, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- A public school - Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. --Mysidia (talk) 15:52, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A non-notable public school. Wikipedia is not a directory. / Peter ^Isotalo 16:25, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. -- DS1953 16:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, schools are notable. -GregAsche (talk) 18:26, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, elementary schools are not inherently notable. Lord Bob 21:29, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Usual reasons. WMMartin 21:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete elementary schools for heaven's sake. It's a building in which nonnotable things happen. There's a gas station and liquor store a block away from here that is just as deserving of an article. ESkog 21:58, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are a lot of non notable schools in the world. Any attempt at comprehensive coverage would require its own wiki. This information is useless to an encyclopedia. TheMadBaron 22:27, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; just because it's there doesn't mean that somebody's going to come looking for it. More work to do, more strain on the servers, something clogging stuff up when you hit "random page". Why not direct our efforts towards something useful? ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^{(Contributions)} 23:57, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't have to work on it if you don't want to. If no-one comes looking for it, it won't put any strain on the servers. "Why not direct our efforts towards something useful?" exactly, let's stop fighting about schools and we can get back to subdivisions of Chad or whatever. Kappa 00:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - You think that hard drive space has no cost, that bloating the Recent Changes list to the point that no one can follow vandals has no cost, that giving vandals a doorway to stick virtually unverifiable information in Wikipedia has no cost?--Prosfilaes 01:51, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't that the cost of hard drive space is very significant at 2 million words per penny. If school articles have no edits, they won't bload the recent changes list, if they do have edits, people will fix any vandalism. Kappa 09:16, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's 2 million words per penny only if you don't care about your data or the speed of I/O. RAIDed SCSI drives, for a server like Wikipedia, cost a lot more. And how will they fix vandalism? If I start Joe Mercer Elementary School and write that it's in Alva, Oklahoma, what are the odds that any of the one or two Wikipedians that know anything about elementary schools in Alva, Oklahoma will notice and fix it? What if I change something on Crescent Park Elementary School long after this VfD has been forgotten, say the number of students, how many people will know whether it's correct or not?--Prosfilaes 12:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Bethel, Maine. Local notability only. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's a little elementary school. It's nothing to do with the servers or 'clogging things up', it's the vague and fading dream that Wikipedia should actually have some kind of quality control, ensuring only things that are encyclopaedic have, you know, an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is NOT Everything2. Wikipedia is not a web directory. Wikipedia is not toilet paper. Sadly, too many Wikipedians really, really want to see Wikipedia regurgitate every inconsequential, non-notable, unimportant collection of four walls and a roof back onto the internet. It does no harm for these 'articles' to exist? Today schools, tomorrow every church, every branch of McDonalds, every pub, every telegraph pole, every field, and so on, ad nauseum. A line needs to be drawn. The only people that would care about this information (the good people of Bethel, Maine) would already have it. Grrrrargh. Proto t c 09:45, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If Wikipedia had an article on every enduring institution and piece of public infrastructure in the world that would indeed be a wonderful achievement. We might then rightly be considered truly encyclopedic. --Gene_poole 00:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Elementary schools are not 'enduring institutions' - they are a building that teachers work in. Wikipedia would be far more wonderful if it went for quality, not quantity. Proto t c 12:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Elementary schools are not enduring institutions? Maybe on your planet, but most of us here are from Earth. --Gene_poole 04:46, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they are. No it wouldn't.--Nicodemus75 14:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have a phone book; should I wikify all the people in it real quickly? Or I could start adding entries for every birth announcement in the newspaper?--Prosfilaes 12:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, should you? --Nicodemus75 14:22, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a logical thing to do, if Wikipedia were to go for quantity, not quality.--Prosfilaes 14:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No it wouldn't.--Nicodemus75 15:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; I think it quite presumptous to think that even most of the people of Bethel, Maine care about this school.--Prosfilaes 12:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Bethel, Maine OR delete outright. Carries the problem of systemic bias to new lows, with scattered random non-notable little schools getting articles. --Calton | Talk 21:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep please gene poole is right so why should we erase these great institutions if we keep railway stations and bridges this has nothing at all to do with fast food restaurants its about schools Yuckfoo 00:17, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not worthwhile --redstucco 10:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet another completely nn school. Dottore So 15:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons expressed at Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Silensor 19:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- We need more votes for this article so far it looks like a no consious.--Aranda56 23:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - What on earth does this mean? "We need more votes"??? You've already expressed your opinions above. There is no concensus on school articles and the vast majority survive the AfD process. There are plenty of AfD nominations for schools every week that clearly demonstrate this to be the case. Some bizarre statement that "we need more votes" is truly baffling. We will continue to vote until we are blue in the face, but there will still be no concensus.--Nicodemus75 04:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I heard from Aranda56 that we needed more votes for this article. —RaD Man (talk) 08:43, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I heard from Radman's sisters' aunts' brothers' cousins' girlfriends' sister that this needed to be kept! ALKIVAR™ 18:35, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. --rob 09:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Proto Cmadler 19:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep and because I find school articles interesting. Un focused 14:38, 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. IceKarma ॐ 03:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Cleckler

A lot of verbiage without alleging any notability. 20 unique Google hits. 17 unique hits for "N'wenglish". User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:21, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will shorten the article and allege notability. It will link to an article on N'wenglish. Only 3 Google hits for "N'wenglish" are relevant. This is my first attempt to publish on Wikipedia. Gary Sprunk --68.104.212.141 05:42, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Good first effort for an article, and a reasonable cause, but good ol' Bob is not notable. Perhaps he deserves to be, but Wikipedia isn't the forum to fix that. --A D Monroe III 10:03, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. In general, don't use Wikipedia to establish or further your pet movement. Pick up some momentum first and let us decide whether you're worthy. I wish you the best of luck in that. — Phil Welch 00:01, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete couldn't verify. I wonder why he chose the cumbersome name "N'wenglish", if he want to fight illiteracy. --Vsion 00:29, 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. IceKarma ॐ 03:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nerd Boy

nn webcomic, 166 unique Google hits, can't get an Alexa ranking. User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:30, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is primarily Usenet-, not web-, based. Has a respectable 4,840 hits on Google Groups. —Cryptic (talk) 11:23, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per very respectable google groups hits. Kappa 13:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Raising the Google count by searching elsewhere is a pretty cheap trick. Utterly non-notable webcomic. / Peter ^Isotalo 16:25, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Google groups hits are all to one group. This does not establish notability. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:20, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't deny that most of the hits are to alt.ascii-art, but far from all are. Also note that it meets both the alternate and the "alternate alternate" proposals on WP:COMIC; it has been on the web for more than four years, has over 600 strips, and was not written by the comic's creator. —Cryptic (talk) 13:38, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think you're letting your preference for either web comics or this particular web comic cloud your judgement, Cryptic. Anything web based that has been around for four years and doesn't manage to amass more than 1,000 Google hits is inherently obscure and non-notable. This is no better than all those garage bands who try to convince us to keep their vanity pages. / Peter ^Isotalo 15:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not sure how Zoe narrowed her search, but a bare "Nerd Boy" gets 62,700, 669 of which are unique. Obviously not all are relevant, but the comic does get the #1 hit. —Cryptic (talk) 15:25, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; please stop the insanity. ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^{(Contributions)} 23:58, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a one-newsgroup phenomenon. — Phil Welch 00:03, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The web-comics are not bad. --Vsion 00:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- We're voting on whether it deserves an encyclopedic article, not whether either a certain web comic or web comic in general are bad. Historical personalities can be deleted for getting fewer than 166 Google hits, and this thing exists only online. It's not even remotely popular among its peers. / Peter ^Isotalo 12:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which historical personality was deleted for having fewer than 166 google hits? Kappa 13:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - How about you explain to us why 166 Google hits is enough to call a web comic notable instead? / Peter ^Isotalo 15:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - To clarify my earlier comment: I was actually about to vote delete until I looked at the comics strips, I was really impressed and decided that it deserves an encyclopedic article. --Vsion 16:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        You mean this suddenly became notable because you like it? Peter ^Isotalo 22:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - If you make an implausible assertion like that, you should be prepared to back it up. Kappa 18:09, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        You mean like calling practically every bit of fictional trivia nominated here as "Notable XXX"? Yeah, that'd be different. --Calton | Talk 21:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is the most successful ASCII-art webcomic. The genre-defining one. What's next? VfDing Megatokyo? Grue 15:24, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --Calton | Talk 21:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The idea that notability can be obtained via Google Groups results is mindboggling; by that standard, I wouldn't be surprised if I'm more notable than this is. Searching for "Nerd Boy" by itself is not exactly germane to the discussion; even in the realm of webcomics, it's more notable as a catchphrase in Sluggy Freelance. -Sean Curtin 23:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It's popular on Usenet because it was posted in Usenet. It's ASCII art, man. It can be posted in text newsgroups, like alt.ascii-art. I can post a message there and this vote would be swamped by thousands of Nerd Boy fans (by the way, search for "nerdboy" as well for more hits). Internet is not only World Wide Web but also other networks. Wikipedia shouldn't limit itself to WWW when describing various Internet phenomena. Grue 13:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you want to make a point about the notability of webcomics, this is not the place to do it. / Peter ^Isotalo 13:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Dottore So 15:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain how comic translated into two languages by fans is "nn". It would be funny that Polish and Swedish Wikipedias have an article about Nerd Boy, while English doesn't. Grue 16:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a notable usenet comic, and has also a notable fan-base. I would attempt to use Google's Search facility correctly to those Deletionists who have no clue: i.e. TYPE IN "Nerd Boy web comic" and presto: Nerd Boy on GooglePiecraft 02:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume you're not being serious. That's a search for each word separately. Applying that technique would make anything look super-notable. The proper search is +"Nerd Boy" +"web comic". / Peter ^Isotalo 21:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think it's part of internet history now, like maybe bastard operator from hell. Btw, judging something by "google hits" and "alexa ranking" reminds me Asimov's Fundation; i remember paragraph about research. Janusz 07:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe it's quite well known. I also think it's more of a usenet comic than a webcomic; that sets it apart from most of the other webcomics here. It's also one of the very few ascii art webcomics; that should also counts for something. Oliphaunt 19:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's verifiable and wiki isn't paper. It doesn't come under any point at What Wikipedia is not. ··gracefool |☺ 14:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. IceKarma ॐ 03:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

L'Filme Prom 2005

Appears non-notable. Article basically says it was made by an "unnamed soldier", edited by a teenager, and shown exactly once, at a school. Unless there is more to the story, it's hard to see how this merits an encyclopedia article. Jmabel | Talk 05:33, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article basically claims the subject is non-notable. --A D Monroe III 09:53, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn, unencyclopedic. — Phil Welch 00:05, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. I interpret the article as a confirmation of inherent lack of notability. The difference between that and an actual request from the author to have it deleted is only bureaucratic. / Peter ^Isotalo 12:54, 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. IceKarma ॐ 03:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indik

Discussion moved from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English:

Looks like Spanish. -- PFHLai 04:29, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm not much of a bar goer, I have no clue how true this is, but I translated it.--Orgullomoore 04:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The only Thomas Indik that google returns is an attourney in Philadelphia, may be a retarded joke....--Orgullomoore 04:08, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another note: The same text has been submitted to the corresponding article on es: and was deleted as patent nonesense--Orgullomoore 04:13, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No citation. I'm guessing false or non-notable. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Bartending Wikibook or delete. I'm calling Uncle G to resolve this. — Phil Welch 00:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's a cocktail recipe plus the claimed name of its inventor and some alternative names. The article tells us that this cocktail was invented some three weeks ago. Google turns up nothing, there's nothing by this name in any of my cocktail recipe books, and the article of course cites no sources. As far as Wikipedia goes, this therefore appears to be original research — the promulgation of a new cocktail using Wikipedia.
Wikibooks has a no original research policy as well. (See What is Wikibooks?.) Although it is (for obvious reasons) a strict one when it comes to educational textbooks, there is little precedent for its application to recipes. Given the problems with this recipe, I haven't transwikified it. Instead, I've left a note on the talk page for the Cocktails section of the Bartending wikibook. This is only worth transwikification if any of the Wikibooks editors dealing with that book, having read this discussion, express a desire to have this recipe.
Delete. Uncle G 01:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per Uncle G. / Peter ^Isotalo 12:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Dottore So 15:58, 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 DELETED as COPYVIO, after listing on WP:CP for >7 days. -Splash^talk 21:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rene Guyon Society

Regardless of the offensive nature of the subject matter, this article is completely lacking any academic sources or historical perspective, rather it's a blatant advertisement for a group engaged in criminal paedophilic activities. 141.155.18.15 05:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why you might think that, but it's actually lifted from a site which opposes child abuse. As such, I've tagged it as copyvio. As a prominent and controversial legislator, Rene Guyon is probably a worthy subject for an article, but this isn't it. TheMadBaron 06:30, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another NAMBLA-like association? Please provide some very compelling evidence of notability and I might change my mind. / Peter ^Isotalo 12:59, 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 RESULT: Withdrawn by nominator after rewrite, keep Pilatus 09:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lisbon Oceanarium

~~Barely any info its just an gallery that shows some of the fish you cant find there look a bit promotional Delete --Aranda56 06:08, 18 September 2005 (UTC)~~ Keep now Nice Save by Pilatus --Aranda56 20:17, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it is a pretty good museum and just need to be expanded; and there is a corresponding article on the Portuguese wikipedia Oceanário de Lisboa. --Vsion 11:33, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This one is actually one of the attractions of Lisbon. The place was built for the EXPO 1999 to improve what used to be part of the port. Pilatus 11:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this stub should be expanded into a full article JoJan 16:15, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pilatus's rewrite which is now a good little article on a building that has some significance in Portugal. Capitalistroadster 23:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Some significance? Oh come on!! It's impressive and well-kept, and according to Encarta the biggest of its kind in Europe! Pilatus 18:21, 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. IceKarma ॐ 03:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glamorgan v Northamptonshire 4 September 2005

Please see discussion page on general inclusion of sports results.

A very NN cricket game. Wikipedia is not a scoreboard Delete --Aranda56 06:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are many of those nn matches in here Category:2005 English cricket season matches could someone group up some of those matches and place them in VFD. Wikipedia is not a scoreboard. --Aranda56 06:54, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Essex_v_Glamorgan_15_May_2005 and Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Nottinghamshire_v_Yorkshire_26_June_2005. We have debated this before and agreed (well, mostly agreed), that since this is a convenient method for writing the season wrap-ups for each team and competition while the season is in progress, it should stay until the season is over at least. (yes, I'm the original author). And the 2005 English cricket season in itself is notable, as can be seen by its coverage on BBC. Sam Vimes 07:15, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per every previous time this has been discussed. --Ngb^?!? 07:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This has been discussed before. Stephen Turner 08:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This has been disucussed to death and they have not been deleted. Please let it go. CalJW 09:12, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is rapidly becoming very silly. [[Sam Korn]] 11:03, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep --PopUpPirate 11:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Ian ≡ talk 11:42, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Kappa 12:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- It seems POV, but -- Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information/News reports -- this article appears to be a firsthand news report on a particular game that will almost certainly not be notable. --Mysidia (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I can guarantee it's not a first-hand report. The author is Norweigan. [[Sam Korn]] 18:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article presents itself as a first-hand report, and does not identify a source for the report other than itself, which is what matters, regardless of the nationality of the editor who wrote the text. Another issue, which is verifiability -- articles on Wikipedia need to cite sources; Wikipedia's not the place to put original research, essays, etc -- any major point of views mentioned ultimately need a a source, and things like firsthand reports have a problem here, as well. Wikipedia's role is to document the notable points of view, not to form or describe new opinions about subjects written about in articles, but this article cites no source for the description given, only a stray link to score numbers. --Mysidia (talk) 22:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - On the contrary, that link entirely verifies the entire article. It may not be clear to someone who doesn't understand exactly how cricket works, but that isn't our fault. The information is true, the information is verifiable. It is even going to be merged soon. Are you going to continue to ignore that fact? [[Sam Korn]] 22:42, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oh really, what verifies this statement: Northamptonshire Steelbacks got themselves into a commanding position before rain intervened at Sophia Gardens? --Mysidia (talk) 00:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        It is verified by the scorecard - they scored 282 runs in the space of 45 overs - which, FYI, is a fairly high score in cricket. Glamorgan then scored much slower, and lost a wicket, hence the commanding position. Sam Vimes 05:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is Wikipedia to be cluttered up with every non-notable local sports result in the world? How many of the Keep's above are neutral and not cricket fans? Anthony Appleyard 18:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It's true. It's verifiable. It's going to be merged into a bigger article soon enough. What are people's issues with these pages? As for the neutrality thing, anyone is allowed to place their comments on an AfD nomination. It just happens that many of these nominations have happened before, so cricket fans on Wikipedia are used to coming together to deal with this kind of stuff. Neutrality is quite clearly not an issue. If users were neutral, after all, they wouldn't have an opinion to keep or to delete! (I jest, by the way—I know you meant that the above users are biased.) What harm does keeping this article do? [[Sam Korn]] 18:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If all those cricket scores get Merge it is ok for me and i willing to change my vote. I know for sure that most of those games should not have a individual article. --Aranda56 19:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, they will get merged, and soon. That isn't, by the way, as a consequence of AfD decisions, rather because that was always what was going to happen. [[Sam Korn]] 19:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am willing to help with the merge but how? I dont know much about cricket so I dont know how to merge those types of articles. --Aranda56 20:21, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - They need to be merged in a particularly sympathetic way. Don't worry, Wikiproject Cricket will sort it all out! They need to be merged in different ways for different articles, to make the whole page work together. You needn't worry about helping, as it's a job for someone who knows about cricket! Best, [[Sam Korn]] 20:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        For exactly this kind of project userspace has been invented. Move to userspace or just delete, this isn't cricketpedia, or scorewiki. Pilatus 23:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        These were originally in subpages, and that was ruled as inappropriate. So they were moved to articles. These are notable sporting events, with international attention. They are real, they are verifiable. Why the vendetta??? Guettarda 00:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Because criket is loathed in every country outside the 4-5 where it is actually played? --193.166.11.251 07:56, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete of non-notable reports of minor sports events, for the reasons stated in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Northamptonshire_v_Somerset_29_June_2005 -- MCB 21:42, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you even read the rest of this page? Or, for that matter, the other one? This seems like an opinion given out of nothing other than ignorance of what this page is and will be. Please read before giving your opinion. [[Sam Korn]] 21:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why, as a matter of fact I have, and if you have read my comment in the other AfD, I have no idea, beyond a personal attack, why you would believe my position is "ignorant". What no one has convinced me of is why Wikipedia should contain reports of daily ordinary sports events in general, or that English league cricket match results are notable in specific, regardless of whether they are in their own articles, merged into a big article, or whatever. There are far better ways of organizing and presenting this material on the Web; create a SportsWiki or a CricketWiki, but please don't clutter Wikipedia with daily sports results. -- MCB 02:43, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information/News reports. WMMartin 22:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the sane people here. ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^{(Contributions)} 23:59, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep!!!! Not again. This is nonsense. See all the other VFD debates. Guettarda 00:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Important Comment: I have created a centralized discussion for this issue, in an attempt to reach consensus and not have the issue raised in a large number of individual AfDs. Please go to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Sports results and discuss on the discussion page. -- MCB 03:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, having this again is not productive. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:45, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet more shamelss sportscruft. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. / Peter ^Isotalo 12:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep We have discussed this before and agreed keep each time. Remember that this article is part of a series about the 2005 English cricket season. Effectively WP:Cricket is creating an almanack that will, in time, exceed Wisden in depth (though probably not renown). It's an excellent source that I use myself for checking on the season. Series of articles such as this are good for Wikipedia - and isn't that what we're all here for - improving WP? jguk 18:11, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Disturbing to say the least. If WP:Cricket wants to be taken seriously, I suggest you first lobby for some sort of cricket clause in the official policy. Doing it this way is not improving WP; it's creating an internal CricketPedia without establishing a reasonable consensus. We have WikiCities for those sort of things. / Peter ^Isotalo 20:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nonsense. One of WP's strongest points (and one of the reasons for its great success) is its willingness to accept all information. Consider how we're a great resource for Pokemon information, and info on Star Trek. There's even a Klingon WP! This sort of in depth info is what makes WP great. If you don't want to read this section, that's fine - but it's useful info for those who do want to read it, jguk 20:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Jon is quite right. I also would note that WikiCities would not allow a wiki that covers area that Wikipedia could also cover. Your two points: creating an internal CricketPedia without establishing a reasonable consensus see WP:BOLD; I suggest you first lobby for some sort of cricket clause in the official policy oh come on. We are no more special than anyone else. I don't mind any subject having this kind of in-depth topic, even Pokemon. So long as it is verifiable, and at least borderline encyclopaedic, it should be kept. [[Sam Korn]] 22:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep once again, see previous arguments. Hiding talk 18:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The previous arguments border on nonsense. --Calton | Talk 21:11, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hint hint! Grue 13:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Dottore So 16:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - See above. Also see previous VfDs, all of which lost. --Peripatetic 13:47, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ditto. Tintin 10:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. ··gracefool |☺ 14:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. IceKarma ॐ 03:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interop Show Network

Brochure-speak, non-notable topic. --Jasonuhl 06:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - reads like an ad. --Daveb 13:11, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very little context, though just barely enough to stop me from marking it as a CSD. — Phil Welch 02:58, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. / Peter ^Isotalo 13:00, 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. IceKarma ॐ 03:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Web Technologies

Unheard of Indian company (which is debatable, since it does not seem to be a listed company and seems more like a small firm). Looks like a promotional page, created by User:Creative Stev. Pamri • Talk 06:52, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: NN Indian company. Pamri is correct. --Bhadani 12:32, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - advertising JoJan 16:12, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mainly due to verifiability issues. I suspect this is about as notable as your local elementary school, which is always kept in these arguments anyway. — Phil Welch 02:57, 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. IceKarma ॐ 03:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How Long's A Tear Take To Dry?

Non-notable song. Should not have its own article. KC the MoUsY spell-checker 07:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since not much content than the lyrics can be added, and lyrics are copyvio. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 07:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC) Keep -- (☺drini♫|☎) 05:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyvio. However, this song may be worth an article. The Beautiful South are a notable UK act and this song appeared on a Greatest Hits compilation Solid Bronze: Greatest Hits see [8].The song appeared on the Quench album which was debuted at #1 on the UK charts. The first single from the album "Perfect 10" was a top 5 hit see allmusic.com article on the album. [9]. Keep and expand thje rewrite the article.Capitalistroadster 23:51, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - cleanup etc. contains a reference to TARDIS... ;) --TimPope 12:11, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if rewritten. Kappa 16:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep important single (and by one of my favourite bands as well). I've expanded it a bit, will probably add more later. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If Andrew finds a picture of the single cover, I'll be happy to do a singles infobox, let me know. Alf ^melmac 11:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A non-notable song by a slightly notable band. / Peter ^Isotalo 13:01, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ··gracefool |☺ 14:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. IceKarma ॐ 03:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mental Arts

This seems to be a fake. Google doesn't provide any reliable hits for "îthari order" beside some obscure forums. Zinnmann 09:01, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it doesn't since this was once a secret art; there are't yet many informations about this in the internet. There was an article like this in the German Wikipedia that was (insolently) deleted even though many of my German colleagues told the administration that it was no fake. I find it rather disturbing that it is still not accepted. So how many more people have to come and tell you that we're not faking around? There are Thousands of people, more than enough I'd say... --Paosa 15:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unverifiable, and highly improbable. There's nothing on Google for "Îthari Order", and nothing for "Allen McCloud" and "Mental Arts".... secrecy notwithstanding, if this were a 40,000 strong movement, that would be very strange. TheMadBaron 16:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Probabilities aren't applicable here; what you think to be likely/unlikely is only your business. As far as I'm informed, McCloud is a member of the German Wiki; he's keeping himself out of this discussion though. --Paosa 18:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Secret" equals "unverifiable" equals unencyclopedic. Or a hoax. --A D Monroe III 20:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Insolently voting delete. And what's an analogon? User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverifiable and stupid. I made up dumb shit like this when I was a dorky kid too but I didn't waste other people's time posting it on Wikipedia. (Which didn't exist.) — Phil Welch 02:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a probable hoax.Vizjim 11:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some secret societies are verfiable. This one doesn't seem to be. --Ashenai 11:03, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Likely hoax. --Fire Star 17:34, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep. A friend of mine is mental artist, therefore it's no hoax. --84.176.96.31 19:04, 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. · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:03, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Necktie suicide

NN/Vanity. Garage band at this moment. But good lucks though. Hurricane111 21:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No Allmusic.com entry. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Resubmitting. Only one vote before. --Woohookitty 09:32, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Friday (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. And I quote: "In the evoloution of metal, Necktie Suicide is undeniably the next level of conciousness. A 5 headed beast that has won over their midwest confines without major-label support or buying into the gimmick heavy world of cheese before integrity and ego before talent. Necktie Suicide started out of the ashes of 2 prominant bands in the Fargo, ND area…" — Phil Welch 03:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with necktie, no indication of meeting any WP:MUSIC criteria per allmusic or article. Barno 07:26, 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. IceKarma ॐ 03:35, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Taweesup Apiwattanapong

Non notable biography. jmd 09:52, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO. Kappa 12:26, 18 September 2005 (UTC) [reply]
Delete. Great name, though. Pburka 15:51, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 572 Google hits; and he has written several scientific papers. JoJan 16:09, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you demonstrate that his papers have made any difference to the sum of human knowledge? Kappa 16:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - So you're asserting that his papers duplicate previous work? Who are you to make that kind of judgment? ··gracefool |☺ 14:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not concerned about originality, so much as whether anyone takes them seriously or they are completely ignored. However I will withdraw my delete vote in sympathy with your arguments. Kappa
Delete. There is no evidence in the article of any claim to notability. Uppland 19:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN grad student. Suggest he become an elementary school. Sdedeo 19:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, grad student at Georgia Tech, with only 47 unique hits. All publications are papers, no books. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:54, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I would personally consider scientific papers to be more "prestigious" than books. Anyone can self-publish a book (remember our friend Figleeeeeeeeeo?). Not everyone can get a paper into The American Journal of Emergency Medicine, for example.--inks 23:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as nn-bio. Academic papers are all well and good, but there's tons of people who have them. It's no assertion of notability. Not tagged, since it already was, and was reverted. IMO the tag was valid, but obviously there's disagreement. Friday (talk) 02:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This fellow has not been published in The American Journal of Emergency Medicine so inks' point is irrelevant. Yet another grad student—I wish the best to this fellow but he doesn't get a WP bio at this point. — Phil Welch 03:11, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - academic papers are an assertion of notability. Besides "notability, it's verifiable and wiki isn't paper. It doesn't come under any point at What Wikipedia is not. ··gracefool |☺ 14:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. IceKarma ॐ 03:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Herowar

Alexa rank 160,000 [10]. Not notable internet RPG. feydey 09:59, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per feydey. Deyyaz 03:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. — Phil Welch 03:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per nominator. / Peter ^Isotalo 13:03, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's verifiable and wiki isn't paper. It doesn't come under any point at What Wikipedia is not. ··gracefool |☺ 14:49, 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: merge and redirect. Paul August ☎ 01:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Faith Hicks

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. Merge and redirect to Demonology 101. —Cryptic (talk) 11:09, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge per Cryptic. Pburka 15:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. — Phil Welch 03:15, 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 TRANSWIKI to Wikisource and delete. -Splash^talk 00:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fire Sermon

Not much encyclopedic content - needs edit, transwiki, or removal. 04:23, 18 September 2005 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.212.247 (talk • contribs)

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Primary source material: wikisource if this translation can be determined to be public ___domain; delete otherwise. —Cryptic (talk) 11:02, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki or delete per Cryptic. — Phil Welch 03:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Transwiki if Wiktionary wants it. / Peter ^Isotalo 13:04, 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. IceKarma ॐ 03:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FJF

Google search results for "FunnyJunk Forums" — 10 hits
Google search results for "FunnyJunk Forum" — 31 hits

Delete. — Ringbang 21:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Delete, forum vanity. Alexa rank 3,999,251 for the forum being advertised. —Cryptic (talk) 11:05, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. — Phil Welch 03:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ridiculously non-notable. / Peter ^Isotalo 13:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete of course, per above. Friday (talk) 14:53, 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. IceKarma ॐ 03:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flash Halo: CTF

This game lacks a reaon for coverage on wikipedia and quite frankly it sucks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.186.135.154 (talk • contribs) 08:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Delete, non-notable online game variant and probable linkspam. The referenced site has no Alexa ranking at all. —Cryptic (talk) 10:57, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn linkspam. — Phil Welch 03:19, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Flashcruft. / Peter ^Isotalo 13:08, 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 MERGE to Democrat in Name Only. The target already has such a section which does not include all the info from here. I'm not going to merge this myself, but will add a tag. -Splash^talk 00:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fox News liberal

This article should be deleted because it is a neologism. That is, the article defines a phrase "fox news liberal", but I find no google results which use use the phrase as a cohesive whole as described in the article. For example, there appear resuts such as "Colmes is the Fox News liberal counterpoint to Hannity". I also find no use of the term desribe someone who is or was not literally on Fox News (whereas the article's point is to describe a phrase which could be applied to those not literally on Fox News). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.127.147.125 (talk • contribs) 04:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Merge with Democrat in Name Only. Article was nominated VFD by someone without an account. While that is not forbidden, it is possible that a political bias could be present. That being said, however, I agree that the article does not appear much on a google search. However, since the article is already referenced at political locations such as dKosopedia, it is likely that the term may not be a "neologism", but a term whose use is on the increase. To me, merging with the DINO article seems to be the most sensible course of action.--Mitsukai 04:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article is copied from dKosopedia. That text is also under the GFDL, but Wikipedia's article should cite the source. Also, we should make sure that the term appears in places other than dKos, as it might have been invented by that article's writer. Twinxor t 05:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it copied from dKosopedia? A cursory look that I took made me think this was the older article (though it was a cursory look; I may have erred). It could very well be a neologism, if that's the case.--Mitsukai 13:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with DINO. After looking at the situation surrounding Cindy Sheehan, I agree. There is political bias among the writers. This article is either a Keep or Merge. It doesn't really matter to me that people have favorable or unfavorable support for our President and anyone in politics. But it would be fair to keep a neutral stance to addressing people. And let's not put too much NPOV for certain names. I mean when I first done it, I thought it was just point out O'Reilly and Dean, but nowadays I refuse to use that tag-line unless describing a hot-button issue. LILVOKA 14:33 26, August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Aside from the dKosopedia hit, the only hits on a google serach for this phrase are to Wikipedia articles where it is being used. This is an attempt to use Wikipedia to coin a new phrase and should be deleted. — Linnwood 05:56, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 10:53, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inherently subjective and anecdotal. I'm nominating DINO as well. / Peter ^Isotalo 17:00, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, term appears to be current (and separate from "DINO"), but needs to cite sources. Please don't nominate DINO, it will be an annoying experience for all. Sdedeo 19:17, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this, DINO, RINO, and similar. Inherently POV and non-encyclopedic, especially the lists. These are just political point-making at core. -- MCB 21:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not inherently NPOV, but a neologism. --Calton | Talk 21:19, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think this is ridiculous and probably made-up, but apparantly some others don't agree, and their opinions should be respected. --Matt Yeager 00:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as appropriate, and redirect to DINO. Oh, and some notable sources would be nice, too. Alai 00:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge ··gracefool |☺ 16:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This entry is the epitome of NPOV. Its connotation is a point of view on Fox News's (supposed?) political bias. One can not understand the meaning of the phrase unless one take a certain view of Fox News. — Linnwood 00:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The term is POV, but having an article about a POV term is not inherently POV. Paul August ☎ 02:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be a neologism, would need references to demonstrate otherwise. — Paul August ☎ 02:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neologism. I see no serious arguments for keeping; not a single source cited, and I couldn't find one, either. The article's wildly inaccurate to boot: Susan Estrich, who just got into a big pissing match to the left of Michael Kinsley, is hardly a DINO; and no one tries to claim Zell Miller is a liberal. The Susan Estrich article needs to be cleaned up, as well. -- FRCP11 04:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to DINO, and another call for citations. --Dhartung | Talk 06:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think without citations, it should be considered a neologism and there should be no article titled "Fox News liberal" i.e it should be deleted. I think most or all of the content could probably be merged somewhere else, (DINO seems reasonable), and the term could perhaps even be discussed after the manner some have used the term "Fox News liberal" to describe … or the even weaker: could be described as a "Fox News liberal. Paul August ☎ 16:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge with Furby. Anyone should feel free to do the merge at their convenience. · Katefan0^(scribble) 17:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Furbish

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. Merge and redirect to Furby. —Cryptic (talk) 11:11, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as per Cryptic Dlyons493 19:08, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect.♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^{(Contributions)} 00:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. — Phil Welch 03:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NN. ComCat 04:56, 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. IceKarma ॐ 03:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Emailcracy

Neologism. Thue | talk 11:27, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete while it has been observed that any word + cracy forms a valid protologism, we don't catalogue them on wikipedia! — brighterorange (talk) 13:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete crap article. — Phil Welch 03:21, 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. IceKarma ॐ 03:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Jackson

Probably not notable, as there are no google hits for "Greg Jackson" "Jackson Worldwide". Thue | talk 11:54, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. I used the db-bio template for this, and I'm surprised that it's been moved to afd - this seems like the exact situation that db-bio was created for. — ciphergoth 12:01, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- He does claim to be the founder and president of a worldwide corporation, which is an assertion of notability. Thue | talk 12:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I understand the distinction you're drawing. Thanks for clarifying - I'll use afd in such cases in future. — ciphergoth 16:21, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unverifiable or per WP:BIO. Kappa 12:25, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Founder of a non-notable company. Moving it to AfD was the right decision, IMO. Pburka 15:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN JoJan 16:02, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn bio about a founder of a nn company. -GregAsche (talk) 18:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nn-bio. Having named his company "Jackson Worldwide" is no assertion of notability. Friday (talk) 02:19, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Except to himself. Delete, not speedy for Thue's reason. Barno 07:31, 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. IceKarma ॐ 03:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blogsploitation

Neologism, listed as a protologism on Wiktionary (Wiktionary:List of protologisms#B). - Sikon 11:57, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete protologisms, even if apt. — brighterorange (talk) 13:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - protologism with a little POV added. TheMadBaron 16:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blogcruft dicdef. / Peter ^Isotalo 16:57, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not the Urban Dictionary. — Phil Welch 03:22, 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. — JIP | Talk 19:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AC/DC: The World's Heaviest Rock by Martin Huxley

Advert The curate's egg 13:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete non-encyclopedic article. probably a copyvio from amazon. — brighterorange (talk) 13:41, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per brighterorange - see [11] for copyvio. TheMadBaron 16:33, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyvio. Capitalistroadster 23:53, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete copyvio. — Phil Welch 03:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Save Just as relevant as other litery entries

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. IceKarma ॐ 03:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan hammond

NN Vanity The curate's egg 13:27, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

speedy as nn-bio (added tag). — brighterorange (talk) 13:42, 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 userfy. · Katefan0^(scribble) 17:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Matlab code for the simulation of detection of radius of stars

Not an article. Should be userfied to User:Loisel or transwikied to source. — brighterorange (talk) 13:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy or transwiki per nominator. Pburka 15:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with template cleanup JoJan 16:00, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. TheMadBaron 16:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy, vanity, not an encyclopedia article. If I create a bunch of pretty pictures, do I get to have an article? User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:57, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy to creator User:Loisel - this is not an article in its present form and it is not clear how it will develop into an article.--AYArktos 00:12, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy, don't keep in main namespace. Not an article. — Phil Welch 03:34, 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 MERGE to Tree (mythology). Not that I have the foggiest what "deciduous" means, but the consensus is clear enough, and both articles are in the form of lists, not prose, so merging should be easy enough. — JIP | Talk 19:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deciduous Trees (mythology)

This is very cleanly done, but it doesn't seem to be, well, to be saying very much. There are trees in various mythologies, yes, but the fact that they're deciduous trees doesn't really play a part. If it grows Magical Apples, then the relevant part is that it's an Apple tree, not that apple trees are deciduous. Also, maybe it's part of the magic/religiosity/whatever that this particular tree isn't deciduous? Unless the story specifies, we can't know either way. It'd be like assessing the blood types of mythological figures based on the predominant blood types of the ethnic groups in which the mythologies arose. DS 13:58, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, nicely done but seems like a "novel interpretation", ie. original research. Kappa 15:32, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright merge facts with Tree (mythology) but without mentioning deciduousness unless relevant. Kappa 16:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge with Tree (mythology). Pburka 15:37, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:If there was a myth where the fact that trees lost their leaves and regrew them was significant, and I'm sure there must be, it would be worth mentioning somewhere. Kappa
Merge with Tree (Mythology) as per Pburka above. Jkelly 16:23, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Tree (mythology)--AYArktos 00:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Kappa's most recent comment above. I give little attention to myths and legends so I don't have any good examples coming to mind. I'm not sure this title is a better place than a subsection within a mythology article or the one cited by Pburka. Barno 07:37, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

comment - If you cannot think of the legend though ... I can't think a legend you can't think of is a reason to keep as opposed to have a section in the existing article. The present article's content does not justify the position.--AYArktos 08:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Kappa. Alf ^melmac 11:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree to a merge except that I think the information here is very off-base. Since this is an AfD, shouldn't the discussion be centred around whether the information is useful, relevant or accurate? I think this should be deleted because it implies a connection (deciduous) that is simply wrong. True, the trees may be deciduous, but that is not why the cultures mythologised or iconicised them and this suggests otherwise. That is misleading. Dottore So 16:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge ··gracefool |☺ 16:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, clearly if anyone knows anything about myths or legends they'd realise these are in fact deciduous as explained by the author. Although I do agree there lacks enough sources for information. Piecraft 01:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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} ----- 06:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Escalator Productivity

This isn't complete gibberish, so I guess it can't be speedily deleted. It ought to go away, though, leaving no trace. Pilatus 15:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is an encyclopedia; all bona fide information is appropriate, and the proper threshold for "notability" is "does it exist?". This topic meets both these criteria; therefore, it belongs here. Kurt Weber 15:41, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Does it exist?" I'd say no. Unverifiable, probable hoax/joke article. android79 15:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It certainly does exist...all that has to be true for a theory to exist is for it to be stated somewhere--and it is at Escalator Productivity. Kurt Weber 16:26, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - If this "scientific theory" exists only on Wikipedia, then it is original research and should be deleted. android79 18:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - That it is "original research" is not a valid reason for deletion. The policy may claim otherwise, but the policy is wrong. Kurt Weber 20:27, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Deletion policy explicitly lists original research as a reason for deletion. No original research is one of Wikipedia's core policies. So are What Wikipedia is not and Verifiability, which this article also fail miserably. I am dumbfounded at the continued defense of what is essentially a joke. If the "policy is wrong," feel free to attempt to change it through consensus. android 79 21:25, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Unfortunately, the wrong policy came about through consensus; "consensus" is as flawed as the policies it creates. Kurt Weber 21:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - probable hoax; no Google hits JoJan 15:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing on google/ content doesn't make sense; This is probably a made up vanity page by the contributer (who also tried to add to Pace University and Trey Thomspon). --Howrealisreal 16:09, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:NOT wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Including any theory ever invented by anyone is indiscriminate. Kappa 16:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Well put, Kappa. / Peter ^Isotalo 16:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. TheMadBaron 17:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Kappa. --Andy Janata 17:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Kappa. Thue | talk 18:12, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per Kappa. Ditto on Karmosin's comment, btw, I don't think anyone could have said it better than that. When the creator of a subject in question whines and moans about the process on here, it usually means that they have nothing to show that it's notable. Karmafist 23:53, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - effectively original research if only stated online on wikipedia; Google search gave no effective results [12].--AYArktos 00:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and sentence the writer to walking up the escalators in the Washington Metro. Those are some serious escalators... Meelar (talk) 03:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- ... especially when the power is out. Barno 07:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - original research.Vizjim 11:03, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable even if not original research. I tend toward inclusionism but there must be a line somewhere. If this article were to survive, next would be an article on Extreme Inclusionism -- "a theory developed by James M. Lane, which states that some people want to put (or leave) inappropriate articles in Wikipedia." JamesMLane 00:01, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kappa. (I commented just so I could write that:))—encephalon εγκέφαλον 04:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bogus. Jonathunder 05:21, 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. IceKarma ॐ 03:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The watching stars

Non-notable band that doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC. Google only turns up links to bad poetry. Quicksandish 15:44, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no assertion of notability. Chick Bowen 18:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. TheMadBaron 21:13, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per nominator. / Peter ^Isotalo 13:07, 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. IceKarma ॐ 03:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MVP Network Stars

Delete. Not notable. android 79 15:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vanity page, not linked to from any other page. Turnstep 17:04, 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. IceKarma ॐ 03:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vemula

Orphaned page seems to be a page associated with a specific surname. There isn't a specific individual referenced to --BradBeattie 15:59, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom --SoothingR 16:17, 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. IceKarma ॐ 03:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan mauro

Being "the youngest hired geopolitical analyst" does not sound notable to me, and it will become less and less notable as he is growing older. It is also rather difficult to verify. The book mentioned in the article is not (yet) known at the Library of Congress. Austrian 15:58, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "As it turns out, tracking terror is no easy feat. Particularly when you live with your parents." Lots of Google hits to his own Web site. Anyone know the background to the Northeast Intelligence Network? Dlyons493 19:27, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. As for the Northeast Intelligence Network, after some digging, they appear to be a private organization run by a private detective which sifts through the net and news sources looking for terrorist threats and intelligence. They seem to be highly Islamophobic, and seem to claim that everything bad that has ever happened since 9/11 was caused by Islamic terrorists (blackouts, train derailments, etc.). Although some of their work does seem reasonable. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability, per above. Friday (talk) 02:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I thought about nominating this myself, but instead added a cleanup-tag. Borderline notable for web presence, interview on milnet, etc., given age. Jkelly 04:42, 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. IceKarma ॐ 03:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Erxleben

~~I dunno what this guy did, but it must be something horribly non-notable. Delete. --SoothingR 16:13, 18 September 2005 (UTC)~~ The article is much better now; No reason to remove it--SoothingR 09:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn v Forbsey 16:23, 18 September 2005 (UTC) Keep Article much improved after expansion Forbsey 08:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep noted NFL player and college record-holder. -- Decumanus 22:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Former NFL Player who played 10 Years and it passed my Sport Card test --Aranda56 23:08, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, former NFL player. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:11, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NFL players, former or current. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:47, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have no prob with this article. Alf ^melmac 19:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ··gracefool |☺ 16:54, 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 Speedied. android 79 19:09, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trey Thomspon

Non-verifiable nonsense does not have a place in Wikipedia. --Howrealisreal 16:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily delete the nonsense. Pilatus 16:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's not nonsense; it's an article on an actual person. As this is an encyclopedia, all bona fide information belongs here and the proper threshold for notability is "does it exist?". Kurt Weber 16:26, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How can you defend this garbage? What is your basis for saying it is bona fide?--Howrealisreal 17:08, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Average Earthman 18:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Six billion people exist. Merely existing does not make you notable. And anyway, if Trey Thompson developed the theory of Escalator Productivity, as claimed, it's a safe bet that Trey Thomspon does not, in fact, exist. TheMadBaron 16:59, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per criterion A7. NatusRoma 17:21, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete well put mad baron. Abstrakt 17:33, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. --Andy Janata 17:45, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Thue | talk 18:12, 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. IceKarma ॐ 04:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flaps 40

Neologistic drug-related dicdef. The top 100 Google hits show nothing apart from the (actual) aviation term, and Urban Dictionary hasn't even heard of it in this sense. Delete (barring a really good rewrite on the aviation term) — Lomn | Talk / RfC 16:20, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kepp. Just because you aren't tamiliair with commerical airline pilot drugs culture doesn' make it a neologism. Think about that next time you are flying to Guarharlos Airport please thank you.Wiki brah 16:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki brah is the Author of that article. --Aranda56 21:11, 18 September 2005 (UTC) And oh yeah Delete[reply]
Delette. Commercial aviation slang. Wikipedia is not a slang and idiom guide. / Peter ^Isotalo 16:53, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per nom. "Flying at Flaps 40" gets a single Google hit that isn't even a slang usage. Even as a "strait" aviation terminology, it only gets 1,620 entries in a Google search, although I would support a keep if it was rewritten and expanded to be only a word used in aviation with nothing in the article about the supposed slang usage. Kasper Gutman 17:01, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Kasper, it would still just be a dicdef of a specific type of sluggishness. It's inherently unencyclopedic. / Peter ^Isotalo 17:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Arcane term (probably used by "Camo dudes" -- remember that great article?) better suited to a slang dictionary. paul klenk 23:01, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, more nonsense by Wiki brah. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:15, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - at best a dicdef - but most likely nonsense from a creator who has long since disproved our assumptions of good faith. ESkog 03:08, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons stated. My brother is a commercial pilot and I have never heard him use this term. - Lucky 6.9 03:17, 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. IceKarma ॐ 04:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CSCCD

Delete as neologism. Googling for CSCCD "Computer System Configuration Control Document" brings up only a WP mirror. -- Avocado 16:45, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not one of the acronyms I've come across in Configuration Control - even if it exits I see no need for it in wiki. Dlyons493 19:29, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unencyclopedic. Whitejay²⁵¹ 01:50, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only one google entry (itself) as indicated above. Never heard the term. Groeck 03:39, 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 KEEP. IceKarma ॐ 04:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gong Shengliang

The creator of the page has previous soapbox tendencies. He has an extensive history of selectively including information to push an agenda.152.163.101.11
Keep. This article has a valid point. And apart from the minimal biashes, which can be easily edited out, the article is fine.
Delete Unless the person in this article is a notable political prisoner, I can not see a reason for keeping this article. I mean we just can not have an article for every non notable political prisoner can we? Abstrakt 17:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, political prisoner. We seem to be keeping individual cricket matches these days. Sdedeo 19:25, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Uhm, there's a pretty massive resistance against all that cricketcruft, and this has literally nothiung to do with sports. Motivate
    - Actually, previous discussions on cricket matches have resulted in a community decision to keep them. ··gracefool |☺ 17:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article says he was "sentenced to death in 2001, but because of international pressure, the sentence was reduced to life" in prison. "International pressure" would imply some notability, and google does find lots of hits. Jonathunder 17:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google turns out lots of hits (which corresponds to "international pressure" and notability). In addition, the fact that Chinese embassy spokesperson had to explain rational for detaining Gong Shengliang [13] verified there is significant "international pressure". --Hurricane111 23:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep per the last two posts, although I don't find all political prisoners notable. Wikipedia is not a forum for advocacy. Perhaps it would better meet prevailing Wikipedia practices if government thugs had dragged this person off from a cricket match. Barno 07:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is very obviously about promoting an anti-PRC agenda rather than informing about a notable persons life and achievements. This person is no different than any number of political prisoners. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. / Peter ^Isotalo 13:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Can I ask for a removal of the afd message ? This was written by an admin.

Sarcelles 22:19, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

please do not try to remove the afd message, Sarcelles please refer to the deletion process.
Keep, although the sources/references should be provided in the article. --Vsion 06:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Assume ill faith since creator has proven record of pro-Falungong POV pushing on de, fr, it and en wikipedia. Banned for such activities on de, fr and (I think,) it. Too many dissidents and political prisoners in China to be notable. Also, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xiong Wei. --Mib orovsky 20:02, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article should be kept based on it's potential merit, not the motivation of the originator. ··gracefool |☺ 17:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 23:46, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zhong Chan Er Bu

biased stub 152.163.101.12

Comment: I'm not familiar with the subject, but if the current treament of it is short and biased, then cleanup is the appropriate place for this article, not deletion. NatusRoma 20:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete creator of the article has had a history of creating biased articles to promote his own POV. Abstrakt 23:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Important and sourced.

Sarcelles 06:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Searching for ""Zhong Chan Er Bu" -wikipedia" on Google gets 56 hits, or 17 if duplicate pages are not counted. As such, we should treat this as a non notable and delete it. -- ran (talk) 03:22, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unverifiable. Paul August ☎ 02:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Josh Shipp

Josh Shipp is a notable motivational speaker focusing on youth and college-aged students. He has authored several books, hosted a popular reality television show, and is said to be one the youngest people in history to speak professionally.

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. IceKarma ॐ 04:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The current state of educational games website

OR Rich Farmbrough 17:22, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Rich Farmbrough 17:22, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unencyclopedic. / Peter ^Isotalo 17:26, 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. IceKarma ॐ 04:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Republican In Name Only

Inherently POV:ed article title that exsists merely to explain that all Republican don't actually live up to the Republican-stereotype. XXX in name only is in no way unique to either the US or US party politics and can be applied to literally any party affiliation, ideology, religious belief or general opinion and would be filled to the brim with POV garbage pretending to be "encyclopedic information" in notime. Naturally, it's also a verifiability nightmare and a breeding ground for political trolls. The Democratic equivalent has been nominated below. Delete per Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine. Peter ^Isotalo 17:23, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It looks to me like the main purpose of this article is to maintain a "list of enemies." Not very encyclopedic. Also, as long as we're ticking off problems, this is a complete neologism; the term is not, to the best of my knowledge, a term in wide use. Nandesuka 17:34, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It's in fairly wide use among the politicos in the US. It's new-ish, but I think it has probably survived long enough to be a thing referred to by others (i.e. my rule for "appearing in multiple contexts" and not poli-cruft). It's Yet Another Political Acronym, and it's one of those monstrously stupid "meme"s, but it has gotten traction. Geogre 02:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sigh. This is an extremely current term in the blogosphere and has been around for a long time, at least since 2000. Note that the article is not "Wikipedia's list of Republicans who are not true Republicans". RINO (and DINO) are common terms on the respective blogs like Redstate and the Dailykos -- not to mention the various TV shows and action groups that have also used these exact phrases and are listed in the article. A glance at the articles in question shows that they are well researched, well written, and extensively sourced. Before declaring something "garbage" please consider reading it first. Sdedeo 19:22, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although I like the sound of Dinos and Rhinos. Dlyons493 19:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I've seen this term in use in the partisan press, Human Events for instance. It's not a neologism, and it is a term in very wide use. Simply because Wikipedia isn't a propaganda machine doesn't mean Wikipedia shouldn't have articles on notable propaganda terms that have been used in the real as well as virtual press. — Phil Welch 19:42, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- But it's just a standard phrase applied to the two major political parties. I don't even see it a set term, let alone as an article. Just look at these googlings for communist Christian or even man. Should we expect more of these articles, or are the two biggest US political parties the only exceptions? / Peter ^Isotalo 21:15, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - IMO, one reasonable test that both these articles pass is that they would be recognized as acronyms: "RINO"/"DINO". There are lots of articles that could be termed "standard phrases" used for POV ends -- e.g., Strategic lawsuit against public participation. Nobody would use "CINO" and expect to be understood. Again, please look at the article, and the references linked. [14], e.g., or [15]. Sdedeo 22:30, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you search Google, you'll find a few instances of "LINO"; "labor in name only", so I don't buy that argument. An acronym does not make it unique. I can't comment on the legal article, since I don't know how common the term actually it is. But both the phrase and the entire concept is too common to deserve its own article. This just smacks of US-centrism to me. The goal of the article is also very diffuse and inherently problematic; what defines a Republican in the first place? Is it the party program? The stereotype? Their actions vs. their opinions? This is too slippery an issue for an encyclopedia to be dealing with. If you keep it, people will just keep adding "putative" persons to the list. It wouldn't surprise me if most of Congress winds up there sooner or later. / Peter ^Isotalo 09:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Just to be clear, again, wikipedia is not deciding who is or is not a "RINO"; it is reporting on who has been specifically called that by various pressure groups or partisan journalists. "LINO" may or may not be current (I doubt it) but if LINO starts showing up in press releases from left-wing British pressure groups and in columns by political figures, then by all means we should include it. It doesn't matter if all of Congress eventually gets included -- that would be a fantastically useful list, since the entries would be accompanied by links to the press coverage in question. There are plenty of articles that are prone to people adding "putative" members, but we have ways to deal with vandalism and content disputes. Sdedeo 18:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        But that's sooo useless. What's the point of having an article on a term if it turns out to be more or less all-encompassing? That means that Wikipedia "decides" that no Republican is a "real Republican", which is utterly useless to any reader. The article is not going to be taken seriously here. It's going to be a battleground for US party political nonsense. / Peter ^Isotalo 06:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. That the term may have several potential meanings does not mean we can't have an article about the ones that are known to exist in common use. That, after all, is what disambiguation pages are for. NatusRoma 20:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, valid political term. I saw Arnold Schwartzeneggar (I can never spell that without looking it up) referred to as a RINO just today. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:17, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Phrase in common usage in discussion of US public events. Capitalistroadster 23:55, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - real term, widely used. Why not? Guettarda 00:12, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, common usage in U.S. politics. On the other hand, this article has deteriorated. We need to get back to having an agreed set of criteria for what is citable (just being named in some non-notable blog should not be), and what can't be cited should be removed. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Distastefully ephemeral, but, yes, it is in wide use (much more wide use than DINO). On the other hand, as with DINO, all this "examples of" wiki-itis has got to go. My vote to keep is not in any sense an endorsement of the POV ridiculousness that pollutes articles like this. The article is itself not inherently POV, but some folks need to take the scissors to it or start citing every single usage. Geogre 02:29, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you really think people will stop adding crap? Do you think it's worth keeping the article just to fight all those bloggers out there who want to add their favorite political pachyderm? In the "blogosphere", I suspsect there's always some published political kook to quote. / Peter ^Isotalo 09:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This has been discussed before and gave overwhelming keep consensus, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Republican/Democrat In Name Only. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't have a problem with this article. Alf ^melmac 12:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a term that is in general use, and what is the point of Wikipedia if it can't be used to find out what a term like this means? I came across this article looking for an easy reference to point someone to in a comment on my own blog as an explanation for the term RINO. This isn't just a blogosphere coinage - the citations at the end of the entry show that the term has wider currency in the mainstream media.

That said, the article badly needs editing: it only needs a short summary of what the term means, citations showing its use over the years, etc. I don't see how a long list of "examples of" helps anybody, and the caption to the Giuliani/Powell photograph ("Rudy Giuliani and Colin Powell are widely popular with the American people...") doesn't seem very encyclopedia-ish. --John H 13:56, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this and Democrat In Name Only. -- BD2412 ^talk 17:08, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep with modifications. The list is thoroughly un-encyclopaedic; the definition and etymology, however, are extremely useful. Particularly for international readers who might not know what the term means, like me. Wooster 18:11, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Common phrase among political blogs. --Calton | Talk 21:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, someone really needs to read up on modern political terms, not even worth explaining. Piecraft 14:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ··gracefool |☺ 17:01, 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. IceKarma ॐ 04:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Democrat In Name Only

Inherently POV:ed article title that exsists merely to explain that all Democrats don't actually live up to the Democrat-stereotype. XXX in name only is in no way unique to either the US or US party politics and can be applied to literally any party affiliation, ideology, religious belief or popular opinion and would be filled to the brim with POV garbage pretending to be "encyclopedic information" in notime. Naturally, it's also a verifiability and nightmare a breeding ground for political trolls. The Republican equivalent has been nominated above. Delete per Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine. Peter ^Isotalo 17:23, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It looks to me like the main purpose of this article is to maintain a "list of enemies." Not very encyclopedic. Also, as long as we're ticking off problems, this is a complete neologism; the term is not, to the best of my knowledge, a term in wide use. Nandesuka 17:34, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sigh. This is an extremely current term in the blogosphere and has been around for a long time, at least since 2000. Note that the article is not "Wikipedia's list of Republicans who are not true Republicans". RINO (and DINO) are common terms on the respective blogs like Redstate and the Dailykos -- not to mention the various TV shows and action groups that have also used these exact phrases and are listed in the article. A glance at the articles in question shows that they are well researched, well written, and extensively sourced. Before declaring something "garbage" please consider reading it first. Sdedeo 19:22, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although I like the sound of Dinos and Rhinos. Dlyons493 19:32, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. While I am a little less certain of the veracity of this as opposed to the RINO article, it seems plausible enough and well-written. It's not inherently POV to have an article about propaganda terms—glittering generality has a long discussion of the propaganda term "hardworking families" for instance. The subject is not a neologism and the article is as far from propaganda as you can get! — Phil Welch 19:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean: It's not much of a term, and it isn't much used. RINO has much more legitimacy in terms of usage, and there are too many possible terms for the sorts of journalistic blackface put on by pretend leftists on the debate-news. It needs to be shorn of all "examples of": that business is inherently POV unless there is a specific reference for each individual one showing where someone other than the article's author had called the person a "DINO." Geogre 19:53, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: No harm in maintaining this as a list of the more conservative Democrats in the party. What I really would not want to see lost is the section on the Fox News Liberal. That article was merged with this article, so if we delete this article, we will lose the information that was in the Fox News Democrat article. --Asbl 20:03, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, valid political term. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:18, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - real term, widely used. Why not? Guettarda 00:12, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, common usage in U.S. politics. Not as common as RINO, but I don't see how we can have one without the other. On the other hand, this article has deteriorated. We need to get back to having an agreed set of criteria for what is citable (just being named in some non-notable blog should not be), and what can't be cited should be removed. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reasonably common phrase in US politics warranting an article. Capitalistroadster 00:38, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This has been discussed before: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Republican/Democrat In Name Only. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all the name calling is referenced and sourced, like the preceding article, I have no problem with it. Alf ^melmac 12:38, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this and Republican In Name Only. -- BD2412 ^talk 17:09, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Common phrase among political blogs; though the article itself needs a good scrubbing, the topic isn't inherently NPOV. --Calton | Talk 21:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, real term. Punkmorten 15:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This term is common enough, at least in the US. Carbonite | Talk 12:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, extremely notable term that is used often today. Piecraft 14:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ··gracefool |☺ 17:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am doing a scrapbook on last year's election, and I need this info! It is still pertinent, especially with the eventuality of Hilary running in 2008. There's no time like the present to plan for the next election whilst mulling over the events of the last.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. Even if I discount Joaquin Murietta as they'd only been here one day, and lump all the deletes and merges together, I'm still not satisified there is a consensus on what to do. -Splash^talk 00:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bengbu Public Security Bureau

non notable article by a user with a history of trying to push his agenda. Wikipedia is not a forum for propaganda.

Delete for the above reasons. 152.163.101.6
Delete Non-notable article with the main purpose of being a propaganda piece. Abstrakt 05:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It obviously is notable as it has power of many thousands of people.

Sarcelles 22:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Expand, obviously notable but needs more text and perhaps some sources cited if possible. Piecraft 15:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above comment. ··gracefool |☺ 17:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am reopening this poll because it was closed prematurely, before everyone with an opinion about this matter has expressed his/her views. As such, there is no consensus on whether this article should be kept or deleted. Nor do I think that the situation has been sufficiently explained. Here are three reasons why this article should be deleted:
1. Precedents. Sarcelles has previously created 4 similar articles: Changchun Public Security Bureau, Tangshan Public Security Bureau, Shijiazhuang Public Security Bureau, Lu'an Public Security Bureau. None of those survived VfD, because they were deemed non-notable and POV. It makes little sense for this to be kept.
2. POV. Sarcelles has a history of starting purely POV articles for the sake of pushing his agenda. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chinese cities for a detailed account of his actions starting from mid-May. Three Wikipedians (User:Abstrakt, User:Miborovsky, and I) are currently considering an RfC or even RfA against him if the situation does not improve quickly, because we are sick and tired of chasing after literally hundreds of his edits, de-POVizing when we can and VfD'ing when his creations are unsalvageable. This article is an example of that.
3. Non-notable. There are 300+ prefectures or equivalents in China, Bengbu being one of them. Bengbu itself is an unremarkable city in Anhui province. Its public security bureau is, in turn, one of dozens of bureaus in its bureaucracy. There is absolutely nothing sufficiently remarkable about it to warrant an article at this point in time. The same goes for the other 4 articles that were already deleted.
As such, this article should be deleted. -- ran (talk) 02:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I saw Sarcelles Falun Gong pushing articles earlier. Should be deleted. It's not like its as notable as a primary school is it? Maybe it should be in mentioned or listified in some sort of Police Hierarchy in China article - Hahnchen 02:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nonnotable. mikka (t) 03:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Should be merged into a bigger article until it needs breaking out, but none of the reasons given here for not even mentioning it is actually compelling. Number of entities is absolutely not a good criterion for deletion. There are how many species on this planet? Grace Note 05:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Where should this article be merged to? Which sentence of this article, except the last one, even provides unique and encyclopedic information? The police department of Bengbu is located in Bengbu, and is in charge of the polic there... and it has detention centers! The last sentence is unique and encyclopedic, but there's already an article on the dissident; we don't need a 2nd article just to say who detained him.

As such, there isn't even anything here to merge into any other articles. This article should be deleted outright. -- ran (talk) 05:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly there is little information other than the ___location and that it is a government office handling policing. Until I can see a better reason for keeping this article, my vote is unchanged. Delete Abstrakt
Keep, since we can say something specific about this particular PSB. Anyone researching it would not appreciate being redirected to Zhang Lin. Kappa 06:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I could also say something about my neighbourhood police kiosk, how it arrested 2 students for drinking and driving... Notable? I think not. The chance of someone researching is, as much as the chance that someone would be researching the above-stated kiosk. --Mib orovsky

07:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a prefecture branch of the PSB bears any comparison to a local police kiosk, nor does arresting an internationally known dissent compare with arresting students for drinking and driving. Kappa

Well how an internationally known athlete? How about I start an article on the police station whose officers arrested Micheal Phelps for drunk driving?

If you are an expert than feel free to give us tips on how to expand. Like ran and Mib have already pointed out, there isn't anything else in this article to expand upon. And I'm opposed to the idea of merging this information into the Bengbu article because that would be doing what Sarcelles once did, and that was making assinine edits on Chinese city article to make the main focus about prisons and police. Abstrakt 14:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone researching it would not appreciate being redirected to Zhang Lin. — Then this researcher would find out absolutely no new info about the Bengbu PSB from this article.

Look, if you guys want to start a WikiProject to describe every single bureau of every single prefecture and county in China (~50 x ~5000 = 250000 new articles), then please go ahead. If I can start, say, Hulan County Forestry Department or Haidong Prefecture Education Bureau, and write a useless subsubstub article that goes "The Haidong Prefecture Education Bureau is located in Haidong, Qinghai, and is in charge of education there. [end]", and get away with it, then please keep this article too. But until you decide to do that, this article should be deleted. Unless, of course, if you support Sarcelles' agenda of POV-pushing that he has engaged in for over four months. -- ran (talk) 17:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per ran. Article creator is unreliable and this is a high risk to wikipedia's credibility. --Vsion 07:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per ran. --Mib orovsky 07:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's useful. Joaquin Murietta 07:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- In what ways? Please tell me ONE piece of unbiased, factual knowledge you gained from this article, besides that there's a Public Security Bureau in Bengbu. --Miborovsky 22:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - That Zhang Lin is detained there.--Nicodemus75 23:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - You could have learned that from the Zhang Lin article. Are we going to start articles on Zhang Lin's hospital-of-birth and grade school as well? Perhaps the officers who arrested him? The sites where he was posting? How about his place of residence?
    - Is Zhang Lin the only piece of unique and useful information in the article? If so, then it should be deleted.-- ran (talk) 23:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a neutral version into Bengbu and redirect. -- Kjkolb 08:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Public Security Bureaus in the PRC are inherently notable government institutions.--Nicodemus75 19:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Are they? Perhaps I should start an article on Lacey, WA Department of Motor Vehicles? In case you can't catch it, Public Security Bureaus are notable institutions, as is the DMV. But individual ones are not. --Mib orovsky 22:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- How is the Bengbu PSB more notable than the dozens of other bureaus at the same level run by the government of Bengbu? Should we start articles on the Bengbu Education Bureau or the Bengbu Agriculture Bureau? And how are these dozens of bureaus in Bengbu more notable than literally hundreds of thousands of parallel bureaus run across the prefectures and counties of China? -- ran (talk) 23:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above by Kjkolb. Ciraric 20:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. IceKarma ॐ 04:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Enthu

non-notable slang term with regionally limited use. Propose delete RJFJR 17:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete dictdef neologism Jkelly 18:41, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN neologism. Nezu Chiza 21:51, 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.

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

The result of the debate was delete · Katefan0^(scribble) 04:28, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CLiX Network

Looks like spamvertising to me, but I'm not sure whether it's actually notable. I'm going to abstain from voting until I hear some other opinions. -- Avocado 18:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a website involving a few people, Delete. ··gracefool |☺ 17:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough votes, re-listing. · Katefan0^(scribble) 17:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

del. Nonnotable. mikka (t) 18:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — As per nominator. — Christopher (talk) @ 22:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete · Katefan0^(scribble) 04:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Lord

This article has no sources; there is no "John Lord" or "John Michael Lord" to be found on the web and no record of a supposed involvement in the similarly fictional Maserati-Lamborghini F1 team, or with IndyCar. » Christopher | Talk | 18:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Loganberry (Talk) 00:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough votes, relisting. · Katefan0^(scribble) 17:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

del. Nonnotable. mikka (t) 18:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom... appears to be a hoax. Unless someone can cite sources...--Isotope23 18:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Do not DELETEMy name is Jonny Micky Lordy and I'm the son of John Michael Lord. I love him, he is a hero!

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. IceKarma ॐ 04:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maserati-Lamborghini

There is no evidence of this team or any of the associated people existing [16] [17] [18]. Furthermore, the idea that Maserati (who were owned by Ferrari) should be setting up a team in co-operation with Ferrari's rival Lamborghini is nonsense. » Christopher | Talk | 18:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. And why on earth would Alonso want to go to a completely new team with unknown engineers? It's most unlikely that engineers good enough to work in F1 would be completely unknown, and in any case Alonso will almost certainly at least a one-time World Champion by 2007. Finally, the article states that "The team hopes to compete in 2007, but stay anonymous until 2005". That makes no sense at all - like the article as a whole. Loganberry (Talk) 00:09, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Looks like a hoax. / Peter ^Isotalo 13:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE this is insane. Ferrari owns Maserati, not Lamborghini. All three make engines and chassis, so this link-up doesn't make sense in that context either. Why would Ferrari compete with itself, especially with Lamborghini? 132.205.94.34 22:39, 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 Speedied. Being a persistent vandal of Wikipedia is certainly no claim to notability. android 79 19:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Soda Vandel

Problem: Seems to be an obvious hoax. Nor is it notable Molotov (talk) 18:51, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: No significant hits on Google [19]; which suggests that I spell the term vandal.Molotov (talk) 19:07, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- Never mind article deleted by Android79 Molotov (talk) 19:08, 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 Speedied. android 79 16:58, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Houston

Vanity page. Bob Palin 19:02, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nn, vanity CLW 19:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claim not notability. --A D Monroe III 20:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nn-bio. So tagged. Friday (talk) 14:57, 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.