Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 October 23

< October 22	>

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

October 23

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. gren グレン 12:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Bob Saget!

dicdef (if that) Flapdragon 23:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete V/M !
00:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This wishes it could be a neologism when it grows up. Gets roughly 15-to-20 Googles (actual Google count is 46, but most of those are a line " 'OH!!!', Bob Saget squeeled." from some bestiality story that I'm sure as hell not clicking on). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. TheMadBaron 02:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn neologism coined by an exploitative website (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tourette's Guy) --Anetode 07:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete. Not worth noting. - Kookykman (talk • contribs) 13:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete Per above comments. Ban e s 16:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have voted for both the Tourette's Guy/Tourettes Guy sites to be deleted too. I also agree with Anetode that this is exploitative and probably insensitive to many sufferers who have to put up with this misunderstood syndrome. --MacRusgail 16:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This should'nt belong in an encyclopedia.The Republican 19:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, neologism. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, delete.—Gaff ^ταλκ 22:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN. Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 02:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 11:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Luna class starship

This is not an offical class of starship in Star Trek and it has not appreared to my thinking in any books. The Refrence to the USS Titan is canon but however no class name has ever be introduced with it. This Article should be deleted. Aeon 23:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete V/M !
00:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep According to the article, it was the winner of a design competition for the books and was used in the Titan books (as the main ship of the novels, commanded by Will Riker). Though I'm aware the books are not strictly considered ST canon by Paramount, they're still official, and as major publications from a major publisher are worthy of being covered anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, appear in major publications from a major publisher. The article should clarify how canonical they are. Kappa 01:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete The published books are NOT considered canon by Paramount. There for this entry should be deleted They have made many statements saying that the books are not official or even considered canon. Also published books are not major publications. Major Publications are more like the Star Trek Encyclopedia and Companions. The Published Paperbacks and Hard Covers have never been considered a major publication as several of them have been contradicted by the TV Shows and by Official Sources. 63.207.248.188 04:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge non-speculative content of article with List of Starfleet ship classes --Anetode 07:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not relevant to an encyclopaedia. Doesn't even exist in a fictional universe. --Bucephalus talk to me 10:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong merge into Star Trek Titan, with an emphasis on merging the info about the design contest. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 10:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Regardless of whether or not the class is canon (and it's not) to Star Trek, it is canon for the Star Trek: Titan series of books. The information and image provided regarding the competition are accurate and I believe at least some of the history and stats provided are confirmed in the Titan novels. The article does need to be cleansed of conjectural info and it needs to be made clear that it is not canon as far as Paramount are concerned (and as such, has no place on the ships list), but the information provided in the Titan novels and by S&S Inc. means that this article is perfectly valid given the all-encompasing nature of Wikipedia. -Hayter 15:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I am quite happy that Wikipedia includes established but non-canonical elements of major fantasy universes. [1]. Wikipedia Is Not a Place To Insist On Solely Canonical Interpretations Of Other Peoples Fantasies. The Land 19:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just mention books are not established canon. They're still major publications and deserve being included. Merge if we've got the book. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Star Trek Titan, which is short enough to accomodate this; wouldn't be opposed to keeping it either. CanadianCaesar 20:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at most...merge. Paramount does not get to dictate others contributions towards the reality of a fictional univers. If this class starship is appearing in stories published, then it seems to be a notable entity. I'll let the debate about "Star Trek canon" alone.—Gaff ^ταλκ 22:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It has been in books, and is therefore somewhat "official". I draw the line between published and fanfic, not between canon and non-canon. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Sjakkalle. Carioca 05:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The problem with including non-canon material is that Paramount don't make any attempt to maintain consistency with their licensees. So anything in the books can be contradicted by any canon series/movies that may appear from Paramount, or other non-canon licensees. What do we do when someone else publishes a book about starships and gives totally different information for the Luna class than the Star Trek Titan novels? AlistairMcMillan 08:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that according to the Star Trek card game, Riker's USS Titan is a completely different class. The novel publishers felt no need to maintain consistency with the card game. This isn't like the Star Wars expanded universe where the licensees do attempt to maintain consistency. AlistairMcMillan 08:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Acknowledge both references, and note that there are conflicts. The Pokemon articles have long acknowledged the conflicts between the games, anime, and manga, if you'd like to see an example of dealing with multiple conflicing continuities. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 09:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was to Speedy Delete the article. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 02:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sopme

Neologism--Shanel 00:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because this post on facepunchstudios.com told you to come here and vote, please note that this is not a vote on whether or not this article is deleted. Despite what you may have been told, it is not true that everyone who shows up to a deletion discussion gets an automatic vote just for showing up.

The deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely.

You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made purely upon weight of numbers.

I disagree on the grounds that Shanel used a word I dont understand - leelad - unsigned comment by anon user:83.100.154.11
- "Neologism" means a new word. Kappa
Delete, wikipedia is not a dictionary. Kappa 00:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Kappa. --Allen3 ^talk 01:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that this must be deleted! SOPME FOREVAH! -DarkFlame - unsigned comment by anon user:24.67.253.203
Sopme I disagree on the...hehe...YAY! -Sopme - unsigned commeny by anon user:72.29.38.96
DONT DELETE SOPME IS OUR SAVIOUR! THERE ARE SOPMEISTS EVERYWHERE! - unsigned comment by user:TheBlackViper whose edits thus far are only to this article and to this deletion discussion. The same user also edited the comment of user:24.67.253.203 above. I have reversed that edit.
Delete neologism, admitted joke. Note to closing admin: don't forget to delete the pictures too! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: At this point in the discussion, anon user:72.29.38.96 page-blanked this discussion. reverted by user:Kappa
Comment: Folks, we are going to delete this thing whatever you say, no offense. If you want to share it with people try, Wiktionary has a place for it at Wiktionary:List of protologisms Kappa 02:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, ok. It's moved to Wiktionary. Sorry for all the retardness. But now we get to start all over there. Yay. (sopme) - unsigned comment by anon user:72.29.38.96
Delete. "Note that this is a joke and to not be taken seriously." Wikipedia is not a joke book. And it's not even funny. Yay. TheMadBaron 02:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yay for Kappa and his/her Wiktionary. Thanks. -Sopme! - unsigned comment by anon user:24.67.253.203
I disagree that this should be be deleted. - unsigned comment by anon user:70.24.38.250
Comment: At this point in the discussion, the page was vandalised by anon user:72.29.38.96 who attempted to replace the discussion with nonsense. Reverted by user:Meelar.
You can't kill the sopme... - unsigned comment added by anon user:144.131.162.182
Comment: At this point in the discussion, the page was vandalized by anon user:24.254.222.142 who attempted to remove all the "delete" comments. In the next edit, anon user:24.185.197.213 page-blanked the discussion. The page-blanking was reverted by user:Joy Stovall. The rest of the vandalism was reverted by user:Aranda56.
SOPME IS OUR SAVIOUR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - unsigned comment by anon user:84.58.16.205
Speedy Delete as nonsense and Protect from recreation --JAranda | watz sup 03:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: At this point in the discussion, anon user:70.24.38.250 vandalized the page by deleting several comments. Those comments were later found and restored by user:Nameneko
Speedy delete, patent nonsense. — ceejayoz ^★ 03:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the images also. - Stoph 03:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I've listed the images for deletion already. -Nameneko 03:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and delete the one on Wiktionary while you're at it. -Nameneko 03:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 03:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete the wiktionary one, they told us to put it there. - unsigned comment by anon user:72.29.38.96
- Au contraire, they didn't tell you to put it on Wiktionary; they suggested it. Besides, it doesn't qualify for its own article on Wiktionary anyways, as it's a protologism. -Nameneko 03:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nice art but a neologism based on a typo on a website is not notable. Wiktionary is a different site and this vote will have no influence on them. Capitalistroadster 03:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
DONT DELETE New words are added to every language every day let this be another one! - unsigned comment by anon user:65.67.60.119. In this user's next edit, he/she removed several "delete" comments. Vandalism reverted by user:Kirill Lokshin. The anon user again attempted to remove comments and was again immediately reverted by user:Kirill Lokshin
Delete nonsense. --rob 05:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, not encyclopaedic. --Qirex 05:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bottom line. "Note that this is a joke and to not be taken seriously.". Saberwyn 07:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete garish nonsense --Anetode 07:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete deliberate nonsense Bwithh 07:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
DONT DELETE sopme is too awesome to delete, you cant.(not influenced by mentioned post)- IpHa - unsigned comment by anon user:69.208.71.162
Delete, Pathetic attempt at a fad. - unsigned comment by anon user:82.18.103.53 who initially "signed" the post as user:Cheeez but later removed that signature.
Comment: At this point in the discussion, the page was again blanked, this time by anon user:24.6.139.85. Reverted by user:Joy Stovall
Neologism, spam, vanity. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 16:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete please! --MacRusgail 16:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Possible Delete In The History of Wikipedia: This vote should be closed already, but I didn't want to do it just because I wanted to show my support against the Sockpuppets. I'm also heading over to the Wiktionary version and making sure it's burned with fire and putting it on my watch list over there so it never comes back again. Karmafist 18:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
JESUS H CHRIST... Delete. Non-notable, a la Chebs. The Land 19:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The page is absoult nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Republican (talk • contribs) 20:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nonsense. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 20:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. BTW, a very good infobox, and I hope to see it more often in similar circumstances. --Agamemnon2 21:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The infobox is {{AfdAnons}}. — ceejayoz ^talk 22:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy ~~keep~~ delete. I listed it as such.—Gaff ^ταλκ 22:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Very Speedy delete vanity RadioActive 22:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ASAP in agreement with all of the speedy criteria mentioned above. --Fire Star 22:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete when the word becomes widely used then it can have an article. Cedars 23:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Kappa voted to delete!?!! Hey, I'm going ice skating down below! MCB 00:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Cel e stianpower ^háblame 13:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Zoeken

Personal essay, bad title, not-encyclopedic. JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom.--Alhutch 01:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a POV essay in the wrong namespace with a title not explained in the article itself. --Metropolitan90 02:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Diatribe. TheMadBaron 02:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Anetode 07:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Personal essay. Wrong namespace. Hard-to-follow grammar. - Kookykman (talk • contribs)
Delete. as above and badly written too. Gaius Cornelius 19:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above.—Gaff ^ταλκ 22:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteStu 02:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteprashanthns
Delete per all of the above. Johntex\^talk 23:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The title means "Search" in Dutch, and it's a somewhat sloppy translation, possibly by Babelfish. Nevertheless the topic has some merit. Rename to History of The Netherlands after WWII or thereabouts, slap on NPOV and cleanup tags, and keep. R adiant _>|< 10:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Looks like the article has been fixed. Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Skogskyrkogården - The Woodland Cemetery

The first draft [2] appears to be a copyvio from here, and am not sure how to untangle the non-copy-vio parts. In addition, there is already the article Skogskyrkogården. Fred-Chess 01:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Untangling the non-copy-vio parts was actually very easy, since all but the first three sentences are indeed lifted directly from the official website.... I have now merged the first three sentences with Skogskyrkogården, and added a link to the website. Skogskyrkogården - The Woodland Cemetery can now be deleted without loss. TheMadBaron 02:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm 96% sure that we need to redirect to meet GFDL authorship requirements, even on three sentences. — mendel ☎ 06:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with "Skogskyrkogården" after (c) issue settled --MacRusgail 16:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete copyright violation from the history and redirect per GFDL. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What MacGyver said. encephalon 01:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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