Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 October 28

< October 27	>

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

October 28

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. – ABCD ^e✉ 00:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

91X Top 91 of 2003

Non notable. If we start allowing radio station top x of x, we're going to end up with alot of crap. So many stations. Too unwieldly. Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 00:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a numbered list of songs. No context. Delete. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I did propose criteria for broadcasting notability, but it hasn't gotten much attention. -- Kjkolb 01:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: How about I take a look and see what I can add? --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 03:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV list. Gazpacho 01:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --JJay 02:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article. I wish it were more clear what specific radio station this is, though, so that we could be sure to mention that this station did this list. (We wouldn't want to include the actual list there, either, though.) --Jacqui ^★ 04:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too obscure, no context, too esoteric. --Dante 04:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not encyclopedic. Not maintainable. Not notable. --Clay Collier 06:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everybody - Just zis Guy, you know? 08:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what is this article about? it seems to me just to be a list of songs. and per above. Newyorktimescrossword 19:10, 29 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. Denelson 83 07:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of television shows set in Connecticut

More listcruft. --howcheng [ talk  contribs  web ] 00:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Talk about pointless. Devotchka 00:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This reverses cause and effect: articles about each of these shows would of course note their ___location, but a page doing the opposite about fictional stories (ie, tv shows) is nn. Dxco 00:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as listcruft. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 01:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointless, might as well make a list of every single thing that meets a certain criteria in that case. Spring Rubber 02:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, this is unformatted and unsourced, but there are some pretty important TV shows on that list. --Jacqui ^★ 04:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Connecticut? Alphax ^τεχ 05:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this what categories are for? Trollderella 05:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the list were properly annotated, say with information about cities or landmarks in which the shows were filmed, then a list would be better than a category -- but as it stands, we don't have that information, and as the article itself is unsourced, we may have a hard time finding it. Jacqui ^★ 05:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please take another look at the page. Kappa 05:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! It's been significantly helped since I was there last. Okay, I was wrong. It can work as an annotated list. :) Jacqui ^★ 15:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, shows Connecticut's influence in popular culture. Kappa 06:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure a comment in the Connecticut article would serve equally well, and would probably be seen by more people. For every person searching for this article, a thousand will be searching for "Connecticut". Oh, and delete. Denni ☯ 00:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not useful. And even if it was useful, better served by a category than a static list (maintainability). "List of shows that start with A" would have some important shows on it too, but isn't appropriate either. --Clay Collier 06:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:See also List of television shows set in Detroit, List of fiction set in Chicago, List of television shows set in Washington, D.C., List of television shows set in Los Angeles, List of celebrities who have never been in my kitchen—Gaff ^ταλκ 07:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- "Fancy a novel about Chicago or Buffalo, let us say, or Nashville, Tennessee! There are just three big cities in the United States that are 'story cities'—New York, of course, New Orleans, and, best of the lot, San Francisco." --O. Henry, "A Municipal Report." On the testimony of these lists, Chicago, Washington and Los Angeles have some claim to being legitimate television "story cities," while Detroit and the entire state of Connecticut do not. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The list is beginning to prove your POV otherwise -- and will continue to do so, if it is allowed to stay and be expanded. Oh, and I forgot to vote -- keep and expand, or, if I am outvoted, I'd rather see a merge with Connecticut than a loss of the information. Jacqui ^★ 15:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And may I add another "see also": List of American television series fictionally sited in real places. Hartford, CT is mentioned. HollyAm 21:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete listcruft per all above - Just zis Guy, you know? 08:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listcruft Stu 12:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have not looked at the article yet. If it lists twenty shows or more, I will vote keep on the basis of its having established that this is a vaguely important category of television shows. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Delete per Dxco. Not a significant kind of television show. Does not demonstrate that Connecticut has any special status in popular culture. Just an artificially constructed criterion invented for the purpose of creating a list. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gawd. Marskell 15:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article is an orphan.Geni 15:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Four shows. Obviously not a state popular enough to be notable. --Optichan 15:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dxco. --Pamri • Talk 15:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dxco. —Gaff ^ταλκ 04:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No longer an orphan. Linked to from Connecticut; member of Category:Connecticut and Category:Television lists. Makes a lot of sense in the context of these other lists. This is the sort of thing lists are for. Fg2 04:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful list. I suspect that more then 4 shows have been set in the state so the list should grow over time. Vegaswikian 05:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Of regional interest, certainly verifiable. Un focused 17:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per unfocused. Newyorktimescrossword 19:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is the type of list that a wiki may be useful in maintaining - not so large as to be unwieldy but potentially large enough to be interesting. It is also the type of information that, if someone wanted to find the information from scratch, would be difficult to assemble. -- DS1953 ^talk 19:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, useless and arbitrary list. --Aquillion 19:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Useless list, especially since, as far as I know, not one of the shows listed was actually filmed in Connecticut nor has any real connection to Connecticut except as an essentially random setting picked by the shows' producers. --Calton | Talk 00:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Connecticut. It can be split off when it gets big enough. -LtNOWIS 00:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Connecticut. Very interesting trivia, especially to non-locals. Short enough to easily merge. w.ross 13:47, 1 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.

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. – ABCD ^e✉ 00:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lobita_Blanca

It is unnecessary and a waste of space. The number of people who would visit or care about this article is insignificant. Fancruft. Some guy 00:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as NN fancruft. Devotchka 00:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's also meaningless to anybody except a player, and they have other resources to keep "information" like this. Tim.

Detele obscure tactic of some game. Perhaps the author could consider the the article for the game warrants mention of this element, but it certainly does not need it's own page.Dxco 00:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 01:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for obvious reasons mentioned above.
Delete fancruft. Should we add "Wikipedia is not a cheap GameFAQ.com knockoff" to WP:NOT? --Clay Collier 06:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If we do, it'll probably get deleted by gamers, just as "Wikipedia is not a game guide or FAQ" was. 205.247.102.130 20:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN fancruft. And yes, Clay Collier, I'd vote for that! - Just zis Guy, you know? 08:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fancruft, Stu 12:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment article is an orphan.Geni 15:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't see how this article is relavent to an encyclopedia. KnowledgeOfSelf 01:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why do people insist on putting this stuff in? Newyorktimescrossword 19:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep it out of sight, i.e. delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Out of Sight (band)

Local band that hasn't released any albums yet. The same user has created Brandon T which is currently in afd and not doing very well; Division 867 which has been deleted and Division 867 and C-Real: Lyrical Masters and Division 867 and C-Real which are both in afd and not doing very well. Francs 2000 00:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete vanity article for obscure bar band that has not released an album. Author essentially admits non-notablity in article. I wish them the best, but wikipedia is not a forum in which to list everyones personal garage band and wotnot. Dxco 00:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn vanity. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 01:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN band vanity. Cnwb 06:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Cnwb. --Clay Collier 06:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with thanks to the author for bringing the band's non-notability so prominently to our attention. - Just zis Guy, you know? 08:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN vanity page. Should come back to Wikipedia, though, when it accomplishes something other than the listing in this VfD. Stu 12:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment article is an orphan.Geni 15:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMG Tedernst 20:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN, vanity and why do they put this stuff in? it's ridiculous.Newyorktimescrossword 19:18, 29 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. – ABCD ^e✉ 00:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Red Riots

Administrators: AfD page being heavily vandalised and re-edited. Faster the delete of obvious band-vanity page happens, the better.—Gaff ^ταλκ 06:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a fun group of kids having a good time, but unsigned band = band vanity = delete. —Gaff ^ταλκ 00:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: was this just vandalized? Devotchka 01:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per original nom, and watch out for 24.34.171.59 editing votes. - Squibix 01:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, by the way. Devotchka 01:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and someone keeps vandalizing this AfD vote. Andrew Levine 01:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:music. A Google search indicates that they are an unsigned band from Boston see [1] with no indication of a national tour. Capitalistroadster 03:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN band vanity. Cnwb 06:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN band vanity. --Clay Collier 06:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone. - Just zis Guy, you know? 08:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment article is an orphan.Geni 15:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete I HATE BAND VANITY! It's not notable and a waste of space. Newyorktimescrossword 19:19, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing on Allmusic, unimpressive googles, and no sourcable claim of notability in the article. Also, vandalizing an AFD instead of presenting arguments is a pretty good negative indicator. -Colin Kimbrell 03:28, 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 delete. – ABCD ^e✉ 00:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Marco tv

Non-notable small business. Denni ☯ 00:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 01:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not important, poorly written, sounds like an ad. Some guy 01:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Small business, not important—Bitmappity 02:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this advertisement. TECannon 11:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Or we could keep it as an example of the "enduring" quality of poorly written vanity article. Stu 12:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment article is an orphan.Geni 15:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete advertisement Tedernst 20:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poorly written, doesn't seem to be relavent to our encyclopedia. KnowledgeOfSelf 01:19, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per knowledge. not notable. Newyorktimescrossword 19:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. – ABCD ^e✉ 00:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MaxEnt thermodynamics

A list of references for a nonexistent article. Denni ☯ 00:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 01:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obvious reasons. Some guy 01:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Give me a chance(!) More of the article should be up today. Jheald 07:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to use one of the templates at Wikipedia:Edit_lock to mark when you're currently editing an article. Although, if you're creating from scratch it then it would probably be best to write out a decent stub in an off-line editor first, then upload it all at once. --Aquillion 08:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Principle of Maximum Entropy - Just zis Guy, you know? 09:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The PME article stands well on its own, as a discussion of the principle in statistical inference generally. The present article is intended to specifically review the application of PME to thermodynamics; and the philiosophical take that holding such a position leads to, regarding the conceptual questions of thermodynamics. Jheald 10:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See, now I'm confused. I thought this was an encyclopaedia, not a place to publish detailed theses on nuances of complex technical subjects. As it is it reads like OR. - Just zis Guy, you know? 14:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, Zis, I am familiar with this and neither PME nor the application to statistical mechanics is OR in the sense you mean. There are in fact quite a few books on this stuff. One of the best is:

Kapur, J. N.; Kesevan, H. K. (1992). Entropy optimization principles with applications. Boston: Academic Press. ISBN 0-123-97670-7.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: publisher ___location (link)

The strict Bayesian interpretation of statistics is internally controversial, but one of the nice things about this book is that avoids philosophy and sticks to the main point: this is darned useful stuff. There is also a nice article by J. N. Kapur in an Indian journal giving one of the best short introductions to entropy, which uses the PME point of view. Also excellent is Guiasu's article in the Mathematical Intelligencer, which also uses the PME point of view. ---CH (talk) 19:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment article is an orphan.Geni 15:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

cross-references to it now in place. Jheald 13:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Jheald has been busy today. Let's wait to see what it looks like in a day or two. Tedernst 20:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Removing my nomination now that something is here. Note to author - please consider adding a few paragraphs up front in layman talk before getting on to the partial differentials. There ought to be something you can say about maximum entropy that I can slip into a casual conversation. Denni ☯ 23:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep valid subject, not original research (merely a summary of a certain school of thought in physics). Wile E. Heresiarch 07:01, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep valid and relevant subject to this site.----Newyorktimescrossword 19:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not strong in the field, but the article looks like it's got potential. -Colin Kimbrell 03:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems interesting and has historical valus as well as potential. Ian 13 19:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This article is relevent to the timeline of thermodynamics --Greytangerine 07:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This AfD seems to be based upon a misunderstanding as noted above by Jheald and Denni; I guess everyone should use {{underconstruction}, at least until they have established a reputation for writing good articles in a given area. In any event, PME is of course a thoroughly legitimate (and important!) topic in applied math. I'd be inclined to agree that the thermodynamic applications are sufficiently important to warrant a separate article. BTW, historically, Jayne introduced PME in the context of statistical mechanics, although nowadays that is probably best viewed as just one application, albeit a very important one. ---CH (talk) 19:29, 2 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.

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 per WP:CSD A6. Hall Monitor 18:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy Sheehan's problem

Blatant POV fork/essay. Delete. · Katefan0^(scribble) 00:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's a BigDaddy sock, there never was an article, thus speedy the damn thing--152.163.100.134 01:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ah to heck, throw away the truth. Delete it as speedily as possible. Tonywalton | Talk 01:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't even be a need to debate this one.
Delete. I marked it for speedy, but the tag was taken off, apparently. I'm still figuring this Wikipedia thing out: did I do something wrong? Are only admins supposed to add speedy delete tags? - Squibix 01:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all, anybody can add. But you justified the speedy under the criteria for "patent nonsense," which it was at the time you added the tag, only because someone had edited it to read "this was created by a BigDaddy sockpuppet." The initial entry, which I restored, doesn't fit the "patent nonsense" speedy criteria (it's understandable -- just horribly biased), or really any other that I could determine. So that means it goes here to AFD. · Katefan0^(scribble) 01:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He spammed the thing into two or three other articles, it's trolling at best, vandalism at worst, 68.122.180.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)--152.163.100.134 01:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see. That makes sense, thanks. - Squibix 01:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia:Suspected_sockpuppets_of_BigDaddy777--152.163.100.134 01:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. But wait! Know that if you delete or vandalize this, you are throwing away the truth. Gasp! Devotchka 01:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV fork. Capitalistroadster 01:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Not a speedy though. --JJay 02:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. 23skidoo 03:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete characteristic of a big daddy sockpuppet an non notable-Dakota 03:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as POV and as vandalism. The threat is a pretty good indication that this person will not be contributing articles that are in the spirit of Wikipedia. --Jacqui ^★ 04:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vandalism, blatant POV violations, ranting. Sounds like something from Rush Limbaugh.
Delete. What I love is that BigDaddy is becoming a verb. lol --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 05:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unredeemably POV. --Clay Collier 07:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Do I really need to give a reason? —Brim 07:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely strong delete. This entire article is nothing but a personal insult at Cindy Sheehan. Wikipedia is not a forum for redneck conservative xenophobic warmongers. — JIP | Talk 07:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unverifiable personal attack. Is that not a Speedy criterion? - Just zis Guy, you know? 09:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy or Delete Personal attack POV garbage. Stu 12:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just speedy delete this one. Marskell 15:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment article is an orphan.Geni 15:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, what a horrible problem. Speedy Delete --Optichan 15:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete -- I looked all through the criteria and most of them are near misses, but A6 seems to fit: "Articles which serve no purpose but to disparage their subject." Maybe a little loose. Jdavidb [[talk • contribs]] 16:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is no point in attempting to determine the what the creator's ulterior motives were here. The title and content of this article qualify it for speedy deletion as an attack page as it is. Hall Monitor 18:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reality tagging

Neologism Denni ☯ 00:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Weirdly inaccurate too. Nobody was putting protest stickers on things until 2005? Devotchka 01:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN neologism. --Clay Collier 07:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Just zis Guy, you know? 09:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the author isn't claiming that protest stickers were invented in 2005, but that 2005 is when the term 'reality tagging' was coined for the use of protest stickers in a particular political context in Lithuania. Removing all articles that are not notable in the English-speaking world may tend to perpetuate the systematic bias in Wikipedia some folks are concerned about. Still, this might be more of a Wiktionary thing. TECannon 11:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need to worry about systemic bias: this is a dicdef and would still be a dicdef if it was talking about American stickers. If we want an article about protest stickers, it should be called protest stickers or be a section in the protest article or something, not called by a word that was invented well after the act it describes. --Last Malthusian 14:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment article is an orphan.Geni 15:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, then, per Last Malthusian. TECannon 16:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.-->Newyorktimescrossword 19:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Reality tagging is a new concept original enough to deserve its own Wikipedia article. It is not suited for Wiktionary because it is related to several new and fast-changing concepts, firstly tagging. Tagging itself is a new and developing technology (only started to be used in mainstream web services - even Yahoo 360 is still in beta only). This and the term's use by a movement may mean that the term undergoes some changes in its meaning relatively quickly (I happen to be interested in electronic tagging - the technologies and uses are from mobile phones to shops - and moving ahead).

Is it protest stickers? I think it's tagging, because there's a significant difference between protesting by slapping hate stickers on the doors like "Don't vote Bush" (unconstructively, almost by definition) or sticking stickers that give usual information to other users/consumers, suggestions on further human and political action, and carry a corrective/disciplining message? What if the movement adopts any of the new technologies (say, mobile phone tagging)? This will of course still be reality tagging - but only then the critics will consider it worthy of an article? So no chance of an Indian, African or Lithuanian concepts getting into Wikipedia - unless they use Western technology? Cool - what if the Chinese patented printing in the 12th century? I also support previous remarks on Wikipedia's (and Wikinews') bias. It's firsly a cultural bias. Also, just remembered following the links at the bottom of the article and reading that the concept (and presumably the term) has been featured in a major Lithuanian paper. Is it still a neologism, then? Should we wait for a book in English on that?

Comment Ok, for starters, the first comment seems to be talking about something different to the actual article (*edit* Political stickers are certainly not a new concept). And the second one has already been addressed: this is a new term to describe an old form of protest. It's got nothing to do with the place the word came from, it's about the time it came from. If we are to have an article about protest stickers, it shouldn't be called by a neologism. At the most it should be a redirect to stickers, which already notes their political significance. Thirdly, the second anon seems to have a rather weird pro-Bush POV. "Don't vote Bush" sounds very like a "suggestion on further human and political action" to me. --Last Malthusian 10:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dear Last Malthusian, from what I see I conclude that you avoided to address all the indirect questions and arguments found in my previous comments. Do you believe that the reality tagging (as described in the article) is closer to protest stickers (disregarding the several differences I pointed above) or to mobile tagging (like http://www.semapedia.org/)? I believe that it's closer to Semapedia, Bango etc (because it has EVERYTHING to do with the concept of cellular or otherwise tagging and NOTHING to do with protest stickers except the media it uses in a certain country - presumably due to cost restraints. What you are saying is that Gandhi didn't invent the Freedom. But he achieved it a highly original way. You also advocate a very typical Anglo-American concept of "clear writing" - which refuses foreign (cough - French/European - cough) terms and prefers to use language as economically as possible, thus creating a formal speak stripped of most exitement and emotion, full of HOME-INVENTED neologisms ("folksonomy" comes to my mind; never heard of it in other languages; it's wikipedia site even states it's a neologism!) - just like your brief/non-existent response to my questions. Because it was you who didn't respond, please have another opportunity to do so - look at the 4 points bellow:

reality tagging neologism: refuted (used by mainstream media in the country of Lithuania) similarity with historical meaning of "protest stickers": sticker media; other concepts bearing such similarity are price stickers (1,99), discount stickers (2 for 1), etc. similarity with future meaning of "protest stickers": probably non-existent; mobile or RFID technologies will replace the use of sticker media in countries/by activists that can afford it. time (if you refuse to believe the 3 above arguments - for reasons that escape me): as a person said above, the term "reality tagging" was first used in 2005 in a Lithuanian context. Does anybody disagree?

To finish with - why is Flash Mob in Wikipedia? Isn't it just a good-old protest mob, or just mob? Does it's coordination with new technologies (mobile phones and the internet) make it a new concept, the (usual) political pointlessness of the act, or the attention of Anglo-American corporate media, like CNN and BBC? Or maybe a similarly titled book by an American author (Howard Rheingold)? Was it that an American invented "flashmobs" - or was he the first/the only one who cared to advertise them on CNN? Regards.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 (6d, 1k, 1a). - Mailer Diablo 07:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brenco

As far as I can tell, this article is entirely fabricated. Anyone know any different? - Squibix 00:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain: Google gives no hits for 'Brenco'+'Brennan Roy' or 'Brenco'+'United Household Products', in either English or Russian; and yet I can't see any reason why someone would come up with such a boring hoax. I'm ready to say delete if nobody comes up with any proof of this company's existance and notability soon.

Oops, the above was not signed by me. - Squibix 01:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No Google hits, so at the very least unverifiable. Andrew pmk | Talk 01:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable unless someone comes up with some evidence before this listing runs out. It does seem strange that someone would fabricate something like this, but reasons can be imagined (e.g. testing how Wikipedia handles plausible hoaxes). Alternatively it could be a reference to a fictional company from some really obscure economic thriller, or something... :/ — Haeleth Talk 12:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment article is an orphan.Geni 15:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unverifiable Tedernst 20:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above reasons KnowledgeOfSelf 01:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above reasons.--->Newyorktimescrossword 19:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KeepI actually came across this company on the web before in the 90's, apparently before it was aquired, it did have it's own website. This was definitly a real company. KeepHello people, I am the article's author. Yes I've tried google too, unsucessful. This is a real company. I can prove it. There was a book used for a project i did last year on turkmenistan. It was called "turkmenistan" and it was published in 2005. I am not sure what publishing company is but this should help the google searches. I read about a company founded by a man with a dream to rebuild a country. That company was brenco and that man was brennan roy. I did find a site about the company a few months ago while i was doing the report but apparently it was shut down. Please keep trying this company deserves recognition. I don't want you to go out your way to find this book, but if you ever come across a book titled "Turkmenistan" please see that it contains information about this company. I strongly appreciate this thank you.

Delete per nom. Note that the two keep votes are from the same user. --JJay 13:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You suck JJay BPRoy 01:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)User:BPRoy[reply]

WP:NPA, please. - Mailer Diablo 07:02, 3 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.

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. Kirill Lokshin 03:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sunatori.com

Advertising. Delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 01:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an ad. Devotchka 01:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to the importance in engineering and technology/science. (unsigned by 24.201.105.251)
Keep Canuck 01:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, 24.201.105.251 is the poster of the article, and Canuck is an apparent sock-puppet by same IP. Devotchka 02:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it's also a copyvio. -- Kjkolb 02:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note. User:24.201.105.251 who created this advertising article has twice removed the AfD tag. I left a note on his talk page prior to the second removal but he may not have seen it. What's the procedure if he removes the AfD tag again? I don't want to get into a 3RR situation Moriori 02:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An advertisement.—Bitmappity 02:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ad -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 02:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyvio per Kjkolb. --JJay 02:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy under A8. Uploader has been notified. Alphax ^τεχ 05:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyvio, or delete as advertising if their legal department releases the text under the GFDL. Certainly not a speedy; how they could conceivably be mistaken for a commercial content provider is beyond me. (You also forgot to blank the content.) —Cryptic (talk) 07:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you read the criteria? It's a copyvio detected within 48 hours, so it's definately speediable. And yes, I should have blanked it. Alphax ^τεχ 07:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I have read the criteria. You clearly have not. How is this a commercial content provider? —Cryptic (talk) 11:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and speedy if possible. - 09:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete as copyvio. --Optichan 15:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advertising (copyright violation seems to be an indirect justification) CarbonCopy 19:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete ads and vanity.--->Newyorktimescrossword 19:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DVD in my pants

Advertisement for a non-notable website - no encyclopedic content. No google links,no archive,low Alexa. Starting to spread over many film articles' external links (1). PTSE 01:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Devotchka 01:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete growing web communities, and block linkspam. — brighterorange (talk) 01:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE. Excellent and informative site, but spam nonetheless, and not notable enough to have a page on wikipedia. The Wookieepedian 03:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteSpam-Dakota 04:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I followed a link to the Band of Brothers review after it was posted on that article. I was not aware of this link spamming. It was a nice site, but I've seen nothing to establish notability. Cookiecaper 06:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Just zis Guy, you know? 09:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete advertising and vanity. --->Newyorktimescrossword 19:23, 29 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 speedied under criteria a7: non-notable bio. Joyous (talk) 12:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wombosi

Vanity page. --Jtalledo (talk) 01:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. - --Jtalledo (talk) 01:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither an industry insider or a person of any inherent importance, Thanks, that makes it easy. Devotchka 01:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Total vanity.
Delete with thanks to the authors for including the deletion criteria in the article :-) - Just zis Guy, you know? 09:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vandalism Prashanthns 09:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyrant gang}Template:Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surviving Veterans of the Second World War

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ABOK

Non-notable boat team, gets only a few results on Google. -- Kjkolb 01:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable—Bitmappity 02:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Amateur sports team. I believe that in general, teams need to be either professional or at least won some sort of championship in order to become valid topics for an encyclopedia. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A non-notable team with a very noble mission statement but hardly encyclopediac. Prashanthns 09:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's just an annotated link, not an article, so it's hard to tell whether the topic would be suitable for Wikipedia or not, but the entry as it stands contributes nothing that a Google search wouldn't. If the link were broken, the entry would become effectively nothing, which makes it painfully unmaintainable. TECannon 11:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment article is an orphan.Geni 15:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vanity. --->Newyorktimescrossword 19:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted under A7. – Alphax ^τεχ 05:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

XxGuitarFreakxX

Entry for a member of a forum—Bitmappity 02:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Devotchka 02:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Darkstaff

Non-canonical and non-notable Star Wars fanfic stuff. -- Captain Disdain 02:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. -- Captain Disdain 02:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If we really was "one of the most powerful of all sith," than he'd probably be notable, but there's no evidence he's a real Star Wars character. Just FYI, there is an actual Darkstaff in Star Wars, but it's an artifact, not an individual -LtNOWIS 03:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I will allow that good old geek in me to surface enough to say simply "Yeah, I know". Now if you'll excuse me, I will brutally beat it back into its box. =) -- Captain Disdain 03:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable no star wars character-Dakota 04:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Redirect to Star Wars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dantecubed (talk • contribs) 04:57, 28 October 2005

Well, I have no objection redirecting it (personally, I don't think it's really notable enough; for example, a Google search on "darkstaff" appears to give far more results for the EverQuest NPC than anything Star Wars related...), but if we're gonna do that, it should be redirected to List of minor Sith characters, as that article actually mentions "Darkstaff". Star Wars does not. -- Captain Disdain 05:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination, but no redirect. Redirecting a very minor topic to the 'top page' in a genre or field is just a pain for later editers, expecially if the minor topic has no hope of ever being mentioned in the target article. Saberwyn 12:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sorry, Mr. Darkstaff. --Optichan 15:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fanfic...--Isotope23 21:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom KnowledgeOfSelf 01:49, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteper above reasons. --->Newyorktimescrossword 19:25, 29 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. Kirill Lokshin 03:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Woolery Left Wheel

Delete. Unencyclopedic --Zpb52 02:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Don't know what it did say, but it's a bunch of gibberish now. Devotchka 02:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Anonymous user vandalized page immediately after posting of VfD. The original version has been restored. --Zpb52 02:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: There are numerous instances of this on Google; the original version can probably be merged into Wheel of Fortune. Make my vote Merge for now. Devotchka 02:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment article is an orphan.Geni 15:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn neologism. -- Grev -- Talk 16:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neologism Tedernst 20:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism. Apparently "Woolery left Wheel" is a sarcastic comment used to mean "that's old news", but it's not worthy of an encyclopedia article. In the alternative, merge into Chuck Woolery. --Metropolitan90 00:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Deletenonsense and outrageous. --->Newyorktimescrossword 19:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as attack page. --Carnildo 22:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nick de la Fuente

While I am not sure if this page is vanity or an attack page, it clearly suffers from problems with verifiability --207.136.49.111 02:27, 28 October 2005(UTC)

Delete. Can't find it on Google and awful anyway. Devotchka 02:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is indeed vanity or a personal attack. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. — JIP | Talk 07:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverifiable original research and POV. TECannon 11:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This "article" doesn't exhibit anything that Wikipedia stands for - its a personal attack, pure and simple frosted in the "contributors" person anger issues. Stu 12:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Planet

An article about a band that does not show up on Allmusic and apparently doesn't meet the WP:Music guidelines. -- Captain Disdain 02:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. -- Captain Disdain 02:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Cnwb 06:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Going by their web site, they have no albums. (Note: There was some weird connection between the R30 article and this. It listed their URL for no apparent reason.) --DavidConrad 06:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment article is an orphan.Geni 15:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteper above reasons. --->Newyorktimescrossword 19:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY KEEP. That's a horribly bloated, messy article, but this is an encyclopedic topic. Fix the article. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 11:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Jim Rome Show

Cleanup I started this article, and now I'm ashamed I did. This has ballooned into something very unencyclopedic and overblown. It needs to be trimmed and cleaned up. Zpb52 02:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... if you want it cleaned up, why are you bringing it up for deletion, then? You really should use the appropriate {{clean-up}} tag instead, for example. (In any case, since it is now up for deletion, I vote keep; the subject certainly appears to deserve an article of its own.) -- Captain Disdain 02:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- {{clean-up}} accomplishes nothing. --Zpb52 02:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - ...okay. -- Captain Disdain 02:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Uh, if no one cleans it up, 'clean-up' accomplishes nothing. But posting it as a 'delete' when you really just want it to be cleaned up...that's really pointless. Please don't misuse tags. Devotchka 03:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or even Speedy Keep since it wasn't intended as a delete. Devotchka 02:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep since this wasn't intended to be a deletion request. 23skidoo 03:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. There is an enormous amount of information in the article of interest to fans only. Nonetheless, it is notable enough for an article. Capitalistroadster 03:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please Keep since, frankly, I find it one of the most interesting, enlightening, and complete article I see. Also, I don't see Zpb52 making any effort to save his own page. When I created my first page, I closely monitored it, and have edited it for content. Frankly, I want it to stay as it is. For one thing, it provides information for new clones, and helps them understand the show. Second, its detail is unsurpassed. Finally, participation is through the roof. If you're going to delete it, you'll have undone the work of literally dozens of readers and listeners. This isn't some obscure cartoon or late night show. This is 'the' place to learn about the show. You are going to kill your own baby without trying to fix it? Get a life. If you delete this page, I will quit this site. --Saxonjf 04:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. None of the above are reasons for keeping the page. Also, refrain from the personal attacks. It's not the way to earn respect on Wikipedia. --Zpb52 04:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, since you brought that up, neither is nominating a perfectly valid article for deletion not because you want it deleted but because you want it cleaned up but can't be bothered to do it yourself or even use the existing Wikipedia tools, such as {{cleanup}} or submitting the article to the Cleanup Taskforce. I also see that you posted "This article is getting out of hand. If we don't trim some fat, it could wind up on the VfD list." to the article's talk page, which leads me to believe that you aren't quite familiar with the deletion process in general and the deletion policy in particular. I mean no offense here, but this is really very, very much the wrong way of going about getting an article improved. -- Captain Disdain 07:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep But only if it's cleaned up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dantecubed (talk • contribs) UTC 05:00, 28 October 2005
Keep and tag for cleanup. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but tag for cleanup. There needs to be a distinction here between what is apropriate for an encyclopedic article, and what is appropriate for a Jim Rome Show fansite. Currently, the article is too far towards the latter. If someone wants to take a copy of the article as is and throw it up on a Geocities page as a the world's best Jim Rome fansite, then no power in the world can stop them, but Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. --Clay Collier 07:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and give the nominator a virtual slap for being a lazy so-and-so. —Phil | Talk 09:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Kirill Lokshin 03:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Underpodcast

Non-notable neologism. -- Captain Disdain 02:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. (I suppose it could also be merged, but I really don't think it's a notable term.) -- Captain Disdain 02:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable today, but perhaps it may be in the near future. (unsigned by 64.247.254.154)
Then it can definitely be added in the near future. Until then, it shouldn't have an article. (Last comment by was by author of the article.) Devotchka 03:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable-Dakota 03:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, neologism. Gazpacho 04:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK fair enough, we'll have to wait and see if it becomes notable. Underpod 06:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. --Peruvianllama 07:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. It might belong in Wiktionary some day, though. TECannon 12:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable now. We don't know if it will be notable later. --Optichan 16:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above reasons. nn --->Newyorktimescrossword 19:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Route Avec Cypres"

Article says nothing about its title. Denni ☯ 02:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnecessary. We don't need an article describing an individual painting of Van Gogh's. Maybe do a redirect. Devotchka 02:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Au contraire. Wikipedia has at least 11 pages covering individual paintings of Van Gogh, and many others by other artists. ♠DanMS 04:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I spoke too soon. I just didn't think this one qualified for its own article. I support keeping it if someone can make a real article out of what we've got so far. (Basically nothing.) Devotchka 05:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clean up and move to Route Avec Cypres. Notable painting by notable artist. Capitalistroadster 05:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless rewritten. While I agree about notability, the nom is correct that this article says nothing and it would take a specialist to make more than a stub out of an individual painting. The full title should be Route avec Cypres et Ciel Etoile if kept. Dlyons493 Talk 05:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: you can find the other painting articles at Category:Vincent van Gogh. -- Kjkolb 06:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. There's nothing stopping someone from writing an article about this particular painting in the future, right? The painting is notable, but the entry is not even a stub. TECannon 12:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not against articles about individual paintings in principle, but strip out the POV and we've got "This is a painting by Vincent Van Gogh, who painted The Cracked Vase With The Big Daisies, which is a very good painting." Both points are covered by their own articles, to say the least. --Last Malthusian 14:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment article is an orphan.Geni 15:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redirect to Van Gogh for now. R adiant _>|< 00:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to van Gogh for now. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Barely an article here to debate. Marcus22 13:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --->Newyorktimescrossword 19:27, 29 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. Kirill Lokshin 03:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UnderPod

Neologism.--Shanel 03:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now, no relevant google hits. Gazpacho 04:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --Peruvianllama 07:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Just zis Guy, you know? 09:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neolojizzum (coined as an act of self-gratification, much like the activity it describes). --Last Malthusian 10:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --Optichan 16:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Kirill Lokshin 03:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The MQ

(Note until 23:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC) this was page was malformed, it had no header. As a result it was probably overlooked by many AfDers. If this does not get sufficient attention, the closing admin might consider relisting. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 23:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Delete Advertising-Dakota 03:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete advertising-like, but the topic is The Koala and the article is The MQ, no reason for existing. Pete.Hurd 22:42, 2 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.