Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 November 27

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Linas (talk | contribs) at 19:23, 27 November 2005 (Pasen series and Katz series). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
< November 26 >

Purge server cache

November 27

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. Owen× ☎ 04:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My guardian angel

Non-notable, new band StoatBringer 00:00, 27 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 --RoySmith 16:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Polar Bare Facts

Non-notable school magazine StoatBringer 00:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as CSD A1. Titoxd(?!?) 00:06, 27 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 wasSpeedy deleted as vandalism and elaborate hoax by Lucky 6.9

Jake Carpenter School of Beauty

Joke page. Maybe there is/was a school by this name (as the author indicates, it seems to be listed in Classmates.com), but there is no verifiable information on it that I can find. HollyAm 00:08, 27 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. Owen× ☎ 04:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary hosting

Term coined by author to insert his spam link in January 2005. Now it's a spam spot like Free ___domain name. -- Perfecto   00:18, 27 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. Owen× ☎ 04:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WGHS

A school party cannot be considered encyclopedic. José San Martin 00:14, 27 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. Owen× ☎ 04:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Super Sabado Gigante

Advertising for a music festival in the Bay Area. Delete. Andrew_pmk | Talk 00:28, 27 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. Owen× ☎ 04:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cando-American

Appears to be a made-up word, 69 hits in Google. Delete. Stifle 00:31, 27 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. I count opinions as roughly 10 delete, 3 merge, and 3 keep/rename. I took a quick look at Shadow the Hedgehog (video game), and it looks like a least some of this material is already there, and the rest looks like trivia that's not worth the effort to merge. --RoySmith 13:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow the Hedgehog (video game features)

Pure how-to fork. This is a fork of Shadow the Hedgehog (video game), and is entirely overspecific how-to advice and weapon/items lists. This is definitely GameFAQs materal, not Wikipedia material. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict>:@. have to retype>:@

I have taken the data about jumping, action button, players ect
I have left only useful information, only about the game's features, like vehciles, weapons and moves. Because it's about the games features, that is why this article has been made

>x<ino 02:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


? wats' wrong with you fools

i already stated the right info

if you got a problem go tell SEGA!:P >x<ino 04:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

you fools got issues havn't you!?

how come when i did this, it wasn't asked to be deleted, now it has been about 4 weeks now, and you fools want it deleted?

>x<ino 17:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are a trove of endless jokes. I suggest you stop while you're ahead. A simple answer to your inquiry is that it takes time for people to notice things. --Apostrophe 20:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

oh sh@t dejavor! >x<ino 00:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Care to speak the language that this encyclopedia is based on? Weak grammar is one thing; making up entirely nonsense words to fit the situation is quite other beast. --Apostrophe 02:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

what are you talking about!? i just had a dejavour

some one should do an article on it:P

>x<ino 03:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - It looks like a good article to me. There are already articles about all the features he's described. So if we are describing moves from Shadow the Hedgehog, then surely we can describe how to use them? The guy seems to be speaking leet which is influencing votes unfairly, IMO. Zordrac 09:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not GameFAQs (again), and it is not a place for how-to guides (explicitly). The merge/redirect is the only hope of preserving the content whatsoever, and I'm against that for the very reasons cited by the "keep" voters: our articles are not how-to, either, and merging a how-to section to an existing article is a way of confusing the new users, who will see that and think that it's a great idea to write articles with how to achieve cheat codes, etc. That's not encyclopedic and not Wikipedian. Geogre 10:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Like i said before, i have removed the moves, and surely left the section about weapons used & Vehicles >x<ino 14:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

oh please...others that voted "delete" don't even know what the article is about

just voting/spamming so it can be delete

If you want it deleted, state why it should >x<ino 03:22, 29 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 keep.  Grue  09:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Soup is Good Food

Delete article about one song, not notable as per WP:MUSIC. Alternatively merge into the/an article on the whole album. Keep per Dpbsmith. Stifle 00:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC), updated 21:16, 29 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. Enochlau 03:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

EVIL (Organization)

Not notable. Apostrophe 00:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If it's so important, someone will post this properly. JHMM13 03:17, 27 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. Owen× ☎ 03:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Corbin

doesnt look like this one passes WP;MUSIC. BL kiss the lizard 00:36, 27 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. Owen× ☎ 03:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kristina Jung

theres a difference between being notable and being related to someone notable. BL kiss the lizard 00:36, 27 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. Owen× ☎ 03:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ashura the Hedgehog

Minor glitch. Not notable. Apostrophe 00:54, 27 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. Owen× ☎ 03:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Postal Dude

Contains no information that is not already available on the Postal² article. This video game character doesn't even have a name given and is not particularly prominent. In my opinion, it fails to clear the notability barrier. Firebug 01:20, 27 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. Owen× ☎ 03:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Tullos

Vanity page for a Louisiana Tech grad student who's started a business. Delete. Calton | Talk 01:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Benefit of doubt: Keep: The person has some history of contribution to the community via running competitions for students and explaining things on the DIY Network. I originally was going to call for deletion, but after searching I decided to give it the benefit of doubt and wikify the page and neutralize the point of view. What I wonder is that if his wife wrote the article, she supposedly has a Masters degree in technical writing and a Bachelors in English. Hu 01:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not one of those things you mention, no matter how many wikilinks you add, comes close to satisfying WP:BIO. And how do you know about his wife? --Calton | Talk 03:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is claiming wiki links is the reason. As to the other question, I did a quick search and this was one of the first links to show up: [1] which surprised me given the lack of quality of writing, but who knows who wrote the article. I don't have much interest either way, other than idle curiosity. Hu 07:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is claiming wiki links is the reason. Nor did I say that: I'm referring to the use of wikilinks to, as the old saying goes, "put lipstick on a pig". --Calton | Talk 01:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Seems to be swinging to "Delete", which I don't have much problem with. I note with amusement though, that every page about some minor fictional character in any obscure video game made that appeals to 12 year olds is kept while a technologist, organizer and presenter is deleted. C'est la vie :) Hu 23:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If enough people are willing to support the endeavor, I'll go find them and start putting them up for deletion. It just seemed like it would be a very uphill battle. Also, technologist, organizer, and presenter is a set of terms that could be used to describe tens of thousands of people (for example, many graduate students, professors, postdocs, etc) :) Janet13 00:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hu, I share your apparent puzzlement. If Janet13 wants to start nominating gamecruft, I will be right in there voting delete. As far as I'm concerned the encyclopaedic content of most of these games is that they are a game played on $console, released in $year and selling $sales copies. Ditto most fiction articles. But I am well aware that this is against if not consensus then at least trend, which appears to be creeping trivialism. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 13:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - not quite notable enough. Perhaps when Tullos achieves more prominence his article will be restored but until then it's delete. Oh, and Hu, I share your pain. Reyk 23:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, should have been speedied. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for changing votes if nothing else. It's non-noteable and vanity anyway. HackJandy 06:18, 28 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. Owen× ☎ 03:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rhino Charge

Non-notable band, homepage on myspace. Delete. Wish we could speedy these. Stifle 01:25, 27 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. Owen× ☎ 03:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aluin Levitation

Previously speedied for copyvio, this re-created version still in my opinion fails to meet notability standards. This magic trick has not even been released yet. Firebug 01:28, 27 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 KEEP and rename to Mission Hockey. Owen× ☎ 03:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mission Hockey Skates

This article is in violation of WP:VAIN (commercial). D-Rock 01:33, 27 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. Owen× ☎ 03:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jadmin

A piece of software, use unstated, for AOL administrators and staff members only. -- RHaworth 01:38, 27 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. Owen× ☎ 03:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mike brodlieb

Delete. Probable hoax. The article says he is a rock musician and a nuclear negotiator with Iran. I don’t think so. AllMusic never heard of him. Google search for brodlieb and iran turns up 40 hits, none of which seem to be this person. •DanMS 01:46, 27 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 REDIRECT to Pinot Gris. Owen× ☎ 03:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gris

Forum sub-trivia, not worth a redirect to GameFAQs. I've redirected to Pinot Gris a few times, but a number of anons seem to disagree with that. Joyous | Talk 01:52, 27 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. Owen× ☎ 03:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Analog tape dispenser

Was tagged as a speedy but for being non notable, so not a candidate. 12 Google hits does confirm that suspicion, though. I abstain. CanadianCaesar 02:00, 27 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. Owen× ☎ 03:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Lorek Fan Club

Delete. I have no idea what in the h— this is all about. The fan club’s website says that they admire the guy (Mike Lorek) because he “can perform amazing feats such as making a Chinese man’s face out his stomach by squeezing the fat together with his fingers.” I wish this were a speedy but I can’t come with the basis. If someone else can, please do. •DanMS 02:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Growing up as a poor Jewish child in downtown Philadelphia, I hope that this entry is not deleted. This entry has made me come to realize that the Mike Lorek Fan Club is probably one of the best and most noteworthy clubs in The United States. I feel it should stay on here to help other people discover this wonderful organization that tries to help so many underprivileged Jewish children. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.166.172.57 (talk • contribs)

Keep What kind of hypocrite would come on here and say someone has too much time on there hands for creating an article when there on here criticizing it? It's ludicrous to say that someone has a limited social life when 1)You don't know them and 2)Your ONLINE bashing someone. Take a look in the mirror before you criticize someone. Does it make you feel better about yourself for bashing a legitimate organization that has its own .com and ___domain name? This organization has built a strong reputation over the years and has been nothing but benficial to its community. If you think it makes you some kind of a hero to come on here and try and clean up what you deem crap, it doesn't. If you want to "clean up" the internet, theres plenty of pointless weblogs and pornography sites you can waste your time picking on. To quote Bob Dylan, "don’t criticize what you can’t understand." This page does not break any of the rules, and atleast there not hypocritically criticizing people for using, "The Free Encyclopedia that anyone can edit".IcePro88 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.30.84 (talk • contribs)

Keep I suppose I should take time out of my busy social life to support a fine local establishment that is under the unfair criticism of some misinformed blokes that should do a little research before they start casting judgments. This local establishment has helped our community time and again. For instance, they hold an annual car show that is always entertaining and brings the community together. Who cares if they decide to poke fun at their mascot's bizarre talents and have a little humour to lighten things up? They're a great bunch of guys who are a local asset and if that's not "notable" enough to be part of this database, I don't know what is... maybe whoever reviews this stuff should concentrate on some of the more questionable entries and let this genuine cause alone?ChrisMyth--207.255.30.84 03:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC) Second vote from this IP address.[reply]

KeepI don't really know what to say to convince those that want this page deleted that it should not be deleted, BUT this organization is actively involved in the community and deserves to be recognized on Wikipedia. Steph — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.16.33.64 (talk • contribs)


Keep To know that such a great organization is under fire like this really shows me what this world is coming to. We allow pornography on the internet but the Mike Lorek Fan Club should be banned from all knowledge databases? This is a sad and shameful thing to see. I personally know that the Mike Lorek Fan Club takes care of those around them and tries to bring POSITIVE influences to the area with annual car shows in Sidman, PA, participating in annual events such as the Easter Seals Softball Tournament held in Roxbury, and assisting in the Le Dance Academy's Yearly performance in Windber, PA. They support the local Forest Hills football team by making an appearance at the community Pep Rally and going to the games. They support the local diners with their weekly "Wing Nite" night held all over the area. How could anyone wish for such an organization to be removed from recognition on Wikipedia? This organization is a breath of fresh air to the community, local- and internet-wise and anyone who wants to see this database removed obviously prefers gloom and downtroddenness over positive and upbeat knowledge and activities!

RDViper96 --147.160.181.8 20:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Why are you people always trying to take away the freedom of speech in this country and the freedom of assembly? The MLFC is a perfectly legitimate organization determined to place emphasis on our fundamental freedoms while not subjecting anyone to forms of degradation nor using any forms of elicit discrimination. The group is a highly respectable organization in the community of Johnstown, and it is determined to florish and help create a utopian society. Without groups like the MLFC, our society will reach a cataclysmic low in morale and become socially impotent. Would you like to cause the demise of society? If so, then vote yes to delete this. If no, then God bless. [3] {{Eric Yax|207.255.30.84}}

Keep I don't understand what all the fuss is about? It sounds like this fanclub is a legimitate regional organization working towards a positive goal. I also believe that the process of deletion is being handeled innappropatly. The policy of vanity articles states:

The user who created the article is most often a new, or newer user. If there is nothing particularly offensive about the page, please be kind to the newbie. Suggestion: before beginning any deletion procedures on a vanity article, it is sometimes found that by simply politely informing the creator of the article that this appears to be a vanity article, and by pointing him or her to this page first, that the author him or her self will sometimes easily agree to the deletion him or herself, thus saving much waste of time and energy on the parts of all concerned parties.During any debates regarding vanity article that are listed at articles for deletion, disparaging comments may fly about the subject of the article/author (often presumed to be the same person) and the author's motives. These may border on personal attacks, and may discourage the article's creator from future contributions. Remember to please always assume good faith.

Usually, vanity articles are not recreated after being deleted. It is believed that the majority of vanity article creators forget about their vanity articles and do not revisit at all; this is evident in that they rarely defend the article during the deletion debate.

All I found were imflamatory comments directed at the members of this orginization and critizing their personal lives. I strongly believe that these comments cannot simply be taken "in good faith." This organization has a legitimate reason to be on the wikipedia. Don't judge them by your own standards. --128.118.51.117 16:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the Vice-President of the Mike Lorek Fan Club (MLFC), I am sickened that people want to take the MLFC out of Wikipedia. Obviously, we are in the end times. The people of this world that want to take away the good (MLFC) and relish in darkness are trying to get their way. The MLFC has been not only a spark of light in the Johnstown, PA community, but it has been a true inferno. We are like Bat Man, we help out when you least expect it. We don't need thank you's or cash donations---we just like to see people smile. If we were able to put a smile on one Jewish kid's face, then I know that we've done our job! We don't discriminate against any gender, race or creed----we are out to help the people of this great world. We have raised money to help people find homes, jobs, food and clothing by the money that we raised w/ the softball tournament that we were in over the summer of 2005. We are not a bunch of immature people that are out to have a good time. We are a UNIT that is out to make the world smile, one face at a time. ---Harrison vote — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.183.156.248 (talk • contribs)

LEAVE IT BE As president of this fan club I want to say that this great support for our club shows me and should show everyone else how much it truly means to us all. Even if we were to get deleted from this page it would be Wikipedia's great loss and not ours. We know we have true fan club that's a real tangable thing and not some made up waste of an entry like maybe the Kuchera Fan Club would be. If Wikipedia won't accept us maybe Webster's will. This is the United States of American and we belong in here for all the world to discover and enjoy!!! Send us your weirdos, your crazies, your poor, your sick, your has beens, your never was's, your unpopular wastes because there is a little Mike Lorek Fan Club in all of us.....::::leaving the room humming the Star-Spangled Banner:::::: -President Hutsky

Memorable Quote from Animal House D-Day: War's over, man. Wormer dropped the big one. Bluto: Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no! Otter: Germans? Boon: Forget it, he's rolling. Bluto: And it ain't over now. 'Cause when the goin' gets tough... [thinks hard] Bluto: the tough get goin'! Who's with me? Let's go! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.166.172.57 (talk • contribs) including everything from LEAVE IT BE

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. Owen× ☎ 03:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How to bowl a strike

As the article title says, it's a "how to" and as such falls under WP:NOT. -- JLaTondre 02:31, 27 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 withdrawn by nominator. --GraemeL (talk) 13:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mike's

This is a disambiguation page that does not point to any Wikipedia links. It disambiguates only two external links. I don’t think this belongs in the Wikipedia. Anyone know of a policy covering this? •DanMS 02:47, 27 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. Owen× ☎ 03:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Biodroid Empire

Kind of confusing, but this article is describing part of the plot of a novel by "N.C. Nahin". Buuut, since you're reading this on AfD... I can't verify that there is an "N.C. Nahin" [4], nor that there's a book by this title or author on Amazon/etc. Searches for the proper nouns in this article just point back to the WP article. Has one editor, an anon, who feverishly added all of this in August and hasn't been back. The information in this article seems unverifiable to me. --W.marsh 02:52, 27 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. Owen× ☎ 03:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Buffoon & Co

NN webcomic; one relevant Google hit and no relevant Alexa. User's only contributions are to this article and its related production company. See also Universal Studs Pro-Ductions below. - Lucky 6.9 03:01, 27 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. Owen× ☎ 03:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Studs Pro-Ductions

An admitted "fake production company" by a new user whose only contribs have been self-promotion of a nn webcomic. - 03:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 --RoySmith 03:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MiliPants

This is a kind of underpants for soldiers. Notable or not notable? I am inclined to think not. I did get 56 Google hits on the word. Let the panel decide. •DanMS 03:31, 27 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. Owen× ☎ 04:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pestilent Divinity

Band vanity. No significant activity whatsoever, merely an excuse to link to the band's own website

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. Owen× ☎ 04:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cell Bone

Neologism. Denni ☯ 03:49, 27 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 NO CONSENSUS. Owen× ☎ 04:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of on-screen clichés

This article has bugged me for a long time. A lot of it's so called clichés only appear in one TV show, movie etc. and are very badly worded. Whilst cleanup seems like an easier way to approach it, I only see the list continuing to be unruly, so I recommend its deletion.Barneyboo 04:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What I meant by it being unruly, though, is that even with cleanup, it's fundamental flaws will still be there, even if it is a tenth of the size. It's just a very subjective list which I can't envisage in a cleaned up form. Barneyboo 17:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely agree. How many times must something be repeated, and by whom, to become a cliché? What is the essential verifiable difference between a cliché and a catchphrase? How does this advance our understanding of either? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 19:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Many different ways it fails the list criteria. For one, it is inherently POV to call something a "cliche." For another, "on screen" means, to me, movies, but, for the article authors, television. Third, there is no way to be comprehensive here, and there is no "notable cliches" that can be appealed to (i.e. with other poorly conceived lists, people will say, "Well, obviously, it's not supposed to be a List of all American directors, just the notable ones," but that can't be said, here). By the criteria for lists, this one fails. Geogre 10:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • To me, "on screen" means both movies and television. The only difference is a technical detail in the viewing apparatus. Television shows have much in common with movies, much more than with, for example, theatre plays or books. Is there a really important distinction between movies and television or do you just harken back to the pre-TV days? — JIP | Talk 20:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Turnstep that it should be kept and cleaned up because of the large amount of edits (547) by different users. Many list movies which they come from, and some are so obvious they dont need verification - "Car chases will usually involve...Passing through a narrow alleyway stacked high with empty cardboard boxes...The pursuer will crash through something being carried across the street, usually a pane of glass or a fruit cart" or how about "There is always a big red button that is not supposed to be pressed." - countless movies Astrokey44 13:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Theres so many that they would need their own article, maybe a few of the more obvious ones should be mentioned there with one of those 'See main article' links Astrokey44 14:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For what value of need? As far as I can tell, WP is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not an indiscriminate collection of information. What is the encyclopaedic purpose of keeping more than are required to illustrate the point? And come to that, isn't cliché a dicdef anyway? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 12:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The issue is not how badly written the article is. The subject matter is simply not encyclopedic, no matter how eloquent. Barneyboo (Talk) 12:38, 29 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. -- SCZenz 05:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The effect of segregated education on negro school children

Either a copyvio or OR. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that seems to be the developing consensus. I've just parked the whole article into the talk page of racial segregation so when I have some time I'll go back there and merge what I can. With that understanding, I concur with the vote to delete. --Christofurio 16:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 Merge into Gold Belt Byway

Phantom canyon road

A lovely drive, I'm sure, but not notable. Denni ☯ 04:28, 27 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 03:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grophland

nn game site, alexa ranking of 623,084, 58 unique Google hits. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:49, 27 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 03:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Hatred

nn band "currently in the process of making their first song". We should be able to speedy this stuff. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not submitter, but just doing some cleanup. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:00, 27 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 03:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine Anime Forums

nn web forum that is "not 100% completed". User:Zoe|(talk) 05:17, 27 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 03:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Wood

Could not find any of these books in google search, and no evidence that any of the Greg Wood in google search refer to this person. Not notable, unverifiable, vanity? D-Rock 05:37, 27 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 03:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pr0metheus burning

nn "rhythmic noise project" with no entries at artistdirect or allmusic and only 65 unique Google hits. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Quentin Pierce 05:51, 27 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 Deleted as copyright violation from the BBC under WP:CSD Criteria A8 copyright violation of a copyright of a commercial content provider. Capitalistroadster 18:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Dr Edward Lestrade

Despite all of the words, I don't see that this person is particularly notable. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article is a copyright violation. JHMM13 06:56, 27 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 03:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wild scotsman

A non-notable distiller of a non-notable scotch whiskey. Denni ☯ 05:47, 27 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 Speed delete --RoySmith 16:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

D0h

Google gives no indication of this group's notability; it doesn't seem verifiable that it even exists. Written like it's some kind of joke. —jiy (talk) 06:24, 27 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 by unambiguous and unanimous community decision. -- Psy guy Talk 04:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet As Sugar

Delete. This appears to just be song lyrics to some random song. Even if it was "Hey Jude" I would still nominate it for deletion. JHMM13 06:49, 27 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 by unambiguous and unanimous community decision. -- Psy guy Talk 04:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Libras have more fun

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a magazine. --Spring Rubber 06:51, 27 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 by unambiguous and unanimous community decision. -- Psy guy Talk 04:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Gods Of Rock

Band vanity, not notable, Speedy Delete Herostratus 06:56, 27 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 by unambiguous and unanimous community decision. -- Psy guy Talk 04:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Incredible Project

Band vanity, not notable, Speedy Delete Herostratus 06:56, 27 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 by unambiguous and unanimous community decision. -- Psy guy Talk 04:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed

Dictionary definition. Delete or move to dictionary of slang, if there is one. •DanMS 07:01, 27 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 by unambiguous and unanimous community decision. -- Psy guy Talk 04:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley likes goon

Gets 727 Google hits. Non-notable. --Hottentot 07:01, 27 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. Enochlau 08:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

STFU Katielady

I am wondering whether it may be speedily deleted, since this is a clear case of provably false information: "internet phenomenon" with no internet presence. mikka (t) 08:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep--article has been modified to address concerns. (Full disclosure -- I am the original author of the article.) I see what you mean about the term 'internet phenomenon', and I agree that I mis-interpreted the term. I shall remove that term from the article. (I was interpreting the term as something that *was created* through the internet, whereas I'll agree with you that the definition ought to be *is spread* through the internet.) My apologies. However, I can verify the trend referred to in the article does legitametly exist, so I'll rewrite the article with a different classification to address the concerns raised here. Tavistmorph 16:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's certainly not an "internet phenomenom', but since that phrase has been apparently been removed by the original author, it passes all the other Wikipedia requirements. Google trail of this meme is admittedly small, but it demonstrably does exist. Heapchk 20:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You apparently are not familiar with wikipedia policies. Main issues here are notability and verifiability. We do not keep articles about things which do not already have articles in reputable sources. The reason is simple: wikipedia does not have peer review, and may rely only on already published third-party opinions. mikka (t) 20:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It could be the next "all your base" but I would think then it would be notable. Also, seems to be "original research" even if it is spreading. One thought that occurs to be is someone may be trying to make it an "Internet phenomena" by getting it into the Wikipedia? Mark K. Bilbo 23:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It seems like an inside joke from one web forum that somebody is trying to turn into an Internet phenomenon, including the use of Wikipedia itself as a vehicle to spread the meme, which is not a proper function of this site. If it does manage to spread sufficiently, it will then be notable and the article can reasonably be recreated at that point. *Dan T.* 04:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 01:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it doesn't look like it's spread much beyond the original board where it started. It's not even close to being an "internet phenomenon" yet. --Bachrach44 16:45, 30 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 by unambiguous and unanimous community decision. -- Psy guy Talk 04:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Model Motion

A defunct televison show on a local-access televison channel in Arlington, Virginia. No Google or IMDb hits. Seems rather non-notable. Recommend delete. •DanMS 07:28, 27 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 (per creator's consent, and only editor was creator). --Nlu 16:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Modem Madness

Spam, but doesn't seem to fit a CSD category. Delete. --Nlu 07:32, 27 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 RESULT by community decision. -- Psy guy Talk 04:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Truthism

Sometimes you come across pages like this and all that "respect" you had for D-grade philosophy majors vanishes in an instant. "Truthism" only put up 265 results on Google, and none of them appear to have anything to do with a staunch opposition to "falsism. Delete. JHMM13 07:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • And isnt wikipedia for getting undocumented events/beliefs on it, which seperates it from other static encyclopedias? Thanks for proving my point. Google isn't able to help you learn about this belief system, now wikipedia is able to. --Comment posted by 67.175.186.219 (Please put ~~~~ after your messages. JHMM13 07:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not for allowing any person to post whatever he wants without any validity from the outside world. There are no publications to support the fact that "truthism" even exists except in your mind, and if you'd like to gain notoriety, don't do it through Wikipedia. We report on notoriety, we don't create it. That's what an encyclopedia does. JHMM13 07:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is this getting deleted? There are two seperate people writing this who are experts on the subject. However insane the editors here find this article, we feel the same for many other topics on here. But isnt fairness of ideas allowed here? We believe in this so please do not delete it. --Comment posted by 67.175.186.219
  • Speedy Delete with extreme prejudice as arrant nonsense. Spamming of discussion board by authors not appreciated.Herostratus 08:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • So one person who googles a word and can't find results who isn't able to properly research something they don't understand, decides if this stays or goes? There are a lot of subjects that do not have a web presence, do you exclude those too? Guess what, there is more to the world than google. I know you are surprised to hear that, but it is true.
  • Speedy delete, utter nonsense. Squiddy 10:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • ^^A communist who likes Nietzsche wants to call something else "nonsense?" LMAO
    • Lunacharsky, the 20s Soviet minister was a Nietzschean Marxist, and the distinctly anarchistic historian/philosopher Michel Foucault was strongly influenced by Nietzsche. Nietzschean socialists include G B Shaw and A R Orage. Feel free to re-attach your arse with whatever degree of sheepishness you think appropriate. Squiddy 11:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article's main author states outright above that this is an "undocumented belief". That alone is enough to determine that this is unverifiable. The content and edit history of the article, where the tenets of this purported belief are altering in response to this very discussion, convinces me that this is a belief system that is being constructed on the fly by its author(s) directly in a Wikipedia article, that has gained zero traction outside of Wikipedia or indeed outside of its creator(s). It is thus original research. Delete. Uncle G 16:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Authors' comments here demonstrate it is original research. Peyna 17:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:Complete Bollocks. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 19:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, patent nonsense. linas 19:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete if there isn't a category of "Delete for HUH?" maybe there should be. Mark K. Bilbo 23:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is an underground movement involving hundreds of peoples. Truthism is on the rise. You can delete it now but in 3 months (Merlin willing) someone else will put it up. Maybe some followers will make a few hundred websites explaining our ideology and then we will see a stop to this persecution.

Get over yourself. Followers of some religions and sects throughout history have been persecuted by being driven from their homes, forced into ghettoes, burnt alive, set upon by wild animals, and massacred by the thousands and millions: your "persecution" is having a substandard encyclopedia article deleted. --Calton | Talk 01:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So you admit you are persecuting us? Sounds like you are a SICKIST. Read some real truth and get back to me. Id start with Metzger's science papers and then some of Merlin's FACTS. Then maybe you will stop the liarist personal attacks.

What part of my use of quotation marks/inverted commas around persecution escaped you? If you don't understand their purpose, I can recommend some good grammar books, and then you can get back to me. --Calton | Talk 15:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Truthist teachings show us that in the end, SICKISM like it is displayed here will be destroyed. Merlin is REAL and will use his stones to stop this.

  • Hm... interesting little comment you backed up and blanked. The one that goes "Go ahead and delete the article, punks. It'll be back up tomorrow." Maybe the page should be speedy deleted and prevented from being recreated. Mark K. Bilbo 04:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt write that. As I said, multiple people are involved in truthism. It is not a FAD, it is FACT!

I think you could change "sickism" to "sockism" and you'd find some people around here agreeing that it exists :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 10:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Sockism" is fake. Merlin never mentioned it. Anti-harpism is REAL. Read the studies performed by Metzger. You will learn some truth. Heil Merlin.

Now we have a wikipedia editor using the word (however incorrectly) therefore it should stay. BTW, google some real keywords like "magic crystals," "merlin," and "bunyanism" and youll see what Im talking about.

Now, now, don't drag a perfectly respectable field like bunyanism into this argument. JHMM13 07:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Shame on you, you're being ismist :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 12:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 by unambiguous and unanimous community decision. -- Psy guy Talk 04:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New Rising Sun

Non-notable band, doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC criteria - Akamad 07:42, 27 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. Harro5 08:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Personalized Native Language

Appears to be total nonsense. However, I want some opinions before speedy deleting it. --Nlu 07:43, 27 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 by unambiguous and unanimous community decision. -- Psy guy Talk 04:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bile Nephrosis

Myspace band formed in 2005, has one EP, no label information. Fails WP:MUSIC. --W.marsh 07:49, 27 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 keep (you're welcome to merge).  Grue  09:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WMLN

Does not seem sufficiently notable. It is a college radio station, and the awards won are not particularly impressive(see http://www.curry.edu/Student+Life/Curry+College+Radio/). Unless I am mistaken, the wattage is also low Superm401 | Talk 07:53, 27 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 by unambiguous and unanimous community decision. -- Psy guy Talk 04:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bigot slutwrench

Not on AMG, article gives no evidence that they have any releases or a label, thus fails WP:MUSIC. The only contributing author attends the college where the band plays... probable vanity. --W.marsh 07:59, 27 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 nonsense) --Nlu 08:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Fok

A likely hoax article, as google searchs of Jeffrey Fok, "Jeffrey Fok" + celtics and "Jeffrey Fok" + patriots produce no results. Unless concrete evidence (ie. career NFL or NBA stats from a reputable source are produced) this is just a hoax and nothing more. Can you really survive a hurricane, go to college, play NFL, NBA for 14 years, and help develop Halo 2 without Google having heard of you? Really? Harro5 08:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. - Akamad 08:14, 27 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 nonsense and/or non-notable biography) --Nlu 08:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher H. Taylor

Possible hoax. "Christopher H. Taylor" returns 234 search hits which include an attorney, an accused peeping tom, a bird photographer, a tennis player, a livestock judge, and so on, but nothing matching the description given. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:13, 27 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 Consensus not reached. Keep. Enochlau 08:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Amazing Spider-Man comics

For the love of all that is good, why does this page exist? Should wikipedia list every comic ever made? This is an encyclopedia!!!! Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This just encourages guys like Brown Shoes22. Highlights of very important issues MAY belong here(although I doubt it), but listing all these issues??? Delete it now, please!!!! Dyslexic agnostic 08:51, 27 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 by unambiguous and unanimous community decision. -- Psy guy Talk 04:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Dropcast

Advertisement. There are 725 Google hits for Dropcast (195 unique ones). Their website has no Alexa rank. Not notable - delete. - Mike Rosoft 09:08, 27 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. I count 11 delete/merge, 4 keeps. Based on the raw count, I could have been convinced to go either way. After all, three minor acting credits and a poorly selling book is three credits and one book more than I have to my name! Still, the article itself reads so much like a gossip column, I don't think it's worth keeping. One could make the argument that we aim to be a superset of every encyclopedia that has ever been published, and thus the IMDB article should mean it's good enough for us, but I think it would be a hard sell to convince me that IMDB is an encyclopedia. --RoySmith 14:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Dow

I know I worked to make this page normal, but this isn't a very notable person. She has 3 very minor credits as an actress, one book that was hardly a best-seller, and is mostly known for her relationship problems with her daughter, Jennifer Aniston. I don't think she's quite notable and the Aniston Vs. Dow conflict can be briefly summarized on Aniston's page. There are a lot of other celebrity relatives who are not really well-known for any other reason than maybe a small media-reported conflict with their celebrity offspring, i.e. Aaron Carter's mother Jane Spaulding Carter, Sandra Dee's stage mother, etc.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 spam, particularly in light of author's action in deleting this entry) --Nlu 09:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Investment Manager

This article seems to be spam, but I may be wrong. Looking for input on this one before I make a delete decision. Thanks. JHMM13 09:17, 27 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: recreation of deleted content. If anyone sees this page get recreated, drop a line on the Administrator's Noticeboard. Thanks, Mysekurity 07:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dusted

Unnecessary article. Delete or merge to Rollo Armstrong. - Mike Rosoft 09:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

no need for own page, just merge it Sethie 20:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If I am doing this wrong, sorry.... I added a RFD on Nov 26, 2005. When I went to add this page, it already exited, though on a previous entry that I am guessing has nothing to do with the current one, hence no need for Speedy Delete. Sethie 20:29, 26 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 Keep. Enochlau 08:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trannyshack

Localized, not notable. Delete --Spring Rubber 09:54, 27 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 copyright violation, with very minor alterations, perhaps to evade search engines. --Nlu 17:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

叶蓉

not in English


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. Enochlau 08:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CallingID, CallingID Toolbar

Not notable. Vanity page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.82.2 (talk • contribs)

I'm not voting, but I'd like to point out that Webrunner69 seems to be a sock puppet for CallingID and is the main source for spamming^Hdiscussion on the web for CallingID -62.31.82.2 01:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See Special:Contributions/Webrunner69 - edits restricted to the article, this AfD and linkspamming. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 14:27, 29 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. Enochlau 08:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CallingID, CallingID Toolbar

Not notable. Vanity page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.82.2 (talk • contribs)

I'm not voting, but I'd like to point out that Webrunner69 seems to be a sock puppet for CallingID and is the main source for spamming^Hdiscussion on the web for CallingID -62.31.82.2 01:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See Special:Contributions/Webrunner69 - edits restricted to the article, this AfD and linkspamming. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 14:27, 29 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 Speedily deleted. Enochlau 08:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Allen Weller

Not convinced of the notability of this individual. Article created by Larcin1978 (talk · contribs) who has worked on this article and nothing else - possible vanity?. No Google hits for "Chris Weller" and "Kris Allen" together, and only 45 for "Christopher Allen Weller". Delete CLW 12:25, 27 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 Transwiki-ed. Enochlau 08:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How to prepare an onion cell slide

Transwikied to Wikibooks; the transwiki page says to AfD the article if it hasn't already gone on AfD. Johnleemk | Talk 12:29, 27 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 NO CONSENSUS.

Final tally at closing was:

No anon/socks to discar. Owen× ☎ 22:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is a sucker born every minute

Unencyclopedic entry based almost entirely on speculation; the article basically says that the phrase exists, may or may not be attributable to three different people and was once paraphrased by a theatre group. Delete CLW 12:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Further to discussion below, merge to P. T. Barnum and redirect both this and There's a sucker born every minute (surely the more common form) to P. T. Barnum. CLW 07:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! Welcome to the club. May I just take a moment to clarify: when I said that the fact of Geo Swan's having created another Firesign-related article was an unworthy thought, I meant exactly that. His edit history makes it abundantly clear that he is not a single-issue wonder, but an editor with a wide history of interesting added content. I know I am sometimes prone to irony - Geo Swan, please accept my apologies if the comment was misread in any way, I was actually having a go at myself, not at you. Honest. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 21:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Freak of Nature, thanks for offering your explanation. I don't know what "sub-sorting" is. But, it seems to me that your concern about new users being turned off, when they click on the Random Page link, merely reveals a flaw in the implementation of the Random Page code -- one that could be fixed with a sensibility filter that didn't show pages that fell below a certain threshold of edits or sentences. WRT new users please consider the comment I posted to Dalbury's vote below, where I suggest thought experiment. If you are going to base your vote based on new users I think you have to consider the frustration and inconvenience a merge poses for readers who go to the page because they want to know the background of the phrase, and, instead, are taken to a completely different page, a biography, or someone they may never heard of. -- Geo Swan 11:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that the phrase is often used without attribution is pretty irrelevant. "To be or not to be" is often used without attribution, but it still belongs to Shakespeare. That said, if there's serious dispute about the source of the phrase, Keep but move to There's a sucker... —Wahoofive (talk)
  • Keep. The merge votes, I think, are a little rediculous in this case. Sure, the fact that PT Barnum didn't actually say it would stay on his page, but the other people would be deleted as irrelevent on that page. So it needs to stay here. Jacqui★ 00:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Jacqui. Seano1 01:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the Barnum article. Sheesh, do we need an article for every quote that may have been misattributed? -- Dalbury(Talk) 02:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is a strawman argument. No one is suggesting that every misattributed quote merits an article of its own. The phrase merits an article because it is widely used, and has long ago entered our cultural shorthand. Most instances of its use don't explain its meaning, or attribute it to Barnum. The wikipedia should have an article devoted to the phrase to help out those unfamiliar with the phrase, or those for whom English is not their native language. Merging to Barnum is a disservice to those who want to use the wikipedia to find out the phrase's background. Here is a thought experiment. Go to one of the articles that links to this one. Pretend you have never heard of Barnum. Now pretend you clicked on the link, because you were interested in the phrase, and you got taken not to an article about the phrase, but to some guy from the 19th Century named Barnum. Let me suggest that, if you were a new user, your first reaction would be, "This wikipedia is not as useful as people claim. WTF would it take me to a biography of this 19th Century guy, when I told it I wanted to know more about that phrase?" -- Geo Swan 11:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Barnum. Do we really need articles for every famous quote? Sorry for my language now, I am just making a point: The quote "Fuck you" is a much more used quote than the Barnum quote, but it isn't an article of itself, but redirected and a part of the article "Fuck". By the way, the Barnum quote should be listed as "trivia" in the Barnum article since it is uncertain whether he said it. My Regards, Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 12:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - I want to address those of you who identify yourselves as "mergists". I understand that some of you feel an aesthetic affinity to merging. I get aesthetic affinities too. I get aesthetic affinities for doing things certain ways, or making things look in certain ways. But, what I have to acknowledge, is that those aesthetic affinities sometimes screw me up.
It seems like most people who want to merge this article into PT Barnum are prompted by an aesthetic sense. The merge feels right to them, because all merge suggestions feel right to them.
Some instances of making things look right really are incredibly useful and important. An instance of that here on the wikipedia would be we the see also and external references sections. There is a project to go through all the articles and regularize their usage. Making all our external references appear as regular as possible, makes it easy to find the particular parts we want. With instances like this, once we get used to putting things in a regular format, we internalize that format, so we can recognize it at a glance, and can recognize when it is not in that format, at a glance. And our aesthetic sense kicks in, so we feel dissatisfied when it just doesn't look right.
But that aesthetic sense can really betray us too, lead us into bad decisions. There are certain kinds of tasks where I am tempted to use my favourite tools. I want to write a script, make use of some regular expressions, to automatically select some stuff, and make transformations. I think I am good at it. I estimate it won't take very long, and I will feel an aesthetic satisfaction doing the task that I wouldn't feel if I made each change by hand. But it turns out I made some typos, or didn't fully appreciate the special cases, and I have to write several drafts. I find myself reluctant to admit when my aesthetic sense betrayed me -- when brute force manual editing would have saved time and prevented errors.
We have to be disciplined about how we allow ourselves to exercise our aesthetic sense. We have to recognize that even the best aesthetic rule, which
Merging can break things. It will break things in this particular instance. Three of the four articles that link to this article already link to PT Barnum, right in the same sentence or a neighbouring sentence. So, redirecting this phrase to PT Barnum breaks those articles, by putting a second, deceptive link to PT Barnum near the real link to PT Barnum.
That sucks. Its broken. Let me suggest this merge is a misapplication of your aesthetic sense. -- Geo Swan 12:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Geo, here is how I see it: people will go to the Barnum article and expect to find reference to this comment, due to widespread popular (mis?)attribution. Note that the references are not actually conclusive on that score. Therefore, the Barnum article has to mention this phrase, even if only to say he never said it. It would make sense to cover it twice if (a) there was a substantial likelihood of people entering this phrase as a search term (which I don't think there is, and anyway the search would find the Barnum article), or (b) there was substantial additional encyclopaedic content, which I don't see: beyond Barnum-specific discussion (which again ionvolves redundancy as it has to establish the background of the quarrel, which is properly done in the Barnum article), there isn't much to say. It's an aphorism, people use it. This is not a dictionary of aphorisms. If there is a list of aphorisms it would probably be listed (as it is in my dictionary of aphorisms) as widely but probably erroneously attributed to Barnum. You've seen what Bartleby has to say: [8]. So, I support a merge for maintainability, avoiding duplication, and ease of use because I can't see what other encyclopaedic relevance it might have, this not being a dictionary of aphorisms and all. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 12:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The phrase has independent significance above and beyond the Barnum article and discussion about its origins deserve a separate entry. Jtmichcock 05:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Rename. I was in the process of closing out this AfD when I came to the conclusion that I so strongly disagreed with what appeared to be the majority opinion that I'd rather express my own opinion and let somebody else close it out. Given how popular the phrase is, and how it appears that Barnum did not actually say it (which I've heard before), I think it deserves to stand on its own. The Barnum article should reference this one. Rename to There's a sucker born every minute (as mentioned above, the most common form), and redirect this name (as a common mis-spelling) to that one. --RoySmith 14:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 re-creation (with simple name changes) of content for which there is a consensus to delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schluegenkopf. Uncle G 16:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vincenzo

New version of the User:Schluegenkopf hoax, variously deleted in the past as Schluegenkopf, Schluedenkopf, The Ricci Family and probably others. Tearlach 14:04, 27 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. If nobody knows, how do they know? -Mysekurity 06:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OmboboTeam

3 Google hits. Speculative in nature, "too secret". Punkmorten 14:12, 27 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. Enochlau 08:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

School Four

Some unencyclopedic schoolcruft with local spook-tales. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 14:30, 27 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. Enochlau 08:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Politics of South Park

Article is unencyclopedic and completely subjective.

  • Delete per WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. PJM 15:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • In July 2005, it was discussed on Talk:Politics of South Park that the article comprised solely editors' own analyses of the political stance of South Park, presented as though they were Wikipedia's own opinions, and was thus both biased and original research (an issue that had been raised a month before on Talk:South Park Republican). Sources and attribution were requested then. The article has sported neutrality and accuracy dispute tags in the months since, and during that time not a single source has been cited in the article to indicate that this is not original research, and no attempt has been made to attribute the opinions on the politics of the show to the people who actually hold them, or even indicate that anyone other than the editors themselves who are writing the article hold those opinions. (On Talk:South Park Republican, an editor refused outright to cite xyr source.) The evidence of the edit history and talk pages is thus that there is no scope for this article to be anything other than non-neutral and original research. We are here to create an encyclopaedia that condenses and summarizes existing knowledge that has already been peer reviewed and published, not to collaborate on creating from scratch a political treatise about a television show. Delete. Uncle G 17:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. So what is being argued here? Are you saying that this subject is inherently NPOV/OR, or that what is posted now is such? I do not see why a perfectly satisfactory article can not be created discussing the politics of South Park. This is a program many people watch, and more have heard of. It has pushed the envelope, and is notable. Now, if you don't like the current content, why not edit it? Sandpiper 19:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only satisfactory edit as things stand is to delete the article. You assert that a "perfectly satisfactory article can be created". This implies that you know of sources on this subject that can be used to create such an article. So cite them. Merely claiming that this isn't original research and can be rendered neutral, without actually demonstrating that it isn't original research and providing sources to work from, won't cut the mustard any longer. Sources have been requested for five months, and not only have editors not provided them, they have even refused to provide them, one stating that xyr contributions are the "product of some research I had been doing". It is now crunch time. The currently unsubstantiated assertion that this isn't original research now has to be backed up with something concrete within the next few days. Uncle G 23:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't need to cite a source to state an opinion here, nor does anyone else. It is my view which counts here. The idea is to seek consensus not win by playing a trump card? Sandpiper 16:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • The idea is, as I have already said, to create an encyclopaedia that condenses and summarizes existing knowledge that has already been peer reviewed and published, not to collaborate on creating from scratch a political treatise about a television show. Uncle G 18:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Possibly, but did it used to be to create an encyclopedia which people could rely upon to tell them accurately what they wanted to know about anything? Sandpiper 20:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • No. Things that humans want to know about is not the same as things that humans do know about. Wanting to know about things that people don't know about is, after all, why people do original research. Uncle G 16:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Oh no (really no). Wiki notion of OR is not at all the same as the real world meaning of OR. It is much more restrictive. Things rejected on wiki would be laughed out of the examination, if submitted for a degree where OR was expected. Sandpiper 18:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR. Article doesn't cite a single source; thus it more than likely the research of the editors involved. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 20:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NOR actually says:'Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research," it is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.' So, yes, wiki policy specifically expects editors to do research, specifically to collect and collate information from primary sources (i.e. the programs themselves). It is quite plain the primary source is the programs themselves and this is implicit throughout the article. Sandpiper 16:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please read the whole policy, in particular the part that says "it is essential that any [...] any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data has been published by a third-party reputable publication (that is, not self-published) that is available to readers either from a website (other than Wikipedia) or through a public library". Collaboratively creating an analysis of the political stance of a television show, where no such analysis exists outside of Wikipedia is original research, plainly and simply. You have the opportunity to provide evidence that such an analysis exists, which is the only way that you can demonstrate that this is not original research. Merely arguing as you are that that we should include original research in our encyclopaedia isn't persuasive. Uncle G
        • I did read the whole policy. then I read it again, and all the talk page, and commented. My conclusion was that the policy had been somewhat subverted into a tool for closing arguments. Sandpiper 20:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • The fact that one of the fundamental policies that tells us what we are actually doing, and (furthermore) not doing, here is a means for closing arguments is not a matter of subversion. Uncle G 16:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes it is. It misses the pretty obvious point that while references might make an article better, an article with no references is better than no article at all. This is also part of wiki policy. (or it was) The proper criteria for inclusion is accuracy, not whether it has references.Sandpiper 18:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or perhaps transwiki to wiktionary as a definition of original research :oP Jacqui★ 00:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:NOR. The South Park Republican article covers everything this article dose without original research. Seano1 01:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I contributed somewhat to this article and looking back, it's completely unencyclopedic and inherently NPOV. daleki 01:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This sort of thing seems inherently POV and OR. *Dan T.* 04:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it is interesting, it is not POV as it shows any political view from either side, and it is not original research because of the number of different editors. The source is the show itself, which is verifyable because of its worldwide popularity Astrokey44 14:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see OR here. The facts are easily verifiable by watching relevant episodes.  Grue  17:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article doesn't contain facts, it contains conclusions. For example, it states that episode 502 is "Against censorship on TV". This is a conclusion, drawn from watching the television show and inferring a political stance indirectly from the plot and dialogue, not a verifiable fact about the television show. It is an opinion about the television show. It isn't attributed to the person who holds that opinion, and no source for it is provided. There's no evidence that it is anything but a conclusion drawn directly by the Wikipedia editor who first published here. The whole article is like this. Uncle G 18:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know you have a point Uncle G, but I do not support an absolutist reliance on references. It becomes an instrument for censorship rather than accuracy. There is a distinction between drawing novel conclusions and stating common conclusions which would be drawn by the average(informed) man had he been (in this case) watching the programs. The latter is not OR by any normal definition, and is not so under the explicit exclusion clause in wiki policy. Nor does the absence of a reference prove something is OR. The logical premis can only be that the presence of a reference proves that it is not.Sandpiper 20:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • We have no idea what the "common conclusions" are "which would be drawn by the average(informed) man had he been (in this case) watching the programs". There are no sources to tell us. You cannot prove that what is in the article are those conclusions, or even that most people won't in fact come to entirely different conclusions.

          If you don't support relying upon references, then you won't be comfortable here at Wikipedia. That is what we do here. I can highly recommend adopting the stance of always insisting upon there being references and good sourcing, though. The articles that you create won't ever come to AFD in the first place (I speak from experience.), and you can even rescue the odd article from deletion here, there, and yon, too. ☺ Uncle G 16:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

          • No, you miss the point. Every editor of wiki is one of those average informed men. If you are arguing that editors are unable to make choices about what is common sense to include, then there will be no encyclopedia at all. You make my point for me too, that references are not being used as a tool for improving quality, but for settling arguments about deletion and non-deletion. Wiki has been criticized as lacking an editorial POV. The real problem is not having a POV but making it clear where and how this applies. Wiki insistence on removing POV is its main tool for controlling editors. This may be necessary, (or not) but it also reduces the quality of certain kinds of article. Any kind of article which relies upon an opinion, in fact (politics, biography, economics, literature...). It is also against the spirit of wiki, that anyone can contribute. This may become wikis greatest problem if it continues. Sandpiper 18:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPOV clearly states that all views of a subject should be fairly represented. This article inherently cannot do that because it tells readers how these episodes should be interpreted. Accurate or not, it violates Wiki policy. PJM 19:20, 30 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. Enochlau 08:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neogia

What is going on in this article? Machine generated sentences? I get the vague sense that this is an advertisement for something. delete

Lotsofissues 14:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Advertisement, and (badly translated) content is a straight lift from web page here Humansdorpie 17:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This product may be notable—or maybe not. I did get 220,000 hits on Google for Neogia. Neogia appears to be an adjunct to another system called OFBiz, for which I found 587,000 Google hits. However, Wikipedia does not have an article for OFBiz, so it would seem rather useless to have a separate article for Neogia. Anyway, this article on Neogia is virtually incomprehensible, so let’s dump it. •DanMS 17:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Press on, er, Delete. Does appear to be machine-translated, and incomprehensible. MCB 07:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. Enochlau 08:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Audio Design /Recording Compex limiters

Not suitable for wikipedia: "This article will describe the procedure for rebuilding Audio+Design [compressor] limiters". Seems like either original research or copy from some magazine. Delete. --Anthony Ivanoff 13:56, 27 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. Enochlau 08:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ce Soir

From the Discussion page of this article:


'Delete': This album was a rumor that Ulf Ekberg debunked in an interview on October 20, 2005. There never was a Ce Soir album.

www.aceofbase.nl --12.221.181.152

'Delete'
I STRONGLY agree; I never believed this album existed, and had difficulty convincing people it was a stupid rumor. I'm so glad the band has finally put an end to this ridiculous rumor.--Firsfron 18:04, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Enochlau 08:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Christian entertainers

Delete Unless these people make people laugh at the pew......delete. 65.9.143.76 23:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You should maybe learn the templates for verify and cleanup. That said this list is very broad and not too deep. So I'm abstaining for now unless sockpuppeting delete votes proliferate.--T. Anthony 09:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote: the anonymous nominator's point might be that the title is ambiguous, that it might be interpreted as "People who entertain Christians" which, technically, could be anyone (as an "entertainer" might have fans of any faith, and not even know it). — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 17:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The title is in line with other lists, so that's not really an issue. However, it's still listcruft. Delete way too big and unmaintainable, difficult to verify in many cases, and anyway, who cares? Unless their Christianity affects their entertainment content, it's just as irrelevant as their shoe size. —Wahoofive (talk) 22:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete From the looks of it this list only presents entertainers who are Catholic and not entertainers who entertain by involvement of Catholicism...therefore this list is pointless. Antidote 23:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete almost as stupid as List of white people StabRule 23:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to suspected sockpuppetry of StabRule, nom and others. (See my comment here) Peyna 00:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or tighten the criteria. Looking through the list, I found most of the articles made no mention of the person’s faith. It seems the list was made with a very low threshold hold of what constitutes a Christian. The result could almost be called ‘ a list of none-Jewish actors’ and is about as useful as a something like a list people who drive Japanese cars. Seano1 01:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite- if this is a list of entertainers who happen to be roughly Christian by religion, I'd say strong delete. But a list of people in 'Christian entertainment', or entertainers who have used their celebrity status to promote their faith would seem to have some validity. The criteria should be that they are notable for being Christians and for being enertainers.--Doc ask? 02:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably a good idea. Tuth be told as this list stands I think it's very weirdly put together and I'd actually consider delete, but if it could fixed on those lines keep.(No vote for now)--T. Anthony 02:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I worked on that. Delete might have been easier, but I think this is going either keep or no concensus. As it stands now most names should be relevant to the topic.--T. Anthony 16:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not against deletion, but could people point me to where the List of dentists and List of plumbers are at Wiki? The horror at making more lists related to them I've noticed is discussed often at delete votes, but I have no idea where the originals are. I'll check Wikipedia:List of lists I guess.--T. Anthony 17:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Can't find them, but I'll start one on dentists and see how it works out.--T. Anthony 17:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The dentist one almost kind of works. I considered doing a plumber one, but it wouldn't work and would be going too far anyway.--T. Anthony 06:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. Owen× ☎ 03:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mylo Carbia

This article was originally much larger and based (unknowingly) on faulty if not downright fictional source material. Once the faulty material was removed, there wasn't much left. See its history and talk page. It's not clear if "Mylo Carbia" is a hoax, an out of control boaster or a victim of some sort of bizarre practical joke, but no matter how thin you slice it, it shouldn't be here. Richfife 16:05, 26 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. Owen× ☎ 03:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Problem of interaction

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete looks like somebody's term paper that they heavily plagiarized off of random web pages on the Internet, original research and possibly copyvio. Peyna 17:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can I ask why you think plagiarised? I'm sorry about the 'please format' but I'm new here (don't bite the newbies...?). Azushi
      • Because a google search revealed similar phrases to many of the sentences in the article, but no exact matches; thus suggesting that someone used them as sources and changed a few words around. It also looks very suspiciously like a term paper. Peyna 23:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Of course there were similar phrases! The topic is utterliy central to the philosophy of mind. I'm sure there a thousand articles called the same thing using very similar phrases because that's the philosophical terminology. I don't recognise your "Google approach" to identifying plagiarism; I could write you another "term paper" on how flawed a strategy that is. If it needs re-writing, then re-write it as you see fit (preferable to deletion, as stated by Wiki guidelines). I was simply plugging a gaping hole, as I saw it, namely that the problem of interaction had no entry on Wikipedia. I found this incredible - and this is certainly better than nothing.
  • Delete There's an article in there somewhere, but this is just an essay. And the [Someone needs to format this correctly for me] isn't very endearing either! Dlyons493 Talk 17:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete looks like "original research." In fact, it looks like a term paper. Puts me in mind of some of the work of User:Supremevo01 interestingly enough. Mark K. Bilbo 23:25, 27 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 redirect.  Grue  09:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Demon Seed

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem to be about the movie or the book - as far as I can tell - so I assume it's 'made-up'. Also, the "by Sean" signature at the bottom doesn't help its case. If you know that it's based on notable creative work, please place a link here. Thanks. PJM 21:05, 27 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 Consensus not reached. Keep. Enochlau 08:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Microcosm Publishing

This article describes a publisher called Microcosm Publishing in Portland, OR. All the references I find (e.g. on Amazon) are to a company of the same name based in the UK. The article says this is an independent publisher and distributor of zine, books, pamphlets, 1" buttons etc. Some Google hits to support this, but that does not make them notable. The pass the first test for vanity, in that the first words in the article were a weblink to their site (removed). I can't see a lot to suggest that the zines themselves are notable. The article concludes with an invitation ot their 10th Anniversary Party (I will contact them, obviously they will be happy send me complimentary first classs tickets from London Heathrow so I can validate this). Overall, this looks like vanity, borderline spam. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 15:49, 27 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. Owen× ☎ 03:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Big betty

Reads like a hoax, Google and a newsgroups search finds no verification that this is a character in Good Times, Good Friends. --W.marsh 16:03, 27 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. Owen× ☎ 03:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Big Locote (Hi-Power)

Nothing on AMG and so little on Google/Newsgroups as to be essnetially unverifiable. Anyway there's no evidence this guy passes WP:MUSIC. --W.marsh 16:08, 27 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. Enochlau 08:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Big neighbourhood

While there is a "Big Neighborhood" on AMG it doesn't seem to be this band. Anyway, article indicates they don't pass WP:MUSIC, only one release and no label info. Another one with nonexistant google coverage so I wonder if it's a hoax too. --W.marsh 16:12, 27 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.  Grue  09:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Riz fc

Barely notable, haven't made an impact yet. Aecis praatpaal 16:13, 27 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. Owen× ☎ 03:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anything forums

Wikipedia is WP:NOT a webguide, and the site mentioned here appears pretty non-notable. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:18, 27 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.

This page has been blanked on request. For archive, please see the article history.

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, under A7 --RoySmith 19:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chris_Ziegler

Vanity page Theusername 17:22, 27 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. Owen× ☎ 04:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PAUL HAND

Looks like vanity - no context indicating notability ( Note: This nomination made by User:Taejo. Humansdorpie 19:45, 30 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 Consensus not reached. Keep. Enochlau 08:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese family structure

Original research and distinctly POV by a user who has created two pages (this and The effect of segregated education on negro school children), both now nominated (the other not by me); the user has made two other edits, both reverted, both replacing established content with similar essays. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 17:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I thought that, too. I spent a while trying to see if I could condense something usable out of the current content, but decided it was beyond me. If anyone can manage that I'll happily withdraw the nomination, as it's clearly a valid subject even if this treatment is pretty much irredeemable. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 10:48, 29 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. Owen× ☎ 04:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fonearena

Advertisement. Joyous | Talk 17:52, 27 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. Enochlau 08:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kingston upon Hull; City of UA

Nothing links to this page, city of UA an unknown reference Kinhull 17:57, 27 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. Owen× ☎ 04:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Toaster Fiction

This is a fanfic term applying to devotees of Batman and the Scarecrow. It appears to be confined to one LiveJournal community. Not notable enough for inclusion at Wikipedia. Joyous | Talk 18:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pfft. Toaster Fiction brings joy to EVERYONE. whether they know it or not. Do not kill the toaster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.211.102.59 (talk • contribs)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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. Owen× ☎ 04:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas & Friends Lego Duplo

Non-notable. Doesn't cover anything new about Lego or Thomas and his Friends Blightsoot 18:05, 27 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. Enochlau 08:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nozegrind

Lack of Google hits suggests not notable - delete CLW 18:10, 27 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. Owen× ☎ 04:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Albatross 11

recreated speedy delete page (be it a little more serious). However, the site isn't notable enough to need an article, and the fact it has no Alexa data is a sign of this. Probably also a vanity article.Blightsoot 18:09, 27 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. — JIP | Talk 18:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

School is Hell

Found this while looking at the Matt Groening page, only to find this nonsense. The book doesn't need it's own article; Life in Hell is enough. Nick R 18:09, 27 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. (I will recreate it to redirect to Laminate, which makes more sense) Enochlau 08:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Laminator

Self-admitted NN band. "Most music was released locally but can ocasionally be obtained via bullying." --202.156.6.54 18:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • (sorry didnt check what NN band was) but ' most' music was released locally, not all of it. Also see RDF (radical dance faction) much of their music was also released locally, but it doesnt stop them being an immensely important band of our time. I believe Laminator also played an immensely important part, i'm not adding them for any commercial reason or just to give them kudos. do what you think's best i suppose. (unsigned comments by User:82.24.148.47)
  • Speedy delete as vanity or delete as non-notable (notable achievements listed as, "stealing each other's lighters.") Ifnord 19:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city ' Incredibly prominent, important part of late 90s/early 21st century youth culture in middle-england. Have had reviews in Kerrang. 'lighters etc' is reference from local zine.
  • Delete as NN. Give us verifiable sources for your claim, and I'll look at this again. -- Dalbury(Talk) 03:45, 29 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. Owen× ☎ 04:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AmigaCam

Some user's personal website about the Amiga, which the user is advertising as the greatest Amiga site ever. 492 Google hits, the most of which seem to be mentions of the site on sites with user-submitted content. Alexa ranking 2,744,896. This is obviously a non-notable website. Delete and take care to remove all advertisements from Amiga and other articles they may appear in. — JIP | Talk 18:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This seems to be a personal-promotion article. Val42 03:36, 29 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 keep. There is no way this article is getting deleted. If it has neutrality problems then fix them. SimonP 19:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian Genocide

This page should be deleted because it is refelcting the Armenian point of view. Its aim is solely to misinform people rather than informing people. I looked at the Azeri page and there is no reference to Azeri Genocide which happened 10 years ago. If Azeri Genocide is ignored this pase should also not exist.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.214.147.83 (talk • contribs)

Delete- I want it to be removed because there is no reference to Western missionaries propogating Armenians to fight againist Ottomans before the war. Did Ottomans wake up one night and decided to kill Armenians: NO! What about the Turkish casualties? There in no reference to Turkish casualties and Turkish point of view.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Malcolmriver (talk • contribs)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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. Owen× ☎ 04:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Haust

NN, advertising, very recently created business --Impaciente 18:35, 27 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. Owen× ☎ 04:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Rex

NN, no specific Google hits for either artist or hit single. --Impaciente 18:46, 27 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. Owen× ☎ 04:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Basofe

At best this appears to be a great article about a non-notable slang term. It was originally nominated for speedy deletion, but I don't think it qualifies. -- Francs2000   18:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. I tried to verify not just the existence of this term, which seems clear, but the other information in the article, and was unable to do so. "Basofologia" and "Basofology" appear to be neologisms, which makes me doubt some of the other information about the importance of the term. Chick Bowen 04:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 12:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article should be kept, it talks about a street term used in Portugal by a type of people, wikipedia have lots of articles of this kind so this should be keep saved! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.58.253.82 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 29 November 2005 - And then moved down the page by User:86.132.157.98 - Only previous edits by both users have been in Basofe.
  • This term really exists in Portugal, it's a new term "made" by a humour show called "Gato Fedorento", this term appears in one of their sketches, since them it is used by a lot of people, keep this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.113.164.104 (talk • contribs)


don't delete

being a portuguese person, i actually find it quite factual the information displayed on this article, it is all true, these chungas, dreads, mitras, are the most pathetic thing on the face of this earth, their style, the way they talk, lowest class people, its true it might be offencive towards them, but in general anyone in portugal who is not one of these can admit that they are pathetic [edit]

I Agree...

Being a current resident of Portugal, I must say that I completely agree with the above message. The chungas that crawl the streets over here are pathetic creatures, and if any of them get angry and hurt by this article my day will be just a little bit brighter. But anyway, there is a very small chance of that happening since chungas are not educated and therefore cannot speak english, and they definitely do not have acess to the internet as not even their lives are worth as much as a decent computer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.84.22.152 (talk • contribs) and that includes both of the above paragraphs, despite the attempt to make it look like two comments.


Hello, I do not believe this article should be deleted. This article is genuine. The term "basofe" is analogous to the term "chav" that became slang in the U.K. Just like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chav is a valid article this one should be too. At most, this article should be tagged incomplete because there is clearly more formal definitions missing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.172.0.142 (talk • contribs)


I don't agree this article should be deleted, as it is genuine about a word that's currently used in the Portuguese Slang, to describe this kind of 'new-age' groups. Maybe clean up, but certainly not deleted. --84.90.132.174 22:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 21:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Candi Kubeck

ValuJet Flight 592 has a good article covering this incident and Kubeck's notability is only based on that event. This should be deleted and some portion of it perhaps merged with the VJ592 article. Delete Dbchip 19:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Previous AFD

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 keep. FCYTravis 5 July 2005 22:02 (UTC)

Candi Kubeck

nn This nomination should not be considered an implicit delete vote, I have voted seperately. You (Talk) 19:50, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

I had a go at it and made it look a little more like a Wikipedia arcticle. Neutral. --Sn0wflake 21:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete or, better still, move to user page. - Lucky 6.9 19:52, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Note - crossing out Lucky 6.9's initial vote to avoid confusion following his change of vote below. -- BD2412 talk June 28, 2005 20:49 (UTC)
  • Userfy if at all possible; otherwise delete. -- BD2412 talk 20:01, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
  • Keep and wikify. Being the pilot in a notable air disaster is notable. (Userfy? To where? She's dead.) Pburka 20:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Misjudgement on my part - I missed that bit! Vote withdrawn. -- BD2412 talk 20:41, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
  • She was a pilot in a notable air disaster? Then Keep. I should have read the article better. You (Talk)
  • Keep. Notability established in article. --Unfocused 20:55, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Since the crash was not blamed on pilot error, I don't think her biography is notable or relevant. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Give her a mention in ValuJet Flight 592 and delete this article. --Xcali 21:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • This has changed significantly since it was first posted. No mention was made of the ValuJet crash in the original article. So much for "userfy." Changing vote to keep. - Lucky 6.9 23:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Notable female pilot. JamesBurns 03:40, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Notable enough pilot. Capitalistroadster 09:28, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, what JamesBurns and Capitalistroadster said. MLSfreak777
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.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 03:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dnforum.com

A forum about ___domain names. It claims to be the main forum about ___domain names, but it's still just a forum. -- Francs2000   19:05, 27 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 keep (even after discarding IP addresses etc). – Jitse Niesen (talk) 04:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Game (game)

This was nominated in 2004 and kept (not without controversy). My Google skills are not the best in the world, but I've just spent ten minutes trying to find any references to this game outside WP and minor blogs, without success. It looks to me as if it's either a very minor cult, or a nihilartikel (it is heavily self-referential). I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise, but if this is a meme, it seems to me to be a minor one, and largely founded on this article. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 19:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - deeply irritating and non-notable pseudo-meme Bwithh 20:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - have you had a look at the articles discussion page which gives numerious references including links to some sites which existed a couple of years before the article was created. as for something to google; [10] --MilkMiruku 00:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think I've heard of this. Andre (talk) 03:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've definately heard of this... long before I saw the google page. And I'm not big on the whole internet-meme scene, either. It's very popular where I am. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.189.12.4 (talk • contribs) First edit
  • Comment: A game that is not a game played by people who can only play it when they are not playing it? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 11:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I really like this game195.188.173.96 11:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I found out about the game ages before I heard about this page, its only after a couple of years of anguish (from a large number of my friends), that someone actually bothered to Google The Game and found this page and told us about it on our website. Hence the page may have created the cult (I don't know how old it is), though The Game is now self-perputuating and the will continue to exist regardless. Though perhaps it should be taken down purely to save others from it's unforgiving grasp. 195.173.15.12 13:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Everyone keeps talking about how they can't stop playing this annoying game. Me, this Wikipedia article was the first place I heard about it. Is it an Anglosaxon-only thing? — JIP | Talk 13:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 684 students play it at Cambridge University alone, and that's according to facebook society figures when only about half the university are members of facebook. I certainly heard of it a long time before I saw this article 131.111.8.96 13:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I heard about this game in real life. The argument that it only exists on Wikipedia is bogus. Birkett 14:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I never said it only existed on Wikipedia. I said I had never heard of it before. Who am I, the supreme authority of deciding what exists and what doesn't? There's an unbelieveable number of places in Finland that you haven't heard about, for example. Does this automatically mean they don't exist? — JIP | Talk 19:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There seems to be quite a lot of people who plays this game in our university in France and almost nobody knows this Wikipedia entry. --82.235.37.168 16:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.Even though we are all losing the game in talking about it. If it must be deleted can it go to uncyclopedia or is it too sensible for them. I feel it belongs somewhere in the wiki family.Signed in 18:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC) User's third edit[reply]
  • Keep even though I'm irritated about having lost. Again. At least a dozen people I know offhand in the midwest United States know of this game independent of my knowledge of it; this is of course ancedotal, but the game is viral in nature. --Stephen Deken 18:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I lost it a few minutes ago, so being here didn't make me lose it. The Game exists everywhere, including Oregon. No way this isn't notable. Ingoolemo talk 18:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG Keep. It seems that this is in a lot of AIM profiles, facebook, and otherwise. To the author of the deletion notice, did you ever consider that some od the details of "The Games" origins were a joke? I don;t see any valid reason for deletion --Brianopp 18:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC) (User's first edit)[reply]
  • Keep. I love the game, even even though it is a source of eternal torment. Anyway ths site is supposed to be a comprehensive online encyclopedia and if you delete a widely known phenomenon as this is then the site will not be comprehensive. Oh and it is heard of outside of WP, for example; http://www.losethegame.com 152.78.254.128 19:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.197.248.8 (talk • contribs)
  • Is this up for deletion again? Yawn. Keep, as long as berks can stop sabotaging it with crappy rules about half-hour grace periods and competitive strategies. It's a laugh; enjoy it. Kinitawowi 22:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I'm stating that it has been through AfD before, it was deemed notable enough to keep then, and but for the actions of a few idiots it remains so. I base my judgements in AfD on deciding whether a topic is worth keeping, not necessarily the content. The Game is real. I'm not an avid player, but I'm smart enough to know that memes (which The Game is, essentially) propogate very rapidly through blogs. Of course it's going to turn up in lots of non-notable blogs; that doesn't make it non-notable of itself. Kinitawowi 23:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep

This game is utterly brilliant, keeping us college and uni students occupied, frustrated and in despair for many an hour. Admittedly, the whole rule and grace period issue is a bit weak, bu tthe game is absolutely brilliant and deserves recognition. KEEP!!! (lost the game) 141.163.84.17 02:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep

I view it as being as pertinant as any other game I've played, and I've been playing it for a year and a half. Bkkbrad 03:22, 29 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. Owen× ☎ 04:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Miller

Vanity article with LOTS OF CAPS and some enormous pictures, claim to notability is being a member of a band called the Breeze - strangely enough this article was mostly the work of User:Leonardbreeze. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 19:17, 27 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. Owen× ☎ 04:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seven point exit strategy for Iraq

Article is what the title says. Unsourced. Deletable on one or more of the following grounds: Source material, not an article; Copyvio; original research. -- RHaworth 19:18, 27 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 because not substantially different from the article discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CAMPAIGN for MEMORIAL IN BELFAST TO JAMES MAGENNIS VC. -- RHaworth 19:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

THE CAMPAIGN FOR A MEMORIAL TO JAMES MAGENNIS VC

Because wikipedia is NOT a memorial... or a soapbox. Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 19:20, 27 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 REDIRECT to Paschen series. Owen× ☎ 04:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pasen series

This page appears to be a hoax, there is no such thing. linas 19:18, 27 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. Owen× ☎ 04:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Katz series

Hoax, there is no such thing. Probably worthy of a speedy delete, at that. linas 19:21, 27 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_27&oldid=29402838"