Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 October 8

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< October 7 October 9 >

Purge server cache

October 8

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

4.16 Enoch

edit
  • Delete Does anyone apart from your own classmates actually bother about a single class, especially when it is insignificant and is about to break up? This is a public ___domain and not your school ___domain. Maybe get your school to host your class website instead? 11:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC) - Lowzeewee

A page about a school class. Not even a school, just a class. JoanneB 17:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted.  Grue  17:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

88face

edit

Article is for a neosmileyface. Non-notable, newly created, article fails to assert any notability, yet a tragic oversight in WP:CSD forces this to be an AFD. CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The 88face is a valid symbol and has been in wide use for a considerable amount of time. Therefore, this article should not be deleted, as it is extremely relevant and accurate. - Unsigned by 69.248.86.170

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron shier

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abstract (Java)

edit

Essentially non-informative article whose information is put forth much better in Abstract class. The only article that links (or rather: linked, I changed that) here was Abstract. The Abstract page lacked link to Abstract class so I replaced the link to Abstract (Java) with that one. As such, this article here has outlived its usfulness. --J-Star 14:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Result: Keep -- (drini's page|☎) 01:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aicha

edit

del. Nonnotable, nonverifiable. only 380 unique google hits is just too small for an "internet phenomenon" as it is claimed to be. mikka (t) 22:03, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anatta Wiseism

edit

Personal essay, OR, no Googles Dlyons493 Talk 21:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 30th was an exceptionally busy AfD day. So this debate among several got almost no attention. Relisting in hope of some tender, loving debate this time around. -Splashtalk 00:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Hermione1980 23:35, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Bishop

edit

I wanted to go for sure with afd as I'm not 100% positive this would be A7 CSD. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 15:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was RESULT: DELETE -- (drini's page|☎) 00:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anime Sekai

edit

(WCFrancis tagged the article and started the afd, but apparently forgot to add it to the log. Adding it now.) Joyous (talk) 23:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Starcraft Clan downloaded page. nn WCFrancis 03:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this page up for deletion?-a[s]elk

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aramaic Latin alphabet

edit

This is exactly the same as Aramaic Latin Alphabet (see Articles for deletion/Aramaic Latin Alphabet). The article was moved here from that latter article by a user due to the policy on capitalisation of titles. However, the original author continued to work on the article under its old title, leaving this unfinished. Both articles are nonsense created by someone playing around with the Aramaic alphabet. Gareth Hughes 15:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aramaic Latin Alphabet

edit

To the non-specialist this article might look like it has substance: it doesn't. The article does not cite sources and does not claim which Aramaic language this alphabet might be used for (see Aramaic language for the diverse history of the language). The fact is that the system as laid out does not make sense in itself, and it looks like the work of someone who knows a little of the language, but has not studied it properly. Thus, it is original research. The authors, Sargonious and 12.15.7.70, have previously contributed nonsense about Aramaic to Wikipedia. I also note that the article Aramaic Latin alphabet, to which a user moved this article at an early stage, also exists. It seems that the authors didn't realise where it had gone! Gareth Hughes 15:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this being put up for deletion on the basis that none of you are Aramaic speakers to argue about what I am.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Audic rizk

edit

Vanity article (author is Audic rizk); does not appear to be notable (25 unique Google hits); images have copyright notice. MCB 22:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: They try to make themselves sound like a big deal with this sentence: "Represented by the Christine Colas gallery in Paris, they exhibit regularly in Europe, the Middle East and Japan." I don't have the expertise to know whether this, if true, would make them significant in any way or not. Friday (talk) 22:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Very easy to check the truth of the information. Try Google!! pictures and links to the names of galleries and exhibitions are proof of their activity. As for the vanity article. It is not the quantity of google pages but the quality of the work and the possibility to create links from it which should be the question. It is preferable to be transparent and show the author as user than useless misleading by creating another Author. Wikipedia is surely not a place where someone puts adds on himself, nevertheless it is one way of getting into the wiki world and starting to collaborate.(Audic Rizk)
  • The question is not proof of "activity", which is manifest, nor the quality of the work (which I find quite appealing); it is whether it is well-known, widely written about, or the subject of media interest and art criticism, and so forth, and thus appropriate for an encyclopedia article. So yes, to some extent quantity is important. Writing and posting a article about yourself or your business creates the appearance of a "vanity" or self-promotional article. I would recommend moving this to User space ("userfy"). MCB 06:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
September 30th was an exceptionally busy AfD day. So this debate among several got almost no attention. Relisting in hope of some tender, loving debate this time around. -Splashtalk 00:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete -- (drini's page|☎) 02:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bawbag

edit

Nonsense. WP does not need one page for every existing insult. About 17200 hits in Google [1] -- ReyBrujo 15:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beer looter dude

edit

Last month's forum fads are not notable.

  • Delete. -- Gazpacho 01:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN.--Kross 02:25, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Like so many of the Fantastically Famous Forum Frenzies, it gets, ooh, about 145 non-repetitive Googles. Any kind of internet fad that was at all encyclopedic would have vastly more than that. The article also contains a large number of unreferenced assertions, the truths of which are uniformly indeterminable. Even the existence of the speculation surrounding them is largely unverifiable, especially on the scale the article claims. There is nowhere to merge it to that would benefit from the additional material (this is hardly a "minor branch of a subject"), and nothing that bears such a relation as to redirect to. There, all without using the letter 'n' twice in a row. -Splashtalk 03:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -- non-notable four-week fads on a forum do not make encyclopedia articles. --Mysidia (talk) 07:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Book the Forteenth

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

The result of the debate was Result: Delete -- (drini's page|☎) 01:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brainkabob

edit

Non-notable studio. 202.156.6.60 23:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete – Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 09:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brodrick road

edit

Roadcruft. DS 13:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Result: Delete -- (drini's page|☎) 01:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bystander

edit

This is a dicdef that has already been transwikied to Wiktioanry. Delete Angr/tɔk tə mi 21:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was BJAODN and DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Capade

edit

The article sounds sensible, but turns out to be a neologism coined as an experiment. It refuses to cite sources, although it states that some capades (pranks) received media coverage. Delete. JFW | T@lk 19:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Result: Delete under CSD A7 -- (drini's page|☎) 01:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Stabbin

edit

I know it has a bunch of Google hits, but is this website really notable? --Hottentot

Keep and expand

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

The result of the debate was Result: delete -- (drini's page|☎) 01:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cartifact

edit

This is a neologism that has already been transwikied to Wiktionary. Delete Angr/tɔk tə mi 21:30, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Wikibofh 17:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cat Tale

edit

Unreleased movie still in production (Yes, I know it has an imdb entry!).Delete and submit a proper article when (or if) movie is released. Eddie.willers 01:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was RESULT: Delete -- (drini's page|☎) 01:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

C'DiX

edit

Almost contentless, advertising Dlyons493 Talk 22:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Karmafist 21:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC) Explanation on Talk Page [reply]

Ceraphite

edit

This sounds bogus to me. If anyone can provide solid evidence that this material actually exists, then by all means keep it, but a Google search yields very little except Wikipedia mirrors, so I'm doubtful. —Keenan Pepper 01:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Found on usenet:

Newsgroups: sci.chem.electrochem From: rek...@gmail.com - Date: 30 Sep 2005 08:09:10 -0700 Local: Fri, Sep 30 2005 11:09 am Subject: Re: Looking for more info on Ceraphite "aka white carbon" tia sal

Searching the Science Citation Index brings up exactly 1 result for 'ceraphite' from a 1977 meeting abstract in the obscure journal 'Carbon'. The title of the abstract is "Ceraphite, a hard and high-strength new carbon material". The abstract is cited all of zero times. Unless it has another common name, sounds like a case of wikipedia syndrome to me.

    • This makes me suspicious. The radiochemistry.org cite seems good evidence that there is such a materiel, but not that Ceraphite is the proper name for that substance. DES (talk) 01:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No I think not. The following sites all list it as a separate form of carbon, and do not seem to be wikipedia mirrors or derived from wikipedia: [3], [4], [5], and [6]. However none of them discuss its properties or confirm the description in the current article in any way. The only site i could find that does, other than obvious wikipedia mirors, is [7] but this may still be dereived from wikipedia info. By the way, mirrors are everywhere. After excluding from a google search "wqikipedia" "GFDL" "GNU" "stub" and a phrase from the current article, there are nearly 400 hits, the vast majority of which are derived from the wikipedia article or the usenet post that questions the wikipedia article. DES (talk) 02:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: DOE laboratories are managed by contractors and the source may be copyrighted. -- Kjkolb 03:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although there doesn't seem to be much information on ceraphite, Carbon and several external sites on carbon allotropes list it. Andrew pmk | Talk 17:40, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless supported by primary literature. Please note that some phases of carbon are formed only under extreme conditions, and that is why not all reports are trustworthy. I don't particularly feel like scouring Gmelin's Handbook for a reliable reference. Pilatus 18:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: No hits on PubMed or sciencedirect.com (sources of primary literature), however one seemingly authoritative hit from Google Scholar [8] (Hazardous Materials Chemistry for Emergency Responders , p. 52). The above comment was made by Btm.
    • That Hazmat book is a secondary reference. The Scientific Citation Index lists the substance just once, in a 1977 conference abstract, as the usenet posting quoted above says. It was never followed up with a full paper as far as I can tell. Pilatus 21:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Wikipedia is suppsoed to be a tertiary reference. Secondary sources are perfectly acceptable to support articles here, indeed there is some suspicion of an article with only primary sources. A demand for primary refernces is not acceptable. DES (talk) 17:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment That Hazmat entry look like the probable source for the current version of the entry -- indeed the wrding is clsoe enough for one paragehp to be almost a copyvio. DES (talk) 17:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: I'm not sure if this is the same article as the 1977 conference—it was presented at a conference in 1979 and published in the journal Wear in 1980 (I wish I could provide a link instead of quoting the abstract here; unfortunately I cannot). Btm 05:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Surface wear characteristics of some hard carbons*1
H. M. Hawthorne
National Research Council of Canada, Mechanical Engineering Division, Western Laboratory, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Received 15 October 1979. Available online 10 February 2003.
Abstract: The surface resistance to damage of homogeneous hard carbons such as glassy low temperature isotropic pyrolytic (LTI) and Ceraphite carbons have been determined by the falling abrasive particle test using SiC grit. Surfaces prepared from within the bulk of the glassy carbon specimens exhibit wear resistance proportional to their microindentation hardness but material near their virgin surfaces shows a lower resistance to this low velocity impact wear. Both pure and silicon-alloyed LTI carbons and Ceraphite material show considerably greater wear than the bulk glassy carbons of the same hardness. However, all of the hard carbons exhibit much greater surface damage resistance than other materials of comparable hardness such as mild steel or soda-lime glass. Microscopic surface examination indicates that brittle fracture is the main wear mode of the hard carbons in this test and the results are interpreted in terms of the microstructural features and characteristic elasticity properties of these solids.
*1 Paper presented at the International Conference on Wear of Materials 1979, Dearborn, Michigan, April 1979.
Surface wear characteristics of some hard carbons
Wear, Volume 60, Issue 1, April 1980, Pages 167-182
H. M. Hawthorne
  • Delete. Um, nn allotrope? No, I suppose that won't do. How's this - the article is doomed to remain non-encyclopedic, because all sources repeat the same few short sentences about it. My fear is that it is bogus, and the wikipedia syndrome is just spreading it far and wide. Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:28, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article was started in Dec. 2004, so it seems pretty clear (at least to me) that the Wikipedia article was derived from one of these sources and not vice versa. It also seems pretty clear that this is not a hoax, as the Los Alamos National Laboratory uses the term here (pdf) and UC Berkeley does so here (giving the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics and the American Chemical Society as the sources for the page). I agree that there is little in the primary literature, but we must remember that most of the databases of scientific articles only include articles dating back to the early '90s and there is no quick way to do thorough search on such an obscure topic. So, I vote to keep, because although obscure, an allotrope of carbon is quite notable and encyclopedic. Btm 05:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both Carbon and Wear are awfully obscure Elsevier journals. Also note that the papers that go into Wear don't deal with the difficult subject of metastable phases in the phase diagram of carbon. The word isn't mentioned once in an ACS journal. As the editor who put the article up still hasn't put a source to back up his claim the entry ought to go; too many people have already wasted their time with it. Pilatus 14:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have done some more digging, which should settle the question. Annu. Rev. Mater. Sci. 1973, 3, 195 mentions the mineral chaoite as a recently discovered carbon allotrope. The article then continues to say claims were made than an identical material is prepared by subliming graphite at high temperature and low pressure. "In spite of these seemingly definitive reports ... several other groups have tried unsuccessfully to reproduce these experiments. Independent confirmatory work is obviously needed in this area, and at the present time white graphite appears to be the carbon analog of polywater. Delete and redirect to chaoite, or get rid of the spurious phase altogether. Pilatus 14:31, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redir to Chaoite w/ mention of possible alt. name in chaoite. Vsmith 15:20, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rewrite to cite the sources listed above, and document the confused nature of the primary literature, adn the absence of a clear source for the current description. DES (talk) 17:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, definately. This was the article that lead me to learning of Ceraphite and if we delete this page we may as well remove it completely from the Carbon page as well. Also, with advancing scientific research we should soon be able identify a mollecular structure for it and maybe even get some pictures of it. Also there is no proof that ceraphite is chaoite. It says chaoite is grey or white whereas ceraphite is white, no mention of gray. User:Rickem
    • There is no proof that ceraphite even exists. It is mentioned in two conference abstracts, and the review cited in the chaoite entry cautions that those reports were not reproducible at all. IIRC, chaoite is a carbyne phase. Pilatus 00:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Coding Theory from an Artistic Viewpoint

edit

Original research. JoanneB 10:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hello from singapore.

The article is intended to be general and rather loose. Can you tell me what you feel is not good about it? I can edit it according to your preference.

Someone might object that i am printing original research in the paragraph: "A possible solution: neural networks". I'm almost certain this has been done before. Nueral networks are like wild animals in the sense that they dont obey rules very well. The method may have worked many times in the past but might not work in the future. Also they are difficult to tame. I really feel that in some cases this can be done and in other cases it cannot. How do you feel about this?

Another problem might be the repetition of the concept of a "geodesic". Yet the article on that subject is full of equations. I think my article says it from a different, more simple point of view.

The gentle political satires were removed.

(preceding unsigned comment by 203.120.68.68 (talk · contribs) ). Please see WP:NOR. --GraemeL (talk) 12:28, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research. --GraemeL (talk) 12:28, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's quite interesting but is really a personal essay rather than an encyclopedia article in my view - so unfortunately not really wikipedia material. Perhaps the author could create an user account and place it on their User page? Dlyons493 Talk 13:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unfortunately, though the author has clearly put thought into this material, said thought has clearly involved thinking up new ideas, rather than organizing and reporting upon pre-existing ones. Personal essays, no matter how interesting the topics they cover, do not belong on the WP. (Sections trying to justify why the article "definitely belongs on Wikipedia", I must add, are counterproductive.) I suggest that the author create a user account and move this material there. Also, I suggest reading through what modern semiotics people have said about communication as "encoding" and "decoding". While much of this structuralist, post-structuralist or whatever material is interesting, I find that large chunks of it are simply indigestable — the sort of bad writing Alan Sokal lampooned in the Sokal Affair. Anyone working on WP articles in this area and making them comprehensible would be performing a great service. Anville 14:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic material, but (perhaps good) original research. Not sure where this could belong, perhaps on wikibooks? -- Egil 15:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Possible contains some interesting thoughts, but not appropriate as an encyclopedia. –Mulligatawny 16:32, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR --Rogerd 18:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems to fall into the common trap of failing to distinguish between Coding Theory and Cryptography (the former is for accuracy, the latter for secrecy). But I couldn't make much sense of it, and I'm writing a Ph.D. thesis on Coding Theory. --RFBailey 21:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Confused, rambling OR that cannpt be salvaged or sourced. MCB 18:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikibooks and delete. Jkelly 01:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • O.K., delete Thank you all for your excellent thoughts on the subject. I'm delighted that so many people read it. Will try to transmit it to somewhere else. RFBailey has chosen a good thesis and will make much money if he stays with it. It's true that cryptography and coding theory are different and that people confuse them. Will try to be more analytical and so on in the future. Kirk out. 13 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedied Wikibofh 15:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Council of Fourteen Minus Ten

edit

Nonsense

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted as patent nonsense --Doc (?) 11:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The author keeps re-posting, so I have reopened this afd to get a binding result. Gazpacho 02:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please stop trying to delete my page, it is not vandalism and it contains factual truth. I did not make it up. I just wanted to improve wikipedia by adding an article about the council. I have a question for you all: Why is it bad to keep this entry on the site? It is not made up of lies, its not a hoax and its not vandalism. Please understand that I think you are being silly by trying to delete something where there is no problem to leave it up. If you want to talk with me on aim about this, my screen name is "persept0", Thank You for your understanding. Persept 02:31, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I've requested references for the material in this article but have received no response (Talk:Council of Fourteen Minus Ten). My opinion is that no significant portion of the article has a legitimate source and it is unsalvageable. Moreover, the author has added redirects to this site from Council of Four and Council of Fourteen. The former was a legitimate article that the author moved, renamed and made into a disambiguation page (see histories for the two pages). Walter Siegmund 02:54, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article basicly has no source because it is for a club type thing. It is something I am in. I am trying to put it on wikipedia becuse it is basicly undocument. I dont think that is a crime to come up with your own information! Other people dont always have to do all the reasearch! As I said before, IM me at persept0 on aim if you want to talk about this. Persept 03:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, it was not me who wrote about Tolkien and Marvel comics and the Council of fourteen. I have no clue who put that there since it only showed an ip address. It seems entirely made up to me. And i put a disambiguation page to disinguish from The Council of Four Minus Ten(which equals 4) the council of four from india, and the council of four lands. I thought this was nessisary. If i didnt think it was nessisary I wouldnt have gone to the trouble of changing all the links so there would be no redirects! Persept 03:48, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like you to carefully read the requirements for patent nonsense:
    1. Total nonsense - i.e. text or random characters that have no assignable meaning at all. This includes things like ".lz nbl[909nvn[904wv[90am[0vm43[ eiov", where random keys of the keyboard have been pressed.
    2. Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to make sense of it.

It is neither!! Stop making false accusations! And Someone answer my question: Why is it bad to keep this entry on the site? It is not false and it is not patent nonsence, its not a hoax, and its not vandalism. Why cant you people see that there is nothing against my site!!! Persept 03:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To quote from Wikipedia:Alternative outlets:

Material is deleted from Wikipedia for a variety of reasons.

Among them is that Wikipedia is a project whose goal is to build an encyclopedia, within a broad understanding of the word. Sometimes material is submitted that is perfectly factual, but does not fall within the scope of Wikipedia or any of its sister projects.

You might find a better ___location for your article at one of the links listed. However, it seems to me that your fellow Wikipedeans don't think it belongs in an encyclopedia. -Walter Siegmund 04:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable club. Eric119 04:52, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. This is indeed patent nonsense, to wit, "Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to make sense of it." MCB 07:14, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If editors had not once again abused the "patent nonsense" speedy deletion criterion, which this article does not come under (it being quite comprehensible), but had instead provided an applicable rationale for deleting this article, we perhaps wouldn't be having this discussion; because the original author would be looking at the policies that quite clearly explain why this article does not belong here, rather than looking at Wikipedia:patent nonsense, which is irrelevant here. The original author, Persept (talk · contribs), has handed us the rationale for deletion on a platter in the discussion above: I am trying to put it on wikipedia becuse it is basicly undocument. I dont think that is a crime to come up with your own information! Other people dont always have to do all the reasearch! By the original author's admission, this is unverifiable original research. Delete. Uncle G 07:46, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
comment: I was the editor responsible for adding the nonsense tag. In defense of this choice, I believe that (as MCB noted) this article is purposely absurd and an example of some weird sort of contrived incomprehensibility. Going strictly by the patent nonsense policy page, I didn't think that this article was merely poorly written or immature, but appeared to be completely meaningless at the time of nomination. I'm sorry if listing it for speedy deletion was too brash, but after re-examining the article and the author's comments concerning its creation, I still think it qualifies as nonsense. Anetode 18:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I wouldn't have even known about this had Persept not vandalized the entry on Batman. This is nonsensical, non-notable, pretentious and any other adjective you want to put there. I'm a member of "Purple Monkey Dishwashers", but you don't see me trying to create an article on it. - DrachenFyre 15:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Due to the many many requests for deletion, I agree to have this page deleted by a moderator, since i am the creator of the page. In addion I think there should be another criteria for deletion that might apply to this article. Could someone please bring the topic up somewhere on the site? Thank you. Persept 18:04, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedily deleted as angry frothing-at-the-mouth rant about how evil the iPod is, the iPod is evil evil evil EVIL EVIL EVIL EVIL EVIL EVIL (head explodes) DS 00:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of the Apple iPod

edit

stream-of-consciousness rant, OR, POV --Trovatore 05:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Source Code Show Notes Wiki

edit

wikipedia is not a free hosting service Dlyons493 Talk 15:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • If you read the post it is not a hosting as the wiki is hosted at http://dailysourcecode.secretelite.com/Main_Page the intention here is to make a distinction of this ite from the daily source code site. I intend to place more details here but it will never be a hosting service as the hosting service at dailysourcecode.secretlite.com is well supported. I intend the posting to become more of a descriptiono f the site in the same manner as the Daily Source Code wiki entry describes dailysourcecode.com as a growing phenomena Ian Stanley 15:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete with extreme bigotry. Maru (talk) 20:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dara Jade

edit

Ooh, close one, but as the article says, she's never mentioned in the actual Star Wars material, and Google shows that she's mentioned on the Star Wars Wikicities page as a fanon character. I'd like it if Connie Hirsch's "Kid Dynamo" fic made it into Marvel canon, but it ain't gonna happen either. --DS 16:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was redirect to List of internet slang. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dilligaf

edit

An internet slang that is already listed in List of internet slang -- ReyBrujo 15:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 02:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doyle publishing

edit

nn company. Reads like an ad. Jasonuhl 09:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--Delete - non notable. --Sgkay 09:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Live Code

edit

hoax? about a movie(?) to be released in 2009, but there is no IMDB entry. WP:NOT a crystal ball, etc. — brighterorange (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--Delete - not even a single hit for the film on google. --Sgkay 16:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 02:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dying Breed

edit

Delete. Seems like a local nonnotable band and this reads like a vanity page. Elf | Talk 01:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails WP:Music, non-notable. --W.marsh 02:32, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 02:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although if anyone can provide substantiation of the claim that local town officials have actually condemned the band's "cult-like followers", I'd switch my vote to keep. Justin Bacon 03:28, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Allmusic does not mention this band, although it has a substub about another by the same name. That page has no information and lists only a single album without comment. The artists are unknown to allmusic entirely as well as to Google, save for Wikimirrors. There's no sensible means to verify any of the article's claims, since Google doesn't find even a website for them for things like "Jimmesworth K. Velenka" + "Dying Breed". -Splashtalk 03:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failing wp:music. Make Dying Breed extinct (har har). I wish we could keep all the bands which want so much to be included but that is not how the consensus came out. Qaz (talk) 07:28, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 02:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

E-space

edit

Weak delete, close to being nn fancruft, but not completely sure it cannot be expanded. Titoxd(?!?) 05:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 02:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Gauthier

edit

Article doesn't assert sufficient notability. Note this article is duplicated at User:Ed Gauthier. dbenbenn | talk 07:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Result: Delete -- (drini's page|☎) 01:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Energy technology

edit

Original Research Rich Farmbrough 21:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprises-Nexus

edit

This ad agency may or may not be notable. However, the current article is half substub, half self-promotion; as a Wikipedia article, it is pretty much useless. Ashenai 11:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 30th was an exceptionally busy AfD day. So this debate among several got almost no attention. Relisting in hope of some tender, loving debate this time around. -Splashtalk 00:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 02:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Esker Melchior

edit

This was tagged for an A7, I (perhaps hastily) deleted it as an attack page. The creator has objected, so I'm listing it here for a transparent debate (no vote). --Doc (?) 10:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Result:Delete -- (drini's page|☎) 01:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Far From Words

edit

Doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC. 202.156.6.60 23:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete -- (drini's page|☎) 01:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Faux Fetus Collective

edit

Group of limited fame or reknown; 29 Google hits. tregoweth 21:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was No consensus Ryan Norton T | @ | C 22:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fishing for pike

edit

Wikipedia is not an instruction manual Comatose51 03:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:39, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Frivolous

edit

dictdef Dlyons493 Talk 14:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 02:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fúsíjama Basketball Club International and its players Guðni Þór Sigurjónsson, Ágúst Ívar Vilhjálmsson, Sturla Stígsson, Jakob Einar Úlfarsson

edit

Icelandic amateur Basketball Club playing in ?? league (not in the premier or 1st at least). After a long search in google I couldn't establish any notability. Wikipedia is not a homepage for amateur sports clubs.

Also the players articles for deletion since the club is not notable. Players like:

Guðni Þór Sigurjónsson - greatest Icelandic basketball villain of all time
Sturla Stígsson - Nicknames; The Bulldozer, McNasty
Jakob Einar Úlfarsson - one of the most notorious thugs in basketball history etc.

See also the player Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tómas_Michael_Reynisson. feydey 12:25, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fuz Fon

edit

Band stub, no claim to notability. Bordering on A1 speedy. Ilmari Karonen 20:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 30th was an exceptionally busy AfD day. So this debate among several got almost no attention. Relisting in hope of some tender, loving debate this time around. -Splashtalk 00:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was: keep

George Getty

edit

not sufficiently notable [[User:Consequencefree|Ardent†∈]] 11:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He is the start of a historial line (preceding comment by 195.137.71.61, the creator of the article under debate) --Ashenai (talk) 11:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Think it should stay as part of a project to clean up the Getty dynasty articles + flag for cleanup itself. --mervyn 12:30, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Result: delete

Gillette (singer)

edit

No Google hits, either for the artist or the song. Probable hoax. A "ski-by shooting"? Heh. Quicksandish τκ 21:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - not a hoax see here [10] --MacRusgail 22:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC) p.s. Ski-by-shooting is real James Bond stuff.[reply]
  • Keep. Real rap singer with entry on allmusic.com. I don't know about the ski-by shooting or the chocolate but she recorded several albums on a major German label (ZYX) and had a hit single "Mr. Personality". Depending upon what search term I combined with Gillette (e.g., ZYX, "Mr. Personality" or 20 Fingers), I got in the range of 1,000 Google hits. Delete, then per 23skidoo. -- DS1953 15:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is NOT the American singer who recorded "Mr. Personality" or "Short D*ck Man" who is cited in the two votes above and I cannot find anything to back up the information given in the article as it now stands. The American singer deserves an article, however. 23skidoo 22:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - how come I can only find info on her on a Swiss German site? --MacRusgail 20:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep -- (drini's page|☎) 01:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Goget

edit

delete, blatant commercial advertising. Shouldn't there be a speedy category for such egregious cases? --Trovatore 21:03, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • What, you mean like this one? Flexcar unsigned comment by 218.214.34.243, 21:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC); same IP address as author of Goget
  • Im new to wikipedia: do i simply need to make it more factual? Search 'carshare' in google and Newtopwn carshare, our sister site, comes up 6th - i think its relevant. - Nic, author of page
  • I came across this: "Articles about companies and products are fine if they are written in an objective and unbiased style" - so if I change it will it be acceptable?
    • I'll let someone else take this; I'm not sure where the boundaries are. The fact that you're writing about your own company, while probably not per se forbidden, raises strong suspicions that you mainly want to use the article as free publicity for a commercial venture. There must be someone who has more experience with this issue who can comment more authoritatively. --Trovatore 21:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your time on this - as I said, I am new to Wikipedia - and I have dual motivations. I saw an article about the US companies (contributed by unknown persons) so I figured I could contribute one on what we've done in Australia, seeing as how we were the first ones to do it here. Anyway, I guess I have to leave this one up to the community!
  • Keep An interesting and informative article on a cutting-edge and valuable service. Denni☯ 01:20, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should every business providing a trendy, valuable service, get an ad on WP? Give them a sentence or two in car sharing, and an external link to their website; if they make some money off of that, great. But we shouldn't have articles promoting particular commercial interests. It reflects badly on the impartiality of the whole encyclopedia. --Trovatore 05:40, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Considering that the author is new to Wikipedia, it seems only fair to ask for some specific changes to be made rather than deleting the article. My suggestion is that the article be rejigged to focus on the generic benefits of carsharing within major Australian cities and a comparison of the Australian approach with precursors in other countries. This approach could readily satisfy the requirements for articles to be written in an objective and unbiased style. It would be a pity if information about this socially-beneficial approach (did I hear anyone mention petroleum crisis?) was excluded because of a suspicion about 'free publicity' being the major motivation for submission. Maybe as suggested, it could be included in the car sharing section under a heading of car sharing in Australia. I'm sure that the material could be revised somewhat by the author to prevent the unfortunate impression of a lack of impartiality. The fact that the author has dual motivations should not prevent him/her being able to produce a revision that focuses upon the social good aspect. Or do we assume that any submission by someone who has mixed motives is intrinsically tainted? That would seem a bit rich. Surely we should judge on the nature of what's finally actually submitted rather than taking an 'original sin' approach - I vote that we ask for the article to be edited so that it is 'balanced' in a manner analogous to that found in the Flexcar article. unsigned comment by 134.7.248.129, 01:06, 10 October 2005
  • Keep. I was bold and rewrote it, stripping it down to a brief and factual article and taking out as much of the advertising as I could. It was certainly pretty advertising-heavy, but it appears to be a notable service in its area, and car sharing services are becoming much more prominent recently, so I think it's important to have an article on this one. Bikeable 01:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The revised version from Bikeable seems fine to me - it does a great job of informing about the basic idea without the former problem of the advertising overlay. I'd like the original author to expand the article along these lines (without advertising!) as suggested above to point out how the general car sharing approach has been 'tailored' to the specifics of the Australian context. I think this would be very useful for people in countries where such schemes do not yet exist.Albertus Pictor 00:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was MERGE to National University of Ireland, Galway. Obviously not deleting, but all but two editors would not have the content stay in this article. -Splashtalk 22:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gort Na Coiribe

edit

Student accommodation with no special notability. The partying may well be true but is unverifiable. Dlyons493 Talk 19:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 30th was an exceptionally busy AfD day. So this debate among several got almost no attention. Relisting in hope of some tender, loving debate this time around. -Splashtalk 00:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep It's notorius amongts Students past & present (~15,000) --[User:Barker84|Barker84]]\talk 17:29, 18 October 2005
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 02:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hemp lounge bar and grill

edit

nn lounge bar and impossible cleanup Delete --JAranda | yeah 00:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Redirect -- (drini's page|☎) 01:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

House of Pomegranates

edit

This is a really long and really weird work of fiction. I thought of speedying it, but I wasn't sure which CSD it might fit, and I also thought it might amuse you all. Chick Bowen 17:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, it's by Oscar Wilde, and as such public ___domain - and if anyone wants to read it, it's available free online in lots of places. We don't need it here; speedy delete. DS 17:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 02:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How to make a transformer

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 02:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Husswha

edit

Neologism. Jasonuhl 09:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Hermione1980 23:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I. V. Sasi

edit

This seems to be some kind of a Bollywood filmography, but the author doesn't seem to be interested at all in complying the layout convention and its encyclopedic notability is questionable. It's been tagged as speedy but I don't think it belongs to CSD, so I bring here for discussion. 202.156.6.59 17:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC) Ok I withdraw my nn claim. After a cursory web search, he does appear to be a well-known director in India, and at least one page [11] calls him a veteran director. Keep -202.156.6.62 01:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. After seeing the cleanup, I've changed my vote. Peruvianllama 04:28, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Cleaned up a bit. Tintin 13:50, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merge to PIE root words, oh boy... Redwolf24 (talk) 23:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keu-3, Keu-2, Kéu-, Yu-2, Yu-1, Yós-, Yewo-2, Yewo-1, Yeug-, Keu-1, Kes-2, Kes-1, Ker-4, Ker-5, Kerd-1, Kerd-2, Kerdh-, Kerem-, Kerə-, Kerp-, Kers-1, Kers-2, Kert-, Ker-1, Ker-2, Ker-3, Kentho-, Kent-

edit

Are all these articles really Encyclopedic? It seems to me that they aren't. --Hottentot

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Information object

edit

Definition - at best uninformation Dlyons493 Talk 18:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Irannbc

edit

Advertising. tregoweth 21:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ISBN 1593880472

edit

It is wise if you read at least part of the book first, Enrique Ros had a relative also called Enrique Ros, who was one of officers in Cuba's elite marksman squad at the Hotel National in 1933 which held of the mutiny of the enlisted ranks lead by Batista and others. This Enrique Ros has written extensively and well on Cuba. And he, the author Enrique Ros is an accredited historian to the National Archives of the United State. he is also closely related to to a US Congress person, and extremely well informed. While I am sure that is not your intent; one might well consider that to demand the omission of this reference might well be considered a bias that would violate Wikipedia rules and ethics (El Jigüe, 10/8/2005)

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

The result of the debate was Result: Delete -- (drini's page|☎) 01:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jammin java

edit

Article about a cafe with no assertion or evidence of notability paul klenk talk 22:30, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 21:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jascha Heifetz

edit

Delete. Vanity article and anecdotes. Jake013 14:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 02:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Malley

edit

Tagged for speedy as nn-bio, but it certainly makes an assertion of note. I've also redirect "Keith Mally" here. -Splashtalk 00:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep -- (drini's page|☎) 20:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

L. P. Fisher Public Library

edit

Looks like a nn library Delete --JAranda | yeah 00:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Leng Jai Boyz

edit

Not encyclopedic. I put a suggestion on the author's talk page to userfy this several days ago, but received no response. Delete or Userfy Pburka 02:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete -- (drini's page|☎) 01:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Levels of celebrity

edit

Appears to be original research. tregoweth 21:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 09:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

list of Jewish historians

edit

Unmaintainable, useless listcruft. Everything has been said about this already. Just, delete! Graham/pianoman87 talk 06:30, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of moustached footballers

edit

Too specific to be encylopedaic. Why not List of Jewish moustached footballers in the 4th Division of the Mongolian lady's league? It's midnight here, I'm going to bed now. Hope I haven't offended anyone! Dlyons493 Talk 23:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete -- (drini's page|☎) 20:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of prominent Jewish women

edit

For exactly the same reasons as list of Jewish heads of High Schools and list of Jewish engineers. It has no hope of being complete, and "prominent" is also hard to define. Graham/pianoman87 talk 06:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Result: Redirect -- (drini's page|☎) 01:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. state forests

edit

Comment A soft re-direct to the Cat? Marskell 00:07, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Redirect to Balrog -- (drini's page|☎) 01:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lungorthin

edit

This material already exists in a better form under Balrog Dlyons493 Talk 19:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Malachy Mc Dermott

edit

nn, crystal ball Dlyons493 Talk 14:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article.

Malaysian Hindu Sangam

edit

Non-encyclopedic. Looks like an appeal for money. josh 14:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Market development

edit

dictdef Dlyons493 Talk 17:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep -- (drini's page|☎) 01:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MediaMOO

edit

nn 172.216.62.139 18:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED. There was no assertion of notability, and the blog itself is not inherently notable, particularly without claiming to be. -Splashtalk 03:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Dylan Brennan

edit

Someone with a blog and some opinions. Impact seems minimal. Joyous (talk) 02:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was sppedy deleted.  Grue  17:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Moffatt

edit

attack page --Trovatore 07:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splashtalk 22:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MOTOS

edit

Pointless article expanding on an abbreviation. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. —Cleared as filed. 05:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless there's somewhere to redirect. --Trovatore 05:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are commonly-used initialisms used in sexuality research and GLBT publications. Several times people see these abbreviations on places like imdb.com, sexuality.org and thousands of other web sites and use FAQ's or search engines to discover the answer as to what the acronyms stand for, so Wickipedia could serve as source for such answers. To delete these entries, demonstrates ignorance and prejudice. [Unsigned comment by TednAZ 06:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)][reply]
  • Merge with sexology. Qaz (talk) 06:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • These initialisms are most commonly used in sexuality research and GLBT publications and the GLBT community. In fact, I have actually overheard the phonetically-pronounced words "motts" (s/l pots) and "motos" (s/l photos) in casual speak at bisexual rallies. Several times people see these initialisms appear on places like imdb.com, sexuality.org and thousands of other web sites and use FAQ's or search engines to discover the answer as to what the acronyms/designations stand for, so Wickipedia could serve as source for such answers. To delete these entries, clearly demonstrates prejudice, intolerance and ignorance. [Unsigned comment by TednAZ 06:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)][reply]
    • No, it demonstrates our Wikipedia is not a dictionary official policy. The place to go to look up what words mean and what initialisms expand to is a dictionary, not an encyclopaedia. There is a 90,000-word dictionary over there that is ready and waiting for all of the (attested) initialisms that editors care to give it. Wikipedia articles are encyclopaedia articles, and are about the people/places/concepts/events/things that the initialisms represent. Our article entitled NASA is about the space agency, for example. Similarly, our NASDAQ article is about the stock exchange. Our articles about MOTSS and MOTOS would be about members of the same/opposite sex. But there is nothing to say beyond the title in such articles. At best, they should be redirects to an article on sexual orientation (which deals with how it is classified and by whom). Uncle G 13:40, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am bisexual and actively involved in the bisexual community. The arguments by Trovotore here and at the MOTSS entry sound to me as nothing more than bigotry and bisexuals experience enough of that from both the hetero and gay communities. If you delete these, then you should delete similar NBA, NFL, NASCAR, CBS, NBC and GLBT/LGBT entries. [Unsigned comment by TednAZ 06:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)][reply]
    • That is a a reductio ad absurdum that is entirely spurious for being based upon a false premise. As above, those articles are about the people/places/concepts/events/things. For examples: CBS is about the broadcaster and NFL is about the sporting organization. Uncle G 13:40, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Qaz. CambridgeBayWeather 08:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Rogerd 18:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Qaz. 68.99.129.188
  • Strong Keep. Terms in wide use, on the Internet and elsewhere. (Google search: "motss" 138,000; "motss -soc.motss" 75,300.) I edited MOTSS to add the Usenet connection (naming of newsgroup soc.motss partially due to desire to obscure the subject of the group, to prevent management scrutiny at Usenet sites as well as closeted subscribers). Not a dicdef; terms have cultural significance. MCB 07:09, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MCB. --Idont Havaname 05:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per MCB. TednAZ 08:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to sexual orientation. The Bearded One 15:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per MCB. Reflex Reaction 19:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Uncle G's comment. Nabla 01:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splashtalk 22:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MOTSS

edit

dicdef

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

The result of the debate was Delete -- (drini's page|☎) 20:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MOTTS

edit

dicdef --Trovatore 05:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS.-Splashtalk 23:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nariman Farvardin

edit

This page in transliterated Farsi has been on WP:PNT since 24 September. Physchim62 10:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Transfered from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English

I have no idea; possibly transliterated Arabic. Google for "nariman farvardin" gives 9K hits, which indicates that this person is probably notable. Anyone? DS 15:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is transliterated Farsi, not Arabic. I don't understand enough of it to translate, but I do recognize that it is written entirely in the first person (lots of 'I' and 'you' statements, and it ends with "goodbye"). Should be deleted, or at least cleaned up and then translated into English, or transliterated into Farsi characters and then Transwikied. Alexanderj 06:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete -- (drini's page|☎) 01:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

National Ecumenical Centre

edit

A cut and paste of a newspaper story. The last sentence seems to imply it's used with permission, but I'm unsure if that's sufficient. In any case, if it's to be kept it needs a complete rewrite. A newspaper story is not the same as an encyclopedia article. R. fiend 17:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP as rewritten by User:Roodog2k. — JIP | Talk 09:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Near Vertical Incidence Skywave

edit

Looks like it could be an ad for the company described, though it's so hard to read that I can't be sure. Non-encyclopedic in any case. --Trovatore 06:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"it's so hard to read"
debatable bitterness. yawn.

"Non-encyclopedic in any case"
I cannot agree with that.
--Fractal3 07:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

comment I just cleaned-up the article to make it more encyclopedic and readable, though its still a stub; its a notable method of radio communication, esp. in Ham radio. Roodog2k (Hello there!) 16:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks fine now. Not anything I know anything about, but assuming it's correct, keep the new version. The old advertising version is apparently unrelated to the new version; can we have it removed from the history? --Trovatore 18:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

comment @Roodog2k: ok, cool. thanks. Fractal3 23:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Ross

edit

NN actor, probably hoax or vanity Cnwb 23:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere Game Project

edit

A minor game project which has never produced a finished product, and whic according to the article is currently dead in the water. Not notable. Thue | talk 09:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 30th was an exceptionally busy AfD day. So this debate among several got almost no attention. Relisting in hope of some tender, loving debate this time around. -Splashtalk 00:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete – Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 09:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nucular Power

edit

(Probable) neologism, inheritely POV and unencyclopedic. Probably counts as original research. —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 01:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oplocromodalization

edit

New made up word with 6 hits in google [15]. feydey 10:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Might be new, might be obscure, might even be a "made up word" if you like, but doesn't look like a spoof or malicious addition. Flapdragon 12:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC) OK, delete. Dlyons493's more assiduous research convinces me it's NN. Flapdragon 15:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems to be a coinage of one person. Copyvio of [16] except that it's almost certain this is also the article creator. Agree it's not spoof or malicious addition but feel its nn. Dlyons493 Talk 13:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn -- Egil 15:40, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability isn't the issue. This is a concept that has been made up by one person, Stanley Lieber, and which has yet to be accepted by reliable sources, or indeed by anyone else apart from that 1 person. The reason to delete this is because it is original research, plain and simple. Delete. Uncle G 18:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR --Rogerd 19:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not opposed to you deleting this (or perhaps moving it to Wikisource?), if it is found to be an inappropriate addition. I had not read the guidelines on original research at the time I posted it. I cannot find reference to "NN" in the FAQ though -- can someone help me out with that? Note: I have amended the original livejournal post to reflect that I make no intellectual property claim on the process; I did create it, but it is in the public ___domain. --Stanley Lieber 21:58, 13 October 2005 (CDT)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Opm3

edit

Advertisement, partial copyvio too. I already edited part of it, but after re-reading it I don't think it's encyclopedic. JoanneB 11:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 30th was an exceptionally busy AfD day. So this debate among several got almost no attention. Relisting in hope of some tender, loving debate this time around. -Splashtalk 00:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. --Ryan Delaney talk 02:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ormgas

edit

NN internet radio station. 203.120.68.68 01:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

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

The result of the debate was Delete -- (drini's page|☎) 01:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pedantagonism

edit

Neologism, not in widespread use. Gdr 16:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedied. android79 03:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Peoplebot

edit

nn website. Article now is clearly an advertisement, site's alexa rank is 878,530... not much on Google, barely anything actually related to this site. --W.marsh 02:25, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DESTROY. — JIP | Talk 15:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix Cult

edit

NN band. Vanity page. 202.156.6.60 23:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DON'T DESTROY THIS!

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 02:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Porcelain militia

edit

Band vanity. This band doesn't meet any of the WP:MUSIC criteria JoanneB 11:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

POW-r

edit

non-notable algorithm; majority of Google hits are from other uses of the word as a deliberate misspelling of "power". DS 15:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete (Close one, there are 8 deletes here [I did count the nominator even though the user forgot to sign] vs. 2 keeps and 2 merges. There was a rather thurough check for socks performed too and everyone checks out) Ryan Norton T | @ | C 22:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quan

edit

Don't think this guy meets the minimum criteria for Wikipedia listing.

It's good. Leave it.

September 30th was an exceptionally busy AfD day. So this debate among several got almost no attention. Relisting in hope of some tender, loving debate this time around. -Splashtalk 00:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

However, it shows one non-charting album from 2002 on the Quan label (indicating self-produced) and confirms the Nas link. However, he may qualify under WP:music in the future given his work with a notable rapper and the piece cited by user Anetode suggests he is attracting some attention. Capitalistroadster 03:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Redirect to Rebab Ryan Norton T | @ | C 22:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rabab

edit

I created this page under the spelling "rabab" using an old spelling; I later found out that "rubab" is the correct romanization and there was already an article on this instrument there. Thus, this page should be deleted. Thanks. Badagnani 03:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete.  Denelson83  05:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbi Naftali Weinberger

edit

Not notable. ≈ jossi ≈ 03:33, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 01:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbits (webcomic)

edit

Short, bad webcomic with little/no notability that died years ago. Vanity? (--Oppolo 17:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 02:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Radtastic

edit

slangdef --Trovatore 05:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Hermione1980 23:32, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow mythology

edit

POV, Original research. Only link is to website from where entire text has been copied. The subject of rainbows in mythology may be interesting, but its not an actual topic of historical research, that I know of; either way, this article is merely a summary of one author's beliefs regarding rainbows, as indicated by the first line of the article ("The following is adapted from [book] .." If it were 'List: Rainbows in mythology', I might buy it, but not one sentence in this article presents any relevant, cited information. Generally reads like typical "New Age" fare. Also isn't linked from any other article.

  • Delete per nomination.Eaglizard 08:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve, or Userfy. I would say delete due to copyright violation, but the original poster is User:Blakeee and the webpage from which the article is copied belongs to Blake Ebersole. They may be the same person. Three other points: 1) Wikipedia is not a repository for original research, but that doesn't mean that articles cannot cite books of original research by others. Citing just one book doesn't necessarily render an article "original research." 2) It is unclear what is meant in the nomination regarding "rainbows in mythology" not being a topic of "historical research." While article does not cite sources for individual facts, the book the article claims as a source appears to be a legitimate book dealing with the topic of rainbows as depicted in mythology. It was published by Pennsylvania State University Press, which at least implies serious research on the topic. 3) While specific sources for the stories are not cited, several of them are well-known mythological tales that would be reasonably simple to verify. (e.g. bifrost, which has a Wikipedia article.) Perhaps this could have been better titled "Rainbows in mythology." Crypticfirefly 16:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup, most of it is not original research. Gazpacho 19:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am Blake Ebersole, and I had sourced 'Rainbow Mythology' from said PSU Press book, yet however I did not post that on wikipedia. While that excerpt found on my website rainbowlight.net may be copyrighted, as long as the original source by Dr. Lee is referenced, I give permission for it to be posted on wikipedia. Additionally, said referenced book is as legitimate as I have read on the subject, contains over a hundred references itself. IMHO 'original research' is a fuzzy term like 'reasonable doubt' and very subjective. The words in 'rainbow mythology' are mine but the ideas and the 'original research' comes from Dr. Lee's book. -- (presumably a keep - moved from top by Eaglizard) Unsigned edit 02:23, 9 October 2005 by User: 68.58.96.227. Eaglizard 03:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by nominator. By original research in this case, I didn't mean the individual facts mentioned in the article (which only need citation), but rather the concept of a 'Rainbow mythology'. Again, if it were 'Rainbows in mythology', that would be different. But, other than as a book title, there just isn't any actual thing called 'Rainbow mythology'. (BTW, Blake, thanks for contributing. However, your disclaimer above isn't enough: you must list it under the GNU Free Documentation License. But personally I think using COPYVIO to AfD a non-commercial page would be a cheap hack). In any case, my only goal is to help clear the August 2004 cleanup page, so if it gets a thumbs up, I'll rewrite it myself. But it will be Rainbows IN mythology, if I do. Eaglizard 04:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a collection of facts about the occurrence of the rainbow in different mythologies. It's not original research since it is a collection from other researchs. Interesting and useful to people asking how rainbows fit into various mythologies. Does need cleanup. Should be rewritten to clear copyright because we can't guarantee to maintain source reference.RJFJR 16:40, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree with above regarding cleanup, copyvio etc; and possible move to "Rainbows in mythology". Perhaps should be reorganized by ethnic tradition rather than mythological conception. Mashford 11:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up.--Kross 08:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up Though I agree with Eaglizard that this should be Rainbows In Mythology rather than Rainbow Mythology. Hulleye 10:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or rewrite: there's already a brief section on mythology in Rainbow, but if there's too much material to merge in there (which isn't clear to me), this should be rewritten as "Rainbows in mythology" as per developing consensus. Haeleth 16:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. I think there is enough valuable information here to be worth a separate article, with a reference to it in the Rainbow article section on "Rainbows in religion and mythology" stating "Main article:" etc., but it should be titled "Rainbows in mythology" and it should be cleaned up quite a bit, preferably organized by ethnic group/tradition, and all the speculation on cultural belief systems, on why Homer did what he did, and the moral of the story ("myriad of human beliefs...") should be removed as un-encyclopedic. Another reference or two would be nice also.--Cromwellt | Talk 23:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was RESULT: Delete -- (drini's page|☎) 00:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rancidsquid.com

edit

Possible spam. Delete --AllyUnion (talk) 23:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)}[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 02:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rävbur

edit

Patent nonsense --Nv8200p (talk) 17:04, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 02:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Remy Renzullo

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE as a joke article, per WP:VAND and CSD G3. -Splashtalk 16:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retardidalyarded

edit

Neologism

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

The result of the debate was Delete -- (drini's page|☎) 20:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RGMA Network

edit

This article is not really encyclopedic information. If it is, then at least say which nation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Royer (talk • contribs) 00:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 02:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ring of Conflict

edit

Non-notable, neologism.

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 09:26, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Slavin

edit

Dunno who nominated this, but I'll start the voting.

Weak Keep Dlyons493 Talk 09:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted.  Grue  17:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel shapiro

edit

nn --Trovatore 05:32, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Hermione1980 23:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Curran (historical)

edit

Her only claim to notability is that "She was Robert Emmet's big love.", but Emmet's article doesn't mention her. If this is deleted, also delete redirect page Sarah Curran(Historical), and fake disambiguation page Sarah Curran. dbenbenn | talk 22:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete -- (drini's page|☎) 02:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

School science experiment--Indian rope trick (magnetism)

edit

Delete. How-to article transwikied to Wikibooks. -- Egil 11:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 02:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sgtbash

edit

Tagged as patent nonsense but plainly isn't. Since A7 doesn't apply to robots (!) we'll have to delete it as non-notable robotcruft. -Splashtalk 00:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Redirect -- (drini's page|☎) 20:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shadower

edit

If this term is in fact used, it should be included in List of internet slang, not in its own page. -- ReyBrujo 15:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shawnee Mission East I.B.

edit

Vanity page for several students in the International Baccalaureate program at a high school in the Kansas City area. As this does not differ from the IB program anywhere else in the world, I don't see this ever becoming a reasonable article, so I have put it here instead of cleanup. ESkog 15:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 30th was an exceptionally busy AfD day. So this debate among several got almost no attention. Relisting in hope of some tender, loving debate this time around. -Splashtalk 00:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article makes claims of notability as world-class soccer player. Google doesn't recognize the name. DS 15:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact, i am the best

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 02:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Skiathos Photographical Archive

edit

NN. Jwissick(t)(c) 07:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep -- (drini's page|☎) 20:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Smurf Communism

edit
  • Merge This provides a useful footnote to the Smurf entry. As someone who came in looking for info on Smurf Communism I was disappointed to see that somebody somewhere wants to prevent me from finding out about this from Wikipedia. And I thought this site was about sharing information ...
  • Keep A lot of ideas are considered silly to some, but hold merit with others. Who are we to delete something we don't particularly value?
  • Keep Great information and first thing found in my google searcj. Unsigned vote by 149.142.112.2.
  • Original research; also silly. tregoweth 02:08, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While corny, it does provide a surprisingly useful analysis of communism, and pulls together references to other relevant articles. This is not a new or short-lived analysis, and I have personally used the content in seriousness annually for years.
  • Delete per nomination. tregoweth 02:08, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a long standing rumor and Google says] it has over 12,000 links about Smurfs and Communism. Zach (Sound Off) 02:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not original research. I've seen this brought up in several places before, and there are plenty of websites that cover this, amazingly enough, that can be cited for this article. In fact, this was mentioned on The Smurfs article, and it seems to have been given a main article because it became too long. Toothpaste 02:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, also, this article needs criticism of the theory. Most of the websites where I heard this covered in detail had a criticism to go along with it. Toothpaste 03:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:17, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Socially equitable

edit

personal essay --Trovatore 06:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE, since it's been transwikied which was what everyone wanted. -Splashtalk 22:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spinescence

edit

Simple dictdef, and expansion seems unlikely. transwiki to Wiktionary, which does not yet have an entry on this term. DES (talk) 15:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 30th was an exceptionally busy AfD day. So this debate among several got almost no attention. Relisting in hope of some tender, loving debate this time around. -Splashtalk 00:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Deleted. Was speedied. Wikibofh 17:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stages (book)

edit

Contains only (copyvio?) image of front cover Flapdragon 12:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stay-at-home robots

edit

Non-notable vanity, bandcruft, and poorly written to boot. No google hits for several variations on page title. Doesn't appear they ever made any recordings. Author's only contribution to date. -- RoySmith 15:03, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- who cares if it's true or not. Perception IS reality.

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

The result of the debate was Delete -- (drini's page|☎) 20:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Steezy

edit

Dictdef of a neologism. delete and transwiki to wiktionary if considered notable, otherwise just delete. This was listed as a speedy delete, but being a distdef is not a speedy criterion. DES (talk) 01:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Used as skater/snowboarder jargon on [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]; Listed on the Slang Exchange; many other mentions on various forums, also a popular alias. Anetode 18:33, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 01:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

String Finger Theatre

edit

A none notable webcomic, found here, hosted on a site which has zero Alexa stats. Google shows no assertion of notability, apart from a tiny update on a webcomic ranking list saying that it had reached its 400th strip. How hard is it for a stick man to reach 400 strips? Longevity does not equal notability, irrespectable of what WP:COMIC might say. - Hahnchen 01:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

With only 2 editors who are more-or-less divergent, I'm relisting this in search of proper participation. -Splashtalk 15:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Transwiki. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil Baby Names

edit
Also Tamil Baby Names Boys A and all other sub-articles.

The beginnings of an index of names that is entirely redundant with Wiktionary:Appendix:Names. Uncle G 00:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Numerically, I know it's a no consensus so do-nothing. However, it's been demonstrated that the term is actually just wrong, and the deleters point that out, so to merge it would be inherently wrong: we might not be paper but we still don't wilfully carry misinformation. So this time, I'm going to let the more thorough research outweigh the numerics. -Splashtalk 23:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Teeth and tail

edit

unverifiable. 202.156.6.60 11:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 30th was an exceptionally busy AfD day. So this debate among several got almost no attention. Relisting in hope of some tender, loving debate this time around. -Splashtalk 00:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It refers to the number of frontline troops (teeth) to the number of support personnel (tail). Capitalistroadster 02:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete Ryan Norton T | @ | C 22:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Band of Thieves

edit

I think it was placed in as a joke. I can find no reference to this group anywhere, and the page is badly formatted by an anonymous user. Andrewduffell 09:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. - Andrewduffell 09:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obscure as it seems, I actually have seen references to this group before especially relating to music. I think they may have been some sort of actual band that played shows in the Northeast. On sites where band post information and sample songs, I definetly remeber listening to samples from a group that made reference to the Band of Theives. I've never actually seen someone with the wristband, but I am fairly confident that this group actually exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.64.148.141 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC); user's only edit[reply]
    There is a Band of Thieves band (music group) [30] but this appaears to be unconnected. Rd232 18:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I, too, have witnessed people sporting this wristband. Back when I used to live in Northern Massachusetts, there were at least two or three people I distinctly remember wearing this band at nearly all times.--Hoov 22:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I stumbled across this article and I must now debunk this idea that the Band of Thieves does not exist. I am proud to say that I am an actual wristband-wearing member of the Band of Thieves. This is not a myth or a joke, but an actual group of people who are still active today, and if you walk through major northeast cities one can spot these green bracelets from time to time. In response to the first entry, we used to post our music on music posting websites, but I believe most or all of this music has fallen by the wayside in recent years. You may be able to find some old recordings if you scour the internet long enough, however, the band still plays regularly and ideas for a national tour are currently being considered. And, as the article states, the band is about much more than playing music, and in that sense, the group is stronger now than it has ever been. Members are continuously joining as the core ideas and beliefs of the Band spread to the far reaches of the country. Let this thriving community of artists and thinkers be recognized on wikipedia, from one who can speak from experience of the vitality of this unique group. Dprof 23:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unverifiable, and RickK memorial sockpuppet limit has been reached. —Cryptic (talk) 11:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep we may be new users, but we're not sock puppets of the same person. Get an admin to check the IPs, I guarantee I am no one else on this page, and no one else is me (WP:AGF)... Inductive reasoning like that can fail. Also, I've updated the page with a picture of my friend's band. I'd consider that to be enough verification for the bands existence.--Hoov 01:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If this were verifiable, which it currently isn't, it would probably be non-notable. If that ever changes, those who think Wikipedia needs an article on it can try again. Rd232 18:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    remark - the anon appears to be referring to something else, and Dprof and Hoov have not made edits on any other subject before or since. Rd232 18:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedied Wikibofh 15:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Borough (poem)

edit

This article is blank. The inter-wiki link leads to nothing. Banana04131 23:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has page history mostly involveing whole poem which should be on some other wiki project.--Banana04131 23:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under CSD A3, as an article consisting only of an interwiki link. --Mysidia (talk) 07:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought it should definetly be under speedy. Retract Nomination --Banana04131 16:22, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete -- (drini's page|☎) 02:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Church of Bet-El

edit

non-notable Nv8200p (talk) 14:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 02:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Foundry in Omaha Nebraska

edit

nn club/ad Delete --JAranda | yeah 00:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Jean-Luc Picards

edit

Article about a band formed last month; does not meet guidelines for inclusion. tregoweth 20:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Secret Level

edit

Non-notable message board. 202.156.6.54 21:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Result: redirect -- (drini's page|☎) 01:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The stray cat

edit

A former business of no consequence. Not even capitalized. R. fiend 22:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete -- (drini's page|☎) 01:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The UP ADS

edit

Surprisingly, this doesn't seem to be a copyvio. But it's an unredeemably NPOV bit of puffery for a non-notable campus organization (Google returned 2 hits for their full name). DS 16:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Triangle vegetarian society

edit

Article about local vegetarian group in North Carolina; not notable enough for an encyclopedia entry. tregoweth 04:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Merge to comma-separated values. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

.tsv

edit

This article should really be a note on the comma-separated values page, and both .tsv and tab-separated values should point there. As supporting evidence, I would point to a small comma-separated values library that I wrote which can handle both comma and tab separated files just with a simple change of a flag. Richard W.M. Jones 08:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Waldergame

edit
  • here's the condition, if you delete this article, then empower me to delete all of your surnames. i think would be fair, right? so what that waldergame is played on an open field without restriction? yes, the consequence of this pure adulterated folly does lead to some nonsense, but that is not what the game is about. anyway, i've said pretty much all i have to to say at this juncture. --Camilla Walderhaug 14:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable. And created by User:Waldermaster. DJ Clayworth 14:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I read an article about waldergame in the times newspaper a few weeks ago. It appears to have a dedicated following and is quite popular. Perhaps it should stay. or perhaps not:)
  • Despite the fact that the article is poorly written, I believe the intrinsic intellectual merit of the game itself has some value. The second point I'd like to make is that Amazon.com's Alexa claims to monitor 12million sites and that by their calculations, considering the current trends in the distribution of internet traffic, anything that consistently scores within the top 100,000 ranked sites

is what they term 'meat and potatoes'. As of 2005/October/06, if over 3 internet users in every 1 million over a 3 month average was reached by waldergame, and the general trend in popularity has been exponential since its begininning, is it 'not-notable'? Tough call. I think it's a wait and see. --Charliebobtonysteve 12:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 30th was an exceptionally busy AfD day. So this debate among several got almost no attention. Relisting in hope of some tender, loving debate this time around. -Splashtalk 00:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was BJAODN and DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Walle Iceberg

edit

I think this is a spoof -- "Walle Iceberg" gets zero hits on yahoo or google. I did not speedy it, because it's so long -- it seems like a lot of trouble to go to just as a gag. Brandon39 11:31, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Perhaps "test" would be the kindest term. The man in the pic was clearly not born in 1878, whoever he is, and if so would not still be alive as claimed. The text seems to come from Thomas Jefferson's autobiography rather than the clearly spoof "Sailing and Food Testing Magazine". Some people have a strange sense of humour. Flapdragon 12:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The image name "Pspspsps.GIF" is further evidence of spoofness if any were needed. I've added the requisite "AfD" tag to Walle Iceberg page. Flapdragon 12:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas Jefferson unheard of or entirely fictional?? ;-) Flapdragon 16:28, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the author would have a hard time claiming that Thomas Jefferson's real name was Iceberg and he was born in 1878, wouldn't s/he? I think your vote is safe. Flapdragon 01:59, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 02:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wastedhello

edit

Non notable band. No albums and don't even play their own songs. CambridgeBayWeather 00:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete -- (drini's page|☎) 02:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Westminster motor kits

edit

Delete. How-to article transwikied to Wikibooks. -- Egil 11:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete Wikibofh 22:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Youkhanna

edit

This is vanity and unencyclopaedic. We do not even have an article on the village in question, yet there is this article on the headman's family. The article is correct in saying that Youkhanna is the name John in some Aramaic dialects, but is not anymore noteworthy than that. Gareth Hughes 16:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...though I don't see that the lack of article on the village (Araden/Aradin) has any relevance. Perhaps it should have one, since it seems to have some notability. Flapdragon 18:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth Hughes has been bashing all of my contributions to Wikipedia. I an Aramaic/Syriac speaking Assyrian according to Gareth Hughes know less about myself and origination than he does. I beg to differ.

I am Gareth Hughes: I speak Syriac. I'm not bashing you: I simply believe that you are writing nonsense. The fact is that this is not an encyclopaedic article. If you want to write something about the name Youkhanna, it should be added to the article on John as an alternative spelling. If you want to write something on Araden, then it should be titled Araden. However, this is really about a bit of both, and is not worthy of being an encyclopaedia entry. --Gareth Hughes 10:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_October_8&oldid=1234127360"