Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 September 19

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

The result of the debate was merge relevant information in United Airlines Flight 93 (already there) and delete (biography is already on Wikimemorial). Neutrality^talk 15:19, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sandra Bradshaw

Sad but WP:NOT a memorial Delete --Aranda56 00:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• She and several other passengers are historically significant for fighting back against the terroists. This has been confirmed by reconstructions of the flight tapes and from cell phone conversations. I agree posting all 40 passengers would be OTT. Posting these few who fought back is relevant and material to the events on Flight 93. Note that the terrorists are given extensive bios--why not mini bios for the few who foiled their plans? Norweigan Forest 00:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC) _{- User's 18th edit. --Blackcap | talk 19:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)}
  • What exactly is your vote? Keep? --Blackcap | talk 19:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Its better off for a merge into the wiki 9/11 memorial Page not here --Aranda56 00:11, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge any pertinent info to the 9/11 wiki. -GregAsche (talk) 00:37, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Re: Norwegian Forest: At this point, the article only says it is believed that this person was notable by the standards you cite (which I would generally agree with). If the significant in foiling terrorists claim is sourced, I'd say keep. Until, delete. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 02:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There's no particular evidence that this individual in particular fought back against the terrorists and in any case, Todd Beamer and United Airlines Flight 93 detail the passenger counterattack in enough detail. This article is completely unnecessary. — Phil Welch 02:37, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge or delete: I think a list, which might include a mini biography, of all the passenger on UA Flight 93 would be useful — or maybe as a section in the United Airlines Flight 93 article. As is, though, IMHO it doesn't warrant its own article. — Cory Maylett 02:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge articles on such people in the article on the flight they were on. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:46, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with an article about flight 93, maybe include all the pertanant people involved in that flight...HoratioVitero 15:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete The September 11th wiki already has all of this information and more here. There is nothing paticularly notable about this person, and her pages can be easily linked to on the previously mentioned wiki from the UA Flight 93 page. I recommend that references to her in the UA 93 page be simply linked to her Sep11 wiki page. --Blackcap | talk 19:24, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Relevant material: meta:What to do with entries related to September 11 casualties. --Blackcap | talk 19:28, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into United Airlines Flight 93. (Article should be re-created if section gets too big). Andrew pmk | Talk 20:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Many other articles on 9/11 victims onboard aircraft have been expanded — this one could be too. Andrew pmk | Talk 05:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to United Airlines Flight 93. Hall Monitor 19:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into United Airlines Flight 93.

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Neutrality^talk 15:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bear the Diesel Engine

The page appears to be original research/a personal essay --Mysidia (talk) 00:09, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - one of the characters from The Railway Series about Thomas the Tank Engine. Other characters have articles.--AYArktos 00:28, 19 September 2005 (UTC) (Note that I tidied the article after Mysidia's nomination from anon editor's start - I appreciate that without links, categorisation or context it looked like a personal essay.)--User:AYArktos | Talk 19:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Major characters in popular fiction are notable by current standards. Ashibaka (tock) 02:29, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup (I'll make a start). --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Engines in the Railway Series are notable, even though Bear seems to be a fairly minor character. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, seems perfectly valid to me. Can't see how it's original research. Merge and redirect Bear, AKA D7101 here, assuming this is the common name for the thing. AKAs don't belong in titles. (Note: We have a Thomas the Thank Engine vandal, so please be extra careful with the info you move). - Mgm|^(talk) 08:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I'll merge it in now. Should be okay, since if "Bear the Diesel Engine" gets deleted "AKA D7101" should too. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: part of a vauable resource; a single article to cover all those characters would be enormous. —Phil | Talk 12:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• KeepHoratioVitero 15:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep WP:NOT paper, and per Ashibaka. --Blackcap | talk 19:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• keep per everyone who has voted keep before me. Thryduulf 20:01, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per AYArktos. I loved Thomas the Tank Engine when I was little. Psy guy ^(talk) 22:53, 19 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Neutrality^talk 15:22, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Trap17

Ad for a free webhost. --fvw* 00:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: It's nothing but an advertisement — Cory Maylett 02:13, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Webhosts are a dollar a dozen. — Phil Welch 02:38, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Cory Maylett --Icarus 05:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Friedo 07:12, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nice idea, but still an ad. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Alexa is 45,465, which seems low for a web host. Flowerparty■ 11:38, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• This entry has been Transwikied to Yellowikis by User:Uncle_G's bot --Payo 12:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • What is Yellowikis, and how can we "transwiki" to a site that is not a sister project? User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
    • This is what a Google search turned up: [1]. They use the same skin as us, anyway, but I've never heard of them. A Meta search for Yellowiki turns up zilch, so I doubt they're a sister project. --Blackcap | talk 00:06, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
    • See Yellowikis (AFD discussion). In the very same way that we transwiki to that subset of the sibling projects to which transwikification is permitted. The procedure is identical. Uncle G 01:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I strongly protest the use of the term transwiki to describe moving GFDL articles to non-Wikipieda projects. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:53, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Then you are on your own, and in disagreement with many other editors, since excluding all projects except for Wikipedia ones is not its generally accepted meaning. Excluding all projects except for Wikimedia ones is not its generally accepted meaning, even. I suggest that you read the first sentence of m:transwiki to see how broadly encompassing the concept is, in Angela's own words. I also suggest that if you are going to propose changing the terminology to your newly-coined highly restricted meaning, you do so not here but on the talk page at Meta. Uncle G 01:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
          • You're biting a bit hard, mate. A simple, "That's not the generally accepted definition of tranwiki, see m:transwiki," would probably have sufficed. Just a friendly thought. --Blackcap | talk 04:45, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
          • Ohhhhhhhh. Now I get it. If I want an article deleted from Wikipedia, all I have to do is "transwiki" it to some obscure GFDL wiki and delete it, huh? User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
            • Again, you will find yourself in disagreement with many other editors in that understanding. Please read the existing extensive discussions of this, beginning with the very talk page that I mentioned above and proceeding to Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/Archive, Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/Archives, and Template talk:Move to Wiktionary. Uncle G 18:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per all. --Blackcap | talk 19:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• I don't get it... how does this differ from Geocities and Freewebs? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dooga (talk • contribs) 2005-09-20 03:37:48 UTC.
  • GeoCities is listed on NASDAQ and its purchase and subsequent alteration by Yahoo! was covered by news media. Freewebs has been the subject of independent news stories, too. This is not the case for Trap17. Uncle G 10:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Josh Parris # 02:34, 21 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Neutrality^talk 15:24, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cradossk

Direct quote from my brother the Star Wars fanatic: "I wouldn't even put that guy in a Star Wars character guide, let alone an encyclopedia." Delete. ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^{(Contributions)} 00:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Merge into Bossk. I don't think the resulting redirect will cause any harm. -- BD2412 ^talk 00:19, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Info is already in there; redirect to Minor bounty hunters in Star Wars#Bossk. -- BD2412 ^talk 00:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
    • You can't redirect to sections though, but apart from that I agree. --fvw* 00:29, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Do you mean that in the sense of "it's not technically possible", or in the sense of "it's not allowed"? I'm pretty sure it's technically possible. -- BD2412 ^talk 02:03, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
        • It's not technically possible. Here, I'll set up an example for you. Go to User:Purplefeltangel/Sandbox2, then click on the link at the top back to the redirect page. Then click "edit." You can see it's supposed to link to a section, but it doesn't. ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^{(Contributions)} 02:28, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
          • I stand corrected. But darn it, it should be possible. They need to fix that. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:20, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
            • I think that this used to work a few months ago. Maybe it's a regression in the software? Pburka 03:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not particularly opposed to a redirect. — Phil Welch 02:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• I'd rather like to say "delete" as another example of rampant Star Wars cruft, but precedent is against me. Redirect, merging if necessary. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:05, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Minor_bounty_hunters_in_Star_Wars#Bossk and then Redirect --Icarus 05:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to the list of minor bounty hunters. Since sections can be renamed without being explicitly logged, redirects to sections are prone to breaking. That's why it's not working. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect into Minor bounty hunters in Star Wars#Bossk.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Neutrality^talk 15:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Code of conflict

Non-notable mud. --fvw* 00:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Don't Delete Wikipedia is an encyclopedia I thought? Shouldn't this be extended to be as true as possible. If you go to the website, it seems obvious the current article is truthful.. so then why not keep it? It's true - and if people want to know what Code of Conflict is they can find out - or otherwise other Code of Conflict definitions can be added as I see on MANY other pages ;) _{- Unsigned post by 203.109.252.196, an ISP which has vandalised numerous pages. --Blackcap | talk 05:49, 21 September 2005 (UTC)}
  • Is that a threat? --Blackcap | talk 05:49, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn Ashibaka (tock) 02:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn unverified. — Phil Welch 02:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Code of conflict.com has an Alexa rank of 1,787,348. Neopets reaches 73. Comparing the two (which is their only claim to fame) would be ludicrous. It's just one of the billions of random games put on the net. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:08, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per MgM. --Blackcap | talk 19:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN ≈ jossi ≈ 21:34, 19 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Neutrality^talk 15:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pasadena Anarchist Collective

No evidence of notability. --fvw* 00:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete advert nn. — Phil Welch 02:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Not notable. Promotional page (even written in first person style). If kept, should be rewritten. — Cory Maylett 03:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, what Maylett said. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 04:58, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. -- Friedo 07:13, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Phil and Maylett. --Blackcap | talk 19:42, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - NN ≈ jossi ≈ 21:36, 19 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Neutrality^talk 15:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of cancer patients

This list is accurate but cancer is the most common death and that list names all the cancer patients which is way to many and that list is even probaly a stub.See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of famous pneumonia suffers Delete --Aranda56 01:58, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: I'm not a fan of these kinds of infinite list articles to begin with, but if the article is kept, it ought to at least be limited and changed to, maybe, "Famous" or "Notable cancer patients". Even then, the list could possibly grow into the tens or hundreds of thousands. — Cory Maylett 02:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or make into category. The main advantages of lists over categories are (a) redlinks can be added (but in this case, only bluelinks should be allowed to maintain verifiability) and (b) lists can be annotated, but I can't see much use for annotation here. So this would be an OK category but not much of a list. — Phil Welch 02:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Phil makes a compelling argument. I think the list should be categorified, deleted afterwards. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Make into a category and then delete --Icarus 05:20, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unencyclopedic, unmaintainable list. I don't think that Category:People who died of cancer would be a good idea, either. DES ^(talk) 05:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Make into a category. I like lists, but this particular one can grow beyond large. Shouldn't we merge the edit history to show who added people to the list/category? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think you can do that -- a category has no history connected with the individual items in the category, that history is entirely in the individual items. DES ^(talk) 11:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Cory Maylett and Aranda56. Don't make a category. What good is a category listing half the people on Wikipedia? -- Kjkolb 10:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Completely indiscriminate collection of information that serves no purpose. Categories could help. Please note that many of these people did not die of cancer (it's possible to have cancer for decades and die from a motor crash or heart attack). JFW | T@lk 11:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, IMO Category:People diagnosed with cancer is of even less use, if that is possible, than Category:People who died of cancer. DES ^(talk) 11:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unmaintainable. Could potentially have millions of names on it. Even a list of famous people with cancer would be unmaintainable since there are so many. 23skidoo 16:42, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Make into "cancer patient" category and then delete per Phil. Completely unmaintainable as a list. --Blackcap | talk 19:45, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete (what is with this listmania) . ≈ jossi ≈ 21:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete big lists. Do not make into a category. That would be even worse. I'd rather see this page stick around than such a category tag applied to hundreds and hundreds of articles. What other categories can we think of? "Men with male pattern baldness?" "Cities with beaches?" Bunchofgrapes 22:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Completely idiosyncratic non-topic. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:58, 19 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Neutrality^talk 15:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Drew Davies

• Delete: Vanity page, advertising, not notable. Drew Davies is apparently the founder/design director of a small graphic design firm in Nebraska called Oxide Design Co. which also has a Wikipedia article. Both articles were created by a user named Oxide, whose contributions are limited to the Oxide Design and Drew Davies articles. I suspect a case of self-promotion. A little more research turned up an employee of the company, Joe Sparano, whose vanity page has already been deleted. Cory Maylett 02:03, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. — Phil Welch 02:42, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Cory Maylett Dlyons493 07:13, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity -- Friedo 07:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. (And why hasn't Oxide Design Co. been nominated? --Calton | Talk 13:28, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - nn; article may have been created to drive traffic to linked site CLW 18:07, 19 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Neutrality^talk 15:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 29A

Non-notable. User:Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 02:20, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not well verified. — Phil Welch 02:42, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Not notable, meaningless list of pseudonyms — Cory Maylett 03:05, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If 29A have written many computer viruses, then they are notable, even if for a wrong reason, and people need to be informed about them. Computer viruses are a major pest. Anthony Appleyard 06:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Agree, meaningless list of pseudonyms, fails to properly define the subject at hand. Pandemic 07:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC) _{- Pandemic's 6th edit. --Blackcap | talk 19:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC)}
• Delete per Maylett. --Blackcap | talk 19:51, 19 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Neutrality^talk 15:57, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Stethoscope

• Delete Does this belong in the UoT article? No. Does it belong in a new article, "Student organizations of University of Toronto"?Ashibaka (tock) 02:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Given that the usual bar for a student group at a university is "5 to 10 people want to make a group", with the occasional condition of "the group is not a porn studio", the notability bar for such groups is a good bit higher than we have a board of directors. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 02:38, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Dont Delete We have over 750 undergraduate and graduate members at the University of Toronto St George Campus (the largest life sci student organization in Canada's largest university) , the article sure does need cleaning up but we dont understand why we cant have a wikipedia entry while obscure geek science fiction topics are allowed in. Just look at our website to see that we are a legitimate organization whose membership base exceeds the life sci student enrolment at many universities in the world - Stethoscope Member (who just started using the edit button so i dont know how to add the fancy tags) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.30.120.30 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 19 September 2005.}
• Delete completely nn. — Phil Welch 02:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with a greater UoT article if possible, otherwise keep, and give the anon a supply of tissues. Mate, keeping or deleting an article is not an insult to whatever the article's about. I'm not notable, and it doesn't bother me in the slightest ;-) --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: Student organizations are a dime a dozen, but 750 members at Canada's largest university. Sounds like a (marginal, maybe) keeper to me. — Cory Maylett 03:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment.I would vote to Keep if this level of membership could be verified or proof of expansion to other campuses could be provided. I would otherwise vote to merge with a Student organizations at the University of Toronto or similar article as there is verifiable evidence of its existence see [2]. Capitalistroadster 03:28, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Welcome, Stethoscope Member to Wikipedia. Capitalistroadster 03:29, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. For what it's worth, I don't think a lot of the obscure geek science fiction topics are notable either, but they have a dedicated sockpuppet fan base to come on and vote for their junk. —Cleared as filed. 03:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I am another stethoscope member, and all I can say is please examine the merits of the organization by looking at the website, rather than listening to people whose only comment is "non notable" without explaining why it is non notable, considering the size of the organization and their lack of familiarity with even the university of toronto. If all it takes is a sockpuppet fan base to flood this with keep votes, then we can easily get dozens of members to put down some sort of comment on why this should be kept. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.100.90.251 (talk • contribs) .
• Delete. Unregistered users are not eligible to vote, nor are sockpuppets. Andrew pmk | Talk 21:45, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • That's not really true. The policy is that unregistered and anonymous contributers MAY weigh in on the discussion. All comments should address the issue in regard to Wikipedia's deletion policy and the administrator who closes the discussion is free to disregard votes that appear to have been made without regard to policy, by apparent sockpuppets or meatpuppets, or otherwise in bad faith. Dystopos 01:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable student organization. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Proposal: student organizations must be more than, let's see, 5 years old to qualify as notable on their own accord. Bunchofgrapes 22:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment. I don't think the fact that a student organization has been around 5 years is enough to qualify as notable either. —Cleared as filed. 00:33, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. But certainly the recent formation of this one doesn't help here. Bunchofgrapes 02:25, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. -- Spinboy 00:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Most student organizations that exist at only one university are non-notable. Lots of universities have pre-medical (pre-dental, etc.) organizations, and that's a popular career choice among college students, so it doesn't surprise me that this organization could have 750 members at a campus with about 50,000 undergraduates. However, if this becomes a national pre-med organization, it would probably be notable enough to qualify for Wikipedia in my opinion. --Metropolitan90 01:25, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the organization appears to have footing.DannyZz 00:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I am also a Stethoscope member, and we certainly have a lot of footing. We have high profile events and last year in our inaugural year we actually had Tak Mak and the federal minister of public health come and give a talk, and this year the chief medical officer for Toronto is apparently coming as well. If we are some nonsense non notable club with 7-10 members would those high profile personalities actually take the time to go? De Lovely 18:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The Stethoscope could be, and apparently is, completely legitimate and worthwhile for its members without warranting having a Wikipedia article about it. I don't consider it nonsense, but that doesn't mean it's notable. --Metropolitan90 01:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Since Wikipedia contains extensive articles on every Pokemon character and video game in existence (not to mention its growing library of porn star bios), I believe the bar is sufficiently low enough to enable a good-sized academic organization at a major institution of higher learning to easily meet the entry qualifications. I'm not defending dumbing down Wikipedia (in fact, I'm quite opposed to it), but I am saying that an even and consistent set of criteria should apply. If we allow cartoon characters to have their own articles, but deny them to college organizations, we've taken one more step down the road to Wikipedia becoming little more than a repository of insignificant, pop-culture trivia. — C Maylett 17:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: Maybe we should do the appropriate thing and list all of those insignificant cartoon characters for deletion instead? —Cleared as filed. 10:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: We can't plausibly use the same standards in determining whether Pokemon characters, porn stars, and student organizations are worthy of Wikipedia entries; neither Pikachu nor the Stethoscope has ever won an Adult Video News Award. I don't believe there are any official guidelines about student organizations having Wikipedia entries, but I think most of those I have seen on AfD have failed their votes and been deleted. If you can find precedents in your favor among other student organizations, I would take those into consideration. --Metropolitan90 00:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The organization may merit a mention at Faculty of Medicine, U of T (which, by the way, should be renamed, cleaned up and expanded). The contents are unencyclopedic trivia. Dystopos 16:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I am also a member and it seems valid to be here when compared to some of the stuff that other people who want to delete it have talked about like obscure anime topic. <--- seems like some comment made by another stethoscope member who didnt know how to use wikipedia, i edited it so it doesnt get unfairly attributed to the danny person above 70.30.120.30 13:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete What does the group actually do? Pilatus 10:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: For keeping I am the first stethoscope member who posted above, i made an account but i forgot my log on name so i am signing off with my ip. Someone mentioned student organizations that have been kept, here is one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_Sigma_Phi_Philippines . As far as it seems it doesnt have the same scope as our organization since it comes from two small second rate provincial universities in the philippines. They are a considerably older organization, but is age really the matter for notability, or is it the relevance of the organization to an x number of people? We make no financial gain out of having the stethoscope on wikipedia, since our membership is free and open to all, and we even have logged europeans and australians visiting and returning to our website on a regular basis looking for information on the health care professions admissions criteria in canada. This entire article will probably be deleted, but you people who consider yourselves as guardians of wikipedia should really get priorities straight if the message you are sending is that a pokemon character or 60's porn star has more notability than an organization involved in helping the next generation of a first world country's health care profession. 70.30.120.30 13:38, 24 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Neutrality^talk 17:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Intensity of Binary Independence

• Delete. IMO, this criterion is neither useful nor well-known enough to merit a wikipedia article. Hermitage 02:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, the google results all seem to be from wikipedia or descriptions of Saari's book.
  • Also, the criterion implies that the "intensity of preference" between two candidates can be effectively measured by the number of candidates ranked in between them... this is a serious fallacy.
  • A merge with Borda count would be logical, but it should be made clear that this is a POV definition of preference intensity, not a generally accepted one. --Hermitage 22:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Not vanity, likely verifiable. Mark for cleanup instead. — Phil Welch 02:46, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: Esoteric, but hundreds of Google results. — Cory Maylett 03:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for the following reasons: RSpeer 03:58, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Those hundreds of Google results are almost all the same two texts! One is, of course, the Wikipedia article itself, on mirror sites. The other is a review of Donald Saari's book "Elections and Decisions" (a book promoting the use of the Borda count), which is the only place this term is actually published. Filtering out wikipedia mirrors and reviews of that book leaves one hit, which is a randomly-generated spam page.
  • "Elections and Decisions" has no Wikipedia article; why should a term that only exists as a small part of that book have an article?
  • The criterion is inherently POV. Criteria are used to promote various voting methods over others based on their mathematical properties, based on the assumption that it is desirable to meet that criterion. This criterion is equivalent to the definition of the Borda count, so the article is simply hiding the statement "The Borda count is good" behind some math.
  • The criterion has not been accepted by any voting theorists except its creator, Donald Saari. The user who created this article is a strong fan of Saari.
  • Therefore, I urge people to reconsider their votes.
• Merge But I don't know to what - Independence of irrelevant alternatives perhaps could be expanded. I think this belongs in a general article on voting criteria rather than a seperate very specialised article. If nobody finds a useful merge during the vfd then weak delete. Dlyons493 07:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Ack no. Independence of irrelevant alternatives has problems of its own without unrelated criteria being tacked onto it. If the article is merged, it should go to Borda count, but keeping in mind Hermitage's caveat. RSpeer 21:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per RSpeer. -- Kjkolb 10:20, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as no one uses this criterion. The creator of the page has already said the page could be merged into another page (e.g. Borda count). KVenzke 20:43, 19 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.

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 speedily deleted -- Francs2000 02:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph thomas

nn, vanity --Rschen7754 02:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• i believe this article is perhaps the most useful on wikipedia. i believe my education would suffer serverly were this to be deleted. god bless america.

Unsigned comment by Jthomas08 (talk • contribs)

• Textbook case of an A7 speedy delete and tagged as such. — Phil Welch 02:48, 19 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.

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus, default to keep 70%+/- to keep. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 04:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Operating System advocacy

This article should be deleted because it is a cesspool of original research, with a near absolute lack of refrences to any of the points and counter points. In fact the authors seem to encourage this more by suggesting in the talk page that this article only talk about current debates about current operating systems, leaving out anything historical, refrenceable, and truely encylopedic. put up for deletion by IP:68.127.144.118

Listing was orphaned, now properly listed on AfD. My vote is below. — Phil Welch 03:29, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete for the reasons stated. Atlant 14:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I agree. Not sure what the point of this article is except for people to make complaints about systems they don't like. Avenger Penguin 16:00, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• This article has the potential to be an encylopaedic account of the phenomenon of operating system advocacy and some of the most notable debates. The introduction starts off well, infact with the exception of the last line of the introduction everything before the table of contents is of high quality. Unfortunately the same cannot be said of the rest of the article. Weak delete pending a brilliant re-write. Thryduulf 16:44, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Idleguy 09:48, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I think the article provides some valuable "talking points" in the comparison of operating systems. Especially in the Unix sections, I forget what the advantages and disadvantages of the different systems are; and as a Mac zealot I'm reminded of the problems with my favorite system, as well, when I reccommend it to people. Perhaps it should be re-purposed or something; I agree that it's mainly opinion, not historical but I do see it as a useful reference. justfred 09:48, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. but clean up and add references. Pamri • Talk 13:33, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep' The content could do with an awful lot more expanding and NPVing, but I would like to see such an article. Certainly many people feel strongly about the issue, but that's a good reason to have a summary of such opinion. Comparison of operating systems has useful technical overview, but surely there is room for a more userfriendly comparison of strengths and weaknesses that should be kept out of 'Comparison_of_operating_systems' and Operating system; the differences between two is important, and not suited to the article on either.
• I, at least, was hoping for a reasoned comparison when I clicked the link.
• The name should probably be changed to something more neutral or merged back into 'Comparison_of_operating_systems', and this be a redirect, or a stub with a discussion of the history of advocacy itself rather than true comparison. --Jack
• Keep assuming it can be cleaned up. --Shawn K. Quinn 06:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Actual notable phenomenon. Drop the arguments for and against OS's and focus more on the reality of platform zealotry and platform arguments. — Phil Welch 03:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • That was my opinion the last time around, and it remains unchanged. The neutral point of view and no original research policies must be adhered to. This article requires a huge dose of cleanup, including excision of everything in the pro&con lists that cannot be sourced or attributed to a specific proponent, which is pretty much all of it right now. Uncle G 18:01, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep (sort of): — There's interesting information here, but the premise of the page is goofy and unencylopedic. "Operating system advocacy" — a grandiose and somewhat misleading title for what is mostly just a list of pros and cons of various operating systems. I suggest renaming and rewriting the intro paragraphs to something better suited to the content that follows. — Cory Maylett 03:42, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • That's the cart before the horse somewhat. The content that follows the introduction is a huge chunk of original research without either citations or attributions. Rewriting the introduction to match the rest, essentially refactoring this article as a rewrite of comparison of operating systems, is both basing the article around the original research and pointless. We already have that article. The focus of this article, per the title, is the advocacy, and not the actual features of the various operating systems themselves. There's a possibility of an encyclopaedia article on operating system advocacy. People have written about it.

    The "goofy and unencyclopaedic" title relates to the names of several Usenet newsgroups where such arguments have occurred for the past 20 years, by the way, and is the generally accepted term for what transpires within them. Uncle G 18:01, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• weak keep. considering theres been quite alot of edits and discussion by different users Astrokey44 04:01, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Sure, the article isn't perfect now, but that's no reason to delete it. After a cleanup and the addition of references this will bee a good and encyclopedic article. --Apyule 07:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. This article as put to VfD in January of this year. The result was a decision to keep. --Apyule 07:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Definitely a notable topic among us geeks, gives us some talking points and reasons for why the other sides think the way they do, and it was kept in a previous AfD. --Idont Havaname 14:24, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Needs cleanup, NPOVing and refs, but a worthy article nontheless. ≈ jossi ≈ 21:38, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep - double jeopardy, anonymous nomination. Andrew pmk | Talk 21:46, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Contains virtually no information that is not contained in the title. Operating systems advocacy is the practice of advocating an operating system. Followed by a list. An opinionated list of pairs of operating systems, without even a note as to why specific operating systems are paired. A blank page could become an encyclopedic article, too, but we don't keep them. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep subject to heavy cleanup. Shauri 19:40, 24 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.

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED. — JIP | Talk 04:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tarik Fayad

not informational content

Speedy delete. they created an article with "OMG TARIK IS SOOOOO HOT!!! I JUST WANNA GREASE HIM UP AND MAKE HIM MINE!!!!!!" in it O_o Astrokey44 03:46, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

edited out...sry —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.247.119.40 (talk • contribs) 03:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC).

• Still inherently non-notable. Delete. Titoxd 03:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete — junk article — Cory Maylett 03:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Total nonsense. —Cleared as filed. 03:55, 19 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Andrew pmk | Talk 21:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "advanced searchbar"

Not notable and an ad. --WikiFanatic^{Talk Contribs 22:57, 18 Sep 2005 (CDT)}

Delete. Two sentence ad Astrokey44 04:09, 19 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep. Neutrality^talk 18:19, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ah-ni-ku-ta-ni

• Delete. As the sole author, I want this content removed as I do not wish a site that allows lynch mobs and libel and defacement of information to act as a repository for our culture. There's no guarantee that our information will not be defaced by anonymous internet users. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gadugi (talk • contribs) 03:12, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep this and all other pages Gadugi has nominated. Contributions must not be redacted. Ashibaka (tock) 04:58, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • You need to repeat this comment on all the six pages, since the closing admin will look at them separately. --cesarb 05:08, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Several users have edited this article so it doesn't qualify for speedy deletion by the sole contributor. if the article is factual, as I presume it to be, it should remain. DES ^(talk) 05:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This article is very interesting and could be a great resource for anyone wishing to learn more about the Cherokee culture. --Icarus 05:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• This is All You are Getting. I am NOT going to describe or relate the ancient syllabary on this forum or any other forum at this point. Our ancient writings will remain secret at this point. You are wasting your time -- this is all you are going to get from me. Do-na-da Go-hv-i Ni-go Di-sge-s-di Gadugi 05:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • When did anyone say they wanted you to describe or relate anything more than you've already freely offered? --Icarus 06:09, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Good point. Is this one of the vitriolic comments I am so used to from admins on this site? 67.177.35.211 06:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
      • No vitriol is intended. Your choice of words made it sound like you were angry, so I pointed out that there's no need for you to get upset over a request that no one's made. --Icarus 06:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
        • In any case, to the verifiability requirement, Wikipedia does not publish secrets; that is, Wikipedia cannot be used for the first publication of information that was previously secret. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
          • I believe this problem has been solved as the Ah-ni-yv-wi-ya has directed that the ancient syllabary will not be published anywhere except among our people until the prophecies have been fulfilled. Gadugi 21:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep verifiable information about Cherokee culture. Capitalistroadster 05:43, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per DES. Penelope D 06:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; no valid criteria for deletion. -- MCB 06:11, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Pleased; I am pleased. This was indeed a great article. 67.177.35.211 06:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - A good article. Hopefuly someone else will be interested in expanding it. -- Friedo 07:19, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• User Gadugi, we try not to allow libel or lynch mobs or such problems. Where they happen, you can help us better by reverting the bad changes to restore a previous correct version, and by alerting us at the "Vandalism in progress" page. Welcome, and peace. Barno 08:12, 19 September 2005 (UTC), friend to a former WIC nutritionist to the Northern Cheyenne reservation.
• Keep: subject to cleanup and wikification, this looks like a good article. The impression given from this and other nominations is of a user suffering a hissy-fit because of some perceived slight. However, the information has now been released to Wikipedia under the GFDL which is AFAIK irrevocable. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 09:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Question for Capitalistroadster and others - can anyone verify this information from a printed source? I'm amazed to find nothing online about this ancient syllabary. User:Gadugi's talk page makes interesting reading and his veracity has been challenged. There are no records of an "Ah-ni-ku-ta-ni" online (according to Google) and a couple of the user's other edits have been challenged. It's possible that this request for deletion owes something to a wish to avoid being caught out. There are credited sources for each article - can anyone find them offline to confirm? Please note that in the absence of independent corroboration I do not have an opinion one way or another on either Gadugi or the facts of this article.Vizjim 10:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Vizjim, I have checked the ISBN for the book Cherokee cited in the references and Redlightgreen appears to indicate it is a legitimate book. That being said, I am in Australia and will have difficulty in accessing this book within the timeframe. It would be good if someone in the US could check out this and other sources to confirm that this is a verifiable article about a notable topic. Capitalistroadster 10:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • this amazon link shows that the book is real, and does have an index entry for the relevant subject. However, that page is not available online via amazon. DES ^(talk) 11:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Great research!! (Now why didn't I think of that?) The entry there spells it as "Ani-kutani" and that throws up 461 hits on Google. With that in mind, I'd redirect to Ani-kutani and keep the article.Vizjim 11:19, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I've been bold and moved it. Great research, all around. -- Plutor 13:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
        • The problem is, in the process, you have broken the AfD link. Normally articels on Afd are not supposed to be moved for thsi very reason. I would advise that you either move it back or fix the link. DES ^(talk) 13:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
          • Here's a little more. Searching www.a9.com and selecting "books" (which is about the same as Amazon's "search inside this book") can be useful. The page in question is this but it really only confirms the existence of the "Ani-kutani priesthood." If that link doesn't work due to Amazon's protection against a single user reading too much, go to the book description in Amazon and do a "search inside this book" for "priesthood." Dpbsmith (talk) 22:47, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • My local library has the book Cherokee (I live within the Cherokee Nation boundries). I will get it this afternoon and see how much of this article I can verify. Dsmdgold 16:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. No valid criteria for deletion. TheMadBaron 11:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Bad-faith nomination, WP:POINT, etc. etc. Bhumiya/Talk 12:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable subject. Whether it's factually accurate or not is not a matter for AfD. -- Plutor 13:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - come on, Gadugi, If this is true then it is very important information and should not be covered up. I have had a similar problem with someone else covering up information I added about the ancient Micmac writing script; see Talk:Mi'kmaq hieroglyphic writing... Codex Sinaiticus 16:03, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. No valid criteria for nomination. Wikipedia has no concept of an author owning and article, and every edit page says clearly "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it." Where did Gadugi see any "guarantee," express or implied, that contributions would never be defaced? Dpbsmith (talk) 22:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. WP:POINT. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:38, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• phandsvrta keep. Notable Subject : Googling "+written cherokee language" reveals the syllabary, at least the 1820s Sequoyah syllabary, which isn't that ancient. It also reveals a lot of good, learned material on this topic which deserves collation in Wikipedia. Merkey (aka Gadugi) is attempting to suppress already freely available information. Don't allow it.
  • note that Gadugi has stated that the "ancient syllabary" is much older than, and compeltely different from the syllabary created by Sequoyah. DES ^(talk) 15:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• phandsvrta keep There's more, from http://www.neosoft.com/powersource/gallery/people/sequoyah.html

This includes a picture of the syllabary. I'd have pasted it in, but don't know how to use wikipedia for an image yet, and I'm not sure of the copyright status of the source.

• Speedy Keep I regret my actions here. Please keep this article. Also, Phandsvrta is an SCOX member who has been extremely vocal. Since he does not know anything about our Culture or language, I ask the other editors to heavily scrutinze any edits or defacements he makes to this article. Gadugi 18:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

• phandsvrta response

I will second Jeff's sentiment to scrutinize all contributions - mine or otherwise. I have indeed been vocal, and will continue being vocal as long as attempts are made to suppress freedom of information and speech. And, as far as I know, I haven't made any defacements to this article (I'm not adept at using wikipedia, so don't rule out ignorance or finger trouble!).

Jeff, if there is an older syllabary than that of Sequoyah, why isn't it visible elsewhere? There is a LOT of Cherokee information out there, but all references to a written language only get as far as Sequoyah. Surely you woudn't want something as fundamental and precious to wither away in obscurity?

Think of it as adding to the richness found in other, old languages, such as Norn (the ancient language of Orkney), or Ogham (pre-Gaelic Irish), or Kernewek (the direct descendant of the ancient language spoken by Celtic settlers who inhabited Cornwall (Kernow) and most of the British Isles long before the Roman conquest). Many of these were suppressed by later conquerors, and only survived underground. They are now being resurrected and appreciated for their historical and cultural value. I'd want the same for a previously unkown Cherokee written form.

Wouldn't you want to know how to read the Inca Quipus (spelling?)?

I speak as a Scot, living in Ireland. Our native Gaelic was brutally suppressed by the English, only surviving in the Western Isles, including Ireland. As language powerfully shapes a culture, losing languages is, in my opinion, a very bad thing.

• Keep - and I suppose one of us great [google/A9] researchers could pick up a phone and call the An-ni-yv-wi-ya Religious organization at the number provided in the references section for more verification. Dystopos 16:12, 22 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep. Neutrality^talk 18:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gadugi

• Delete. As the sole author, I want this content removed as I do not wish a site that allows lynch mobs and libel and defacement of information to act as a repository for our culture. There's no guarantee that our information will not be defaced by anonymous internet users. I do not consider what goes in on this site to be "gadugi." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gadugi (talk • contribs) 03:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Several users have edited this article so it doesn't qualify for speedy deletion by the sole contributor. if the article is factual, as I presume it to be, it should remain. DES ^(talk) 05:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; no valid criteria for deletion. -- MCB 06:13, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Same as above. -- Friedo 07:20, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. No valid criteria for deletion. TheMadBaron 11:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: subject to cleanup and wikification, this looks like a good article. The impression given from this and other nominations is of a user suffering a hissy-fit because of some perceived slight. However, the information has now been released to Wikipedia under the GFDL which is AFAIK irrevocable. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 11:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Bad-faith nomination, WP:POINT, etc. Bhumiya/Talk 12:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. WP:POINT. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:38, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. I regret my actions here. Please consider retaining this article if the other editors feel it has merit. Gadugi 18:46, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete foreign dictdef. That's pretty good criterion for deletion, IMO.  Grue  17:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • This is a very important concept in Cherokee culture. It comprises more that just the definition of the word. 67.137.28.187 23:22, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • There. Now it no longer meets the criteria as a dictdef. Happy? 67.137.28.187 23:25, 22 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep. Neutrality^talk 18:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ah-ni-yv-wi-ya

• Delete. As the sole author, I want this content removed as I do not wish a site that allows lynch mobs and libel and defacement of information to act as a repository for our culture. There's no guarantee that our information will not be defaced by anonymous internet users. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gadugi (talk • contribs) 03:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Cherokee or Cherokee language --Icarus 05:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Cherokee. Penelope D 05:56, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. No valid criteria for deletion. TheMadBaron 10:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: subject to cleanup and wikification, this looks like a good article. The impression given from this and other nominations is of a user suffering a hissy-fit because of some perceived slight. However, the information has now been released to Wikipedia under the GFDL which is AFAIK irrevocable. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 11:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Of course, this begs the question "Then why did you create the article if you want it removed?" I think it is good and useful encyclopedic information, and I'm glad you added it. There has been no problem with defacement so far. The wiki process is pretty good at dealing with defacement when it occurs, although unfortunately there is no way to prevent it. Plenty of articles dealing with sacred subects do get defamed on occasion here, but this is only a surface phenomenon. What is truly sacred cannot be defamed. Codex Sinaiticus 13:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • The answer to that is pretty obvious. The creator got into some rahter nasty disputes with others on wikipedia, mostly if not compeltely unrealted to thsi article. In the course of this, it seems that at least one user posted derogatory language related to the creator's cherokee ethnicity, or at least he took it that way. See the history of the creator's talk page, his user contributions, and jimbo's recent post on WP:AN/I if you want more details. I can see why these events left the article creator very unhappy with wikipedia, although i think he is mistakenly attributing to all of us the acts of a very few. DES ^(talk) 13:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Galugi is reverting my attempts to clean up the article and is even refusing that it be categorized as an "ethnic group"-stub, claiming that the term is inherently racial [3]. Could we just redirect this to Cherokee already? It has no value on its own and it's certainly not going to be stormed by the deletionist mafia or anything. / Peter ^Isotalo 06:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Cherokee. Gazpacho 19:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. An excellent article in the making. Gadugi: don't despair.... get other editors involved if you are having a hard time with some editors. We are here to help. ≈ jossi ≈ 21:43, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Cherokee. We don't need separate articles on native names. I cleaned up all of the rather chatty linguistic info, but there was nothing to merge. All of the relevant info is already present in Cherokee language. / Peter ^Isotalo 22:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. WP:POINT. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep. I regret my actions here. Also, please remove the term "ethnic group" and do not remove the breakdown of the language constructs. This portion is extremely helpful to those trying to understand how Cherokee verb stems are constructed. Gadugi 18:33, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

• I have reverted the redirect. The convention is that articels are not usually converted to redirects, moved, or blanked while an AfD discusiion is in progress. Moreover, assuming that it is verifiabel, the information here strikes me as relevant and should be kept soemwhere. The precise form of the article is another matter. I woulkd say to Gadugi, most people in the US who are not native americans tend to view "indian tribes" as more ethnic than political, and even though it is true that formal membership is a political act, and people may well be descended from native amaricans but not have any formal tribal membership, is it not true that such membership is generally only open to people with such ancestry? If so, it is not a "pure" political association, but more a combination of political and ethnic/racial identity. Correct me if I am wrong, please. DES ^(talk) 15:10, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

• • Response to DES This statement is essentially correct. Membership does require membership in a racial group, however, membbership in an Indian tribe is a political relationship with the US government. It is the policy of the TRIBES to restrict ot members of their race, which is an issue of sovereignty. The problem with using ethnic language to describe this is that under US law, the 14th ammendment which prohibits racial discrimination has been used over and over again by non-indians to claim they have the right to posessess eagle feathers, use and distribute drugs like peyote to non-indians, etc. under Laws which protect Native American Culture. The Courts have had to rule that the relationship is political in order to protect our culture from people like these. So public references, like an encycplopedia, could be used as Court exhibit over and over again in this stale and mouldy argument these people use to setup drug distribution businesses run by non-indians who prey off our culture, and bring us into disrepute. So that's why I object to using the word, "ethic". Also, this particular article is about the language. The editor Karmosin tried to change it into an ethnic article by removing the language constructs. The article should stay the way it is, as I created it and intended it as a starting point to teach others our language. Gadugi 22:35, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Ah I see your points. Thre ought to be a properly nuanced way to indicvate booth the political and the racial/gentic issues involve, but that kind of discusion realy belongs on the talk page of this article, not on this AfD discussion. I also see that an article about language is not the smae as an articel about the peopel who speak that language. Well it looks to me as if the result here will be keep, but there there is the ewndless process of debating and, one hopes, improving the article. I personaly would oppose a change to a simple redirect as things stand. DES ^(talk)
      • I don't see anything constructive in DES' revert of my redirect. The AfD is effectively over since Gadugi has voted against his own nomination and the article doesn't serve any purpose. We already have Cherokee which is about the exact same thing, except it uses the commonly used name of the tribe as per our naming conventions. Like I pointed out before; we don't keep 日本人 separate from Japanese people for a very good reason. What's there to argue here? / Peter ^Isotalo 06:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
        • • An AfD is either over or not. The reason for not creating a redirect until the AfD is formally closed is to preserve the two-way link between the discussion and the article being discussed. DES ^(talk) 14:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
          • In any case, I think that the linguistc information in the article as it stands is of value, and doing a simple redirect amouts to delting this information. Either the information should be merged into Cherokee, or the article should stand as a separeate articel, with proper links. It is not particualrly urgent to do either, so the matter should be discussed on Talk:Cherokee or on Talk:Ah-ni-yv-wi-ya, or both, an an attempot made to come to a consensus on what do do. there was not a consensus here on a simple redirect without merging the info. Put up {{mergeto}} and {{mergefrom}} if you linke, to advertise a proposed merge. Or propose a simple redir on Talk:Ah-ni-yv-wi-ya and do it if you get something approaching consensus. I will arguie agaisnt such a redir -- unless there is evidence indiacting that the content of the current articel is false to fact, or is unverifiable. I trust that explains my views clearly. DES ^(talk) 14:42, 22 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep. Neutrality^talk 18:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stomp Dance

• Delete. As the sole author, I want this content removed as I do not wish a site that allows lynch mobs and libel and defacement of information to act as a repository for our culture. There's no guarantee that our information will not be defaced by anonymous internet users. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gadugi (talk • contribs) 03:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep; no valid criteria for deletion. -- MCB 06:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. -- Friedo 07:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. No valid criteria for deletion. TheMadBaron 11:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: subject to cleanup and wikification, this looks like a good article. The impression given from this and other nominations is of a user suffering a hissy-fit because of some perceived slight. However, the information has now been released to Wikipedia under the GFDL which is AFAIK irrevocable. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 11:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, nominated in bad faith. Gazpacho 19:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - see comments on other articles submitedd by same editor. ≈ jossi ≈ 21:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. WP:POINT. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. I regret my actions here. Please retain this article if the editors feel it has merit. Gadugi 18:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I feel this does have merit. -- Malo 06:52, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep. Neutrality^talk 18:24, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cherokee black drink

• Delete. As the sole author, I want this content removed as I do not wish a site that allows lynch mobs and libel and defacement of information to act as a repository for our culture. There's no guarantee that our information will not be defaced by anonymous internet users. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gadugi (talk • contribs) 03:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep; no valid criteria for deletion. -- MCB 06:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. -- Friedo 07:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. No valid criteria for deletion. TheMadBaron 10:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: subject to cleanup and wikification, this looks like a good article. The impression given from this and other nominations is of a user suffering a hissy-fit because of some perceived slight. However, the information has now been released to Wikipedia under the GFDL which is AFAIK irrevocable. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 11:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, nominated in bad faith. Gazpacho 19:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - see comments on other articles submitedd by same editor. ≈ jossi ≈ 21:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. WP:POINT. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. I regret my actions here. Please consider retaining this article if the other editors feel it has merit. Gadugi 18:48, 20 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was redirect. Neutrality^talk 18:32, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ah-ni-yv-wi-ha

• Delete. As the sole author, I want this content removed as I do not wish a site that allows lynch mobs and libel and defacement of information to act as a repository for our culture. There's no guarantee that our information will not be defaced by anonymous internet users. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gadugi (talk • contribs) 03:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Several users have edited this article so it doesn't qualify for speedy deletion by the sole contributor. if the article is factual, as I presume it to be, it should remain. DES ^(talk) 05:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to correct spelling: Ah-ni-yv-wi-ya --Icarus 06:13, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Changed vote: Merge any info not already there to Cherokee language. (I kept my old vote above because other voters have cited it.) --Icarus 17:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

There's nothing to merge. The article already has a complete phonology which makes it quite obvious that no [r] exists. The same goes for the agglunative nature of the morphology. / Peter ^Isotalo 20:42, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

In that case, I change my vote back to Redirect or delete. Redirect if it's likely that someone will search for this misspelling, delete if it's not. I'm not familiar enough with the subject to make that decision. --Icarus 21:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect as above; appears to be a duplication. In any event, no valid criteria for deletion. -- MCB 06:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as per Icarus3. Capitalistroadster 07:25, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as per Icarus3. TheMadBaron 10:56, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect both renditions to Cherokee. We're not a Cherokee-English dictionary and the tribe is not widely known under this name. Keeping a separate article for the native name is like keeping separate articles for "日本人" and "Japanese people". / Peter ^Isotalo 14:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect Molotov (talk) 21:20, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - see comments on other articles submited by same editor. ≈ jossi ≈ 21:44, 19 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Neutrality^talk 18:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BombayBiz India Ltd

Unheard Indian webhosting firm. Seems to be another promotional page. Pamri • Talk 04:43, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable. Although Google does return some results, as an Indian and a Bombay resident, I find it non-notable. utcursch | talk 05:25, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. More advertising. Andrew pmk | Talk 21:50, 19 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Speedied. android79 05:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tim Swanson

not notable, vanity 68.198.246.166 05:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: — simple vanity page — Cory Maylett 05:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: vanity --Icarus 05:37, 19 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep -R. fiend 15:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cage (enclosure)

dicdef Icarus 05:11, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• keep Stub has potential: there are many different cage types and uses (eg a prison cage, a birdcage, a rollcage, a wrestling cage-match). An encyclopedic overview of these could be useful. Anetode 08:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Anetode. Stubby indeed but can be expanded. Also, is the first hit on the Cage disambiguation list. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it probably should be at Cage with the dab page at Cage (disambiguation). Dunc|☺ 12:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Please don't move disambig pages to XXX (disambiguation) if XXX is already used as a disambig page. It serves no practical purpose. I've redirected the example above to make it a bit harder to make another pointless move. / Peter ^Isotalo 14:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The examples given above are relevant to articles like prison and wrestling, not as a separate article. / Peter ^Isotalo 14:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• keep. Clear potential for expansion. — brighterorange (talk) 18:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. If kept, move cage to cage (disambiguation) and move cage (enclosure) to cage. -Sean Curtin 23:47, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The name should remain as is. Given the number of entries in the DAB article, it makes sense to leave the DAB article where it is. Vegaswikian 07:33, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Expand - a dull article, but has potential. --MacRusgail 17:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. A cage is one of those apparently dull, everyday things like a door or a nail that should have an article. --A bit iffy 13:38, 24 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete -R. fiend 14:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Financial Services of Ontario

Advertisement, reads like a corporate brochure. Verifiability, I could not find this in any of several google searches, and no sources are proved. The name implies a Canadian firm, but the text described a Brazilian firm. Not enough context. Delete unless significantly improved, and notability clearly established. DES ^(talk) 05:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: — agree with above — Cory Maylett 05:42, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Business promotion waffle for some non-notable moneylenders. (The firm named is described as starting in Brazil and moving to Canada.) An http://www.altavista.com search got 69 results, but in many of them "financial services of Ontario" was an ordinary generic descriptive phrase. Anthony Appleyard 06:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Spam. -- Friedo 07:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I found this, which is probably not the same thing. A google search for "financial services of ontario" Oliveira yields nothing - zip, zilch, nada. Mindmatrix 17:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nominator. -- Spinboy 00:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Spam. Ground Zero | t 19:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. WMMartin 20:55, 20 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete -R. fiend 15:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mobile companies

This article is a blatant commercial advert. If anyone wants to speedy it, then go right ahead. jmd 05:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• delete. Advertisement. No evidence of notability. Does not qualify for a speedy. I've removed the clickable and searchable links, to defeat linkspamming. DES ^(talk) 05:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Spam. -- Friedo 07:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• delete. Clearly spam. ClementSeveillac 19:08, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Spam, but I'll bet it's a copyvio as well. -- Mwanner 23:48, 19 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was uncertain, but decided to merge/redirect to Notable phrases from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. -R. fiend 15:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Strag

Minor term from a work of fiction, alibiet a very popular one. (Minor enough that I don't recall the term, and i have a good memory for such trivia, and yes I read the book, and listened to the radio shows.) I don't see this term as notable on its own, and i don't see any reason for this to be a separate page on wikipedia. Delete. DES ^(talk) 05:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect? Anthony Appleyard 06:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't see a need for one. Is this a likely search term? DES ^(talk) 06:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Very obscure term. If there's a list of words coined in the Guide, then this should be merged thereto. --193.166.11.251 07:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, for now, at least. I'd vote to delete (since this is not notable, and cannot possibly be expanded), but there appear to be precedents for redirection (see hoopy, frood). If there isn't a list of words coined in the Guide, then someone should probably start one. TheMadBaron 10:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I adore Adams and I've read the book(s) several times, but this is just cruft. / Peter ^Isotalo 13:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge with a list of terms from ther series, but don't delete. I know myself that I tend to search for some obscure stuff on WP time and again. I bet others do too.--Azathar 01:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with a list of terms from the series. --A bit iffy 13:41, 24 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 15:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ted Albert Award For Outstanding Service To Australian Music

Seems like a parody to me. jmd 05:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• This is an award at the Australasian Performing Right Association APRA Awards see [4] . I think that this could best be addressed by expanding the APRA article to mention the awards which are significant awards in Australia. Ted Albert after whom the awards were named was a significant figure in the Australian music industry and Albert Productions was a notable Australian record company with The Easybeats, AC-DC and John Paul Young amongst others recording for the label see [5] BTW, the article could be a copyvio referring to AC/DC winning the award for its contribution to the awards. I will expand the APRA article to refer to the awards including this one so Delete.Capitalistroadster 05:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Definitely real - either keep or merge with the Australasian Performing Right Association article Grutness...wha? 08:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC) (APRA member)
• Delete as per Capitalistroadster. Googling reveals that the text was lifted from [6] (no longer available). It concerns AC/DC more than it concerns the Ted Albert Award, which is best mentioned in the context of the APRA article. TheMadBaron 10:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• I have expanded the Australasian Performing Right Association article to include the awards including a paragraph on this award. No change of vote from Delete. Capitalistroadster 11:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable award. / Peter ^Isotalo 22:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - it is a copyright violation of the cached page as noted in comments by MadBaron--User:AYArktos | Talk 01:21, 21 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 15:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment Party

neologism, non-notable. delete. DES ^(talk) 05:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Per nom. Marskell 09:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. TheMadBaron 10:28, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. ditto ≈ jossi ≈ 21:45, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: I never heard of this phrase and even if it was notable, it should be in Wiktionary not Wikipedia. Solarusdude 00:46, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - nn-neo. --Daveb 09:19, 20 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted. Friday (talk) 06:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yelpo

Not notable and very little content. -- Mareklug ^talk 06:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Or merge into the entertainer's page if

anyone can be bothered. Dlyons493 07:24, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - possible vanity, no content of any use. Google search for Oliver Cheah doesn't suggest that he's notable at all, so his nickname is sub-non-notable. CLW 07:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Sounds like this was meant to be a redirect to Oliver Cheah. Of course, such a redirect, having no target article, would be eligible for immediate deletion. Can we save the trouble and speedy delete this instead? Pick one or some combination of nn-bio, empty, or db-attack. Friday (talk) 14:20, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, then. Judging from Yelpo's history, the page oscillates between "infamous gay" and "famous" Swedish entertainer -- a form of nn-bio, almost empty, and db-attack. Mareklug ^talk 21:21, 19 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep, after rewrite. -R. fiend 15:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Inbound link

Delete as this was made as link spam and will attract more (note: I removed original creator's link and only other editors link as well). It's true a good article could in theory be made. I'm open to changing my mind, but I think there are enough other articles, where this could be mentioned. I'm also not sure if it qualifies as a dicdef. rob 07:03, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Spam magnet. Dlyons493 07:25, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete At present, little more than a dictdef. I don't think there is a full article to be written about this subject, and it is surely a spam magnet. DES ^(talk) 07:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as rewritten, I was wrong. DES ^(talk) 14:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• How about a redirect to Hyperlink or something similar? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Hefty article overhaul, I think this is a keeper now. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 14:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's quite difficult to understand even after the overhaul. I don't see why this deserves its own article. It doesn't seem relevant other than to webmonkeys. / Peter ^Isotalo 22:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect, difficult to understand is not grounds for deletion. Why not pose your question on the article talk page and/or my talk page (as the rewrite author)? Additionally, not relevant to everybody is applicable to pretty much every article here. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 20:05, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

It is rather difficult to understand and that's a comment as to the state of the article. The motivation is that it's overly specific professional jargon. It's too technical and obscure to deserve it's own article, just like truck driver shop talk or nursespeak doesn't belong here. "Not relevant to everybody" is your wording, though, not mine. I wouldn't mind a short summary and redirect to hyperlink, though. / Peter ^Isotalo 06:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, relevant to webmonkeys and to those who study their behavior. Kappa 00:05, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • It's tantamount to professional, technical jargon as far as I see it. And who are these people who "study their behavior"? Behavioral scientists with Java-bananas? / Peter ^Isotalo 06:39, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for Java-banana junkies. Alf ^melmac 10:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain - I'm no longer asking for this to be deleted, based on the rewrite. I'm still skeptical, regarding link-spam, so I'll let others decide this. I suppose the real method for dealing with link-spam is blocking, more than deletion though. --rob 21:07, 20 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete -R. fiend 15:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ryan Allis

Vanity type article. Just spam. CambridgeBayWeather 07:08, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or re-write - just vanity as is. The curate's egg 07:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as nom - jmd 07:19, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Rebuttal/Request for Non-Deletion

Per the Wikipedia Deletion Policy of who can have a listing, "Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more"

I am a published author with an audience of over 5,000 and send out a monthly newsletter to over 13,000. I also intend to run for President of the U.S. in 2044. I have removed links to commercial sites and am happy to edit/re-write article, however required. I appreciate your consideration and hope to become part of the community.

• Writing about yourself is a rather poor way to join. It's also going to set up a pretty strong presumption that you don't deserve an article, because if you did, why would you have to write it yourself? This is not a venue for self-promotion, which if your claims are to be believed, is something you obviously don't need Wikipedia for anyway. Postdlf 07:45, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, and I almost forgot—writing and editing content about yourself makes it inherently suspect because of your natural bias and conflict of interest regarding objective description. Cheers. Postdlf 07:47, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Despite those concerns, I'm going to vote a weak keep because Mr. Allis's book is selling on Amazon, and one of the two websites has a respectable Alexa rating. I'll be watching the discussion to see if anyone can change my mind because I'm on the fence on this one. And everyone should be watching to make sure this article, if kept, is not just part of a PR campaign. Postdlf 07:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Allis's book is on Amazon.com, but anyone can use a vanity publisher and get their book listed for sale on Amazon.com. Who is it published by? A company called Virante Inc. Who are Virante Inc? Their founder and President & CEO are a certain Ryan Allis. The book does have 11 reviews (10 of which are glowing 5 star reviews) on Amazon. But again, do some research. Two of the reviews are identical. All but two of the reviewers have reviewed this book AND THIS BOOK ONLY. Which arouses my suspicions. Of the other two reviewers, one states that he knows the author personally (as do other "one-off" reviewers) and the other (the only reviewer I would trust, i.e. who does not know the author and has reviewed other books on Amazon) gives it the only non-5-star rating... a one-star rating. This all leads me to suspect over-hyping vanity, both on Amazon and here. Hence, delete (and add to watchlist to see if it gets kept and grows in vanity or gets deleted and relisted). CLW 08:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Postdlf, thank you for the feedback. I appreciate your 'weak keep' vote. I have read the full articles on deletion guidelines and vanity guidelines. I agree that the initial version of the article was vanity--I simply was unaware of the guidelines but can assure you I am now. I have registered as a user to remove any anonymity behind any edits. If the article is allowed to be kept I certainly promise not make any edits that encourage any commercial agenda.
• Delete as per CLW. -- Kjkolb 10:28, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Other outside sources:

• http://www.accomplishlife.com/authors/65/Ryan-Allis
• http://www.ezinearticles.com/?expert=Ryan_Allis
• http://www.woopidoo.com/articles-allis.htm
• Press articles - http://ryanallis.com/index.php#press
• Delete per CLW's research. Self-promotion. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:29, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per CLW. -feydey 10:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per CLW's research. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Ok, CLW convinced me. Delete. Postdlf 17:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• All right I've removed the text of the article, please feel free to delete. I will keep working to build my notoriety and hope to be deemed worthy one day. In the mean time, I will build a user profile and start contributing to the community in other areas. Thanks for the reviews and feedback. 66.255.35.66 19:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Note that this IP is different from the one that wrote the article. Someone else undid the blanking. I suggest we let this run its AFD course. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per CLW's research. — ciphergoth 23:20, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, extreme vanity. And why do you want to wait till you're 60 years old before running for President? User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:44, 19 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Speedied. android79 17:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Davidson Falade

Undergrad vanity, possibly speediable. Only claims to notability are as a columnist to a student newspaper, The Manitoban, and as a chess player "on the national level". I admire his enthusiasm for chess, a game I also love, but the Chess Federation of Canada indicates that he isn't a very strong player, as he has a 1720 rating. (A notably strong Candadian player would have a rating of 2300+.) Quale 07:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn. --rob 07:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No notability established, chesswise or journalistwise. Personally I think a chess player in general needs to hold some sort of international title to be notable (except for some historic players, before such titles were introduced). International Grandmasters, Woman Grandmasters and national chess champions are OK. International Masters and FIDE masters are borderline. An Elo rating 1720 isn't remotely close. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:05, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. -Gheorghe Zamfir 08:11, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as nn-bio, and so tagged. Only remote possibility for assertion of notability is "plays chess on a national level and has aspirations to compete in the international circle", which, as discussed here, doesn't make him notable yet. Friday (talk) 14:26, 19 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -R. fiend 15:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Soulad

This seems to be an advertisement for a non-notable software product. It also is very poorly wikified. jmd 07:46, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn. --rob 08:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Tonywalton  | Talk 21:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. By the way, do we have any policies about not having direct links from articles to .exe's? Seems like a nice way to deliver virii. Bunchofgrapes 23:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advert. -- Mwanner 00:39, 20 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 15:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MobileChilli.com

pure linkspam. Delete DES ^(talk) 07:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• delete article is advertisement Anetode 08:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - advertisement. And a poor one at that - at least decide whether you are called "Mobilechilli.com" or "Mobilechill.com" before placing your free ad here! CLW 09:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete blatant advertising. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete 100% offensive (see user contributions) spam. ClementSeveillac 19:08, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. And block the author, whose entire "contribution" to Wikipedia has consisted of inserting this same text into half a dozen articles in addition to the two up for deletion here. -- Mwanner 00:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ad. Carbonite | Talk 00:46, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ad --Ebz 09:03, 24 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Decided to smerge/redirect to Withnail and I -R. fiend 15:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Withnail and I drinking game

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Rules for a drinking game don't strike me as being particularly encyclopediac. MC MasterChef 08:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep because wiki is not paper, and there are 49 articles in the drinking game category. The content of this particular one could at least be merged with Withnail and I because the list is a list of drinks he drinks in the movie. Astrokey44 09:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

The Withnail and I article already seems to address the existence of a drinking game reasonably effectively to me, is a separate list of necessary? MC MasterChef 22:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Merge into Withnail and I, add link/mention in Drinking Game. And add Camberwell Carrots to the list. Vizjim 10:45, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Cleanup so that, eg....

• finger of cider (with ice)
• finger of cider (with ice)
• finger of cider (with ice)

reads....

• finger of cider (with ice) x3

.... or similar. Add link to 'See Also' section of Withnail and I. (Don't add Camberwell carrots to the list. Trying to drink a spliff could kill you.) TheMadBaron 11:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. A drinking game like any other. / Peter ^Isotalo 13:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• weak merge I agree that a drinking game is OK, as long as its notable. Is this notable? Roodog2k (talk) 19:09, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Notable as an hommage to the amount of drinking that goes on in the film. It's linked already, to Withnail and I, so admins please note if the vote goes 'delete' that'll need cleaning up. Tonywalton  | Talk 21:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Question: Ok, so I am genuinely unclear: are rules for a game considered valid Wikipedia entries as long as the game is notable? MC MasterChef 22:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:19, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn drinking game (althought that may be redundant). User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:45, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -Sean Curtin 23:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, real drinking game. Kappa 00:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. If anyone searches for "Withnail and I drinking game" (which seems somewhat unlikely) they'll surely find the film, and there will be this charming text. -- Mwanner 00:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A real game and the article has useful content that won't fit in the Withnail and I article. --Apyule 01:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I've heard of this drinking game and know of the film. But do we really have to list every drink they have? Why not just mention a few lines in the film, if people want try do the game, they watch the film. - Hahnchen 02:26, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. --Daveb 09:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable enough, very popular at (Ox) Uni apparently (I asked). Alf ^melmac 10:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Again, my question: Is notability the revelant criteria for these games (I don't drink personally, so I will defer to others on whether this qualifies as nn or not), or should all these drinking game rules articles (here's another example, which is somehow up for WP:COTW) be deleted (or transwikied to Wikibooks maybe?) on the grounds that Wikipedia is not a how-to guide? I'm not asking rhetorically, I really don't know what the consensus interpretation is. MC MasterChef 10:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep becuase I see no reason to delete and I am not a deletionist Batmanand 23:25, 20 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was no consensus: default to keep. Could probably be merged somewhere, however. -R. fiend 15:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Roxanne (drinking game)

As above, there are probably a number of others from drinking game that could be listed as well. MC MasterChef 08:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Merge back into Drinking game as its only a couple lines. Astrokey44 09:29, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Keep. Notable, I just wish there was more about HOW the hell it became notable. Roodog2k (talk) 19:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Until somebody can verify this, turn on the red light towards this article. Karmafist 21:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Until Sting releases "Roxanne, let's drink a big pint", Delete. Unlike the Withnail and I drinking game above this, this is purely a random "find an excuse to drink some stuff" game. Tonywalton  | Talk 21:47, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A drinking game like many others. / Peter ^Isotalo 23:24, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn drinking game. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:46, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, real drinking game. Kappa 00:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Roodog2k. --Apyule 01:31, 20 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was speedy redirect. -R. fiend 15:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cestoidea

• The article is a very, very cheap copy of Cestoda. In other words; incomplete and duplicate information. Delete --SoothingR 09:43, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete & redirect to Cestoda Anetode 10:05, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedily redirected to Cestoda, since they're the same thing. Friday (talk) 17:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Cestoda per Anetode and Friday.

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

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

The result of the debate was speedied. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Projectro

Article is bizarre gibberish Anetode 09:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete as patent non-sense. I think the {{db-nonsense}} could be used on article like this instead of "afd" --rob 09:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not aware of that option Anetode 10:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. nonsense. -feydey 10:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

sent to speedy CLW

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 17:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Darryl Parker

• NN Tedious vanity piece The curate's egg 10:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• I made it much smaller. Sorry for the details. Still learning. [Posted by 216.189.121.210 - the article's creator - who has now removed 98% of the piece]
• Delete as per The curate's egg CLW 13:03, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Note to creator of article: It's not the length per se that's the problem. It's the length of non-notable stuff, that's the problem. You have to read WP:BIO and see what wikipedia thinks is notable, and worthy of inclusion. Then, the article must show this, and provide verifiable proof (like footnotes) of it. I read the old version and new, and I don't see anything meeting the requirements. As an example, if Parker is the "author of several important historical papers", then the question is what papers, why are they important, where were they published, who published them, how widely were they read, etc... --rob 11:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per rob. No problem with changing this vote if the author can add verifiably important papers. Dlyons493 13:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It may qualify as a nn-bio speedy, but it's hard to tell from current content. Friday (talk) 18:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Molotov (talk) 21:19, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

deleted by author.

• Delete quickly, borderline speedy deletion candidate as per WP:CSD A7. Hall Monitor 19:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. DannyZz 00:25, 21 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 17:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Schalken Fur Kreativitat

plus two images.

Formed in 2005. First album still being recorded. Does this pass the Wiki tests for bands? -- RHaworth 10:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Young aspiring band, with potential, a great insightful page [Anon edit by 144.136.84.147 - the creator of the article!)

Keep! [Another anon edit by 144.136.84.147 - the creator of the article!)

• Strong Delete and I don't like their vandlising this vote either!The curate's egg 10:38, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

dudes and dudettes, i don't really hate portuguese, i love them, they just have to stop crashing into mclarens, k? don't delete us and be porklits, stay cool

that stuff i said about asians is that i only dont like them when they walk on the wrong side of stairs blocking people from their trains meaning that they get home 1/2 hr later. its keep to the left dammit. otherwise there cool people. please keep this page. we have potential as a band and you know you will regret when we make it. thanks

Uh, no, we will not regret it when you make it. We will then say "Oh, Schalken Fur Kreativitat have now become notable. Now is the time for us to create a Wikipedia article about them." CLW 11:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Not yet notable (and not holding breath) CLW 11:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Nope. Delete. nothing links to it & google says: "Your search - "Schalken Fur Kreativitat" - did not match any documents." [7] Astrokey44 11:03, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

This is because the website is still under construction

this page should definitely stay-new bands like this could be the next stones and wiki could say they had them from the beggining

alright you guys crossed the line, you can all have sex with moles, coz you aren't good enough for dog dick. we're already huge turkey gobblers

according to the wiki deletion policy since i have written a book on the band, I am a published author with an audience of over 5,000 and send out a monthly newsletter to over 13,000. I also intend to run for President of the U.S. in 2044

• Delete: Promo/vanity page for a wanting-to-be-discovered band. — Cory Maylett 18:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete not notable. Roodog2k (talk) 19:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• "Rogues for" deletion. Tonywalton  | Talk 21:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. --Daveb 09:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, appears to fail WP:MUSIC Tuf-Kat 06:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Dudes and dudettes. Oh, and Anon I.P. for Prez in '44! :) -Sean 03:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

hey turdburgrets, why stop aj from spreading the truth? lets keep this site from being run by mr. hitler, yeah?

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 17:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Parker Web Developers

NN Vanity - see also fancruft piece on Darryl Parker The curate's egg 10:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - advertising, possibly created to drive traffic towards listed URL CLW 10:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: There are thousands of Web development companies, and I see nothing to separate this company from the pack. Not notable, no real information and probable promo page. — Cory Maylett 21:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Come back when you're notable. Tonywalton  | Talk 21:56, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete promo. DannyZz 00:29, 21 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 17:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reuben Foster

Non-notable. Possible vanity. Biggest claims to notability as student radio DJ and high school actor. 3 likely Google hits: 1 mirrored article on Nationmaster.com and 2 as author of music reviews for student radio website. Gimboid13 10:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• merge with TUNE! FM Astrokey44 11:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with TUNE! FM as per Astrokey44 Dlyons493 13:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I don't think this is even notable enough to warrant a merge with TUNE! FM. CLW 13:05, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as nn-bio, before people start creating articles from all the redlinks in there. Maybe a merge is OK, but I don't see much content to move. Don't think we need a redirect, tho. Friday (talk) 15:37, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: High-school student who volunteers as a part-time radio host. Non-notable, vanity page. Merge not warranted. — Cory Maylett 18:37, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. Roodog2k (talk) 19:46, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as one line in list. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:24, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Non-notable bio. Quale 23:55, 19 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 17:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sex talk

While Sex talk may well be a notable enough topic for an article, I don't think any of the current content is salvageable. Ashenai 10:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• agreed. Delete. Already covered by Phone sex Astrokey44 11:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless reasonable article or stub is made establishing notability. Currently, an orphan article. Capitalistroadster 11:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - not encyclopedic, not useful. And doesn't even mention the T'Pau single of the same name! CLW 12:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Molotov (talk) 21:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ≈ jossi ≈ 21:46, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Article essentially has no information that is not obvious from the title. Sex talk is talk about sex. Alternatively, could be redirected to phone sex. Should not be kept in present form. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:03, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Phone sex is over the phone; sex talk is conversation about sex. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:25, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to phone sex "sex talk" is a term used in English. DannyZz 00:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - self-evident "Sex talk" = "talking about sex" is no real article at all. --MacRusgail 17:37, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 17:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] PBD-Medien

Vanity, advertisment. Delete. Lupo 10:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. The user that created it also did Penelope Black Diamond and not much else. Astrokey44 11:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn CLW 12:56, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Not notable, self promotion — Cory Maylett 17:11, 20 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 17:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Parhaat kaikessa, Maksatulehdus, Rajoittuneet

Probably a hoax, I don't know of any such band. Delete. — JIP | Talk 11:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

(edit conflict) my nomination below:

All three are band-stubs written by a known vandal and hoax maker who has been banned from Finnish Wikipedia. Even if some of these were real, which I very much doubt, they should likely be deleted as obscure and non-notable garage bands. Zero hits from Google when discounting search terms normal Finnish language usage. Delete all. jni 12:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I checked [8], a database of 18 100 rock bands in Finland, these were not found. Wempain 06:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete all as per jni Dlyons493 13:03, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all. Friday (talk) 14:29, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. -feydey 17:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all. Wempain 06:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• 'Delete this is the first of two fake bands this user has posted. CambridgeBayWeather 06:13, 20 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was redirect. -R. fiend 17:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gabriel knight: blood of the sacred, blood of the damned

• Delete Useless. Not likely it will ever be expanded. NRS11 19:08, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Real game, so it's easily expandable. In fact, there's an already-expanded version inside our Gabriel Knight article. Redirect there. —Cryptic (talk) 12:29, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as per Cryptic CLW 14:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect, obviously.  Grue  17:45, 22 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 17:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Galk

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. A neologism; it should either be deleted or redirected to Google Talk; I haven't looked through the google hits enough to decide which. (There are a lot of false positives.) I have looked through the Google Print hits; none are relevant, so please don't transwiki it. —Cryptic (talk) 12:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• delete since a google search for galk "google talk" returns only 24 hits. — brighterorange (talk) 18:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non encyclopedic. DannyZz 00:32, 21 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 17:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Glamorous cumbia

Due to the recent discovery of several hoaxes by the same user who did Gauchos Pesados and many other already deleted hoaxes under the IPs 200.73.180.10 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) and 200.73.180.22 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log), we should consider deleting Glamorous cumbia, which is a original expresion, as stated in the no original research policy. -Mariano 12:08, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I thought I had never heard that expression. A pity, really. Parts of the info should be moved somewhere (is there such a thing as Argentine cumbia?). --Pablo D. Flores 14:33, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete absent some form of verifiability. -- Visviva 17:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Never heard of it before. Cinabrium 03:34, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: The usable text from the article has already been moved to either Argentine cumbia or Ráfaga, therefore, it can be safely deleted. Thanks Pablo . -Mariano 10:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Pablo: Yes there is. especially in the light of Marcela Morelos, a lot of Correntino cumbia bands, the villeros... elpincha 00:50, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Archive in the Talk: namespace to preserve history and attribution for the GFDL. —Cryptic (talk) 12:42, 19 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.

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

The result of the debate was Speedied. android79 17:09, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gosney Hog

• This article contains unverifiable information. Sirex 13:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• This afd was orphaned. Listing now. "Unverifiable" is putting it very charitably; delete as nonsense, possibly speedily. —Cryptic (talk) 12:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unsure about speedying, but on the whole, no. There's a lot of much weirder stuff out there which is true, verifiable, and worthy of Wikipedia. This clearly isn't, but it's not really possible to tell without Googling it. -- Ashenai 12:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this nonsense CLW 13:42, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• speedy delete as nonsense, so tagged. Friday (talk) 16:10, 19 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.

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

The result of the debate was keep and rename. Neutrality^talk 18:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Grace Building

• Delete -Not notable.--Jondel 08:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 12:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This article needs work, but if it is accurate this is a major Sydney building. - SimonP 13:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - seems notable enough to me. [9] CLW 13:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Heritage listed building which served as Douglas Macarthur's headquarters in World War 2 see [10]. Capitalistroadster 01:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. However it should be moved to Grace Building, Sydney and a DAB page created since there is a more famous Grace Building in New York City. Vegaswikian 07:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, though needs cleanup. --Daveb 09:33, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Stu 17:19, 24 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.

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 17:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Grandma Patada

This is an undergraduate joke entered by a confirmed vandal User:210.8.110.33, all of whose other entries are vandalism or intentionally inconsequential. Delete. --Wetman 22:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Delete, flunks google test. —Cryptic (talk) 12:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Cryptic - resounding zero on Google CLW 13:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. If there was a "common sense" speedy, this would qualify. Friday (talk) 14:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete gobbledeygook. Tonywalton  | Talk 22:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Firm Delete. This is a sub-undergraduate joke at best. --Daveb 09:36, 20 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.

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

The result of the debate was keep. -R. fiend 17:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Guest house

Delete. This is a dictionary entry and should be moved to Wiktionary. It provides no useful information about guest houses beyond the definition. What more could be said about guest houses anyway? DanMS 17:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Should be transwikied, as it's a dictdef of an idiom, but no opinion whether it should be kept or deleted afterwards. —Cryptic (talk) 12:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oh, keep this one. The very concept of a "guest house" has maaad sociological overtones which do not jump out to us because we're so used to the concept. Besides, think of Kato Kaelin - if we delete this article, where's he gonna stay? -- BD2412 ^talk 13:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and transwiki. I don't see any sociological overtones worth keeping an article for. / Peter ^Isotalo 13:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, there are many famous guest houses and their implications, etc. Versaille under Louis XIV perhaps and its use for political control? I think this has some worth beyond dict.def. gren グレン 20:43, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Anything there you can add to the article? -- BD2412 ^talk 22:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Versailles a guest house? I thought it was the royal palace. Please explain what type of political power you're refering to here. / Peter ^Isotalo 23:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Versailles might not be the best example since it says "exclusive" conversion into a house for guests. However, what I was pointing out is that during the reign of Louis XIV the nobles were getting powerful and his plan to neutralize them was to let them live in Versailles where he had a greater deal of control, etc. However, I suppose if this is only about free standing houses and not guest-wings, etc. then it doesn't work... although, there are guest houses on the premises of many palaces I believe... like Hampton... I forget the name outside of London that Henry VIII owned. gren グレン 01:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep social significance. I couldn't immediately tell you the difference between Bed and Breakfast, Guesthouse, pension (lodging), etc, so I suppose there is potential for a merge if someone know's what they're doing. Dunc|☺ 21:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

A guest house is not a form of hotel service. It's just a house one houses guests in. / Peter ^Isotalo 23:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:03, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep eventually someone will write some good history and examples, then it can be related to media and fiction, hopefully not leaving too much room for OJ. Alf ^melmac 10:32, 20 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.

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 17:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gurudwara Singh Sabha, Carteret

I'm not sure if this facility is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, its quite a local establishment. Unless it differs substantially from other gathering places of worship then it should be removed --Hooperbloob 04:41, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

• Even though it might be a small facility. But it's a worship house for hundreds of people. People from all over the tri-state area comes to this temple to pray. They even serves free meal daily. It should not be deleted from the Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mpabla (talk • contribs) 16:45, 9 September 2005 (UTC).
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 12:56, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• It's got a copyvio tag on it. Nothing in the unsigned favorable comment above provides grounds for keeping by WP standards. Once the copyright business is straightened out, I'll weakly favor deletion as not sufficiently noteworthy, unless verifiable evidence otherwise is provided. Barno 15:36, 19 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.

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

The result of the debate was Speedied. android79 19:42, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 1st Wizard

This appears to be a vanity page, and non-notable (1550 Google hits, the vast majority unrelated). Ashenai 13:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, as per above. Ashenai 13:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, but I don't think it's vanity. What's the opposite - anti-vanity? CLW 13:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN and almost libel --Quasipalm 18:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as nn-bio. Unless posting to message boards is an "assertion of notability" these days. So tagged. Friday (talk) 18:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• 86.133.3.121, please don't blank this page. If you don't think the 1st Wizard article should be deleted, you should tell us why not! We need to hear all points of view. --Ashenai 18:25, 19 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete, but making into a redirect to Halve Maen. -R. fiend 17:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Half Moon

Seems to have been created to increase the wiki presence of the village of Grendon. The entry starts off like a dicdef ("Half Moon - noun"). It then says that pubs called the Half Moon often have signs with a half moon on - not very informative. It proceeds to name check Grendon, then gives details of local folklore which is already included in the Grendon article. In summary, I'm not convinced that any of this is encyclopedic. Nor am I convinced that the article could be re-written to be made encyclopedic. CLW 13:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. The article as it stands refers to the name of one pub in one village. There are many so-called pubs in the UK at least (169 per beerintheevening.com, and that's just registered pubs), then the term "Half Moon" isn't restricted to the name of a pub. Tonywalton  | Talk 22:06, 19 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 17:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Idiom (band)

Band Vanity (No Allmusic info, no label, no reviews from notable news outlets, no info on notability.) You know the drill. --Quasipalm 13:58, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete --Quasipalm 13:58, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - nn. Article may have been created to drive traffic to linked website CLW 14:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Friday (talk) 19:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. - nn. Rynne 21:52, 19 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was deleted. Speedily, maybe? -R. fiend 22:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Conservataurus

Band vanity. You'd think that such an obvious portmanteau would have enough Google hits to muddle the issue, but nope. DS 13:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - nn, vanity CLW 14:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Not notable, opinion, vanity — Cory Maylett 17:08, 20 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Elephantoxicosis

Unfunny neologism cloaked in medical jargon. DS 13:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - nonsense CLW 14:37, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as nonsense/vandalism if possible. Appears to be a joke or hoax. Not tagged as such, as it's probably a stretch. Friday (talk) 15:42, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Nonsensical joke/hoax page — Cory Maylett 18:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as gibberish. Tonywalton  | Talk 22:20, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Silliness. --Daveb 09:38, 20 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.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dabu

I would like to thank this article's creator for giving me the chance to make the following abominable pun.

ahem

"Dabu" is a word used by one of the fictional races in the online game World of Warcraft. It is a piece of trivia. In other words...

it is CRAFT-CRUFT.

(bows) DS 13:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Ehh, don't quit your day job. Delete. --fvw* 14:46, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Warcruft. —Cryptic (talk) 15:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Please, no more puns. ;-) Friday (talk) 17:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete craftcruft!! Thank you, DS! -- MCB 19:52, 19 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.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Net newspaper for kids

I am 95% certain that this article was created by someone no more than 11 years old. It's well-intentioned, but it doesn't seem to be saying anything. At most, it's a tautology. I do hope the article creator doesn't get discouraged by this, though. You're welcome to try again. DS 14:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, with a heavy heart. I'm certain that it was written with enthusiasm, and the best of intentions. But I just don't see how it could be saved. Ashenai 14:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per DS CLW 14:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn and unencyclopaedic Batmanand 23:27, 20 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.

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

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] David Cain (professor)

Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. --DrBat 14:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. A thorough Googling reveals some achievements, but nothing beyond the level normally expected of a university professor. Not notable. -- Ashenai 14:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - nn vanity. Same seems to go for his book's article, An Evocation of Kierkegaard. CLW 15:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep he seems to be David W Cain, also author of "Freedom: The condition of faith", "Reckoning with Kierkegaard: Christian faith and dramatic literature". Also a book review "Kierkegaard's Relations to Hegel Reconsidered". Authoring 3+ books is good enough for me. Dlyons493 16:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd just like to note that getting a book published is remarkably easy, for a college professor. My father is a professor, and has authored several books. I would not consider him notable; nor would I consider Dr. Cain notable unless his books had seen significant circulation outside his own university. This does not appear to be the case. --Ashenai 22:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep as David William Cain appears to be a published author of several religious books over the past three decades. Hall Monitor 20:38, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Googling "David William Cain" gets only 22 results. And apparently there's some other David W Cain who's a lawyer (see http://www.davidwcain.com/).--DrBat 22:45, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
    • That may be, but I was not applying the Google test to his full name. The Amazon bookstore and other sources appear to refer to this author inconsistently as well so those results do not surprise me. Hall Monitor 22:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable academic. / Peter ^Isotalo 23:38, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, seems more notable than Cyrus Farivar. Kappa 23:58, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Well... "Cyrus Farivar" gets 76,000 hits on Google. I'd say that makes Dr. Cain a whole lot less notable. --Ashenai 00:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment. There is nothing in Google's terms of service which indicate that the web indexing service is intended to be, or functions as a measure of "notability" by any definition other than "gets a lot of Google hits". Certainly notable people have accomplished much without the level of attention the World Wide Web foists upon "American Idol" contestants or "Extended Star Wars Universe" weaponry. Dystopos 16:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

This is true; because of this, we have to be careful when using Google to "prove" that something or someone is non-notable. However, if something gets, say, 100,000 unique Google hits, that generally means that 100,000 people cared enough about it to put something about it up on the Internet. Whatever our personal opinion of "American Idol" contestants or Star Wars weaponry, it is not for us to decide whether or not they are notable. Google is a good indicator of the amount of public interest in a topic, and enough public interest can make anything notable, regardless of any objective merits it may or may not have. --Ashenai 17:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Or, in the case of Cyrus Farivar, that his name is attached to articles reprinted from MacWorld, and that his hoax and the reaction to it became newsworthy, and was of particular interest to people who actively discuss things online. None of these phenomena make Farivar more intrinsically notable than Cain, they only create a lot of mentions which are indexed by Google. So, I'm not saying that the public interest failed to make something of Farivar, but the lack of Google-indexed public interest should not detract from the achievements of Cain. Kierkegaard is extremely notable, the study of Kierkegaard is quite notable. Individuals prominent in the study of Kierkagaard are, also, sufficiently notable. I'm going to vote now. Keep. Dystopos 19:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I must say that I have still not seen proof that Dr. Cain is "prominent in the study of Kierkegaard". His primary claim to fame seems the be that he has written three books; as I have pointed out above, this is in no way remarkable or worthy of note for a university professor, unless it is shown that his books achieved at least some degree of circulation, which does not seem to be the case. Basically, I do not believe every university professor is notable, and I have not seen anything to distinguish Dr. Cain from other professors. --Ashenai 19:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and expand as per WP:BIO which states "Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more." are notable enough for articles. With three books published, he probably has achieved this. Capitalistroadster 01:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, borderline notability... but I think it's safer to keep than to not. gren GuReN6 01:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nonnotable academic, possible vanity. --Angr/_{tOk t@ mi} 06:17, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but merge his book back into this as it's so short. Alf ^melmac 10:40, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Noted scholar.--Nicodemus75 05:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• keep please this person is notable we can merge the book article but still we should not erase something like this Yuckfoo 20:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. ··gracefool |☺ 17:57, 25 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.

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

The result of the debate was Speedied. android79 17:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] David Fan Club

Self promotion, unencyclopaedic, non-notable. -- Arwel 15:11, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - nn, vanity, nonsense. CLW 15:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as nn-bio, so tagged. I know, a fan club isn't a person, but the article looks like it's about the person at least as much as the "fan club." Clearly there's no useful content here. Friday (talk) 17:08, 19 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.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP, and move per Lomn. It was a copy-paste move, and we appear to be happy retaining the redirect. -Splash^talk 23:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Soopa_Villianz

Article has been moved to Soopa_Villainz, the correct spelling of the group and this page is no longer needed 210.170.98.170 15:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Well, in that case we can just do a redirect. DS 15:58, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect entirely plausible misspelling. Actually, deleting Soopa_Villainz (the correct page) and doing a move would be preferable so as to preserve history for the GDFL. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 18:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• keep: unless I'm mistaken, an underscore in an article title is interpreted as a space, so the nominator's statement can't be correct. Keep and insert a {{wrongtitle}}. (Unless my wikitech is off, please check me!) — brighterorange (talk) 18:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

  comment: the misspelling is referring to the transposition of ai. Based on the article, it looks like the underscore doesn't belong and the nom just copy/pasted from the URL. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 18:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• speedy redirect in that case. Thanks for spotting that. — brighterorange (talk) 01:21, 20 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.

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

The result of the debate was delete · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Covert Intelligence Operation

Some dude's band. Notability not improved (musically or otherwise) after addition of music notability stub. Smells like vanity as well.

• Delete, non-notable bandcruft. The Hokkaido Crow 15:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless shown to meet WP:MUSIC. Friday (talk) 16:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - still recording first album? nn CLW 16:19, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Promo/vanity page for non-notable, yet-to-be-discovered band. — Cory Maylett 19:01, 19 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. --fvw* 16:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hishamuddin Hussein

Entire text is 'His wife is the princess of Negeri Pahang'. I submit that's nn, in any case I can't verify it, see [11]. --Doc (?) 15:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, ministers of education are notable. Kappa 16:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep (nomination withdrawn) after Kappa's re-write. --Doc (?) 16:25, 19 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Rx StrangeLove 17:39, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Red Wiki

del. Nonnotble wiki. Only 95 unique google hits of 360 some total. I say, well below the radar for an online community. mikka (t) 15:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Yellow wiki, red wiki, yellow wiki, red wiki, yellow wi.. What now? Oh, ehm, right. Delete, not notable. --fvw* 15:59, 19 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.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Rx StrangeLove 17:53, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dinlow

Non-notable slangdef. --fvw* 16:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• delete per nom. — brighterorange (talk) 18:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: I concur. Slang definitions do not belong in Wikipedia. Solarusdude 00:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Surely Romany language and it's effects on real spoken dialect should be a relevant topic for gathering and disseminating information. The word Dinlow is NOT considered a swear word and is almost exclusively used by children, yet the meaning is so vastly different and more vulgar than most people realise.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 17:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gloomy Nights and Living Dead

Not notable video game advert.-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 16:09, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• delete cool games made in pureBASIC. — brighterorange (talk) 18:14, 19 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Whichever way I read this, it's a classic no consensus. People can't deicde on whether to keep it, merge it retaining the text, delete it, or keep a little bit of the text in a merge, or just rewrite it altogether. Then there's the whole thing about the title. Given the lack of an explicit support for any particular merge target, I'm not even going to tag it for that. This particular no consensus is a "do nothing because we haven't agreed on what to do". That means that any editor can make the decision for us, boldly as ever. -Splash^talk 00:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 20 minutes on the Tube equals one cigarette

Reporting this allegation would not be O.R., but this essay assesses its validity and thus breaks WP:NOR. If we removed the research, I don't think it would be encyclopedic anyway. --Doc (?) 16:09, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite: — There's some interesting (and referenced) information here, but the title and text read like a magazine article. In general, the article assumes a point of view and is unencylopedic in style, but it could be fixed. Considerable work has gone into this by it sole anonymous user, whom I suspect might be a newbie who hasn't yet developed an appropriate encylopedic writing style. — Cory Maylett 17:08, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Merge: — Look into merging into articles about the Tube (there's a 'Safety, reliability and cost' section on the main London Underground page, for example). It would need severe trimming, though. Lincolnite 18:19, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

rename to something better. The name is awful. It had me thinking along the wrong lines. Roodog2k (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. No it doesn't. 20 minutes on the Tube is nowhere near one cigarette. You need at least 45. Tonywalton |Talk 22:24, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep; cleanup. Interesting topic that would just congest whatever page is might be merged into. Bunchofgrapes 23:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. You have got to be kidding me! User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Maybe incorporate some into a Pollution on the London Underground article, or a subsection of the London Underground article. Not only is the name rubbish, a lot of it smacks of Original Research. - Hahnchen 02:32, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with the tube article. PRueda29 02:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge Piecraft 00:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep An informative article. It does appear to be in need of a rewrite, but it is informative. Garfunkel4life 23:21, 27 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.

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

The result of the debate was Keep --Doc (?) 16:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] An Evocation of Kierkegaard

The book's author, David Cain, is already on AfD as non notable. His books seems similarly unnoteworthy - can't find it on Amazon, and searching Google for the ISBN returns only two hits - the review page linked from this article, and one other (a Danish online bookstore which doesn't have the book in stock and has no cover image for it. Could be vanity. Delete CLW 15:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Abstain. I'm not sure what constitutes notability for a book. Barnes & Noble carries it as Evocation of Kierkegaard (without the An). I believe it is quite possible for a book to achieve sufficient notability for Wikipedia, even though its author does not. I am not familiar with generally accepted Wikipedia policy on this, though. Ashenai 15:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Book itself appears to be nn and information is already in David Cain (whom I think should be kept). Dlyons493 16:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete.--DrBat 00:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable enough I suppose, my standards are shiftingggg. gren グレン 01:34, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, non-vanity book Kappa 05:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nonnotable, possible vanity. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:18, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with David Cain (professor). Alf ^melmac 10:41, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Kappa.--Nicodemus75 05:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with David Cain (professor). Book itself is non-notable and the title of the article is too generic and potentially misleading for a useful redirect. Dystopos 16:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it's verifiable and wiki isn't paper. It doesn't come under any point at What Wikipedia is not. ··gracefool |☺ 18:01, 25 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Friday (talk) 21:40, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] No Need for Bushido

Webcomic with no assertion of notability. Alexa ranking 200K+. Friday (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• This is an established comic (3 years running) with an average of 1,400 unique visitors per day. It is also one of the more popular webcomics found on BuzzComics --The palantir 17:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, assuming enough information exists to expand the article. I don't buy the whole notable thing, as long as it's verifiable, what will it hurt to keep the article? --Phroziac ^(talk) 17:56, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per The palantir. Kappa 23:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep ^ ditto. (I believe it's current standing on Buzzcomics is #13. That's doing pretty good.) [Loyal NNFB reader] 22:36, 19 September 2005 (CTC)
• Keep This webcomic is certainly worthy of its own article, it has a long running and previously noted popularity. Misterniceguy7
• Keep No Need For Bushido has a long running history and is rising on Buzzcomics. Also, the article has been expanded since it was originally posted. Likewise, I can't see a problem with letting it stay.
• Comment: Looks to me like buzzcomix.net itself has an alexa of just under 200K. I don't see an obvious reason why it's an important website, so this comic being ranked on there doesn't mean much to me. Many websites have loyal readers and are important to those who read them. Personally I think we ought to aim a little higher than that for inclusion. Friday (talk) 16:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep While it is true that this comic does not meet the first requirement of the first proposal (Alexa ranking above 200 K,) I believe it does meet the rest of the first proposal, the entire alternate second proposal, and the entire third proposal. Since all other criteria are met, and that the comic is near to the 200 K requirement in the most stringent proposal, I don't see the harm in keeping the article. Unless the comic were to go on hiatus, or loose substantial readership to the point of having an Alexa rating above 250 K.
• Keep The alexa rating is currently 194,382. Misterniceguy7
• Keep The Wikiprojects Webcomics page which is a list of all webcomics that have an article on wikipedia has a three point criteria for allowing a comic to be included;

1. A webcomic must be on the web and actively producing strips for a minimum of 33 weeks before being considered for Wikipedia. No Need For Bushido has been online for over 3 years (which also meets one of the more strict criteria they are proposing)

2. A webcomic must have at least 100 strips in its archive before being considered for Wikipedia. No Need For Bushido has almost 200 pages archived.

3. Someone other than the webcartoonist needs to actually write and develop the article in question. The number of people editing/expanding the article so far should show this isn't just an article created by the artists.

The inclusion guidelines conclude that their main concern is new or previously unpopular comics using wikipedia as a launching point to increase popularity for their comic. The length of the comic, the longevity of the comic, and the alexa rating of the comic should be enough to prove this article is worthy. Misterniceguy7 06:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep: per Misterniceguy. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 05:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Sufficiently notable for a webcomic. The article needs work, but it's coming along. -Abe Dashiell 21:36, 24 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 15:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oxide Design Co.

company page, no assertion of notability. Founder of company Drew Davies is also up for deletion, but this article wasn't included, so I'm Afd'ing and listing it now. Friday (talk) 16:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete: — Not notable and appears to be a promotional page for a small design firm. Note that the author of both the Oxide Design article and the Drew Davies article has the user name Oxide. — Cory Maylett 17:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - nn; article may have been created to drive traffic to linked site CLW 18:08, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per CLW Dlyons493 19:14, 19 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 16:49, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fax online

Advertising / unknown site. Same user spammed the Vonage article. Site has no Alexa rating [12] and Google PageRank of 3. Rhobite 17:12, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - advertising; presumably created to drive traffic to linked site CLW 18:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Not notable and possibly a promotional page — Cory Maylett 18:20, 19 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kidsfreesouls

Delete. Non-notable website. android79 17:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - nn, even if it does include "sacred trees" (?!) CLW 17:58, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Non-notable and smells like an ad. Solarusdude 00:53, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nonnotable website, possible advertising. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:20, 20 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 16:43, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Xiong Wei

non-notable political prisoner. seems like a plea for help for the Falun Gong, obviously non neutral POV, the only sources on this dissident all stem from websites promoting the Falun Gong ie. www.clearwisdom.net. it seems like to me that this is propaganda in order to solicit support for the Falun Gong and Wikipedia is not the proper forum for doing this. 129.2.237.44

Abstain: Is it possible that both the article and its calls for deletion and revision might be motivated by biased viewpoints? This is, after all, a politically charged subject in China. A Google search did turn up a dissident with the name of Xiong Wei, but the Web sites on which the name appeared were all China-related advocacy sites. Hard to say if this person is particularly notable, but I suspect not. — Cory Maylett 17:58, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Speaking as someone with no preconcieved (or indeed any) ideas about the subject, delete. Tonywalton  | Talk 22:28, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• delete there's a high possbility for Chinese govrnment to ban the authorization for Chinese internet user access to en.wikipedia.org for this type of information.
• delete non notable subject Abstrakt 21:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Assume ill faith since creator has proven record of pro-Falungong POV pushing on de, fr, it and en wikipedia. Banned for such activities on de, fr and (I think,) it. Besides, with the thousands of political prisoners and dissidents in China, this woman is not notable. Also, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gong Shengliang. --Miborovsky 20:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it's verifiable and wiki isn't paper. It doesn't come under any point at What Wikipedia is not. ··gracefool |☺ 18:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It is quite superficial to claim I am pushing Falun Gong.

Sarcelles 06:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment to Sarcelles: Actually in the past you have been got "red handed" for using Wikipedia as a means to promote Falun Gong or have you forgotten the 100+ poorly editted stubs you made on Chinese cities as means to promote Falun Gong? I mean we were able to google your information and get an exact match on pro Falun Gong websites such as www.clearwisdom.net, you were caught copying and pasting sentences from those sites, or have you forgotten about that? Have you forgotten how you were warned on pushing your pro Falun Gong POV? Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chinese_cities#our_good_friend_sarcelles, this is a record of what Sarcelles has done this past summer. Abstrakt 17:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with Abstrakt and Miborovsky. -- ran (talk) 03:24, 27 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Macy Sky

Supposedly "one of the most popular models ever to grace the internet", but no evidence of notability cited. Only objective claim is that she was in one movie, which was the "top set of 2004 for Softwood Inc.". dbenbenn | talk 17:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. No claim to notability. Quale 23:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: An "an upcoming glamour model" doesn't seem notable enough for a Wikipedia article. — Cory Maylett 17:05, 20 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.

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

The result of the debate was No consensus, which defaults to Keep. Although there were far more keeps than deletes in total, many were new users. Excluding them, the number of keep and delete votes were quite even. Friday (talk) 16:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Rose

Keep..his books are interesting to the open minded! Gerb

not notable and self-publicising (see sales info) Lincolnite 18:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• delete, not quite speedy material, but definitely not notable enough for wp. — brighterorange (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• weak delete now that there appears to be a maintainer jumping to fix this, I am willing to be convinced ontherwise. Can someone find some kind of objective evidence (like number of followers, etc.) that he is notable? I must admit a certain bias against enlightened "new age" thinkers, who seem to be a dime a dozen, but I'm happy to vote to keep anyone who is clearly notable. — brighterorange (talk) 18:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• I'll work on NPOVing the article also. --goethean ॐ 19:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• Okay, but NPOV is not the only problem here, there is the question of whether this guy is important outside a small circle of fans. I am leaning towards an answer of "no," but willing to be convinced otherwise. — brighterorange (talk) 02:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: This is the best google search that I can come up with to gauge the notability of this particular Richard Rose. --goethean ॐ 18:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for lack of notability. Comment: FWIW, I searched Amazon for "Richard Rose", and I believe there's more than one author by that name. However the first two books listed were by this guy, so it's entirely possible he's notable as an author. Current article content is bad, yes, but if the subject is notable I'd rather see it fixed than deleted. Friday (talk) 18:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Rewrite: Not notable. Possible self promotion. — Cory Maylett 17:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • After being contacted via e-mail by someone urging me to change my vote, I looked into Richard Rose a little more. The evidence I dug up indicates that he was a legitimate philosopher, spiritual leader and author who managed to attract a significant group of followers and admirers. So from that standpoint, he does seem notable. However, the article is written more like a tribute from one of his disciples than a non-biased statement of simple, straight-forward fact. I'd suggest that someone with an objective viewpoint rewrite and condense the text into something more suitable for a non-biased encyclopedia. — C Maylett 16:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • process question Does the piece need to be rewritten before the 5 day period expires? I'm not aware how quickly the author can respond. Sharnish 17:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
      • No. In fact, you should wait to make any major changes until after the voting process is finished so that we are all voting on the same thing. --goethean ॐ 18:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I know several people who have been impressed by his book. In my circle, he is notable. Promotional material should be removed from article. --goethean ॐ 18:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Please note: These sockpuppets are not mine. --goethean ॐ 14:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The material in the external links confirms that this man lectured at universities throughout the USA. Rose's books and poems are worthy of distinction. philco2 02:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • This is Philco's second contribution to Wikipedia. Welcome to Wikipedia, Philco. --goethean ॐ 14:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: Notability is a function of what circle you troll around in. If the reference to sales material is what is offensive then cut that part out. For those that troll around in esoteric enlightenment circles, Rose is as notable as Merrell-Wolff. --Algebraicring 22:27 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • This is Algebraicring's first contribution to Wikipedia. Welcome to Wikipedia, Algebraicring. --goethean ॐ 14:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Please note: Thanks for noticing!!! I feel so loved now! Oh wait, you're just making sure that you're not taken down in the "bad image" of having a lot of people come to the defense of this article. Yep that image does indeed look bad. Hopefully the peple in charge can ignore perceptions and decide whether or not it would be beneficial to the public at large to have a wikipedia article on the man. Would that require looking into the man, or do the deciders make up their minds based on what they already know? Algebraicring 20:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
      • The administrators count the (non-sockpuppet) votes. If there is consensus to delete, they delete. If there is no consensus, article is kept. --goethean ॐ 15:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
        • I tip my sock to you for I am nothing more than a puppet. I just want to say thanks for all the work you're putting in here. --Algebraicring 23:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The presence of the content here is valuable to researchers; the material is profound and is non-sectarian; the author might not be widely known to the public but there is substantial under-the-radar interest in his work. Self-promotion is not an issue as the author devoted his life tirelessly for decades on a strict non-profit basis. The google search listed above also references the title of a book about the author, hence it appears promotional. Here's a wider search: [13] sharnish 23:59 20 September 2005

**This is Sharnish's second contribution to Wikipedia. Welcome to Wikipedia, Sharnish. --goethean ॐ 14:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC) Sharnish does not appear to be a sockpuppet. --goethean ॐ 22:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - The author was one of the better known "non-academic" Advaita Vedanta/Nondual philosophers from America in the last 30 years. However I would vote to remove the promotional aspects in the article.--Saltysage 12:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • This is Saltysage's first contribution to Wikipedia. Welcome to Wikipedia, Saltysage. --goethean ॐ 14:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable and it looks like vanity too. --Neigel von Teighen 15:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Please see my WP talk page [14]) for further information that might help change your mind. Thanks Sharnish 16:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Vanity? The guy's dead! --goethean ॐ 16:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I very much disagree with the "you should wait to make any major changes until after the voting process is finished so that we are all voting on the same thing" from above. Remember, our goal here is to make an encyclopedia, not to rigidly follow some exact process. If this article can be improved to the point where people don't think it needs deleted anymore, that's a perfectly acceptable outcome. Friday (talk) 18:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • sounds good. --goethean ॐ 15:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. --fvw* 00:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

• COMMENT A re-write is currently underway, please stand by. Thank you.Steve Harnish 15:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comments welcome on the re-write. Thanks to those who participated.Steve Harnish 22:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. He seems like an interesting guy, the article is informative (if a tad hagiographic in style, but that can be fixed) and in view of his having a number of published essays and several books, and the fact that he has a small but loyal following, he is certainly notable.

• Comment: the academic quality of this page can be enhanced by including references from the relevant books, essays, and weblinks as footnotes in the body of the write up. Also the Publications should, if books, have the year and publisher, and if essays, the journal issue no., year, and page numbers in which they appear M Alan Kazlev 01:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Request: Would someone from the TAT Foundation be willing to provide the publication dates? Thanks. The quotations would be difficult to footnote, as they are mostly often-repeated phrases from Rose's personal vocabulary. All the material was originally self-published via the TAT Foundation. By the way, there remain many unpublished works and transcriptions of lectures, transcribed by volunteers (as usual). "Hagiographic" - what a great word! Steve Harnish 05:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

• Ok, I'm officially changing my opinion to keep, after the rewrite. I'm not saying the article is perfect, but to me the subject looks significant. Yeah, it's hagiographic here and there (I had to look that one up, thanks), but as pointed out, this can be fixed. While not very famous, as authors go, to me the intro paragraph gives me sufficient info about this guy to consider him significant. Friday (talk) 19:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep ··gracefool |☺ 18:06, 25 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. 2 legit votes to delete, 1 legit vote to keep, plus lots of comments and anons. -R. fiend 18:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pagan Association

Delete. Biased tone. Advertisment. Vanity. Minor local self-promotional organisation not worthy of note or suitable for mention in Wikipedia. 86.134.135.38 18:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete:Run as a part-time venture by two people who have 'real jobs', a 'kitchen fitter' and a, 'personal assistant'

- wow an organisation run by two people with full time jobs and charges a small fee to cover costs of newsletter, great reason for removal! Maybe they should charge more and then they wouldn't have to work fulltime jobs. Accounts are fully transparent and available for any member to view.

Comment You miss the point again. It was not an argument about the fact that you charge, but that you are not a 'full-time', professional organisation worthy of note in an encyclopedia but something you do in your spare time as a hobby. This is an encylcopedia page about your hobby.

No individual member has ever seen the books of the p.a.User:Acropolis now

Delete:P.A. is a small group of friends based in Birmingham. Run as a part-time venture by two people who have 'real jobs', a 'kitchen fitter' and a, 'personal assistant' I believe. Likes to give the impression it IS paganism in the Midlands. Charges for membership but the, 'books' are not open for inspection by members. Totally unworthy of mention on Wikipedia: Remove.

Comment: Even after a re-edit the page is still little more than an advert for this group, and by that token an advert for their, 'pay services' such as, 'hand fastings'.

Comment: I hardly think being given expenses of a few pounds to cover fuel costs for handfastings all around the UK counts as a 'pay service'? It's not a commercial venture.

Comment: Regardless of what this couple charge, they and their services should not be advertised on an encyclopedia, especially as the many other organisations who've been offering such a services for decades are not. It's misleading and could give the impression that this is the only organisation offering such a service.

Anyway, if people want a pagan handfasting service, or even to find out about paganism at all, they can look on specifically pagan sites, (easily found through any search engine) or follow the links under paganism

They don't need a misleading promotional advert trying to convince them about the importance of any one organisation on Wikipedia.

A page containing a general description of paganism and links to other groups is all that is needed. A page called, 'Pagan Association' is not.

Comment: There already are two, with links. paganism and neopaganism

• Comment- how about rename as Pagan Association- Midlands, England as this group only holds any events or has any active prescence in that region? And have a more objective tone as opposed to 'local pagans loved the idea' and such ad nauseam. There are several pagan groups in Birmingham this page could be subsumed under one of that name. Even then, is an analysis of the regional factions of a minority religion worthy of note, when large pagan groups such as the Druid Network only have a stub, and the Pagan Federation, the UK's largest pagan organisation by far and a registered charity, has no page at all.

Comment: Updated to include other pagan organisations - not sure if there are any suggestions as to how it should then be renamed? Perhaps National Pagan organisations within the UK? Incidentally the Pagan Federation was stripped of its charitable status several years ago and is trying to regain it through PEBBLE. --User:RhiannonB 23:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

'And the relevance of that is??'

Comment This is not a pagan information update page -it's to discuss the deletion of an article on Wikipedia. Your 'incidental' comment goes beyond incidental into off-topic.--

There is an entire 'pagan Wiki' where pagan organisations can be described it's http://paganwiki.org/ User:Acropolis now They have a link from paganism

Simply place your URL on the links page of paganism or neopaganism You don't need a seperate Wikipedia article for pagan organisations. If need be you could place a subheading UK there for pagan organisations in the UK.

Then if people are interested, they can go direct to the site, or to the many pagan sites that provide descriptions of available UK and local pagan organisations. This is an encyclopedia not a special interest notice board or even a site solely for those in the UK. User:Acropolis now

Comment: Pagan Association UK is the official name, and as members come from as far afield as Berwick Upon Tweed, London, South Wales, and Cornwall, it's a fair name to use. The contacts of the Pagan Association spread even further afield, and as there are many people who use Wikipedia to find out more about paganism, giving them a safe and known point of contact offline seems to me to be a good use of Wikipedia. If someone from within the Pagan Federation wishes to add to the page then we could share the resource. I believe the Children of Artemis is the biggest pagan organisation in the UK with something like 5,000 members, however this is a commercial organisation. --User:RhiannonB 23:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment at least rename this. "Pagan Association" means "an association of Pagans", not particularly this one. I'd rename it myself at least to "Pagan Association UK" (pending verification) but as it stands this is a completely non-encyclopaedic title. Tonywalton  | Talk 22:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I am not voting on this article either way, but I would refer people to the debate on "AfD" for "Martin Williams". I don't know much about this organisation, or whether it's worthy of inclusion, but I felt "Martin Williams" who was a member wasn't. Judge for yourselves... --MacRusgail 20:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment He wasn't just a member. You are speaking of THE Martin Williams, the Head and Founder of the Pagan Association (UK) And you think he isn't worthy of an entry. I'm aghast.

• Comment at least rename this. "Pagan Association" means "an association of Pagans", not particularly this one. I'd rename it myself at least to "Pagan Association UK" (pending verification) but as it stands this is a completely non-encyclopaedic title. Tonywalton  | Talk 22:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

rename to align with current revision, to "paganism in Birmingham."

Requested move=Talk:pagan association — pagan association → paganism in Birmingham – NPOV, place in relevant context, User:Acropolis now 12:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

have put this on talkpage too- i'm new;)

not that parochial goings-on are worthy of an entry, anyway. Where would it end? Every University society has an entry?

• Keep Correct me if I'm wrong, this is the UK Pagan Association, it used to be in London and now has its headquarters in Birmingham, where their first meet outside London was. They've been in the news - BBC Birmingham , BBC Birmingham, albeit BBC local editions. It's only just been written, give it some time at least to refine and get wikified. And move to the group's proper title Pagan Association UK, which is a redirect to this article's page (at the moment). Alf ^melmac 19:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[Restored my comment to original I left it at. Alf ^melmac 21:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC)]

[made edit (strike through: must have been a glitch) I came back to do. Alf ^melmac 21:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

correction No. The particular pagan association refered to has always been based in Birmingham where the founder and leadership live. You must be mistaking it for another of the same name.

And they don't have a 'headquarters'-unless you count their sitting room.

Having read the article you flagged, I can assure you that this organisation is based in Birmingham, and as for 'first gathering outside London'- they've met in a pub at least once a week in Birmingham for some time. I suspect this is a misprint in the article. At any rate it's wholly misleading. User:Acropolis_now

This is a global encyclopedia, not for things that have been on -a few minute's segment- of a -local- programme on -one- channel in the-UK-.

A channel which a prominent member of this organisation just happens to work for.

Anyone can be on the local news- especially if they ring the media, are holding a pagan ritual, wearing robes or dancing round a fire.

All they need is their URL under pagan or neopagan.

Having their own entry is self-indulgent vanity publishing or an indirect advertisment for themselves and indirectly for those services for which they charge. User:Acropolis_now

• Comment This discussion is somewhat confusing, because of newcomers who are not familiar with the use of four tildes ~~~~ to sign an entry with a date-timestamp. There also have been edits out of sequential order. However, it appears the only vote from an experienced wikipedian so far is the keep vote from Alf ^melmac. There is one remove (a very strange way to spell delete) from an anonymous editor using IP 84.69.16.92. The only contributions from this IP are this discussion and the AfD on Martin Williams. --WCFrancis 17:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete verifiability is extremely limited, as is notability. The BBC page is about it. The association page appears to be gone, placeholder there. It appears the Pagan Federation would be much more notable and there is no article for it at present (although this one could be moved and rewritten for that organization since half the article is already about the Federation). -WCFrancis 17:47, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as NN vanity. Groeck 03:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Website is now back. Suggested renaming of page to 'UK Pagan Organisations' or similar. RhiannonB 07:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment That 'keep' vote was by the creator of the site, by the way.

She is trying to mislead people (as she is with the whole article) into thinking that her organisation is a 'UK pagan organisation' on a par with the Pagan Federation. Which it is not. Anyway she could just add some UK links under paganism or edit that page. But she wouldn't do that as her intention is Vanity and to mislead about her organisation's status, rather than to be in any way useful. Acropolis now 11:23, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:20, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kembab

Kembab and costas hadjicostas, google = 0 [15]. Looks to be some made up word and advertisment. Go figure. feydey 18:11, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete juicily, redly and thickly. Tonywalton  | Talk 22:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all articles that make me hungry, pass me a cat someone. Alf ^melmac 19:52, 20 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.

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splash^talk 00:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Electric Universe concept

Delete: This article should be deleted according to the "no original research" policy. Please read the article and check the links in it before voting. The recuring defense to keeping it is the large number of sources, but if you read the sources they don't talk about this. For example the NASA link talks about electricity in our atmosphere causing light effects and such, and not about this. Also several facts in the article are obviously wrong, like the fact that craters are caused by lightning bolts instead of meteors, which has direct evidence against. Elfguy 18:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

"The recuring defense [..] but if you read the sources they don't talk about this" The Electric Universe concept covers many areas, including the idea that electricity plays a much greater role in the universe than generally accpeted. In this respect, the theory is consistent with many existing and accepted theories.

"several facts in the article are obviously wrong" The article does not present this idea as a fact, but as a theory; I am not aware of any evidence that proves that craters can not be created my electical discharges. --Iantresman 20:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Elfguy didn't say they couldn't be, and saying "there's no evidence to disprove it" brings you into Flying Spaghetti Monster territory. — ceejayoz ^★ 20:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. Elfguy said that several facts "are obviously wrong" without any substantiation. And many statements may be falsified by an "ugly fact", but without either, it is just opinion. --Iantresman 21:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep: I'm not a believer in the Electric Universe theory, but I suggest that this article remain. I don't mind an having an unreviewed scientific theory present as long as the issue is known on a global scale (The number of Google hits and the number of editors on this article suggest it is) and it is said in the article that the theory is unsupported by the scientific community. My reasoning behind this is the article can still have a historic value even if it no longer has a scientific one. It also appears from the talk page that deletion was discussed before and a consensus was not reached. I hope we are not simply debating the same points we did before. -Solarusdude 19:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Many of the references appear to be wrongly appropriated. Others are unscientific. So the question seems to me to be whether this is a notable social phenomenon (as it's not a scientific theory). I don't think it is but I'm open to being convinced otherwise. Dlyons493 19:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: I agree with Solarusdude. In my opinion, the whole Electric Universe thing is crackpot psuedoscience that's been picked up by the oddball fringe, but it does have a significant group of followers (for whatever reason) who are good at making noise. As long as the article clearly states that this is not mainstream science and is widely dismissed and riduculed as lacking merit by most every mainstream physicist, I'm fine with it being here. I do think, however, that the article has gotten badly out of control, and that someone needs to wrestle it back into having some semblance of objectivity. — Cory Maylett

Keep: As the main author of this article, I should mention that it has already gone through the Votes for deletion process, where originality was discussed. See previous Votes for deletion. The article survived the vote. --Iantresman 20:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, per nom. — ceejayoz ^★ 20:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Rename "Electric Universe (theory)" - I have heard of it, and don't agree with it, but think it is worthy enough to retain. --MacRusgail 20:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• From the 20 July closing: "The result of the debate was no consensus." Lack of consensus in a previous VfD does not establish a precedent to keep. Saying it "survived the vote" is a stretch not equivalent to "achieved consensus to keep". Barno 20:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: It doesn't explain what the electric universe theory is supposed to be about. Electricity is not a new discovery and electrical charge is considered in many theories. The article doesn't identify what's supposed to be missing in the mainstream theories. Peter Grey 21:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Rename per MacRusgail. Other than that, it is very clear to me that this is a very real pseudoscience, and the right course of action is to remove any portions of the article that are OR or unsourced. Bunchofgrapes 23:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable crackpottery. The article is way too long, even if kept. Quale 23:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Yes, it's a total crock, but it's a common one. We should have an article explaining what it is and why it's wrong. --Apyule 01:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This kind of BS should not be part of any self-respecting enyclopedia. Shadow demon 02:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, analogously to Flat earth. The Electric Universe stuff is likely pseudoscientific BS, but this article seems at least equally devoted to presenting the critiques and failure of the theory, not cheerleading for the junk science. As with Flat earth, it is possible to cover junk science without being junk science. -- MCB 06:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this is exactly the type of article we should be keeping, providing it gives a clear picture of the particular concept, it does not matter two hoots about it being a notable unscientific thingamabob. Has it made enough impact on our culture? I would say yes. Alf ^melmac 20:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not nearly as infamous as Creation science or the Flat earth. Pilatus 01:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: And Iowa isn't nearly as famous as California, but we probably want to keep it. If you believe this phenomenon to be non-notable or non-encyclopedic, state your case, but saying X isn't nearly as well-known as very-famous Y or Z doesn't really shed any light on the issue, does it? Bunchofgrapes 04:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
    • That's what I said. We can't include each and every crackpottery on Earth. From what I see, this particular one is very minor, non-notable in the extreme. Pilatus 11:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
      • For what it's worth, I had seen mention of this crackpottery before I ever saw the Wikipedia article. I'm pretty sure it was from this Wired News story. Bunchofgrapes 22:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
        • OK, I'm convinced to retract the vote. Keep this. Pilatus 00:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it's not original research. Whether or not the theory is correct is not grounds for deletion. ··gracefool |☺ 18:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this is an extremely relevant and detailed article, if you get rid of this you might as well put up Hollow Earth theory up for the scrap too. Piecraft 14:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, just came here via a reference from the Immanuel Velikovsky article so it's not something brand new. Bryan 01:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, 28 September 2005 - If I wanted a majority point of view I would watch TV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.36.80.163 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 28 September 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.

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

The result of the debate was delete · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Niccolai Morris

Who? Vanity, delete. Lupo 18:25, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Appears to be a hoax. The assertions of notability, however improbable, prevent it from being a speedy. No IMDB entry. If someone removed the unsourced assertions, it might be a speedy then, but until then, delete. Friday (talk) 19:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Notable only for being extremely non-notable. A likely hoax. — Cory Maylett 19:08, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:49, 19 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.

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

The result of the debate was Speedied. android79 21:19, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Joel Ward McAllister

Delete. Vanity, non-notable. Major claim to fame is graduating from college. -- Mwanner 18:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as textbook nn-bio. Tagged as such. Friday (talk) 18:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Valid speedy delete in present form. But I personally am not going to speedy it just yet, because I hope someone will comment on whether this person is any relation to Ward McAllister. I don't think that would be anywhere near being a sufficient claim of notability, but it would be a claim. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:35, 19 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.

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

The result of the debate was keep. Friday (talk) 02:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aaron Fox

Non-notable associate professor. --fvw* 19:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep He's the Director of a centre and features quite heavily on Talk:Country music Dlyons493 19:38, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • The reason he features quite heavily on Talk:Country music is because Aaron Fox put them there, he was involved with that article. --fvw* 13:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonnotable academic. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep/Expand he's the Director of the Center for Ethnomusicology at Columbia and has published a book about country music Real Country: Music And Language In Working-Class Culture which has pretty good reviews, sales rank and coverage for an academic title. Jessamyn 02:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notability within the discipline of ethnomusicology is sufficient for an encyclopedia. One need not appear on American Idol to achieve it. Dystopos 16:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. ··gracefool |☺ 18:08, 25 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge in non-advert material (of which there was little) into biofuel. -R. fiend 18:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Greenfuel

With the exception of a single edit adding a logo, this article has only been edited by anons from "Cambridge Incubator, Inc.", a company with the same address as GreenFuel itself. There is no indication that this company is particularly prominent in its field. —Brent Dax 19:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Merge: While I never heard of Cambridge Incubator or the GreenFuel brand, the article mentioned some technology that's worth mention in either Biofuel, Biodiesel, or any similar articles that I forgot to mention. It's also possible to keep the article and rename it to something more generic, but I feel more comfortable with the merging idea. -Solarusdude 19:29, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Rewrite for NPOV under a different name - the article is clearly an ad, but the technology seems to have notability. Either that or merge as a subsection of Biofuel as per Solarusdude. - --Outlander 20:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. ··gracefool |☺ 18:10, 25 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete -R. fiend 17:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Applicon

Sub stub, no notability established, mostly link spam. --S.K. 22:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• keep, seem to get plenty of google hits. Kappa 02:09, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Any meaningful ones? Article includes no claim of notability beyond that of thousands of other software companies. Article isn't even clear whether it refers to one company or two. No vote. Barno 19:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• keep, it was useful to me.

Only one direct comment apart from the nominator (excluding the anon) means I'm relisting this for another shot at a proper discussion.-Splash^talk 19:20, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless notability is established for one or both companies mentioned. If either one is worth an article, it would be worth making the article about one company or the other, not both. Current content is little more than linkspam. Friday (talk) 21:01, 19 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fat bitch protector

WP:NOR —encephalonεγκέφαλον 19:25, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• This is a terrible thing and should not be. Oh, and the article should be deleted also. Friday (talk) 19:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, lest people mistake Wikipedia for Urbandictionary. — mendel ☎ 19:43, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Sliggy 19:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Offensive and lacking significant worth, importance or notability — Cory Maylett 20:01, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - original research, unreferenced - --Outlander 20:11, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - slang garbage Tracyt1800 20:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete This should be in one of those blue boxes already! I mean, what the hell? The title is proof enough that this does not belong here Molotov (talk) 21:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment It is funny as hell, though - and true. Molotov (talk) 21:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
    • BJAODN per Karmafist. Molotov (talk) 22:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't know that it's true. Can you suggest a criterion for speedy deletion? None seemed suitable to me.—encephalonεγκέφαλον21:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN This reminds me of that skit on The Dave Chappelle Show about "The Greatest Moments in Hookup History" when he technically had the 4 way. Karmafist 21:45, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, for obvious reasons. I don't believe it's a valid candidate for speedy deletion, however. --Ashenai 21:45, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Disgusting and eminently worthy of a delete.Vizjim 22:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^{(Contributions)} 01:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Offensive rubbish. --Daveb 09:42, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete "Will someone please think of the children?". Alf ^melmac 20:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ridiculous, should be a speedy Batmanand 23:28, 20 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.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hella (slang)

Hella (disambiguation) was nominated for deletion on 2005-08-04. The result of the discussion was "keep and rename to Hella (slang)". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hella (disambiguation).

This dicdef is already on Wiktionary. I see little hope for expansion beyond a dictionary entry. There was a vfd last month [16], but the result was rename, and there does not appear to have been much discussion about whether this needs an article. Friday (talk) 19:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete DicDef, even if you could make it encyclopedic it would be pointless - --Outlander 20:09, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and replace the line on Hella (disambiguation) with a {{wiktionarypar|hella}}. Wikipedia is not Wiktionary. —Cryptic (talk) 20:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - dictionary definition, not encyclopaedic. Worldtraveller 21:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - It's too soon to revisit the issue after the previous vote (rename, not delete), and the content of the article (discussion of references to usage in songs, etc) rises above straight dicdef and perhaps above the threshold for being encyclopedic. -- Curps 00:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Move to wictionary. Delete Since the only way to get to this article is through the disambiguation page (save the unlikely typing in of Hella (slang)). I agree with Worldtraveller, just put a wictionary link on the disamb page. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 11:39, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Note that wiktionary already have an entry for hella, so moving this article to there is not an option. Worldtraveller 13:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok then, Delete it and add the wictionary page to the disamb, I am changing my vote. Either way we don't lose any info, if someone wants to make sure that the wictionary entry includes this definition of hella. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 15:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment wasn't there an episode of South Park that had Eric Cartman saying hella a vast amount of times, as his new catchphrase? Alf ^melmac 20:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • If you edit Wiktionary:hella and scroll down to the commented out section, your question will be answered. Please note the comment in the article history relating to this and improve Wiktionary if you are able to. Uncle G 00:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks Uncle G, if I knew more I could add, I would, I can't even remember which series it was in, let alone the episode title, but I'm no great SP fan. Not much more than a mention in the South Park lexicon (under something stupid or unfortunate) either. Alf ^melmac 20:30, 21 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.

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

The result of the debate was keep. Woohookitty 10:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Domain hack

Delete as vanity, neologism, website advertising: The first half-dozen pages of Google results for "domain hack" suggest that no-one uses this term in this manner (they're all referring to hackers grabbing control of a domain or similar). The article has been edited almost entirely by one IP range, and the only page I found in the Google results that does use this sense of the term is [17], which coined the term a year ago and presumably created the article (to which the site links; also, the IP range that edited the article and the owner of xona.com correspond geographically.) — mendel ☎ 19:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• ...oh crap. It's a neologism? Dammit. There has to be a name for the phenomenon, though. No vote yet. DS 20:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep: Interesting article that clarifies an emerging practice in domain name creation. As per Mendel's neologism reference, though, is there a better term than "domain hack"? jareha 20:56, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Hm, I see what you mean about the practice being notable beyond the problems with this article. Does it deserve more than a paragraph on Domain name system? It doesn't need a catchy name that way, and it won't be an advert for their website (where, oddly enough, they claim a trademark on "domain hack"). — mendel ☎ 21:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep: rather informative and amusing, even if not quite encyclopedical. --tyomitch 22:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep but rename to something sensible (I'm thinking about what it could be). This isn't a "hack", but it's notable. Tuvalu (.tv) has made a lot of money out of a similar domain name phenomenon, after all. Tonywalton  | Talk 22:43, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep: (I'm not sure how to properly edit this page, so please format it preperly afterwards.) To clarify, I am the creator of the article and the creator of the Domain Hacks search utility. As for self-promotion, the article was not created for the promotion of my website. I would have linked to any and all websites better than mine (along with mine), if I could have found any, any at all, but I couldn't. I could only find a few blog entries almost a year after the creation of my utility. I eventually found V3's site. All of these sites I linked to. I did my best to find as much information on domain hacks as I could. There is truly very little information out there. You can see this is true, or else you would already have another name/title for the article in mind. Anyways, I created the article (and my search utility) as this is something big, and there exists little to no information on it. When I programmed the Domain Hacks search, no one else had come up with a name for these type of domains. If they had, I would have used it. I searched very hard and found nothing, so I had to create a name myself. I came up with "domain hack", even though I appreciate the media uses "domain hack" in a completely unrelated sense. If "domain hack" is not used widely enough to have a wikipedia article, then I suggest to rename to "unconventional domain names" (and rename email hack to "unconventional email addresses") and change the article to say that I suggest (and actively use) the name of "domain hack" and "email hack". As far as I know, I am the first one to come up with any name at all. You can appreciate the difficulty in coming up with a more 'proper' name, I can tell by your comments. It is hard. It would also help to consider that the media tends to use "hack" in the system breach sense, not the sense of making a system do something it was never intended to do, which is the type of "hack" I had in mind during the naming of these domains. "Hack" and "hacker" predate computer security, anyway, so my version of "hack" I believe to be more accurate. Because the media uses "domain hack" in another sense, I would NOT use this as a reason to not call these domain names "domain hacks". (That is my personal opinion.) I have held #1 in Google for domain hacks for a long time. So, with the plural search, it favors to keep the name. As for trademark issues, there is nothing to worry about. I put that "(tm)" to protect my www.domainhacks.com domain name, so nobody would come along afterwards and claim they have more right to use it (with their own trademark) and steal it away. It was done out of protection, not for money making reasons. I solved the situation by moving the search utility under the www.xona.com domain name. I can remove those trademarks, although "Domain Hacks" will more than likely remain the name of my search utility. The trademark was never intended to make money. Anyways, I wrote the article under the name of "domain hack" for two main reasons: 1) it is the only name I know of and 2) it is the only name that is currently in use (albeit by myself via my search utility, none-the-less no other name is in use). I thought, perhaps incorrectly, that this was enough to justify the wikipedia article of the same title. I hope this clarifies my position. Please do whatever is best, of course. 137.186.22.240 01:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: As mendel states, it is a neologism, unused outside of its inventor's website, and is a poor neologism at that. (It does not employ the work "hack" in any of its common meanings). Useless and uninformative. -- riotnrrd 15:49, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I coined the term, but I did not invent the idea. The idea still exists, is very popular, and deserves recognition. A rename maybe, but not a delete. Explain why a delete and not a rename. The only question here is the title/name, not the content. As for usage of "hack", it is common to use "hack" in terms of a "programming exploit" or "clever hack", in where things are done that were never meant to be able to do. So that cannot be used as the reason to reject the name. "Domain hack" is the only title that exists and the only one in use. However, it is only used by me, so this is the only reason why the title should be rejected, but not deleted (just renamed to something else, but what?) As for your "useless and uninformative" comment, it is a very individualistic (and emotional?) comment and is obviously not true for everyone. As always, please do what is best. If a rename is in order, what should it be renamed to??? I am new to this. 137.186.22.29 22:53, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Simply put, your concept of a "domain hack" is that people make words out of domain names. That's it. Sure, it's clever to use the top-level-domain "icio.us" to create memorable domain names such as "del.icio.us" in a namespace already heavily occupied (delicious.com, org and net being taken), but is it worthy of note? Is registering the domain "del.icio.us" substantially different from registering "delicious.com?" In the broadest possible sense, this may be a phenomonon that deserves a name, but does it deserve a wikipedia article? I don't think so. So, when I said this entry was "Useless and uniformative" I meant that the article itself provides no other information than "some people register clever domain names and here is a list of them." -- riotnrrd 16:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I believe it is worthy of a note. Perhaps it needs to become more popular, more of a phenomena, before Wikipedia will accept it... not sure. But, it IS something, and I looked for info on Wikipedia FIRST when I went to research it, expecting it to be here in great detail. There's something that told me it should be here. It just felt like Wikipedia type stuff. Hope this poor explanation makes some sense to all of you. 137.186.22.208 20:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• I was thinking about this some more, since there seems to be a strong "Move it... somewhere?" sentiment. There are essentially three parts to the current article: the part about people doing this with domains, the part about the history of "Domain hack" and the related website and its founder, and the list of names. I suspect there's consensus that the phrase "Domain hack" and the history of the related website aren't encyclopedic, so there's that section done. The list itself is borderline; there is a website about this stuff, and where there's a good external resource for something like this then there's no point in keeping a list here, better to provide an external link. So that leaves the observation that people do this — that can be merged into Domain name system with an external link. Thoughts? — mendel ☎ 20:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia can maintain the list better than any other site, so is that something to consider? I think the list is interesting, and would wish it to remain on Wikipedia somewhere. 137.186.22.208 20:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • So IF a rename, what would it be renamed to? What are these domain names called? How should one refer to them? 137.186.22.208 23:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete As they author seems to make clear above, the term was coined to advertise his search tool. --InShaneee 20:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Not true, it was coined to have a name and be able to write about it. The search tool could be called what else? Not that this affects the outcome, just making it clear. 137.186.22.208 20:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • As recently as Tuesday you were claiming it as a trademark over on the search tool: Google cache — mendel ☎ 21:22, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I explained the trademark issue already, it was trademarked to protect the www.domainhacks.com domain name from being stolen away. I removed this as it basically makes no sense, which this discussion brought to light. (Thanks for this.) This does not mean that I coined the name "domain hack" to promote my search, which was the point. I can see why you could think this, but it is incorrect. Think of this from this perspective might help: Whatever name I decided on would probably have ended up in the title of my search. I.e. if I could go make the first domain name search, I would probably call it domains.com or domainnames.com. I hope this clarifies my position and thought process on the matter. Again, I doubt this matters. The trademark thing is now irrelevant. 137.186.22.208 23:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, although rename if there is any good alternative. Sarge Baldy 23:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge ··gracefool |☺ 18:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep -- I like the article, and would like to see it stay around in some form under some title, but I'm not sure the current title is more than a neologism. Perhaps it ought to be renamed, but I'm not sure to what. *Dan T.* 20:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I am also unsure of this being neologism. If a rename occurs, my search utility will also be renamed... the end result is the same as what exists now, the only difference is that I did not create the new name. 137.186.22.135 15:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge -- the phrase as it is used in the article is an invention of the author, as Mendel pointed out. However, the content itself isn't bad; I can see the first couple of sections being compressed a little and merged into Domain name#Unconventional domain names with appropriate rewording. In my opinion, the phenomenon itself is notable; the name isn't. --David Wahler (talk) 19:14, 26 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.

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

The result of the debate was delete · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unicist anthropology

neologism, low google hits, no hope of cleanup JPotter 19:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• You mean, this only one hit? del -- (☺drini♫|☎) 19:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• I get 165 hits at [18]

But everything seems to tie back to one guy, Peter Belohlavek, who can't seem to get his theory published in an actual science journal. I vote Delete as original research unless somebody else comes up with peer reference - --Outlander 20:25, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Yes, it appears only one guy uses this term. If/when it gains broader usage, maybe it could have an article. Wikipedia is not for promoting every random guy with a "theory" and a website. Friday (talk) 20:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per other delete voters; neologism, original research. Quale 23:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I get 38 unique hits when I do a proper Google search -- [19]. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this and Unicist Theory of Evolution (AfD). jni 11:33, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - essentially one person's theory. --Pjacobi 12:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete OR, part of a systematic effort to use Wikipedia to spread heretofore nonexistent theories. -- BD2412 ^talk 17:13, 20 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.

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

The result of the debate was delete, obstreperously. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Obstreperousness

nn musical piece. No google or Yahoo hits for piece or composer. Doesn't really claim notoriety, either. Outlander 20:05, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Wow. This is a delete if I ever saw one. Friday (talk) 22:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, and probably not verifiable anyway. Quale 23:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. TheMadBaron 13:44, 20 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 18:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shifz

I don't think participating in some events in the Museumsquartier establishes sufficient notability for an art group, there are a lot of opportunities for alternative art groups there. A related page, Cocktailrobot, has been deleted here recently (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Cocktailrobot). I have also nominated Magnus Wurzer for deletion, whom I suspect to be the author of all three articles (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magnus Wurzer). Martg76 21:47, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn. Dottore So 00:26, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Relisting from Sept 8th in hope of enough participation to reach a reliable decision. -Splash^talk 20:08, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Only primary references are given, and this is not sufficient to to demonstrate importance or to support any qualitative statements about the group whatsoever. Right now it's just links to two websites of doubtful notability. Quale 23:48, 19 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was del. mikka (t) 00:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Venustraphobia

del. No evidence of notability. Also, the name looks like a hoax. What the heck is this "tra" inside? Before you jump in and tell me that it has lonts of google hits, let me say that none of them are reputable. They are blogs, dicdef entries or pages from unscrupulous websites that peddle the same magic cure for all phobias whose names they download from various lists of (pseudo)phobias. My favorite example is an instant cure for Russophobia I quoted in the -phobia article. mikka (t) 22:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable hoaxy neologism. Tonywalton  | Talk 11:10, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Relisting from Sept 8th in hope of enough participation to reach a reliable decision. -Splash^talk 20:09, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment- while I know people this happens to, I'm not convinced this is the proper name for it, so should be a redirect page. --MacRusgail 20:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: The phobia, from what I understand, is legitimate, but I'm unsure that this is an accepted name. Anyway, it's only one of a huge number of phobias. If this article could be expanded into something meaningful or unique, I'd agree with keeping it, but I doubt there's really anything to say beyond what's already there. the current listing in the List of phobias article should be sufficient since the symptoms of this phobia are unsubstantially different from others. — Cory Maylett 21:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per it's stupid. Molotov (talk) 21:42, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Agree, delete.Vizjim 22:55, 19 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.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP: merge and redirect. Paul August ☎ 23:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Helensburgh and Lomond

This is an artificial area. PatGallacher 20:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I will expand on my reasons for calling for deletion. I am not disputing that there is such an area, and its boundaries are clearly defined. However it is not an area in its own right, it is defined as that part of the historic county of Dunbartonshire which went into Argyll and Bute at the local govt. reorganisation of the 1990s. Granted, including the Helensburgh area was controversial. "Helensburgh and Lomond" is, as far as I am aware, not a term which is significantly used either officially or colloquially, I had never heard of it before I came across it on Wikipedia a few minutes ago. It does not even include the majority of the shore of Loch Lomond. I recognise that Helensburgh and Loch Lomond do merit inclusion. Anything useful in this article should be moved to Argyll and Bute, I think a lot of it will be there already. PatGallacher 20:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm going with Pat Gallacher on this. It should be merged with better known areas. I am surprised it is not called "and Loch Lomond", "and Lomondside" etc...--MacRusgail 20:47, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• I'm happy to go with a merge to Argyle and Bute. I'd certainly never heard of this division of the area. However, a quick google gives 52,000 hits and indicates that the designation is being extensively used by the local authority and other government agencies as a regional subdivision. Thus, if it were neccessary to split an article on Argle and Bute, this doesn't seem like an unreasonable way to go. PS since nomination calls for move/merge, it could have been done without nominating for deletion. --Doc (?) 21:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all areas with communities of interest - a Google search shows 53,000 hits [20]. It seems to be a council ward [21] and is worthy of retention as a real place with real community of interest. Capitalistroadster 01:18, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• On balance I'd have to say Merge and redirect. Unless some large contribution comes along about it as a council ward, or on the controversy about its "defection" to A&B, in which case it can be split back out happily enough. Alai 16:44, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 18:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Saperion

Looks like advertizing Anthony Appleyard 20:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Unless someone can expand this satisfactorily, Delete --MacRusgail 20:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Molotov (talk) 21:12, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Reserved this reads as a 20 year old German based software company doing worldwide business, with subsidiaries in the four corners of the world a transatlantic rhomboid across the world. It doesn't mention their turnover, or estimated workforce to give any decision on, either. Difficult to say, not being in the industry. Alf ^melmac 20:35, 20 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tetraknot

Neologism. Neologism descriptive of something that probably looks pretty cool, yes, but neologism nonetheless. DS 20:24, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Was going to vote to keep, but only one hit on search engine, so weak delete --MacRusgail 20:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Molotov (talk) 21:09, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above Molotov (talk) 21:09, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Ashenai 21:11, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• It would help if he included a picture of a tetraknot. Anthony Appleyard 07:55, 20 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.

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

The result of the debate was delete · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Worldwide police forums

Advertisement. Creator has been spamming several entries -- (☺drini♫|☎) 20:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as advert. If this website is notable, a proper article could be made for it, but this isn't it. Friday (talk) 21:03, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Friday. Molotov (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete because it's an ad. Speedy Delete if there's a widespread spam or vandalism problem. | Keithlaw 22:33, 19 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 Transwiki to Wikibooks Cookbook. -Splash^talk 00:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zugh

Problem: Not notable and Google hits [22] are in German, Polish and Dutch. Molotov (talk) 21:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Oops it looks like there are some more in French and Catalan, but article is still warranted to be deleted. Molotov (talk) 21:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Use the alternative spelling "Zough" cited in the article and the terms 'zough' and 'cardamom' come up with numerous verifiable hits. Transwiki, to the cookbook. Tonywalton  | Talk 21:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki. CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:52, 22 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete due to complete lack of context; possible vandal bot entry

[edit] Westerland

Obviously meets deletion criteria, and unless it can be cleaned up - and quickly - there is no need for it to be here. Molotov (talk) 21:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• This one's a speedy for sure. Going bye-bye. - Lucky 6.9 21:26, 19 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 10:13, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Technology whore

Dictdef. Admitted neologism. Created in March of 2005. Bzzzt! Wrong! JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Delete Molotov (talk) 21:37, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Neologism. Appropriate for a dictionary of buzz words or techno-slang, but not an encylopedia — Cory Maylett 23:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Friday (talk) 19:02, 20 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.

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

The result of the debate was delete (looks like it's already been deleted; closing discussion) · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Youn

Neither encyclopedic or notable. Molotov (talk) 21:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete like hell. Eixo 22:24, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Junk article, silly nonsense — Cory Maylett 23:43, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hella junk. Alf ^melmac 20:39, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Non-notable. CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:51, 22 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. No votes to keep, and a borderlien speedy candidate anyway. -R. fiend 18:04, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lance Cargill

This article contains only contact information, but no biographical data for Lance Cargill, a relatively minor state representative from Oklahoma. Therefore, I recommend that that it be deleted in accordance with Wikipedia policy. --TommyBoy 21:39, 19 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.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 10:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Updog's Special Friends

Vanity, nn Eixo 22:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: vanity/nn/patent nonsense, all rolled into one. | Keithlaw 22:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• DeleteMolotov (talk) 22:38, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Silly and pointless — Cory Maylett 23:47, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is real! proof of performance and other proof of performance and proof of class existance—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.48.122.231 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 21 September 2005.
  • User's second edit. | Keithlaw 13:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • The question is notability. The group may exist, but that doesn't make them notable enough to belong in Wikipedia. | Keithlaw 21:06, 22 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:39, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gershon Ellima Jr

Not notable. Molotov (talk) 22:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Speedied this one. Criteria #7, no notability claim in article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:38, 19 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE, OK? — JIP | Talk 10:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Troop 26, Tulsa, OK

An individual scout troup - looks like a bunch of great guys, but nn. --Doc (?) 22:38, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete all troops. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Wikipedia probably isn't the place for articles on individual Boy Scout Troops. I'm sure it's a great scout troop, but it's not really notable. ;-) — Cory Maylett 00:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There are over 43,000 Boy Scout troops in the USA alone. [23] They should not be considered individually encyclopedic. --Metropolitan90 00:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, although the back of my brain lives in fear that Scout troops will become the new elementary schools in about a month. Lord Bob 03:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment My understanding of the above comments is that individual scout troops aren't notable, but the only guideline that seems to apply is Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Two questions: 1) surely some troops, such as Troop 1, are notable because of their tremendous historical influence, so how do you decide which other troops should also have the distinction? 2) at what level does a scout organization become worthy of inclusion: district? council? region? 13:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Troop numbers, I believe, are assigned by Councils, so there are likely to be several non-notable "Troop 1"s. I was in the Birmingham Area Council's Troop 1 and I am not aware of anything notable about that organization except perhaps our stranglehold on the canoe-battle competitions at Camp Sequoyah. In my opinion a Troop could be notable, but that would have to be established in the article. More likely, a good article about a Council that might include some information about particular Troops would be encyclopedic. Dystopos 16:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Note that most states have multiple councils; there are probably other Troop 26's in other parts of Oklahoma. At what level does a scout organization become worthy of inclusion? If it were up to me, the national level: the Boy Scouts of America are notable but their regions, councils, and districts do not need articles of their own. --Metropolitan90 02:11, 24 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.

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 already redirected. Woohookitty 10:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tropical storm (disambiguation)

Delete. After I removed the only other entry here, which was to a book deleted by AfD, this page no longer dabs anything. -Splash^talk 22:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Is purely definition. I created Wiktionary article in light of this AFD. Psy guy ^(talk) 23:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to tropical cyclone. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:40, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. Vegaswikian 07:42, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I think you missed the (disambiguation) in the title. This isn't useful as a redirect to anywhere. -Splash^talk 16:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete until there is something to disambiguate (although I'd bet there are other uses of "tropical storm" that could have articles. Useless as a redirect, per Splash. -- BD2412 ^talk 20:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirects hurt no-one. ··gracefool |☺ 18:17, 25 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.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 10:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Office of Economics, Environmental Analysis and Administration

Feddle gubmint jibberjabbercruft. Heavy use of the word 'We' makes me think this was cut & pasted (or hacked) by a govco drone with too much time on his hands. Viva Liberty! Delete The Government! Eddie.willers 22:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and Clean up Has been tagged for clean up for a year. I am going to add it to my to do list and remove first person point of view. Long live big government! Psy guy ^(talk) 22:58, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh puhleeeze! The fact that it has been tagged for clean up for this long means that either it's of no interest or no one with sufficient knowledge has stepped forward to undertake the cleanup. Additionally, the article suffers from obscurity in that it fails to sufficiently explain the position within the federal superstructure of this particular office. If that wasn't enough, since when did minor collections of govco drones become notable?? What has this department achieved that merits an encyclopaedic article? Answers on a post card please... Eddie.willers 23:05, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup, government agencies are valid topics. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:05, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• I have wikified and de-waffled it somethat, and cleared out the "we"'s. Some government office may have a policy of describing themselves on Wikipedia. Anthony Appleyard 08:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and that was after you de-waffled it. Boy this article needs some pictures, there's nothing much else going on in there, is there? Alf ^melmac 20:46, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. These are reasons to cleanup, not delete. ··gracefool |☺ 18:17, 25 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.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 10:25, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Corporate Knowledge

Postmodern jibberjabber that makes many 'learned' references to other scholars without actually giving any details of their work in support of the premise being advanced. Delete as pseudo-hoax - I'm sure there's something in it, but not here, alas. Eddie.willers 22:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Incomprehensible, unencyclopedic topic. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Don´t delete, please. It can be improved. References to Tuomi and Vygotsky in this discussion are valuable in a critical perspective of current approaches to knowledge management. Sergio Storch

• (insufficient votes for clear result - relisting --Doc (?) 16:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC))
• Delete. Incomprehensible article was tagged for cleanup 10 minutes after creation, and no attempts have been made to clean it up in the ensuing 11 months. --Metropolitan90 18:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• Copyvio from [24] Dlyons493 18:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

  Wrong! The page at society-fresh.net is clearly copied from here, as stated at the bottom of it. Owen× ☎ 18:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Who is this "Tuomi"? What is the book this article is talking about? This reads like an introduction to a book by this Tuomi, but without any other context, it is useless. Owen× ☎ 18:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Although I could imagine an interesting article about this topic, but this isn't it. JoanneB 19:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unrescueable. Vizjim 19:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as incomprehensible, unencyclopedic, and unsalvageable. MCB 06:37, 27 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merge into The Kids in the Hall. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 17:09, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] It's a Fact!

Wikipedia does not need a separate article about each individual Kids in the Hall sketch. — ciphergoth 22:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Merge into Kids in the Hall, which is still plenty short to address recurring characters and well-known skits itself. — mendel ☎ 00:32, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Kids in the Hall. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:43, 20 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Merge with The Kids in the Hall. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 17:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] He's Hip, He's Cool, He's 45

Wikipedia does not need a separate article about each Kids in the Hall sketch. — ciphergoth 22:47, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Merge into Kids in the Hall, which is still plenty short to address recurring characters and well-known skits itself. — mendel ☎ 00:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Kids in the Hall. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:42, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as per above. DannyZz 00:33, 21 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Merge with The Kids in the Hall --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 17:13, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Pit of Ultimate Darkness (Simon and Hecubus)

Wikipedia does not need a separate article about each Kids in the Hall sketch. — ciphergoth 22:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Merge into Kids in the Hall, which is still plenty short to address recurring characters and well-known skits itself. — mendel ☎ 00:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Kids in the Hall. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:44, 20 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Merge with The Kids in the Hall --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 17:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rod Torfleson's Armada featuring Herman Menderchuck

Wikipedia does not need a separate article about each individual Kids in the Hall sketch. — ciphergoth 23:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Merge into Kids in the Hall, which is still plenty short to address recurring characters and well-known skits itself. — mendel ☎ 00:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as above. -- Corvus 18:21, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was no consensus between the options of "keep" and "merge"; reverts to "keep". --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 17:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chicken Lady

Wikipedia does not need an article on each separate Kids in the Hall sketch. — ciphergoth 22:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, recurring character. Kappa 23:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Kids in the Hall, which is still plenty short to address recurring characters and well-known skits itself. — mendel ☎ 00:44, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Sketch character no less notable than any other character filed in Category:Fictional comedy characters. We're playing the "different rules for Canadians" game again, I see. Either keep or delete all fictional comedy characters. Bearcat 01:25, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • As a data point, I'd vote "Merge into the show page, unless it's long enough to need splitting out" for everyone in that category except Bob and Doug McKenzie, and that because those hosers transcended SCTV to become entrenched in the Canadian psyche. — mendel ☎ 01:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Would you say "Either keep or delete all real people"? — ciphergoth 07:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Unless you're actually attempting to suggest that Chicken Lady is somehow inherently less notable than Roseanne Roseannadanna, this is a false comparison as "all real people" are not necessarily of equal notability to each other within a specifically-defined category. Bearcat 17:11, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I agree that the article you cite is no more notable - maybe you should list it in AfD? I don't understand the second part of your argument. Like real people, fictional people vary in notability. Some real people and some fictional people have articles who probably shouldn't. I see no reason why Wikipedia should have treat the notability of the fictional very differently from that of the real. — ciphergoth 15:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
        • The point is that there is no article in Category:Fictional comedy characters that can be legitimately said to be on a different side of the "keep vs. delete" line than Chicken Lady is. Bearcat 22:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Recurring character from a major television show. Paul 00:04, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. Chicken lady et. al have no notability outside of KitH. The fact that other Wikipedians made poor choices for article inclusion does not obligate us to do the same. -- Corvus 18:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into KitH. Microtonal...(Put your head on my shoulder) 04:31, 25 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete all. -R. fiend 16:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Toronto-area roads

Bulk delete the following road articles: Coxwell Avenue, Denison Street, Eastern Avenue (Toronto), Midland Avenue, Neville Park Boulevard, Transit Road. No cultural or historical significance to the GTA or Toronto. Note that this follows from recent AfDs of Toronto roads (see Warden Avenue, O'Connor Drive, Steeles Avenue, and Broadview Avenue) to try to establish a consensus position related to various road types. Mindmatrix 23:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep all. Major streets; Coxwell Road has a subway stop at Bloor Street. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:33, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • You think Transit Road is a major street? Oh my...for those that don't know, Transit Road connects two roads at the edge of a bus and subway stop, and is at most 500 m long. Mindmatrix 00:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all. -- Spinboy 00:34, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all. Why make a person open another tab (or window) for two sentences? If someone really wants to acknowledge the existance of these streets in Wikipedia then do it one article. Describe it in, say, Road network of Toronto. Then maybe it will have some kind of order (you can do it north to south) or cohension. Roads do not exist by themselves. They are dependent upon a network of other road. Describe them as such. --maclean25 01:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Okay, I live in Toronto, and I say delete all. Not notable. ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^{(Contributions)} 01:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- Earl Andrew - talk 01:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, if they are permanent stubs, perhaps the should be merged somewhere. - SimonP 02:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Even Transit Road ? --Aranda56 23:58, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all. I defer to the Toronto expertise of Purplefeltangel. -- Grev -- Talk 04:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Bulk delete. Ignoring the fact that these pages are completely uninformative stubs, the very concept of trying to describe geographic information in prose is misguided. "Beginning at Lakeshore Boulevard near Ashbridge's Bay, the street travels north to O'Connor Drive". Do they expect someone to actually navigate streets by reading this? Who would look in an encyclopedia to find which streets intersect when there is MapQuest, Google Maps, Yahoo maps, and dozens of other web sites that show actual maps of the area? Who's going to keep this stuff updated? There are street changes in every city every year.

Look, I agree with some city street articles; those which describe the history or cultural significance of a street. Look at Commercial Drive for an example. Stuff that doesn't go out of date when there's road construction is encyclopedic, but describing directions and street intersections in text has a cost/benefit ratio approaching infinity. I shudder to think what art articles would have been if this policy was followed (The Mona Lisa is a painting with some dark green along the top, shading into a lighter green as you progress down the left side until some darker green arcs appear ...) -- Corvus 04:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator and User:Purplefeltangel, who both live in Toronto. Pilatus 09:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all. Those voting keep, please familiarise yourselves with What Wikipedia is not. Proto t c 12:26, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep roadcruft. --SPUI (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all. I'm also a Torontonian, and simply can't agree with the idea that any old run-of-the-mill road deserves a Wikipedia article. To merit a Wikipedia article, a road needs to have demonstrable historical or cultural significance beyond its existence as a strip of pavement; none of these have that. Bearcat 17:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Describing city streets in Wikipedia seems silly. Unless a street is notable and worthy of special mention, it just doesn't, IMHO, merit its own article. Notable streets might include: Pennsylvania Avenue, Champs Elysee, Wall Street, Bourbon Street, Broadway, Downing Street, etc., but I seriously doubt these roads in Toronto are anything more than average, run-of-the-mill thoughfares whose only real significance are as traffic arteries. These streets seem better suited for a good map, not an encyclopedia. — Cory Maylett 18:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all sub-stub minor roads --TimPope 18:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Toronto-area roads that are not notable enough to have their own articles. Alf ^melmac 20:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all. nn streets. User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Coxwell, Eastern and Midland at least; these are primary thoroughfares of historical and cultural interest. For goodness' sake, give stubs a chance! Articles like this can really become something if they're not cut off at every turn by useless debate. Radagast 14:01, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, I have no problem with stubs - I've created a few myself. My nomination was based solely on the fact that I don't think these articles have the potential to be encyclopedic. Mindmatrix 14:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all. Roadcruft. --Carnildo 22:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete each individually unless something notable can be said about any particular street. Transit Road may be the worst offender and needs a quick deletion. ♠ DanMS 23:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Roadcruft if Kept Delete at least Transit Road thats roadcruft at its worst. --Aranda56 23:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• keep all roadcruft. Roodog2k (talk) 18:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Denison, Transit, and Neville Park. Abstain on the others; I'm not familiar enough with them to know if they're notable. —Psychonaut 22:50, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.