Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 September 8

< September 7	September 9 >

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!) 07:11, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Force (cereal)

Previously marked for speedy deletion. But since I do not live in England (and beware of the Goolge test), does this cereal really exist? If so, this article can be expanded. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment Not only can I guarantee that it exists (or at least still existed several years ago), we already have more information about it and its notability at Sunny Jim and associated talk page. —Blotwell 02:02, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep facts on Sunny Jim establish notability. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 02:17, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Force is a popular wheat flake cereal. I had some this morning. Delicious! --Tony Sidaway^Talk 02:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. I rewrote it. Interesting story--Force was originally produced in Buffalo but is now an almost wholly British product. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 03:01, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep Tony's interesting rewrite (but noting that it wouldn't have been a big deal if the original substub had been deleted). Tupsharru 05:57, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep notable and rewritten. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:40, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Legitimate topic, now a good article. Important in the history of dry breakfast cereals, marketing, etc. Once played in the same league as Corn Flakes, Wheaties, and Shredded Wheat. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:15, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Extremely forceful keep. Most nutritionalists agree; breakfast is the most important meal of the day. —RaD Man (talk) 04:54, 9 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!) 07:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ed, Damien, and Bottlecap

Movie set to be released in 2008. No third party references, IMDB, or Google hits. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:19, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Writer/director links to a wiki user. Astrokey44 03:48, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Painfully obvious Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball for vanity projects. Bunchofgrapes 04:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete as above. --InShaneee 07:05, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- Note also Theory of War, by the same user, which amounts to pretty much the same thing. --InShaneee 21:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity. the wub "?/!" 08:08, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Crystal ball vanity. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:41, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete oy. Wait until it is released. --NielsenGW 12:49, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity. Chick Bowen 23:58, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

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

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!) 07:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cs_deathmatch

This is a fan made map which next to no one plays. A refresh of all steam servers right now, shows zero servers playing it. There are so many "fun" servers out there, if it is a popular "fun" map like fy_iceworld, there will be a server up with it. - Hahnchen 01:20, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

weak keep. I've never played this level, but it is plausible that it is pretty popular (lots of google hits), and this is a decent article. I think the steam thing may be a red herring, because the screenshots are from classic counter-strike, and to my understanding, steam only supports CS:source. If this level is only for cs classic, then it wouldn't show up on steam. (Is this accurate?) — brighterorange (talk) 01:56, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- Comment - No, Steam supports all HL1 engine games too. It may be a well written article with accompanying screenshots, but this map is non notable. Should we have warcraft 3 custom maps on wikipedia? What about fan made single player mods for HL1? I've been playing CS for many years, and this map has never taken off. Whereas some fan made maps have definitely been popular, fy_iceworld being the first one to spring to mind, cs_deathmatch hasn't. Steam can be a bit of a red herring, for example not a single server is online right now playing de_jeepathon2k, yet that map was officially included in beta 7 (I think) and was the first map to introduce the failed idea of drivable vehicles. Cs_deathmatch though has never been popular. - Hahnchen 11:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
weak keep. fair amount of detail, seems interesting Astrokey44 03:51, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable fanmade game addon. android 79 13:49, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Delete: Wikipedia is not GameFAQs. It's a mod. That's great. Now, where are the magazine reviews of it? Where is evidence of how it changed the game? What acts of Congress/Parliament were influenced by it? The fact that it's detailed is more of a reason to delete than include, as it would be possible for any author to go into exceptional detail about her or his own fantasies or fiction. Length is not the criterion, but significance, multiple contexts, references, each of these is. Geogre 15:30, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, it's a map for a mod. Counter-Strike (the mod) is certainly notable; this map isn't. So, put me down for a delete as well. Al 18:38, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Fan-made map with little to no evidence (unverifiable?) of notability. --Icelight 15:48, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Geogre. IMO a game mod needs to acheive a high level of popularity or infamy (ala Hot Coffee) to merit its own article. CS deathmatch just doesn't fit that bill.--Isotope23 16:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete I agree with above. Dottore So 17:06, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. A fan-made addon is essentially fanfic which we do not usually retain per WP:FICT. -Splash 17:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Mods and maps of games should fall under the game article if it is that popular or even under the programmer/author if they are that popular but not have its own article --Terry 17:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Fan-made map, not notable, not encyclopedic material. --167.79.56.136 18:11, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Oops, my connection timed out. The above vote is mine. --Fang Aili 18:13, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Agree with sentiments expressed above; individual FPS game maps are not notable in and of themselves. Fernando Rizo T/C 20:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete As great as this map is, we can't go around including articles about individual levels in FPS games. Amren ^(talk) 21:00, 8 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 as nonsense vanity (requested by creator). - Mgm|^(talk) 08:45, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Richster Stites

The article Richster Stites is about a fictional character in a book that has no article of its own. The article does not name the author. The information is sparse, and written in a form not appropriate for an encyclopedia. It is created by user:156.63.100.36, who has made several changes in the Wikipedia, most of which are plainly vandalism; the remaining few are deletions of material without any edit summary (in fact, probably vandalism too). (This assessment is based on the 21 changes so far made in April.)--Niels Ø 19:03, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC) Hey, I'm sorry. I was just messing around. I understand the seriousness of this matter, and was just being immature.

 - RICH STOLTZ
  (A.K.A. Richster stites)
 P.S. Delete this article. I just invented it. SORRY!!!

This nom was malformed and never listed on a main VfD page. Fixing now. No vote. JYolkowski // talk 01:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
speedy since the original author has requested its removal (and it is nonsense). — brighterorange (talk) 02:04, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete, per ;brighterorange, and per author. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:14, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Speedy as above. the wub "?/!" 08:08, 8 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 REDIRECT to Riek Machar. — JIP | Talk 07:15, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rick Machar

Delete Who? Not notable! Next! ShureMicGuy 19:12, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Account created today, all edits are to VfD. Rick K 22:51, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
This nom was malformed and never listed on a main VfD page. Fixing now. Keep. JYolkowski // talk 01:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
keep, possible joke nomination. 02:01, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, must be a joke. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 02:19, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Keep (fixed incorrect info) Ashibaka (tock) 02:39, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Comment/Question: isn't this the same person as Riek Machar? Superficial googling suggests that it is, and in that case, one title should redirect to the other. Tupsharru 06:04, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Redirect: I guess yes, he is Tupsharru Maltesedog 15:16, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Redirect if someone can verify Rick and Riek Machar are the same person... otherwise Keep.--Isotope23 16:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep. Important. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:22, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep Marcus22 14:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep seems notable ---CH (talk) 06:35, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Redirect as per Isotope23 Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 07:44, 14 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!) 07:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gangbagin' 2005

nn/vanity album by Thugsta, also up for deletion. — brighterorange (talk) 02:01, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Marskell 08:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete although let's all consider the beauty of the article title for a moment. One wonders if he did mean to be bagging the gang, banging the gang, or "baging" them in some unknown manner. Geogre 15:31, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity. --Jacqui M Schedler 16:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete... but here's hoping he sets up his own wiki. I haven't laughed this hard since I got a death threat from Glock 3.--Isotope23 16:47, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Orange. -- MicahMN | μ 19:41, 8 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!) 07:16, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Banned stateside

Yes, it's band vanity! - Lucky 6.9 02:20, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Band vanity. Flower party 02:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Banned vanity. Also, I'm pretty sure someone else already wrote a song called "God Bless America". -- BD2412 ^talk 03:13, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, band vanity. the wub "?/!" 08:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete Man, I love the smell of band vanity in the mornin'! --NielsenGW 12:52, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. --Jacqui M Schedler 16:42, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete Dottore So 17:07, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete Anther non-notable band... Amren ^(talk) 20:58, 8 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 the rewritten article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:32, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reuben Restaurant

I can't seems to find anything on this restaurant.--Shanel 02:30, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Ditto. This is a personal essay, anyway. Delete. - Lucky 6.9 02:48, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn restaurant. the wub "?/!" 08:13, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, essay. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:46, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete memory of restaurant. --TimPope 17:38, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep nice rewrite Rx StrangeLove! --TimPope 18:00, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
weak Delete if it were a restaurant and someone were to actually do some work on it, then it would be Keep. --Terry 17:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete 69.209.215.94 18:21, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn. Everyone knows that the Reuben is in Montreal, anyhow. — mendel ☎ 18:39, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep rewritten article. — mendel ☎ 23:47, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Reminsicing about childhood. Not valuable.Kiwidude 23:54, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Is it this Reuben's? Fg2 01:36, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
- 38th and Madison isn't visible to normal mortals from the steps of the Plaza. -EDM 05:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Stop the Presses! Just for kicks, I wikified the article and discovered from doing so that this restaurant is mentioned in the Reuben sandwich article, with the statement that Arnold Reuben, owner of the now defunct Reuben Restaurant on 59th Street, is claimed by some to have been the inventor of that delicious treat. That location would certainly have been visible from the steps of the Plaza, and if the claim is true, this restaurant would unquestionably be notable. Keep, with relish. -EDM 06:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Addendum: the reference to this restaurant in the Reuben sandwich article dates from February 2005, months before this article was created, and was added by a different editor from the one who created this article, so the proof is not circular. -EDM 06:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep I toally rewrote this to reflect the Reuben sandwich claim, there's some other stuff that makes the place fairly interesting. I'd like to move it to Reuben's Restaurant and Delicatessen or Reuben's Restaurant and fix the links if this is kept. I think this is worth keeping. Rx StrangeLove 17:37, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep and move as per EDM and Rx. At first glance it looked like adspam, but the Reuben sandwich story and links found by EDM convinced me this is probably notable enough.---CH (talk) 23:05, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per Rx. I assume the admin will take the rewrite into account in weighing recent votes against earlier votes? Chick Bowen 00:06, September 13, 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DreaMP3

A page for an imaginary audio player that was DreaMed up for the purpose of an article. AlistairMcMillan 02:38, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

delete WP:NOT a crystal ball, but this article doesn't make predictions, it's just about a non-notable piece of journalism fluff. — brighterorange (talk) 03:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, but I might be persuaded to vote keep if they build one and send it to me. :) the wub "?/!" 08:17, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, you may think something up for an article on CNET, but here's it's wholly inappropriate. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:48, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable. Amren ^(talk) 20:57, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Have any of you looked at the external link on that page? Thorpe ^talk 14:16, 10 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sidney Pacific

There are MIT dorms, such as Simmons Hall, that are notable enough to merit their WP articles, mostly for architectural interest. Sadly, I don't think this is one of them. —Blotwell 02:43, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete, and round up everyone who thinks college dorm building articles are notable for a thorough talking-to. Paul 15:23, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with talking about the dorm in an NPOV manner, but at the Massachussetts Institute of Technology#Student life heading. I.e. a nice, objective discussion of the building is fine where it will be sought and where it makes sense. Since some people now think that "merge" isn't part of VfD, delete. If a friendly editor wishes to perform the merge and set up the redirect, then there would be no need to delete the redirect. Geogre 15:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn topic, like minor streets, preschools and Singapore bus stations. Dottore So 17:08, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete or merge as per Geogre's sentiment. --TimPope 17:39, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as meaningless MIT cruft. Built in 2002, I don't even need to ask if it has historical signficance. Give us break!---CH (talk) 07:37, 12 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edison Center Library

nn library Delete --Aranda56 02:46, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete nn. Marskell 13:00, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, but this and the others like it might have been combined to make an article about the full Miami-Dade library system, which may have been notable. Perhaps it was created because there's a huge list of individual libraries on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami-Dade_County,_Florida#Libraries, where a "List-of" style page would have done better. --Jacqui M Schedler 16:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn library --TimPope 17:33, 8 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. The split was between keep and merge. Note that this does not preclude anyone from being bold and merging it themselves. · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lefty/righty switch

That's some real deep strategy. Is this significant enough in baseball for an article?

Weak delete. Gazpacho 03:09, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, fairly significant concept in baseball strategy. Also, I'm not sure where this could be merged--if someone gives a good merge target, I could easily change my mind. Meelar (talk) 03:36, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, I may work on this some today if I get a chance. Obviously needs some work, but it is a real, and extremely frequently used, part of baseball strategy. Lord Bob 03:43, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Alright, I expanded the article into something I think works. I'm a little tired (and very hungry) right now, so my style probably isn't the greatest, but I think I got the core concept down into a very keepable article. Lord Bob 04:09, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Addition to my vote: rename to something useful like lefty-righty switch as suggested above. Lord Bob 17:33, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
Merge, should be merged with a baseball strategy article if/when there's a good one. But the concept is a big deal to those who follow baseball. Coll7 03:49, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep - a merge wouldn't be useful if someone wanted to link to this particular concept. Which is notable enough. Sam Vimes 07:25, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Pinch hitter. Note this only applies to the switch of batters rather than disadvantaged pitchers but the strategy is much more common in the former sense. Marskell 08:16, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep as a notable strategy ... but surely someone can come up with a better title? 23skidoo 15:17, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Merge contents into Baseball in the #Strategies section, then redirect. If no one does that, then delete. The fact is that this title is unsearchable. The strategy should be discussed (esp. since I wonder if it's even statistically valid to do that switch all the time), but where it can be read. Geogre 15:37, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep: Significant and important...207.158.1.209 15:49, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Pinch hitter or Baseball as appropriate. --Isotope23 16:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge per the above. I agree no-one would look for this independently and certainly not under this title; the info as it stands is thus orphaned. Dottore So 17:11, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Pinch hitter I think. If kept, this should be moved to a better title; slashes in titles should only be used when absolutely necessary. Perhaps a hypehn or just a space. -Splash 17:30, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep and list as a "see also" in applicable articles. --Scimitar ^parley 17:37, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge into Baseball#strategies. Valid, and significant in context of the sport, but too finely grained and lacking general significance. Barno 18:57, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but rename to lefty-righty switch (this would also be consistent with the text in the article). Mindmatrix 20:28, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, notable, important, and long enough to warrant its own article. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:28, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but rename to lefty-righty switch: significant baseball strategy. --JahJah 06:32, 9 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 (no consensus). I came to about 36 delete votes and a bit more than 20 merge or keep votes. At any rate the article, while stile a very short stub which could probably be merged somewhere unless more information is forthcoming, is not a yellow pages entry anymore. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bartlett High School, Bartlett, Illinois

Delete. Yes, I know it's about a school. This isn't an article. Listed on cleanup for two months. Nothing more than basic contact info. Same user kept posting an even more sparse entry for the school district earlier today. - Lucky 6.9 03:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Schools shouldn't get a waiver from the general consensus that 'cleanup' candidates that don't get cleaned up should be deleted. Waterguy 03:46, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Pardon me, but the understanding I had, from earlier (VfD, so the criteria may have changed under AFd) discussions, was that schools were inherently worthy of an article unless they were closed and unhistorical. Or is that only certain schools ? --Simon Cursitor 07:06, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Some people believe schools are inherently notable, but it's by no means concensus. This was offered for deletion because it was not an article but just basic contact info and on cleanup for 2 months without any improvement. Any article in such a state should be deleted regardless of whether they are about schools or not. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:57, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Hear hear! There are no blanket exceptions to the rules that govern all other articles on Wikipedia. No one has ever said that all schools are not notable, and yet some have not only said that all schools are notable (and inviolate) but that they cannot be nominated for VfD. That is absurd. In this case, a Clean-up article that didn't get cleaned up is a deletion candidate. Geogre 15:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete Nothing seems to indicate this is going to be a good article in the forseeable future. --InShaneee 07:08, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. It was a complete mess so I rewrote it as a stub. It needs a bit of work. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 08:21, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Is there anything interesting to say about this school. I'm this --> <-- close to violating WP:POINT and make a crap article about my own school. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:57, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Others have done this before. Next door, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Chase (school) the usual people went through their usual motions. Pilatus 10:37, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

What exactly do you expect us to do? ALL attempts at concensus have repeatedly broken down, no amount of my repeating "schools are inherently notable" will ever convince you that they are - I accept that. Constructive debate, discussion, suggestion and concensus building is, and long has been dead. Keep on nominating and we'll just keep on keepin' on.--Nicodemus75 11:13, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

You are right that continuing to repeat "schools are inherently notable" is completely pointless. I certainly don't believe that all schools are notable but, you know what, I also don't think all schools are non-notable. I don't think pursuing either extreme is a good idea. If I can agree that there are indeed some notable schools (this isn't one of them, by the way) why can't you agree that there are some non-notable ones? Soltak | Talk 22:32, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

This is my problem with the keep at all costs stance too. Worse they are aggressively attempting to keep elementary schools and it will only be a matter of time before day care is in there too. Why are you (Nicodemus75) so unwilling to compromise? There are other ways to do this. The use of lists comes to mind. Some of these schools have so little to write about that a list would be perfect. David D. (Talk) 13:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I appreciate the rewrite attempt, but there's no assertion of notability. There's billions of schools and this one is no different than any of the others. Notability guidelines should affect schools just like they do people. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:57, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Sorry, every sperm is not sacred. Gamaliel 09:13, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, it's a high school, Vfd is not cleanup. Kappa 10:16, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The rewritten article remains a directory entry, which like most school stubs fails to assert notability or distinctiveness. Pilatus 10:30, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep all secondary schools are inherently notable. If somebody writes a crap article about their old school then I may add a cleanup flag, but I will vote against any attempt to delete it. I admit I did create an article to illustrate a point myself once, about inclusion of minor party candidates, Anthea Irwin, but nobody has called for it to be deleted. PatGallacher 11:21, 2005 September 8 (UTC)
Delete per InShanee. Nandesuka 12:40, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. High schools are not inherently notable. android 79 12:47, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. All secondary schools are not inherently notable! On what basis? Peeper 13:09, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. -- DS1953 14:31, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Keep High School and up. At least merge content into Elgin Area District U46 on a delete vote. — RJH 14:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep per my arguments at Schools for Deletion. Gateman1997 15:16, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete: A Yellow Pages entry at this point, and this is the rewrite -- written as WP:POINT. I really wish the "OMG you deletionist trolls" ranters would consider articles one at a time, the way we're supposed to do, and not vote whole classes. Geogre 15:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- Geogre your comment about "ranters" doesn't seem very WP:CIVIL. Personally I'm glad that wikipedia considers whole clases of things like villages, universities and major league baseball players article-worthy, it helps to reduce uncertainty and wasted time on Afd. Kappa 16:01, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- Kappa, I do not find your repeated accusations against anyone who nominates a school for VfD civil or productive, so we're even. However, let's get to the fallacy of your position. In fact, all universities and towns are inherently suitable as topics for articles, but not all articles on towns or universities are valid Wikipedia entries. There is no consensus that secondary schools are in the same class as colleges and universities and towns, but the point here is that no one is voting to delete this because it's a school: people are voting delete because the article is uninformative, does not establish (bring forth/explain/celebrate) the notability that you believe is inherent in the institution. It is being voted to delete because it's not a valid article, not because it's an article on a school. Please read the nomination before you encourage people to blindly block vote. Geogre 19:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  - There is no obvious difference in article "validity" between this one and Haddersfield, Jamaica, but I'm happy to see that Haddersfield gets a nice consensus keep with no fuss. Kappa 15:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand significantly 207.158.1.209 15:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC) Note: This anon user has less than 25 edits at this time.
Delete currently a sub-stub, adn in no way establishes notablity. Schools are no more exempt for the general requirement of notability than is any other topic, and this one does not seem to make the cut. DES ^(talk) 15:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as nothing more than contact info. If someone actually knows about the school, they can feel free to write a real article at some later time. As Kappa mentioned (if for a different reason), AfD isn't cleanup. If that failed, which it did, then it should be deleted. --Icelight 15:58, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
- The article no longer contains contact info. Kappa 16:02, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
delete or merge into Bartlett, Illinois --TimPope 16:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- I don't accept the argument that a school is notable in and of itself. Unless someone can establish something about this school that merits it having it's own article, this should go. Of course I'd support an inclusion of the stub info in the article on Bartlett, Illinois.--Isotope23 17:01, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep Clearly a notable subject. We will get a better article sooner by keeping than by deleting. CalJW 17:04, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- Just what about the subject, beyond "it's a school" makes it "clearly notable"? I, as many others here, do not accept that a school (or any other institution) is ipso facto notable. There must be specific facts which establish notability. I see none here. DES ^(talk) 19:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete like most schools, nn. Dottore So 17:12, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete If the only way to get people to improve crappy little school substubs is to nominate them at AFD, then that's what has to be done. If a few of them actually get deleted, then maybe the people who create crappy little school substubs will spend the extra time that it takes to write a real article on the school so they don't end up wasting everybody's time in an AFD discussion. BlankVerse ∅ 17:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand --Terry 17:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete waste of bytes. Dunc|☺ 18:16, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand would better serve the interests of our visitors. Silensor 18:23, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. nn. --Fang Aili 18:28, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Another non-notable school stub. Cmadler 18:39, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Stong Keep and Expand for the same reasons Glenbrook South High School and New Trier High School exist.Larsoner 18:51, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. If most of the article text comes from the "wikiproject schools" tag, then clearly there's not much to say about the subject. --Carnildo 18:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. Jonathunder 19:01, 2005 September 8 (UTC)
Delete. I might as well get my hands bloody, too. Schools are not inherently notable and WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Fernando Rizo T/C 20:49, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, verifiable NPOV information. gren GuReN6 21:25, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep as usual. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:34, 2005 September 8 (UTC)
Merge with Elgin Area District U46 or Bartlett,Illinois, since this has absolutely no relevence whatsoever outside of its particular geographical locality, and there's no point making users click five different pages to get info that could more usefully be contained in one. Not that there is much information here, and no reams of blithering about school mottos, sports teams, school ethos, c-list local celebrities who happened to go to the school etc. etc. are not going to help. Average Earthman 21:56, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
keep please as usual these schools are important even inherently Yuckfoo 22:15, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per User:Soltak/Views#Schools and previous arguments to delete Soltak | Talk 22:28, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It is difficult to achieve notability in eight years, and the fact that no one is able and willing to expand the article proves so. Owen× ☎ 22:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- Um, isn't that an argument for leaving it around for a few decades to mellow? We've got a perfectly good stub here. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 01:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
- To expand this, a look at Special:Newpages shows that since the start of the month some 120, ONE-HUNDRED-AND-TWENTY new school articles have been created. Many of them are very brief stubs similar to the one we have at this article now. Only the most obviously silly ones get speedied--articles created to attack, those giving no context, and so on. Over the past six months, only about 280 articles have been listed for deletion. Of this small number, only a tiny proportion--currently around 40, have been deleted. A few more articles are deleted because they're copyright violations. Just deleting school articles isn't a realistic method of dealing with perceived systemic problems with Wikipedia, such as the belief that there are too many articles about non-notable schools, too many school stubs (or substubs, if you prefer), or too many articles that fail to provide us with an interesting read. The rate of creation and retention of school articles has far outstripped the rate at which this growth can be controlled simply by deleting them. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 02:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  - A school can achieve notability by producing notable alumni, introducing a novel program, or being involved in a major historical or newsworthy event. The oldest Bartlett High School grads are all under 25 years old, and--as far as we know--none of them are notable. No school program is mentioned in the article, and no link to a news event is provided. Under these conditions, I don't think we should just let it sit for "a few decades" until it becomes notable. Owen× ☎ 04:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  - As I've just demonstrated, it's no longer possible to restrict school articles to "notable" schools. In the past eight months AfD has deleted only around 40 school articles, and in the past eight days the new content of Wikipedia has increased (after discounting speedy deletions) by a total of 120 school articles. Copyvio deletions also account for a small number of deletions, but after all that it appears to me that the current rate of growth of school articles on Wikipedia exceeds many times over the rate at which they're deleted.
  - Even if we all agreed, every one of us, that non-notability of schools was a good reason for deleting the articles, we'd have to delete about 15 school articles every day just to keep up with the rate of creation. In the current circumstances, where it's actually quite rare for a school listed on AfD actually to be deleted, this just isn't going to happen. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 05:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
    - You are right, the current school AfD mechanism is doomed. I propose a new Speedy Deletion category: {{nn-school}}. Any school not meeting the notability criteria described above should be speedy-deleted. Owen× ☎ 05:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
    - Well look at it this way: if we can't get consensus to delete more than three or four school articles a month, we're not likely to arrive at consensus on a speedy policy for school articles. However desirable you may feel it would be, it's an unattainable goal in the present climate of opinion on school articles. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 06:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  - Worst rational ever. So now the argument to keep schools is that they are being created faster than they can be deleted? Surely you can come up with something stronger than that to excuse the special pleading they enjoy?
    brenneman ^(t)^(c) 06:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  - Read it again. Far from a rationale, it's an analysis that shows that school articles cannot be controlled by AfD. Your energies are thus misspent. Also I notice that you again raise the false claim that schools are given special treatment on AfD. They are not. They are listed in precisely the same manner as other articles and editors are permitted to state their opinion on whether the articles are to be deleted, and finally a sysop comes a long, determines whether there is a consensus, and closes the debate. The article is then deleted if there is a consensus to delete it. AfD debates almost invariably result in the school article being kept, especially if the article is about a high school. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 13:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge unless expanded. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:30, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete Unless this school has historical or social signifigance, it should be delted.Kiwidude 00:13, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Why? We are assembling the sum of all human knowledge. What irony that some seek to exclude places that impart that very same knowledge to children! Keep all schools, which are central parts of their communities (yes, keep Wal-Marts too if you think they are equally central) and of enormous importance to the societies that produced us all, even those who feel they are not important enough for this work. It's absolutely preposterous that we have rancid, poorly put together articles about towns with no inhabitants but ought not include articles on schools that educate thsouands of children.Grace Note 02:26, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: I don't usually get sensitive about comments that probably aren't directed toward me...but I have written an article about a town with no inhabitants, namely Rice, California. I don't consider that particular article to be either rancid or poorly put together. This article was nominated solely on the fact that it started out as an article completely lacking content, one that sat on cleanup for two months. Just my two cents to state that an article about a town with no inhabitants can be encyclopedic. - Lucky 6.9 03:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  - My apologies. That certainly wasn't aimed at your article. I meant those godawful Rambot things. As it happens, I believe towns with no inhabitants have a place in Wikipedia. My argument is not that they should go, but that schools should say. Grace Note 06:02, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, all high schools are significantly notable and should be documented, just as we cover towns and cities of all shapes and sizes, not to mention battleships. —RaD Man (talk) 02:05, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. Barring that, Merge. Please see Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Cory Elementary School for discussion of the value of merging. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 02:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The article as written is not notable. Vegaswikian 05:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Comment High school blah blah blah big blah blah no information blah blah blah has students blah blah rancid blah blah blah important to someone sometime blah blah blah kilobytes of discussion space squishing the poor article beneath it like a Kliban cartoon blah blah yawnnnn -EDM 05:24, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

It must be truly terrible to be forced to read this. Grace Note 06:21, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, has been rewritten so it is no longer just contact info. Hopefully Wikiproject Schools can expand it. the wub "?/!" 07:59, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Is this an article about four walls and a roof that houses students and teachers together for educational purposes? KEEP --Nicodemus75 10:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete for reasons already listed. --Idont Havaname 14:25, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete: pointless. CDThieme 03:03, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete pointless, non notable G Clark 03:07, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, relevant for education in Bartlett. --Vsion 04:43, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, verifiable high school. JYolkowski // talk 13:46, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. High schools are notable, 2900 is alot of kids in one school, more then some colleges Guerberj 19:08, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, decent stub. - SimonP 23:54, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as nonnotable. What is the point? Really, I don't get it, and I can't find an "executive summary" explanation of the rationale on the user pages of the users who seem to vote to keep these, like Tony Sidaway.---CH (talk) 00:10, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
- You want an executive summary?
- 1) some people find the proposition that a high school is not notable every bit as baffling as you appear to find the proposition that it is
- 2) these articles are battle-tested. 269 nominations processed to day since January 1, 2005. 37 deletions. Deletion rate less than 15% of those nominated. Meanwhile I can tell you as a fact that 158 school articles were created on Wikipedia in the seven days from September 5th to September 11th. That is more than four times, in one week, the number of articles, articles created, that AfD has deleted in eight months.
- You may think there is a problem. Clearly listing perfectly good articles for deletion on grounds like "not notable" is not the solution, because school articles are being created at such a vastly greater rate than they can be deleted. Notability cannot be anything but an excuse for deletion. All you're doing is venting your anger at the fact that there will always exist articles on Wikipedia that you cannot control. AfD is not a quality control tool, it cannot possibly perform that task. Only editors can do that. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 23:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  - Attempts to mischaracterize editors who vote delete as "angry" and arguments about the rate at which school articles are created/and or deleted fail utterly to address the actual question: why are schools not held to the same criteria as every other article? - brenneman^(t)^(c) 00:01, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
    - My response to this is: clearly they are being held to the same standard and passing the test with flying colors, and what other word do you use for the mood of someone who continues to complain that there is a problem with schools when Wikipedia tells him loud and clear, over a period of some months, that there is not? Fact: several times more school articles will be created by the end of this month than have been listed for deletion during the eight months January to August of this year. If you think that is a problem, AfD cannot solve it. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 01:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  - Tony while schoolwatch has been very effective at preventing school article deletions, and to your credit, doing a lot of good work trying to improve those articles who will be improving the 158 that got written last week? Are these articles all a couple of lines or are some actually informative? I don't think the fact that people start these article en mass is an indication that they are useful articles' it's more of an indication that they don't have any other useful articles to contribute. If they cared they would do a good job. The strongest argument I have seen for schools, to date, is that it helps wikipedians learn to be productive. School articles are like a 'live' sandbox for developing skills and knowledge about wikipedia itself. I will support that argument. But to say these articles are useful just seems silly. There are much better resources online for this type of information. More to the point such databases do not get vandalised. How often are school articles vandalised and no ones notices? Would anyone even question if I changed stats in a school article. Say '73% of students passed' vandalised to '63% of students passed' a particular assessment exam? It would make a huge difference to prosepective students or parents and worse, when noticed, will reinforce the idea that wikipedia itself is an unreliable source for information. That's not a reputation wikipedia wants to cultivate in my opinon. David D. (Talk) 00:06, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
    - What an awful straw man this is. Delete articles because they are subject to vandalism? Are you even remotely serious in proposing that because an article might be a target for vandalism that it ought to be deleted? I have read some whoppers in these debates, but this is the single-most absurd proposition I have yet encountered from those that want to delete or otherwise remove school articles. I am so flabbergasted at this argument that I am not even sure I should bother with a detailed refutation of why this argument is such patent nonsense. If proclivity to vandalism is a valid critera for article deletion, any controversial topic on Wikipedia should be deleted for fear that it might be vandalized. This argument simply leaves in me in shock (I thought I had heard it all). --Nicodemus75 00:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
      - Not sure where you got that straw man from? The argument is not that they are prone to vandalism. The argument is that that there is a high chance the vandalism will go unnoticed and remain to be confused as fact. High profile articles are always on many watchlists and get reverted almost immediately, you knew that of course. David D. (Talk) 01:31, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
        
        Here is an [example] of blatant vandalism that lasted for six days. Do you think anyone would have noticed somthing more subtle? David D. (Talk) 02:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  - David, if Schoolwatch hadn't bothered to lift a finger these articles would exist. The claim that they're all or even mostly one or two-liners is a canard--I even believed it myself until a few months ago I sat down and watched the creation of some school articles, as they happened, on Special:Newpages, and now you can look at my Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/New and check them for yourselves. Some of the best articles on Wikipedia are articles about schools.
    - Tony how can my question Are these articles all a couple of lines or are some actually informative? be misconstrued as an assertion? If you don't want to seriously discuss this issue then fine, it's not my problem if you assume that all users who vote delete are against you. That seems to be the way you all parse questions and comments. David D. (Talk) 01:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
      - By the way I looked at the links you mentioned in Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/New here are the ones listed for Sept 9th:

Hereford Sixth Form College eight lines and list of the curriculum
Slemish college two lines
Ho Lap College data in a table (list material)
San Antonio Independent School District five lines including one of 15 school districts,including Edison High School, (which rocks!!!)
Greenwich Country Day School four lines
Gordano School three lines
Cornwallis Junior High School one line
Nailsea Comprehensive School six lines
Elgin Area School District U46 list of red links including Bartlett High School, would have been better to just have Bartlett's info in a table format (all three lines of it). Within this list the link to Bartlett High needs to be updated to point to the correct page rather than the disambiguation page.
Caringbah Selective High School six pages
Yishun Town Secondary School this one is not too bad.
Frank W. Cox High School this one is not too bad.
International School of Kuala Lumpur seven lines
Manila Waldorf School one line phone book entry
Coyle and Cassidy High School this is much better

So some of these look pretty good (3 possibly 4 out of 15) but many are in very poor shape. David D. (Talk) 02:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

You're making a compelling argument for putting those articles on your watchlist and helping maintain them, but none at all for deleting them. If you think an article needs nurturing, surely the answer is to nurture it, not kill it! Grace Note 05:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with that but I can't watch all the schools. Also my argument would not be deletion but to maintain the two liner schools in lists with their peer local schools. At least then we get some context. Even if i have them on my watchlist it does not mean I will see a vandals edit, especially if I'm away for a while. Each school needs many people to watch. My sense is there are not many who do it; I could be wrong. Also it would not be my first choice to monitor school articles, I'd rather spend my time trying to catch the misinformed edits in the science pages, as well as improving the pages that need work. I'm happy to help with schools and I'm willing to hear the arguments but knee jerk 'keep' does not seem to be a wise use of limited resources (I know, wiki is not paper, but every page needs user hours and those ARE limited). David D. (Talk) 06:00, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the problem you're having is in your assumption that you must take personal responsibility for the whole encyclopaedia and that it somehow reflects on you if you do not. But you don't. It's a wiki. Suggest a project, why not? Perhaps one of the more geeky types would make us a program that showed only school articles that changed, if we were to feed them in. Does Crypto whatsit's thing do that? Although I don't agree that vandalism of school pages is any more a problem than vandalism of other pages (a bewildering variety do get vandalised, usually in a very noticeable way that is caught by RC fiends -- I catch plenty when I'm in the mood), it's no solution to suggest they should not be allowed. Grace Note 05:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I take no responsibility but i know from experience that these school articles will not get attention from the number of eyes that look out for other articles. Subtle vandalism is hard to keep track of and when left unedited means the ....i'm repeating myself nevermind. David D. (Talk) 08:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

- - Vandalism is always visible in the history,even if you don't catch it at the time. Remember that our articles are only supposed to contain verifiable references, so if you encounter a figure that isn't referenced, delete the figure from the article. This is a Wiki, after all. On spotting edits to school articles, it's easy to do this by making a list of school articles and then linking to the "related changes" special page. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 08:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  - I agree with Nicodemus, and I think most editors would, that the "vandalism" argument is unworthy of a response. Oh let's just delete the whole encyclopedia in case somebody vandalizes it. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 01:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
    - - The argument is that that there is a high chance the vandalism will go unnoticed and remain to be confused as fact. David D. (Talk) 02:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
        
        This is almost as absurd as the proposition in the first place. So now the argument is if an article might have what you subjectively have defined for us as a "high chance" of vandalism that goes unnoticed, an article should be deleted??? Quit while you are behind. --Nicodemus75 03:18, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
        
        So misinformation is a good thing? Especially when the same data is easily available at other sites? Almost every one of the articles up for deletion have nothing that is not availabale in the public databases. Have any well written and researched school article ever being put up for deletion? If not then there is no conspiracy against schools as you seem to think. I still see no reason why this types of information (the two liners) is not formatted as a list? David D. (Talk) 03:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
        
        Good Lord, David. So now, the criteria for deletion is "the information is available elsewhere"????? I should have just stuck to my guns on your original proposition and not bothered responding. I am definitely done with these "canards"(word of the day thanks to Aaron). (and here I have actually been working on formulating a cogent argument page just for you because of your requests elsewhere - what a waste)--Nicodemus75 03:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
        
        Well I'd still be interested to see what you have to say. I appreciate you addressing the questions I thought they had been lost in the previous argument. Look, don't see everyone as you enemy. I don't see why these things can't be discussed. Are you trying to win people to support your efforts or not? Ignoring legitimate questions (I hear you laugh) are not going to win you supporters. David D. (Talk) 03:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
    - Please respond to the actual argument, as opposed to just picking out one tiny bit and focusing only on that. The two unanswered questions are: why are schools judged differently, and why encourage creation of lots of substub articles?
      brenneman^(t)^(c) 01:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
      - Actually you are not the person to tell somebody what they are to focus on. We're supposed to make our own minds up about it. Sorry about that. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 01:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
      - I did say "please". And if you choose not to offer actual arguments as opposed to this "vandalism" canard, that's up to you.
        brenneman ^(t)^(c) 01:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
      - Agree with Tony about your attempts to have us focus on what you would like us to focus on, "please" or "pretty please" "or sugar on top" or otherwise. However Aaron, to answer your frequently-answered questions (*cough* talk about "canards" *cough*) yet again. A) School articles are not judged any differently from other articles such as towns, cities, battleships, crusiers, destroyers, submarines, firearms, television shows, movies, religious denominations, video games, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. What you and other deletionists want, is to hold schools to the same policy standards as vanity pages about non-notable PEOPLE (which do not constitute all other articles). B)Insofar as creation of stub articles is "encouraged" (*cough* canard *cough*), it is for the same reason that stubs of all other types are created and "encouraged" such as stubs for towns, cities, battleships, crusiers, destroyers, submarines, firearms, television shows, movies, religious denominations, video games, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. To be filled in at a later date, not to be AfD nominated within 3 days of their creation. --Nicodemus75 03:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
        
        You agree that it's fine to simply ignore a question you don't like?
        
        A little bit more civility would not go astray.
        
        Please do not resort to personal attacks such as "deletionist".
        
        See above for why the oft-repeated "let them grow" argument is fallacious.

brenneman ^(t)^(c) 06:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Now calling someone a "deletionist" is a "personal attack"?? I am done with you Aaron, hopefully Tony is too. Go ride a bicycle.--Nicodemus75 10:38, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree that it would be sad if the idea that terms deletionist and inclusionist are mere insults were to gain a hold. They're very useful terms and, I think, do much to illustrate the extreme divide in viewpoints that exists here. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 13:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, and nigger is a useful term for clarifying race. Heck, they even call each other that! (Please note that was sarcasm.) Here it is plain and simple: Don't call me a deletionist. Ever. I'd remind you, Tony, that you recently supported a block of someone for calling another editor by their name. Labels only serve to polarize debate, raise tensions, and give excuses to ignore valid points. What happened to "Argue the content, not the contributor?" I'm suprised - are you supporting the egregious incivility Nicodemus75 has delivered above?
  brenneman ^(t)^(c) 23:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Your User Name is "Aaron Brenneman", if you don't like it - change it. Deletionist. --Nicodemus75 01:16, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

If you gents insist on carrying on this quarrel, may I request that you do it on someone's talk page? This AfD is monstrous enough as it is and woe to the poor admin who has to close it. Fernando Rizo T/C 23:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- Good advice, but this user has indicated they will not respond on talk pages. In the unlikely event I wasn't clear, it's not my name I object to. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 01:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

- I hearby without prevarication apologise for the above statement. It is clear that the irony/sarcasm intended did not come across. I was completely unaware of the cultural and/or racial backgrounds of those involved, and do not know how I could have been otherwise. I was, and still am, deeply offended by being labled, and am suprised that N75's attacks appear to have passed so seamlessly. But to have unintentionally given insult aids nothing, and I again apologise.
  brenneman^(t)^(c) 06:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  - To whomever is sending me e-mails. I'll include those lynching photos with goats.exc in my "list of things I wish I'd never seen". As you took the time to find my e-mail address, create a new hotmail account, collect those photos, and send them to me, I hope you'll take the time time to read this.
  - My comment was not intended to be taken as a racist comment. It was a parody of Tony's suggestion that I should not be hurt or offended because there existed a group for whom this label was self-applied.
  - I did, and still do, believe that anyone who read my comments without prejudice will see that. However, I understand that I have caused hurt with my comments. I deeply regret this, and do wish I had chosen my words more carefully.
  - While attacks against me as a "deletionist" are hurtful, they do at least have some basis in reality. I do vote delete more than keep. That is no excuse, however, for those who would dismiss myself (and others) as "deletionists". I am more complex than that.
  - Attacks against me as a racist, however, are completely misguided. Please feel free to examine my contributions, as I can offer no further evidence to the contrary.

brenneman ^(t)^(c) 00:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep There are more than enough good faith contributors who believe schools are inherently notable to support the articles, and continuous attempts to delete this subset of Wikipedia will only cause bad feelings between them and those they disagree with. It's far from obvious that one side or the other is right, so why not play "live and let live" rather than "forging a stronger enemy" by constantly beating on them? Un focused 02:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete Remember when notability meant something? Paul 06:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

No, actually. I've always found it almost entirely meaningless. What meaning it does have seems to be "I don't think it's important myself". If you have another meaning in mind, perhaps you'd share it and explain what difference it would make in an encyclopaedia that includes the "sum of human knowledge". Grace Note 07:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... what about this that says it does matter how many people think/know/care about a subject?
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 07:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Please do read it and you'll find that it's about what views people have on a subject, in the context of whether to include minority views. It has nothing to say on whether an article should or should not exist in an encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 08:06, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Ummm... are you asserting that that link does not say the number of people who hold a particular view is important to deciding if something belongs in Wikipedia? Really?
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 08:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

It says that the number of people who hold a view is material when deciding whether that viewpoint should be represented when writing a neutral article. For instance one wouldn't need to represent the flat earth viewpoint in an article on the curvature of the earth. But you seem to be mistaking it for a statement about whether the number of people interested in a subject is material when deciding whether an article should be included in an encyclopedia. That's a different argument. You may well be able to make a case and I may well be persuaded by it, but citing the neutrality guideline isn't going to persuade me because it obviously doesn't say what you think it says. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 08:23, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Please re-read my comments. You don't know what I think, only what I've typed. What I've typed was very carefully limited in scope. If it wasn't clear (and in the context of this discussion it may not have been) I apologise.
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 23:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I'll play. Since, as you correctly note, we can't read your thoughts but only your typing, you're going to have to type why you think that applies here. Even if we had a similar policy for articles, it would amount to "write little about things of little interest and a lot about things of great interest", which is certainly not what you're arguing and would not be as compelling an argument for deletion as it is for pruning rubbish articles. If only you deletionists would do more of that and less of trying to prune the whole work! Grace Note 05:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete of no intereest to anyone outside Bartlett --redstucco 10:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Comment: I've started a new Project sub-page to summarize one of the points raised in this discussion: ~~Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Sidaway ratio~~. Since the debate here is no longer about Bartlett High School specifically, maybe we should move our discussion to the Talk page. If this is redundant, I'll remove the new page. Owen× ☎ 16:22, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- "Not ready for prime time" apparently [1] Kappa
- Yeah, sorry about that. Owen gave me the option of deleting and I thought this was better all round. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 17:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. I can get all this information from Google, so why replicate it here ? WMMartin 21:01, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- Because that's what encyclopedias do. They collect public information into a single article. Should we delete all the Hollywood actor, director and writer articles? That information is all available elsewhere. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 07:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. All verifiable permanent public institutions are notable by definition. As the first attempt at creating an encyclopedia that is actually properly encyclopedic, Wikipedia can and should have articles on every school in the world. --Centauri 03:11, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep obviously Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 07:36, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I think you should state why you think it's obvious, Ryan. Grace Note 00:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Basically, it's a decent stub and all schools such as this are "notable" (as per Centauri). Sorry for the obnoxiousness :). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 00:06, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's a heated issue. Thanks for giving your reasoning. I think it really does behoove us all to try to remember this is meant to be a civilised discussion. (I await with bated breath the guy who posts some diff from a few months ago when I wasn't civil -- hey, no one's perfect!) Grace Note 01:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, obviously. WP:POINT. Ambi 11:51, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's new! Would you mind explaining? It clearly isn't "obvious" that it requires deleting, and it's less than obvious why that particular policy applies. Grace Note 00:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, School.BillyCreamCorn 23:50, 14 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!) 07:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Omeljaniuk

Vanity page; check what links here for vandalism references but Computer and Video Games is one I'm about to revert. Coll7 03:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Check his contributions -- When I dug deeper I found various vandalism posts, may be hassling Sasquatch for having reverted him. Coll7 04:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Ashish Vyas is another vanity/vandalism article from the same URL. OK, I think I've summed it up! Coll7 04:33, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

No way! Robert Omeljaniuk is an important man in our time and place! I dont' know about Ashish Vyas or Sasquatch but let RO's entry flourish into what it should and will be. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.113.154.197 (talk • contribs) 02:14, September 8, 2005.

The comments by this anon appear consistent with the possibility that this is some kind of troll.---CH (talk) 06:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Delete under new criteria, no assertion of notability made. --InShaneee 07:09, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Robert's Credentials

Teaching Assistant [[2]]
Professor [[3]] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.155.226.2 (talk • contribs) 11:10, September 8, 2005.

That professor is clearly a completely different person to the teaching assistant - they just happen to have the same name. So I don't trust your research whatsoever. Average Earthman 21:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Looks to me like someone is very clumsily trolling us Wikipedians.---CH (talk) 06:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. This article makes some claims which, if true, would be reasons for notability, so IMO CSD A7 (nn-bios) does not apply. Specifically inventing the concept of a "back end" would be highly notable. However i don't belive those claims, and without them this is a clearly non-notable person. Might be subject to a speedy as vandalism, but I would prefer not to go there. DES ^(talk) 15:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Strong Deleteor Speedy if possible as complete nonsense... though I do like how the Author has stated credentials here as a TA of Psychology at Colombia and a Professorship of Biology at Lakehead... pretty good for someone who claims to be a DB pioneer.--Isotope23 17:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

This entry shouldn't be deleted. No no no. I happen to know for a fact that Robert Omeljaniuk of Hoboken, NJ was a PIONEER in the field of large-scale litigation database maintenance, design, and support. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.18.0.210 (talk • contribs) 12:01, September 8, 2005.

I for one am rapidly concluding that you, anon, are a troll.---CH (talk) 06:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete - vanity - Tεx τ urε 21:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Overblown hyperbole with no citations or evidence to back up the claims. Average Earthman 21:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete Ho hum.... Marcus22 14:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete nn vanity resume cruft, plus nonverifiable, possible hoax, plus suggestions of trolling ---CH (talk) 06:37, 12 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. There is a 2/3 majority for delete votes, but the keep voters (particularly User:Linkspro and User:Arnivan) have a good argument, and "Seth Schoen" does get 49 600 Google hits. — JIP | Talk 07:23, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Seth Schoen

is simply a vanity page about an inconsequential person 66.130.46.176 01:06, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Completing misplaced nomination. No vote. Waterguy 03:46, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I just discovered that "Californians for Academic Freedom" only gets 19 displayed hits, and their website http://www.loyalty.org/ has no content, so notability seems pretty iffy. Waterguy 03:51, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete I appreciate that he works for the EFF, but he doesn't even claim to be notable within their ranks. Vanity. --InShaneee 07:11, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete and should be considered for speedy delete. PatGallacher 11:25, 2005 September 8 (UTC)
Speedy delete under WP:CSD A7, and so tagged.DES ^(talk) 15:47, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
A very inappropriate speedy candidate, as there are multiple assertions of notability. The only time you should use speedy A7 is if there is no assertion of notability ("Jim is a man he lives in Cupcake he is an insurance agent."). Here, for example, he is asserted to be the founder of a non-trivial group, etc. etc.. That said, let's examine the claims to notability: apart from some boosterism about how he was a copyright expert in high school, the main one is that he founded "CfAF", but that group is, as he admits elsewhere on the web: "www.loyalty.org itself is the web site for Californians for Academic Freedom, a hypothetical group of California loyalty oath opponents" [4]. So much for that. Beyond that, he is the author of the "DeCSS haiku", which is amusing, but does not exactly make him notable. Ergo, delete, wish him luck. (We could do with a wikipedia article on the weird loyalty oath, though.) Sdedeo 17:51, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- I disagree. He is said to have founde a group. There is no indication that the gorup is "non-trivial". To my mind, a statement is not a "claim of notability" under A7 unless the claim would, if true, indicatate notability to some significant minority of likely editors discussing the issue on AfD. A mere adjective ("famous", "notable", etc) is not a claim. A statement that a person "founded a group" with no suggestion that the group is itself notable in any way, or indeed is more than a one-person group is not a claim. this is a perfect A7 speedy, IMO. DES ^(talk) 19:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  - The text of the A7 says "An article about a real person that does not assert that person's importance or significance. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to VFD instead." In general, it is best to use speedy deletes only for 100% non-controversial cases where notability is not asserted, but I certaintly don't want to get into a revert war (or legalistic debate over the A7!) over this. Sdedeo 20:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn. --Fang Aili 18:32, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, ditto Larsoner 19:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete. It is quite apparent that editors have differing standards when it comes to interpreting "assertion of notability." My own are very conservative. In this case, however, reading the page line by line looking for candidate assertions of notability, I found none; I agree with David that this is an A7.—encephalon έγκέφαλος 21:30:45, 2005-09-08 (UTC)
Delete Not a speedy, but kill it with fire anyway --Ryan Delaney ^talk 23:09, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep - Sure sounds verifiable to me. And, this is not a CSD, as per Sdedeo. I just removed the speedy tag from the image on it also. "See Seth Schoen" is not a criterion for speedy deletion that I have ever heard of. --Phroziac ^(talk) 02:14, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Marcus22 14:49, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn vanity Speaking as a linux user and Open Source proponent (more of the pragmatic than the fanatical variety), working for EEF does not make one notable.---CH (talk) 07:24, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep To clarify, the position of Staff Technologist was created for him personally, in order to "help other technologists understand the civil liberties implications of their work, EFF staff better understand the underlying technology related to EFF's legal work, and the public understand what the technology products they use really do."[5] I read comments here that assume he wrote his Wikipedia article himself, but user:Schoen didn't contribute to it at all. Linkspro 15:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep even has a picture. May be vanity.... but why not keep? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 07:52, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Abstain For the record, I did not write this article about myself. --Schoen 06:05, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The authorship and author of the DeCSS haiku is notable (WSJ article, inclusion in Illegal Art collection, mention in Dan Gillmor's book, Boing Boing, Slashdot) Anirvan 01:33, 17 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, A7. Martin 09:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rebecca Mok

Non-notable person. Bunchofgrapes 04:16, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete, no attempt to establish notability made. --InShaneee 07:11, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete and consider for speedy delete. PatGallacher 11:28, 2005 September 8 (UTC)
Speedy delete under WP:CSD A7, and so tagged. DES ^(talk) 15:44, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete as per WP:CSD A7. Hall Monitor 18:15, 8 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 KEEP. Paul August ☎ 22:33, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of angels in Enochian, moved to Enochian angels

I believe this qualifies as a Completely Idiosyncratic Non-Topic, as referenced in the deletion policy, which stipulates such entries be deleted. Also, I believed that its presence is in violation of the combined spirit of two sections of WP:NOT, "Not a dictionary" and "Not a phone book". Both apply loosely, but the general idea that lists of individually unimportant topics or topics incapable of being the basis for an article do not become keepworthy articles by dint of collecting lots of unacceptable tidbits together. The Literate Engineer 04:20, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment Enochian isn't obscure at all. This is an excerpt from an Enochian dictionary, and original source material belongs elsewhere. Pilatus 14:25, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: I don't know enough about Enochian, is this an excerpt from a dictionary, or is it a list of angel names in the Enochian language, or is it a list of angels that Dee invented/surmised/(appropriate verb here)? Crypticfirefly 03:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, gobbledygook. Nandesuka 04:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
~~Weak Delete~~ It isn't exactly a "completely idiosyncratic non-topic" but it doesn't add up to an article either. If it were an article about these Enochian angels as well as including this (distressingly lengthy) list, I'd be more in favor of it. Crypticfirefly 04:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC) I should explain, if this were presented in a way that would make it more clear that it is a mythology-type entry, it's usefulness would be more obvious. Crypticfirefly 03:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep and move to Enochian Angels. 04:13, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This is crufty, but it is 16th century cruft that somebody has found interesting enough to compile more than 400 years later, which - as I see it - makes it more notable than all the Buffycruft and Pokemoncruft we have and which is not unlikely to be forgotten much sooner than that. Tupsharru 06:23, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I admit that my nomination suggests the cruftiness is the big problem. And that does contribute to my desire to delete this. But what justifies deletion to me more is that the entry doesn't say anything substantial about that cruft. And if by dint of being 400 years old but still getting slipped in here it's notable, doesn't it still need to be deleted because as a list it belongs at Wikisource and not on Wikipedia? The Literate Engineer 06:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Concur with Tupsharru -- where else would you look to find this information? Or, quantitatively, how many of the angels would you want expanded upon, and how long an "article about these Enochian angels" would you want, to "justify" inclusion ? --Simon Cursitor 07:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- I'd like a short explanation of what significance they supposedly held to Dee & Kelley. Were these angels they spoke to? Angels other angels told them about? Did they publish a list like this or was it compiled by others from their work? Also, based on the Enochian article, it looks like this isn't exactly a "list of angels in Enochian" in the sense of the constructed language. That's probably why some folks think this is a dictionary entry. It might be better titled "Enochian Angels." Crypticfirefly 03:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki to Wikisource. There is a place for lists like this, and that is it. MCB 07:39, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. A list of names is not notable even if they are in a 16th century conlang. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:00, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki per User:MCB Pilatus 10:22, 8 September 2005 (UTC) Keep after rewrite. Nice work! The list of names should go to Wikisource, though. Pilatus 16:24, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
keep, lists of minor fictional characters. Kappa 10:28, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete Enochian is a pretty obscure subject anyway, this is going a bit far, not notable. PatGallacher 11:34, 2005 September 8 (UTC)
~~Reserved~~. I remember reading "Enochian Physics" sometime back, it is an intersting attempt to attribute archetypal (sp?) values to "Magick", not unlike Aleister Crowley's works on the "harmonisation" of the old Tarot. This list, however, needs checking. I will take the book of the shelf when I get home and have a look: if it's not too far out, I will do some work on it Alf ^melmac 13:31, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Aha - my book is "Enochian Physics - The Structure of the Magical Universe" by Gerald J Schueler. He does mention the four hierachs of each Watchtower (Kings) which match the ones given in the list (minor spelling differences apart), but unfortunately doesn't list the angels. If it helps though, we could add: "Each Watchtower is divided into six subhierachies. The hierarch of each of these is called a Senior. Each of the four Watchtowers is also divided into four subquadrants whose hierarchies are called Archangels. These are further divided up into smaller hierarchies whose rulers are called Angels. In this way, the entire universe, visible and invisible, is teeming with beings in varying states of self-consciousness". We could also add the eleven rules of hierachies if that might improve it beyond being a mere list. Alf ^melmac 19:15, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I say add it and let's take a look, Alf. The Literate Engineer 00:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Tis done (and after the rewrite, I assure you my head hurts more than yours does now), The article is now a brief explanation and the list. I say Keep and rename to Enochian Angels - so mote it be! Alf ^melmac 15:38, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Nice job, but I'd like it better if we removed the list. Still, if it can be renamed, I'm leaning toward Keep now. DenisMoskowitz 18:11, 2005 September 9 (UTC)

Delete It's a list of unencyclopedic items. DenisMoskowitz 16:06, 2005 September 8 (UTC)
Keep It is an actual article now, and should be moved to Enochian Angels. DenisMoskowitz 18:11, 2005 September 9 (UTC)

Keep. Dee & Kelley's forays into the occult are certainly noteworthy; this is an offshoot that merits inclusion. Can anyone actually verify this? I didn't realise that Dee & Kelley had that much time on their hands. Dottore So 17:17, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, or transwiki... I think this will still be remembered when Ray Nagin is rotting and forgotten... gren グレン 21:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki to Wikisource. Tonywalton | Talk 10:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Comment The page has been moved to Enochian angels. Hope there are no broken links. Pilatus 16:34, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep at Enochian angels; article is more than just a list. -Sean Curtin 19:28, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per Tupsharru. Nabla 19:47:16, 2005-09-11 (UTC)
Comment this list presently reads as absolute nonsense, so if kept it must be provided with context. I'd say you should find a suitable article and merge this in, or if it is really an extended quotation then transwiki it as suggested above.
It looks clear to me that the cabal will have none of this, and that voting is useless. First it's crufty; till someone points out that its probably more valuable than Pokemon(TM). Then the title of the article gets criticised; so someone changes it. But then it's the context -- so someone thoughtfully spends hours putting it in context, and still they aren't satisfied. Why don't the cabal just own up to the fact that, once one of them has voted against an article, it will be deleted unless the rest of the cabal protest and protect it. --SockpuppetSamuelson 12:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
- Not sure what you're talking about - it's 9 to 3 in favor of keeping it at the moment. DenisMoskowitz 14:21, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  - Possibly. But when the count's taken, you'll find votes discounted for relating to "older versions of the page", which therefore can't be applied to the new version, or (where people repeat a vote, so that it relates to the new version, both get discounted because it's double-voting, and then, of course, there are the votes discounted because "everybody" knows that they're sockpuppets (which is my cue to sneak away silently). --SockpuppetSamuelson 07:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
    - Who was that masked puppet?. Alf ^melmac 07:24, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The entry enochian by itself doesn't give me much sense of the system. Dan 19:01, 14 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, no assertion of notability. --Phroziac ^(talk) 13:12, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Graham Rendle

Delete NN person, article admits non-notability, Google search failed to turn up a person whose details matched what is in the article (save for mirror sites). Caerwine 04:40, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Obvious memorial for non-notable person. Crypticfirefly 04:44, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete Vanity, Wikipedia is not the place for memorials. --InShaneee 07:15, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, admitted memorial. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:02, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete obvious case. PatGallacher 11:37, 2005 September 8 (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 delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hoi Yu Tang

Non-notable person Bezthomas 05:00, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

speedy as A7 vanity. — brighterorange (talk) 17:23, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity --Terry 17:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per Orange. -- MicahMN | μ 19:44, 8 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 delete. Nufy8 21:56, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marcus Cygy

nn web designer, columnist and forum moderator. Zoe 05:19, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, nn web designer; possible vanity. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:11, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand, he is a listed employee of Total Nonstop Action Wrestling, a multi-million dollar company. McPhail 15:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- Excuse me? All employees of companies that make more than a million dollars a year are notable? This guy is nothing more than a web-head. Not to make a personal attack, but that verges on the absurd. We'd have tens or hundreds of millions of pages on every manager, engineer and mail clerk. --Icelight 16:10, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete under WP:CSD A7 (non-notable bio) and tagged as such. DES ^(talk) 15:37, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete non-notable web designer. --Icelight 16:10, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete delete delete nn. Dottore So 17:19, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn. -feydey 22:49, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, this is getting absurd. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. And that from a non-listed non-employee of any company. Marcus22 14:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn vanity. McPhail, I think your argument is absurd.---CH (talk) 05:24, 12 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!) 07:31, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dynamic hosting

Badly-disguised advertisement. tregoweth 05:53, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Delete and redirect title to Web hosting --ZappaZ 16:56, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete and redirect per ZappaZ. This is indeed a thinly disguised ad, but I wonder if there is actually a topic called this. If there is, and it's rewritten during this AfD, I imagine it could be kept.-Splash 17:33, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, clearly an ad. Owen× ☎ 23:00, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, ad. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:43, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete Pointless. Ad in disguise.Kiwidude 23:57, September 8, 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 07:27, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Colonel (Mega Man X)

Factually inaccurate, content on this page describes Colonel.EXE from the Battle Network series and not the Colonel from Mega Man X4, which it should be. kelvSYC 06:05:42, 2005-09-08 (UTC)

move and fix it, then. — brighterorange (talk) 17:21, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete Is this character popular? If it is game specific it should fall under the Game Article --Terry 18:02, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete; Already listed at List of Mega Man characters (Battle Network series) and List of Mega Man X characters. Nifboy 20:24, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Nifboy. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:13, 2005 September 11 (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. Nufy8 21:58, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reclocate

The Google hits all seem to be typos for "Relocate". The babble is suspect. Hoax? --Wetman 06:15, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

The term is slang and is used by researchers at my university to describe the process of rating news articles. I have no experience with the term outside of this context, but the description is based on the way the term is used verbally. --Michael Wooten 07:48, 8 September 2005 (UTC) Note: previous comment made by User:68.209.195.58
Delete, probably a neologism, and even if it isn't, delete anyway. Paul 15:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as neologisim, unless evidence of widesprad use is presented. If it is widsperad, might be suitable for wictionary. DES ^(talk) 15:30, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per above. Dottore So 17:20, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Neologism. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:44, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Can't even figure out what the article is discussing. ♠ DanMS 01:53, 10 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.

[edit] Marios Tziortzis

NN, might also be advertisement. Punkmorten 06:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete Vanity, DEFINATE advertisement. --InShaneee 07:20, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Non-notable, and certainly a vanity page.--Knucmo2 11:15, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non notable developer. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:39, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete under WP:CSD A7, and so tagged. if not speedied, Delete anyway. DES ^(talk) 15:25, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete as per WP:CSD A7. Hall Monitor 18:16, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Deleted - obvious A7 speedy Martin - The non-blue non-moose 21:19, 8 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 delete by author's request. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:47, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yatton Keynell

I was tired and accidentally made a page about Kington Langley in Yatton Keynell.

Speedy Delete at what is, as near as I can tell, the page author's request. --InShaneee 07:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
It has been speedy deleted, we can probably delete this page, too, but I'll leave that to someone more familiar with this than I. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:22, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- No, we keep all AfD/VfD subpages. They're a useful part of the record when something comes to VfU. -Splash 17:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  - Doesn't someone close it though? DO you have to be an admin tp do that? Steve block talk 20:21, 8 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. — JIP | Talk 09:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Josh Sawyer

Ok, folks, I realize that in the original article, I didn't post links to the game designs he is notable for working on. I welcome your comments in that regard.

I have now included these links. He is, at the very least, notable to computer role playing gamers. Perhaps you are not included in that group of people, but if you look around Wikipedia, there is a page about almost every game he has worked on. To leave THOSE pages on Wikipedia, but to not include Josh Sawyer, is to have articles about the short stories of Ray Bradbury, but no Wikipedia entry about Ray Bradbury. I'm not saying that he's another Ray Bradbury - but he's worked on some of the better CRPG games that have come out in the last 5 years. Thank you. - Original Article Author.

Looks like NN self promotion The curate's egg 07:09, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete nn-bio. MCB 07:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
This is not self promotion. I wrote this article after seeing JE Sawyer's name mentioned in an entry about Black Isle Studios, and there being no link to him. He is mentioned as working with world famous game designer John Romero on the Gauntlet game. I will add a link to that entry when I get a chance. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.176.219.118 (talk • contribs) 09:11 EDT, 8 September 2005.
Delete It may not be self-promotional, but it still looks like advvertisment or fan-tribute, and the person looks non-notable to me. Dopes not quite qualify under WP:CSD A7 IMO, but still not notable enough for a wikipedia article. DES ^(talk) 15:22, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete for, unlike the The curate's egg, no part of it is excellent. Dottore So 17:21, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:49, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep - notable to whom? I performed the old google search on both "josh sawyer" and "je sawyer". Most of the hits meant for this Josh Sawyer come from computer gaming sites, which take the time to track his employement changes and report them as news. I've been surprised it has taken this long for someone to attempt an article for WP. For the purposes of disclosure, I was friends with Josh while we were both students at Lawrence University. -Acjelen 00:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete not notable Marcus22 14:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Of interest only to those whose whole world is inside a video game. Not notable for a general-purpose encyclopedia ♠DanMS 01:59, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete non notable, one anon IP author G Clark 02:02, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup. A middling-important game designer, having worked at Bioware, Bethesda Softworks, and whatever Romero's latest startup is. He's not John Romero or Sid Meier in importance, but he's newsworthy at least. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 03:04, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete Seems nn, and despite anon's protestations of innocence, looks like resume cruft to me.---CH (talk) 04:59, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Just to come to the defense of both Josh and the anonymous user, Josh would never disguise myself in order to write his own WP article. But if he did, there would be many more sockpuppets on this page voting to keep it. -Acjelen 00:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

For The Love of Pete Hillman, your 'resume cruft' theory is hilarious. Do you really think there are people out there who have written in their resume, "See my entry in Wikipedia", and that such an act would mean something to ANYONE doing hiring? Also, I had to look up the word cruft in Wikipedia, during which time I was slightly embarassed for not knowing it, but also glad that I had found Wikipedia. I use it about every day to look up something I read online, or some vague cultural reference. It's easier and more concise than Google.

Why am I posting with just my IP? I don't see how registering as a user isn't something Sawyer himself could do. I'm not going to take the time to register as I'll likely never have reason to post a Wikipedia entry again.

The full truth is, as I have written it, take it or leave it:

1) I saw Sawyer's name mentioned in an article about Black Isle Studios when I was looking back at the Baldur's Gate series in Wikipedia. 2) I remembered him from talk about the game Fallout 3 some time ago. 3) I wondered "Who is this Josh Sawyer? What is he up to today??" 4) I saw that he had no Wikipedia entry. 5) I then decided to make my first (and probably only, thanks to rude people like DanMS and Hillman) Wikipedia entry after googling him and finding quite a lot of info and interviews. 6) Sorry for trying to help expand the content of this site. 7) I'll go back to being a regular browser. You can proceed on Deleting or Keeping this article, I have made my best case with the Ray Bradbury analogy at the top of this page. Thank you for your time. 71.10.112.33 03:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep Why not? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 07:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Comment. The comparison to Ray Bradbury is faulty, as Bradbury wrote books by himself. If I was part of the construction crew that built the Empire State Building, I would not be notable, even if the building is. The architect who designed it may be notable, tho. I can't tell very well where this guy fits in exactly, so no vote yet. Friday (talk) 18:26, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Answer to Comment. Is it common for Wikipedians to judge entries that are not in their area of expertise/interest? If you don't know what a Lead Designer does for a video game... why are you voting Keep or Delete in this area at all?

Link about what a Game Designer does: http://www.gamespot.com/features/6129276/index.html?tag=boxcar_all_features_headline

I mean this in all seriousness, and not to offend you. Going with your Empire State Building example - I wouldn't go around the architecture areas of Wikipedia and judge whether certain designers and companies were or were not notable. I know nothing or architecture or building construction.
As for your Empire State Building analogy... if building and architectural magazines were posting about your state and place of employment, and regularly running interviews with you, and people in web-site forums that didn't know you personally were asking about you and where you were working now ~ then I would conclude that you are a notable person "worthy" of a Wikipedia entry in regards to computer and console role playing video games. Try doing a google search for "JE Sawyer", "J.E. Sawyer" and "Josh Sawyer". You will find numerous interviews, forum discussions, and video game magazine articles. Mark aka Ye Olde Anonoymous Forum Poster who started this entire stupid thread, which I now regret. LOL. 71.10.112.33 23:42, 16 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. Nufy8 21:59, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Remote IP Tracker

This is a non-notable website, added as part of a campaign to link this site to a large number of Wikipedia pages (see Special:Contributions/Ceo, I can provide diffs if requested). Delete JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:17, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete, linkspam. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:06, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, possibly speedy delete under WP:CSD A3 for consisting of nothing but an external link and a rephrased title. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per above --Lezek 23:33, 10 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. Nufy8 22:00, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Minesweeper (band)

Band vanity. NN. Google search for '"Save Your Servant" Minesweeper' gives only two hits[6]. Kusunose 08:16, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

delete bandity with no amg. — brighterorange (talk) 17:20, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per the two above, and note that there is no evidence of meeting any of WP:MUSIC. -Splash 17:35, 8 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 --Aranda56 02:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikitravel

Nomination got lost somewhere and wasn't linked from the log. My vote is for keep but I'm adding it here in the interests of transparency. the wub "?/!" 08:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. This site has less popularity that the deleted Pink Poogle Toy page — It's blatantly advertising allowed because the owner is an admin here. Abusing position for personal gain and advertising isn't allowed anywhere I administrate. User:MattFrost wrote this.

Comment. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/PinkPT for the page referred to above. Note that this is MattFrost's first edit, aside from four to the PPT article itself. --Quuxplusone 14:17, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep. There are Wikitravel links all over Wikipedia; it's in the same situation as IMDb. Also, Wikipedia has a clear pro-other-Wiki-sites bias, which under the circumstances I think is perfectly reasonable. I have no problem with Wikitravel — as long as it's still clear that it's not a Wikimedia sister project! :) --Quuxplusone 14:17, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep. I hardly see how an article about a non-profit, banneradless, CC-licensed fellow Wiki site can constitute "abusing position for personal gain". The article has been edited dozens of times and translated into 10+ languages since it was created in 2003. And for what it's worth, Alexa gives Wikitravel a rank of 26,859 as I type this, quite a bit higher than the 132k referenced in the PinkPT discussion last year. Disclaimer: I'm a Wikitravel admin myself, but all I get for the hours I put in is carpal tunnel syndrome. Jpatokal 00:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Well known and notable wiki. Has over 200,000 Google hits. Angela . 16:24, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Keep, Alexa and Google suggest it's a notable Wiki and it's a good idea to have an article to explain the what Wikitravel is about if we've got so many external links to the place all around Wikipedia. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:09, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

The fact it's been translated so many times since it's created, also says a lot about it's use within Wikipedia. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:10, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Large, notable wiki. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep Wikitravel is a great source of knowledge for travelers. I myself have used it and have had good results. Also it is a notable Wiki. Joelito 12:48, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep I have no prob with this article. Alf ^melmac 13:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep: --Bhadani 14:20, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep User:Nichalp/sg 17:58, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Keep Amren ^(talk) 21:01, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep Monkey see. Monkey do. Molotov (talk) 21:20, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete Wikipedia isn't a web directory, lets be consistent. --Grcampbell 23:35, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep. WikiBias. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Valid article about a site worth writing home about. Fg2 01:40, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Interesting concept, though still sort of 'newborn-ish'. We kept worse articles. ---A.Grabowski

Keep. High value consumer website.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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. Nufy8 22:01, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Save Your Servant

An not-released-yet album by NN band. Google search for '"Save Your Servant" Minesweeper' gives only two hits[7]. Kusunose 08:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete, Wiki is not a crystal ball... Usrnme h8er 11:11, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I'm fresh out of crystal. -Splash 17:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Goes under my Bull crap needing to be erased, and if anybody disagress they should be erased too policy. Molotov (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Borrar that is, delete. Molotov (talk) 21:22, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:54, 8 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 and Merge. The nominator has merged the duplicate articles. Uncle G 18:16:11, 2005-09-08 (UTC)

[edit] Gian Roberto Calvini

A more detailed article on this person (Roberto Calvi) already exists. --Bruce1ee 09:06, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

AFD is where articles are deleted. Wikipedia:Duplicate articles is outside, along the corridor, third door on the left. Uncle G 10:52:04, 2005-09-08 (UTC)
- Sorry - my mistake. --Bruce1ee 11:13, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  - I've merged Gian Roberto Calvini into Roberto Calvi and replaced it with a redirect to Roberto Calvi. --Bruce1ee 12:06, 8 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. Nufy8 22:02, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Massanetta Springs

Advertising 138.38.32.84 09:51, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

"check out their website". Delete. The articles been edited down - It looks like the first version of the article was copied straight from the website Astrokey44 12:39, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete nn --TimPope 17:34, 8 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. Nufy8 22:03, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Coda (band) and Sieg Baber

nn bv and an article on the drummner - by the drummer. --Doc (?) 10:44, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. google says: "Your search - "sieg baber" coda - did not match any documents" Astrokey44 12:42, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per Astrokex44. --Missmarple 16:25, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn vanity bandcruft ---CH (talk) 09:03, 12 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 REDIRECT to List of Star Wars planets (O-Q) (it is already mentioned there). — JIP | Talk 07:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oovo IV

not notable/fancruft Melaen 11:04, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

~~weak keep~~. There were 6 other wiki articles that mentioned it, needs to be expanded though. Astrokey44 12:32, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

~~:I didn't find a single article mentioning it ... --Melaen 12:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)~~

Keep places and levels in released games, but if there are several other such articles on this game (Star Wars Bounty Hunter), I would be all in favor of merging them. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:38, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- Now that Melaen has found a suitable target to merge this vote, I change my vote to merge. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I've changed my mind Merge and redirect with List of Star Wars planets (O-Q) --Melaen 12:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge to the list --TimPope 17:35, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
change my vote to Merge too Astrokey44 23:06, 8 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. Nufy8 22:04, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tasviir

Delete. Non-notable. Probably advertising. --Ghirlandajo 12:12, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No brainer --ZappaZ 16:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete Clearly nn adspam. ---CH (talk) 08:12, 12 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. Nufy8 22:05, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bellyriding

Purported sexual activity involving a woman and a horse. Only a vague and unverifiable reference included in the article itself. Googling turns up very little, and {{disputeabout}} and {{unreferenced}} notices have not been responded to since August 17. Delete as unverifiable and possibly hoax. Sliggy 12:59, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Delete - seems like a hoax. --ZappaZ 17:00, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete Ick. Dottore So 17:23, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as a hoax unless reliable sources are cited. --FOo 23:44, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I think bestiality covers it all... Andrew pmk | Talk 23:57, 8 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 07:34, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WindLegends

Delete as Vanity page. The WindLegends series and its author may have some notability, but currently this entry just duplicates the CV at the author's user page User:Windlegends (which in turn comes verbatim from the promotional page at the WindLegends website). Tearlach 13:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Noteriety is questionable, it's poorly written, unoriginal, and a vanity page. aliceinlampyland 14:23, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This is a copyvio, and i have tqgged it as such, but GFDL permisison may well be forthcomming. As it stands this is obvious spam, but could possibley be rewritten to be a reasoanble article. Unless it is, however, out! DES ^(talk) 15:14, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Talking of spamming, check out the whole Windlegends (talk • contribs) contribution history. Remarkable that one person can come from so many different places. Tearlach 17:02, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I have put another of her vanity pages up for deletion. See: Charlotte Boyett-Compo. aliceinlampyland 20:15, 8 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. Woohookitty 10:30, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Korean Automobile

Just a gallery of photos from the Commons, with no text. Plus, I'm not 100% sure of the copyright status of each of those photos. DS 13:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. This doesn't quite come under WP:CSD A3, but at present there isn't an article here. If this is expanded with some encyclopedic text while on AfD, I'll reconsider this vote. DES ^(talk) 14:46, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

weak Delete Add some history/content and make sure Fair use is implied on the photos and it can be a something. Until then, delete. --Terry 18:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Interwiki to Commons if it isn't otherwise there. Otherwise, delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:00, 9 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 --Aranda56 02:35, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Massimo Ellul

Delete: Looks like a personal advert; irrelevant to wikipedia Maltesedog 11:41, 08 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Assuming that the facts stated are accurate, this person is notable. The article needs to have sources cited, and to be rewitten to read less like a personal resume or corporate profile. DES ^(talk) 14:42, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Amend Unless amended as stated above, this article would have to be deleted Maltesedog 15:05, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- The tags that you are looking for are {{unreferenced}}, {{cleanup-verify}}, and {{POV check}}. Deletion is not the only tool in the toolbox. Uncle G 18:41:39, 2005-09-08 (UTC)
Keep. Presuming he is published, prominent in a political party, and the other stuff, he's notable enough. Being badly written isn't in the reasons for deletion last time I looked. -Splash 17:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep and WP:CITE sources for article content. Hall Monitor 18:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep Doing some quick searches for content that was not Wiki based shows that he is published and has done some of the things included in the article. --Terry 18:20, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup-verify. Seems to be notable enough in Malta see [8]. Capitalistroadster 23:31, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Even though it looks as though he's famous online, rest assured that in Malta he isn't. It is possible to add everyone in the SearchMalta Famous people website - in fact even I am listed (despite of being infamous) in Malta. 212.56.128.186 06:05, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
- Under what name are you listed in SearchMalta? Hall Monitor 16:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
- I replied to you privately. But SearchMalta famous people is not reliable, trust me, I used to work for sometime before wikipedia sending them info on Malta etc. Maltesedog 19:25, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep. Where do some people live? Just yesterday, on the 8 o' clock news on ALL Maltese TV stations, there was aired a delegation which arrived to Malta, led by Sir Paul Judge, the Chairman of the British Chamber of Marketing and the Master of the Worshipful Company of Marketors of the City of London. The delegation had a business breakfast with 140 of the leading business people of Malta and was opened by Deputy Prime Minister Dr. Tonio Borg. Massimo Ellul was the only Maltese to be part of the marketing professionals forming part of the delegation of the Marketors! A simple check on the official ISBN listing of published and registered books would give you his latest publication, The Green Eight Pointed Cross, with ISBN number 99932-0-317-3, which is also available on the internet. I have added a number of references in the article. I do not think that the Dept of Information of the Prime Minister's Office, the Times of Malta, The Malta Business Weekly, and all the other references, including the Who's Who publications, have got it wrong. Being an expert in marketing does not make you popular as well! I just happened to catch this debate on Wikipedia because I am also reading an MBA with Maastricht University by the Malta Institute of Management. By the way, Dr. Ellul is also an acvtive member of the Institute!! Post-Graduate

Keep but references are required. I have read the above, and reconsidered my position when it comes to this article. However, clear referencing is required in any case. I think the matter can be closed here. Maltesedog 12:12, 13 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. Nufy8 22:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Perfect Murder Clan

non-notable, vanity, unencyclopedic, non-NPOV

Delete this article. non-notable, vanity, unencyclopedic, non-NPOV. The Hokkaido Crow 14:04, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Clancruft. Al 15:37, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete clancruft for sure. -Splash 17:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Any article that begins with the phonetic spelling of one or more common English words ought to be Speedily Deleted. -- llywrch 21:01, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, clancruft. -feydey 22:57, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, video-game-players'-groups-cruft. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:02, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete Children's playgroups are charming and a good way to foster sociability, but they are not encyclopedic. -EDM 05:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
- Video games may not be your cup of tea, but clans are not "children's playgroups". I know plenty of clans that consist entirely of people who have reached majority. Certainly any of those who compete professionally are. Heck, my clan's average age is over 30 years of age. That said, I can't think of any clan that would be notable enough for an encyclopedia entry. Al 12:37, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Clancruft Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 07:33, 14 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 07:37, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eman Bonnici

Delete this article:

Who cares what autographs he has?
A 16-year old secretary to a Bishop. Should we list all the secretaries to bishops?
The information contained therein is not of public importance but concerns the private life of an individual.

Maltesedog 14:16, 08 September 2005 (UTC)

If the article is accurate, keep it. A person who is a published author, radio announcer, journalist, and episcipopal secretary at age 17 is notable IMO. But is it accurate? there are no sources cited, and this is quite a list. Could this be a hoax? Can anyone verify the accuracy of this articel and cite sources, or else verify that it is a hoax? If kept, the level detail on the collections should be reduced significantly, IMO. DES ^(talk) 14:37, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Found sufficient proof of journalism on RTK radio, but none for the secretary of the bishop thing. It is also important to note that the bishop in question is only a titular bishop and in actual fact does not have a specific region under his hands. Also it is very strange for a person of 16 years to know the languages mentioned especially in an island like Malta.. especially Greek! It could be true, but it is far fetched.Maltesedog ^(talk) 14:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete smacks of a hoax, but I doubt if sufficiently notable even if everything claimed is true. PatGallacher 16:00, 2005 September 8 (UTC)
Delete Seems strongly like a hoax; google search turns up nothing of note. Dottore So 17:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn vanity that reeks of a hoax. I don't buy writing numerous books by the age of 17 - and having none of them, or your name, appear on Amazon. Note that Google picks up a few of his postings to forums and things; most of them are in teenlang, unsurprisingly. -Splash 17:57, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, claims are unverified, probably unverifiable. -- BD2412 ^talk 18:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The burden of proof of notablity falls squarely on the article author. Delete as hoax unless references can be produced. Fernando Rizo T/C 20:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unverifiable. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nonnotable teenaged autograph collector. Probably vanity. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:58, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Comment An IP user just reverted many recent changes to this article, removign teh AfD tag (which was probably the point) I have restorted to the last valid version. DES ^(talk) 17:41, 12 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 MERGE to Character sheet. — JIP | Talk 09:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Player Character Record Sheets

I do not see that a commercial package containing nothing but multiple copies of a single standardized form for game players to use is notable enough to have its own article, nor that this can ever be more than a stub. Moreover this is for a particularly short-lived version of the form -- the article itself says it was quickly rendered obselete. Delete I think the entire content could safely be discardable, but if someone wantes to merge it into an appropriate larger article, fine. But there is no reason for even a redirect from this title, IMO. DES ^(talk) 14:23, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Merge into Character sheet under a history section. — RJH 14:51, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge per RJH. I have some of those lying around somewhere, I'm sure of it... -Splash 18:00, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No useful original content other than the brand name. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:05, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Merging makes no sense - it's there to make Category:Dungeons_&_Dragons_modules complete. (Whether that category should exist is a different question...) Bezthomas 03:04, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge as per RJH. Many other RPGs has or have had similar packages (despite of the existence of photocopiers). It is a type of product, not something unique to (A)D&D. - Skysmith 09:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
REdirect. -Sean Curtin 19:38, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
Merge per RJHall Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 07:31, 14 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. Nufy8 22:08, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lefty Lexington

Non-notable vanity page, with a dose of nonsense thrown in. A single connectable match on Google (which is a 'Coming soon' website). CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:31, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete per above. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:31, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete The subject is not notable and the text is largely nonsense. I suspect it may be an attempt at humor or self promotion. Cory 16:00, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Tagged to speedy delete as patent nonsense. PatGallacher 16:15, 2005 September 8 (UTC)
Comment. I have removed the SD tag, Pat. Good thought, but this article does not qualify as G1 nonsense. See WP:PN for details.—encephalon έγκέφαλος 23:23:57, 2005-09-08 (UTC)
Delete. Thinly veiled vanity page. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:06, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete see Chairboy

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. Paul August ☎ 22:42, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] David Diego Ladowski

Sad story, but non-notable person. Without setting precedence that every victim of terrorism deserves a page, this qualifies for deletion. CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:37, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Regretfully Delete per above. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:37, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
weak delete Deserving of a Wikibook or Merge with content about the organization then it would be a Keep. --Terry 18:23, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Wow, sad to be doing this on this particular day, but W is not a memorial, so I'd have to say delete. Is there some humane way of pointing the family toward a website holding biographies of the victims of terrorist attacks? I presume some such site exists.---CH (talk) 02:40, 12 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 Paul August ☎ 22:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sovereign Grand Lodge of Malta

Delete It seems that the article is copied from somewhere. Suggest deletion. The site proves to be somewhat as an advert and to freemasons in Malta.

I note that even a postal address was included.

What shall we do? Maltesedog 14:31, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

This page is a very problematic one since it is very obvious that there is an ego trip going on between some Maltese masonic contributors to this page.

The long list of edits and very nasty allegations and name dropping on such a delicate subject as Freemasons in Malta, can have severe repercussions on innocent Masons who do not even know about this page and who are being mentioned on it.

Shame on these supposed Masons who jeopardise other innocent Maltese masons.

My suggestion: Deletion and bar user 217.15.96.18 for good from Wikipedia. Apart from a lot of copyright violations, he is jeopardising innocent people and re-writing 'history' as it suits him. And this not only with regards to masons in Malta.

~~Delete~~. This is not an unencyclopeidc topic, but this article should not be in Wikipedia. If someone is willing to re-write it to address the identified problems of copyright violation and advertising, which I have done for other artilces in the past, then it could stay. I'm not willing to do that for this article, so unless someone else is this week, delete. Ground Zero | t 14:59, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, per Ground Zero. Dottore So 17:30, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This is blatantly a copyvio from somewhere Google doesn't pick up. This article is clearly not the place to start, and there is clearly some Maltese funniness going on today. -Splash 18:02, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep following cleanup by someone who knows what they're doing and can keep an NPOV head on their shoulders. Maltese funniness is not a criterion for deletion; Freemasonry is a notable topic and so by derivation, local developments, including schisms, are notable. Malta needs more coverage in general anyway. -EDM 05:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

- More coverage? I work day and night on Wikipedia sites related to Malta. I check, vandalism etc. I don't think an article which proclaims to be done by a mason - is the right work for wikipidea. There should be a general article (which i'm not prepared to do myself, because I don't have a clue on masonry in Malta, but not one which provides a mailing address. This is pure advertisment Maltesedog 19:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Against my better judgement, as for reasons I cannot begin to comprehend, I have attempted a re-write to make this worth keeping. I will leave it to others to decide if my work is acceptable. Although I think I've done the bulk of the heavy lifting, I invite further edits to bring this up to WIkipedia standards. Ground Zero | t 01:01, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Congratulation to Ground Zero for his excellent work on the matter. The article looks fine now, and I'm removing the afd. I will review the article personally later on with some annotations although it looks perfectly well. Wikipedia needs people like Ground Zero. Maltesedog 12:18, 13 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 delete as admitted neologism. I see no reason to continue the debate, since it's unanimously in favor of deletion.

[edit] WikiLex

Neologism, DicDef, debatable conclusion that creating new words "broadens the body of human knowledge" as nothing new is really known. Outlander 14:40, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Note - there is a Wiki project by this name that provides legal information, this is not about thatproject - --Outlander 14:43, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

1. Word mentioned in a large publication.
2. Second definition ("debatable" or not) reflects an accepted use of the word.
--Lexlander 15:03, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

A single article hardly establishes accepted use, and even if it did wikipedia is not a dictionary. See WP:NOT --Outlander 16:21, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Note I'm uncertain how to redirect this entry's main heading back to 'Wikilex'. Any assistance in this matter would be appreciated.
--Lexlander 15:03, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Neologism. No convincing evidence presented of real use. Its self-referential quality is not amusing enough for BJAODN. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:20, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete nnneologism. -Splash 18:01, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
The world already has accepted terms for original research and for protologisms. This article is a dictionary article on a protologism whose purported meaning is the creation of original research and protologism articles. The external hyperlink points to an article describing a person who sets students projects to create made up words and then to write dictionary articles, such as this one, about them here in Wikipedia, the encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Delete. Uncle G 18:34:40, 2005-09-08 (UTC)

It's clear that Alex Duensing has never read WP:NOT, if he had he would not say that Wikipedia allows articles "on any topic" --Outlander 18:51, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Delete in a puff of logic. FreplySpang (talk) 19:22, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Neologism. Paul August ☎ 19:44, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - this might be the first ever organized (and assigned) violation of WP:POINT (read some of the news coverage of this Duensing character...) ESkog 21:01, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Uncle G.—219.94.59.167 22:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This teacher didn't do his homework. (And see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kiyama for another one of these I found.) JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete Clearly part of a larger violation of Wikipedia policy. -Loren 00:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete As if it got run over at the next zebra crossing. Sean 01:39, 9 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 Paul August ☎ 22:53, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Field Marshal (Uganda)

Completely arbitrary and pointless article. Even if we did want a list of Ugandan Field Marshals, this wouldn't be what the article would be called. TreveX^talk 15:00, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Merge into Idi Amin --Outlander 16:48, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Outlander, remember that this would mean retaining this article as a redirect to Idi Amin. That would mean that anyone stumbling across the article would find themselves sent to Idi Amin — more than slightly odd for someone expecting to find out about something else, don't you think? Plus, what would you merge that is not already there? -Splash 18:06, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Field Marshal, obviously. -Splash 18:06, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, no redirect; possible Speedy under empty. Owen× ☎ 23:07, 8 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 e dwolf24 (talk) 01:32, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Helen Mayhak

Not notable, unless really old people in local elective office is notable. Paul 15:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

weak delete she is also "very controversial" but there is not enough information on the controversy to indicate notability. A link to a news article or something would help. — brighterorange (talk) 17:19, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge to Hartford Township, Michigan. In light of the slight expansion, I no longer think this should be deleted. However, the sums of money involved and the comparative notability of this person mean the material should be merged into the township's article. For one thing, it will benefit from the greater context there. ~~, I suppose, or a weak delete if that helps consensus since I can't turn up much evidence for great controversy over $3000.~~ -Splash 22:03, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Elected officials are at least as relevant as college professors, and we keep those. Kelly Martin 19:16, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Keep - meets my notability criteria. The fact that we don't have enough info is grounds to add {{expand}} to the article, not grounds to delete it. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 19:19, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep - I started this stub when I was newer here, and never got around to adding to it. I feel she is notable because she was the only township clerk for 40 years. I think she's as notable as a small town that has a pole barn on Main Street (Yes, that describes Hartford). I never got around to expanding it though. I would have no problem with merging it, however. This is one of those things that you would not hear much about on the internet. Oh, and that reminds me, I need to expand these stubs about towns near me... :) --Phroziac ^(talk) 19:21, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. All that is asserted is that 1. She held a quite insignificant post (albeit for a pretty long time), and 2. She got senile. Wow. I thought this was an encyclopedia. -R. fiend 20:02, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Would you atleast try to be nice about it? If you haven't noticed, I actually care about the project. I don't sit around making rude comments to people who write articles I don't like. --Phroziac ^(talk) 20:49, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Verifiable, informative, passes the professor test. arj 20:04, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Next will be an article on the old lady who gives out boxes of raisins instead of candy on Halloween. Gamaliel 20:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

....... --Phroziac ^(talk) 20:49, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, needs expansion, but there's enough there for a stub. Steve block talk 20:19, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per R. fiend. Fernando Rizo T/C 21:01, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, she's a town clerk, for God's sake! Do we want an article on every town clerk and other minor government official for every level of governmehnt in the world, throughout all of history? Get a grip. Zoe 21:05, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

We have an article about every pokemon, throughout all of history. By the way, see WP:NPA. --Phroziac ^(talk) 21:24, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Indeed we do. Is that a good thing, though? -Splash 21:32, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

WP:NOT paper. No, it's not a good thing, but why should this be deleted and those allowed to stay? --Phroziac ^(talk) 21:36, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

There doesn't presently look much chance of this being deleted any more than the Pokemons (and I don't think it should be, as I said). It's often said "but if my article A is deleted, then articles B–Z-in-unrelated-field ought to go too, because they are surely less notable". Should we judge articles by the lowest common denominator, or the highest? Which way lies the raising of standards? Would inclusionists or deletionists favour LCD or HCD, or neither? The fact is that there is a considerable body of editors prepared to defend Pokemon to the hilt — and to face-down those that claim it lowers standards with the claim that comprehensiveness is everything. The same seems not to be true of articles on real people, for some reason. I don't personally subscribe to either philosophy absolutely. Oh, and notpaper is notfree. $165,000 of the $200,000+ just raised is to be spent on hardware. -Splash 22:00, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

As much as I hate wikipedia's pokemon policy, it's still not a fair comparison. When selling town clerk cards becomes a billion dollar industry I'll change my vote. -R. fiend 18:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, merge with Hartford Township, Michigan or delete both this, Hartford Township, Michigan and every Pokemon-article for a particular pokemon beyond Pikachu. Be consistent, people. --Kaleissin 21:10:26, 2005-09-08 (UTC)
Weak keep, and spend the time we're wasting here taking a flamethrower to Pokemon fancruft. User:Kelly Martin has done a good job to expand, and how many 91-year-old town clerks are there who held the record for service and cost thousands through poor performance? --fuddlemark (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Hartford Township, Michigan. Minor government officer for a township with a population of 3000? OK, she held the post for 40 years, but it's not exactly Mayor of New York, is it? Local colour, and should be merged as such. As for the professor claims, I don't believe we keep articles on every single professor, only those with a notable publication record. So merely doing the job for years doesn't qualify them. Neither does padding out the article, which is what the minor financial losses (about $2 dollars per person) would count as to me. A $4000 dollar loss isn't exactly news. Average Earthman 21:40, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep — Dan | Talk 21:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Comment With all due respect to Mrs. Mayhack, I suspect the only difference between her and any other petty politician was that she was too old to hide a $4000 discrepancy. Paul 22:43, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Heh. *Usually* you don't lose that much in a small town, or atleast that I've heard of.... By the way, I suppose you all feel the same about the local mayor who shop lifted? And no, it's not in the same town. --Phroziac ^(talk) 22:57, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This is nicely quirky article that is nevertheless fully referenced. It has at least one source that is a focused report of her and her activities, and which is cited. Meets minimum WP:N, WP:V standards. I dislike the way the WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR standards have been run down or totally disregarded these days, but this article is not one of the transgressors.—encephalon έγκέφαλος 23:04:01, 2005-09-08 (UTC)
Keep: Asserts and proves notability. Owen× ☎ 23:11, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I'd say this subject would seem (from a cursory glance at least) to be notable enough for an article on WP - hell, I've seen articles on far less notable people kept here on AfD, and from that precedent I think I would advise best to keep and expand this article as appropriate.--NicholasTurnbull 23:33, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge. Seems notable enough to be on wikipedia, but unless more information is added, probably does not need its own article. Bushytails 23:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep The longest serving elected official in the history of the State of Michigan is obviously notable. For some deletionists, any person less than the Risen Lord Jesus Christ fails a notability test. --Nicodemus75 11:24, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Good point, perhaps we should delete Jesus. He may have died a horrific death, but it was common at the time and WP:NOT a memorial. And he may have preached a lot of stuff, but since the majority of those who claim to follow him don't pay any attention to his teaching, surely his lessons must have been n-n. :-) Last Malthusian 11:56, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  - There is no proof for Jesus' existence or for any of his exploits. Delete as a hoax. ;) Gamaliel 09:33, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
    - Perhaps a speedy candidate?--Nicodemus75 10:16, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
      - I speedied Jesus as a hoax a while back (unverifiable claim to being "King of the Jews"), but he just got undeleted three days later. Sheesh. Fernando Rizo T/C 04:48, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete A town clerk? By all means tell me what I'm missing... Marcus22 15:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps that the person held that position for half a century? That's 1/20 a millenium. --Phroziac ^(talk) 21:38, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
Merge with article on township. Wikipedia is not a memorial, not even for "controversial" minor government officials.---CH (talk) 04:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep notable Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 07:26, 14 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!) 07:35, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Branigan: Boy Genius

Fictional movie, no Google hits, all dates are too far into the future to be even slightly credible. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:28, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. - Mike МиГ 15:49, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete either invention or deep crystal ball gazing. IMDb hasn't heard of it either which they surely would have done if there was this much known about it. I reckon that text has been hacked around from some other movie synopsis and dumped here. -Splash 18:12, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete Looks like a hoax. Amren ^(talk) 20:57, 8 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!) 07:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stranger Waving

Non-notable organization with 0 Google hits. DS 15:40, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete per DS - and also the strange redirect at Stephanie Ericson should go to. --Doc (?) 17:02, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This is surely made up: any organization that must declare itself "legitimate" almost certainly either isn't or doesn't exist. Perhaps it's a group of high school friends having a giggle. Nobble the redirect too, per Doc. -Splash 18:14, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete obscure group, possible hoax. ManoaChild 21:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per above.—encephalon έγκέφαλος 22:29:19, 2005-09-08 (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. Woohookitty 10:44, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Froese

Delete under WP:NOT a geneology. Icelight 15:43, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

delete genealogy. — brighterorange (talk) 17:15, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Disambig. We have several articles about people with the surname. -Splash 18:15, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
delete. -- Spinboy 00:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
The page could be kept (or brought back) as a disambig, but should be deleted in its current form. CJCurrie 01:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Ambiguous, non-informative. Not enough information given even to create a disambiguation page; a similar page could be done for every person on the planet. -- Corvus 16:49, 14 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 Paul August ☎ 23:00, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AssetCenter

Pure advertising, as far as I can make out. See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ServiceCenter. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 16:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Copyvio. Tagged and bagged. -Splash 18:18, 8 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. About 60% for delete. Not good enough I'm afraid. Woohookitty 10:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Westbrook School

Here we have a Yellow Pages entry for an elementary school in Canada. Pilatus 16:46, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

- A Yellow Pages entry would at least give the telephone number. This doesn't even do that. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:38, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep Another small but valuable step towards complete coverage of the world's schools. CalJW 17:08, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

But why? What's the point? CalJW and friends, I see you believe strongly in creating an article for every school in the world, so you must have some rationale. But apparently this is a long-running debate, and I think you guys should see by now that you need to have a header for all these articles pointing puzzled readers like me to a project page where you explain the rationale for this "all the worlds schools" project, or whatever you call it.---CH (talk) 23:28, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Iff it is kept, the article needs to be moved to Westbrook School, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada because a quick Google search shows that there are a half-dozen Westbrook Schools around the world just on the first Google search page. BlankVerse ∅ 17:17, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete Yet another completely nn school. Dottore So 17:35, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete or merge to the town. Does not warrant own article. --TimPope 17:37, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, this is a non-notable elementary school stub. Little or no info available on it. Few Google hits for this particular Westbrook School. Also per Schools for Deletion. Gateman1997 17:59, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, elementary schools not inherently notable. Sdedeo 18:00, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep and move to Westbrook School, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Silensor 18:20, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It's a primary school. By definition not notable and never will be. Dunc|☺ 18:23, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Completely worthless. Stub, and not notable. Cmadler 18:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Subsubsubsubstub. Gamaliel 20:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. BEEFSTEW score 1 of a possible 10. Nothing notable about the school is mentioned. Folks, it's irresponsible to drop things like this into Wikipedia. If the point is not to stir up a hornet's nest and create factionalism, then spend an hour and work up a good stub BEFORE creating the article. If you actually can't find anything notable, consider finding a school that is notable to write about instead. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2005 (UTC) Withdrawing vote. Tony Sidaway's improvements have rendered the article harmless. I consider the list of awards strained, and saying that it was designed by an architect who had won an award for some other building, is reaching. Nice local color touches. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable. Amren ^(talk) 20:56, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Very little conceivable potential for an encyclopedic article. Fernando Rizo T/C 21:06, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nothing here worth keeping. I note that Edmonton Public Schools covers 199 schools, it would seem rather pointless to have a sub stub article on all of them - particularly since I doubt anyone would be keeping the names of the headteachers up to date. At this level of strictly local importance, a mention in a list or table on another article would be sufficient. Average Earthman 21:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, as above.—encephalon έγκέφαλος 22:25:45, 2005-09-08 (UTC). NB. Just restoring sig altered by recent discussant; also confirm vote after re-reading latest version. Best—encephalon έγκέφαλος 14:22:25, 2005-09-12 (UTC)
Delete or merge. This elementary school is not notable. Sliggy 22:46, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Average Earthman. -feydey 23:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. If after more than a month it is still a 15-word article, it doesn't belong here. Owen× ☎ 23:16, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, notable school. Kappa 00:13, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. I added a brief history of the school and some of their more impressive achievements in provincial and national academic competitions. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 00:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
delete. -- Spinboy 00:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. All schools are notable enough for a truly great encyclopaedia. —RaD Man (talk) 02:08, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. Also, less than 1000 schools normally compete in the "Pythagoras Contest", thus being local winner (even several times) does not make one notable. Barring that, Merge. Please see this discussion of the value of merging.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aaron Brenneman (talk • contribs) 02:24, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
- If you go to the competition site you'll see that, out of 1003 Canadian schools participating in 2005, Westbrook tied for joint first. In 1997 they were outright winners in that competition. There are enough individual tops to suggest strongly that the school has some of the brightest pupils, in mathematics, in Canada. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 14:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Spectacular list of trivial awards, though. --Carnildo 03:26, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete for reasons already listed. --Idont Havaname 14:22, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete no normal encyclopedia has articles on elementary schools, not notable G Clark 00:54, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete this stub for a non-notable elementary school. Jonathunder 02:51, 2005 September 10 (UTC)
Delete: pointless. CDThieme 03:01, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, relevant to education in Edmonton, Alberta --Vsion 04:46, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, good article. JYolkowski // talk 13:44, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, yet another school.--Nicodemus75 21:05, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Nicodemus, please see Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information this policy to see why you have something to explain if you want to create an individual article on every single school in the entire world, which apparently you do.---CH (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
- Yawn Go ride a bicycle.--Nicodemus75 13:55, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Neutrality^talk 23:28, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
keep please this is almost 3kb of text which is alot more than a phone book listing and it tells alot about the school and is neutral and verifiable so why should we erase this that does nto make sense Yuckfoo 04:06, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Yuckfoo, just because something is verifiable does not make it suitable for an encyclopedia. There has to be something more. WMMartin 21:16, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep schools in Wikipedia. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:17, 2005 September 12 (UTC)
Keep this fine school stub article. Un focused 02:44, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete of no interest outside Edmonton --redstucco 10:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete it sucks. Grue 14:22, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep school stub. Give it some time to grow. Mindmatrix 19:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. WMMartin 21:16, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. All verifiable permanent public institutions are notable by definition. As the first attempt at creating an encyclopedia that is actually properly encyclopedic, Wikipedia can and should have articles on every school in the world. --Centauri 03:10, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep Sigh... I thought it was decided that schools would be kept. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 07:25, 14 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. Woohookitty 10:55, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Haikucronym

A neologism that gets exactly two hits in the same blog using the Google test. I personally think that there should be some way to speedy delete articles like this, but I couldn't find any criteria that it fit. The Wikipedia is not a dictionary, especially for newly coined words that don't exist in any other dictionaries. BlankVerse ∅ 16:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Extreme delete. BlankVerse ∅ 16:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Neologism. Al 17:14, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Great concept, but a neologism, still. -- BD2412 ^talk 18:20, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- Personally, it's a very clueless concept because haiku don't have titles. If it had been cinquainronyms, I might have ignored it and let someone else have the fun of nominating it for deletion. BlankVerse ∅ 22:03, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Interesting, but a 'logism still. -Splash 18:22, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Awesome, yet not notable. Fernando Rizo T/C 21:08, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delightful effort / lethally eschewing the / encyclopedic. Grutness...wha? 01:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I suggest this vote go on BJAODN, with enough of the article so it makes sense.-gadfium 01:02, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Why thank you :) Grutness...wha?
Keep. "Yesterday's neologisms, like yesterday's jargon, are often today's essential vocabulary." – Academic Instincts, 2001 (taken from Wikipedia's own article on Neologism) Binerman 05:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I appreciate User:Binerman's POV that neologisms have their uses, but that doesn't mean they should have their own entries as well. In the unlikely even t it stays alive and continues on to become "today's essential vocabulary", well, then we can start to seriously worry about keeping it. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:17, 10 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 11:05, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mark A. Gabriel

Delete. Probably a hoax and all of the information that would help readers to judge the matter keeps getting deleted. --Ian Pitchford 17:14, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Can I advise editors also to read Talk:Mark A. Gabriel for some germane discussion. -Splash 18:25, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep as a notably published author with a book ranked 17,677 on Amazon Books. Any non-factual or non-verifiable information should be removed. Hall Monitor 18:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- The problem Monitor is that all info are non-verifiable! Maybe the only information to be kept are his picture (not sure if it belongs to another person) and the mention to his book (if really the guy pictured is the real author and the book is notable enough) -- Svest 00:16, September 11, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}
Keep He is a notable author who specializes in his field. Just because you have a crusade against this guy, doesn't mean you can erase all information on him, or deligitimize him with hatchetjob article editing.Guy Montag 20:40, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- I'd like to see credible evidence of his existence, notability and specialism. You're the one erasing information that would allow all of these to be assessed by readers. --Ian Pitchford 20:42, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  - He has a book, its best selling, it exists. What am I supposed to do, pull his birth certificate? Guy Montag 20:46, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
    
    That won't be necessary, but a little actual evidence like his real name would help. --Zero 05:41, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
How about maintaining civility, gentlemen? I suggest a nice cup of coffee followed by 5 minutes of thinking about kittens. Fernando Rizo T/C 21:11, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- Grrr... kittens make me ~MAD~!!! -- BD2412 ^talk 05:48, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
17,677 is "best selling"? Zoe 21:09, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
- I don't know if 17,677 is necessarily "best selling", but it is a relatively high ranking. Perhaps it is best-selling in a specific genre or category, but not one that I am aware of. Hall Monitor 21:16, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  - I am sufficiently concerned about the facts I have been able to check to be skeptical about the whole story. He doesn't run his own website - it's run by someone called Bradlee Sargent from an Arabic Evangelical Church in Florida. He doesn't have a PhD from "Florida Christian University" because there's no such university. There's no trace of the organization "Hope for the Nations" that he is said to run. Why does he use genuine quotations from Yusuf Ali's translation of the Qur'an interspersed with new translations? Where's the evidence of his activities in the US? Why does he provide a complete biography plus a photograph but no details that could be verified with his Mosque or Al-Azhar University? Gabriel could be who he says he is, but I'd like to see appropriate evidence. For someone who's published four books since 1997 under two different names he's somewhat elusive. --Ian Pitchford 21:25, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep as notable author as per WP:Bio. Capitalistroadster 23:42, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Publications are of sufficient popularity to qualify author for notability. -- BD2412 ^talk 05:48, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep- While author is clearly lying (And this should be noted on the page) - the books published warrant his entry.. though, they are not notable enough to warrant their own --Irishpunktom\^talk 20:40, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
Keep - If any info is questionable, just state it's so. Even if it's fake, it's notable as a fake. --DanielCD 21:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Although I agree that published work can warrant notibility (like Irishpunktom said), the fingers all point towards a large hoax created by the Evangelical community against Muslims. The website of the "author" is even run by evangelicals. Being a former Evangelical myself, I have no doubts at which lengths they will go in order to give Islam a bad name. --a-n-o-n-y-m 02:18, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Keep so that there is a place to list his books (which don't deserve their own articles). It is also essential that the page very clearly states that none of his biographical claims can be verified, and also the Evangelical connection should be presented factually. --Zero 05:41, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep Agree with Zero. Amren ^(talk) 01:34, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The article should be cleaned up, discuss his notability issue clearly and other issues like the "Florida Christian University". I am not sure if the picture belongs to him and fear the owner of the picture would sue us along w/ Bradlee Sargent for hoax and propaganda. Cheers -- Svest 02:34, September 11, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}
Keep but mandatory rewrite. This is a strange one. I don't think it's precisely a hoax, but the information is unverifiable, which according to some would make this automatically deletable. The books exist, but I can't verify the claimed biographical facts. So I propose that the article should be rewritten to stress that these are unverified claims.---CH (talk) 05:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep This author is very notable, well known and educated. The man is an ex-Muslim who converted to Christianity, there is no hoax about it. It's rediculous to even put this page up for VfD! --Gramaic | Talk 04:54, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep authors of books in the top 10,000 at amazon.com are notable by nature. Ian's attempt to purge wikipedia should be condemned. Klonimus 04:47, 14 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. Nufy8 22:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Beyond the Mist

This looks like self-promotion of a self-published novel on a vanity press. I can't find a single entry for this book in OCLC WorldCat, indicating that no substantial library anywhere has seen fit to include it in their collection. Amazon has an entry, but notes that "This page was created by a seller." CDC (talk) 17:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete self-promoting self-published vanity per CDC. Author doesn't have much to be vain about: despite Amazon carrying it (and they will carry anything in print, pretty much), it's got a sales rank of 1,650,000th. -Splash 18:28, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete Advertisement --Terry 18:32, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity press, unknown author, no real sales record ManoaChild 21:52, 8 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!) 12:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Luke Perera

Delete. A great scholar, I'm sure, but doing well on the tests is not enough to establish notability (else we'd have the top 5 finishers for every year since the exam began). -- BD2412 ^talk 18:12, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete, borderline speedy as per WP:CSD A7. Hall Monitor 18:30, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable. Amren ^(talk) 20:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, being smart is not encyclopedic, but doing something exceptional with it is. -feydey 23:15, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete nn vanity page Dottore So 00:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete non-notable. Ketil Trout 05:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete, nn vanity, sheesh ---CH (talk) 05:11, 12 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, unanimously, as copyvio and/or original research. - DavidWBrooks 13:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anachronism and time travel

The writers (from 2003) are insisting on personal credit, as seen at the top of the article. Very anti-wikipedia! If this can't be rewritten to remove the need for a byline, then it should be deleted. DavidWBrooks 18:30, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Original research? Copyvio? Al 18:35, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
If the writers insist on personal credit, this will have to be deleted. It's just not what we do here. Aside from that, the topic is interesting but I'm unsure as to whether it could plausibly be turned into something encyclopedic. In its current form, it's more of a speculative essay. --Fang Aili 19:04, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Interestingly, that byline with the "dont' remove it" tag has been there for almost two years (since November 2003) and has survived a number of edits. I'm surprised it hasn't been vfd-ed before now. - DavidWBrooks 19:21, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete, OR, somehow it's also copyvio, but I can't figure out how. Also, kooky, read the stuff on the futuristic ice sculptures? Sdedeo 20:22, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, OR. android 79 21:03, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete because of peculiar copyright status AND WP:NOR. Fernando Rizo T/C 21:14, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. If they're not willing to remove the byline then they have submitted this by mistake. It's original research anyway. Average Earthman 21:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete What isn't OR is covered by Ancient astronaut theory. ManoaChild 21:59, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Comment - if the license for the text of this article, or the conditions of said license, are incompatible with Wikipedia, then the article has to go to avoid legal issues. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 22:11, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as either OR or lack of appropriate license terms, as above. MCB 23:01, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, OR. Dottore So 00:09, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Subject is interesting but not encyclopedic, and the logic is peccable. —Herbee 22:44, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Long list of pseudoscience anachronisms presented as established fact, so not npov, mischaracterizes for example Tipler cylinder, so inaccurate, demands credit, so vanity.---CH (talk) 17:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, copyvio followed up with original research. -Sean Curtin 19:44, September 11, 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 move to List of reproductive issues since the article looks like a list. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:40, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reproductive issues

This page is primarily a list of "see also" links, with a hopelessly ambiguous article premise. Articles about any conceivable topic could be made simply by adding the word "issues" after it; that doesn't mean there's any real notable subject involved. The title is also slightly non-NPOV, as the "see also" topics might not be "issues" to all people (or all women, specifically). Delete Bumm13 18:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

rename to List of reproductive issues or make into category. I think this term is established. — brighterorange (talk) 19:15, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Rename or just keep. Kappa 00:52, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep seems valid Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 07:23, 14 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!) 07:39, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Locoscene

Advertisement for web site with alexa rank 2.7million+. — brighterorange (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Ad. Gamaliel 19:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete Advertisement --Terry 19:16, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete ad. Mindmatrix 20:33, 8 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!) 07:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Effect of number of turns and the diameter of the coil on the strength of a spring

Someone's first-year physics lab report. DS 19:08, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete --Terry 19:17, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Wow, what a great title! --Fang Aili 19:19, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete - this doesn't belong here. Mindmatrix 20:33, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I think the author should be referred to one of those term paper services. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:38, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete You're kidding me -_-... Amren ^(talk) 20:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete Looks like someone typed in verbatim from notes for book, might even be a copyright violation.---CH (talk) 04:08, 12 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. freestylefrappe 02:53, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Federalist No. 1

(removed speedy tag, nominating for afd instead). Complete text of the first of the Federalist papers. This is out of copyright and an important historical document, but its text probably does not belong in wikipedia. transwiki to source. See also the other links at the bottom of Federalist papers for more along the same lines. — brighterorange (talk) 19:11, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

~~change vote to delete since these are already on wikisource.~~ I'll change the links at the bottom of the federalist papers article. — brighterorange (talk) 19:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- Update: it seems that some of the Federalist papers have genuine wikipedia articles, so I am not going to switch the links, assuming that each one can ultimately get an encyclopedic article about it. It might be profitable to stub out these articles, then, providing the link to wikisource (but that will take longer). — brighterorange (talk) 19:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
comment: see Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Federalist_No._1. -- Aleph4 19:43, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but turn into an article, of course. Frankly, there's little harm in keeping the current text until that happens, as it's long in the public domain. -- BD2412 ^talk 21:17, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, I've stubbified this one and will do the others that are just source material as well. Eventually I plan to put together decent articles on all of these. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:03, 2005 September 8 (UTC)
- Thank you. I can now take doing that off my to-do list. ☺ Uncle G 03:46:56, 2005-09-09 (UTC)
keep the rewrite, thanks. — brighterorange (talk) 23:23, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep Christopher Parham's rewrite. Notable essay in American history. Capitalistroadster 23:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
KEEP Important essay in U.S. History. Why woudl someone want to delete this?Kiwidude 00:09, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, expand it, but it is most definetely an important historical peice, this is exactly the type of article wikipedia should have (not the content, but the subject matter). -GregAsche (talk) 01:06, September 9, 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 redirect Marskell 11:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Intellectual development

Article does not discuss the subject. Does anyone have a redirect idea, or could someone write something about the subject? Otherwise, delete. --Fang Aili 19:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest Cognitive development --Melaen 20:02, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Beautiful. Will do. Voting is over, unless there's an objection. --Fang Aili 20:59, 8 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) 18:25, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sunz of Man/Temp

this is probably a temp page left behind. the original article is no longer a stub Melaen 19:32, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

REDIRECT Wu-Tang Clan affiliates Dunc|☺ 19:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect this temp subpage? Are you sure that's what you meant? The main article is already a redirect. (Oh, and delete obsolete subpage.) — mendel ☎ 20:47, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete self-described temp page. Niteowlneils 23:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
'Delete Paul August ☎ 23:03, 18 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 --Aranda56 02:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jewel (supermarket)

The page is clearly an advertisement for Jewel. The neutral point of view rule is violated. 64.107.156.234 19:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Speedy, Speedy Keep. If it's really that bad, tag it with {{POV}} and explain why. Do not list on AFD. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:37, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I went ahead and tagged this with the anon's problems. Feel free to close this AFD. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:40, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep for sure minor bias and no attempt to discuss and remove it --Terry 19:59, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Important grocery chain. The anon is right that the language is promotional. It needs serious editing to reflect a neutral point of view. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep Amren ^(talk) 20:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep: I've never heard of them, but then, I'm not in the "Chicago metropolitan area". Google never lies. - mholland 21:01, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup. Major grocery chain. There should also be a mention of the "Jewel Tea man", who used to drive a truck and make home deliveries. And this was in small towns in California, not the Chicago area, though there are no Jewel stores in California (that I know of). Zoe 21:14, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
question is this a major grocery chain in Chicago, or is it a major grocery chain across the USA? I have never heard of it (not that proves anything) and I'm sure there are "Jewel" stores in the UK. If the consensus is keep then please tidy up!. Rhyddfrydol 21:27, 8th September 2005 (UTC)
- There's a Jewel right in my town, and several I've seen all over the Chicagoland area, and perhaps the Midwest. Keep and cleanup. --Apostrophe 23:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- Short answer: historically they were very big regionally. Due to mergers and the tendency to keep local names it's a little hard to tell nowadays. Jewel itself was so big regionally that anyone who lived in the Chicago area or went to school there or had relatives there would know about it, and from time to time it has made national news, I forget why. Something unflattering, I think. Drug stores with the Osco name are national, I think. At any rate they arrived in Massachusetts a couple of decades ago. When I go to the "Jewel-Osco" site and search for stores in Massachusetts it brings up about seventy store names within 20 miles of my home, but they are all either "Shaws" or "Star," which are regional household names that have apparently been sucked into the Albertsons maw. Traditionally, grocery chains used to be regional. Over the last few decades the U.S. government has all but abandoned enforcement of antitrust and everything regional is combining into national oligopolies, but for some reason the grocery chains prefer to keep the familiar regional names on the storefronts. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but needs to be NPOVed. Owen× ☎ 23:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep snd cleanup as notable supermarket chain see Yahoo Business Profile. [9] By the way, the AfD tag is missing. Capitalistroadster 00:48, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup. Notable. -- DS1953 05:42, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
Keep; it's a division of the second-largest grocery chain in the USA, Albertsons. --Metropolitan90 08:17, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Keep Notable company. Clueless Newbie. Roodog2k (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
comment I cannot see how the article is POV. Roodog2k (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
- Comment That could possibly be because I removed some stuff about how "Jewel is a trustworthy name in Chicago, known for spotless stores and good service offerings," how the Jewel Grand Bazaar "wowed the public," etc. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:09, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Someone please stop this AfD. It was an invalid nomination that has since been corrected. It may have been wrong, but there was really no need to have the AfD tag remain on the article when there was never any intent to actually delete it. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:16, 9 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. Nufy8 22:10, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dr Filth

Delete. Vanity page, kill it. Magicker71 05:20, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Does not appear to satisfy WP:MUSIC. Al 19:55, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Sure doesn't. Niteowlneils 23:33, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete sameKiwidude 00:00, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
Band vanity. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 12:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

keep this page. you should here them!

Delete bandity backed by sockpuppets Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 07:20, 14 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, so keep. -Splash^talk 19:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Charlotte Boyett-Compo

Delete. This is a vanity page. aliceinlampyland 20:03, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup. She's published more than a handful of books. Al 20:14, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, but are they really notable? Anywho, the page was created by this individual and that's a no-no. aliceinlampyland 10:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep Author of over 30 books, the Windlegends series is nine volumes by itself. The article itself looks ok from a NPOV standpoint, though the userpage is a copyvio. I'm going to be watching this...it is worrysome when someone writes about themselves. Rx StrangeLove 18:21, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, as this does seem to meet the criteria of a vanity page. Also, this seems to be one of several recent drive-by edits by the same User on the same day. The Bearded One 06:30, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
- I think the subject belongs, would it help if I rewrote it? I'm perfectly happy to if that would ease your concerns. Rx StrangeLove 17:36, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I just checked the User Contributions page for User:Windlegends [10]. It appears that this individual made about 40 edits in a two-day period (31 Aug - 02 Sept and nothing since then), all of which seem to be hawking for Charlotte B-C and her novels. Nearly all of the edits have been removed as spam by other Wikipedians who watch over their respective articles. We should probably do likewise. The Bearded One 03:44, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete as vanity.---CH (talk) 02:12, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Google gives 15,600 hits. Notable enough for me. Paul August ☎ 23:07, 18 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. Paul August ☎ 23:09, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Intolerista

Non notable neologism. No evidence of widespread usage. 585 google hits. By comparison, the neologism glomp (also up for vfd right now) gets 1.4 million google hits. Gamaliel 20:04, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

delete self-admitted neologism, outside the scope of wp. — brighterorange (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable. Amren ^(talk) 20:50, 8 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. Paul August ☎ 23:13, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Maltese nobility

Delete:Whole lists of nobility. Each with a description. Many are irrelevant to the wikipedia concept and very few entries on Google. Wonder whether the format of the page has to change or whether we have to delete also the linked sites on each of the nobility. Maltesedog 20:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep Seems interesting. Plus it is about nobility so it is noble to be a WikiArticle. Molotov (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep - this is an important list, one I have never seen before anywhere else. Wikipedia is enhanced by having it. Rhyddfrydol 21:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep List, and linked articles, need/s attention, not deletion. Jkelly 22:43, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Keep as encyclopedic topic with verifiable information. Capitalistroadster 00:51, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
All of these articles were discussed at Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Maltese nobility. Uncle G 03:38:46, 2005-09-09 (UTC)
Keep. What's next? An AfD for the Kings of England? --Nicodemus75 11:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep once again. — RJH 14:49, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Well the scope of this afd was because there are various links to various title holders to other pages of Wikipedia. Maltese nobility is of no importance in Malta apart to the title bearer which is proud of his inheritance! I mean, is there the need to give so much important to people which are not really famous after all in Malta? Ask how many people know them! Very few i'm afraid. Maltesedog 19:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Just because "very few" are famous in Malta doesn't detract from the fact that Maltese nobility such be recorded... I refer to my earlier comments and would reiterated Wikipedia is enhanced by having a reference to Maltese nobility. Rhyddfrydol 20:16, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

- Well I didn't mean to imply that there should be a reference to Maltese nobility. But is there the need to enter into deep detail on each and every noble in Malta through the various articles linked therein in the main reference? Well if you live in Malta you would understand me. Nobility leaves no impact and hardly anyone knows about it, i'm afraid.
  - You should be careful what you edit for deletion. History in all formats is important for Malta. Please try and remember that. It clearly shows your stupidity. Tancarville

Keep. The nobility is per definition a notable group in society, and most families of the higher nobility are at least somewhat notable or have some notable members. Looking at the articles makes it clear that many of these families once played a significant economic and political role in the history of the island. That this may no longer be the case is no reason to delete them from historical memory. Tupsharru 17:07, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

A Strong Keep. The Maltese Nobility played an important part of the Maltese history in the past. May not play any part today but thats like so many countries today. Tancarville

- Tancerville. Personal opinion difers, and one should respect it. It is not a matter of stupidity. I still insist, that the article contains a great deal of unnecesary information, so at least somethings have to be removed if not deleted completly. The stupid are those who call other stupid. Maltesedog 12:23, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

- - Opinions of people are not the same, I agree, but when you have everyone stating to keep then that should send a strong message to you. If you reduce the details it becomes unnecessary to leave it there. Each peice of data contains necessary information of history. Perhaps some wording can be changed but the peice as it stands should be kept as a whole. When you mentioned that the younger generation are not aware of the Nobility, I feel your misleading people, as if you remember studying Maltese history, it was full of Nobles leading the charge for Malta to become where it stands today. A primeminister was also a member of the Nobility. Lord Strickland was also a Count of Catena. This is vitual information that shouldnt be forgotten. Much of our politicans were members of the Nobility. One of our Maltese EU members of Parliament is a member of the Nobility. (Attard-Montalto is the Baron of San Paolino). Past or Present, the Maltese nobility is with us. Socialist or Nationalist, the nobility are involved in either politican parties. Beware and learn but also be proud of who you are. Dont try and hide what the Maltese truelly are. Tancarville11.27 pm 13th September 2005 (EST)

- - - Tancerville - you have personal interests in keeping the article, and your view on the matter is biased. It is true that the Mr. Attard Montalto is of noble birth, however his work is purely of a political nature, and has no connection with his noble ancestary. Rest assured that I'm not hiding in any way what Maltese truly are. I insist that the article should be amended, removal of copyright work and list format if not deleted completly. Maltesedog 11:49, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
      - This is absurd. Nobility are inherently notable - Maltese or otherwise, past or present. It is absolutely absurd of you to "insist" anything - that is exactly what the AfD process is about. Interest of Maltese nobility to Maltese today is irrelevant to encyclopedic entries about nobility. There is already overwhelming concensus to keep this article, irrespective of your constant "insisting". Wikipedia is not about hashing out whether or not Maltese consider their nobility important.--Nicodemus75 08:28, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep. I know little about Maltese history. Whether or not the Maltese nobility are important today, it does no harm in having an entry on them in Wikipedia. They exist, and their existence informs us of the continuity of Maltese society, if nothing else. Perhaps someone could add a section explaining the role they played in the past. Even without such a section, it seems an innocuous article. Gwimpey 00:28, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

- What about the long lists of nobility copied from a book/website Maltesedog 06:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

- - Refer your mind to my profile and read what it says at the bottom of each page. I have complete access to many Authors works and Web sites as permission was granted due to my works on www.maltagenealogy.com and www.maltesenobility.org Yet you fail and miss the points BLANKLY and continiously. This is absurd. Tancarville08.55 16th September 2005 (EST)
    - Its not a question of copyvio but a question whether they should be left in this format in wikipedia or not. The other article has nothing to do with this one in question - in fact 4 persons in total voted fo its deletion Maltesedog 06:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete Comments are contradicting a more recent afd - Charles Gauci which was highly recommended for deletion Maltesedog
Comment Modern nobility who have no authority are not inherently notable. However, this list is broader than a single person, so I have no problems with this article, as it is quite possible for groups of people to be notable even if the individuals that compose it are not. However, Wikipedia is not a place for personal vanity, so I've moved the acknowledgement to the talk page where it belongs if any place. Caerwine 13:58, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep An encyclopedia is a reference work, and I am glad to have such lists (also of the Grand Masters of the Templars, Hospitalers, and Teutonic Knights, for example) available to check against. Besides, consider what masses of information we have on the Jacobite peerage, all of which is legally nonexistent. J S Ayer 02:38, 18 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. Paul August ☎ 23:20, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Upari Mathews

Yet another non-notable fan fiction character that yields no substantial proof of validity. Nufy8 20:16, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Zero hits with 1 or 2 't's, orphan. Niteowlneils 23:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn Dottore So 00:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn even as a fictional character ---CH (talk) 08:45, 12 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. Paul August ☎ 23:25, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Edward Jones

though quite tragic and sad, he is not a notable character, he is listed in the 9/11 wiki and I do not believe being an astronaut that never made it to space is notable - still being new here at wiki, please let me know if this is right Terry 20:28, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

As you're new here, you might not know that this article has been listed for deletion by over-zealous people at least three times before (maybe four, I forget) and each time people have voted to keep. I am not sure a fourth or fifth listing will bring out anything new. Pcb21| Pete 21:14, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

The consensus has generally been that getting to the rank of Colonel and joining NASAs astronaut corp is not a trivial achievement, and hence he had achieved some note prior to his death. Keep again. Average Earthman 21:24, 8 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. Paul August ☎ 23:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Saulnier

This seems to be a vanity article for Mr Saulnier's legal fight with the town of Londonderry, NH. He/a supporter has also modified the town's website to reflect his opinion on the fight. Only link on the Robert Saulnier page is to a website supporting his fight, which appears to be run by him. Nothing against the man or his fight, but it does not seem noteworthy! Isoxyl 20:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete, nn. (Also, I've added the missing header to this VfD subpage.) — mendel ☎ 20:44, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable. Amren ^(talk) 20:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nominator. Dottore So 00:22, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nominator clearly has characterized this one correctly.---CH (talk) 06:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, there have been numerous articles about Saulnier in newspapers including: "The Londonderry Times," "The Union Leader," "The Eagle-Tribune." His case has been recieving notice... no reason to not keep it here.
Delete, just as I am the original nominator, please note that the one keep vote came from the person who created the page in question. Isoxyl 13:00, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I created the page... but I believe it is a useful addition to Wikipedia. What is the point of Wikipedia if anything "controversial" is removed? If anyone thinks it is an article in support of him and/or slanted, then you can feel free to edit it and improve it. Personally, I think this guy is a nut and should have been evicted... but I wrote the article based on the facts and press stories.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 redirect. Fernando Rizo T/C 21:16, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Maltese Islands

Delete - all of this is already in the Malta article. Suggest redirection to Malta and deletion of this article. Maltesedog 20:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Just be bold and redirect. There's no need for this to be on AfD in the first place; an article history behind a redirect doesn't hurt anything. — mendel ☎ 20:41, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
This is not appropriate for AfD, Speedily redirecting. Fernando Rizo T/C 21:16, 8 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) 18:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jamar_Butler

Vanity page Jkelly 20:50, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Delete: non-notable until he wins a proper basketball comp. mholland 20:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn vanity ---CH (talk) 04:24, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
KEEP: very notable, Ohio's Mr. Basketball Award is voted upon by hundreds of Associated Press members every Spring, and finishing runner-up to LeBron james for 2 years, and winning one is a very successful high school career. If in any other state in the USA, Jamar would have won 3 Mr. Basketball's easily, but was overshadowed by the LeBron legacy in Ohio. User:J-Roc 16:44 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment It is not clear to me that even if Mr. Butler had won three "Mr. Basketball"s, that would be notable enough for an encyclopedia entry, nor that a "very successful high school career" is. The above comment and an edit to the article in question is the above IP's only contributions to Wikipedia. Jkelly 17:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

KEEP: the kid is a phenom, will be a multi-millionaire in the NBA very soon. User:Trampert 01:58 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Jkelly 17:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment re-sorted vote list chronologically.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. Nufy8 22:12, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mohesian caterpillar

Article contains little actual information; text is "Mohesian red eye unicorn caterpillar" (in About section), "Deadliest of all caterpillars" and a section called Symptoms with the text "Hands fall off". Image has no source information (now listed at WP:PUI) and was uploaded by an anonymous IP. Google test yields no information on so-called species/variety of caterpillar. Delete Bumm13 20:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nominator and Anti-Bull crap policy Molotov (talk)

20:57, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Clearly nonsense. Also unverifiable. ManoaChild 21:06, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I know that caterpillar, and it ain't Mohesian. Vizjim 10:45, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nominator, unless verifiable scientific name is provided and verified prior to close of AfD discussion. Any serious article about an animal needs to give its scientific name, as common names are variable, unreliable, ambiguous (the British "Daddy-long-legs" is a completely different animal from the U. S. insect of the same name). If no scientific name is given, you literally have no way to know what animal is being described. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:32, 9 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) 18:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Magnus Wurzer

Non-notable, vanity (written by the subject, User:Magnus Wurzer). This article has been deleted from the German Wikipedia several times (see here). A related page, Cocktailrobot, has been deleted here recently (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Cocktailrobot). Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shifz. Martg76 21:46, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete self-promotion, or Userfy. Niteowlneils 23:46, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete Speedily as A7. Dottore So 00:26, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn vanity as per Martg76 ---CH (talk) 05:19, 12 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) 18:45, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mikhail Zavileysky

del. vanity. A big article, but shows no notability. mikka (t) 21:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

~~Neutral~~ Keep. Company has an Alexa rank of 212,207, however this may be skewed as the company is Russian-based. Some of their customers are notable, so I would consider the company itself notable as well. Could use a lot of NPOVing, however. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
- Of 150+ persons of the company only founders are relatively notable. From his job description I don't see why he is better than an average pizza hut manager. mikka (t) 01:02, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete Speedy - on grounds of complete nn & vanity. Offensive self-promo page that reads like a CV. Dottore So 00:25, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
- Don't be so hard on a newcomer. It is hardly offensive. Probablly it is a CV. mikka (t) 01:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - not notable and vanity. - Introvert ^talk 00:32, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete Trapolator 02:16, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete - vanity abakharev 02:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete self-promotion. --Ghirlandajo 14:04, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete transparent nn vanity and resume cruft ---CH (talk) 05:49, 12 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. -- BD2412 ^talk 02:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Huddersfield, Jamaica, moved to Haddersfield, Jamaica, the more frequently encountered spelling

From the history, this page was created on 26 May 2005. Has only always consisted of one line, "Huddersfield, Jamaica (or Haddersfield) is a small settlement located in the St Mary parish Jamaica." Wikilink is to a Huddersfield in England. Am unable to find any evidence that there actually is a Jamaican Huddersfield through quick google. If there really is a small settlement called Huddersfield in Jamaica, it may be so small as to be difficult to write a meaningful article about; there is as yet no evidence I can see that this is even real. Somewhat shockingly, however, according to this Times article, one of those horrible London bombers was born in Jamaica and went to live in the British Huddersfield. Weird.—encephalon έγκέφαλος 22:17:29, 2005-09-08 (UTC)

So remove the link and bold the title, which is the appropriate way to format Wikipedia articles. If this is a real place, keep, we have lots of articles on tiny towns, and I encourage the creation of more, since the lists of small towns are highly US-dominant, since nobody has done a Rambot on other countries. Zoe 23:27, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

According to this link [11] there is a Haddersfield (or Huddersfield, both spellings are current) in the parish of St Mary. Speedy Keep and off to Cleanup once the discussion is closed. Pilatus 23:30, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete and enter as a requested article. I think that things like this should not be considered articles at all, but as badly executed article requests. The only information they convey is the fact that somebody wanted there to be an article on this topic. Put it up as a requested article and then as soon as someone actually feels like writing one, we'll have one. In the meantime, there's no point in keeping this around. Nobody who happens to look up "Huddersfield, Jamaica" in Wikipedia will be pleased at finding this. If nobody has expanded it in three months it's highly improbable that anyone will soon. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep in present form. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:35, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
- I'd say that unlike sch**ls, towns and villages are inherently notable. The trouble with this one is that it is in the poorest part of Jamaica and apparently very small on top of that. Pilatus 00:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, stubs on real places are incredibly useful. Kappa 00:45, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep as real place with real communities of interest. Capitalistroadster 01:13, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
- Can anyone even find out enough about the place to know whether it should be under Huddersfield, Jamaica with Hadderfield, Jamaica as the redirect... or the other way around? Dpbsmith (talk) 01:47, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep - real place (spelt with a "U") - see [12]. Grutness...wha? 02:06, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep CalJW 05:59, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Comment. Thanks everyone. I couldn't myself find evidence to decide the question of whether this was a hoax (which if it were is grounds for deletion) or real (which if it were, I was sure my talented fellow WPns would discover, even if I could'nt). This is why I waited before entering a vote rather than place it along with the nom like I normally would. Pilatus, good job finding that link. So there definitely seems to be a Haddersfield in this Parish St Mary place. I'm not sure why you said it's known by both names; the link only describes a Haddersfield. Do you have further info? Grutness' link is to a place in St.Mary; would this be the same place as the Parish? Given the available info, my vote would be to redirect this page to one created at Haddersfield, Jamaica which would contain the current text and Pilatus' link as a basic ref. A disambig page for this and the British city would be good. There seems to be a general consensus for the name to include Jamaica, as seen here. If this is eventually closed without a consensus to delete, I'd be willing to do the legwork (creating the new page, the disambig, and doing the redirect).—encephalon έγκέφαλος 07:21:52, 2005-09-09 (UTC)

LOL. I see that Kappa and Pilatus are already on it (except the redirect is going the other way). Cool. I think, given that the evidence we currently have only substantiates the name with an "a", I prefer the redirect the other way. But since one can't redirect a page that's under AfD, I'll wait. Thanks guys.—encephalon έγκέφαλος 07:27:50, 2005-09-09 (UTC)

Comment: I've added a bit more information. It's still very stubby, but at least it's been pinpointed now. Oh, and I reversed the direction of the redirect! Grutness...wha? 13:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
- Oops. Forgot that I shouldn't do that while there's an AfD in place... hope there won't be any problems... Grutness...wha?

Keep - Haddersfield is the correct spelling but it is known locally as Huddersfield. See *Map showing location of Haddersfield.
I live in Huddersfield and some of our residents, of Jamaican descent, are from Haddersfield. Richard Harvey 12:27, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep. All cities, towns, villages, or any other things you'll find in a real atlas or encyclopedia are notable, no matter what country in which they are located. (Even RickK agreed - see User talk:Rambot/Delete for precedents on deleting Rambot articles.) Rambot's contributions on cities, which were mostly computer-generated rather than written by human users, have been great, and they've really helped us with building up articles on places and other things one would find in a real encyclopedia. I'd love to see projects like Rambot's extended to other countries besides the U.S., to keep us from getting too US/UK-centric around here, but until we have bots covering every city in the world, we'll just need to rely on human editors. Also, having articles for all of the towns helps keep people interested in editing here, if they can go find an incomplete article on their town and add information about what makes their town unique. --Idont Havaname 19:33, 12 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. Dropping the anons, but (generously) allowing the subject a vote (with no evidence they are such), it's still clear. -Splash^talk 19:24, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] PeteHappens

Non-notable vanity page. Searching for PeteHappens on Google results mainly in links to BBSs where a user of the name is posting. A search for 'PeteHappens "Peter Davis"' results in two matches. Notability has not been established. CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete Not notable. - Jpo 23:06, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Save Wow! I'm surprised someone did an article on me. That's off the chains, man. But, of course I'm going to want this saved, because its about me. PeteHappens is very notable, and will continue to be. Its become a pheonomenon throughout northern virginia. If its so notable that a random person did an article on it, it must be notable! Sep 8, 2005
Delete nn. Dottore So 01:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as no indication of notability. Capitalistroadster 01:16, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Save I have actually heard of this company---its pretty notable in the Washington DC film scene.

Unsigned vote by 208.226.132.3

Delete Not Natable! 24.31.188.229 19:25, 13 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. This was actually a direct copy of List of gags in Airplane! which had its own AfD which I deleted as a result of — since this was an identical fork I deleted this too at the same time. That AfD has since been upheld on VfU. -Splash^talk 19:29, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of comical gags in Airplane!

Just a list of "comical gags" in the Airplane! movie; might as well print the script; highly un-encyclopedia-ic - DavidWBrooks 22:06, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

del. Nonnotabe. mikka (t) 22:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep - I like it. Maybe change the title to List of comedic themes in Airplane! or something. --Quasipalm 22:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nominator. feydey 23:21, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Overly fancrufty. --Apostrophe 23:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete If that wanted all that they could just get the script KeYYeK 23:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep and move to Airplane!/List of comical gags. Owen× ☎ 23:35, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Useful list of trivia, could be renamed to something more appropriate. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:33, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom & for not including transcript of the exchange in jive. Dottore So 01:06, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of gags in Airplane!. -- Norvy (talk) 03:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge into Airplane!. The article probably needs to be deleted, but the information probably should be kept. Vegaswikian 05:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge to Airplane!. Needs to be cut down in merge. – AxSkov (☏) 10:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete or send to Wikiquote (although they already have it all, I'm sure). -Sean Curtin 19:46, September 11, 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 6 delete, 1 keep. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 22:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] L'angwic

A conlang with no reported number of speakers and no Google hits at all (not even unrelated ones). I'm a bit sorry to have to nominate this, since it looks like the author has made quite an effort to write that... - ulayiti (talk) 22:23, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete, nn conlang, article created by User:Langwic. Zoe 23:08, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, a good resource for people who want info on the conlang, I have also submitted the L'angwic Lessons site to Google many times for a long time and yet they still not have added it, that is not my fault. The wiki page is also still under construction. Langwic 23:13, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- You'll have to excuse us, but Wikipedia is not a place to promote a new conlang. If your conlang becomes popular, some time in the future, then somebody else will want to create this article and then we can judge it on its merits, not on the potential advertising this article is giving us. Zoe 23:25, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Not the place to declare this. Make a site if you want to promote this "language". NO speakers known.Kiwidude 23:52, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Article asserts non-notability through age and origin. Userfy and delete. -EDM 00:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. WP is not a repository for stuff that can't be publicized anywhere else. Has no speakers and no following, so has no article. -Splash 00:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Nele Jecewa zhalino Delete, per Zoe, Ulayiti. Dottore So 01:08, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nonnotable conlang. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Weak delete. Has small following, but not enough to keep. – AxSkov (☏) 10:37, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
- Just curious, what is your source for the assertion that this has a small following, rather than no following at all? Is there a non-Internet source that we can refer to for this information? Zoe 20:08, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Original research, promotion. "Developed by two linguistics majors in 2005, and is currently still under development." Wikipedia is not a vehicle for dissemination of new creations and new ideas, however worthy. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:13, 9 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 redirect. Should've been done on sight, not listed here. Dan100 (Talk) 12:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sun_Spots

This is a satire of advertising copy Jkelly 22:25, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Delete This is db-nonsense material.--Hurricane111 22:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This is not "db-nonsense material," actually; see WP:PN.—encephalonέγκέφαλος 22:50:07, 2005-09-08 (UTC) NB. I would prefer Splash's suggestion below; del and recreate as a redirect to Sunspot—encephalonέγκέφαλος 07:46:31, 2005-09-09 (UTC)
- You make sense of it then because I can't. Tagged for speedy delete. Pilatus 23:20, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  - Hello Pilatus. I can certainly understand your view. However, it's often a good idea to be careful using the speedy tag, because inappropriately SD'd articles consume a lot of our resources (and create unnecessary conflict) when they turn up at VfU. According to WP:PN, there are only 2 types of content that meet the patent nonsense criteria: gibberish (eg. the article is "djkjd090u8]r{ssdklsm993wq"), or the sentences are so incomprehensible no intelligent person can be expected to understand any of it. The text here is neither— it is quite intelligible as an ad of some sort, or a hoax (both of which are proscribed by WP:PN). I hope you don't mind that I have removed the tag? Very kind regards—encephalon έγκέφαλος 07:46:31, 2005-09-09 (UTC)
Delete advert/spam/nn product. MCB 23:04, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Either poor advertising or a hoax. - Jpo 23:06, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete Quite funny, but not appropriate for this site.Kiwidude 23:30, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Sunspot, of course. Now we have to wait five days to get rid of a badly written ad... or ad parody... Dpbsmith (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
(via edit conflict) Certainly the content needs to go, but what's wrong with a redirect to sunspot? —Cryptic (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Well it seems three of us had the same idea at the same time! redirect. Dunc|☺ 23:39, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Sunspot —Wahoofive (talk) 00:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Redirect, no merge. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Sunspot. — Nowhither 00:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Sunspot, although I'd be inclined to delete the article first, and then recreate as redirect. -Splash 00:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Sunspot. Capitalistroadster 01:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Sunspot. – AxSkov (☏) 08:52, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Odd, I read this and thought "I've heard of those somewhere", but it seems I'm wrong, as I can't find any trace. There does seem to be a thing called Sun Spots[TM] which is basically a dark film you stick on your spectacles. Redirect this lot to Sunspots per above. Tonywalton | Talk 11:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, me too. Some product that was introduced with a burst of publicity

and, uh, faded into the sunset, I suppose. Could it be these sunburn warning sensors? Dpbsmith (talk) 12:05, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete as patent nonsense (obviously some child's idea of a joke)---CH (talk) 09:13, 12 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!) 07:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Xyphoid Process (band)

Not notable band by WP:MUSIC. One release in the future. Google doesn't reveal anything eighter. feydey 22:37, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC criteria. - Jpo 23:01, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Ridiculous. No reason to be here.Kiwidude 23:28, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Even their upcoming album will be independently released and, with a band of this nature, I'll believe it when I see it without gazing into crystal balls. As stated, there is no evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC yet. They can come back in future, of course, if they should become notable. -Splash 00:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Related articles created that should also be deleted: DJ Walk and Dj Walk. RADICALBENDER ★ 16:46, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
Delete unverifiable, nn---CH (talk) 03:56, 12 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. Dan100 (Talk) 12:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of people who have publicly denied being gay

The previous debate from October 8, 2003 can be found at Talk:List of people who have publicly denied being gay/Delete, rater than in the AfD archives as it predates the current deletion scheme.

I feel this is non-ensyclopedic, and while the persons are notable in the vast majority of cases theyr mere denial of beeing gay is not. It is basicaly a list of people who have responded in a sertain way to rumors or sometimes (joking) questions from the press. Verifiable and factual yes, but not ensyclopedic or particularly helpfull. I can't think of any use for such a list. If there is any substance to the "allegations" then the #Persons of debated lesbian, gay or bisexual orientation section of List_of_gay,_lesbian_or_bisexual_people can be used (and indeed several of the people on this list is also to be found there) as it at least have a solid criterea for inclution and require the "controversy" to be notable enough to be mentioned on the person's Wikipedia article first, not just added to the list. For the rest it's just frivilous tabloid rumors and listing them here would basicaly amount to rumor mongering of no real value. During the previous detabe some people argued that the list could be used to "wash" the List_of_gay,_lesbian_or_bisexual_people of controvertial names, but as mentioned there are several people who are on both lists so it's obviously not beeing used for that purpose either. To sum up: If this information belong anywhere at all it's the "trivia" section of the respective persons articles, not on a list of every famous person who's ever said "I'm not gay" in public. Delete. --Sherool 22:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete --Grcampbell 23:39, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Cannot be made NPOV. Most readers will perceive that the important fact is not the denial, but the obvious inference, from the denial, that someone must have asserted that the person was gay. And, where there's smoke... The List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people has been quite careful to exclude people whose orientation has only been rumored or asserted. This is just a clever way to try to sneak them back in. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:02, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The conditioning that Dpbsmith points out is important: in effect, if not in intent, this article is a POV fork of the list and always will be. If necessary, the relevant articles can be updated to mention the gossip, but the article should not stand. -Splash 00:37, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per abve arguments. Strange that this was kept first time around, since the problems with such a compendium seem overwhelming. Dottore So 01:10, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete CalJW 06:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, per Dpbsmith's excellent point, which I've tried to make in the past on similar List AfDs— unfortunately to no avail.—encephalon έγκέφαλος 11:47:20, 2005-09-09 (UTC)
Delete per above arguments. Al 12:43, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
Delete "I am not gay". Go on then, add my name to the list. (rolls eyes) Grutness...wha? 13:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Hopelessly POV, unmaintainable. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 03:06, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete for above reasons. OK so it's mildly entertaining, but how can one have an encyclopedia article about a negative? It's like having a "List of things that are said not to be pink". Shantavira 19:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I concur with the above reasons. This article is evidence of a tabloid trend in Wikipedia that diminishes the seriousness of the enterprise. -Jmh123 00:47, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete Reminds me of the list of ethnic stereotypes article.... Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 07:59, 14 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 Dan100 (Talk) 12:01, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Slievenamon

Band vanity. No assertion of notability; not in AMG; no apparent Google hits. (Slievenamon is an Irish place name, and the title of one or more songs.) MCB 22:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. No notability asserted. - Jpo 22:58, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Lack of information and as Jpo said, no notability. Kiwidude 23:27, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Weak delete. – AxSkov (☏) 10:32, 9 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 Dan100 (Talk) 11:59, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas C. Hudnut

This article is not necessary and if we follow this, all heads of school/principals would have to be added to Wikipedia. Kiwidude 23:19, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Simply being a headmaster/principal is not inherently notable. Niteowlneils 23:33, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Dottore So 01:11, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn ---CH (talk) 08:22, 12 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, by User:Sn0wflake as the result of a discussion on WP:PNT (see deletion log). -Splash^talk 19:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Franz Reinheimer

This person is mayor of a municipality of 3000 and president of the local sports club. He is notorious for libelling the mayor of Kaiserslautern and arranged for the purchase of a defibrillator that is now used by the local ambulance service. So the German text informs. Pilatus 23:05, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Translate and then bring back here. -Splash 00:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete there's no entry on the German wikipedia, reinforcing subject's nn. Dottore So 01:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. There was an entry on the German Wikipedia, which lost at German AfD on the ground of nonnotability. If he's nonnotable there, he's nonnotable here. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:02, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, as per Angr. – AxSkov (☏) 09:12, 9 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. Dan100 (Talk) 11:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lyndsey

Dictionary definition? Name derivations are not encyclopedic. Does wiktionary take these? Zoe 23:22, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it does. See wikt:Appendix:Names. Transwiki and delete. —Cryptic (talk) 23:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki and delete: dicdef. - mholland 23:40, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep Just move to dictionaryKiwidude 23:48, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Why do we want to keep this? Zoe 05:06, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki if we must, and delete. WP:ISNOT a genealogy. -Splash 00:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. – AxSkov (☏) 10:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete Splash is right. WP:ISNOT a genealogy. Dottore So 23:45, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: This article is not a genealogy either. It's an etymology and a definition. We send those to Wiktionary, we don't just delete them. —Cryptic (talk) 01:15, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  - Uh, I suggested originally that it might go to Wiktionary, and most of the votes are to do that. Am I confused? Zoe 20:02, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
    - If you need to ask whether or not you're confused, you probably are! Template:Wink CLW 20:52, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
    - Sorry, I should have indented more. —Cryptic (talk) 00:10, 11 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. Dan100 (Talk) 11:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unborn, Phil Taylor Jr.

Just some band, haven't released a record, plus an article for one of the band members. The latter could be speedied, but it makes sense to list both here together. Oh, and unborn was previously a redirect to fetus, which should be reinstated if this is deleted. sjorford #£@%&$?! 23:47, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete em both as not meeting WP:music. Restore redirect to fetus. Capitalistroadster 01:22, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete and redirect to fetus. – AxSkov (☏) 09:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete both; redirect unborn to fetus. -Sean Curtin 19:48, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
Delete both as nn vanity bandcruft.---CH (talk) 06:16, 12 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. Grue 14:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Church of Naruto

User:Alt has been repeatedly trying to advertise this fansite at Naruto (manga), and insist that others not remove it. Pentasyllabic 23:51, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Delete Advertising.Kiwidude 23:58, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy And look out for the page's re-creation. — Kjammer ⌂ 00:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Speedy per above. Dottore So 01:15, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Speedy, as per above. – AxSkov (☏) 09:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Speedy and lock against recreation. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 03:06, 10 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.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] September 8

[edit] Force (cereal)

[edit] Ed, Damien, and Bottlecap

[edit] Cs_deathmatch

[edit] Richster Stites

[edit] Rick Machar

[edit] Gangbagin' 2005

[edit] Banned stateside

[edit] Reuben Restaurant

[edit] DreaMP3

[edit] Sidney Pacific

[edit] Edison Center Library

[edit] Lefty/righty switch

[edit] Bartlett High School, Bartlett, Illinois

[edit] Robert Omeljaniuk

[edit] Seth Schoen

[edit] Rebecca Mok

[edit] List of angels in Enochian, moved to Enochian angels

[edit] Graham Rendle

[edit] Hoi Yu Tang

[edit] Marcus Cygy

[edit] Dynamic hosting

[edit] Colonel (Mega Man X)

[edit] Reclocate

[edit] Marios Tziortzis

[edit] Yatton Keynell

[edit] Josh Sawyer

[edit] Remote IP Tracker

[edit] Minesweeper (band)

[edit] Wikitravel

[edit] Save Your Servant

[edit] Gian Roberto Calvini

[edit] Massanetta Springs

[edit] Coda (band) and Sieg Baber

[edit] Oovo IV

[edit] Tasviir

[edit] Bellyriding

[edit] WindLegends

[edit] Korean Automobile

[edit] Massimo Ellul

[edit] Perfect Murder Clan

[edit] Eman Bonnici

[edit] Player Character Record Sheets

[edit] Lefty Lexington

[edit] David Diego Ladowski

[edit] Sovereign Grand Lodge of Malta

[edit] WikiLex

[edit] Field Marshal (Uganda)

[edit] Helen Mayhak

[edit] Andrew Branigan: Boy Genius

[edit] Stranger Waving

[edit] Froese

[edit] AssetCenter

[edit] Westbrook School

[edit] Haikucronym

[edit] Mark A. Gabriel

[edit] Beyond the Mist

[edit] Luke Perera

[edit] Anachronism and time travel

[edit] Reproductive issues

[edit] Locoscene

[edit] Effect of number of turns and the diameter of the coil on the strength of a spring

[edit] Federalist No. 1

[edit] Intellectual development

[edit] Sunz of Man/Temp

[edit] Jewel (supermarket)

[edit] Dr Filth

[edit] Charlotte Boyett-Compo

[edit] Intolerista

[edit] Maltese nobility

[edit] Upari Mathews

[edit] Charles Edward Jones

[edit] Robert Saulnier

[edit] Maltese Islands

[edit] Jamar_Butler

[edit] Mohesian caterpillar

[edit] Magnus Wurzer