Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 December 14

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< December 13 December 15 >

Purge server cache

December 14

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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. Strictly not a speedy, but so blatantly non-notable that I speedied it anyway. Thue | talk 23:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for deletion as nn, vanity. --Dschor 22:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 21:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rapscallion Records

Non-notable, new 'independent record label'. 103 displayed hits for the label, and 28 for their first release "East Side All Stars Play Hard" sixfinger. The second is hard to google, but doesn't seem to have many hits, which is logical since it's barely a month old. Username implies this is self-promotion, trying to use Wikipedia to become notable. Regforafd 00:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The article tells us everything we already need to know about the label. It was started by Kevin Zakszewski, Adam Morgan, and Rebecca Coggins. Rebecca Coggins left the label in 2004. Indeed. Started by three people, down to two already. Not much of a future here. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 00:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, vanity.
    Billbrock 01:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • delete vanity EdwinHJ | Talk 18:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and Cyde Weys. IanManka 05:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 21:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DotNet2UML

Just one of millions of ordinary software programs; 120 hits. From non-notable software maker agilefactor--see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agilefactor. Regforafd 00:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS Username of creator implies self-promotion. Regforafd 00:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. The only statement that was remotely a claim to notability was that she self-published a book. —

Cryptic (talk) 05:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Cynthia Vespia

Non-notable/vanity. KHM03 00:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. NN/vanity.

Billbrock 01:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result of the debate was delete. This fairly obvious hoax has had more than its fair share of time on AfD.

T
05:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Duke James Allan Gardiner

Work of pure fiction. --Michael Snow 20:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Very close to speedy delete as vandalism, but it doesn't quite qualify. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)

Relisting this to generate more discussion.

e ] 00:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was redirect to

e ] 19:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Stab City

This nickname for

List of city nicknames. chocolateboy 20:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Adjusted my vote per Stifle. - Mgm|(talk) 10:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to
    List of city nicknames. Not to Limerick. Redirecting to Limerick appears to violate NPOV. Stifle 01:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]

nevertheless the moniker itself is a separate one. Both th Big Smoke and Gunchester deserve separate entries anyway, since there is a history behind both [ Smog and Gun crime ] . Therefore it should be left in. The words 'far less common' don't apply to Ireland. Ask any Irish person where Stab City is and they can tell you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.205.109 (talk • contribs)

Relisting this to generate more discussion.

e ] 00:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was delete per extended discussion.

T
18:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Sweah

29 unique Google hits [3], only 1 of which (

scanger", whose text it duplicates, is out of the question as well. chocolateboy 20:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisting this to generate more discussion.

e ] 00:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was delete, following extended discussion.

T
18:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Heidisaint Kennels

don't see that listing all breeders or kennel of dogs or other animals is encyclopedic, even if well-known, unless there's some major reason to do so Elf | [[User talk:Elf|Talk]] 20:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Being well-known and having verifiable info available on the subject should be sufficient reason for an article. I fail to see any valid reason to delete right now. - Mgm|(talk) 12:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I should've clarified that "well known" came from the new stub article; I'm not sure how one defines a "well-known" dog breeder or kennel. In my area, e.g., there are probably a couple dozen of well-known breeders of border collies, because their puppies are all over the place here. There are probably dozens of others all over the world like that, just for border collies. There are hundreds of other breeds. "Well known" has to be better defined, IMHO. Elf | Talk 20:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listing all breeders may not be considered encyclopedic by some, but to those interested in the breeds there are specific kennels that are recognized as making significant contributions to the preservation and promotion of the breed, as well as signficant influence on the breed lines. Within North American Saints there are some lines that you will be hard pressed not find in most pedigrees at some point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MtHermit (talk • contribs)

Relisting this to generate more discussion.

e ] 00:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was redirect to

FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK
) 16:12, Dec. 23, 2005

Patria Y Libertad

A slogan doesn't deserve an article in any encyclopedia, specially an orphan article without any content whatsoever --Mecanismo 21:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Salvador Allende. It appears that I don't know jackshit about South American politics. However, it seems that Gazpacho does, so I've decided to change my vote to Redirect to Fatherland and Freedom. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)
  • Comment: I do not believe this article is accurate. "Patria y Libertad" (with a lowercase "y") was a right-wing group that during Allende's presidency organized a military mutiny, the Tanquetazo. Can anyone confirm that Allende used it as a slogan? Gazpacho 10:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No matter the outcome of this AfD, the title will have to be changed. First, the conjunction "y" (English: "and") should not be capitalized, as Gazpacho points out. As in English, Spanish prepositions, conjunctions, and articles appearing in the names of specific organizations are not to be capitalized, unless they are found at the beginning of a setence. Second, when the slogan "Patria and Libertad" is capitalized as a proper noun, it does not refer to the Allende slogan. Instead, the term refers to the following: (1) a number of fascist and quasi-fasicst groups set up over the years in Latin America, most notably the quasi-fascist paramilitary named Fatherland and Liberty set up to fight Allende's Popular Unity; and (2) Patria y Libertad, a drama by José Martí. In short, if there is going to be an article on "fatherland and liberty" as a slogan on the part of Allende's supporters, the article must be moved to an entry whose title appears in lowercase. (At the moment I will not comment as to whether or not the Allende slogan is notable enough for an article; thus, I will hold off on voting "keep" or "delete.") Forth, an article whose title is "Fatherland and Liberty" or "Patria y Libertad" appearing in uppercase should be written, with a disambiguation linking both to the article on (1) the various fascist groups in Latin America adoping such a name; and (2) the essay by Martí. Finally,
    Wikipedia naming conventions, which state that "article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." The naming conventions are important because English-language sources tend to refer to the name of the neo-fascist anti-Allende paramilitary by translating it into English. 172 05:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Let me try to put this together...
  1. a disambig at
    Fatherland and liberty to Fatherland and Liberty (play), Fatherland and Liberty (movement)
    , and Allende,
  2. a disambig at
    For Fatherland and Freedom
    , the Latvian party, and
  3. redirects from the capitalized versions of the disambig names, and
  4. redirects from the Spanish names to
    Fatherland and liberty
    ?
Gazpacho 07:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks for fleshing out my comments above. 172 16:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting this to generate more discussion.

e ] 00:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was delete, per extended discussion.

T
19:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

CORE Special Forces

Unverifiable. The talk page is right... this is not canon, it's not even from fan fiction that I can tell. No reason to keep this around unless the claims can somehow be verified. Anything on Google seems to be either unrelated or point back to a WP mirror [4]. --W.marsh 21:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisting this to generate more discussion.

e ] 00:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was delete, per extended discussion.

T
19:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

WIPO Development Agenda

The article does not provide any definition or context to understand what is the "WIPO Development Agenda" all about. Useless. Edcolins 21:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting this to generate more discussion.

e ] 00:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was keep.

e ] 19:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Water potential

this was part of my coursework, and was put on here somehow (not by me!). In our coursework we have to source everything, but come up with our own definition of water potential. I came up with this, it was put on here (thus becoming something I should source - but I couldn't, as our own definitions had to be exactly that - our own and original). So if it is not deleted then it is possible I could have taken it off here, as there is no proof that it was me that was using that IP when it was put on (even thought it was). Gjay 19:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


Can someone tell me how this is not just a convoluted and confusing special case of chemical potential as applied to water? If so I suggest that the article state as much and refer to a discussion of chemical potential. If this is special notation in common (?!) use then that should also be stated. As far as I know there is nothing special in this formulation that applies only to water and not to arbitrary solvents/liquids. I suspect that this concept is obsolete and of merit for understanding older thermodynamic literature. However, if this is the case, it should be made clear. Certainly it seems odd that a "potential" should have dimensions of pressure. 67.85.203.239 01:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

how do I "speedy delete"?

  • See
    e ] 01:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisting this to generate more discussion.

e ] 00:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was transwiki.

e ] 19:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Mackerel breeze

Looks like made-up slang to me. If it's real, it certainly doesn't warrent an article. Coolgamer 22:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Neologism, silly vandalism, and dictdef rolled into one. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary -- after googling it seems to be an archaic dicdef, not a neologism. Further research may be needed, but it doesn't belong here. Haikupoet 04:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting this to generate more discussion.

e ] 00:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Did you even google the term before writing that? Haikupoet 19:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 21:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Blanchard

Clearly vanity. 675 Google hits for "Nykon Systems", the company that he works for. The user who made this has only contributed to this article, as well as the Blanchard disambig page. --Khoikhoi 01:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...A company that isn't notable --Khoikhoi 00:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. IanManka 05:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • President of a company? How, er, non-notable. Delete! Madman 06:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep.

e ] 19:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Massachusetts compromise

Now, I'm no expert on nineteenth century United States history, but I'm thinking this one's a hoax. CDC (talk) 01:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; hoax. Antandrus (talk) 01:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete; hoax. There is a real Massachusetts Compromisein U.S. history. Federalists wanted an up-or-down vote on the Constitution w/out changes; Antifederalists wanted the Bill of Rights added first.

Under the Massachusetts compromise, the delegates recommended amendments to be considered by the new Congress, should the Constitution go into effect.

The Massachusetts compromise determined the fate of the Constitution, as it permitted delegates with doubts to vote for it in the hope that it would be amended.

Billbrock 01:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as rewritten.
Billbrock 23:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
Keep I like the new revisions, it's much more, about something that actually happened. DeathThoreau 23:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, hoaxes are covered by the "Silly vandalism" category of Wikipedia:Vandalism "Silly vandalism:Users will sometimes create joke articles or replace existing articles with plausible-sounding nonsense, or add silly jokes to existing articles (this includes Mr. Pelican Shit.) A better place for content that is intentionally of a joking or nonsensical nature is the Uncyclopedia or WP:BJAODN." An article that was intentionally false from the time of creation and has no accurate versions in its history can be speedied as silly vandalism. Capitalistroadster 09:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So you'd like to incude it under CSD G3; but that's a stretch. Perhaps the G3 criteria should be expanded to explicitly allow this. I wouldn't mind seeing this kind of junk speedied, but my point was: We shouldn't stretch the WP:CSD rules too much, rather they should be simple and staightforward so the closing admin can do the job speedily... Jamie 09:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not an expert either. Can someone explain why you lot consider this a hoax? - Mgm|(talk) 10:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is no verifiable evidence of such a thing happening. The idea that the Massachussetts militia and post office in that state having a dispute over uniforms requiring Federal Government intervention is rather implausible. Capitalistroadster 17:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's a play on the
Missouri compromise where Maine and Massachusetts became separate states. Durova 17:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was transwiki to Italian Wikipedia, then keep. -

Mailer Diablo 15:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Giubilanti d'amore fraterno

From

WP:PNT, been there since October 30. Discussion from WP:PNT follows... Recommend delete or transwiki. Jamie 01:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Italian. Former national anthem of San Marino. Physchim62 (talk·RfA) 22:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, archaic Italian song, no longer in use. Not worth translating from archaic Italian. It's not even worth it for the Italian Wikipedia. I checked, it's not there. I say delete it. Davide Andrea 21:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't it perhaps be moved to the italian wikipedia instead? Lio 16:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally, the text should go to the Italian wikisource, and a stub be left here with a link there. However, I cannot find any confirmation of correctness of the text. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 17:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inclined NOT to AfD, to allow time for verification and transwiki to Italian wikisource. Jamie 04:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Forget it. I've listed it on AfD; let them decide what to do with it. Jamie 01:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Italian Wikisource or Wikipedia as is discussed in the above text. If it was the anthem of San Marino it is noteworthy. Movementarian 07:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Italian Wikisource per Movementarian and keep (we have national anthems as Wikipedia articles.) at least. I'd vote to keep here as well, but I recognize that national anthems are difficult in translation and it is more than often hard to find the official translation. If this text is tx-wikied to the Wikisource then it would be (potentially) available, so this seems like a solution. - Introvert talk 09:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Italian Wikisource is the way to go for Italian anthems and source material. - Mgm|(talk) 10:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hardvice 22:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki text of song. The text of a national anthem (present or former) belongs on some Wikimedia project, and Wikisource is the right one. If the person who posted the text of the song has information about the song, for example explaining when and why it became a national anthem, what replaced it and why, connecting it to political movements or events, that would be an article for Wikipedia. Fg2 04:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after transwiki.
    Kappa 06:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Transwiki per Fg2. IanManka 05:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • And I forgot to mention, keep this after transwikication (Italian Wikisource), per Introvert. IanManka 04:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after transwiki. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 10:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Universteit gadjah mada

From

WP:PNT, been there since November 28. Discussion from WP:PNT foillows Jamie 01:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Indonesian article about a university. - Randwicked 14:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Gaja Madah University is one of Indonesia's most prestigious, and there should be an article about in the Wikipedia, but this isn't worth translating.--Sepa 21:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think a redirect is appropriate as "Universteit" is an incorrect spelling. Movementarian 08:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indonesia used to be a Dutch colony, right? Universiteit is proper Dutch spelling, so a redirect from Universteit Gadjah Mada (note capitalization) may be useful. - Mgm|(talk) 10:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could be wrong, my Dutch is very elementary, but isn't the correct spelling Universiteit and not Universteit? If I am correct the title doesn't even have the correct Dutch spelling. Movementarian 15:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Introvert. IanManka 05:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 21:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Esengul

From

WP:PNT, been thre since November 29. Discussion from WP:PNT follows... Jamie 01:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Not sure what language. Possibly Arabic. WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 23:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Or Turkish? --tyomitch 17:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a bad Turkish text to me. Solver 17:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Confirm Turkish.Staffelde
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to

e ] 19:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Wind Blossom

minor fictional charater. Delete or merge into aan appropraite list of characters. DES (talk)

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

The result of the debate was delete. —

FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK
) 16:21, Dec. 23, 2005

Sun Xinde

Seems to be non-notable. The English version has been written entirely by one person, and has been inactive for several months. I only found about 300 google hits (with either the romanized [9] or chinese name [10] given). Only one wikipedia page links to it (in the caption of an image) and, although I can't read Chinese at all, it seems that the Chinese language version of the article has been deleted already. A similar page was created at the Wikimedia Commons; I don't know much about that project, but it strikes me as odd that it was made by the same user. [11] TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa 02:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very thorough nomination. Good job. I note you didn't add a vote, either, which is great to see. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy as {{
    nn-bio}} / CSD A7 Jamie 07:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Weak delete The article asserts notability. Unfortunately I am in no position to verify the noteworthiness of the Chinese Archives of Calligraphy. Non-Western subjects have an inherent disadvantage in this situation. Let's give this the usual five days in case some qualified person can cite sources. Durova 07:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been added to the
    e ] 20:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete, per nomination. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -
    FrancisTyers 16:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 21:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

V. Nelly Salgado de Snyder

Delete. Non-notable/Vanity. Text of article is copied and pasted from http://nhsn.med.miami.edu/memberDetail.asp?l=2&member=28 jackohare 02:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep if the article is rewritten. Agree that this smells like a vanity; Wikipedia is not a substitute for a c.v. I would not be upset with a delete; it's a question of where one draws the line.
    Billbrock 02:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete noxious vanity page/CV of a nn academic. Eusebeus 07:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity. We have go to do something about this everyone-gets-a-wikipedia-article mentality. -R. fiend 17:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Seems like vanity. EdwinHJ | Talk 18:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity Brimba 20:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 04:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Lobbia

Not notable, no Google hits connecting this person with "mediacracy" or whatever. Appears to be a student. By rights this could probably be speedied as NN, but I'm AFD'ing in order to draw attention to the fact that the article was created by User:Lobbia and the only other edit (besides my AFD notice) is by User:Marco1971 -- suggesting the existence of a dual. Also, perhaps there is a notability factor I missed, even if the subject created his own article. 23skidoo 02:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Non notable. No Guru 02:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, non-notable. Ifnord 04:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn. Author wins Shortest Ever Vanity Page Award, though. Eusebeus 07:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - for reasons above. --jackohare 16:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Shouldn't this be put on the User's page? -- JJay 23:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe userfy is a vote option if you want to use it. 23skidoo 01:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. Userfy. Why drive people away? -- JJay 01:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair comment, although as I noted above, this user appears to have created two accounts, which I believe is against the rules, which raises some questions. 23skidoo 01:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I see your point, but I tend to want to give people the benefit of the doubt. This may be a hopeless case though. -- JJay 01:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 04:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Selita Ebanks

Gives little indication of notability and cites no sources. Only a few hundred google hits, but some of the first ten use the phrase "super model". Weak delete unless better resons for notability are supplied and supored by proper cited sources. DES (talk) 02:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Context: she is a lingerie model for Victoria's Secret. She's being currently hyped as a replacement for Tyra Banks on CBS' Victoria's Secret fashion show: Victoria's Secret hopes it can fill the void created by the departure of the spectacularly voluptuous Banks with "the next generation of Victoria's Secret 'Angels' " -- to wit, "new modeling sensations" Selita Ebanks and Izabel Goulart, who will be making their VS fashion show debuts on CBS. - Ted and Tyra's Synchronized Exits, Washington Post, October 18, 2005. See here for bio. I couldn't say whether that all adds up to notable. Tearlach 04:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Models are a dime a dozen, and this one is, as yet, no more notable than any other. I vote Delete. Eusebeus 07:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now without prejudice; only 636 Google hits is low for an aspiring supermodel. [12] A new article can be written when her fame is clearly established. --Metropolitan90 08:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Metropolitan90. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 21:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Darsnic

No indication of widespread prominence for this religion; unverifable (see

Chick Bowen 02:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was keep.

e ] 19:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Alt.usenet.kooks

Libel. Defamation. Nonsense. Identifying individuals by name and alleging irrationality without an exposition of the irrational ideas nor the logic used to claim irrationality. Content unbecoming a resource. From my web site: "when I created the recommendation for deletion, I did not sign my name to it. The next day my rationale for deletion was followed by a caption: "The preceding unsigned statement was contributed by Wyatt Ehrenfels [my IP address]." I deleted this caption, but on roughly half my visits to this page, I find the caption restored, so there's at least one person in my midst who feels my identity should be public knowledge. Fine. So let's reveal the identities of the individuals defaming the alleged kooks in the alt.usenet.kooks news group and, if we can't penetrate the identities of these anonymous sources, then as journalists, Wikipedia administrators should treat these individuals the same way journalists treat unnamed sources. Carefully. Confirm the rumors before releasing the article. If you have to release the article, withhold the identities of the alleged kooks. If you're going to reveal the identities of the alleged kooks, throw in a number of disclaimers. It's the absence of these disclaimers that undermines the neutrality of the article."

By your logic, if I heard rumors that you were a pedophile, and then I decided to devote a Web site to reporting rumors that you are a pedophile, and it ends up ranking highly in a Google search on your name, all I have to avoid culpability is claim, "I am just reporting a rumor." This explanation would never fly in a court of law, where I would be perceived as a secondary publisher or re-publisher of content under the Communications Decency Act. By creating this entry and identifying individuals by name (and without observing guidelines of journalism and civil conduct) you are in effect creating a Web page (this entry has its own unique URL) that distributes malicious rumors that have no basis of fact beyond the fact of the rumor itself
  • Keep, doesn't fit any definition of libel I know about. Gazpacho 00:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right, and even if it did, that would be beside the point. The point being whether this topic is encyclopedic or not. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 00:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Bryan. If I want to stretch an analogy realllly wide, I mean realllly wide, if the article truly had "libel, defamation and nonsense", that would be original research (hold on for a while, put that mallet down, will you?), but this thing is source of, um, such research. =) (There. now put the mallet away. Thank you.) Such stuff is part of the content of the group, but that's no reason not to have the article about such a long-standing Internet community that deals with such matter. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 04:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this article documents a notable and highly visible Usenet newsgroup. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The purported justification for deletion amounts only to a claim that the article requires editing. Peter J Ross 11:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- It's a genuine longstanding noteworthy Usenet phenomenon If the article requires editing, edit it. AnonMoos 19:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 04:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Warcraft 3 General Discussion Forum

From WP:WEB "A forum with more than 5,000 users that has made a verifiable impact beyond its own user community". There is no mention of the forum having an impact beyond its own community Reid A. 02:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AlB1337: Will mention contributions, definitely has more than 5,000 users

There are plenty of places to discus video games. An encyclopedia is not one of them. CanDo 02:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I am not suggesting it be deleted because it is in relation to a video game, but in order for a forum to be listed it must have an impact beyond its own community, this one doesnt.-Reid A. 03:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable enough to warrant an article. There are tens or hundreds of thousands of online communities with 5,000 members. --jackohare 03:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AlB1337: The requirements are apparently 5,000 members, and the forum has made an impact in shaping the game's development, which I edited to show.

  • Comment-Impact beyond its own user community..... I don't see that. Plus you need to cite your sources if you want to have any chance of having it stay on-Reid A. 03:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AlB1337: "The forum has proven useful in the past for reporting hackers, gameplay bugs, and users actively discuss balance issues, which the moderator(s) frequently read, offering valuable insight to Blizzard Entertainment Inc. about what changes should be made in future patches."

Since the game and the forum community are two different things, I don't see why this should not count.

Citing Sources: I have been battling large amounts of vandalism, sources will be cited if article is allowed to stay on.

I'm afraid it doesn't work like that. Sources should have been cited from the beginning. Consider adding them as soon as possible. Providing verifiable and reliable third party sources, increases the change of the article being kept in the first place. - Mgm|(talk) 11:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AlB1337: Cited sources. And I suggest you look at other "Website Stub" articles before making a conclusion whether or not the forum is important enough.

  • Comment-AlB1337, While that may be true, rather than using that as an example why don't you submit those for deletion as well.... or help us out and expand them (if they are relevant)-Reid A. 15:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus (but leaning toward merging to a location undetermined, and defaulting to keep — Have fun with this one). —

FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK
) 16:29, Dec. 23, 2005

Studio Four

Society is a university club so could be deemed Not-Notable, so should be Deleted. I suggest Merge/Rename to a broader article. Perhaps about all clubs on UNSW campus Chanlord 03:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is Articles for deletion. Please only nominate articles here that you actually want to be deleted. Article
    merger do not involve deletion at any stage. Uncle G 04:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Could probably be merged but no clear mandate from this AFD discussion to do so. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New South Wales University Theatrical Society

NUTS is a university club and could be deemed Not Notable, so should be Deleted. I suggest Merge/Rename into a broader article perhaps on clubs at UNSW in general Chanlord 03:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is Articles for deletion. Please only nominate articles here that you actually want to be deleted. Article
    merger do not involve deletion at any stage. Uncle G 04:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • At the moment, should be merged with the University of New South Wales article. Capitalistroadster 04:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think that NUTS, as one of the university's oldest and largest societies, is deserving of a separate article. NUTS is an important breeding-ground for thespians in Sydney. Of course, this article could stand to be longer - or if there's not enough good information on it, merged with information on SUDS, TROUTS and DRAMAC (similar clubs at other Sydney universities). Joestella 05:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.
  • Keep per Joestella. Ambi 08:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the university, otherwise delete. Not notable in its own right, although it is in the context of the university. Lord Bob 09:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with
    University of New South Wales Student Guild JPD (talk) 10:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment: Just a note, NUTS was founded and affiliated in 1985 Chanlord 14:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep.

e ] 19:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

List of songs featuring cowbells

This was kept before here but it haven't change much since. I just don't see how this page is useful in any ways. Listcruft Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 03:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I'm quite inclined to vote Keep on any article that has previously passed deletion review, on the principle of stare decisis. I'm not super enthusiastic about the tactic of Well I didn't get it deleted, I'll try again in six months. Unless the article has greatly changed, isn't that kind of disrespecting the participants in the previous decision? I hope that the resolving administrator will take this into consideration.
  2. On consideration, I'm not that troubled in this case by verifiability or original research issues. That is not intended to prevent trivial and/or patently obvious original research. It's not really "original research" to state that Mississippi Queen has a cowbell any more than it is to state that it has "Mississippi" in its title. It's just obvious. Similarly, verifiability is achieved just by listening to the song. (And if Ben was able to cite, say, a Spin magazine article as a source, well, the author of that article would have used the same research method: listening to the songs. So how would that be better?)
  3. On consideration, I'm not worried about copyvio, even if the list is copied from somewhere else, which apparantly it isn't anyway. Simple collections of data are not copyrightable.
  4. I find Ben's argument's convincing. Absent an original research issue or a copyvio issue, of course it should be kept. Are we next to delete (say) "List of symphonies scored for guitar". "List of concertos scored for glass harmonica". Is there a general hostility toward Wikipedia containing any information about nonstandard instrumentation in musical compositions, or am I missing something? [[User:Herostratus|Herostratus]] 04:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those are all great points + cowbells sound good. -- JJay 04:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep.

e ] 19:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Forty Six & 2

Song does not meet

WP:MUSIC standards for notability. Suggest text be incorporated into the article for whatever album it's on. Klaw ¡digame! 03:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 21:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Velasco Studios

Company cannot be verified via Google or IMDB. Article lists quite a few people who share the same last names. That and the discription of the films makes this seem like home made films. There is a Studio Velasco, but that is an art gallery for a painter. There is also an associated AfD for Jorge Andres Ruiz de Somocurcio which is one of the actors listed on this page. JLaTondre 03:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 21:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aggramar

World of Warcraft server, but every single server shouldn't have its own article, Delete Derktar 03:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

  • Delete as WOW-cruft. Saberwyn - 10:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, maybe create some article on WoW servers in general (or just redirect to World of Warcraft). --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 10:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • WoW? What has Willy On Wheels got to do with this? ;) - Mgm|(talk) 11:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Why is this notable to anyone but someone who plays WOW on this server? --jackohare 16:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete for this and Ursin: but the World of Warcraft article is quite large. A merged article on World of Warcraft servers might not be a bad idea, especially if the different servers have different communities and atmospheres. Smerdis of Tlön 19:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Computerjoe 20:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 21:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ursin

World of Warcraft server, but every single server shouldn't have its own article, Delete Derktar 03:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

  • Delete as WOW-cruft. Saberwyn - 10:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, maybe create some article on WoW servers in general (or just redirect to World of Warcraft). --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 10:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Why is this notable to anyone but someone who plays WOW on this server? --jackohare 16:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- JJay 22:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete after further consideration, per G3. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 04:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What is SmartWorks ?

Blatant advertisement. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 03:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy redirected. - Mgm|(talk) 11:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Niagara chip

Article was written while a product was in development. Content has been superceded by UltraSPARC T1, the currently maintained and updated article about the same chip. P0per 03:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was little tortilla delete. Mindmatrix 21:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Little Tortilla Boy

A non-notable joke. Seems to also include a non-notable movie by the non-existant or home-made film company Velasco Studios - which is also up for AfD. Ifnord 03:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable. The "independent movie" is really a flash animation, which the creator elsewhere describes as "nothing horribly spectacular" [13]. Durova 05:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a flash animation != a film. - Mgm|(talk) 11:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- JJay 22:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- JLaTondre 22:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was funny at the time, but it doesn't need its own article. Delete. Marblespire 01:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. KHM03 02:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 21:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kowalski's Law

I had tagged it as a speedy, but it's close enough now to be better AFDed. Notability is highly sketchy, doubtless vanity. Deltabeignet 04:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • A university student has made up a law and some other university students have repeated it.
    Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. The article cites no sources, and I can find no sources. This article is unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G 04:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep: In this context, a law is defined as "a generalization based on consistent experience or results". A university student quantified a pre-existing phenomenon with its own epidemiology. The very essence of a "law" within the scientific community is its element of repeatability.Anotherzerohero 06:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. Capitalistroadster 05:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Negligible Google hits refer mostly to an attorney named Kowalski. Durova 05:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This terminology has been used in publications and public discourse. Thus, it does not fall under the category of original research. Beyond that, Google references mostly non-academic sources, and its relevance is suspect.146.7.209.64 06:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Except for a couple of NN blogs, the only Google hits are incidental occurrences. One of the claimed publications occurs two years before claimed invention of the term and another appears to be an unpublished interview, which renders the third (trivial if verified) citation suspect. Durova 06:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The wording of the introduction quietly changed from "created" to "popularized" since I posted the above criticism. Durova 16:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom.TheRingess 06:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Uncle G and Durova. I suspect that the insertion of this article into Wikipedia is an attempt to illustrate the "law" itself. --Metropolitan90 08:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Though not the intent of the editor of this article, how could this assertion be a negative thing? Such a claim would be a perpetuation of the recognition of and need for the law.Anotherzerohero 15:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable. Blackcats 09:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's an idea that, while intriguing, certainly doesn't deserve to be known as "Kowalski's Law" because nobody is going to go looking for named like that. Maybe do something like The 3 Laws of Hilarity:
    1. A person may not place comedic value above possible loss of life or, through inaction, allow comedic value to be placed above possible loss of life.
    2. A person must strive to maximize comedic value in all situations except where such action would conflict with the First Law.
    3. A person must strive to minimize negative repercussions as long as such action does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.
--Cyde Weys talkcontribs 10:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What is your basis for the idea that one would look for the idea named as something else? (You found this entry). Secondly, the concept does not necessarily have to do with the loss of life. What you're proposing is an original idea undocumented in the real world.
    • I only found this through the AfD page, and my 3 Laws of Hilarity was a joke. Go read up on Three Laws of Robotics to see why I included the human life part. Hopefully someone else got it. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 16:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only if reliable sources can be cited. We don't just make stuff up. Uncle G 13:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obviously. Eusebeus 14:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - "Kowalski's Law" is a real phrase with a definite presence within the vernacular of a geographical area. As the editor, I was simply trying to illuminate something that already has the capacity to reflect. I know I'm new, and I'm trying really hard to meet all of your "standards" here!Anotherzerohero 15:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does it have a verifiably encyclopedic presence? Even if all your assertions are true this probably qualifies for deletion as slang. The Internet has sites devoted to recording such ephemera. Wikipedia has other missions. Durova 16:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - You might want to hit up Uncyclopedia or Urban Dictionary. Wikipedia is not the kind of place for this. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 16:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while not exactly original research, this does seem to be original work with very limited external recognition. CarbonCopy (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic personal trivia. Enochlau 00:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only a handful of Google hits. Come back in a year or two when it's famous. chocolateboy 03:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 04:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Overnight Loss

Non-notable band. No Allmusic entry. Text is mostly nonsense. Klaw ¡digame! 04:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not notable. delldot | talk 04:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as hoax/inside joke/childish nonsense. Ifnord 04:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not speedy, CSD A7 would need to be expanded for that. Jamie 05:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was boldly redirected to

e ] 20:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Win-win situation

one line dicdef thats already in wiktionary. unlikely to grow. delete. BL kiss the lizard 04:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 04:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shoepedia

does not meet notability guidlines in

WP:WEB Nsevs 05:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Speedy delete. NN. --Ezeu 05:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's just another site running MediaWiki. — JIP | Talk 06:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. (We don't have a CSD for NN websites) Jamie 06:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Boot it out. Blackcats 09:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I laughed, I cried, I voted for deletion. Maybe this can be transwikied to Comictionary, if such a thing existed. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 10:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN This while highly amusing is clearly not remotely notable. The article is also quite a mess. There are other sites that index MediaWiki sites Wikipedia is not a directory. — Falerin<talk>,<contrib> 14:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not foot the bill of
    WP:WEB. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as nn-bio.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 06:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael P. Schmitt

The person is not notable enough to deserve its own article on Wikipedia Dunemaire 05:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn --MONGO 05:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy as {{
    nn-bio}} / CSD A7 Jamie 06:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 04:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

James Piekos

NN vanity, possibly a speedy. A disc jockey with 32 Google hits, most of them routine indexes. Durova 06:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy as {{
    nn-bio}} / CSD A7 Jamie 06:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment: This is not a speedy- he's a radio DJ. However, article is probably a copyvio. -- JJay 07:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. Nothing worth saving for a merge to his radio station. --Spondoolicks 15:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete and redirected to

FCYTravis 00:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The Radium Girls

Obscure band,non-notable band, also vanity page Dunemaire 06:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong cult following, profoundly influential in small circles Not a vanity page, as the article is not particularly flattering — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendan Vox (talk • contribs) 06:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide sources for the information and evidence this passes
WP:MUSIC guidelines? - Mgm|(talk) 11:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 21:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Robert Wessel

"The article is a vanity article. Lots of unverifiable information.DeleteTheRingess 06:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can vouch for the authenticity of this article. If you would like, photographic and public records of this man can be put forth, along with Variable X's album and a collection of Mr. Wessel's locally acclaimed films. I would vote against deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JWaltonV (talk • contribs) 09:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know you, so we really can't do anything with you vouching for this information. We need
WP:V. - Mgm|(talk) 11:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Userfy to User:Wessela if appropriate, delete otherwise. Capitalistroadster 09:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recommend against userfication. This article is all Wessela editedm which indicates the intention to only use Wikipedia for self-promotion. I don't think allowing stuff like this to linger in the userspace is a good idea. It remains vanity. - Mgm|(talk) 11:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • SPEEDY Delete where are the claims to notability?? One high school teacher referred to him as "God's gift to academia." He holds the record for fastest pin ever at Franklin Township Middle School. He visited Paris. His novel will be published by Penguin. Everything except the last is ridiculous. And completely unverifiable crystal ball claims should not be counted as a claim to notability. Eusebeus 14:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "In his spare time he enjoys reading, drinking coffee." If this is notable, I'm a star. --jackohare 16:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No reliable claims of notability. --Nsevs 17:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as either vanity article or failing
    WP:BIO take your pick.Gateman1997 18:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Oh come on. You'd like him if you met him. He's a swell guy. Trust me.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 15:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Banana Guard

Advertising Brimba 06:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete but it's cute. Durova 06:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is one of the most non-notable invention ideas I've ever heard of. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 10:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • My aunt got one of these last Christmas. Delete nonetheless, I can't conceive of any reason for this to be in an encyclopaedia. --Last Malthusian 14:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Verifiable, at least. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 10:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 21:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cyboris

Was tagged as {{db|Article about a minor OS from a company that fails to meet [[WP:CORP]].}}. That's not a valid

criterion for speedy, so let's put it to a vote. I recommend delete. Jamie 06:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Of course it is. You won't find it in the criteria but practice is a different matter. As a community of informal volunteers, we have the flexibility not to be bound by time-stretching legalistic rules. Intentional time-wasters are not tolerated and sensible editors and admins agree to shove away such nuisances quickly rather than reward them with attention.
Lotsofissues 08:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 21:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clintonym

  • del neologism that failed to be grafted to the American language. mikka (t) 07:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neologism. Also POV, since Clinton is neither the first nor the last politician to use this form of deceptive language. Jamie 07:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it kind of smells like a copyvio too but it seems it'll be gone in a few days in any case... (ESkog)(Talk) 13:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. not only a nn neologism but possibly copyvio as well — Falerin<talk>,<contrib> 14:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable neologism. DeathThoreau 19:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not only bad taste, but an "onym" suffix denotes a method of naming (e.g. matronym) and not a figure of speech (e.g. ellipsis) Harvestman 22:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. Non-notable neologism. Kingfox 21:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 21:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Syntax pretentious

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

The result of the debate was keep.

e ] 19:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Redstocking manifesto

Google yields 173 hits [16] But this article has been on the site for over a year so many mirrors. After sifting through the results, I notice most pages are mirrors. There are a few .edu pages that mention it as part of a syllabus. delete beceause there just isn't enough verifiable info.

Lotsofissues 07:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Added an external link - now, I vote for Keep. I may try to give further inputs within next 2/ 3 days. --Bhadani 16:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete per

WP:CSD A1.--Alhutch 09:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Alekseev Manuscript

Not notable manuscript. Delete abakharev 07:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy as {{
    empty}} / CSD A1 Jamie 08:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 21:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Brenner

  • del quite nonnotable online poker player. mikka (t) 07:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Claims notability, so can't speedy. Jamie 08:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Two of four Ghits are gay porn, not that there's anything wrong with that. Melchoir 09:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are very few online poker players mentioned in this encyclopedia, depsite having articles for all the major sites (and not for many of the best known casinos). As far as online players go, Brenner is one of the best. Makes no sense to delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.225.144 (talk • contribs) 09:15, 14 December 2005
    • Can you find a media article mentioning him? I couldn't. Melchoir 09:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless there's a valid response to Melchoir's question. Essexmutant 09:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete To the extent that Google provides verifiable evidence which is limited he is mentioned as a wrestler but not a notable one [18].

Only Google News reference is as a wrestler as well [19]. Capitalistroadster 09:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The wrestler is also him.
    • But can you verify it? Melchoir 19:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have found a reference now at [20]. Still not very notable by my thoughts though. Essexmutant 10:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I saw that, but it doesn't include his name in a complete sentence, so I don't call it a reference at all. Hell, I'm more notable than this guy. Melchoir 18:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Mikka. DeathThoreau 19:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I created this page, but it's clear that the consensus is to delete. Go ahead and do it.
  • Keep. I retract my previous comment in support of deletion. If you google search The_Brenn (his online handle) you will get 233 results, all of which seem to be him. It makes sense that his noteability would manifest itself in this form, seeing as he is known for his online play. If he is taken down, we might as well take down all the articles that deal exclusively with online poker (pokerroom.com, etc.). If this guy is not decided to be noteable or worthy of inclusion, then the category itself just isn't worthy.
If nobody can disagree with that I think it's a speedy keep.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. —

FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK
) 16:38, Dec. 23, 2005

World Petroleum Congress protests

Despite the claims of thousands in the article, Calgary newspaper accounts reported a small and peaceful crowd. Here is a sampling:

"For their second day of action, protesters turned their attention away from the World Petroleum Congress to downtown oil companies. As was the case Sunday, the day passed without any major confrontations between protesters and police.

About 200 members of the End of Oil Action Coalition took to the streets at 7 a.m., blocking rush-hour traffic as they danced, chanted and marched." — Calgary Herald, June 13, 2005

Nonevent delete

Lotsofissues 08:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. While the various protest marches during the weekdays of the conference typically saw numbers ranging from about 100-300 participants, the main opening protest event on Sunday, June 11, 2005, saw significantly larger numbers (it's been a while so I don't recall specifics, and I don't have my notes handy, but it was somewhere between 1000 and 5000). The protest events ran for about a week, including a "counter-conference" with participants and speakers brought in from around the world. While the article is a little sparse at the moment, expanding it has been on my to do list for a while. --GrantNeufeld 18:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete In no way notable Brimba 20:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Shouldn't need a major police confrontation to make it not a "nonevent". CarbonCopy (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a PR agency, no matter how noble you think your cause is, and the 5,000 people (at MOST) at a protest is barely noticable blip in the world. --Calton | Talk 01:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nonevent p_b1999 (Talk|Contribution) 20:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Definite nonevent. Every international conference has its corresponding insignicant protest. They don't all need Wikipedia entries. | Klaw ¡digame! 17:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus, kept. —

FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK
) 16:46, Dec. 23, 2005

John D'Agostino

Was listed for speedy as: {{deletebecause|it's about a fifth-place finisher with no other notable achievements such as a book or a magazine column, and it includes a section of poker jargon meaningless to the average reader ("a bad beat led to his pocket 10's losing to trip 7's")}}.

That's not a valid

nn-bio}} either. So listing here for a vote. Recommend delete as NN. Jamie 08:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

This is certainly an article that is likely to grow. What would be better is adding an {{expand}} tag to add things such as his invitation to the WPT Young Guns event. The poker jargon can be removed - that sentance in itself is not criteria to delete the entire article. If it was then perhaps Andrew Black should go as well. There are certainly worse articles on poker players - Paul Cherry and Ray Zee come to mind. Quite besides this, the argument that he's just a 5th place finisher is incorrect, as the article clearly states he has also finished 4th in the Borgata WPT event. Strong keep. Essexmutant 09:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per above. -- JJay 17:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.Gateman1997 19:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've heard of him, and I don't follow competitive poker. --- Charles Stewart 20:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I seem to recall reading about him in the NYT, and he was unusually yuoung for a professional poker player. I tried to check this on google, but was buried with accounts of poker tournaments. --- Charles Stewart 20:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete He placed 5th/4th whatever, how is that notable? Brimba 21:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Multiple WPT final tables. Also final table of US Poker Championships. He is also a strong cash game player. Essexmutant 21:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • He's twice been on the final table at WPT contests, and he's made over $349,000 at one tournament. He's not the top-rated poker player around today, but given his age, and the fact he's been a professional play for less than two years, he has the potential to be. --- Charles Stewart 21:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed, and as it's impossible to define who the top poker player is anyway, there's no reason for people to say he is not notable. I repeat Paul Cherry and Ray Zee as examples of articles that should be looked at before this. Numerous other players have made less final tables, but no one has suggested they should be deleted. Also, before I forget, his heads-up play is a major talking point in Dan Harrington's second book. Essexmutant 21:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Essexmutant. D-Rock 05:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus keep. Despite a late charge towards deletion, I don't see that we've got any agreement to delete here. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sassan Sanei

Appears to be a vanity article. — TheKMantalk 08:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support I don't think so. He is very well known in Canada for his extensive work on the BlackBerry wireless communication system and solutions that he developed in collaboration with independent software vendors, universities, and carriers. I would like to see mention of new technical standards as well, if an authoritative source can be found for this information, but I do not have this. I fixed some grammar and added mention of the publication of the developer journal to the article, though this may be less significant.216.9.243.104 08:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Virtually every google hit is some comment by this guy on other people's blogs. A Proquest literature search, including the ABI/INFORM database, returns 0 hits. Uucp 14:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support I wrote the original article. I disagree with using the number of google or proquest hits as a basis for notability for this subject. Four reasons: 1. The fine details of much engineering work is not published on the web because of companies' tight control over trade secrets and patents, so most google hits return pages dealing with his personal views and not professional work. Perhaps others can provide more data in this area. 2. Some third-party publications, such as development of technical standards for wireless communication through the IEC (international engineering consortium) to which he is known to have contributed, is published in conference proceedings but not picked up by proquest. I'm pretty sure I have print copies of these proceedings and if I can find them will cite them in an edit to the article. 3. Nor are the contents of print publications, such as Resource magazine and the blackberry developer journal, picked up by google. I am omitted references to these articles until I could find a suitable source for citation. I did however use google as a search for the quotations. 4. Where he has been employed by RIM since 1996 when it was a tiny company means that he was an early and influential player in wireless data communication, as they did not even release the blackberry until 1999, now there are around 4 million users of this device and the historical significance of the subject in this area alone should qualify this as a worthy article, certainly not vanity. This was my first draft of this article and I was hoping other contributors could fill in more information. - Frank R.Fragnal 17:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The subject could very well be notable, but the article in its current form does not prove the importance of the subject. The subject may be connected to the BlackBerry device, but the article fails to explain how. Yes, I agree that Google isn't always the best place to look to prove notability, but the article has no other references or publications posted, so it is my only source. I don't want to imply anything by this but I think it should be mentioned that the only editors to the article were Fragnal and 216.9.243.104, who both posted within 12 hours of each other.[21] I have not voted yet, but plan to when I have made my decision. — TheKMantalk 17:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand what you are suggesting and no offence taken as I have already let several people know that I wrote this article in the hopes that they could add content. Only one person so far though. So I have added some external links that I could find including one on cnn.com from 2001 as well as a J2ME reference to better show HOW the subject is connected to the blackberry as you suggested. I do appreciate your suggestions but take it easy on me as this is my first article and I want to do it right. Thanks. :) - Frank R. Fragnal 18:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great, I think I'll give the article some time to develop. — TheKMantalk 18:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support I have worked in the wireless industry in Canada for several years, and in landline communication before that, and can affirm the importance of Sassan Sanei's contributions to wireless data communication standards including the BlackBerry system. 65.93.23.84 01:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. Reasons For: While many of Sassan Sanei's Google hits refer to his blog, he is mentioned in a CNN article from 2001 [22], another article from 2001 [23], and there is a short description of him on a technology conference page [24]. The article is well writen, and might have some importance. Reasons Against: The few significant references to Sanei are from archived/old internet news articles from 2001. The only page linking to the article in question is the

Sockpuppets are bad). In Closing: I do believe the article was created in good faith, but on a relatively obsure person. If this article is kept, I would recommend only keeping the "BlackBerry" quotation only. I'll leave the final decision to the deciding administrator. — TheKMantalk 17:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Thanks for the suggestions. If I find more references I will add them to the article. I included the quotations which came up on various Google searches to give some insight into Sassan Sanei's views on things that have to do with more than just blackberry (personality insight). I have no objections if others want to edit or remove the others as TheKMan suggested and I can see that 65.93.23.84 already deleted one as "irrelevant" which I thought was actually an interesting one but I will not argue over it. Have we reached a consensus on whether to keep or delete?Fragnal 19:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting to
FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK
) 06:19, Dec. 25, 2005
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep.

e ] 19:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Vo sadu li, v ogorode

del. Foreign-language title, nonnotable folk song. mikka (t) 08:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If foreing-language title is an issue, then we should delete all other articles about russian folk songs as well. As for being a nonnotable folk song, I heard otherwise from my Russian wife. Perhaps we could get more opinions on this matter form other fellow russian wikipedias? --Pinnecco 12:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google informs me otherwise also. The Russian didn't yield much, (bad form?) but the English gave me quite a bit, including the interesting trivia that John Field (1782-1837) recieved a Library of Congress Citations entry for "Fantaisie sur un air favorit...avec accompagnement de l'orchestre"; pub. as piano solo by Wenzel, Moscow, ca. 1823; melody based on Russian folk song, "Vo sadu li v ogorode" (In the garden)), so it appears it was notable enough in 1823 for composers to use as a basis for the standard "variations of" type piece.
  • Keep - just having a foreign-language title does not make it deletable, and it appears to be notable. --jackohare 23:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, documented folk songs are notable.
    Kappa 06:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was 'delete.

FCYTravis 00:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Kent Larson

NN porn star. Delete. Jamie 08:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 09:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Muir

The creation edit said he was a notable usenetter, but there are few of those in reality and his actual notability based on what is written is questionable. He does have a list of publications, but its hard to tell if its enough. Delete as is. --

Shazaam! - <*> 07:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

--Tristes tigres 22:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC) -[User's sixth contribution][reply]

--
AfD Relisted on Dec 23
--
  • Delete. Per nom. not notable. Agnte 00:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I spent a great deal of time on Usenet, talking to all sorts of people in various newsgroups, and I've never heard of him. nn. --
    Jason Gastrich 00:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per precedent. Lists of "notable" personalities in IRC chatrooms get deleted too. Endomion 01:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nobody is ever notable just for USENET. karmafist 01:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep, definitely. I don't recognize half the names in the Usenet People category as currently configured (perhaps the problem upthread is indeed localization), but Francis has been a colorful mainstay for well over a decade. --S. Goetz 19:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.122.199.129 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. There's no such thing as an improper relist, and this person doesn't deserve his own article - maybe a couple of sentences in an article on Usenet history, at best. Flyboy Will 03:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete, with no objection to userfying to

FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK
) 19:27, Dec. 24, 2005

Larvatus

This page is a bit of a mess, but it appears to be about a usenetter of questionable notability. Delete as is. --

Shazaam! - <*> 08:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Are you somehow implying that this AfD is not legit? --
Shazaam! - <*> 08:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
No, I'm saying the speedy deletion wasn't legitimate. That this AFD occured on the same day is just not surprising at all. FeloniousMonk 16:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's very common for a CSD to be followed immediately by AfD. And the implicit suggestion of bad faith is unnecessary. Reasons have been put forward; decide for yourself whether they're justified.
rodii 22:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
Exactly. Knowledgeable editors will decide for themselves whether they're justified. FeloniousMonk 01:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
843 hits in Google (did you discount Wikipedia mirrors?) is not much for a supposedly well-known Internet activist. For example, usually all university professors who have written even few papers get that many hits and we don't think they are notable based on that alone. I think pretty much everyone here agrees that
Archimedes Plutonium deserves his own page as a notable eccentric, but let me present this as a precedent: Edmond Wollmann gets 864 Google hits and is known among many Usenet participants as the winner of the not-so-prestigious "Kook of the Millenium" award by the alt.usenet.kooks crew. Yet his article was deleted because of lacking fame, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edmond Wollmann. jni 12:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
It is helpful to search for the right thing. The Google Groups search is far more relevant to Usenet personae than its Web counterpart. (The latter reflects mainly the hits for my Alonzo Church Festschrift, my LiveJournal entries, and postings on privately maintained specialty web sites.) Thus we get 11,300 postings signed or referencing "michael zeleny" ([27]) plus 9,730 mostly distinct postings signed or referencing "mikhail zeleny" ([28]). Not too shabby for painstakingly handcrafted messages. For comparison, a notorious spammer claims a lower total of 17,700 postings signed or referencing "Serdar Argic" ([29]). Larvatus 12:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus[reply]
  • Comment.
    rodii 22:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Neutral - I'm a usenetter, so I can't exactly vote to delete this. I've never heard of the guy though. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 10:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm a usenetter and I remember encountering Zelenys' postings. He was well known - even imfamous - in his day. That alone would merit a mention, as would his various spats with other usenetters. If Zeleny didn't merit a mention, neither would several other Usenet personalities. One small thing - I would remove the comment "He is not known to have grown up" from the article - it doesn't add anything to the article, which gives a fairly good summary of Zelenys' personality. Autarch 14:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Usenet trolls are not encyclopaedic.
    t c 15:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep - real, verifiable, significant in a certain subculture. Wikipedia is full of usenet-related personalities. Guettarda 16:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I nominated the article for speedy deletion in the first place, and I contend that it was appropriate to do so on the basis that it is a vanity page and not notable. Michael wrote the article himself and added himself to the Usenet page. The first paragraph of the Larvatus article says: Zeleny is a Usenetter known for lumpen-intellectual net postures, an absurdly pedantic sense of humor .... extravagant litigiousness, and nothing else of real consequence. Is there any way to interpret this other than a self-definition of "not notable"? Tim Pierce 19:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a side note I will add this: I don't bear Mikhail any ill will and am kind of amused to see thirteen-year-old flamewars dredged up in this context. I nominated this biography for deletion because it seems to be a profound violation of Wikipedia guidelines. The fact that he, or I, spent a lot of time flaming each other on Usenet is not a reason for either of us to have a biography to ourselves, and I would be quite happy if both of them were deleted. Tim Pierce 19:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think this issue has very much to do with your happiness, Tim. For better or worse, both of us have contributed to Usenet culture. Other people have recognized our contributions as notable or notorious. Since then, Usenet has been recognized as a legitimate subject for social ([30]) and technical ([31]) study. The category of Usenet people existed before I started editing here. Whom do you propose to include there? If you and I don't make the cut, who does? Larvatus 15:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable, vanity. Disclosure: I too flamed and was flamed by Mikhail back in the old days. Nevertheless, what Proto and Tim Pierce said.
    rodii 22:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per nom. -- JJay 22:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to Keep based on arguments below. -- JJay 18:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but needs re-writing to remove
    Proto regarding the article move. More generally, the style is rather non-WP and, as an aside, I'd remove the somewhat salacious personal details. We do not need to know this here. --Plumbago 18:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. Zeleny (Larvatus) reached the highest level of USENET notability for non-crackpots. All of the following are verifiable evidence of USENET notability, and if Zeleny is not a notable USENET personage, who else could possibly qualify for the honor? Within USENET, Zeleny made the Net Legends FAQ and (unfairly, but whatever) the USENET Kooks list. Off the net, his discussions with Godwin made the Wall Street Journal, some English-lit professor tried to have him banned for discourse alleged to be harmful to her students, as did an Australian philosophy professor he had made a fool of. Zeleny's postings got Richard Stallman to post personally in misc.gnu.discuss. Tushar Samant created a Zeleny Archive, long before the days of weblogs. Again, all preceding facts are a matter of public record. Few posters were as prolific in as many newsgroups, or as well-known short of being a USENET founder or uber-admin (e.g. Gene Spafford, Steve Bellovin). This is a no-brainer: keep the entry. [a non-registered user] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.122.108.10 (talk • contribs)
    • Thank you for recalling the Usenet record. One quibble: I did not make the KotM list. ([40]) Gene Ward Smith once tried to get me elected, but failed to get the votes. Larvatus 16:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus[reply]
  • Wikify and keep: Unsure how to assess notability here, and the vanity issue is even more trying; however after reading the related pages it feels as though I just drank a
    Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster. As such, it should stay. - RoyBoy 800 04:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete Non-notable, vanity. I have never been in a flame war with Mikhail. Nevertheless, what Proto and Tim Pierce said sounds logical
    David D. (Talk) 06:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete The last thing any USENET user needs is a vanity page to boost their already overinflated egos. Nobody becomes notable just because of some message board. karmafist 07:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable vanity. —Locke Cole 10:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy and Delete. The article contains no actual assertion of notability; even the relatively small number of Google hits is irrelevant because many of them are created by Mr. Zeleny (ie internet postings, accounts on other sites, Amazon reviews etc.). And given the fact that the article in question is almost wholly autobiographical, an even higher standard should be upheld in this case. - squibix 14:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or userfy. per nom. Non-notable, vanity. Agnte 21:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I would say userfy but judging from
    [T]/[C] AfD? 22:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. "Assault philosopher"? Gamaliel 02:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, autobiography of a person with an inflated sense of importance. Very few Google hits for websites, and an inflated count in Usenet just shows that they guy posts a lot. That hardly makes someone notable. If somebody could somehow quantify Usenet posts about him, that would be more significant. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Zeleny's significance is rather dramatically quantified by the fact that he is the only Usenet poster, out of several hundred thousand, to have ever had an unsolicited third-party archive created and devoted solely to his postings. The archive was formed by Tushar Samant in early May of 1998 (see threads in rec.arts.books with "Zeleny Archive On-Line" in the title) and initially contained 980 of Zeleny's articles. The archive was created on the basis of the high intellectual and rhetorical level of Zeleny's postings; as far as I can remember all other repositories of specific individuals' postings were just mockery of crackpots, as with (e.g.) Plutonium or McElwaine. User:Sqwik
  • Comment The current Wikipedia entries do not adequately convey Usenet's importance or Zeleny's status within "the Net", which as of the mid-1990's simply meant the Usenet. Usenet as a technology (let alone a subculture) was of comparable import to the WWW, ARPANET or Sendmail, and of greater import than BitNet or Wikipedia. Some of the customs and innovations now taken for granted, especially the multiply-indented interlinear reply format (stacks of ">>>>"), were developed on Usenet. Zeleny was exceptional for (1) the number of long and high-signal postings (not just one-liners, in-jokes, flames, mutual adoration, XOXO and other material typical of high-volume posters); (2) the number of sources, often recherche, cited or quoted in his postings; (3) the number of excellent translations of sources that he posted in the course of discussions; (4) the extent to which he used and treated Usenet as a scholarly and archival medium, including full quotation of the history-to-date and comprehensive interlinear reply within each posting; (5) the level of erudition displayed and complexity of vocabulary deployed (many people at the time remarked on both of these points); (7) the number of phrases and expressions coined, often as trenchant witticisms within a serious analysis of some text or issue; (8) the number and diverse range of newsgroups in which he was a leading or notable personality; (9) the number and extent of the episodes where his postings had effects beyond the Usenet, such as the Wall Street Journal coverage of his Internet dispute with Mike Godwin. Godwin is remembered in the Wikipedia for the phrase "Godwin's Law", but he also introduced the term "Zelenites" for Zeleny's fellow travellers on the Usenet. I don't know of many, or any, other Usenet personalities who were notable enough to earn a similar coinage. User:Sqwik
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy keep. Premature nomination, sorry. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Þorgeir Ljósvetningagoði

Listed as in need of translation since November 25, more than two weeks ago. Still untranslated. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete :-Þ Blackcats 09:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC) Changing vote to wait for translation - in light of new info. Blackcats 09:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wait. It may have been tagged since Nov 25, but it's listed on
    WP:PNT since December 1st. Let's give it some more time. I'm including the current discusstion from WP:PNT below... Jamie 09:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I have no idea what language this might be. It looks vaguely Scandinavian, so Icelandic would be my best guess, but I'm not sure. Solver 14:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The creator's IP is Icelandic. --tyomitch 15:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The character Þ (thorn) is unique to the Icelandic language. Stifle 15:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There's an article about him in the Icelandic Wikipedia at is:Þorgeir Ljósvetningagoði Þorkelsson, so it's likely notable. Someone needs to ask them nicely to translate. - Bobet 00:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 21:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WSPaudio

A highly nonsensical page about some random blog. Delete this crap from WP! jni 09:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 13:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Shabnam Sharma

Non-notable writer. 98 hits on Google, most of them referring to different people, Shabnam being a common name and Sharma being a common surname Gurubrahma 09:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Most of the notability claims refer to print sources that may not be available online. Do you have any evidence apart from Google to call this person not-notable? - Mgm|(talk) 11:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The burden of proof is on the claimnant. And anyway, the quality of the article is so low my conscience won't let me say anything but delete. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 12:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - no Vote: In case, she is a recipient of the award instituted in the honor of Mahadevi Varma, she must be be notable. I found by chance a link (last but one para) of the Tribune Nahan: Poetess Honoured, a widely circulated newspaper of North India, which states that this poetess has received more than 20 awards. However, in my opinion all awards may not be of significance, except few ones including the one which I have indicated. As regards the language, this aspect may be attended to any time. --Bhadani 14:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is no source for the Mahadevi Varma award. The link that you provided talks of a local award and refers to the poetess as a local poet. For non-hindi Indian poets, a low google count may be ok, but definitely not for hindi ones (especially since here the "Shabnam Sharmas" returned in google hits are all different people). --Gurubrahma 15:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree with you. In order to continue here as an entry, her notability MUST be established beyond doubt. In case, it is not established, my comments may be taken as a vote for Delete. --Bhadani 15:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was all talk and no consensus, kept by default, then userfied to

FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK
) 17:00, Dec. 23, 2005

Madhuri Guin

nn bio. She is a famous cloth doll artist according to the article. While the name generates 401 hits on google, some of them are forks of Wikipedia. Also, most of the hits lead to essays written by her on various

Nandi bull, Garuda, Narayana, Brahma, Trimurti, Shiva, Vishnu, Draupadi, Ganesha and Radha. This means that either Madhuri Guin herself or a fan of hers is editing these pages. Also, some 20 days back, the number of google hits was in double figures, now it is 400+ because of the figuring of her name in the eponymous article and at least ten other articles in external links - Combined with the abundance of Wikipedia forks, my guess is that these actions have increased her presence on google by a staggering 300% at least. Gurubrahma 09:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

*Userfy - I'd so love to say keep, and my personal beliefs are that something like this does Wikipedia no harm. It is a very well written article. If the author can come forward, then perhaps it can be userfied, and I see no harm in doing that. Whilst the fact that she is from a non-English speaking country (at least not exclusively English), that being India, and hence google, being an English-speaking search engine may be misleading, it seems that from the information that we have that she is not suitably notable. I could see no valid claims to notoriety, was unable to find a single review on her or her work and from what I can gather she just makes really nice dolls. As the nom suggests, this was likely written either by her or someone who personally knows her. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 09:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC) I am withholding my vote (See below).[reply]

    • Also you should look at contribs: [41]. I personally do not think that any vandalism has taken place. But it may be advertising of some kind. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 09:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just adding a bit more. Here are some of MrHyde's contributions:
To
Nandi bull: [42]
(using Madhuri Guin as a reference source for info) - although note that nobody has removed the link
To Shiva: [43] (using Madhuri Guin as a reference source for info) - again note that nobody removed the link
To Bhairava: [44] (adding info - no link)
To Vishnu: [45] (adding lots of info, using Madhuri Guin as a reference) - yet again the link has not been removed
To
Bhagavata purana: [46]
(added a link that is not Madhuri Guin)
To Narayana: [47] (adding info, using Madhuri Guin as a reference) - link not removed
To Garuda: [48] (info, Madhuri Guin as reference) - link not removed
To Brahma: [49] (info, Madhuri Guin as reference) - link not removed
To Trimurti: [50] (info, Madhuri Guin as reference) - link not removed
To Avatar: [51] (info, Madhuri Guin as reference) - link not removed
To Mirabai: [52] (info, Madhuri Guin as reference) - link not removed
To Vrindavan: [53] (info only, no links)
To Radha: [54] (info, 2 Madhuri Guin references) - not removed
To Gita Govinda: [55] (minor)
To Draupadi: [56] (minor)
To Ganesha: [57] (lots of info, Madhuri Guin reference) - not removed

Now, the thing is that Madhuri Guin is being cited as a reference regularly. This is not the same thing as suggesting that Madhuri Guin is famous - I see no evidence in the other articles that anyone is trying to advertise Madhuri Guin in other articles. And this poses the question - are these references, as written by Madhuri Guin, reliable?

Now, I have looked at them, and they are well written, well researched, solid references. They look genuine. Indeed, they look like good references.

Perhaps there is an issue whereby we might suggest that this is all a big scam to try to increase Madhuri Guin's popularity. That is one way to look at things. Alternatively, however, if Madhuri Guin is famous and knowledgeable, then she would be able to write such insightful things, thus making this page notable.

I think that this is something that needs to be looked in to a bit further. If it is found that they are all nonsense, then we will have to revert all of the edits from all of the other articles as well. But if it is valid, then I think that there is a very good chance that this article is suitably notable to be kept. I would appreciate other opinions. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:My Afd tag was for the article Madhuri Guin. Personally, I'd think that the links also shd go as she is not qualified (in terms of eduacation) to write on the subjects. However, I'm indifferent abt those right now but I strongly believe that Wikipedia should not be used as an advertising vehicle, either by design or by accident. That is the reason why I've nominated the article Madhuri Guin for deletion. --Gurubrahma 10:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting thought. Is there any reason to suggest that what she has said in her references is wrong? From what I know of the folklore, they are all spot on 100% accurate. Hopefully we can get someone who is a bit more expertised in the subject area to give a review. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
According to Alexa [58], this advertising isn't helping her site's popularity at all. There's no more people going there than before. Actually, its gone down (although page views per user has increased). Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Gurubrahma. Seems like a clear-cut case of advertising/spam (especially with all the links in other articles). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find as of now, the site [59] displays that it is not available. Is this a coincidence or an orchestrated move to avoid further probing in the matter? It is also interesting that an artist famed for making dolls should find reference in a series of articles pertaining to Hindu Gods. While I am a firm believer of good faith, I am disturbed by the announcement in the site (dollsofindia) as quoted above by Zordrac. As such, in my considered opinion, the entire exercise appears to be a well crafted and well drafted advertisement in a veiled manner. Unless evidences are presented to the contrary, the entry should be deleted/ unnecessary links should be removed – which I shall surely remove, once I am able to peer into the site, which is currently not available. --Bhadani 15:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'll just make another comment here. Now, this all looks like its blatant advertising to advertise Madhuri Guin's web site "Dolls of India". It hasn't worked in terms of unique customers though, but perhaps long term it would. Deleting this page I think is a must. If the web page says "Famous, as per Wikipedia", then thats virtually an admission of guilt of advertising. Can't get much more obvious than that! But then we have the question of the links in other articles. Now, there is no reason to believe that anything that she has written is false. It all looks 100% factual to me. It is well written and seems to be reasonable. However, Madhuri Guin's personal testimony is probably not sufficient as a primary source. Besides which, all of those links have "Buy this vase", "Buy this doll" etc as part of the history. To me, this suggests that it is true, but at the same time it is advertising. It seems to me highly unlikely that she would make up history, especially religious history, in order to sell products. Her site would be closed down and she'd be hung if she tried to do that. So then the question is what do we do with them? If we remove the links, then the advertising question is fixed. But if we remove the content that was extracted from the links, then the articles that she improved lack substance. She improved the Wikipedia articles, and is a good editor. If we remove the links but keep the content, then we have verifiability issues. So perhaps the best thing that we can do, and this is my suggestion - see if we can find other links that say essentially the same thing as her links do - add those links in, remove hers, and then rewrite the articles to suit. Again, I can see absolutely nothing to suggest or hint that anything that she is saying is false. Unless someone has some other evidence to suggest that it is untrue, I am going to go with the belief that what is written is true. And this then means that we probably should talk to Madhuri Guin to see what her opinion is. It might help if someone sent to her an e-mail to ask her. As Mrhyde hasn't edited for a month, I doubt that talk messages will help. Perhaps I can write her a little e-mail and see if we can sort this out. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 17:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I just sent an e-mail. I am hopeful that we can sort this out amicably. I am confident that Madhuri Guin/Mrhyde did not intend any malice with any of their activities, and that they will work with us to create articles that are not advertising in nature. If I get a response by e-mail, I will write it here. I am hoping that Madhuri Guin will come to Wikipedia herself to respond in person. I think that we all should do a big
    WP:AGF over this issue, and if we do, I think that we can resolve this amicably. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 18:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Okay - the mail did get passed on to me (that's Mrhyde) by Madhuri Guin. She might come over in a day or two and write her own views regarding this. However, being the author of the article in question as well as the edits in question, I would like to air my response here. I completely understand and appreciate the apprehensions regarding the use of Wikipedia for advertising. Also now that someone's mentioned earlier that an article about a person should not be entered by someone who personally knows him/her, I suppose the article about Madhuri Guin merits deletion, since I personally know her very well. In fact we are a part of a very close knit circle of acquaintances. However this does NOT mean that her fame has been BUILT by me and then added as a link in her website by her webmaster. The dolls she makes are one of a kind and as already mentioned in the article, she HAS been formally recognized as a MASTER CRAFTSMAN by the Government of Delhi. Whether she is "famous enough" is something that I wholeheartedly leave to the judgement of all those participating in this discussion and the majority view is acceptable to me and I am sure, to Madhuri Guin as well, WITHOUT ANY PREJUDICE at all. Regarding the links to this article which have been placed in her website (www.dollsofindia.com) - well I asked the webmaster to add the link there simply because I put up this article about her and I wanted more people to know about her and getting him to put up the entire article on that website would have been difficult. Anyway, if that is a problem, I can get the webmaster to remove references to the article in question on her website. Also, if this article is deleted, as has been discussed earlier, then that link to this article anyway is meaningless. But let me assure you, Madhuri Guin's fame is more than simply "being listed on Wikipedia". Now regarding the edits and external links that have been added to various Hindu articles, I would strongly defend my entries simply because I am NOT a part of dollsofindia.com though I personally know its owner and the author of the articles on her website, Madhuri Guin. I do NOT think trying to make money is a crime and she is doing it transparently by listing items for sale which are relevant to her article on her website. I thought her articles are good and extracts/information from the same would do good to the articles on Wikipedia and so I used them as references for doing my edits. Madhuri Guin knows of this and she had no objections. I did NOT have any "Advertising campaign" of any kind on my mind while doing what I did. Madhuri will herself write in this forum but she told me over the phone just now while mentioning that people are writing about her article that she has not used any formal source for the articles n her website. Most of the content in her articles are actually common knowledge amongst Hindus who have a bent towards the Hindu religion. I do not see WHY having a well written article with actual good content which ALSO sells things cannot qualify as a valid external link. If that be the case, we have a number of links (for example the external link Shiva - The Sensuous Yogi by Sri Nitin Kumar points to shiva.exoticindiaart.com in the Shiva article) that are actually e-commerce websites. The example link lists an article, in which if images are clicked they take you to a product page with "buy it" icons etc. I do not think what they are doing is any different from what Madhuri is doing, but as far as I know, this external link has been in existence for ages now. I think both should remain simply because they are good compiled sources of Hindu religious writings. To summarize, I would not strongly defend the Madhuri Guin article because I cannot be the sole judge of her fame but I would say she is famous enough, based on her recognition by the Delhi state government and her unique craft of doll making and having an article on her in Wikipedia is not mal-intentioned. Also, I think all my edits in the Hindu articles SHOULD remain INCLUDING the external links to her articles because her articles are the source of my edits and her articles have good content - mostly verifiable as local Hindu knowledge. Her listing items for sale on her article page does not and SHOULD NOT demerit her writings. Will await comments by both Madhuri Guin (hope she comes here soon !!) and others in this forum --Mrhyde 19:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be able to provide a link to where she has been approved by the Government of India as a master craftsman, and also put in to context what this means in terms of the difficulty of being able to achieve it? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 05:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my knowledge, while it is competitive to be recognised as a master craftsman, it is not very notable by itself; for several dying arts where there has been a family tradition of being engaged in such arts, it is much easier for those family members to get the status. It has to be noted that the status itself does not guarantee success; it generates contacts and international exposure - but it ultimately depends on the marketing acumen of the person. That is, the role of the government is more of an endorser rather than of a promoter. Also, about the links: the problem of
WP:V remains and common knowledge, should be verifiable. One of the reasons I do not edit much with respect to articles on Hindu mythology is that most of the online sources are suspect and off-line sources are non-English. btw, not many editors seem to be active on the discussion as it seems to be long and disjointed at first glance. Zordrac, may I request you to re-arrange & re-format the discussion as you deem fit? ('coz some of my comments are also not in right places). It is surprising to note that Indians cannot access this website; but some 20-25 days back, when this article first came on my radar, I can swear that I saw it functioning and also through goole cache just before nominating the article for deletion. --Gurubrahma 05:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
I do not think I, or for that matter, Madhuri will be able to provide a link for the recognition extended to her because I do not believe the governement keeps such a web page of any sort. However she must be having a copy of the actual award which I am sure she can provide through a scan. What Gurubrahma has said is true for several dying arts where there has been a family tradition of being engaged in such arts, it is much easier for those family members to get the status. status itself does not guarantee success; it generates contacts and international exposure - but it ultimately depends on the marketing acumen of the person. That is, the role of the government is more of an endorser rather than of a promoter. However regarding the first part of the statement, regarding dying arts and family tradition, Madhuri's art is something that she created herself, without inheriting it from anyone else in the family or outside it. Such form of cloth doll making is not present anywhere, at least in India. But yes, I understand Gurubrahma's statement about a recognition by the government not being sufficient proof of fame. Zordac, regarding the "difficulty" in acheiving the recognition, its like this: the government of Delhi selects a few craftsmen (I think about 15 or so) every year for the recognition they bestow and given the HUGE number of pretty skilled artisans present in India, it turns out to be difficult to be chosen amongst the select few. But then again, I understand what Gurubrahma is saying and I am kind of beginning to see reason in Gurubrahma's arguments regarding the article on Madhuri Guin and am feeling doubt about my conviction about the rightness of the article remaining in Wikipedia even though I wrote it myself. I leave it to your good judgement to keep it or remove it and like I said, I will view the decision without any prejudice at all. I wish, though, Madhuri herself takes some time out and comes and writes about the whole issue herself. --Mrhyde 07:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the edits and referencing links in other articles, I STILL think they should stay simply because what is common knowledge IS based on what is written in ancient texts - Mahabharata, Ramayana, Puranas, Vedas, Upanishads and commentaries by various sages. One can use these texts as references but it would be more like saying that Jesus Christ was born in Jerusalem and use as a reference, the Bible. Hindu mythology is after all mythology present in ancient epics and religious texts. I used Madhuri's articles as references and I presented them as external links on various articles in Wikipedia and I still cannot see how I am wrong. Also, as I have earlier said, I would not object to the deletion of the article on Madhuri Guin but I surely have a problem with deletion of my edits and the reference to her articles since I do not think it would be right to undermine my efforts and hers too, when they are in no way malafide. --Mrhyde 07:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Gurubrahma Madhuri has had the website blocked in India for a long time - almost 2 years, except for a brief period of about 20 days or so about a couple of months back. But since then all IP addresses originating in India are blocked by a "under maintenance" page. Of course the site should still visible through "google cache" as Gurubrahma has pointed out. There is nothing strange about having the site blocked in India - it is a commercial fully online venture and Madhuri does not feel safe about credit card transactions in India and does NOT want to cater to queries which do not result in sales. I think she reserves the right to show or hide her website in a part of the world that she chooses to. --Mrhyde 07:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Gurubrahma, you will not be able to view the website since you are based in India and Madhuri just now told me that the website is blocked in India because she "keeps getting trade inquiries she is not interested in, from all sorts of people". The site is available to people in India she chooses to give authorization to, and I, luckily, am one of those people :-) --Mrhyde 20:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There are a lot of words about borderline notability here which to me seems like a good indicator that this article needs to go. Ashibaka tock 06:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • My Rejoinder comments: I think that the links which cannot be accessed freely by all are certainly not suitable for inclusion in wikepedia pages, as wikipedia puts a premium on the freedom of the users and the editors, and non-accessibility of the site (dollsofindia) by the users located in India curtails the freedom of users/ editors of wikipedia. The natural corollary should be a consensus to remove such links. As regards, other commercial/ semi-commercial links, as and when spotted, should also be removed, as wikipedia is not a platform to promote commercial activities – directly or indirectly. --Bhadani 14:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thoughts - I've been thinking about this. I just got my e-mail back from Madhuri Guin. So I've been mulling this over for a while. Here are my thoughts:
1) I am not convinced that being labelled as a master craftsman is sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia biography. Whilst it is a great achievement and Madhuri should be proud of it, I am just not convinced that it is enough. I am not sure myself as to what it means, and am trusting Bhadani's judgement here. If someone else can convince me otherwise, then I might change my vote. As such, that is the sole reason why I am maintaining my delete vote.
2) I do not think that the links provided in other articles are advertising, and hence they should remain. However, given that they cannot be viewed by Indian users, I think that a note should appear on all sites which reference them to say "cannot be viewed by Indian users" and an effort should be made to have an alternate site to be listed. I also have no reason to believe that the links are inaccurate in any way.
3) I think that MrHyde is a wonderful contributor to Wikipedia and should be encouraged as much as possible. I think that this page should be userfied and not flat out deleted, so that it can remain on his page. I also think that dollsofindia should be encouraged to copy the biography on to their own page, as it is beautifully written. I think that having it on the dollsofindia site would be a great asset to their site, and a valid description of Madhuri Guin.
4) I think that we should make every effort to be respectful of Madhuri Guin and not be harsh in our words here. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 13:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments: Certainly, I agree with you on all points. And, surely, we all respect Madhuri Guin, and her contributions to the field of art and handicrafts. As a fellow Indian, and a citizen of the world, I wish her all the best. The matter as regards continuation of this article is still open for evaluation, and further comments by other users shall be useful. I do agree that the article is beautifully written, and I am sure that we shall continue to have contributions from Mrhyde. --Bhadani 14:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Summarising votes and consensus so far

The consensus so far is that it has to be userfied and we wish Madhuri Guin the best in her endeavors. --Gurubrahma 14:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry I am about to go a bit off-track here but I really want to say this: It is wonderful how the people here uphold the policies of Wikipedia by trying to sniff out suspicious activity and YET do not get carried away by this very zest of theirs AND manage to give credit to those who deserve it. All this while maintaining dignity in their discussions. I am new to Wikipedia (just about a couple of months, I think) and it is simply wonderful how the system does self-policing without turning itself into a police state. Congrats to the human brain for being able to create technology and sharing it and ensuring that its misuse is limited without stunting the growth of technology itself.

Now that I have written what was on my mind, here's a confession: I had no idea what "userfy" meant so I did a search and yes - that's what seems appropriate in this case. Of course, I like the suggestion by Zordac about having the article featured on the dollsofindia website. I have talked to Madhuri and she will talk to her webmaster to have this page featured on their website. I have also asked her to get the webmaster to remove the link on her website to the article on Madhuri Guin as soon as possible since its now obvious that the article SHOULD and WILL go. I however have no idea how I can "usefy" this article on MY userpage? I mean its after all an article about Madhuri Guin. So how do I shift it to the userpage of MrHyde? Any examples of this happening in the past? Sorry if this is not the correct forum to be asking such a question but I would hate to simply have the article vanish without at least having it on my user page.

Finally, I am going to go to each of the Hindu articles I have edited and remove the link to Madhuri Guin article in the external link AND mention that the link "cannot be viewed by Indian users" as suggested by Zordac. Also, I would like to join Gurubrahma in wishing Madhuri Guin the best of luck. She said she would be visiting this page soon - hope that happens SOON!! --Mrhyde 20:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An admin would userfy it once this voting process is closed. While both User:Bhadani and myself are admins, we would not be closing the voting as we have been involved in this discussion (to prevent seeming conflict of interest) - another of those wonderful guidelines of Wikipedia, if I may say so :) --Gurubrahma 06:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in its present form. With passages like "It is here that her fine skills come out the best" and "her dolls have a flavor not available elsewhere", this completely reads like a press release or a sales brochure. wikipediatrix 14:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to note that this "cannot be viewed by Indian users" appeared quite misleading to me when I saw it in an article: I got curious what is meant: whether it is due to state law, moral law, or just a decision of the site owner ;). Only having read through this discussion I could finally completely understand this statement. Perhaps, a tiny hint on the reason of the unavailability would help avoid the emergence of the strange interest in the topic by the readers, as it happened in my case.--Imz 23:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Everyone, this is Madhuri Guin. I finally managed to get myself to visit this website and make known my views about the whole "controversy". MrHyde is very kindly sitting right beside me and helping me out write out all this since I am not very conversant with how these things work. I have read all that has been already written and I must say you all are doing a great job of compiling and disseminating userful and correct information to the masses. I have read MrHyde's article about me earlier and I was embarassed then and am more embarassed now, since it is a part of some sort of controversy. I completely agree to what all of you are saying regarding my "fame". I am not famous enough to be quoted in an encyclopedia - that is very much true. Yes, my dolls are slightly well known but even they are not famous enough to be represented in an encyclopedia. Having articles about me would mean many other people would be "famous" and there would be no end to how many people would want to get listed in your encyclopedia. I am thankful to MrHyde to have thought I am worth having a biography in an encyclopedia but obviously that view is slightly biased by our acquaintance.

Regarding what some poeple have said about my providing proof of the award - I do not think it is necessary anymore since the article is anyway not going to stay here anymore. But if it had to, I can have my webmaster upload scans of my award to where you want them. I shall get my webmaster to copy the article to my website, which anyway, is the proper place to have such an article. I do not know however when he will be able to get that done !!

I also read something about the website being blocked in India. Yes, that's true - my webmaster did that for another website (which, MrHyde tells me is ALSO a part of the reference links in some of the articles he has edited) and told me about it and I had him set that up for my website as well. Its not because I do not want Indians to view my website - I rather do - but my concerns about safety and commercial strategy has forced me to take this decision and stick to it.

I believe that is all that there is to say. Again, congratulations to you all for maintaining this huge encyclopedia. Thanks to Zordac for writing to me and apprising me of what was happening here. Thanks also to MrHyde for writing an article for me and for defending me, website and my efforts. Bye all of you !! .... Madhuri Guin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.61.29 (talk • contribs)

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

The result of the debate was keep.

e ] 19:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Spiritus Intus Alit

WP:NOT a dictionary. — Dunc|☺ 09:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

NB: I have changed this into a disambig page as there is more to it than just the latin phrase - see the article. Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! (Talk!) 10:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, well the capitalisation is probably wrong (or so says my Latin GCSE), but I think an article on this motto can be equally as valid as an article on any other motto (is this is the "appeal to other similar articles which haven't been nominated for afd" fallacy?). It's been expanded beyond a dictionary definition. Talrias (t | e | c) 12:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is good to have entries of Latin phrases. People may need to know what it means and who used it before. This is more than a dictionary explaination. -- Toytoy 09:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 21:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem Nonsequitor Association

Probable hoax, lacking any citation. Zero google hits for this and the correct spelling of "

FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK
) 09:57, Dec. 14, 2005

talkcontribs 16:51, 14 December 2005

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 21:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Umphreaks

A non-notable fan organization for some band. Delete. jni 10:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 21:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphidian

British band, less than three years old. They make assertions to notability, but they don't seem to meet

WP:MUSIC. Tom Lillis 10:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was Merge to the school mentioned below (which has apparently been done). —

FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK
) 17:05, Dec. 23, 2005

Harry M. Shimdt Ballpark

A tiny stadium for a barely notable sports team of a local high school. Perhaps it can be merged with Robinson Secondary School, but I don't think it deserves an article of its own. Aecis praatpaal 10:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep.

e ] 19:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Roor

This is basically just a glorified advert for Roor and is really not encyclopaedic. May be salvagable with a lot of work but needs to avoid advertising and POV bias Jorvik29 11:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep in line with vote above and nom.--Bltpdx 20:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep AFD is not cleanup, although thanks go to the people who did clean it up.
    Kappa 06:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep Roor could'nt make any money off of this article even if it were to advertise because they are now out of business. Besides, this is a valuable piece of info to some because it is a cleaner way to smoke your favorite tobacco.--Murderosity 3:18, 18 December 2005 (EST)

Roors are amazing smoking pieces. I love smoking out of them and they make my hits so much thicker and cleaner. buy a roor

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 21:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Top boybands of all time

Top boybands of all time God. Another list. And just like the other music based lists, this one is almost impossible to quantify. Please kill it. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. I also mercilessly deleted all redirects that were left behind when this page was moved. Mindmatrix 21:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Two opinion of Judge Alito in bankruptcy case of doctor

This is just bizarre and incoherent, and there's not any salvageable text. The title is also bizarre, (and ungramatical for that matter). I'm not sure it was speedyable as nonsense, so here it is. Morwen - Talk 11:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. I would have nominatated for CSD A6 (attack page), but the article really doesn't make enough sense to be an attack. Movementarian 12:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems to be point/counterpoint. The two parts look like they were written by different people, but neither look coherent enough to be a copyvio. Morwen - Talk 12:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. JPD (talk) 12:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nonsensical, POV fork, terrible title ... this meets many different criteria for deletion. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 12:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:Cyde. — JIP | Talk 16:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If we kept, it would be under the case name. As I read it, the case isn't that notable except that the judge hearing it is a Supreme Court nominee. Capitalistroadster 17:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom.Gateman1997 19:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Near as I can tell from the history, it was intended as an opinion piece attack on an externally published article. Wikipedia is not a blog. CarbonCopy (talk) 21:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note that is now redirected to Matthews v. Pineo 1994 by Alito. If deleted, the redirect should be cleaned up too. CarbonCopy (talk) 21:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's been moved there and been altered to be one, totally out of context sentence now, along with a couple of extlinks. If I knew anything about US law I'd make it a stub, but I don't. Morwen - Talk 22:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete garbled nonsense Paul 03:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • And it's been moved again, expanded slightly, but is still bizarre. Did this thing set a precedent or something? Morwen - Talk 08:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kill it before it moves again! Wikipedia is not an editorial page. B.Wind 00:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 21:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

K1Designs

Vanity for a largely non-notable website. Not sure how this slipped the net but it's been caught now.

  • Delete per nom. And there's no net per se. Just a large sieve. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 12:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unimportant website - sheer self-promotion. - Hayter 12:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn. mikka (t) 22:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 04:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Rodentz

I listed this page for speedy deletion when it was a stub, but the page creator removed the speedy deletion template. I am not entirely sure what this article is about, so it's hard to make an argument for deletion versus a major rewrite. If someone can justify/explain this article, I will rescind this nomination, but as I see no redeeming qualities in this article as it currently stands, I am asking that it be deleted. Cmadler 12:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It's a rapper/band article. "Rodentz" scores decently on Google, but almost all the hits are about an unrelated horror movie. "The Rodentz" scores 53 unique Google hits (out of 137 total), and quite a few of even that modest number are unrelated to this group, being about the movie or something else. The actual band has roughly 10-15 relevant hits. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. —
    talk contribs 18:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]


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

The result of the debate was No consensus; a merge may be in order. Ral315 (talk) 07:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Conroy

Not notable. Merely being a candidate does not satisfy

WP:BIO. If growing up, attending school, having a job and family and joining the Lions Club made one notable, we'd all have articles. Delete. Skeezix1000 12:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep see
    Canadian federal election, 2006 (candidates) and Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates. - SimonP 15:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • SimonP is referring to the discussion on the talk page, which contains a proposal that would introduce a massively disproportionate systemic and intentional bias into Wikipedia, and which should be soundly rejected. Uncle G 07:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn candidate. Eusebeus 17:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wish him well in his candidacy but in my view, being a political candidate in itself is not notable and none of the other biographical details establish notability at the moment. If he becomes the member for his constituency, that is another matter. Delete. Capitalistroadster 17:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Capitalistroadster, just a candidate. feydey 22:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, per Capitalistroadster. Ifnord 23:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's probably a long-shot, but he is the candidate of the current opposition party in the country, and will likely garner a significant portion of the vote. Now, I don't have any intention of voting for him or his party, but he has the right to the page. If one reviews the current guideline on
    Notability you will see that political figures in national or provincial legislatures are included. Now, elections aren't covered one way or another there, but if you take the sports area, where even players on school teams are automatic entries ... and even "first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad already have articles.". Using this test, I think everyone can agree that the Conservative Party of Canada is the equivalent of a "club of sufficient stature"! Nfitz 04:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • You're missing the point, he gets to join the club if he's elected. Wikipedia isn't a place for campaigning. Ifnord 04:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a good argument to edit the article, and return it to it's November 27th version. However it isn't a good argument that there shouldn't be some kind of article at all.
        • If you want to continue with the sports analogy, of course a major team is noteworthy. But you would not consider those trying out to be noteworthy, would you? Once they make the team, it's another story. Ifnord 23:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • But he's made the team, and he's playing the game. The game is on! I think your arguement would hold, to stop pages being made for each of the people who were in the running to be the candidate, but failed to be selected. Not sure the big deal here, we looking at 308 ridings and 3 or 4 candidates each. Tha's only 1000 or so people, every 3-4 years. Compare to a major league sports team. 26 teams with 25 players per team. That's 650 people right there in one league ... and then when you include minor leagues, and even University leagues, and according to the notablity guidelines even College teams! Nfitz 00:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing in the article (which tells us about the subject's intensifying passions, his endorsements, and where his daughters go to school — none of which is sourced, by the way, and reads like it was taken straight from the candidate himself) indicates that this person satisfies any of the
    WP:BIO criteria. Being a candidate for an election doesn't satisfy the criteria. One has to satisfy the criteria for some other reason, such as for being a candidate who has also been the subject of significant (non-self-sourced) press coverage. Searching reveals nothing that indicates that this person satisfies the criteria in any other way. The press coverage is about the major players for the seat, with Conroy being given just one-sentence "Peter Conroy is also running." mentions at the ends of articles. Wikipedia is not a hosting service for election candidate statements, nor is it a platform for equalizing how much people know about candidates for office. It is an encyclopaedia. If a candidate is known as just a one-line directory entry on a ballot form, or as a one-sentence also-ran at the end of news items, outside of Wikipedia, then that is how Wikipedia should reflect xem: as a one-row entry in an election results table for the constituency. Delete. Uncle G 07:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep, users should be able to read about major party candidates for national elections and we shouldn't be making "notability" judgements on their behalf.
    Kappa 06:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge with a list of Conservative candidates for the 2006 election. --GrantNeufeld 00:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current consensus on unelected candidates permits a merged page for "X Party's candidates in Y election". This does create its own set of problems, but unless you're prepared to take on the job of proposing an alternate policy, established consensus stands as the final word whether you like it or not. Merge to
    Conservative Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election, and unmerge if he wins. Bearcat 23:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Where is this consensus defined. I've read the ongoing debate but my take from reading it, was that consensus had not been reached. It looked to me like the debate died before consensus was reached, and a vote is still pending. Is there another discussion that I've missed? Nfitz 00:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Consensus doesn't require a vote; if the discussion dies prematurely, then in the lack of a clearly defined policy statement the results that have actually been applied here in practice stand as the consensus. And that consensus has consistently favoured the merged listpage solution — nobody, to date, has challenged that. Bearcat 00:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • But consensus has consistently not been met anytime that a major party candidate, and even some non-major party candidates, comes up for deletion. I'd say consensus was keep them ... and that's what I thought reading that article. Nfitz 00:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator's comments. --NormanEinstein 20:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Paul Hackett. -- JJay 01:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kappa's argument. Endomion 03:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Uncle G's argument. —
    FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK
    )     07:03, Dec. 26, 2005
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus. A merge may be in order. Ral315 (talk) 07:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Carmichael (politician)

Not notable. Merely being a candidate does not satisfy

WP:BIO. Delete. Skeezix1000 12:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was No consensus; a merge may be in order. Ral315 (talk) 07:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Coy

Not notable. Merely being a candidate does not satisfy

WP:BIO. Unless someone can add something to the article to show that he is notable for reasons other than simply being a candidate, then I say delete. Skeezix1000 12:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep and expand, see
    Canadian federal election, 2006 (candidates) and Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates. - SimonP 14:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete nn candidate. Eusebeus 17:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, see Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates. feydey 22:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. What happened? Did someone decide to spam us with one-liners regarding Conservative candidates? If they win, let 'em in. Before that, they're toast. Non-notable toast at that. Ifnord 23:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree with the above - candidates can become quite notable without winning anything. But this one clearly hasn't yet - only 32 Google hits in reference to his district [60]. (The name "Peter Coy" is pretty common, so I have no ideal how many of the other "Peter Coy" hits are for this guy). Anyhow - Delete. -- Blackcats 20:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is the candidate for a leading party in the election. He will likely finish second, based on past performance, and his party has won this riding before. Though the article could certainly be wikified Nfitz 04:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing in the article indicates that this person satisfies any of the
    WP:BIO criteria. Being a candidate for an election doesn't satisfy the criteria, whatever the party. One has to satisfy the criteria for some other reason, such as for being a candidate who has also been the subject of significant (non-self-sourced) press coverage. Searching reveals nothing that indicates that this person satisfies the criteria in any other way. According to the candidate himself, he has done such things as set up a web site for dentists and sing in a church choir. Other sources either simply include quotes from Coy (all of which are about his opponents) and say nothing at all about Coy, or discuss Joseph Volpe and give a one-sentence mention to Coy as one of the candidates opposing him. Wikipedia is not a hosting service for election candidate statements, nor is it a platform for equalizing how much people know about candidates for office. It is an encyclopaedia. If a candidate is known as just a one-line directory entry on a ballot form outside of Wikipedia then that is how Wikipedia should reflect them: as a one-row entry in an election results table. Delete. Uncle G 07:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete, as the other nonentities. This one doesn't even say anything. -R. fiend 19:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --- Candidates do not merit articles unless notable for other reasons. 209.202.119.248 14:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with a list of Conservative candidates for the 2006 election. --GrantNeufeld 00:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with list of Conservative candidates and Delete. Merely being a candidate does not make good encyclopedic material. --NormanEinstein 21:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current consensus on unelected candidates permits a merged page for "X Party's candidates in Y election". This does create its own set of problems, but unless you're prepared to take on the job of proposing an alternate policy, established consensus stands as the final word whether you like it or not. Merge to
    Conservative Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election, and unmerge if he wins. Bearcat 23:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Where is this consensus defined. I've read the ongoing debate but my take from reading it, was that consensus had not been reached. It looked to me like the debate died before consensus was reached, and a vote is still pending. Is there another discussion that I've missed? Nfitz 00:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Consensus doesn't require a vote; if the discussion dies prematurely, then in the lack of a clearly defined policy statement the results that have actually been applied here in practice stand as the consensus. And that consensus has consistently favoured the merged listpage solution — nobody, to date, has challenged that. Bearcat 00:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • But consensus has consistently not been met anytime that a major party candidate, and even some non-major party candidates, comes up for deletion. I'd say consensus was keep them ... and that's what I thought reading that article. Nfitz 00:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Uncle G. —
    FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK
    )     07:03, Dec. 26, 2005
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to

e ] 19:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The Musketeers

Looks like nonsense (though not patent); certainly non-notable; no Google hits for likely searches; Doesn't meet

DVERS❞ 12:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus - Izehar 22:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Tindal

Not notable. Merely being a candidate does not satisfy

WP:BIO. Perhaps the controversy over the nomination deserves a mention in the Green Party article, but otherwise being an IT professional and political activist is not encyclopedic. Delete. Skeezix1000 12:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep see
    Canadian federal election, 2006 (candidates) and Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates. - SimonP 15:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete, per nom. -R. fiend 17:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn candidate. Eusebeus 17:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, see Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates. feydey 22:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is the candidate for a leading party in the election. Nfitz 04:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I've actually got several times more google hits than this guy [61], and I don't consider myself to be notable enough yet for a Wikipedia article. If indeed he now plays a significant role in Toronto politics, then we should have ample evidence of his notablility within the next several months and can reconsider the decision then. Blackcats 20:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I get about 180 times as many. But counting Google hits isn't research. Uncle G 07:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but
        Google test as one method (albeit non-conclusive) of determining whether a subject merits inclusion in the encyclopedia. Skeezix1000 12:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
        ]
  • Nothing in the article indicates that this person satisfies any of the
    WP:BIO criteria. Being a candidate for an election doesn't satisfy the criteria, whatever the party. One has to satisfy the criteria for some other reason, such as for being a candidate who has also been the subject of significant (non-self-sourced) press coverage. Searching reveals nothing that indicates that this person satisfies the criteria in any other way. The only mentions that this person gets are inclusions in "also running in this election" lists in news articles, and a web logger saying that this candidate's web site was the worst of all of the candidates' web sites. At one point, I thought that I had something more substantial, with a search result summary that said that "Chris Tindal led the attack". But upon reading it, it turned out to be a news article about an Ontario ice-hockey player by that name. Wikipedia is not a hosting service for election candidate statements, nor is it a platform for equalizing how much people know about candidates for office. It is an encyclopaedia. If a candidate is known as just a one-line directory entry on a ballot form outside of Wikipedia,and not even as well-reported-upon as xyr namesake ice-hockey player, then that is how Wikipedia should reflect xem: as a one-row entry in an election results table. Delete. Uncle G 07:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep per SimonP. Wikipedia is an enclopedic for providing information where there is a demand, and there is a demand for encyclopedic information on candidates like this.
    Kappa 05:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete --- Candidates do not merit articles unless notable for other reasons. 209.202.119.248 14:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Chris is and will be a force on the political stage. If this article is deleted now, you will no doubt see it back very soon.
  • Merge with a list of Green Party candidates for the 2006 election. The comment immediately proceeding this one is speculation. When it's fact, then the article can be recreated. --GrantNeufeld 00:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with list of Green candidates and then Delete. Being a candidate, having a job, and having a few hobbies does not make for good encyclopedic material. --NormanEinstein 21:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current consensus on unelected candidates permits a merged page for "X Party's candidates in Y election". This does create its own set of problems, but unless you're prepared to take on the job of proposing an alternate policy, established consensus stands as the final word whether you like it or not. Merge to
    Green Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election. Bearcat 23:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Where is this consensus defined. I've read the ongoing debate but my take from reading it, was that consensus had not been reached. It looked to me like the debate died before consensus was reached, and a vote is still pending. Is there another discussion that I've missed? Nfitz 00:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Consensus doesn't require a vote; if the discussion dies prematurely, then in the lack of a clearly defined policy statement the results that have actually been applied here in practice stand as the consensus. And that consensus has consistently favoured the merged listpage solution — nobody, to date, has challenged that. Bearcat 00:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • But consensus has consistently not been met anytime that a major party candidate, and even some non-major party candidates, comes up for deletion. I'd say consensus was keep them ... and that's what I thought reading that article. Nfitz 00:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensu. -

Mailer Diablo 04:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Lewis Reford

Not notable. Merely being a candidate does not satisfy

WP:BIO. Being a well-travelled investment banker is not encyclopedic. Delete. Skeezix1000 13:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was delete

JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 15:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]


Tim Meehan

Not notable. Merely being a candidate does not satisfy

WP:BIO. Delete. Skeezix1000 13:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete nn candidate. Eusebeus 17:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't meet
    WP:BIO standards yet. feydey 21:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per nom. Ifnord 23:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain, TM passes several tests for inclusion, see here StrangerInParadise 00:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please do not edit the nomination or other people's comments - thanks. Skeezix1000 17:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain, subject is notworthy, jameskpolka (added on his behalf by StrangerInParadise, see below)
  • Retain, Subject is a well known figure among a growing demographic of drug policy reformers across the globe. His contributions both on the political front and within the reform movement are certainly noteworthy today and will be even more so a hundred years from now. Considering the current criminalization of drugs has just reached its 91st anniversary, it's clearly an issue that has long term interest and consequences for the public and researchers in the future will find the biographical information on this candidate of great value. (added by Libby Spencer) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.79.132 (talk • contribs)
  • Retain, subject is well-known in the worldwide drug policy reform community as being president and frequent public spokesman of NORML.CA, as well as an active participant on many drug policy reform lists and sites in Canada and the U.S. (added by J. Lebowitz 17:04, 17 December 2005, UTC).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackl2400 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nom --Quasipalm 18:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments for retaining article Tim Meehan from StrangerInParadise

  • Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events
    • TM is a well-known figure within an emerging area of political endevor, specifically pro-cannabis Canadian politics.
  • Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more
    • Repeatedly published and mentioned in various Canadian newspapers
  • Verifiability -- Can all information in the article be independently verified now? (some say) 10 years from now?
    • Yes on both counts.
  • Expandability -- Will the article ever be more than a stub? Could the perfect article be written on this subject?
    • Tim is still active in Canadian pro-cannabis activism, an area where developments are on-going.
    • Once prohibition of cannabis is repealed, who knows?
  • 100 year test -- In 100 years time will anyone without a direct connection to the individual find the article useful?
    • Anyone interested in the early history of the pro-cannabis movement in Canada, which presently is itself in a key point of struggle due to its proximity and historic ties with the United States, the principal driver in the global war on cannabis. Also, Ontario ranks just after BC in regards to principal areas in which the struggle to repeal the prohibition of cannabis has taken place.
  • Autobiography -- Has this been written by the subject or someone closely involved with the subject?
    • Not by the subject, though he has updated it. The objectivity and neutrality of the article makes the question irrelevant, though I believe the answer to be no.
  • Google Test -- Does the subject get lots of hits on Google or another well known search mechanism?
    • Yes.

StrangerInParadise 00:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TM and his political and social work fundamentally pass the Hundred-Year test. While the last several Canadian federal governments have equivocated over both the decriminalization of marijuana for recreational use and the federal commitment to making marijuana legal and available for medical use, the direction of Canadian history and the will of the Canadian people are clear and obvious. The controversy here over including/deleting a TM article rests on TM's being five to ten years ahead of when the rest of the Canadian body politic will reach his same conclusions. But they will. The Wikipedia community would do well to recognize a political prophet and visionary now, thus educating the public now about a figure whose ideas will be mainstream ten years from now.

posted by jameskpolka/USA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.41.2.202 (talk • contribs)


Relisting this to generate more discussion. Skeezix1000 18:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The above arguments seem to be that: If cannabis reform comes to fruition, then an early activist for that reform will be notable. The Wikipedia community would do well to recognize a political prophet and visionary now, thus educating the public now about a figure whose ideas will be mainstream ten years from now. Is certainly not notability, it's pure conjecture. DeathThoreau 19:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per DeathThoreau. Otherwise we may create an article on me, in case 10 years from now I became the Space Pope Ultimus the 1st. Flyboy Will 19:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete As Director of communications National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws in Canada he might be notable. Eighteen of the top twenty items on the writings link merely reproduce his letters to the editor. The other two are short Canadian news stories that mention him in passing. The people who created this page should be improving it, not spamming the discussion with bids to keep. Link directly to his most important appearances in respected newspapers, leave out his letters, and list his achievements with your organization. Then maybe we can tell if he's notable. So far from what I've seen, he's not. Durova 19:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The proponents of the article would be better off showing how he is notable through verifiable evidence, such as mention in newspapers, magazines and books. Then I and others could be persuaded to change our minds. Capitalistroadster 21:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, along with all other MPC candidates, into
    Marijuana Party of Canada or somewhere. -- Mwalcoff 23:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Whatever hey, is that a cookie? Man I'm starving...
    [T]/[C] AfD? 00:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete --- Candidates do not merit articles unless notable for other reasons. There is a lot of speculation on this page, but very few facts as to why this guy is important. 209.202.119.248 14:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Whatever" Attack of the internet snobs. Frankly I don't give a shit what you do with it. www.timmeehan.ca
  • The current consensus on unelected candidates permits a merged page for "X Party's candidates in Y election". This does create its own set of problems, but unless you're prepared to take on the job of proposing an alternate policy, established consensus stands as the final word whether you like it or not. Merge to
    Marijuana Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election. Bearcat 23:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Where is this consensus defined. I've read the ongoing debate but my take from reading it, was that consensus had not been reached. It looked to me like the debate died before consensus was reached, and a vote is still pending. Is there another discussion that I've missed? Nfitz 00:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Consensus doesn't require a vote; if the discussion dies prematurely, then in the lack of a clearly defined policy statement the results that have actually been applied here in practice stand as the consensus. And that consensus has consistently favoured the merged listpage solution — nobody, to date, has challenged that. Bearcat 00:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • But consensus has consistently not been met anytime that a major party candidate, and even some non-major party candidates, comes up for deletion. I'd say consensus was keep them ... and that's what I thought reading that article. Nfitz 00:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per Capitalistroadster and people trying to flood the discussion with comments of minor relevance. Stifle 02:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well written article on a candidate. We have tons of these. Much of the information in the article I have verified as true. -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mindmatrix 15:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Siobhán Coady

Not notable. Merely being a candidate does not satisfy

WP:BIO. Unless someone can add to the article to show that she is notable for reasons other than being a candidate, then I say delete. Skeezix1000 13:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, hopefully I have made this article notable with my recent editions. HJKeats 14:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have changed my vote to keep, as she appears notable based on HJKeats's edits and additions. Skeezix1000 22:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep see
    Canadian federal election, 2006 (candidates) and Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates. - SimonP 14:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep - national election candidate, major party, seems an obvious keep. Guettarda 16:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep slightly more notable than most candidates. Siobhán was considered a star candidate for the Liberals in 2004 (although he lost). Eusebeus 17:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As this person has more claims to fame than just being a candidate, she is notable enough for mine. However, non-notable candidates should be included in a page like 2006 election for constituency X noting who was running and allowing a page to be created if a new member is elected. Capitalistroadster 18:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not only is this is the candidate for a leading party in the election, this is the favourite, surely?. Nfitz 04:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --- Candidates do not merit articles unless notable for other reasons. This one meets that test. 209.202.119.248 14:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 04:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote from User:83.71.80.196 was disregarded, as user's only edits were related to this AfD.

Colin Hanrahan

A really little-known playwright—none of his plays yield Google results ([63], [64], [65]). Instead, he seems to be an MTG (?) player ([66]). The talk page says "Brilliant wiki entry!!!!", written by the creator of the article. Mysid 14:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Although it says "he has not released any meaningful work in the past two decades", I can't find any trace of him releasing any meaningful work ever. -- timc | Talk 14:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as probable hoax and definitely non-notable. Durova 19:54, 14 December 2005
  • Accept Colin Hanrahan is known in the munster province of Ireland, especially in the Cork area, also wrote 'The Roll it your own Man', a startling account of pub culture in Ireland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.80.196 (talk • contribs)


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. No content. -R. fiend 17:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

21st century (Mormonism)

This may not be notable enough for an entry. Dominick (TALK) 15:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete by

e ] 17:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

PORN & EGGS

Patent nonsense! It even has links to pics of nekkid women making scrambled eggs. Bizarre. But certainly not Wikipedia-worthy notable. Cyde Weys talkcontribs 15:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy, nonsense.
    t c 15:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was article sent to

e ] 22:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Raleigh Burner

Poor quality article File Éireann 15:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Appears to be copyvio from here. AndyJones 21:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That one happens to be a self-admitted copyvio from somewhere else. Anyway, sending the article to
    e ] 22:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 00:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

James Shearer

Non-notable owner of a non-notable website business.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 00:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trail Canada

This is an ad for a non-notable website. See the vanity puff piece James Shearer above.

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

The result of the debate was merge with Robinson Secondary School. No consensus for deletion, but nobody wanted to keep the article as it is either. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Coffey Stadium

A high school football stadium is not notable. A merger has been proposed, and I don't mind that, but unless a merger happens, delete. --Nlu (talk) 15:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was merge. Okay, it wasn't really, but

GFDL, gentlemen?). fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Smith Field House

Similarly, a high school basketball is not notable enough. If not merged, delete. --Nlu (talk) 15:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

ˈ

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

The result of the debate was Delete and recreate as a redirect. Since the article is a copyright violation, a merge isn't in order.

Article 370 of the Constitution of India

This afd nomination was

(operator) 15:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

--Pamri • Talk 05:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

ɒɒɒɒɒɒɛɛɔrɑː

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

The result of the debate was delete as original research. —

FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK
) 21:12, Dec. 25, 2005

Gospel of Matthew 5 According to Advaita Vedanta.

I actually find this very interesting, but is appears to be original commentary and however interesting, it does not appear to qualify as a Wikipedia article. The author is obviously highly intelligent and I hope his genius will be used to improve Wikipedia in other ways. File Éireann 22:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that we can keep internecine problems out of the discussion. I understand my commentaries are not accepted by modern Christianity but no doubt would be more acceptable to the Essenes, whom I believe Jesus was a member. Also as it is widely accepted generally that Jesus studied in India, my commentaries from an Advaita point of view would not be far fetched--Aoclery 18:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)..........Tony[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. KHM03 18:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. A line or two in essenes or advaita would be nice. Plenty of advaita teachers reffer to Jesus, just keep that clear- that Advaitas look to Jesus, not Jesus IS advaita. Sethie 18:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
After thought, redo this article, either as it's own piece or as a section in advaita. Don't go verse by verse, instead quote some advaita teachers who reffer to jesus, a quick summary of advaita and a few verses. It is not origonal research at all, it is common for Hindu teachers to quote Jesus and say his teachings are in line with advaita... just make it more of an article and less a piece of spiritual literature.Sethie 19:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I could edit this into the Advaita Vedanta page, but I doubt it would last. I doubt it would even survive as a reference...I shall have another look at it--Aoclery 19:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)..........Tony.[reply]

I think I will call Jesus 'Humpty Dumpty' that way only Shakespeare could be offended....--Aoclery 20:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)Tony. I suppose it is an interpretation of the term 'original research'; the Gospels are hardly original. I have offered an interpretation that is not the usual but would be accepted in an Eastern Philosophical sense. I'm just basing my article on what I have seen in other articles, where much interpretation and explanation has taken place. Also on the statement on guidelines about the socialist workers party's paper being less reliable than the NY Times..that again is only opinion. NY Times has recently published some glaring errors. If it is to be deleted....so be it--Aoclery 22:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)...........Tony. Perhaps it would be better as an external link as a footnote to an article on Eastern Philosophy.....--Aoclery 22:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)Tony.[reply]

ReferenceThis was for Thomas but it applies to Matthew also... Here is a academic opinion on these purports by the venerable professor..............Tony O'Clery.


"V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk@y...> wrote: > > > > > Namaste, > > > > I have written a commentary on this gospel at this site. > > > > http://www.geocities.com/aoclery/Jesusbook/Thomasgospel.htm > > > > I hope you will appreciate it....Tony. > > Namaste, Tony-ji > > I just browsed through your site on the Gospel of Thomas. It is > wonderful. I shall keep reading it more and more in detail. In the > meantime I recommend it to all the members of this list for their > reading. Your purports are illuminating and refreshing from an > advaitin's point of view. Thanks for bringing it to my notice. > > PraNAms to all seekersd of Truth. > profvk. Got itWikipedia isn't a magazine....--Aoclery 00:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Tony[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete -

have you seen this?) 04:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Off The Cuff

This afd nomination was

(operator) 15:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 13:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Onlytzoros

This afd nomination was

(operator) 15:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was Merge per Zordrac. —

FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK
) 21:06, Dec. 25, 2005

Rufus Pudens Pudentianna

An entirely unhistorical character made up by arbitrarily combining a Rufus described in

2 Timothy, assuming this is the same Pudens mentioned by Martial, and equally arbitrarily adding the (mis-spelled) name of a probably apocryphal female saint. There is also a page for St. Pudens, supposedly an early Roman Christian, so any verifiable information about him can go there. Nicknack009 22:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisting this AfD discussion in hopes of attaining a more thorough consensus. Please place new discussion below this line. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 17:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep, with a chance of merge. —

FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK
) 21:03, Dec. 25, 2005

TSTV

Non-notable television station. None of the keywords turn up substantial number of related google hits: TSTV, KVRTV, TexaStudenTelevison. Doesn't meet any WP notability requirements May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 06:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. —

FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK
) 20:57, Dec. 25, 2005

Venatosaurus

Utter fictive, based (so far as can be told) on zero factual basis.

  • This afd nomination was
    (operator) 15:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete - A work of fiction probably by a Wikipedia user ... and classifying it right down to the species level is darn confusing considering it's fictious. It links to Skull Island, which is actually about that Monkey adventure game, which has nothing to do with this dinosaur. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 15:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Venatosaurus seems to be a fictional dinosaur from the new King Kong movie. Carioca 23:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge: I've made it respectable, but I don't care whether it's merged or not. Melchoir 01:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Undeserving of mention on Wikipedia. --Apostrophe 04:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepIt is clear enough that it is fictional.--Smerk
  • Keep, I agree with Smerk's point. Many other fictional creatures are in wikipedia. -- Crevaner 09:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge, articles just need to be fleshed out with perhaps a capture from the film and a source link. Seinfreak37 20:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this stub with no expandability. Even merging all these into a list, as is normal for minor character articles, doesn't seem reasonable considering the overwhelming triviality.—jiy (talk) 11:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge — Merge with Dromaeosauridae. It belongs in the section Dromaeosauridae in fiction in the article Dromaeosauridae. — Ŭalabio‽ 15:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Where did the author get this information? I just came back from watching the movie and I don't recall anyone naming or classifying the creatures they saw. Perhaps I didn't hear them clearly amidst the roaring and scrambling to avoid giant feet. --SpacemanAfrica 02:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it can't be expanded. Maybe put all the information on the King Kong (2005 film) article? The names weren't even used in the film.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 07:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, it's small enough to become part of the new kong movie page, and it doesn't seem like it has any bias or significant errors.--The Omnigeek 13:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I remember skimming this information recently in a book, I think it is from the new book, The World of Kong : A Natural History of Skull Island by Weta Workshop which gives more movie details about the animals of Skull Island. Should be kept because this would be good information for anyone interested in the subject. --Evmore 17:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Put this on the King Kong (2005 film) article's besitary. All of the movie's creatures are listed there and since there isn't a great deal of info on any of them just have this as part of the bestiary along with the others and a small picture for each. That would be fine and wouldn't waste any space. --Predator 02:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Factually accurate. --Oldak Quill 10:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this childish, crufty garbage. If kept, at least merge it with the film. u p p l a n d 10:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 13:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Harold Hafner

This person doesn't seem particularly notable to me. He produces a mere 201 google hits [67]. and none of the first ones suggest anything particularly notable. There are no google news hits.--best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 02:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (speedy} There is no claim of notability, just "had some successes". NN - NN - NN Chris the speller 04:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy per above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn--MONGO 02:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unsourced, POV (possibly self-promotion), not linked from anywhere, no assertion of notability. —
    FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK
    )     15:28, Dec. 14, 2005

Note: relisting 15/12/05 ... which is apparently still 14/12/05 for AfD. Never let it be said AfD is backwards! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I for one find the above arguments far from convincing. The search link provided by User:Kzollman provided over 500 hits when I looked at it, not "a mere 201". The search results indicate to me that he's reasonably notable in the modelling talent agency world. He may not be notable enough for his own article, but I think we'll need more than the above discussion before deciding to delete. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just checked the search string given in the nomination, and came up with 555 hits 90 of which were unique. Saberwyn - 21:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable enough. And User:MarkGallagher lives too far east, it's still Wednesday over here. — JIP | Talk 16:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 04:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mike klumpp

Originally tagged {{nn-bio}} but it makes a claim of notability. It was three sentences but one was heavily POV and the other speculative, so now it's down to one. The book has an Amazon sales rank over 260,000, and is published by a minor imprint of

[T]/[C] AfD? 15:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus . Jaranda wat's sup 21:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Internet forum software

Doesn't offer anything new over Category:Internet forum software. Talrias (t | e | c) 14:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Capi crimm deleted most of the software without articles last month (List of Internet forum software):
After 31 October 2005 I am going to delete all forum software that has no wiki article. This page is for """common""" internet forum software. That is the only criteria that has been applied to this page so far. Not having a wiki-page signals a forum software as """uncommon""" to me. So unless the following situation happen: (a)someone presents a new criteria on what software should be listed, (b) someone presents a resonable argument as to why a software is common, (c) someone creates wikipages for all of the software. You can expect a weeding to be done of this page. I feel the extra forums present no use besides clutter to the page.
Would there be more of an incentive to keep if those were re-added and short summaries written for some?
✆ 19:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes - as it is this has absolutely nothing which the corresponding category doesn't have (and it probably less). Talrias (t | e | c) 16:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Works better as a categoryTheRingess 20:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm relisting this as I don't think 3 contributors to the AFD is enough to make a decision. Talrias (t | e | c) 15:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, quite a handy list if you're thinking about setting up a forum (an idea I've toyed with - this is a valuable resource). Dan100 (Talk) 15:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plenty of other lists mirror their categories. That's the point of the list, to be like a category but allow the option of adding short descriptions or other content. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-14 15:50

I'd also like to point people towards Comparison of Internet forum software as a much more useful representation of this information. Talrias (t | e | c) 15:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I also think this works better as a category. Nandesuka 16:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I agree that this works better as a category. — JIP | Talk 16:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. List is alphabetical and has no commentary or classification. A category would accomplish the same purpose, be easier to read, and automatically update itself. —
    FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK
    )     16:22, Dec. 14, 2005
Any particular reason why? Talrias (t | e | c) 17:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good list and better than category. Should be expanded per above. -- JJay 17:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, uncommented pile of names, nothing that couldn't be done with a category. Pilatus 17:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is there anything against having forum software without wiki articles? There're a lot of CMSes without articles at

✆ 00:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Exactly. Plus anoms can't create pages or use a category, but can edit lists. -- JJay 00:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Someone explained why the removed the redlinked forum software on the talk page. It's been quoted up at the top of this page. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand - useful and notable list. A comparison page would be nice too... Blackcats 20:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What? There is a comparison page. See Comparison of Internet forum software. How do you propose the page should be expanded? Talrias (t | e | c) 21:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For heaven's sake stop doing these pointless pro forma AfD listings from DRV. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, I don't follow how your criticism is related to your vote. I had idea it was listed on
WP:DRV, and I made my own mind up to reopen the AFD as I thought 2 votes and a comment weren't really enough. Talrias (t | e | c) 01:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result of the debate was delete. —

FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK
) 20:41, Dec. 25, 2005

Variety Shac

Non-notable local improv comedy group. Only 78 unique hits. AFAIK we don't have

WP:MUSIC I don't think this group would meet it--no indication of interstate, let alone international tours; no agreements with label-like promotional companies; no indication of national press; and they're less than six months old. I mean, I like to go watch something that makes me laugh, but not every local group that gives free performances is encyclopedic. Regforafd 03:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: relisting 15/12/05, which is apparently 14/12/05 for y'all. I've always said Australia was miles ahead of anyone else! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. —

FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK
) 20:17, Dec. 25, 2005

Corner Bistro

Non-notable local eatery. Only 81 displayed hits for "Corner Bistro" "Bistro Burger", and they are all NYC-oriented blogs, forums, or dining guides--nothing to indicate it is well-known anywhere but locally. Regforafd 03:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is extremely well known throughout most of New York City, and just because not everyone knows about it doesn't mean the article can't exist. Bobburito 15:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, there is a new line of frozeen foods (I can't remember who makes them) that uses the Corner Bistro logo. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep looking, but this frozen "Corner Bistro" brand doesn't sound like it would be connected to a place best known for baconburgers. Regforafd 03:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Greenwich Village Corner Bistro doesn't seem to have a website, but if you click on 'on screen menu' from this link, you'll see a few burger varieties, grilled cheese and chicken sandwiches, and chili. Whereas all the Stouffer's Corner Bistro products are pasta & sauce-based. Regforafd 03:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional information. New York City's official tourism web site[69] doesn't list "Corner Bistro", which further indicates it is only of local interest. Regforafd 19:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to get all inflamed, but you are obviously not a New Yorker...in NYC "local" can mean at least half a million people. To put that in perspective, that's more than the population of Luxembourg, almost the population of all of Vermont, and almost twice the population of Iceland.Bobburito 04:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Since the population of Manhattan is roughly 1.5 million, you're saying that "local" means 1/3 of the entire borough? That's not an argument, that's handwaving -- especially since the actual population of the neighorhood in question is only 84,000. --Calton | Talk 07:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The place doesn't show up in my New York: A to Z, though lots of other restaurants are noted. When I get home, I'll check my other NYC refs (Time Out, Rough Guide, Manhattan Block by Block, etc.), but I'll bet they come up short. --Calton | Talk 07:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Damn, I can't find them yet. But the old issue of Time Out New York I did find doesn't show this in their TONY 100. Sorry, User:WindowsWizard12 aka Bobburito, this place don't cut it. . A bit harsh: I get a bit more checking, and while I still don't think it's worth an article, I did find one source claiming it to be the best burger in New York -- from The Times of London. So one British travel writer thinks they're great. --Calton | Talk 10:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: relisting 15/12/05, which is apparently 14/12/05 for y'all. Sad, really. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not sufficiently notable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 16:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with above. Eusebeus 17:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it was a particularly notable New York restaurant featured in guidebooks and the like, I'd vote to keep. But it seems it is just another restaurant - there must be hundreds if not thousands of them in New York City. Capitalistroadster 18:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. —

FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK
) 07:00, Dec. 25, 2005

Mindful Spending

While I agree with the practice, I'm not sure I see where this article is going. In addition the phrase "Mindful Spending" seems to not be in wide use [70], so if the content is kept we should maybe find a better name for it. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 06:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not much to add to mindfulness article. --Squiddy 11:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There may be similar concepts that go by different names, but we could have a redirects. Wikikiwi 21:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Frugality, does not appear to be the blogger's invention. Gazpacho 01:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: relisting 15/12/05, which seems to be 14/12/05 for most of y'all. How sad! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Adqam is a new contributor but is unlikely to be a sockpuppet of QuantumEleven so his vote is assumed to be in good faith and counted. More significantly, the article has been rewritten during the course of the debate and QuantumEleven has provided som things which my establish notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cules

Not notable File Éireann 16:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please put more effort into your nominations. Instead of simply saying "not notable", explain why the subject of an article is insufficiently notable to be included in an encyclopaedia. Cheers, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. Scoo 16:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Until and unless more is written about the student group in nonself-published sources it will never be verifiable. This is the student club equivalent of a vanity article. Demi T/C 16:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete This group has been mentioned in connection with and by various well known comedians, for example Douglas Adams: http://www.douglasadams.se/biography/. I feel I should point out that I am a member of this society, and as such have a vested intrest; I do not, however, see any reason why this article should be deleted any more than the article on Footlights. ##Edit## on inspection of this article, I see that it has a somewhat unsuitable tone. I will endeavour to rectify this. Adqam 11:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Disclaimer: I too am a member of this society). However, I feel it has grounds for notability: several famous members (including
    Edinburgh Fringe festival. I've rewritten the article from bottom up, it ought to be somewhat better now. — QuantumEleven | (talk) 20:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus, kept. If you want to merge it, be bold and do it without AFD discussion. —

FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK
) 07:04, Dec. 25, 2005

Gypsy Rizka

I don't see why this book is notable. It has an amazon sales rank of over 338,000 and the article says nothing about why the book is important. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 06:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Minor book. Delete or Redirect to Lloyd Alexander (the author). --Calton | Talk 06:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no reason a published book shouldn't have its own article, should be cleaned up of course, but books don't have to be groundbreaking to get their own articles. Sherurcij (talk) (bounties)
  • Merge into the author's article. There is no purpose in the proliferation of tiny articles when it would actually be more useful for all readers for an author's works to be presented in context. A book should get its own article when there's enough to say about it for it to require one. — Haeleth Talk 19:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: relisting 15/12/05, which in your time is known as 14/12/05. How silly. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was article sent to

e ] 21:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Nonlocality Myths Explained

Article is a self-promoting advert for a webpage of original research --Bob Mellish 16:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Dear Sirs,

On consideration, I realise that I have misinterpreted the Wikipedia policy, and am attempting to remove my references. I apologise for any inconvenience I may have caused.

Should you be in a position to suggest an alternative method of listing or linking my article, I should very much appreciate that.

Thank you for your kind co-operation, and

Yours faithfully,

Richard Treacy for Professor Peter Treacy, Canberra Australia.



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

The result of the debate was keep.

e ] 20:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Hell.com

Advertising and unencyclopedic article on a non-notable website. └ UkPaolo/TALK┐ 16:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (and expand) - A real and notable website; the article could do with expansion though. - Wezzo 17:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's authenticity isn't in question, what makes you say notable? └ UkPaolo/TALK┐ 17:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's an important secretive society that many people may look to WP to find out about. Top search result for 'hell'; many people have wondered what it is on a variety of Usenet groups and forums. Perhaps not inherently notable, but the secrecy that surrounds it is. - Wezzo 17:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but unfortunately I don't have that information - by having an article, hopeuflly people who DO have information can add to it. However, there is already plenty there that your average viewer doesn't know. --Alfakim-- talk 12:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- VERY notable and important net.art site. Article could definitely use some cleanup. MrBook 15:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to

e ] 20:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Bell Inequality

Exactly the same content as Nonlocality Myths Explained, orphan advert for original research. --Bob Mellish 16:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedied by

User:Harro5 Jamie 01:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

CORE IC

NN. See

WP:CORP. Nsevs 16:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result of the debate was delete. —

FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK
) 15:26, Dec. 25, 2005

Catholic Public Domain Version

Delete. Self-described vanity article: "new article written by the translator and editor of the CPDV (see SacredBible.org)" included in history. —A.S. Damick talk contribs 17:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. It looks like a good project, but the vanity issue is a real one. KHM03 18:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I wrote the article and I am working on the translation. However, I argue that the article should remain because it can be edited by others and because it includes a section on disadvantages of the translation. Every translation of the Bible should have an entry of some kind in the Wikipedia. --Ronconte 21:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Every Wikipedia article (except protected ones, of course) can be edited by anyone with a working web browser, but the policy still stands that Wikipedia is not a place to write articles about oneself or one's own work. I'm a published poet with a book available for sale, but there's nothing on Wikipedia about me, because no one has cared to take enough note. I can't start an article with my name or the name of my book, just because others can edit it. I wish you well with your project, and perhaps if it becomes notable enough, someone else will write an article about it. —A.S. Damick talk contribs 22:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conflicted. Sounds like an extraordinarily interesting project, and verifiable, to boot. But I suppose "interesting" isn't enough to establish "notable." An interesting project idea doesn't deserve an article in Wikipedia, but an interesting ongoing project with some discernable progress toward success does. To me it all comes down to the fact that the person who started and runs the project probably does not have standing to judge notability for Wikipedia. So what I'd really like to see is, either the article is deleted and if it is truly notable presumably some other, unrelated Wikipedians will create a new article on it, or else said Wikipedians will rework the article so that it's not written by someone with a vested interest in promoting the project. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 22:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    And on a personal note, Ronconte, all the best to you on your project. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 22:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Having looked at this, I would find it more likely to be considered notable if some of the longer books were completed, such as one of the five books of Moses, or one of the Gospels. As it is, it's difficult to truly answer the question "Will this project still be around in a few years?" and "Will it actually be completed by 2009?" Wikipedia does not need to look like sourceforge.net, full of pages for every incomplete project concept. That's not to discount the value of the work already done; that's just to raise the question of whether or not enough work has been done to justify calling it "notable." If CPDV has enough value to stand on its own without needing Wikipedia to bring attention to it, then it should be in Wikipedia. If it needs Wikipedia in order to attract enough attention that the project will succeed, it does not belong here. Kind of a catch-22, I know. It should be up to the project itself to establish merit with its track record. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 22:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article on the CPDV differs substantially from someone writing an article about themselves or about a book they wrote because it is a version of the Bible. It is 23% completed by a count of the verses. The Book of Psalms is completed; the Psalms is the one book of the Bible that is perhaps most often published on its own. Also, I read somewhere in Wikipedia that some articles are accepted by someone writing about their own work (can't find it now). Therefore, I suggest instead of deleting this article, changing it to a stub, so that other persons can begin a new article from that point. --Ronconte 00:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It isn't a value judgment on the work, which may well be fantastic, on the level of St. Jerome himself. Should anyone who starts his own translation of the Bible get into an encyclopedia? Wikipedia's policy answer to that question is "no." Just as claiming to be God (a much more important sort of claim than making a Bible, don't you think?) isn't enough to get one put into an encyclopedia, making a version of the Bible is not enough, either. Notability has to be established, and it cannot be established by the fiat of the writer/translator/worker in question. Wikipedia records notability. It doesn't create it. It's not a place to get press for one's work. If your work truly is notable, making some sort of verifiable impact on Biblical studies/religion/etc., someone else will start the article. You suggest changing the article to a stub rather than deleting it, but is that because you fear that it wouldn't otherwise see the light of day? If so, then that even more proves the point about the need for notability to be established by someone other than the one with a personal interest. —A.S. Damick talk contribs 14:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with what you are saying but go ahead and delete it. --Ronconte 16:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it's worth, I found this article while looking for a public domain Catholic Bible for a software project. The CPDV is exactly what I was looking for. Well, it will be when it's done anyway. :-) But Mr. Conte has more than enough done for me to get started. I'd like the article to stay. Or I would also consider writing a repleacement article once I am more familiar with the project. --LawfulGood 08:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting to
FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK
) 07:08, Dec. 25, 2005
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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. – ABCD 18:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pirate's Dinner Adventure Deletion, Round 2

  • Delete. - This should be deleted again, for the same reasons as the first time it was deleted. --jackohare 17:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Pirate's Dinner Adventure

This two-sentence article is a promotion for a dinner-show that won't even open until December. It qualifies for deletion as: advertising, predicting the future, and not notable. Tobycat 5 July 2005 06:40 (UTC)

  • Delete. Promotion, future events, non-notable. Thepinterpause 5 July 2005 07:17 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising. JamesBurns 5 July 2005 07:17 (UTC)
  • Delete promo of future event. Nothing verifiable can be said of it. - Mgm|(talk) July 5, 2005 08:20 (UTC)
  • Delete ad/promotion. --Etacar11 5 July 2005 23:40 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an
undeletion request
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 13:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Emptythought

Stupid vanity hoax, speedy if you think it's obvious enough. Delete. - Bobet 17:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep.

e ] 20:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Brian Doherty (journalist)

I think this page should probably not be deleted. But I found a speedy tag on it, and since I'm not sure of the protocol, I thought that rather than just removing the speedy I thought it better to downgrade it one step to a regular VfD, out of respect for the original tagger. Herostratus 17:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Doherty is an editor (senior or not, I don't know) at the extremely notable Reason magazine, he did write the Burning Man book, and he did found Cherry Records (don't know if that's notable). I don't know about the truth of the punk-band thing. Herostratus 17:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Herostratus. - Wezzo 17:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - especially since he wrote the Burning Man book. That definitely makes him notable. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 18:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 18:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per nom. -- JJay 20:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recommend Speedy Keep and Close. I had thought the speedy was placed by a certain respected editor; turns out it was by someone else, who I'm sure is also a fine editor but his expertise is in another field, and I suspect placed it by mistake. Sorry about all that. Herostratus 22:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as nonsense.

T
19:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Police motto

I'm not sure what this page is supposed to be, but it's certainly not encyclopedic; it appears to consist of a selection of take-offs of advertizing slogans and whatnot with every single word wikilinked. - squibix 17:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete - I've tagged it for patent nonsense as well. What a ridiculous article. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 18:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. —Brim 18:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as nonsense. (the page even states that it's a comedy page). --
    אריאל יהודה 18:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete as nonsense. - Liberatore(T) 19:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus, defaulting to keep, a merge being reasonable. Be

FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK
) 22:22, Dec. 25, 2005

Sir Topham's butler

Much as I love Thomas the Tank Engine this article is pointless. Such a minor, fictional, character cannot possibly be sufficiently notable to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia, the article even admits he only features in one story. I'm not even sure there's enough encyclopedic value to merit merging with any other article. └ UkPaolo/TALK┐ 17:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps I should point out that there is no
Sir Topham Hat article... └ UkPaolo/TALK┐ 08:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
Good point. Redirected to
Fat Controller. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge (to

FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK
) 20:09, Dec. 25, 2005

Cyril the Fogman

Another Thomas the Tank Engine pointless character article. Such a minor, fictional, character cannot possibly be sufficiently notable to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia, the article even admits he only features in one story. I'm not even sure there's enough encyclopedic value to merit merging with any other article. └ UkPaolo/TALK┐ 17:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was redirect to

Mailer Diablo 15:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

DSC-W7

This camera model does not seem especially notable, and WP is certainly not a review site. └ UkPaolo/TALK┐ 17:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete

FCYTravis 00:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC).[reply
]

Lovely anne

Article does not establish notability. Delete —Brim 17:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[72]

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

The result of the debate was delete —

FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK
) 20:50, Dec. 25, 2005

List of Clone Troopers

This is collecting data just for the sake of it. Pilatus 18:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep (nomination withdrawn).

e ] 17:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Ghost Mice

Fails

e ] 19:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete NN band Edrigu 20:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As I said in the Defiance, Ohio deletion entry, I do not believe that this is a significant enough deviance from those provisions to warrant deletion. The band has done an internetional tour, as well as several US tours and released several albums. Those provisions actually work against a band like this who choose not to become "notable", so to speak, due to their personal beliefs about music and life. They are very prominently known among people in the underground punk scene and have a sizable national fanbase. Superradjoe 9:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Very well known underground band even to those not into the DIY scene. redpatcher 10:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I'm convinced. Nomination withdrawn.
    e ] 17:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (nomination withdrawn).

e ] 18:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

This Bike Is A Pipe Bomb

Fails

e ] 19:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was keep (nomination withdrawn).

e ] 18:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Defiance, Ohio (band)

Fails

e ] 19:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was keep (nomination withdrawn).

e ] 18:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Carrie Nations (band)

Fails

e ] 19:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was keep (nomination withdrawn).

e ] 18:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The Max Levine Ensemble

Fails

e ] 19:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was keep (nomination withdrawn).

e ] 18:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Japanther

Fails

e ] 19:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was keep (nomination withdrawn).

e ] 18:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The Door-Keys

Fails

e ] 19:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Resistance is futile! -

Mailer Diablo 13:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Chize

Slang dictionary definition. - Liberatore(T) 19:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - not encyclopaedic. (If the content is considered valid, it should be added to the article for cheese and redirect.) --Whouk (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not worth its own article. Dr Gangrene 20:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Pavel Vozenilek 20:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- JJay 22:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave Typical slang word used all the time. -- DiLo 11:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave No one ever says cheese pietza, it's "Chize" peitza. -- BillyQ 11:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave I WANT CHIZE PIETZA!! -- AsianGrandbabies 11:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave Chize is something the whole world needs to know about. -- Unit 11:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave I agree, its fascinating learning about local dialects. -- Buttocks 11:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I hope the entries from "DiLo" to "Buttocks" will be disregarded as they were not posted by those non-existent users but by the same two IP addresses. --Whouk (talk) 16:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 13:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The Second Wednesday Syndrome

Joke (a new one apparently [73]). Technically, not speediable. - Liberatore(T) 19:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 04:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shayna Robertson

The article contains a claim of notability, but I could not verify it (neither at the article title nor at "Shayna Richardson". - Liberatore(T) 19:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE (and a curse on all the socks!). -

ask? 09:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]


New users please read: You are welcome to comment but please add your comments to the bottom of the page (not the top) and sign them by adding four tildes (~~~~) which will automatically add your username or IP address and the time and date. Please do not alter the comments or votes of others; this is considered vandalism and grounds for blocking. Please do not comment or vote multiple times pretending you are different people; such comments and votes will be deleted or ignored. Read this for more information. Thank you.

Anonymous readers are strongly urged to read the relevant inclusion/exclusion guidelines for corporations at

WP:CORP
.

GH avisualagency™

<<This vote has been protected until the vote formally closed>>

Advert for non-notable company. Google test yields < 1K results for "GH avisualagency." Appears to fail

WP:CORP. Klaw ¡digame! 20:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Article's creator, and a founding partner of the company. User's previous edits were all to this article, plus one to an album for which he did artwork. | Klaw ¡digame! 05:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP This company is a pivotal creative collective that has influenced artists all over the world. Their monograph is held in the highest esteem by and is in the literary collections of such prestigious institutions as the Tate Gallery in London as well as the Museum of Modern Art in NYC. In fact, it was selected as staff pick by MOMA. It is also in the library of the Atlanta College of Art. not once in the
    WP:CORP
    does it ever state that "< 1K results" on google is a criteria.
You can see very clearly that it specifically states:
"A company or corporation is notable if it meets ANY ONE of the following criteria:
The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself."
the emphasis is on "ANY ONE", which GH avisualagency more than fulfills. as a matter of fact, if you look up "GH avisualagency" on google you will see 831 results and if you look up "GHavisualagency" (their common alternate spelling) on google you will see 498 results. if you look up "Graphic Havoc" (the actual name that GH stands for and another commonly known name for the company) you will find 771 results. another name that they are commonly listed as"GHava" gets 828 results. 831 + 498 + 771 + 828 = 2928, which negates the above grounds for deletion in the 1st place. google those 4 ways to look up GH avisualagency and you will see very clearly that they more than amply meet the criteria as delineated by Wikipedia. (google #s vary constantly so please bear this in mind.)
found on google:
GH avisualagency included as one of 23 groundbreaking New York studios in the new book, “Infiltrate | The Front Lines of the New York Design Scene” by Alexander Gelman
“some of the most original design thinkers and practitioners New York has to offer today”
- Alexander Gelman
“It's hard to say whether Gelman has discovered a new direction for American design, or whether he's merely unearthed a mutant, semi-underground strain. But there's an introspection here that's rarely found in American design which even in its more avant garde guises maintains a muscular directness and immediacy.”
- Creative Review, March 2005

Inspectorpanther 20:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.118.48 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC); user later changed attribution[reply]
  • Comment. The above user (207.237.118.48/Inspectorpanther) blanked my user page [75] and my talk page [76], probably as a result of this AfD nomination. This vote is the user's first edit aside from the blankings. | Klaw ¡digame! 22:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • that was a mistake and i already explained it on lerner's talk. it had nothing to do with this. Inspectorpanther 20:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quotation from "Creative Review" is about Gelman's book as a whole, not about GH specifically. The book's website has an "About Infiltrate" section, which says: "Well known, lesser known and completely yet unknown studios are featured in the book". So inclusion in the book as such isn't much evidence of notability. (I don't have the book; maybe what it says about GH is evidence of notability.) Gareth McCaughan 08:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- JJay 22:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing vote to Abstain. Not clear what the situation is here and don't have time to pursue it further. -- JJay 04:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This user has been editing the user pages for several other meatpuppets that voted on this page, including DirtyAttic, Cmeyer, Fearofnormalcy, Blively, and Dwdaniell. (see his contribs) It may be that they are all the same person. | Klaw ¡digame! 04:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • are you absolutely 100% sure that they are the same person? did you use your spyware to check all their IPs and track each of their locations? what did it say please? Inspectorpanther 06:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second edit from that IP address. First was on Apr 21, 2005. | Klaw ¡digame! 00:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and additionally ignore multiple "DO NOT Delete" votes by the same author. --jackohare 00:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongly doubt this is actually this user's first edit. Notice how all in favor of keeping this up use the same style and are not logged in. --jackohare 01:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the context of the advertisement on the website revealed below, I actually don't think it's a sockpuppet. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 23:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your gallant defense. Ambush Commander! I have every right to vote as the rest of you. Anyone who wants to accuse me of anything can put it on my talk page and not be like snarky old hens. xoxo Minifoo 17:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that Ambush Commander was making a distinction between sockpuppets and meatpuppets. See
    WP:SOCK for more details on what those terms mean. | Klaw ¡digame! 18:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete, does not meet criteria.--
    nixie 01:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
On a separate note, The Designers Republic are listed here. Why is GH avisualagency being marked for deletion. GHava is the same type of collective and have collaborated with many of the same people. This is not making any logical sense.--lerner
  • Delete, spam, sockpuppet-o-rama. The latter isn't a criteria for deletion, but as they've spent their time trying to sway a vote which isn't happening instead of attempting to
    verify the claims made in this article, I'd be very surprised if this was actually notable. Plus "Introduction by John Robinson. Essay by Helen Walters. Captions by Helen Walters ISBN 1-86154-268-2" at the end leads me to suspect copy-and-paste (captions to what?) and therefore copyvio. --Last Malthusian 10:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per nom Nfitz 14:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
change vote to Keep. Article has been significantly impreoved and NPOVed in the last 5 days. Lots of references to this bunch on the net. Lots of Google hits. Nfitz 20:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as mere advertising. CSD-bot 19:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See User talk:lerner for related discussion from last-night. lerner
  • KEEP...KEEP...KEEP!!!!! great for inspiration and a great design comp....... let them stay //DIRTYATTIC// — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dirtyattic (talk • contribs) 20:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete as per nom - Rudykog 20:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment also complies with Wikipedia:Notability (people): Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is recognized as exceptional and likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field. Lerner 20:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It appears that this is only in your opinion. - Rudykog 20:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - I can't believe that there is even such a debate on this issue! Yes, from my understanding, GH do commercial work but are primarily an artist collective that remain so through such work. The huge explosion of street art and the ensuing school of design that stems from it is hardly deletable. If you do not allow GH in, who are a very well-loved (internationally) outfit, then you will need to remove all of the others who live and practise the same balance of art and commercial art. That means no Shepard Fairey, no Futura, nobody that has walked the necessary line of artistry and design work. Are you to deny people interested in this generations leaders in street art/design culture voice and a place in Wikipedia? That is simply ERASING culture...Benveenyc 21:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. GHava has had an indelible influence on art and design and should be suitably recognized with a wikipedia entry. - --jtiranasar
  • User's first edit. [85] Note the similar formats for all keep votes on this page. | Klaw ¡digame! 22:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:this has been linked on other web portals asking for people to vote.see newstoday Lerner 22:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment is there a problem with letting other people in our field know about what is happening here?Lerner 22:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally, these appeals result in scores of never-used-Wikipedia-before users blindly voting keep based solely on their experience with the subject. I do not claim that you do not have some loyal members, but their lack of knowledge in the policies of Wikipedia regarding inclusion and exclusion of topics is not constructive to the AfD process, even if the subject turns out to be notable. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 22:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Nothing wrong with that. It simply is NOT what Wikipedia is about. It is not a popularity contest and it's not about winning votes. It also is not a soapbox for any old 'artists' collective' or advertising agency. When you guys gain enough prominence to warrant an inclusion it will happen without your intervention. Chelman 22:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • it is interesting to note that newstoday.com's public posting about this AfD has brought both DELETE as well as KEEP votes from new users, rendering the topic of fairness of public posting questionable. it is also interesting that if you go to the newtoday.com site, one can see that there is a lively debate both for and against the article. also want to mention that newstoday is a totally separate entity from GH and not affiliated in any way. they posted this independently and of their own volition. Inspectorpanther 05:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your claim is misleading. Assuming all new-user votes are a result of the public appeal for support, it has yielded 17 "keep" votes and 4 "delete" votes. | Klaw ¡digame! 05:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but reserving the right to change my mind if I find more evidence of notability. (BTW, see [86] for Tom Smith's response to his article's VfD.)--SarekOfVulcan 22:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable. One of many thousands of advertising agencies. Calling yourself an artists' collective does not actually make you one. This is just a regular old commercial venture. Even if GH WAS an artists' collective pur sang it still wouldn't warrant inclusion due to their insignificance at this time. Staging a campaign to influence the vote only strenghtens my opinion. Chelman 22:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Was going to do weak delete, but changed my mind after reviewing
    WP:CORP (although only a proposed guideline). Would like to say delete because of business's clear keep campaign primarily for purposes of advertising. Although it possibly comes close to notability according to the article's contents (which needs major cleaning up and de-advertising), it only does so by association with bigger names and has no notability in its own right (except that of a conference whose name is misspelt in the article). jnothman talk 00:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I reiterate my vote above for deletion. Lerner tried to make a personal appeal to me. I reviewed the article again. The small number of installations in minor galleries and museums reinforces my conclusion that this non-notable art collective does not deserve a Wikipedia article. I also note that not a single top-tier university library or museum has started collecting this group's work. The only people interested in this group's junk are third-rate scholars who couldn't get tenure at
      UC Berkeley, let alone admission. Come back when you get picked up by a real museum like SFMOMA or the Pompidou Centre. --Coolcaesar 18:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • "Delete". Sorry GHava - I have seen your work and been to see you speak at conferences. Your work is good but I would not say timeless nor particularly groundbreaking. I do not agree with tDR inclusion either.
I think this is clearly a vanity page. Did GHava author this? This article lists services offered, if you refer to an article on Jan Tschichold for instance, this article does not list the services he offered, the only reason I can see for listing this information is commercial gain, and not in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia. Ditto that for Peter Saville's listing, Alan Fletcher's listing, and many others.
Also, Pentagram is not on here, one of the most important design studios of the modern era. They have been FAR more widely publicised, awarded, praised and have done FAR more to further the cause of modern design, have broken much more new territory and dragged graphic design in much more interesting directions. Particularly the collaboration between new media, graphic design and architecture that they foster.
It is, in my opinion, laughable that GHava hold themself to the same strata of importance as REAL pioneers and trailblazers such as Paul Rand, Saul Bass, El Lissitzky, Jan Tshicold, Josef Muller-Brockman, Neville Broday etc.
In regards to their claim as a serious 'art collective' - they call themself an agency - that in itself an obviously commercial position to take. The work they list and show is mainly for premier brands, Coke, Adidas, Volkswagen and MTV - perhaps they came to design from a art background, but they are obviously and wholly working within the commercial design service realm, but maintain an 'artistic' practise on the side. EmohDesign 04:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE. they have a website. they are not pioneers. they are shameless self promoters. Wikipedia should stand for knowledge acquisition on topics that have stood the test of time and the march of history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.242.71.34 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Mrethan 21:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC) I notice that many entries on this page keep being deleted. This is supposed to be a forum of open debate. Erasing others' statements is intellectually dishonest. One can only wonder if the vandals are employees of competing agencies. In any case, this is what I originally wrote: This company clearly meets wiki's requirements for inclusion, in spite of the fact that those requirements are slanted in favor of public corporations. GH--which is almost as much a collective of artists as it is a company, and deserves inclusion on that basis alone--is admittedly in no danger of being used to index stock prices any time soon. But these five individuals have made an impact far disproportionate to their numerical strength through their seminal work with many listed companies, such as volkswagon and MTV (aka Viacom). And unlike many design agencies, these guys have had fine art shows as well. Wikipedia is enhanced by their inclusion. It should be, among other things, a storehouse of current knowledge about design, not simply a memorial to past movements.[reply]
  • User's first edit. Also, there have been no entries deleted on this page, for or against. | Klaw ¡digame! 21:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are correct, Sarek. I restored the missing comment below with a tag that explains why it's out of sequence. Thanks for the catch. | Klaw ¡digame! 01:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will vouch for that statement, except for one small thing. Keithlaw removed Lerner's statement that User:69.143.140.4 was possibly a sockpuppet. I have reinstated that by saying that it was the anon IP's sixth edit. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 22:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please note that text updates have been made to the GH avisualagency article in order to conform to the Wikipedia standards for inclusion.Lerner 21:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keithlaw, you must be mistaken. A quick look at the user's contributions reveals that he/she has only edited this article once. Are you sure? — Ambush Commander(Talk) 22:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm, you're right. One of the delete votes above is tagged incorrectly. That is, I tagged it incorrectly. I'll figure it out. Thanks. | Klaw ¡digame! 23:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - new article text makes GHava sound like it's not a corporation. Well? Which is it? Also, the extensive external links and references do make it seem slightly notable at best. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 22:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain - after much deliberation, I cannot tell what exactly this article is about. The rewrite makes things a lot foggier: there isn't even a link to their website, let alone the names of the five people in this organization. Is it an organization or a corporation, and do any of those links constitute external press? The situation with the meatpuppets has not helped these proceedings at all. I am not a deletionist, but I cannot in good faith vote delete or keep for this nomination. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 23:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT Delete. This company clearly meets wiki's requirements for inclusion, in spite of the fact that those requirements are slanted in favor of public corporations. GH--which is almost as much a collective of artists as it is a company, and deserves inclusion on that basis alone--is admittedly in no danger of being used to index stock prices any time soon. But these five individuals have made an impact far disproportionate to their numerical strength through their seminal work with many listed companies, such as volkswagon and MTV (aka Viacom). And unlike many design agencies, these guys have had fine art shows as well. Wikipedia is enhanced by their inclusion. As for the detractors? I'm not seeing much thought put into their calls for deletion, beyond sycophantic adhesion to the arbitrary "1K" plus google hits metric, which GH meets in any case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.27.111.121 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This comment was lost to a vandalism revert (reverted by me) yesterday, but the text is identical to that of Mrethan's above, so it appears that the user re-posted his comments after the deletion. | Klaw ¡digame! 00:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the GH avisualagency article does not violate the rules for inclusion any more than these articles below:

(note: the below articles are valid and have a place on Wikipedia just as the GH avisualagency article has a place here.)

Lerner 00:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As a wise Wikipedian (Just zis Guy, maybe?) once said, "Cruft does not justify more cruft." Nominate all of those articles for deletion if you think they genuinely do not deserve articles (but don't do it to
make a point, of course). —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-17 03:10:52Z
  • Comment the ONLY difference between a red colored user and a blue one is that the blue ones set up their user page. the majority of users on wiki don't set up their user page. in fact, the vast majority of users on here don't even set up an account. it's supposed to be an informative website. just because someone wants to be more private does NOT discount their vote nor does it make them a sockpuppet. i have been using this site since its inception. just because i finally felt there was a discussion worth creating an account and jumping into does not mean i am a sock/meat puppet. incessantly labeling every single new user as such is not only abusive but it goes against the spirit of wikipedia as a public community based website for all, not just those who feel like they need to have a user page. the etiquette is towards not biting the new users. you were once a new user too. try to bear that in mind before throwing around such insults. Inspectorpanther 16:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even though he says he has been here for years Kate's tool says that actually his : First edit 2005-12-14 22:39:37
  • one can be a user of wikipedia and not edit anything for however long they wish. the frequency of editing does not make you more important to the site. without users who come to research, it would be pointless. Inspectorpanther 20:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent point, Inspector. But in looking at voting for AfDs, users' experience is a legitimate criterion, per Wikipedia policy. I hope many of the new users you and Lerner have recruited will stay and contribute to other articles. | Klaw ¡digame! 21:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • What he says about red links versus blue is correct. There are several notable cases where contributors purposely have left their user pages blank in order to help discourage the notion that users without user pages are less credible (it has been, however, of minimal effect). Inspectorpanther seems to have a solid grasp about Wikipedia's policies, even if he only has several edits. However, concerning meat puppets, it is general practice to make comments on the number of contributions users have when participating in AfD discussions. There is nothing wrong with labeling "User's first edit." — Ambush Commander(Talk) 20:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete the Graphic Havoc article from this website. They are a valid collective that provide individuals, companies, and art groups with support, work, ideas, and inspiration. They are a professional and creative group that are equally valid in the coorperate world as well as artistic communities. This kind of dual existance is rare and neccessary. I am not sure who has the time for negative comments towards people that handle themselves in a both professional and sensitive manner. It is my beleif that individuals that have the time to "diss" hard working people are nothing more than haters or someone with a bone to pick and their comments should be taken with a block of salt. Obviously someone that has free time to output negative are simply not using their time wisely. Time wasted on spreading negativity are neither proactive and most likely not productive. Negative chatter, in my mind, equals too much free time.
- Thank You WOLF01208.140.16.50 17:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There needs to be more discussion about the points the meatpuppets have brought up. Sure, they may be meatpuppets, but that doesn't make arguments they present any less valid. That only means that we should take them with a healthy dose of salt. Totally ignoring them, in my opinion, is not very good. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 20:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. The purpose of AfD is not to delete articles without debate, but to examine the merits of articles. In this particular case, however, it seems to me that the meatpuppet comments above assert notability without proving (or providing significant evidence of) notability. Working with listed companies is not evidence of notability. The existence of entries for comparable companies is not per se evidence of notability (per HorsePunchKid above). And none of this addresses the advert/vanity issue, as the article was created and almost entirely written by one of the principals in the firm. The sock- and meat-puppetry (and two instances of vandalism) are secondary to the discussion; their importance is in the tally, which is why I've tagged them. | Klaw ¡digame! 21:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: What about this organization makes it of interest to the public? The page appears to be some attempt at advertising or promotion, a free hosting of an unimpressive resume. If it meets the criteria for deletion, it should be deleted. 134.154.232.122 22:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment for new research in favor of keeping this article please see (Talk)Lerner
  • KEEP: If not for being blessed with talent & creativity, then simply for being young, motivated and courageous. The people behind GH avisualagency have embraced the world with their ideas full force. Those of you who say they are not innovative are just plain silly (for lack of a better word). Is there any art or music that is not influenced by something that came before it? I have not seen everything that GH avisualagency has produced but what I have seen is extremely philosophical and having this article listed on this website is very necessary because it is one more resource that can help the lucky people who stumble upon it to grow and see other artists perspectives about this huge world we all live in together. Oh and luckily I live in the USA where freedom of speech ROCKS. PixyStarGirlPixyStarGirl 00:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • User's first edit. | Klaw ¡digame! 04:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunantely, talent/creativity/youthfulness/motivation/courage can manifest itself without notability. When we discuss a deletion, we do not discuss the merits of an organization. We know the article could be encyclopedic, and the main case being made against it is notability. Claiming that the site is innovative and philosophical doesn't mean much in this aspect: can you back up these claims? Why is Ghava notable? — Ambush Commander(Talk) 00:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP: Whether GH is categorized as a small corporation, commercial agency or artist collective is besides the point. It is just a title. What’s more important for this discussion is to focus on the work GH has created. As a whole, their work and skills range from commercial to fine arts and many times meet somewhere in the middle, a combination that is lacking in most commercial work today. Graphic Havoc is both a notable and creatively influential design organization. As a first time Wikipedia user, I have read through this entire discussion and am fairly surprised at the adolescent tone of the debate. I’d like to stay focused and say that I see no real reason for the deletion of Graphic Havoc. The vanity issue seems to be the most reoccurring point, however, I read through the guidelines and found this line, “it is preferable for the initial author not to be an owner or employee of or an investor in the company”. Note the word preferable. Grounds for deletion would surely need more backing than this.Katiedecker 00:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • User's first edit. | Klaw ¡digame! 04:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It makes us look at the article with more scrutiny. In the end, we need to find another reason to delete it. That reason is notability. Back up your claims that GH is a "creatively influential design organization" with fact. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 00:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - User:Coolcaesar made a very strong comment about the notability of all the organizations that had copies of GH's work. I decided to check it out myself, and Oregon State University does not seem at all like a second-rate college. Admittedly, it's only one college (I didn't check the others), and it's only one book, but it would be nice if Coolcaesar explained further. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 00:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • your comment inspired me to add wikipedia links to all the universities listed in the article. thank you! yes, they are far from being considered "third-rate". much to the contrary, as evidenced below (please read the respective articles for yourself if you want to check):
  • Oregon State University
  • University of Washington: "the largest university in the Pacific Northwest and the oldest public university on the West Coast of the United States."
  • Concordia University: "large urban university in Montreal, Quebec, Canada." with many accolades
  • Western Washington University: "consistently ranked among the top schools in its category and according to US News and World Report's ranking, is the number 2 public master’s-granting school in the western region, while placed 18th overall (both public and private)"
  • University of Nevada, Las Vegas: "It is the major university of southern Nevada. The university is ranked in the category of Doctoral/Research Universities-Intensive by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and has over 1,000 faculty members."
  • Plymouth State University
  • University of Tulsa: "ranked among the top 100 universities in the nation by US News and World Report and named by the Princeton Review as one of America's best universities."
  • Monash University: " Australia's largest university with over 55,000 students...one of Australia's 'Group of Eight' leading universities, and was recently ranked by The Times Higher Education Supplement THES at number 33 in its annual ranking of the world's top 200 universities for 2005. Its Engineering Faculty was also ranked number 1 in Australia and approximately number 16 in the world according to THES 2004/2005"
  • Lesley University
  • Bowling Green State University: "offers over 200 undergraduate programs, as well as master's and doctoral degrees in a variety of areas, including the nation's first Ph.D. program in photochemical science and one of the first undergraduate program in Neuroscience"
  • Columbia College Chicago: "the largest arts and communications college in the United States"
for all these venerable universities worldwide to deem GH's 1st book to be worthy of acquisition, i believe constitutes ample grounds for notability. Inspectorpanther 02:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Purchasing a book for a university library does not assert notability. It could do so but it doesn't assert it by default. Many libraries purchase ALL books from certain publishers or distributors. Others purchase everything their staff request etc. etc. There is a multitude of reasons that a university could purchase a given book. Without knowledge of their policies it is impossible to assert an article's importance. 62.59.192.130 14:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP: Why would anybody want do delete this article? This is excatly what I love and use Wikipedia for, whenever I see the work of somebody or an collective, it's nice to know that you can get a few facts on wikipedia. It's normally quite hard to get information about modern artist and wikipedia sure makes it a lot easier to gather information about them. This article is useful. Just because some of you aren't interessted in design or art, doesn't mean this entry is not useful for anybody. Actually makes me quiet angry that something like this gets considered for deletion. Roland g 01:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • User's first edit. | Klaw ¡digame! 04:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems very simple to me. Artists and Open-minded people want to keep this article and business minded folks who feel threatened want it deleted.PixyStarGirl 01:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • What evidence brings you to that conclusion? Have you read the previous discussion? — Ambush Commander(Talk) 02:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's awesome. What does that have to do with how the article meets
    WP:CORP again? --Last Malthusian 02:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • WP:BIO doesn't apply to groups of people. It states clearly that it applies to "biographies," which this article clearly is not. There are separate guidelines for some groups, such as bands. | Klaw ¡digame! 05:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • what list did lerner submit where he compares himself to movements from the 60's & 70's? there never was such a list. Inspectorpanther 03:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ant Farm, General Idea and Yellow House Artist Collective are from the sixties and seventies. Red Herring, Guerrilla Girls are from the eighties. TomPeters 04:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • that list was referring to the right of those articles to exist on wikipedia, not a comparison of statistical longevity. longevity in itself does not necessarily constitute notability. as an art historian, i personally know several members of guerilla girls and red herring and GH is just as comparable in significance. Inspectorpanther 05:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because of all the controversy and obsessive justifications, I took a look at the group's website. Some of the other companies from that list...are on their client list! Nice company, selling out it's own clients to try to make a case for themselves. Now all those entries will be scrutinized the same way. And Inspector, personally knowing an artist does not a degree in art history bestow. CoolCeasar hit the nail on the head with his assessment of those schools, your elaborations only made them look more lame. TomPeters 18:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Please see (Talk) for updated rebuttal regarding meat/sockpuppets. Lerner 03:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm for GH, they are nice people. trust me i've once took pictures of them, very friendly... almost like if they where socialistic in mind! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredrik Skogkvist (talk • contribs) 13:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • User's first mainspace or wikispace edit. I presume this vote is Keep. | Klaw ¡digame! 15:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - just one of many other art collectives/agencies/call it what you like. Just because other insignificant agenices made it through the Wikipedia process doesn't mean that even more should do so. 62.59.192.130 14:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: advertising for non-notable entity. The flood of meatpuppets (1) reduces my inclination towards charity and (2) makes me worry that keeping the article accurate and unpuffy may be difficult in the face of their demonstrated willingness to pervert Wikipedia into an advertising forum. The existence of other pages describing non-notable entities proves only that Wikipedia is not yet perfect (duh). Gareth McCaughan 17:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Indeed point (2) is the most important reason for me to vote for deletion now. Chelman 20:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I respect creators throughout the world. However, a search for "GH avisualagency" on Google returns less than 70 results. I doubt this warrants an entry on Wikipedia which is definitely not meant to be an advertising platform for more or less new coming artists - unless they belong to general education. My three cents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.146.131.215 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think 222.146.131.215 must have mistyped or something; I get 845 hits for the same search. (Which still isn't terribly many, for an entity whose primary purpose is in effect the generation of publicity.) Gareth McCaughan 23:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • i apologize in advance for being redundant but if you look up "GH avisualagency" on google you will see 845 results and if you look up "GHavisualagency" (their common alternate spelling) on google you will see 498 results. if you look up "Graphic Havoc" (the actual name that GH stands for and another commonly known name for the company) you will find 771 results. another name that they are commonly listed as"GHava" gets 828 results. 845 + 498 + 771 + 828 = 2942. (please click on the links to see results. #s will vary as google results constantly fluctuate.) all of these alternate spellings and aliases are listed in the article and there are wikipedia redirects for each one that also go to it. Inspectorpanther 00:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2942 Google hits is still a very small number. Some firms you and Lerner have claimed are comparable in notability to GHava have far more hits - "Designers Republic" (91,100 hits), "Guerilla Girls" (72,800 hits), and Prefuse73 (50,500 hits). | Klaw ¡digame! 00:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • minimum # of google hits is not wikipedia policy for inclusion, nor is notability. please see
    WP:N: "There is currently no official policy on notability." "lack of "notability" is not a criterion for deletion, because (among other things) this isn't specifically stated in the deletion policy" Inspectorpanther 01:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Note: On counting up google hits: there is no point adding the result nubmers up: many pages with "GHava" will also have "GHavisualagency" so adding is not appropriate. If you want the union of the results, use the google OR keyword. Search for Ghava OR ghavisualagency etc. jnothman talk 03:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the tip. A search on "Ghava OR ghavisualagency" yields just 874 results. [87] | Klaw ¡digame! 03:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete. GH avisualagency is a vital force in art and graphic design- well worthy of inclusion on wikipedia.Bretteliza 02:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without protection. Enough elements of the article, such as the first paragraph, read as irreparably vapid ad copy mixed with the sort of managerial buzzwords that I expect to see when I read Dilbert, that even if this is a legitimate topic for an encyclopedia article (which I am as yet unconvinced of), I think it'd be best just to bulldoze this mess away and start afresh. And for those who care, this is my 1,179th edit. The Literate Engineer 06:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment please review newly edited GH ava article. Lerner 15:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Ghava™ is an art collective, not only one of most inspiring design studios in New York and in the world.

Their work, artistic and commercial, is very important because of their original experimental multi-disciplinary approach. It's possible to find precursors of the figure of the artist/designer in the history of art and design (pre-raffaelites, the Bauhaus school, Kandinskij, Munari, Warhol, only to name a few) and it would be stupid to consider ghava™ only as a mainstream advertising company. They operate in the border zone between art and design, between experimentation and design work, between research and commercial needs. Keep ghava™ in wikipedia. Superexpresso 21:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Inspectorpanther 22:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I want everyone to see how ridiculous it is for blues to hold more weight than reds. It's sheer bigotry! This is an issue that I hope the admins will examine more closely. If this discussion has taught anyone anything, it is that the AfD process on Wikipedia is riddled with flaws. Hence, all the heated discussions surrounding policy changes. So much bickering on here and so many narcs. "O brave new world that has such people in it." [88] Wikimeister 05:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • And speaking of vanity articles... some breaking news!:
  • Tsk Tsk Tsk! The hypocrisy truly runs deep. Wikimeister 16:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is getting very silly indeed. Wikimeister, the purpose of this discussion is to see community consensus. People who register because they were invited to vote by an external source cannot be counted as part of this community, whether they're red or blue or green with purple spots. Hopefully someone will close this today before any more bad feeling spreads. --Last Malthusian 09:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikimeister, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's deletion process. Being a new user does not help your credibility on one sentence votes. You are welcome to argue and present facts in favor of the article's inclusion, but simply saying "I see no grounds for deletion here" does not contribute anything useful to the discussion besides another voice saying "I agree." For long-time contributors, their approval/disapproval means a lot, but without that credibility, people will be prone to discount your opinions if they are not backed up with facts.
If you did sign up in order to vote specifically for this issue, I hope you are understanding and continue to edit Wikipedia. Meatpuppets can become valued Wikipedia contributors, and the sooner we clear up misunderstanding, the better off we will be. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 20:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per

WP:CORP and sockpuppet invasion. Pilatus 17:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 04:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nadine Heusser

NN, 61 Google hits. Possible vanity page, as it was created by User:Mheusser. Delete. --Fang Aili 20:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 04:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ignatius (musician)

makes no claims to meet

אריאל יהודה 20:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 04:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wisconsin Christmas Tree Association

Advertising MPF 20:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete all. -

Mailer Diablo 13:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Members of Night Stalker

This AfD is for the following musicians, which are members of the group Night Stalker: Rick Pepper, Joe Bailey, Mike Cummings, Keith Barr, and Jim Lundell. This listing is a direct result of the AfD for the band itself. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Night Stalker for details. I abstain from voting on this nomination. Mindmatrix 20:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per removal of the band. These guys have nothing beyond the band, and if Night Stalker can't pass under WP:MUSIC, who coult these guys possibly do so? Saberwyn - 21:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Orphan stubs, probably should have been cleaned up when the original AfD closed. CarbonCopy (talk) 21:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above Tom Harrison (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Saberwyn. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-15 07:26:34Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete, recreation of previously deleted content. Deathphoenix 22:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Miller (musician)

Vanity article on a non-notable musician, without any assertion of notability according to

WP:MUSIC. The website linked in this article doesn't have an Alexa rank. Also, this page might be a speedy candidate because I seem to recall that this page was deleted in the past. I could be wrong, though, hence my placing this on AfD instead of CSD. --Deathphoenix 20:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete, not notable. Thue | talk 21:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ernzoa

Non-notable/Vanity page. KHM03 20:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete-a no-brainer.NorseOdin 20:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete nn-bio --
    אריאל יהודה 21:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]


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

The result of the debate was OM*G LOL cyberdelete. -

Mailer Diablo 13:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Cyberincest

neologism

אריאל יהודה 20:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete, probably. Does this thing happen often enough that we need a word for it?Bjones 21:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's not an encyclopedia article anyway. - Rudykog 21:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, it's patent nonsense people. -^demon 21:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, Pavel Vozenilek 21:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didnt realise this site was such a serious place, I apologise for my stupidity — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommy R (talk • contribs)
  • Comment: Not a speedy. -- JJay 22:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neologism, nonsense. Ambi 01:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nonsense neologism. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - LOL. The term might have some validity. I was thinking more along the lines of people who roleplay pretending to be related to each other, which is a relatively common phenomenon that is explored a lot more online than elsewhere. I think they call it "incest play" and its often used in BDSM circles in a similar way to "rape play". But this one, as mentioned, is ridiculous. The likelihood of accidentally meeting your mother online is so hugely remote this is not even worth worrying about. Mind you, they once did this on Neighbours, with brother and sister. Actually, sorry, twice they did it on Neighbours. Once they ended up in an actual incestuous relationship - the other time they just went "ewww". LOL. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 08:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete, perspectives from sockpuppets (both apparent and admitted) nonwithstanding. —

FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK
) 20:01, Dec. 25, 2005

Furry love

The author objected to speedy, so I'm going to slow route. This article has no context with which to explain itself, and is borderline gibberish. After reading it, all I know is that "furry love" appears over 31,000 times in google - I still don't know what furry love is. Since the page seems to have a reason to keep built into its body (always a suspicious move), I'll simply say that the google test isn't everything. After all, "make a left turn" appears www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22make+a+left+turn%22&btnG=Google+Search 272,000 times in google - it doesn't get a wikipedia entry either.

אריאל יהודה 21:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep article
    WpediaIsNotPaper 21:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC) (note: author of article)[reply
    ]
  • Delete; inane. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tom_harrison Tom Harrison (talk) 21:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A stub will not be a fully fleshed out article. It might be better to give the thing a chance rather than moving it in haste. Also I notice the person who started this VFD does nothing but try to get articles deleted all day. JeremyJX 21:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge with Furry fandom. It's one of the larger geek fandoms and has a established following with quite a few annual conventions. There's a substantial body of art devoted to it including some artists from respected animation studios (who contribute under pseudonym given the family friendly nature of their day jobs). I'm not sure this subissue deserves its own article, but the surrounding phenomenon is encyclopedic. Durova 21:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I look into this more, the distinction between furry love and yiff blurs. A substantial number of Google hits refer either to pets or to fetish handcuffs. The text here isn't exactly gibberish: furry fans typically identify with one particular animal. So the question about finding a love interest from the same "species" has some potential relevance within the subculture. I haven't found an outside source that verifies the claim. Durova 00:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep By the VFDer's logic, since
    Left Turn (USA), and Left Turn (US) are all articles, then this one should stay, too. Hardvice 22:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Not at all - my point was that the google test isn't everything (which is clearly true). This page has made no claims to notability other than the fact the it appears in google. At this point the page is very little more than
אריאל יהודה 22:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
Hardvice has removed the links to the offensive (and, I'm pretty sure, not GFDL) (actually, uploaded by the original artist) image, but it's still available at Image:OzoneMaximSFXNG.jpg. The page is still bizarre and doesn't cover any phenomenon I've ever heard of. --Che Fox 23:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Those were from the yiff article and have been there for quite some time. If you want to look, there's two more you haven't seen. Hardvice 23:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I take back the not GFDL comment.
Wikipedia:Profanity, but that's a totally separate issue. --Che Fox 23:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
I take offense to that. I'm nowhere near as ugly as
Gentaur. JeremyJX 16:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
Please cite your findings here for everyone to see. I'm sure we're all waiting with bated breath. --Che Fox 16:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only thing
    Gentaur 16:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. Nonsense. -Willmcw 01:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to furry fandom. After comments from furry fandom people, change my vote to delete, basically as unencyclopedic nonsense. MCB 02:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge - ifonly because +ve article on furries, rather than attack text. Applying "Assume Good Faith" --SockpuppetSamuelson 14:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article seems like fantasizing to me, and not NPOV. I agree with
    Gentaur 16:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge or delete
    shoujo ai -- at least, not in a evident enough scale.[reply
    ]

And when I go check on it, not even them have their own articals. Merge with Yiff or Furry Fandom. 200.255.137.161 23:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable, and, as currently written, it's all
    original research. Note that the Google Test actually fails, as the hits for "furry love" are almost all parts of larger noun phrases describing housepets.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 00:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.206.50 (talk • contribs)
It might be, but this isn't sufficient reason to keep.
talk) 21:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
This is a straw man argument. Nobody's arguing that love has no place in furry relationships. It's just that there is no difference between furry love, non-furry love, gay love, straight love, young love, or old love. It's all love. This article has no place on Wikipedia. --Che Fox 16:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article seems to be an attempt to counteract the stereotype of
    Romantic love or Soulmate. Simply putting this type of love in the context of furries is not notable, and is comparable to other useless terms like "Comic book fan love" or "Vegetarian love." --kotra 21:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete, what kotra said. Thue | talk 22:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
.... lemme try that again.... I posted an answer to this at the Talk Page, since I think this discussion is more appropriate there. Kobayen
I agree. (moved the rest of this discussion to the talk page) --kotra 18:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete wtf. -
    FrancisTyers 19:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 04:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Belle Meade Country Club

Just a country club. Judging by the outlandish content of the entry, the original author and only contributer is using Wikipedia to grind an ax.

delete

Lotsofissues 21:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result of the debate was delete. —

FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK
) 20:19, Dec. 24, 2005

Rit corner crew

  • Delete. You've got to be kidding me. This is worse than even the stupid gaming clans. Non-notable vanity. And yes, I am an alumnus, but this kind of crap makes me ashamed to admit it. ChrisRuvolo (t) 21:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable, especially the "Cheers" section. Tokakeke 21:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. - Wezzo 21:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge somewhere. -- JJay 22:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify your reasoning as to why you think this is worth keeping? Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 23:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe because I'm not an Alum I'm not biased. -- JJay 01:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain the redeeming qualities of this page and how it contributes to Wikipedia. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 12:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The RIT corner crew has gotten lots of press coverage and has been a fixture at the hockey games for over 22 years. This is the only game in town in Rochester. Why you do not address these issues is beyond me. If it bothers you that much, merge the pertinent bits into RIT. -- JJay 19:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of press coverage? "RIT corner crew" only appears 330 times on the internet, according to Google. [91]. Please cite some of these numerous mentions in the press. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 03:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The best news report I've found so far was the feature profile and history of the crew- Fan-demonium at RIT. Rochester Democrat and Chronicle (NY). February 12, 1999. Page 1D. Of course, as you know, the group is also frequently mentioned in coverage of Tigers games and shown on TV. A more recent mention is available here [92]-- JJay 04:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. – Robert 04:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dengue Fever (band)

Delete Not a notable band, especially for a link to it from

WP:NMG... Tokakeke 21:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Alright then someone should expand it. Tokakeke 23:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I'll try to expand it. Xen0phile 10:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 04:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blueroom

Unverifiable: "Blueroom are an unsigned band"; google finds no reference if the founder is included and completely different bands if not. Mozzerati 21:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Twang goes the guitar as the article is deleted in a chorus of approval If a band haven't made it in the real world, they can't make it here... yet. Delete doktorb 21:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- JJay 22:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Mo0[talk] 04:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bahala Na Gang?

Article on obscure criminal gang from the philippines. Mecanismo | Talk 21:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I'm in the Philippines and I've heard of this gang, despite not having any interest in this type of stuff. I think that makes them notable enough for an article. Coffee 08:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. -- JJay 19:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, gets media mentions.
    Kappa 05:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 04:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Software Selection

It's basically an advert for the white paper. There may be an argument for moving it to wikisource (providing the blatent advertising is removed), but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. N (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It's an advertisement. --jackohare 22:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advert. Gazpacho 23:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Modify it. I found it useful for a brief paper on Enterprise Resource Systems stking

  • Delete - advert. --SarekOfVulcan 02:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete
    NaconKantari 02:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]


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

The result of the debate was deleted as copyvio DS 23:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ball in the House

Vanity article on obscure boy band Mecanismo | Talk 21:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete you can almost hear the hyperbole from the screen! When they make it in the real world, they can make it here doktorb 22:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. —

FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK
) 19:40, Dec. 25, 2005

Brontosaurus (King Kong)

We do not need a separate taxonomic article for every fictional appearance of a species. Judging from the Apatosaurus article, it also appears that this article is misleading. u p p l a n d 22:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The author has actually made a whole series of these articles on fictional dinosaurs looking misleadingly like real species articles. I suppose they could be merged with King Kong (2005 film), or in a List of animals in King Kong (2005 film), as long as this pseudo-taxonomy is lost. The fictional animals can link to articles on the real species instead. u p p l a n d 22:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make it clear, my first choice is to delete this. u p p l a n d 11:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not needing its own article.Gateman1997 22:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge: I've made it respectable, but I don't care whether it's merged or not. Melchoir 00:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge per Melchoir. -- JJay 01:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too trivial to deserve mention on Wikipedia. --Apostrophe 04:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepIt is clear enough that it is fictional, I don't find it misleading.--Smerk
  • Delete or merge, does not need its own article. -Sean Curtin 07:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, other fictional creatures are in wikipedia. -- Crevaner 09:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Brontosaurus as a Trivia or In Other Media mention --Seinfreak37 20:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge, notable fictional dinosaur, of interest to Brontosaurus fans as well as King Kong fans.
    Kappa 05:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. You've got to be kidding me. Are we going to see Crow (It's a Wonderful Life) next? Give it a one-line mention it in the Apatosaurus article. Everyone calls them Brontosaurses anyway. -R. fiend 19:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Apatosaurus and Delete. The brontosaurus was in the movie for 5 minutes and really didn't do nothing anything but run. We can't have pages on every character on every movie that ever existed fictional or not as it's just too much. There would be millions of articles like that. --Jaranda wat's sup 00:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per all the foregoing. Absolutely does not need a separate article. → Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 00:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this stub with no expandability. Even merging all these into a list, as is normal for minor character articles, doesn't seem reasonable considering the overwhelming triviality.—jiy (talk) 11:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge In
    Apatosaurs in fiction. - — Ŭalabio‽ 14:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. Unexpandable cruft. --Calton | Talk 01:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see how anyone could expand this. --SpacemanAfrica 02:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it can't be expanded. Maybe put all the information on the King Kong (2005 film) article? The names weren't even used in the film.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 07:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge - not noteable enough in its own right.--SarekOfVulcan 02:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I remember skimming this information recently in a book, I think it is from the new book, The World of Kong : A Natural History of Skull Island by Weta Workshop which gives more movie details about the animals of Skull Island. Should be kept because this would be good information for anyone interested in the subject. --Evmore 17:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Factually accurate. --Oldak Quill 10:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename to

FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK
) 19:44, Dec. 25, 2005

The Schreiber Times

high school newspaper - a touch of vanity mixed with NN

אריאל יהודה 22:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

  • I am changing my vote to Rename, per JJay, since the article has changed its scope and contains relevent information for the school itself. --jackohare 20:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. -- JJay 22:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge into what? The article doesn't even mention the highschool that the paper is for... --jackohare 00:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good point. I just checked and we don't seem to have a page for Schreiber High School (Port Washington, NY). In that case, Rename page and use to make stub for the high school. -- JJay 01:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand, i've changed the article, and you can link it to the Port Washington, NY page, I just need it until the end of the month to prove a point. --Yankeefan2225 02:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seriously, I just included a link to the town, included the names of the awards, and named the school, if you want to make it a stub, please keep the name for just until the end of the month--Yankeefan2225 02:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will even take my name out, please don't delete it!--69.114.76.38 20:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to
    Kappa 05:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Rename to
    Schreiber High School per JJay. Give a warning to Yankeefan2225 - "Wikipedia is not your personal toy or blog." --RealGrouchy 19:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Jaranda wat's sup 23:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Wehr

Talk) 22:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

**Comment - Then add the sources to the article establishing notability and verifiability. I'm getting really tired of editors saying an article should be kept when nothing in the article supports the assertions, and no references are cited. --

Talk) 23:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

--217.146.112.220 21:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. —

FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK
) 19:34, Dec. 25, 2005

Annie Swanson

Delete. Basically, the article has no biographical content and given the lack of biographical content available, this will likely be the case in the future. In addition, she does not appare to have notability in her field. Hence this nomination. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 22:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.18.173.73 (talk • contribs)

  • Keep She seems to have made many films and there are lots of internet hits. Though this stub has little information today, it is perfectly reasonable for it to be added.Obina 11:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was weak keep. —

FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK
) 19:31, Dec. 25, 2005

Orin Starn

Unnotable

SqueakBox 22:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep. Published author, prof, etc. -- JJay 22:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - 22,000 Google hits, 2 books as sole author, one co-authored, one of three editors on another book. Probably does meet the "professor" test, but not by much. --
    Talk) 22:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 04:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ZOMBIE programming language

This is a fictional programming language, and the more specific you make a Google search for it, the less hits you get. To the point where, if you include the supposed acronym in full you get a couple of blogs and nothing else. It looks a lot like vanity to me, and with only one source and no obvious independent informed discussion it also looks like original research and quite likely unverifiable as well.

[T]/[C] AfD? 22:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete and
    BJAODN ;-) - N (talk) 22:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete, one-off original research. Gazpacho 00:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, joke. Pavel Vozenilek 04:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (though I'm definitely in favor of BJAODNing it!) the big key issue here being the fact that it describes itself as an "unimplemented" language. Speaking of which, someone bloody well ought to go through Category:Esoteric programming languages - there's definitely some more that are "unimplemented" too, especially the ones that were described in some joke article ages ago and someone decided to create an article for every single one of them. Anyway, if this gets nuked, I hope that's a precedent enough to say that "unimplemented" languages are not yet notable enough to have an article. (At least spend an afternoon cursing at Perl to get an interpreter done, okay, folks?) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 04:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since this will probably get deleted, I already put it in BJAODN. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per wwwwolf. -- jeffthejiff (talk) 13:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd vote to keep it, but I won't fight its deletion if we agree to delete other unimplemented esoteric programming languages such as 0x29A and 4DL. I saw that Morgan-Mar's other languages were included in Wikipedia, and decided to write the ZOMBIE entry - the article itself was not meant to be a bad joke. :_( IronSwallow 20:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's amusing content, but not encyclopaedic. I'm sure there must be a wiki somewhere which would welcome it with open arms. -
    [T]/[C] AfD? 21:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]


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

The result of the debate was Keep. Hedley 18:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of HTML decimal character references

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 04:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Claude diamond

Seems to exist only to push products and services Bjones 22:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh yeah, delete.Bjones 23:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- JJay 23:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - does not meet
    WP:BIO guidelines. Samw 15:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 13:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Bedford downing glass

article reads too much as spam Mecanismo | Talk 23:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as advertising.--Alhutch 23:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertising - N (talk) 23:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Advert, but that could be solved through a re-write. More damning to me is lack of notability, e.g., just 537 Google hits on "Bedford Downing." | Klaw ¡digame! 20:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep.

e ] 22:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Yank (physics)

No substantive evidence to support its existence outside of pure anecdote from 1996. Not a legitimate Wiki entry. Budgiekiller 23:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Yank (dF/dt) and jerk (da/dt) are half-silly units, so it's difficult to find the usage attested in print. Apart from the page at UCR [93] there is one mailing list post here [94].
    arxiv [95], that should clinch it. Pilatus 00:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 16:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Carlino

This was nominated on AfD here, speedy-deleted as {{nn-bio}}}} and resurrected by User:Tony Sidaway.

The article states that Terry is a member of the technical staff at

WP:BIO. Pilatus 23:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)</nowiki>[reply
]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 04:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Sway broad

Neologism, 29 google hits. Thue | talk 23:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, the google hits don't even seem to be on the same subject. Speedy if possible, since adding two random words together and combining their definitions isn't helpful to anyone. - Bobet 00:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- JJay 00:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Stifle 23:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. —

Cryptic (talk) 04:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Passenger of Shit

Nn band, does not appear to meet

WP:MUSIC. AJR | Talk 23:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 04:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Hunter

Many claims, but no references. "Gordon Hunter" composer doesn't seem to return any relevant hits. Thue | talk 23:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, since there are no references and googling only shows results on random message boards, it's at best non-verifiable and most likely a hoax. - Bobet 00:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete nn-bio. Stifle 23:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 04:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

General behavior traits

Too short. Not enough meat on this stub. Yekrats 23:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, since it provides no real information, redirect if someone finds a good target. I liked the cliffhanger at the end of the page though. - Bobet 00:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — there isn't even an article on the author or the book. Looks like a brief work in progress that hasn't been touched in almost a year. — RJH 16:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bobet. Stifle 23:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bobet. Ashibaka tock 07:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 04:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

You Rock

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Thue | talk 23:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 04:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Venomin James

  • A band with no claim of notability, only planned releases. Thue | talk 23:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails
    WP:MUSIC, only faint claim of notability is an album that's supposed to be released next year. 6 google hits with "Venomin James" so no sight of notability to be found elsewhere. - Bobet 23:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete random non-notable band. Come back when you've got a couple of albums or a tour. Stifle 23:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no problems with this being deleted. However - several members of this band are from other more known bands from the Cleveland music scene, which is the reason for starting the article. There is a genuine interest in knowing where some of these musicians ended up. I plan on creating entries for those bands as well. This could add to the richness of the Cleveland area music scene entries. - Venominjames 10:54, 16 December 2005
  • Delete - does not meet
    WP:MUSIC
    criteria 04:22, 19 December 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 Redirect. I don't feel that a merge would fit with the rest of the SCAD article, but if someone else wishes to merge, be my guest- it's all in the history. Ral315 (talk) 07:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beecon

Article on completely obscure and extremely non-notable student-run television station formed in 2005. The article reads as a website. Spam/vanity article which is orphan and uncategorized Mecanismo | Talk 23:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — already mentioned briefly on the school page. If this page is removed, that link will also need removal. — RJH 16:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, ties in well with SCAD page. -- JJay 19:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you mean with "ties in well" ? Have you read the article? --Mecanismo | Talk 22:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Have you?. It's a student TV station. -- JJay 23:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly. It's an obscure student TV station which was formed in 2005. I shouldn't be repeating this as I wrote it in the AFD submittion. I suggest you read the AFD submittion note and the article before stating any oppinion. --Mecanismo | Talk 02:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the suggestion. See above where I already indicated that I had read the article. Maybe you should add a notice when you nom- no keep votes allowed. They seem really to get under your skin. -- JJay 02:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saying that you've read doesn't mean that you really read it. If you had read the article or the AFD submittion note you would notice that it is about a student-run tv station which is less than one year old, which means that it is completely not notable. If you had read the AFD you would also notice that the site reads as a personal website of that student-run tv station. So, seeing that you aren't at all familiar with what articles should and should not be present in wikipedia, here are a couple of notes (here and here) which you may find useful not only in helping you learn about what wikipedia is and isnt but also as a reference and basis for future votes. --Mecanismo | Talk 13:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it depends how you define read. Anyway, I'm not going to throw links back into your face, as that would be rude and I assume that you have already misinterpreted policy as you see fit. I will also not list some of your many, many recent failed AfD noms, because I'm sure they are now seared into your memory. Perhaps you were just testing the AfD waters. In any event, good luck in your future contributions to the site. -- JJay 18:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The links I supplied are what anyone should have read before casting a single vote on a AFD discussion. I supplied them to you because, according to your actions, it seems that you vote without any basis besides what some define as being somekind of frustrated personal attack. If you believe that suplying information is somekind of rudeness I believe you maybe feel a bit unconfortable participating in a project whose prime objective is to supply quality information to everyone. Regarding the personal attack, please keep your votes impartial and strickly to the subject instead of using them as a frustrated means of trolling. It is of your best interest that you stop that behaviour. After all there are users who are starting to complain about your childish behaviour and trolling doesn't help wikipedia --Mecanismo | Talk 01:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. If you have a complaint about me, take it up with Wikipedia. I'm doing my best to save valuable information from deletion. Best wishes in the future. -- JJay 01:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete non-notable TV station. Stifle 23:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into SCAD page, other than that, delete. Turnstep 00:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It ain't radio if it ain't on the radio. (They are broadcasting internet video, presumably to a small audience. If it was HUGE the contributor would have said so.) Pilatus 05:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not worthy of an article.Gateman1997 18:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into SCAD. It's worthy of a mention, but I don't see evidence of notability to sustain a separate article. | Klaw ¡digame! 20:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable campus cruft. —
    FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK
    )     07:08, Dec. 26, 2005
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Most of the participants in this discussion are accounts which appear to have been created in immediate response to this discussion or to a previous, closely related one,

FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK
) 19:15, Dec. 25, 2005

The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy

Vanity Page, mere reproductions of already published journals, no publisher, no original contributions, self-promotion for one Mr. Fotopoulous, not international but local (Greek) editorial board DisposableAccount 23:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. - DisposableAccount 23:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 23:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep! Again the same try like before with the D&N Journal, of course it is international, see the contributors&IAB Board. Is it an argument that the editors are native greeks and some are living in Greece?! Well, some articles were produced before in the D&N Journal BUT now they are for the first time freely to read for all how are interested. See as well the very interesting Newsletter of the Journal. —the preceding
    unsigned comment is by 195.179.14.235 (talk • contribs) 11:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • KEEP

It is a lie that the journal does not publish original contributions. Even when it reproduces articles (which were available before only to subscribers) it publishes mostly completely UPDATED versions of them and it even offers entire books published for the first time in English as special editions. Furthermore, as from the last issue (September 2005) the journal increasingly publishes original contributions like that by David Gabbard & Karen Anijar Appleton and the next (January issue) will consist entirely of original contributions. Finally, the accompanying Newsletter consists entirely of new contributions (already 24 of them) and many of the contributions to the NL have already been reproduced in international papers, magazines, indymedia etc. --TheVel 15:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP The journal, following the example of several serious theoretical journals, is offered on line. This means there is no capitalist publisher involved and therefore the journal can be offered free to all internet users and also secures a much greater degree of freedom to editors from profit considerations. The contributions are still refereed as in the journal’s predecessor D&N. To say that the articles appear as reproductions is a falsification, distortion, and affront to those international authors who have contributed to the journal. User:john 12:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: This comment was posted by John sargis and not John as signed. This user has no contributions other than those related to this article. Stifle 00:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEPIt seems to me that the same disgruntled person who began the attack against the journal Democracy & Nature last month (using then the Paul Cardan nick), after his real motives (i.e. his personal vendetta against Takis Fotopoulos became all too clear and the vast majority of users voted to keep the entry, came back now. In fact he cannot even hide his rage betraying again his real motive (‘vanity page –self promotion for ONE Mr Fotopoulos’)! As regards the Editorial Board, it consists of an Editorial Committee which runs the journal and its members are based in Greece (apart from Takis Fotopoulos, the editor, who is based in London, UK). The International Advisory Board consists of well known theorists and activists of the International Left. The same applies to its contributors. User: Narap43 Webmaster of the International Journal of Inclusive Democracy
    Comment: Thank you to Narap43 for pointing out that he is the webmaster to this group. His contributions are exclusively to this article, its AFD, one of the group's members, and Democracy & Nature. Stifle 00:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "KEEP" I share the arguments above! From my computer at the University at the moment here is a Login error and the account creation of wiki is temporarily disabled but I don't have the time to try later. So accept my vote! StudentofLife, 17.12.05
  • "KEEP" (Hope now it is working!)StudentofLife

Here is the proof: The user name DisposableAccount was first used on 00:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC) when the user, in the discussion on the AfD on Democracy & Nature journal (the predecessor of The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy), wrote a comment indirectly supporting the AfD and causing an administrator to comment:"simply using an ad hoc username which hasn't been used anywere else in Wikipedia and will therefore probably be discarded soon afterwards" -- like, say, "DisposableAccount"?—SarekOfVulcan 01:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

The same user name was used again on 30 November 2005 when the user made a malicious comment, which was PROVED by other users to be false in : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Democracy_%26_Nature#Dissenting_views
Finally, when User: Narap43 above expressed the legitimate suspicion on 19:22, 16 December 2005 that DisposableAccount is a sock puppeteer who edits under more than one name (User: PaulCardan, who played a leading role in promoting the AfD on Democracy & Nature and DisposableAccount, who made the present AfD on 23:43, 14 December 2005), the following interesting development took place. Just a few hours after the comment by User: Narap43 was made, DisposableAccount added the following comment to his own account WITH THE CLEAR INTENTION TO COVER HIS STEPS AND DECEIVE WIKIPEDIA ADMINISTRATORS: “I specialize in spotting users who write either using no username, or simply an ad hoc username which hasn't been used anywhere else in Wikipedia and will therefore probably be discarded soon afterwards. Hence the choice of "DisposableAccount". Oh, the irony! 01:15, 17 December 2005”
I hope this would prove his bad faith to any bona fide Wiki user and administrator. User:Sandy 10:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Get it together dudes. Enough with this Sherlock Holmes business. He is so-and-so and she is so-and-so. I've only appeared in Wikipedia when I saw ad hoc usernames, i.e. sock puppets. And now you're claiming I'm one myself. (while also using ad hoc usernames, with which you haven't contributed anything anywhere else on Wikipedia) L.o.l. What's this crap about me covering my steps and deceiving Wikipedia administrators? I simply wrote on my user page what it is I do around here.
I even told SarekOfVulcan that I'm gonna AfD your vanity page before I put it up for deletion, and he (wisely enough, as it turns out) said "I'm not getting involved with this one again. Good luck, though!"
I haven't met any greeks, but if this is what you guys look like, then "My big fat greek wedding" was right on the money!
If you keep this behavior up (e.g. saying I am PaulCardan or Stifle just 'cause I wanna maintain the Wikipedia policies) I'm just gonna stop contributing to any entries that are related to you (effective immediately). But there's lots more where you guys came from...
- User:DisposableAccount 21:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Your tactics are well known since your intervention in the AfD debate on D&N. This intervention had nothing to do with supporting Wikipedia’s policy and had everything to do with Goebbellian tactics! Then, when we complained that the result of the AfD debate was summarized inaccurately by an administrator as ‘no consensus’’, at the very moment when the vast majority of users sided against deletion of the D&N entry, you wrote: “Of course you're going to get a majority when the same people show up and vote over and over again in favor of keeping your journal. The point however is what ACTUALLY EXISTING Wikipedians voted”. And you wrote this, in full knowledge of the fact that this was a blatant LIE, since the vast majority of ACTUALLY EXISTING USERS (as we proved) had voted against the AfD. This, excluding all those who have not contributed anything before to Wikipedia (although properly registered users) who presumably, according to some silly Wikipedia regulation, are considered somehow second class citizens! As regards your ironic comment about the “Sherlock Holmes business” you never explained the “coincidence” that you remembered to define your function in the Wikipedia, as a guardian of the above mentioned regulation, a month after you began to play this role and—again “by coincidence”—always in relation to the same journal (i.e. The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy and its predecessor, D&N).
There is a simple way to prove that we are wrong: can you give us exact data about how many other interventions in accordance with your self-defined function you have made, apart from the ones related to D&N and its successor The International journal of Inclusive Democracy? Also, we would be grateful if
Paul Cardan username presently lives! I hope that you will not use the cheap trick again of “Sherlock Holmes” business in order to avoid a substantiated reply. User:john 19:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment I think the result is no consensus (once you exclude unsigned votes); that means a keep. Stifle 00:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why are the opinions of the Editorial Board disqualified and the opinions of Disposable Account (who we believe is the disgruntled ex-member of the Editorial Board who was posting also under the nick Paul Cardan) are not? We asked for evidence that Paul Cardan and Disposable Account do not have similar addresses and we haven't received a reply on this. Even if we exclude all those for whom Stifle and Sarek made dubious comments about john not signing as john sargis

sandy not signing as Sandyshevack, and Stifle thanking Narap for identifying himself as webmaster of the Group, still this means that 66% of participants rejected the AfD. Isn't this a concensus? User:john sargis 21:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -- Jbamb 21:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just want to say that it was only a few hours ago that I realized there is an AfD on this page. Up to this point, I have NOT participated in it. I'd also like to point out that I had nothing to do with the AfD on the Democracy & Nature entry. As anyone who is not blind can see, that AfD got started by User:SarekOfVulcan who is also not participating in the present exchange -- Paulcardan 23:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Good! But nobody provided yet the evidence requested about your address and that of DisposableAccount to persuade us that they do not refer to the same person. Also, although the AfD on the D&N entry was started by User:SarekOfVulcan, the discussion page of D&N shows clearly your crucial role in supporting it. Finally, I notice that the present Afd was made on 14 December and according to WP Deletion policy the lag time on articles for deletion is five days and at the end of this period a decision has to be made on whether to keep or delete the page concerned. Still, no decision has yet been made although seven days have already lapsed! User:john sargis 23:00 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The number of people trying to push this to be closed is concerning me. I don't know why an administrator hasn't either closed this or marked it as a relist for lack of consensus yet. Stifle 00:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is scandalous! In clear violation of WikiPedia rules the AfD banner remains 10 days after it was put there by a well known malicious user--as it was shown above!!! What forces this silence????--TheVel 11:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP I vote to keep, because Stifle is suggesting to stifle my vote and be discounted because I didn't sign "properly". The Journal is extremely important as a theoretical analysis that the anti-systemic Left badly needs. User: john sargis 10:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I vote to keep the Inclusive Democracy journal , for its anti-systemic stance against the transnational elites' increasing concentrations of economic and political power. User:tommy silva 11:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 04:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Huebeing

Article is a mixture of self described neologism and personal vanity page - CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- JJay 00:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did not create the word. It was "found" in my writings. Source is still unknown. However, I will omit any information refering to my inspired use of it in my art and creative endeavours. KatoSpace — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huebeing (talk • contribs) 00:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination Samw 04:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 04:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Myst 6

Unsourced game sequel speculation

  • Delete. Gazpacho 23:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A first-person mess. Plus as I understand it
    Myst V is the last game in the series, anyway. Crystal ball anyway; wait till such a game is actually officially announced before doing an article. 23skidoo 01:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 23:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 04:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hoavui

Advertisement mixed with irrelevant POV about a non-notable flower shop. Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 23:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. — RJH 16:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 23:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete.

T
21:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Kicking horse of scope creep

Wĩkipedia is not a slang dictionary. Thue | talk 23:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was delete.

T
21:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Paintchips

This seems to be a neologism. Thue | talk 23:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, nonsense and original research. - Bobet 23:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- JJay 00:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete random neologism. Stifle 23:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.

T
21:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Anna Huynh

Doesn't seem to be notable. Claim to fame is being drafted into the NWHL, but "Anna Huynh" NWHL retur no google hits. Thue | talk 23:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. KHM03 02:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. Stifle 23:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn-bio. p_b1999 (Talk|Contribution) 20:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super-Keep amazing story. this brave girl should not only keep her entry, but be awarded the congressional medal of honor by the united states congress. God 2:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Writer's foreknowledge of the upcoming end of the world hints at Wikimedia's secret doomsday device. -Joshuapaquin (strawpoll) 19:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_December_14&oldid=1081091830"