Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 November 15

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< November 14 November 16 >

Purge server cache

November 15

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 01:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

24601

Orphan page that has no potential and is of a number that is not noteable Descendall 05:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was
    (operator) 13:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 00:25, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse (no pictures)

Prior debates:
29 Dec 2004

Totally absurd. There are pictures several pictures in this article, one wikipedian has taken it upon himself to determine which photos are "offensive" and which are not. Descendall 07:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 01:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

ADISI

Advert.

Alr

  • Delete spam. And is it just me, or is every article which starts with the company or organisation name embedded in a weblink invariably spam? -
    [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 21:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per nom.
    e ] 17:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect to

Mailer Diablo 01:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Afro-Dominican

Unverifiable neologism - under 1000 Google hits, and under 100 when paired wiht "moreno," its alleged synonym, and most of those hits are using Moreno as a surname. Dicdef. Likely perma-stub. Phil Sandifer 06:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 01:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Akta Angkasa

NN band. They're in Malaysia, but still only get a few Google hits for them. Fails

e ] 23:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 00:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

All Aspectz Music

Non-notable record label that gets 4 Google results that aren't duplicates or Wikipedia related. It is unclear if they have produced any music at all. -- Kjkolb 09:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Looks like advertising to me. --Frekja 10:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, promo, advertising. They have a website, why cut and paste it here? Dottore So 11:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. TheMadBaron 14:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. I don't feel minded to extend this debate since the problems the nominator and first participator cite are extreme. -Splashtalk 01:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aluin Levitation

Text taken directly from the U.S. Patent Office website for some sort of levitation machine for magic shows. -- Kjkolb 10:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The intro doesn't mention the subject, the illustrations mentioned aren't included, there is insufficient context to demonstrate that the device even exists, and the whole thing reads like original research, probable copyvio and a load of crystal balls. Delete. TheMadBaron 14:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: according to the patent office, patents are public domain. -- Kjkolb 00:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 00:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

American media figures who have wished for massive destruction in America

Inheiritly unencyclopediac and POV, a useless list. I can't imagine how this could be salvaged.--

Black 04:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

  • I disagree. Quotes should be kept to a minimum in articles. The articles should indicate that the individual is acerbic, and reference the comment if it actually caused significant controversy, but as SchrödingersR said above, lots of people say stuff like that. --DDerby-(talk) 08:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 00:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Andrew Clarke (stuntman)

IMDB [1] shows a number of other people with that name, but we already have an article about the most notable one: Andrew Clarke (actor). This is not the same one (born in 1984, the other one was already active in 1982). I could not find an Andrew Clarke having worked in Gladiator there. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 12:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

unsigned edit by User:129.234.4.76 05:54, 16 November 2005
The 1984 date is confirmed by your edit of 1984. --A D Monroe III 14:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 01:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Assless chaps

talk 18:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was Merge and redirect.

Rx StrangeLove 21:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Atriopore

It is a one line entry that has already been transwikied to wiktionary (claimed on Talk:Atriopore). --Gurubrahma 11:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • If not expanded in next two days, delete --MacRusgail 14:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Lancelet based on the definition in the article (unless expanded). - Mgm|(talk) 23:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 01:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

AussieTorrents

Yet another NN web forum.

e ] 23:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE, copyvio, afd, whichever. -Splashtalk 01:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Basong

Copyvio from [3], and non-notable, with no hits in Wall St Journal in past ten years. | Keithlaw (talk) (contribs) 00:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is Articles for deletion. Wikipedia:Copyright problems is across the quad. Uncle G 00:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, although as you can see in my summary, it's quite deletable on NN itself. I've blanked the article w/a copyvio notice. | Keithlaw [[User_talk:Keithlaw|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Keithlaw|(contribs)]] 03:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: If nobody claims permission in 7 days on the copyright problems page, it is just deleted without the need for the discussion required on AfD. Most articles are deleted without challenge. Since it is easier to delete the article this way, copyvios are only sent to AfD if someone claims to have permission and we don't want the article. -- Kjkolb 04:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Blatant copyvio advert. Even if they have permission, I don't think we'd want the article. Let's do AFD anyway. It'll be gone 2 days earlier. - Mgm|(talk) 09:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Handling it as a copyright violation means that it is gone now. See the article. This is why one should use Copyright Judo against copyrighted advertisements. Uncle G 16:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • So what has to happen for the article to be deleted? Obviously the text is gone, but other than listing in on Wikipedia:Copyright problems, is there something else to be done? | Keithlaw 18:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Discuss the case if it is claimed that the text is GFDL licensed, and wait for the normal copyright problems closure process to deal with the article. (If one is an administrator, one can help with that process, once the lag time has passed.) Uncle G 19:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete completely, instead of having a page that the original is a copyvio ad. HGB 19:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Psycho. -Splashtalk 01:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bates Motel

The only possible source of notability of this hotel comes from incidentally having the same name of the hotel of the movie Psycho. Other than this, I have not found anything else on the web [4] that tells why this hotel is different from the other millions of hotels/motels around the world. I say Delete unless someone finds a sensible place to merge it into. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 15:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Beguiling

Dicdef. Already exists in Wiktionary.

e ] 17:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. —

Cleared as filed. 13:11, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Belgian Blogosphere

See also Blogosphere (AfD discussion) and Canadian blogosphere (AfD discussion).

Not notable, should we also have Latvian Blogosphere? Skrewler 01:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: There is no such thing as a Belgian Blogosphere, or an American one, or a Canadian one. The Internet is global. Contributors to the Moravian blog might be Japanese. Extending national borders or, worse, ethnic identifications, into the Internet and then claiming that there is some extension of this into a content designation, is silly, counter-productive, and the fruit of boredom or malevolence. Geogre 11:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - there is such a thing as a Belgian blogosphere. How many Americans are interested in Belgian matters, or speak Flemish? It's naive to claim that just because there's international interest, that there are no national blocs on the internet. --MacRusgail 13:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Non-Belgians can write Flemish, and many can write French. The point is that there is no "there" in the Internet except for the URL. In this case, it's not an article about a URL, nor is it an article that describes a distinction of difference. This is an article not about a specific place, nor specific site, nor a collection of sites that have anything in common than that they are assumed to be from the nation-state of Belgium. The article makes no effort at establishing what that means. Once we get away from actual space and into virtual space, how is the Belgian designation greater than some micronation's? Geogre 18:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because the article has nothing to say other than "there are bloggers in Belgium too". It makes no claims of particular notability for any Belgian bloggers, and completely fails to identify any points that distinguish blogging in Belgium from blogging anywhere else in the world. Remove the words "Belgian" and "Flemish", and it would be impossible to distinguish this from a generic article on blogs. What next - an article on Belgian rabbits ("The common rabbit lives all over the world, including in Belgium. It is a small mammal...")? — Haeleth Talk 16:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article appears to have verifiable information, is NPOV, and notable enough for me FRS 18:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -- Femmina 22:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. -- Why is this even close to relevant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.91.19 (talk • contribs)
  • Strong Delete. How on Gods green earth is this notable or relevant in any way? --Impi.za 00:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thi is the user's 7th edit. The user has edited only AfD discusssions. -Hapsiainen 00:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it is notable. The article covers local things that can't be moved to the blogosphere article. I also have nothing against the article on Latvian blogosphere. -Hapsiainen 00:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; there's so much crap on wikipedia already, why delete potentially useful information?
    Matt Yeager 01:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. More stupid blogging crap. Enough already. --86.2.56.178 12:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete This doesn't deserve a whole article written about it, absolutely ridiculous. Delete. --Depakote 12:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The internet reduced the importance of nationality, but it doesn't come close to eliminating it. Carina22 12:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is silliness. As rightly pointed out above, blogs are global, like everything on the internet. Also, I don't see anything verifiable here, insofar as anything useful can be said about Belgian blogs, it's probably original research. Friday 19:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Please note: It has been determined the mass deletion of blog-related entries at Wikipedia is being organized by the notorious internet troll group the GNAA. User:Timecop, who has the list of targetted entires here, is actually is actually the "President" of the GNAA, as you can see in this "press release" from their website. This whole vfd is a farce.--Simon.Pole 10:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Haeleth summed it up perfectly. Reyk 01:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Organized deletion vandalism merits banning. --FOo 05:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Please discount this vote on the pretext that the user is not evaluating VfDs on the basis of validity but on accusations of vandalism. --Veew 13:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete blogcruft.  Grue  18:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable. mennonot 11:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Fight against undiscriminated deletion of all blog-related material in WP. __earth 03:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 23:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Big Boards

NN forum website. No incoming links. Google search for "site:" and "link:" produce zero results. Sounds like an ad. Can someone find the alexa rating, too? -- 

Perfecto Canada 00:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was that not even the nominator wants this page deleted, hence Speedy Keep. Controversial page moves ought to be hashed out on the article's talk page (and there is an ongoing discussion), and the edit warring ought not to spill over to AfD. Pilatus 00:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bissap

Rename to

Roselle (Plant)
:
1. Roselle is the English term for this plant (see African source, Britannica) Vizcarra 19:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Roselle is a more common term for Hibiscus sabdariffa than Bissap:



  • Please note, nominator removed content prior to nominating article. Guettarda 21:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The content was merged without consensus. The information has no bearing on whether to name it "Bissap" or "Roselle" as it pertains to "Jamaica" (a third term, used in Spanish language countries). Either way, not wanting to get involved in a revert war. I will wait until this nomination ends. --Vizcarra 21:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is, follow the link above and read the first paragraph: "Articles for Deletion... is where Wikipedians decide whether problematic articles should be... Renamed/Moved to another title". --Vizcarra 21:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nice example of selective quotation. "Rename/move" is a valid vote. It is not the purpose of this section of the site, as the sentence you partially quoted makes amply clear: "Articles for Deletion ... is where Wikipedians decide whether problematic articles should be deleted or kept" (emphasis mine). The place to request a page move is, believe it or not, Wikipedia:Requested moves. — Haeleth Talk 23:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep I used to drink Bissap when I lived in Mali! I don't see a good reason why it should be renamed.--Alhutch 20:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename with redirect. Googlefight gives it to Roselle hands down. Swegner 20:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename to roselle (plant) WormRunner | [[User talk:WormRunner|Talk]] 23:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was revert to previous version.  Grue  13:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blaze

This article is nearly identical to

Blaze (Mortal Kombat) and deleting this article. --Locke Cole 12:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result of the debate was delete. —

Cleared as filed. 13:22, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Blogging Tories

This article was marked for AfD by an anon for reasons that seems to be making a

point, but then blanked (apparently the anony thought better of it). But the AfD tag was still on the page when I went over to see if it was worthy of being deleted, and I think it is. So I'll save the anonymous guy the trouble of being branded a point'er and nominate it myself. It's a not extraordinary blog group, and though it has some interesting members it doesn't make the group notable in of itself. Delete. Lord Bob 22:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Systemic bias in favor of all things internet-related has been identified on Wikipedia also. Countless flash movies, personal websites, blogs and myspace users get articles written about them, when they generally shouldn't. Individual politicans may be encyclopedic, but their blogs rarely are. This article is about a website that aggregates content from a bunch of different blogs. Surely the "notability" of a few noteworhty politicans does not automagically transfer that far up the chain? What's next, an article about the physical server that this website runs on?
  • For those that care about verifiability (which I believe we frequently lose sight of), this article has no references. If anyone can find references to make this verifiable, please put them in the article, not on the Afd page. People reading the article need to be able to see why this website, out of the millions, appears in an encyclopedia. Friday 00:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Surely we don't have articles on myspace users? Just for being myspace users? -R. fiend 01:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, we shouldn't. They get deleted easily when they get noticed. Of course, sometimes junk articles don't get noticed... Friday 03:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -- Femmina 00:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Nascent group in Canadian politics, particularly with elections imminent. Jtmichcock 00:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, American or Canadian, they aren't notable. -- Kjkolb 00:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as blogcruft, and I say this as neither an American or a Canadian. I'm leaning towards individual country "blogosphere" (shudder) articles as weak keeps, but any subset NO unless there's a damn good reason. - Randwicked 01:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless someone can convince me why not to, I'm going to vote delete. Don't we have a policy on self-published authors? -R. fiend 01:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable right-wing blogging site, counterpart to Progressive Bloggers. Luigizanasi 02:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs to be treated equivalently to Progressive Bloggers. Though my own vote is personally to keep, they either need to both be kept or both be deleted. Any final result which saw one kept and the other deleted would be entirely unacceptable. Accordingly, they should really both be considered in a single vote. Bearcat 02:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I completely support what Bearcat is suggesting. Anything else would amount to Wikipedia taking sides. Luigizanasi 02:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That does sound reasonable, yes. My only qualm is a vague uneasiness about adding an article to an AfD well into a vote, but it does seem to be the most fair way in this case. Lord Bob 03:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 65.34.232.136 02:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    user has just nineteen edits, fifteen of which are to AfDs. Bearcat 03:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. *drew 03:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. One of Wikipedia's recognised strengths is that it is up-to-date, especially on recent phenomena. We have articles on every single imaginable video game, most music albums you care to mention, practically every single piece of software out there, a number of
    newsgroups, Wikipedia did better than the regular news media on recent events such as the London bombings and Hurricane Katrina, and so on. Where else but Wikipedia can people find hopefully neutral information on the recent and increasingly important phenomenon of blogging, especially political blogs, which are not neutral by their very nature. NPOV articles on Blogging groups (not necessarily individual blogs, mind you), perform a vital service to the world at large. Luigizanasi 04:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete Nope, sorry, "blogs" are not worth a shit in the real world. JacksonBrown 05:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commet Please note that User:Timecop has proclaimed a "War on Blogs" on his user page. His user page also says that he is a leader of the Gay Nigger Association of America. The GNAA is a notorious group of organzied trolls on the internet, who actually forced Slashdot to go their original karma system because of unrelenting spam. Looks like they're targetting Wikipedia now. Great. --Simon.Pole 09:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This definately a GNAA exercise. User:JacksonBrown who voted delete above had a huge GNAA slogan on his user page that was removed by administators (you can see it here). I don't know what else to say. The GNAA is organizing a mass deletion of blog-related entries. All blog-relate vfd's should be stopped immediately.--Simon.Pole 09:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I thought it was a bit odd how many sockpuppets were kicking around with nothing but AFD votes on blog articles to their names. I really should've been digging harder. All votes which are identifiably GNAA sockpuppets are to be considered struck from this debate at once. Bearcat 10:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No systematic bias, we should delete all pointless American blogs too. —
    Cleared as filed. 11:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Keep. Notable. Also encyclopedic by viture of its having notable participants and by virtue of its being a subject that many people would want to learn about. 11:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Who cares about crappy blogs? Waste of bandwidth. --86.2.56.178 12:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft Delete The article wasn't worth mentioning from the beginning -- and I don't think much encyclopediac use will ever come of it. --Depakote 12:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete blogcruft —
    FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 14:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • sockpuppet Dawg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.217.124.14 (talk • contribs) 09:34, November 16, 2005
      • Comment: Who is
        FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 15:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Perhaps he's saying he's a sock-puppet. Honesty is the best policy... Lord Bob 18:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Judging from his edit history, he's an overzealous newbie who thinks he's helping. Dawg/John/whatever your name is, would you please not do this? A contributor's edit history has to be reviewed before they can be tagged as a sockpuppet; you can't just jump to conclusions or tag people just because they disagreed with your vote. Leave it to the experienced contributors to make that call, okay? (Also, please don't sign your posts with a username you haven't registered; either register a username and stick with it, or sign your posts ~~~~ so we can see your IP number.) Bearcat 20:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You got the "newbie" thing right. Dr.Dawg is my usual blog-handle--I put my real name in here out of reflex once or twice, but I've voted only once, so "sockpuppet" is a little strong, since no deception was meant. If I can register "Dr.Dawg," I'll do it, but I'm pink enough to have to admit I don't know how! Honest enough?
      • There should be a "Create account/login" link in the top right corner of your screen. Click on that and follow the process there. Bearcat 22:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you. All is now correct. Now, where were we? Dr.Dawg 17:39, 16 November 2005 (DST)
  • Strong Keep. The point of an online encyclopedia is to be a resource for more than just the things you would find in a regular encyclopedia. I checked out the website, and they have a sizable readership, so it seems they aren't some small group that is just wasting space on the Wiki - this belongs here. Keep it. John Hawke 19:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    vote actually by 134.153.184.163 (talk · contribs). Lord Bob 19:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep.These bloggers are committed to exposing information omitted by the Candian main stream media. Many of the members of the blog roll are Members of Parliament. These citizens are on the forefront of the new age of democracy in Canada. Slider!
    unsigned vote by 24.57.81.147 (talk · contribs); no edit history prior to this AFD. Bearcat 21:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

16 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep.An important part of the political landscape - just see the number of users - Davey
  • Strong Keep. This blogroll is important to Canadians. User:'Expert' Tom12:56 16 November 2005 [DST]
    user's first edit. Lord Bob 00:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable. More importantly, I just wanted to point to this post on a blog, which, in my view, contravenes Wikipedia's no sock puppet policy. It may be unfairly influencing the balance of this conversation.
    unsigned vote by Dbarefoot, his ninth edit, even if he's right about the potential meatpuppet storm. Lord Bob 00:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP! - Important site to represent the Canadian Political Blogging world. It's very significant in how it effects the Canadian Political Atmosphere!--Frank TML93 01:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    user's first edit Bearcat 01:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC) [reply]
  • Strong Keep. First thing, I can’t understand how someone can say the Blogging Tories are “not notable” when there are prominent Members of Canadian Parliament as part of the group. I think those people are grossly mischaracterizing the Blogging Tories or wrongly mistaking them as only being two or three random blogs. Blogging is fast becoming an important medium in politics and the Blogging Tories have become one of the largest forces in the Canadian political blogosphere. There are even numerous examples where they have had a direct impact in Canadian politics. There is no reason why an important website like the Blogging Tories shouldn’t be on Wikipedia.--Esto 02:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I know why people don't find the membership to be convincing. These people could be members of a local supper club too, right? Does that make the club significant? The blogging torries is a website who aggregrates content from people's blogs. Couldn't there be any number of such websites? What makes this one special? I could make a website tomorrow that aggregates content from these people's blogs. Their best claim to fame seems to be when newsworthy events happened which were leaked on the Internet. By having a connection to that leak, they claim they're significant. This is crazy. If I ran into
    does or does not belong in an encyclopedia. Friday (talk) 02:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Ok, you asked. Here: 227,000 vs 7,750,000 vs 595,000 google results for each respective group you listed. Which is precisely why they were NOT put up for AFD when I was scanning Category:Blogs for useless cruft. --Timecop 04:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What part of "a bigger country can inherently generate more Google links than a smaller one can" implies that smaller countries should therefore be less entitled to Wikipedia coverage? Bearcat 04:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I lied. Rottweiler wasn't in [[:Category::Blogs]] which is why I missed it. --Timecop 04:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Other articles are not the concern here. Web stuff is overrepresented here at Wikipedia, so it's not surprising that unverifiable and insignificant websites sometimes have articles about them. Let's judge each article on its own merits, or maybe use the
WP:WEB guideline for websites. To answer your specific question, Daily Kos appears to have significant traffic compared to the other ones, even if adjusted by a factor of 5 for the populartion difference between US and Canada. Friday (talk) 04:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
"A factor of 5" does not account for the population difference between the US and Canada. And the
WP:WEB guideline quite specifically states that notability can be defined by Alexa rank OR other criteria of the type that have already been proven here, not Alexa AND other criteria. Bearcat 04:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
Sorry, you're right. Call it a factor of 10 then. It still doesn't compare. I don't see how other criteria have "already been proven", per my above objections which have not been answered. Friday (talk) 04:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For starters, as I've stated before, a larger country by definition generates a higher volume of Internet traffic than a smaller one, which is precisely why the notability of a website has to be defined by its own context. Argument by Internet traffic alone, by definition, is an assertion that Canadian stuff has less notability just because it's Canadian — the arguments are inseparable from each other, because Canada's smaller size means a site of Canadian-specific interest inherently can't generate the traffic to compete on raw numbers. And statistically, simply multiplying the lesser site's traffic volume by the population differential isn't a mathematically reliable comparison of influence. The questions of the site's influence in Canadian politics, its notable members, its media presence, etc. have already been answered numerous times. The only valid measure of influence is whether this and ProgBlog are as notable within Canadian politics as Daily Kos is within American politics. The contextual relationship has to be taken into account. Bearcat 04:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Canadian blogosphere, since I went through all of the links provided above, and I could not find any evidence that this site had any overwhelming influence in Canadian politics. That said, I believe the content does deserve a mention in the overall blogosphere site, since as a whole, it does possess more influence than in other countries. Titoxd(?!?) 04:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm willing for my suggestion to count as a merge as well if it helps build consensus. I don't believe this should have its own article, but it's possible it could be mentioned elsewhere. However, the article you've suggested as a merge target is on Afd also, and I believe it's original research. I wonder if
    Political Culture of Canada is a good place for this stuff. I still think whatever's used should be verifiable, though. Friday (talk) 05:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]

WARNING - A cry for help was posted on a blog, requesting sockpuppets to vote keep on this article. This goes against Wikipedia's no sock puppet policy. It may be unfairly inhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Blogging_Tories&action=edit&section=1fluencing the balance of this conversation. And User:Timecop/The war on blogs is doing the same thing on the other side of the debate, marshalling a concerted group of unestablished Wikipedia users to bloc vote delete on blog-related articles in contravention of the same policy.

  • Cry for help has been removed to keep in accordance with Wikipedia's no sock puppet policy.
  • Its ridiculous to say that large blog groups like the Blogging Tories are not notable. Take this recent quote from the globe and mail talking about the upcoming election, "there are some who think the Internet and Internet blogs may play a bigger role." Blogging Tories is the biggest force there is in the Canadian political blogosphere, so at the very least, we should wait and see before we say it isn't notable.--Esto 19:45, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable. mennonot 11:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was in great doubt on this one, but it seems useful to me. Usually I vote for deletion on this kind of things, but if they actually achieved something (however left-wing I am), this may be kept.
    Signing is for Whimps 20:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]


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

The result of the debate was Redirect to Blog. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 09:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blogsite

Not encylopedic, this is a dicdef. Skrewler 06:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 00:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Blogstream

Dicdef Skrewler 09:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 00:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

BLT crew

A group of non-notable phreakers (as if there was such a thing as notable ones). -- Kjkolb 09:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Bojack

Fairly elaborate hoax (probably patent nonsense too but I'm listing it here instead of speedy tagging as the page has a fairly substatial edit history). Google shows no hits at all for "Bojack and Rex" - looks like this article has been around for a couple of months but has managed to slip through the net. Kurt Shaped Box 19:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE ALL. Redlinked user discounted with ~18 edits at this point. -Splashtalk 01:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bridges Hall, Childs Hall, Wessex Hall, Whiteknights Hall

Delete. University residences for

Windsor Hall is listed above and thus I'm listing all these here. Marskell 08:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. -

Mailer Diablo 01:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Bruce Xiangji Brewington

Extremely non-notable. Nothing turns up on Google for this person. Recommend that it be deleted per

WP:BIO. --Martin Osterman 11:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Budapest in Danger

suspected cut-and-paste; already an article on obesity Bjones 19:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 04:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Bush-Rove rat list

Listed as CSD but meets no speedy deletion criteria I know of. Deserves a review here—listing to prevent later speedy deletion. No vote. — Phil Welch 20:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not even the cited source includes the term "rat list". This is original research, or at least it would be if there were anything there other than a one-liner.
    [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 20:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete speculative sub-stub citing spurious source. —
    FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 20:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete - OR/speculation. -Satori (talk) 20:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Any sentence in an encyclopedia that contains the phrase "probable but unproven" should be deleted. In this case, that would leave nothing else. -Willmcw 22:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. At this stage, this is unverifiable. Capitalistroadster 23:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - ditto
    T 02:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. Willmcw said it better than I ever could. Mo0[talk] 03:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (I vote in protest). First off, this page was not finished. I've been having trouble with my Linksys router for the last few days, and this has been severely impeding my ability to collect the remaining data together to make a full article. Secondly, I do not take kindly to User:Kilo-Lima accusing me of treason for creating the article. And thirdly, I posted enough information on that first day for anyone who cares to do so could research it for himself and thereby perhaps speed-up the process of writing a complete article. Grrr...! Fourth: "probably but unproven" is most assuredly valid--analize those words for yourselves--because even though this list has not been proven to exist per se, it is highly unlikely that any presidency so able in the art of undermining opponents could do so without a systematic method of compiling dossiers. I protest to this treatment. Sweetfreek 06:33, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not exactly you I was accusing of treason! But the article's content. What is the law for treason in the United States?! --Kilo-Lima 18:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actively making war against the United States, or giving aid and comfort to its enemies, is the legal definition of treason. A conviction can only come with two witnesses to the same alleged act, or by confession. — Phil Welch 19:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Moreover,
          Michael Savage on the other hand doesn't care about details like that (!), but I think most people... screw it--I long ago lost faith in humanity. Sweetfreek 20:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • Speaking out against the government would be sedition. However, there is a marked difference between opposing the state itself, and simply opposing a single individual's holding of or actions in a given political office, or any given government decision. — Phil Welch 21:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Unless I am much mistaken, I believe it was Theodore Roosevelt who said that there is a difference between supporting one's country and supporting one's president... or something to that effect. Sweetfreek 05:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Someone's getting sued in
      FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 21:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
      ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Cannibal Isle

Article is about a non-notable website (no Alexa rank, no incoming links per Google). Creator vandalized Daniel Watts to replace it with his own biography. - squibix 14:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. TheMadBaron 14:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator. --MacRusgail 14:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable and, frankly, shite.
    [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 21:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. —

Cleared as filed. 13:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Charles E. H. Lucy

Vanity article created by subject Justinc 00:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note that it was split out of great great grandfather (Charles Lucy) which just about is ok as a stub, but orginally created by an anon IP who clearly really is User:Lucytune whos talk page User talk:Lucytune is basically a copy of the article. Clear vanity, not notable, writing about himself. Justinc 00:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has been userfied. This just about gets over the line for mine. The information about working with James Sanger who has produced work by Dido and Keane. Two albums of Lucytuned Lullabies which are versions of third world lullabies see [5] and are available commercially. Keep. Capitalistroadster 01:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean "Userfied"? Justinc 01:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Put on the user page Descendall 12:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What difference does that make? Can someone just verify if this falls within
WP:MUSIC guidelines and whether the information is externally verifiable. The article is clearly created by the person in question so there is probable bias. Justinc 02:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. There is, I think, a single countable keeper. -Splashtalk 01:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie_Wenzel

Originally I thought this was an attack page, so I went and tracked down the links. Unfortunately the authoritative sites listed require a login. I think that makes it somewhat unverifiable-ish. Kim Bruning 04:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment Could someone please sort the voting below into sockpuppets and non? Ashibaka (tock) 03:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP IT I'm a big thief and a liar, but I'm never gonna Wenzel anyone again now that I know what can happen. Thanks to Pirate 4x4 for scaring me straight. This just proves that the free market can solve all its own problems without government intervention. --Barry
  • KEEP IT If the term wenzeled becomes a popular internet word (such as lol or owned), then it would be beneficial to have an entry about how it came into being. The 'wenzeled' phenomena could prove to be useful to the world of academia and helps us understand how the use of language in society can be altered by the internet, especially to the fields of sociology and linguistics. ~James
  • Delete nn underground Internet celebrity. Ashibaka (tock) 05:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP IT It Only requires registration due to it's popularity

    they did not require log in until 900,000 plus people had viewed the threads. and that number is still climbing... we are at 925,576 as of this posting.

    to give you an idea... Alexa has some impressive stats on the matter

    • 120 out of every million pages viewed on the internet in the last 3 days are Pirate4x4.com
    • Pirate4x4 is currently #5,219 most popular site on the net... that doesn't sound high until you remember that there are roughly 46,500,000 sites on the internet.
give it a few days till google spiders all the pages linking to that thread and all the pages talking about charlie wenzel(this one included) and it's going to be pretty obvious how big this thing is.

really that is irrelevant as the actual thread does nothing to illustrate Mr. Wenzel's fame... the other sites do that quite well.

I see no reason why anyone would even suggest to delete this page, it is not an attack page.

If need be i can copy out some of it and re-post it here... or to verify you can register(it is free)

there was an attack page add4ed to the wikionary as "to wenzel" and it was rightfully deleted, however i created the charlie wenzel wikipedia entry specifically as a documentation of the phenomenon and charlies involvement not as an attack.

others who have contributed have even deleted the couple attacks(his reported steroid use) that did exist.

this is now the second attempt to delete it... how many times do we need to go through this?

as for Ashibaka's silly assertion that it is a no name internet celeb... remember that the thread only got publicized outside of its home forum on Friday... in 72 hours the thread had 900,000 views... not too shabby... tell me of anyone else that went from "nobody" to 900,000 viewers, hundreds of sites and multiple t-shirts and bumper stickers and bonafide slang terms in such a short time and i will agree that Mr. Wenzel is no big deal.

this is no different then the Flying Spaghetti Monster in that it started as a joke but caught on.

This should definitely stay

Todrick 06:45:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep Registration was only added as a means to stem the MASSIVE amounts of traffic that pirate4x4 was receiving from all over the globe. 900,000 views in just a few days is an internet sensation of ridiculous proportions. This should definitely stay as a testament to the event that happened. I see nothing defamatory about the wikipedia post, all it states is fact. -xenoturkey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.61.224 (talk • contribs) 2005-11-15 06:49:24 UTC
  • Keep It.

    In addition to the above stated facts, this entry also shows that individuals that one would consider luddites to be more internet savvy than previously given credit for. . . This alone makes this instances rather unique. Individuals that normally we chuckle at for having raised 4x4's and lowered IQ's, 'owned' a nineteen yrld kid who should have known better!

    And it should also be noted that these hits were generated in such a short amount of time without the help of 'normal' media outlets and that this phenonemum also show the dynamic nature of the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.215.191 (talk • contribs) 2005-11-15 08:00:42 UTC

  • Keep It. This term isn't going to disappear. It is already too big. It has become a signature tune for the detection and 'education' of all internet scammers of which there are already too many. Sooner or later the term WILL become household slang and kids are going to be on here searching for the answer. Why deny them that knowledge? Paul
  • Wenzel this and Delete. Dottore So 11:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - I'll have forgotten him tomorrow. --MacRusgail 13:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: non-notable and non-interesting ephemeral phenomenon. - squibix 14:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NN. Turnstep 14:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should stay, at least for the time being. If the term catches on, or people are still talking about this in a month, then it has more than earned it's keep. If in a month's time one can't new material posted which references 'To Wenzel,' then indeed it was just a blip on the radar. However, I don't think that's going to be the case.
  • Speedy delete. Possibly slander. A juvenile vendetta over a $25 dispute that threatens to disclose street address, telephone number, and other highly personal information. Durova 17:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as attack page. The rampant sockpuppetry here and the begging notice at the bottom of the article earn it two more black marks. — Haeleth Talk 17:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN.
    T
    17:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
    • ... and send all sockpuppets to
      T
      14:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • comment - RE: Haeleth "as attack page." i see no attack anywhere on the page. "The rampant sockpuppetry here"... where? i obviously edit this thing more than anyone else and make no attempt to hide that.
"and the begging notice at the bottom of the article" that is there because it was already nominated for speedy delete... however it violates none of wiklipedia rules to justify a speedy delete.... i can understand you thinking its no big deal... that is why i said wait a few days to see how big it is on google... also there is now an internet scam prevention and awareness site named wenzeled.com... this is a term that will stick... but since "to wenzel" was already deleted from the dictionary due to what i originaly thought was attacks(something i have gone out of my way to prevent here) i made this factual non attacking page... I do wonder now if it was simpyl deleted becasue users here were not framiliar with the term... i understand that it is a new term.

to Durova: i was not even a member of pirate4x4 until i found out about this event so i have no reason to want to attack Charlie. I make no threat to disclose any of charlie's information... in fact i don't think that act was right, but since the term "to wenzel" was deleted from the dictionary it became obvious that you all needed the entire story in order to understand the meaning of the term... so i provided the story... nothing more, nothing less.

if any of you want to read the original thread to verify that everything stated is factual... why not just use bugmenot... that's right... because you have no interest in finding out about things you don't know.

since I appear to be the only one who wants to discuss this. Here is an expert of the wikipedia page on notability:

Obscure content isn't harmful Wikipedia is not paper and (theoretically) has no size limits, and so should include "everything" that fits within its other criteria. There is room for articles on any and every verifiable subject. There is no harm in including an obscure topic, because if it is truly non-notable, people simply won't search for it or link to it. It will not create a significant server load as such.

Deletion reform is necessary A policy of "delete if and only if the article is not verifiable in a reliable source" would make it far easier to decide borderline cases and would turn AfD into a more constructive process, which would make articles Wikipedia more reliable by adding references where possible. The problem with writing "Delete, non-notable" is not about whether the articles should be in Wikipedia, but that it is a quick phrase that does not tell another person why the article is non-notable.

to all those calling for Speedy Delete we have already been down that road and this article passes with flying colors any criteria for speedy deletion
Todrick 18:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep

-As for this: Speedy delete. Possibly slander. A juvenile vendetta over a $25 dispute that threatens to disclose street address, telephone number, and other highly personal information. Durova 17:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC) NONE of the information released on Pirate4X4, with the exception of perhaps his yearbook photo, was private information. It was all gathered through postings Charlie made freely and of his own accord to other sites - EVEN the part about banking info. If Charlie did NOT want that information public, he should not have posted it in the first place. This is just another reason why the article should stay - it shows not only the flamewar that can start due to dishonesty (which in reality, matters very little) but the very REAL repercussions of handing out personal information and photos willy-nilly.[reply]
-- As for Slander - all of the information posted on Wikipedia is verifiable, most of it simply by reading the threads, and the rest by visiting the linked sites. The origional post for $100 has been saved since the begining by Pirate4X4, and Charlie himself owned up to the fact that the parts were actually used. Therefore, though statements made on the forums are certainly bound to contain some exageration and slander, this Wikipedia entry, which simply discusses the documented events, does not.
-- As a side note, Charlie had the option of preventing his public information from being given out by appoligizing and releasing the tracking number of the shipment he claimed to have made. He was prompted to comply by releasing one digit at a time, but instead he chose to continue with his previous course of behavior.

  • Keep: notable, encyclopedic &#10149;the Epopt 22:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are already enough flash-in-the-pan jokes here. Jasmol 22:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with extreme prejudice. Godawful article, completely non-notable incident too that no one will remember next year - or tomorrow, for that matter. And extra points for the most hideous sockpuppetry I've seen in recent times. --Wwwwolf 00:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment i know it's bad form to keep replying, but tell me Wwwwwolf, where is the sockpuppetry?... I see none, I do see a few Wenzelites who don't know the procedures here(i was one until yesterday). I would also love for someone to explain to me why this is non-notable. If you are using the google test then I understand that you don't realize that this JUST happened and google takes a little bit of time to spider pages. I'm assuming you are basing the NN statement on your opinion... but opinions don't count here... an encyclopedia has no opinions. So lets look at the facts we have. It passes the Alexa test with flying colors... The spike is undeniable

that aside... why, if it is non-notable, should it be deleted? Wikipedia's own documentation states(as i posted above) that non-notable is no grounds for deletion if the information is verifiable and non-POV... interest in the subject will determine how many page views the article gets and thus it's inclusion, if it is in fact... fact, has no impact on wikipedia if it is non-notable.... which, of coarse, I have just shown(through Alexa) is not the case anyway. Todrick 02:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • COMMENT I have noticed that everyone calling for deletion seems to be making assumptions, Slander, attack, non-notable, joke, private forum.... I would suggest that anyone who has an opinion on this, either for or against do a bit of research. I am going to modify the article a bit to reflect the private forum issue. Also... what was the reason for this articles nomination... thew original post said she "Originaly though it was an attack page" then she continues with the asumption that it is a unverifiable because of free registration that was only added do to the amazing amount of traffic... nevermind the listr of sites at the bottom discussing Charlies actions. It does not qualify as violating Verifiability and is clearly not an attack but a documentation of actual events. So what was the reason?

Todrick 02:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Oops... looks like Google is starting to find it... and look at that, there is even a link to the Urban Dictionary for the term "Wenzeled".... yes there are some links to non-related sites, but with 5 days before this deletion proposal gets decided... I think this article is going to be sticking around.

Todrick 04:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The first two pages of a Google search on 'Charlie Wenzel' are in reference to HIM and this event! Come on, keep it. --Sean
  • This is bigger then Star Wars Kid, this needs to stay!!! -Lugburz
  • comment The original thread just passed 1,000,000 views(1,003,511 to be exact) ... I would most certainly call that notable

Todrick 19:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Okay, here's a few thoughts for the article-keep-vote supporters. The real reason people want the thing dead is that the article regards a rather new "internet phenomenon", and the article is pretty awful and in dire need of cleanup and style improvement. Further, it's pushing a neologism - people don't like neologisms too much unless they have been around and there's actual evidence of their use (and no, UrbanDictionary.com doesn't count as evidence, or so I've seen). So unless you gain something other than "underground" fame, or get people organised to fix the article really well, I don't think people will take this article seriously at all. Here's a really big issue, for example. And looks to me the grassroots notability isn't very much established either, not really. Of course we would like to have the article, but the thing is, is this "net phenomenon" really going to be as big as allyerbase? There's no article for this guy either, and he was "bigger than the Star Wars kid" a few years ago, the was picked up by respectable (?) IT media like Slashdot and The Register... and now few people even remember him. In conclusion: Is this thing really important, will it ever become really big? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 23:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment thanks wolf, just wanted to hear someone lay it out like that. I claim full responsibility for th earticle being laid out badly, and would greatly appreciate others fix it as needed(and no don't just leave it blank like has happened already) I think one hting that will add to the staying power her eis the Scam awareness database being built at wenzeled.com, what i really see happeneing is this gets deleted (because the 5 day window is not long enough for google to catch all the pages and also too short for wenzeled.com to get off the ground), so it gets deleted and down the road, a year or so, people will add an entry to the wikitionary for "wenzeled" but i for one wont be putting in the time to rebuild this page. Todrick 02:33, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, but remember if this gets deleted, you may add a reference to the wenzeled.com site to external links of some other appropriate article, and if there's some article that covers related incidents, it may be worth of mentioning there. It may just be that this isn't ever going to be big enough thing to get an article of its own. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It This is absolutely priceless. At no time should anyone be allowed to act in the manner that Charlie Wenzel did on the web. A lesson earned is a lesson learned. Mad Cat Omni
Keep It This is a good demonstration of how vulnerable anyone is on the internet, and how we should all be honest and courteous in how we act towards each other. CTG 17:50, 17 November 2005
Keep it!! As far as I know being a member of ar15.com, what was written is totally true and a good example of what could happen to scamers!

  • Keep: definitely a phenomenon judging by the scale of views, a cautionary tale on the dangers of swindling and very, VERY funny.
  • comment Here's a really big issue, for example. And looks to me the grassroots notability isn't very much established either, not really.--wwwwolf
    • Wwwolf, it appears to me that 2 of your 3 links now say otherwise . . . as to 'sockpuppetry' run amuck here, that is probably the fault of my wife and I to some degree, since we are new to 'Wikipedia' and I would like to offer our sincere apologies for not following or understanding proper protocals and etiquette in this discussion. There really are TWO people at this IP address. Really. Sean & Jill
      • Erm, for the sake of clarity, please don't copy old comments over. And no, the two latter searches don't particularly disagree. Google Blog Search gives six hits. Technorati gives nine. Those are not big numbers. Those are small numbers. Everyone and their monkey has a weblog these days and tend to write about weirdnesses in the web; if only nine people bother commenting about this even briefly, it's not really all that widespread. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[b] Keep it [/b- If such entries as googly eyes can exist, then I see not why this cannot.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, 19 keep, 5 delete, 1 merge (counted as keep)

JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]


Checkerboard Nightmare

Delete this non-notable webcomic. Article itself gives no indication of notability, listing only plot summaries and character descriptions. The comic concluded days ago (November 11, 2005) after five years without ever finding a large audience. Its current Alexa ranking of 292,426 [6] is either 3 to 30 times the maximum per proposed guidelines at

WP:NOT a web directory. Ironically, "Chex's weekly exploits usually involve some sort of harebrained scheme to increase his readership." Dragonfiend 21:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Merge (without the crap) to
    Kristofer Straub, and note I think this AfD is rather distasteful for a variety of reasons, not the least of which being that the comic JUST ENDED. I will, however, concede that the comic in question is largely an entity within the webcomics spectrum, rather than having any influence outside it (and, largely, that seems to be WHY it ended). Nifboy 04:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment: Just a minor point, but unnotable, not unotable. --Dd42 01:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 21:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC) The webcomic itself is probably unique in the fact that it is entirely, functionally self-aware. A side effect with this is how many othe comics it references. This makes it something of a meta-comic within the webcomic community.[reply]
Comment: Webcomics that are self-aware are far from unique. According the article on the webcomic
Framed! "is a metafictional webcomic." Comixpedia.org's article on Fourth Wall gives five other examples without mentioning this one. Webcomics referencing each other is also far from unique -- there have been countless webcomic cross-overs, cameos, homages, guest strips and parodies of other webcomics. Dragonfiend 01:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
What about the crossover/meme (unsure of how to categorize it) with
Sore Thumbs, causing some controversy (mostly from the former event). It's also linked to by several other pages. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 10:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
We've already established that webcomic cross-overs are plentiful and that this comic "usually involve[s] some sort of harebrained scheme to increase his readership." What we haven't seen is anything to suggest any of these schemes actually worked, that is, anything to dispute Nifboy's assertion that "the comic in question is largely an entity within the webcomics spectrum, rather than having any influence outside it." Following your link to the webcomics blog "Websnark" only confirms this: One of the comments off the home page is from the creator of Checkerboard Nightmare saying "I gave it five years and it plain old didn't do enough to justify me continuing it." I'll respectfully suggest that you reconsider your vote while trying to apply the same standard that you would for other media. A self-published book filled with numerous literary allusions that only attracts a handful of readers is un-encyclopedic. An un-signed band that attracts only a very small audience while playing numerous cover songs is un-encyclopedic. A webcomic whose only claim to fame is that it did numerous cross-overs and cameos but never attracted a large audience is also un-encyclopedic. Dragonfiend 20:29, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dragonfiend, I find it a testament to the strip's pervasive how you have fallen for every single meta-property Checkerboard Nightmare purported to be, in its effort to deconstruct the nature of webcomics themselves. Checkerboard Nightmare should not be deleted by virtue of it being the only webcomic that used its self-aware nature as a means to further exploration of success and failure on the internet. All other webcomics you have referred to simply use it as an excuse for lack of a punchline. Straub is being playful (as he often is) in his "admission" that the strip failed. He has been invited to speak on webcomics panels with Gabe and Tycho from Penny Arcade, Scott Kurtz from PVP, and many other popular webcartoonists. His strip has been referenced as THE standard for metahumor in webcomics by many webcartoonists and readers. Straub himself has said that if the strip did become popular, it would sort of have failed at its own mission, which is why I believe he decided to end it. He had said all that was needed to say about webcomics as a search for internet fame. If Checkerboard Nightmare is deleted, so should the equally "unsuccessful" strips Road Waffles, Framed!!! A Modest Destiny, No 4th Wall to Break and Queen of Wands. DrHot 22:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to add that the above panel was at the San Diego Comic-Con. Which, I believe, is the largest comic convention in the U.S. if not the world. Somebody, obviously, thinks CxN is notable. King Nerd

*Keep. A far more valid example of webcomics metahumor than any other webcomic mentioned in this AfD. The author, Kristopher Straub, has been invited to speak on many panels at conventions at the same table with web giants Penny Arcade, PVP and Bob the Angry Flower. It is the quinessential example of metahumor, to the point where the original requester for deletion missed its nuance entirely. DrHot 22:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote discounted by closing admin
JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

*Keep. This is a joke, right? It would be hard to consider a more notable webcomic within the webcomics community outside from absolute top tier webcomics like PvP or Penny Arcade. It was significant news and of significant impact when Straub left Keenspot to connect with Blank Label Comics (after several years on said Keenspot and significant time as one of the top webcomics on Keenspace, both of which would on their own indicate automatic inclusion over here). Clearly, whoever put this up for deletion doesn't understand even the most cursory elements of the artistic field he's trying to 'edit.' I would recommend he or she not muck around with the webcomics entries without significantly more exposure to webcomics in general and the community in particular.Eric Burns 23:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote discounted by closing admin
JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

*Keep. I have to agree with the Websnark here. Perhaps CN may not be "notable" or "important" to your little circle, but to the general webcomics community CN has become a rather important strip, even if only for Straub's personal effects on the community through the strip.--Plaid Phantom 23:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote discounted by closing admin
JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:59, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

*Keep, as per Eric Burns. Nobody 23:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote discounted by closing admin
JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

*Keep: The reasons given for deletion seem spurious and show a lack of understanding of the material. And the phrasing of the statement "The comic concluded days ago" simply speaks to the increasing ridiculous of intenert time where a week is the equivilant of five or ten real years. Nedlum 23:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote discounted by closing admin
JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

*Keep, as per the other keeps. --Meeowth 23:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote discounted by closing admin
JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

*Keep, as above. Comment that it's pretty important to see the person suggesting is blatantly lying: the google search he links to which he claims "gives up only 212 results [11] " actually gives up about 53,800. [Apologies if this is too much bold, but this is a point which is pretty bloody important to note. Given this guy's link is evidence for the opposite of his point, don't forget this]. 00:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC) —preceding

unsigned comment by 138.251.224.11 (talk • contribs
)

Vote discounted by closing admin
JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

*Keep. Notability is something beyond Alexa rankings and currency. I would certainly consider a critically regarded webcomic to be more notable than Alien 5.2 in Star Trek, Episode X. Dismissing CN on notablity grounds is both spurious and grossly uninformed. --Catnik 00:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote discounted by closing admin
JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

*Keep, also as per Eric Burns. samd 00:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote discounted by closing admin
JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

*Keep: Checkerboard Nightmare is one of the most brilliant and noteable webcomics in the artform's history. A vote to delete the entry betrays a complete lack of understanding of the artform -- some may say that it's just another fourth-wall-breaking strip, but that's because they haven't actually read it. Checkerboard Nightmare actually parodies these conventions and others. Its sharp, penetrating satire will continue to be relevant as long as webcomics exist. —preceding

unsigned comment by 68.249.220.249 (talk • contribs
)

Vote discounted by closing admin
JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

*Strong keep. Checkerboard Nightmare has been a fixture on the web comics scene for years, and is definitely notable. RMG 01:19, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote discounted by closing admin
JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

*Keep: Checkerboard Nightmare was and is an entertaining engine for parody and analysis of webcomics and our society at large, and is easily worth note. —preceding

unsigned comment by 128.135.98.55 (talk • contribs
)

Vote discounted by closing admin
JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

*Strong keep. Kristofer Straub is an extremely respected artist, who has, besides Checkerboard Nightmare, participated in many guest strips, conferences and has supported other webcomic artists. he is also one of the key founders of Blank Label. He DOES NOT deserve to see his first creation to be forgotten. The comic ended only a short while ago: deleting the enntry is plain ridiculous. —preceding

unsigned comment by Psyclone (talk • contribs
)

Vote discounted by closing admin
JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

*Keep I'm neither a fan of Straub nor his comic, but to imply that it is not a major influence in the webcomics community, or that it is 'unnotable' due to spurious statistics or because it is ended is to ignore all the discussions inspired, the events chronicled and the concepts explored by this very, very well known strip and by Straub. I would recommend that if you want to consider whether or not an entry concerning webcomics be deleted in the future that you actually consult with someone with at least a passing familiarity with them. For future reference, a strip ending does not always mean failure, and after a number of years, such as this, it almost never does. It just means that the author has said what he/she needed to say.--

unsigned comment by 216.134.160.149 (talk • contribs) [reply
]

Vote discounted by closing admin
JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep. Ravenswood 03:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC) EDIT: Also, Alexa is not a very good indicator of popular opinion, since it can only be used to poll people who are dumb enough to install Alexa. Smart people, therefore, are underrepresented. Ravenswood 04:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • User has over 250 edits. Ravenswood (talk • contribs)
      • I appear to have 272 edits. How do you put that link on there? Is there a macro or something? Ravenswood 07:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, as per above. 149.169.88.9 03:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote discounted by closing admin
JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

*Keep What is wrong with some of you people? Do you even read webcomics? And its aleady pretty much a given that a sites Alexa ranking is by no means a proper test of its "worthiness" for inclusion in the Wiki. - Donny !—preceding

unsigned comment by 69.170.218.57 (talk • contribs
) **User has seven edits. 69.170.218.57 (talk • contribs)

Vote discounted by closing admin
JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

*Keep: As stated above, a great contribution to the field of webcomics. Take the requirements Dragonfiend linked to; Checkerboard Nightmare qualfies for, at the very least, two of them. By his own standards, it should remain. That aside, Checkerboard Nightmare was a pioneer in the metahumor of mocking the flaws common to the thousands of terrible webcomics out there. Bobulus 05:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since, while I was spellchecking my writing, a warning about ensuring citing appear, let me list more directly why Checkerboard Nightmare should continue it's listing:
  • It is a part of both Keenspot (retired) and Blank Label Comics, two places the
    WP:WEB lists as large enough Webcomic Syndicates to count. [15] [16]
  • As mentioned above, a Google search turns up 53,000 hits, not the 212 listed by Dragonfiend. His link: [17]
  • If I'm understanding the
    WP:NOT
    Directory argument correctly, it only applies if the wikipedia article is being used to provide only, say constantly updating information or scheduling. This is not the case with this article.
  • The fact that the comic is based around the quest for popularity does not mean that is lacking in popularity. Rather, it is entirely based on mocking the average webcomic's quest for fame and glory. All the various cheap 'tricks' that a webcomic will try to gain viewers are pulled out and mocked, a field that is not exactly deeply covered in webcomics. Bobulus 05:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The criterion in question was actually added as a result of this discussion, is now being used in support of this discussion, and has very little support outside that of the person who added it to
    WP:WEB
    .
  • Searching for ""checkerboard nightmare" webcomic" yields 17,400 hits, but nothing impressive [18]. Compare that to Megatokyo's 50K+ and Penny Arcade's130K+.
    brenneman(t)(c) 05:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I'm not sure I understand what you mean. According to [19], that criteria was added on October 24th to that page, and therefore was added a couple weeks before the motion to delete for this topic appeared. I would argue that if the original poster uses it as evidence for a deletion, then the people opposed to said deletion should then be able to use it to help their case, should it apply.
  • While it's not as popular as Penny-Arcade or Megatokyo, I was mainly pointing out that 53k was actual number of results for the search linked to in the original objecting post, when he had incorrectly stated it was 212. Bobulus 06:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That guideline had been removed as not compatible with one of the
    brenneman(t)(c) 06:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Vote discounted by closing admin
JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete: It gets about one-fifth as many search hits as
    FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 06:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]

*Keep Since when has being mildly obscure been a reason to not have a Wikipedia article? In fact, I read somewhere that we were 'encouraged' to create articles on obscure and little-known things.
And within its field this is NOT obscure and little-known. Do not take at face value the angst of the protagonist. It's fictional, y'see. 'Further' -- don't you think this much discussion might be evidence 'in and of itself' that the comic is not insignificant? I say keep the article, but call for a rewriteScix 06:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote discounted by closing admin
JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete. I find the original argument compelling. I also want to add, as I always do, the importance of guarding against a bias in favor of internet trivia while excluding things that are more notable in the real world. We need to apply consistent standards. Everyking 06:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, I don't understand this argument -- is there a shortage I don't know about, where keeping an article means another article doesn't get space? Scix 06:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I just won't go along with the inconsistency. I've seen articles I've written deleted even though their subjects were far more notable than this trivial webcomic. If it was a genuinely notable webcomic that succeeds in meeting the general guidelines for giving websites articles, then I would vote to keep. But the original argument suggests the opposite. Everyking 07:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for explaining. I'm don't know whether CxN is more or less important than the stuff you've seen deleted, but I'd hate to see something removed that someone might actually find useful one day. I am admittedly new here -- I'm not sure WHY anyone would delete ANY article that wasn't specious or damaging. Consistency is important, but isn't it better to err on the side of inclusion? And mightn't it be a bad precedent to fight to delete something because something else was deleted unfairly? I'm just curious aobut this whole process.Scix 07:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please. There's articles for every single railway station in England in Wikipedia. If we started applying "consistant standards" of notability, half of Wikipedia would disappear overnight. ALSO: What makes you think this comic is obscure? Just because you've never heard of it? Come on. Ravenswood 07:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • That seems just a little biased, don't you think? The original poster has at least one of his facts wrong, and if you don't investigate yourself, or at least read an opposing viewpoint, how would you know? Plus, comparing the rate of deletion in a different topic area doesn't really seem fair. Bobulus 07:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. —
    Cleared as filed. 07:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
This isn't quite right. When you perform a google search, it collects a sample of 1000 pages (based on pagerank). What you are seeing is the total number of unique pages per the thousand collected. A rough extrapolation requires therefore that you take the total number of unique hits x the total# of pages, divided by a thousand. It's far from scientific, but it gives you a rough idea of the overall web presence, compensating for Google's search return system. This, btw, is why the number of duplicates frequently changes, even over several minutes or hours. Google is returning a slightly different sample. A quick verification of this is using wikipedia itself on google. You will see that WP only generates a few hundred 'unique hits,' despite millions of returns. That is the duplication within the 1000 sampled result. In this case, based on your link above, the 53,900 google hits should be multiplied by a fifth - or roughly 10,000 unique hits. This organised forum voting notwithstanding, a defunct nn webcomic with a few rabid fans is still a defunct nn webcomic. Eusebeus 13:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then I still don't understand your system. A search for "Checkerboard Nightmare", take to the "last page" [29], shows 336 unique hits, by your system. Megatokyo, a counter-example given above and obviously a lot bigger, under the same system, only goes to 439. [30]That system doesn't seem to provide very reliable results, if I'm understanding it correctly. Bobulus 07:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It seems to imply that Megatokyo is only 1/3 more popular than CxN. Which is interesting, really. Not that this is a popularity contest. Scix 07:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reading [List of ways to verify notability of articles] suggests the number of backlinks is a way of guaging notability: for the current domain name which I believe has been in use for under a year we get 713 results, 99 of which aren't similiar [31]. Is this appropriate?
      J•A•K 10:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Keep. For the comic to have continued for five years seems significant. More important to me, however, is that several of the editors who have previously edited articles in the comix area believe it is notable. I see no reason to delete it. -- DS1953 07:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Doesn't break any of the official Wikipedia guidelines. References to
WP:NOT merely says that an article shouldn't be just a collection of links. The Checkerboard Nightmare article is definitely NOT a collection of links. To say it is is ridiculous. I also find that stating how many edits people have is antagonistic and will only serve to further drive even more people away from Wikipedia. Oh and I've only got 200 edits, so I suppose my opinion is equally meaningless.--John Lynch 08:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Whatever happened to Wikipedia is not paper??? Even if CxN was "non-notable" (which I disagree with), there would still be grounds to include it. Dragonfiend, I think you're being a bit too eager to delete things, there. (My opinion) Ravenswood 09:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd also like to add: One of the things Dragonfiend mentioned was, "Article itself gives no indication of notability, listing only plot summaries and character descriptions." -- In other words, the article is badly written. The cure for that is fixing up the article, not deleting it. The Wikipedia guidelines agree with me on this. Ravenswood 10:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vote discounted by closing admin
JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

* Keep: The only reasons given for deletion is it wasn't popular and it already ended. In a few minutes I've found three wikis that fit those requirements: the nintendo

Swat Cats only lasted two years, and the cartoon Sonic Underground lasted but one year. Yet all three of those have pages. So it seems the strongest argument for deletion has NO CHANCE unless you plan on deleting ALOT of other pages. —Captainhero
04:40, 21 November 2005 (CT)

Vote discounted by closing admin
JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
  • No vote, but delete the ugly orange banner from the top of the page, per Fangz and his mention of 'the assumption of bad faith'. - squibix 13:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This comic may not exactly meet any one of the proposed guidelines, but it comes close on enough of them that it shouldn't be removed. I also agree with the sentiment that it's influential. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 14:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep well-known comic by well-known author, often referenced by webcomic commentators. (And I have >500 edits.) DenisMoskowitz 14:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I'm not sure I see why this would even be seriously considered a candidate for deletion. The article could stand improvement but does present information that those seeking it would want to get. The topic is popular enough that it should be included in an encyclopedia with 800,000 plus articles. I think someone has a bit of a vendetta against webcomics, or at least is giving that appearance with these actions. I agree with the poster that pointed out that many UK railway stations have a lot less relevance... To me Wikipedia should be what its authors want to make of it, and if several editors have been contributing content that seems good enough to me. Further, I'm not sure what the relevance of posting edit counts is, but go ahead and post mine, I'm curious, I can never get the tool to work for me to find out where exactly I stand... ++Lar 15:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote discounted by closing admin
JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

*Keep First of all, I'm not sure how many "edits" I'll have, as I'm on a rotating IP address, since I sign on from various locations at my college. And secondly, I'm disgusted that it matters. If someone cares about the content of this encyclopedia, even in this one case, then by the founding principles of Wikipedia their voice counts as much as anyone else's. If someone has three edits--all on Webcomics--why should their voice be less than one with 350 edits all on, say, United States politics? It's artificial elitism, and it's disgusting. Next, this is a ridiculous candidate for deletion. The rules were designed to prevent vanity posts. This is not a vanity article. CxN may not have gained a huge readership, but it was exceedingly influential in the webcomics community. Mr. Straub has spoken alongside lumanaries such as PvP and PA repeatedly. It is by nature a webcomic about webcomics, and as such is a humor parallel to a webcomics trade journal. Finally, this discussion should not be taking place. Remember: Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Rules are not applied regardless of applicability. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. There is no limit to what may be covered. Dragonfiend, you are nothing but a loudmouth and a bully, and your attack on this page is nothing short of reprehensible.

Vote discounted by closing admin
JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

*Keep - Wikipedia's job is to archive and categorize information. not to decide which information is "good enough".

Vote discounted by closing admin
JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep - Notable Webcomic. Whats with the rush for AfD? Dominick [[User_talk:dominick|<sup>(ŤαĿĶ)</sup>]] 20:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very notable webcomic. Factitious 21:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (At the very least, minor) notability established. El_C 23:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This seems to be popular in the webcomic community, and I see no reason to be deletionist about anything that's not blatant vanity or nonsense. Some people on other sites are badmouthing Wikipedia because we're even considering deleting this; while I don't favor caving in to outside pressure on any issue here, this is one where there just isn't any reasonable justification to delete compared to the justification to keep. *Dan T.* 00:09, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. Not only is the comic notable, but I don't think Wikipedia is in any way helped by removing the article. neongrey 00:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pre-emptive note: user has ~20 (non-webcomic-related) edits. To new users and/or those user with very low edit count: your
    votes will never count as high (if at all) as those of more established editors. This is simply a precuation to prevent self-promotion. You are, of course, welcome to vote and comment. But expect such notices as the above. The best suggestion I could offer these users is to provide sources which help establish the given subject's notability. That carries infinitely more weight than voting keep & commenting. El_C 00:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Vote discounted by closing admin
JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment. I'm fascinated how lack of coverage in Websnark is being used as reason to delete, and when Eric Burns, the writer of Websnark, votes to keep, his vote is discounted because of a low edit count. If the President of the United States voted "Keep" by announcing that Checkerboard Nightmare was America's Official Webcomic, the Wikipedia admins would cross it out: "only one edit." I imagine a good way to build an edit count is to nominate as many things as possible for deletion. DrHot 01:03, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow. Discounting votes bewcause of low edit counts seems a bit ... odd. Especially as I tohught this was pretty clearly stated as NOT a vote! (and for the record, I have more edits than recorded, because it took me a while to register. What do you suppose the cutoff count is?) At leastt he comments are still fairly legible, as I think some good points have been made entirely separate from "voting." Scix 01:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Userfied by Friday.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 09:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chess and Harry Potter/User:Al pearson

POV essay.

e ] 18:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 00:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Chreastermas

Neologism / Hoax Saint Midge 00:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 00:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Closetized

"Closetize" isn't a word, only has 3 google hits, and could never be more than a definition, anyway. --Frekja 09:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Jtmichcock 11:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. I used to be in the fortunate position of never having heard that word. Avalon 12:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dicdef, neogolism. TheMadBaron 14:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "'We better closetize this information, I am going to closetize my feelings'" actually made me laugh. Descendall 06:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Colt (comics)

  • Delete - This was created by a user who was vandalizing, do not know if this comic even exists. LifeStar 15:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there are a couple of possible contenders for a comic book called Colt, but neither of them matches this incoherent nonsense.
    [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 21:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 19:38, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 00:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Counter-Strike DL

Seems like an advertisement. Alexa ranking here: [32] Also, look at all these redirects that point to it: Coutner Strike Podcast Most popular cs skins website Most popular cs skin site Most popular cs site Popular cs site Popular cs skin site Most popular cs skins site Popular skins site Ashibaka (tock) 00:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 04:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Coveo

Blatant spam, makes not even a token effort to be encyclopaedic or to establish whether it passes

[T]/[C] (W) AfD?

  • Delete — Advertising. — RJH 20:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and blatant advertising. Ifnord 20:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Strange.... you'd think if you were going to use Wikipedia to host an advert for a computer technology company, you'd make a better job of the formatting.... TheMadBaron 21:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, too many external links make baby Jesus cry i.e. per nom. feydey 21:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep (12/1).--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 09:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cytherea (erotic actress)

Does not establish the notability of the subject per [{WP:BIO]], and I submit that this person is unknown to those why routinely type with both hands. -

[T]/[C] (W) AfD? 19:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Apparently well-known for her ejaculations. Our article states she won AVN award. Clearly notable in her field. Capitalistroadster 19:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 00:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Dean Faiello

Doctor cited for malpractice. I think I remember hearing about this in the news a few years back, but really, does that count for notability anymore? This is still just one crime. 376 Google hits doesn't say much, either. Delete as non-notable.--InShaneee 02:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I ran an all English-language news Lexis search on "dean faiello" "maria cruz" over the past 3 years and got 6 hits. George 11:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NN. Turnstep 14:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--if it made the news, it was notable; she was a budding prominent New York Filipina-American businesswoman (banker). I just checked Google and got 908 hits! Thanks!! Karas [email protected] 19:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Forgive me, but I don't think I'd ever use the terms 'budding' or 'prominent' in conjunction with 'banker'. Additionally, 908 Google hits is still pretty small for the purpose of establishing notability, and either way, a lot of those hits don't seem to be the correct person, anyway.
    • Which Google are you using? With quotes (the proper way) there are 385 hits, without quotes, 585. Turnstep 03:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Note that the victim gets the hits. Any in-the-news item will get a great many archaic hits for when it was in the news, and this is especially true for any person in the news in New York City. However, there were no lasting effects of the crisis that make this a lasting topic. WP is not the police blotter nor a news wire. Geogre 22:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence of particular notability. Tuf-Kat 21:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[talk] 03:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Department of Information and Communication...

Advertisement, and individual university departments do not generally get their own articles.

Chick Bowen 16:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete G7, requested by author and only editor. —

Cryptic (talk) 06:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Dick and skibba

This afd nomination was

(operator) 14:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 00:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Does an eclipse influence human beings?

Personal essay? I'd speedy-- -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 05:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. "Original research"/personal opinions. Doesn't quite meet speedy criteria. (What csd does it meet?) ERcheck 05:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'd say merge to Eclipse but this info is already there... in a less personal-essay-ish form. --W.marsh 05:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, total nonsense.
  • Delete per nom. Not the only article like this that the user has created, either. Indium 08:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, already covered elsewhere in suitable encyclopedic tone. Not a useful redirect. - Mgm|(talk) 11:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does a delete influence articles? Radiant_>|< 11:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - bad title, interesting idea. There are lots of traditions concerning eclipses, as well as prophecies etc. --MacRusgail 14:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nomination. encephalon 15:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom SchrödingersRoot 20:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --
    talk 22:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 00:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Dr. strangle-glove

Band claiming two releases, but do not specify the label (if any). Nothing on allmusic.com, and only what seems to be a set of self-created pages on Google [34]. Delete per

WP:MUSIC. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 12:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete - Vanity Skrewler 12:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This band can be heard at www.myspace.com/drstrangleglove — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.202.234.248 (talk • contribs) 13:47, 15 November 2005
  • Delete. This band is so obscure that even the article's author doubts their existence. TheMadBaron 14:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strangle, I mean Delete --MacRusgail 14:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The intersection of notable bands and bands giving away their music free via myspace web pages is, I suspect, a null set.
    [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 21:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 00:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Dragon Chronicles

Non-notable, no appropriate Google hits with authors name or author's name with "dragon". Suspect vanity. Ifnord 04:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete (A4). Physchim62 04:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DragonBall (2006 film)

Looks like wishful thinking on the part of a fan. There is no IMDb info; unusual for a movie with this amount of "detail" available. There are no relevant mentions on Google for the film and various purportedly "confirmed" cast members (example). In short, there are no credible or verifiable sources for any of this information, and the article should be deleted. —HorsePunchKid→龜 20:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unverifiable. The JPS 21:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PTSE 21:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Dragonfiend 21:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, Speedy if possible. Totally unverifiable and unsourced. --Locke Cole 01:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rumour concerning a live action DBZ movie has been circulating since the anime's dub release in the U.S. and other Western audiences. A similar article claimed a 2007 release, and was deleted after this discussion. Delete as crystal ball and unverifiable, and if possible speedy delete as recreated content. Saberwyn 01:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The day that anything about this movie is confirmed, which would confirm that it is, in fact, in production, would be the day that my soul died. Mo0[talk] 03:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 00:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Dramamine pathway

Was tagged {{

original research on talk. Delete, including the image. Lupo 11:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 01:25, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Dssr network radio

Delete Unverified info about a supposed Florida-based internet radio station, and the only thing I could find by googling for the title was a German internet radio station. With no link, this doesn't count as advertising. Caerwine 19:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 01:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Duck of minerva

NN blog that's just like countless other blogs.

e ] 21:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 00:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Duets With The Voice

Seems to be part of a pattern of vandalism of John Farnham see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voice Covered. --Martyman-(talk) 02:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly John Farnham did sing Playing to win with Lleyton at Lleyton's wedding, though I doubt very much it has been released. --Martyman-(talk) 03:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You live and learn. By the way, neither this or the other bogus Farnham release listed yesterday is mentioned on his website see [36]. Capitalistroadster 05:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unverifiable. Probably hoax. Cnwb 03:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless verifiable info forthcoming (and properly wikified). --MacRusgail 13:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, clearly a hoax. If Farnsey actually had an album with this name, he'd tell people. --
    talk) 03:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. Ambi 03:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 01:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

EgoPHobia

Seems to be an advert/vanity page for a nn mostly-non-English website. Alexa ranking over 2 million. Indium 23:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an advertisement, it's informative! And it is about a cultural site, not some shop or something. Moreover, there is also an English section of the site and it brings important information about today's Romanian young literature. When one searches on google for "egophobia" gets as the first two results the two url's of this site. Therefore I am against the deletion! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smg (talk • contribs)

  • Delete per nom. Reyk 01:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the nominator. Mo0[talk] 03:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was: Using a little bit of discretion... Redirect. -

brenneman(t)(c) 11:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Ellen Joyce Loo

Not notable. Member of a band,

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/At17. If this material goes anywhere it should go in the band's article. Also is only article in category "Canadian-born HongKongers" which should also go. Herostratus 21:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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


Nomination withdrawn. This AFD is hereby closed. encephalon 10:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Anderson

The person who is the title of the article is not notable enough to have an article about him, and the rest of the article is advertising. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep--there's justified precedent for keeping all winners of the Victoria Cross. Meelar [[User talk:Meelar|(talk)]] 04:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. The version I afd'd was vandalism. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was going to merge and redirect.

Rx StrangeLove
21:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC) Something wrong with your math here, my friend. One and half for redirect. The rest (i.e., 4.5) is for delete Even 2:4 still for delete.mikka (t) 01:24, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eurotophobia

Wikipedia is not a dictionary (the word is real though [37]) - Akamad 01:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 00:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Exbox

Dictdef for slang term. Moreover, the Urban Dictionary def disagrees. Deco 07:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nominator. Dicdef (no pun intended). --MacRusgail 14:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. SchrödingersRoot 20:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • '"Don't Delete'" Dicdef is is lacking in it's description on the Urban Dictionary site. Also, Urban Dictionary is quite ineffective, incomplete, and dated. --Alex Johnson 20:02 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • delete neologism Pete.Hurd 20:33, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 01:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Fabherdie

Seems like a hoax, I can't find any confirming google hits [38]. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 19:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was No consensus.

Rx StrangeLove 21:50, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Fewell

Non-notable Scottish surname MacRusgail 13:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 01:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Fighting Dreamers

According to the article, the phrase is a lyric from an anime theme song and the name of a group of friends who collaborate in making online manga fanfic. Possible redirect to Flow (band), which mentions the single the lyric comes from. --Tabor 19:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep.

Rx StrangeLove 05:59, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Flirt!

This article does not establish the importance of the subject per the usual guidelines, and reads like (very amateurish) advertising. I suppose it might be folded into

[T]/[C] (W) AfD? 19:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Merge with NUS, then :-) -
    [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 22:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Does that mean you're withdrawing your nomination? :) The appropriate merge would be to
National Union of Students of the United Kingdom. I thing that would just mess up the NUS page. TheMadBaron 23:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 00:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Flushdraw.ca

Clear adverts still aren't a CSD, but in any case, fails

WP:WEB and has an Alexa ranking of 4,898,203. Indium 06:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was ¡

Mailer Diablo 00:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

¡Forward, Russia!

del. nonnotable. ""Forward, Russia" + leeds + band" gives only 268 unique google hits, looks like no albums. mikka (t)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -Splashtalk 01:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Owen Smith

Not notable enough.

  • ...one television appearance? One? If I recall the episode correctly, this guy is almost a glorified extra (although I haven't seen it in a number of years). Delete. Lord Bob 20:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was going to say "until the watch in Ben Hur gets an article" but that would be tempting fate...
    [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 20:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per Lord Bob.--Alhutch 20:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a bit dubious about this being his only acting appearance. No theater? No minor film roles? How do you get to start your acting career with Deep Space Nine, of all things? Other than that, there's nothing actually wrong with the article; it's factual, it's not doing any harm, and I'd consider
    Curzon Dax to be a somewhat notable role (and no, I'm not a trekkie), so I vote to keep. TheMadBaron 20:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment: I think it just showed him dying on a table for a few seconds when they were transplanting the slug. -- Kjkolb 00:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Trek-cruft. --Calton | Talk 05:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Lord Bob. Dottore So 15:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 23:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Free will man/woman

Duplicate content already covered in

e ] 00:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splashtalk 01:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fullmetal Alchemist: Carnival of Dreams

e ] 20:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 00:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Gamer house

I don't think it should be deleted. It's informative and I know of a few friends that use the term. It's a term most common amongst gamers, so one who isn't a gamer doesn't really hear of this term. - Travis :)

Doesn't seem encyclopedia worthy, possibly a hoax Akamad 09:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nonsense. Dottore So 11:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator. Dicdef anyway. --MacRusgail 14:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Little better than a dicdef (with nothing to indicate that the term is even in common use), accompanied with an irrelevant picture of an uninteresting building. Delete. TheMadBaron 02:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This entry is very much relevant and commonly used amongst video gamers. Obviously it is not a part of everyone's vernacular.

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

The result of the debate was move to User:Geir Smith and invite him to use talk pages. -- RHaworth 19:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Geir Smith

A mix of Vanity and text that belong on a discussion page. Delete or move to proppet discussion page. Oyvind 09:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Geir wrote :

Well, the Jonang article has been corrected and they put my (site's)name in on it. I'm righting that here with this Geir Smith page.

I've retrieved the uncorrected page from "Changes" and kept it for refrence on my site.

I insist on the truth being said and not letting frauds write false things at "Jonang".

I'm prefectly knowledgeable about Jonang and the people on the other side have "agendas". They're not reliable sources at all.

Oyvind. PS. How do you fit in at Wiki ? Some post ? G.

  • Delete obviously. Dottore So 11:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator. Most of the Buddhist-speak is unintelligible to people outside that grouping. --MacRusgail 14:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only thing resembling a claim to notability is "Geir Smith is the lineal successor of Taranatha, that is banned in Tibet, and forbidden to study by Tibetans. Geir Smith is the only person in the world, to thus have studied Taranatha in depth". This is is both unverifiable and, as MacRusgail says, entirely unintelligible to most of us. As such, I'm calling this is a vanity bio of a non-notable subject, and have tagged it tagged for speedy deletion. TheMadBaron 14:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, The Jonang page has a case of vandalism carried out against me. They put in corrections, with my site's name quoted. Now I wanted to make the page here, so as to make it out that the page they vandalised is being used to plagiarize me. And this for the reason that I've been writing on Internet, using the Jonang page as reference, to prove something that is typically Buddhist-speak, which is "the Kalachakra is Sakyapa". Maybe I could write about the vandalism on the Geir Smith page, and about the fact that that vandalism is caused by my speaking about that page on Internet.... and the vivid controversy around it.

The debate concerns the Dalaï-Lama school of the Gelugpas, that want to have this school of Jonang, kept banned, while people like me want to get it's 500-year ban lifted. By making the ban hold, they want to suppress my school from it's freedom of speech and expressing itself. Their agenda is to utterly gag me by vandalizing the source that I use, of Jonang-Wikipedia. (But I've safeguarded the uncorrected, previous version thanks to Wiki's service of that) Maybe you can tell me what the best manner of presenting it is because I'm thinking about correcting the page tonight (French time.). I could present myself as the person making this whole page and topic, go crazy, because big interests, like the big school around the Dalaï, want to guard it's power and interests. I know this all sounds sectarian and like that, but you must all know that there is no Paradise-Lost... and there are these very down-to-earth human problems in any human entreprise, be it political, religious or other. Thanks for your times and considerations. Hope this can still find some checking for better form and content. You're sure tough bosses. Ha ha ha ! That's good too, for sure.... Geir SmithGeiremann 19:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 01:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Gigabus

NN company. Article reads like a hoax ("Jerry, a well to do man", "Mr Christopher Fudge"). Absolutely no google results [39] PTSE

  • Delete PTSE 13:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe not a hoax, but with just four drivers, definitely not notable. Delete. TheMadBaron 14:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator. Minor rural bus company in England. --MacRusgail 14:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all small independent bus companies. Or at least those in the Cotswolds.
    [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 21:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 01:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Gnomolando

Hoax, delete. — Phil Welch 20:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also add that the images and other links in there need to be purged as well. The "Gnomolando currency" pictured, for example, is an Uzbek note — see the image's Talk page — proving the hoax. That image should be kept but retitled as Uzbek, and might legitimately be used in the Uzbekistan article. Bill 12:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. The editor giving an option puts delete first, and BD2412 unusually doesn't actually give a target, so that's not a very useful recommendation. -Splashtalk 01:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Goofy Goober's Ice Cream Party Boat

This afd nomination was

(operator) 14:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grimlick

NN ROM Hacker. Article created by same author of

e ] 18:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

See also Joust More, Tag Team Transformer Pretenders (games by this ROM hacker).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 00:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Ham and bell

Seems to be a forthcoming webcomic. "The Ham and Bell website is currently under construction and set to be launched in December 2005. Story lines and characters may be changed when the site is launched".

Kappa 02:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 00:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Harry's_place

Archive of previous VFD (how did this pass?) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry's Place2

Obvious vanity/advertisement, not notable Skrewler 09:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Harry's what? --Timecop 14:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No attempt has been made to establish notability. TheMadBaron 15:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Blatant vanity, advertisement, non-noteable. --KirkJohnson
  • Delete -- Femmina 22:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. According to Alexa, my personal homepage has almost twice as many page views. Without details on how its founders may be notable outside of this blog or on how it might influence other people and/or websites, I don’t think its sole existence is notable enough. Just another opinion website. Sam Hocevar 22:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. --supers 23:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic. Incognito 23:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Waste of time. --Impi.za 00:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 65.34.232.136 02:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable blog. —
    Cleared as filed. 11:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete I've never heard of this 'Harry's Place' shit, and nor do I ever want to again. Non-notable, worthless garbage. --86.2.56.178 12:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose listing. This was only removed from AfD 6 days ago. Angela. 12:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There were only 2 votes last time, I can't tell but it may have been ended early also. -Skrewler 12:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Angela, it certainly falls within administrator discretion to relist nominations with extremely low participation. Titoxd(?!?) 04:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, I don't think it will be a few days from now either. Vanity. --Depakote 12:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn blog. Dottore So 13:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete How the hell did this survive its previous AfD listing? Someone tell me, please. Whoever voted keep last time should hang their heads in shame. Reyk 01:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I hate jumped-up-charlie, "look at me, I'm on Wikipedia", self-referential blogshite as much as the next guy... nay, much more than the next guy. Unfortunately, a very little internet research shows: Alexa is 110,806, which isn't great but isn't bad, Google shows that it's made it into the gaurdian um ,twice and was even nominated by them for the Backbencher's political weblog awards. Thus, as this is not a vote every entry with "not notable" is just a waste of photons, methink. -
    brenneman(t)(c) 10:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep, ok guys, had your fun yet? --Daniel11 02:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 01:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Highlords Assains

Non-notable guild. Delete. — Phil Welch 21:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete both articles. -

Mailer Diablo 00:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Clown Circus

Not notable, another CD by this artist was deleted in AfD a few days ago as well. Delete. --Locke Cole 02:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

THERE, LOCKE COLE. ARE YOU FREAKIN' HAPPY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.99.51 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 16 November 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.


This article was speedily deleted by User:Fuzheado with the summary "obvious vandalism". This AFD is hereby closed. encephalon 04:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


How to poo at work

Wikipedia isn't a joke book, but this isn't quite speedy-material. BJAODN. Titoxd(?!?) 00:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Human ethology

Marked as a speedy for original research, which however is not a ground for speedy. Appears original research and a copy of [40] (uncertain copyright status). No vote. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 17:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a citation (volume/number/pages), and please indicate what you mean by "edited." Is this "edited newsletter" a peer-reviewed journal?
WP:NOR
means that Wikipedia articles must be summaries of well-established, generally accepted knowledge.
I am troubled by your statement that "If you just want to hear what you already know, there may be a problem." From an encyclopedia, I do not necessarily want to hear what I already know, but I very definitely want to hear what is generally known and accepted. Wikipedia is not suitable for publishing essay that presents fresh, original ideas on a topic, even if they are sensible, valid, likely to become generally adopted, well founded in established knowledge and buttressed by references. Wikipedia is not for dissemination of original ideas. We have nothing against original ideas, but the mission of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia, not a journal.
The style and content of the article also suggest original research. In fact the phrase "This outlook, I believe..." suggests that the whole point of the article is to present a point of view. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisionally: delete The topic itself is definitely encyclopedic. The style and presentation are not; encyclopedia articles are supposed to teach and at least the introductory paragraphs should be accessible to the general reader. It is not appropriate for them to be written in the first person. However, there's no point in worrying yet about style. As nearly as I can tell so far, this is in fact a personal essay. It's said that it has been published, but no citation has yet been provided, and it's not clear to me whether the newsletter of the International Society for Human Ethology is peer-reviewed journal. I'm prepared to change my vote if I'm convinced that this does not fall under our
    no original research policy. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]

I am also a student and colleague of William Charlesworth (now a retired professor, University of MN). You may contact him for an opinion on my paper. He was one of the founders of the International Society for Human Ethology. I can argue no more for my article except to say that it is appropriately general and basic to be indeed be an appropriate opening article on human ethology. By the way, my real name is B.L. Jesness (Lorlarson is just my 'handle') -- Lorlarson


I'm impressed that you're a colleague of Iräneus Eibl-Eibesfeldt. You may well be an authority, but no Wikipedia article stands on the authority of its contributor, so it's still necessary to cite sources, and still necessary to help non-authorities verify things. The article is still a problem, though. It would be better if it were an overview of human ethology, history, relation to animal ethology, etc. Will be doing some more checking and will email F. Plooij as you suggest.
We could also use an article on Eibl-Eibesfeldt, which apparently we don't have (unless I'm not spelling the name the same way the article does...) Dpbsmith (talk) 00:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The point is not whether you are an authority, because Wikipedia is intended to stand or fall without appeal to the authority of its contributors, but whether you can convince us that the material present in this article is generally accepted current knowledge. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Status update After some considerable work scrolling through slow-scrolling bitmapped PDF files, I've found the paper, which can be downloaded from the HEB 1986-1987 link on [this page], and the citation would appear to be:
Jesness, Bradley (1987): An ethological conceptualization of learning: Learning in terms of the interrelated development of basic capacities, Human Ethology Newsletter (ISSN 0739-2036), 5(3) pp. 4-6.
It is described as a "Mini Communication" and the author is identified as "Bradley Jesness" with a Minneapolis street address (no institutional affiliation mentioned).
The PDF consists of bitmapped images and is unsearchable and very unpleasant to scroll through; scroll just about halfway down to get to volume 5 number 3.
Not that it matters, as there would seem to be no copyright problem, but interestingly enough the journal does not seem to have a copyright notice anywhere. The use of ALL CAPS emphasis is a faithful copy of the paper as originally published.
I continue to agree with
no original research policy but that could change if it were to turn out that it has been widely cited and generally accepted. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 00:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

IGARB

A neologism on one internet forum. — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 10:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, please. - Bobet 16:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-encyclopedic dicdef. Punkmorten 21:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've got a raging Delete Pete.Hurd 20:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 01:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Igor Goldkind

This page claims Goldkind was "one of the UK's first evangelists for the Internet", among other things, but there is remarkably little evidence to back this up. Google certainly finds him, but not in the glowing terms mentioned, and anyone as influential as this piece makes out is hardly likely to be working for an Oxfordshire ICT company (i.e. education computers, the best known in Oxfordshire being Research Machines). For that matter, I was promoting the Internet as a mainstream medium back then, along with Eric Peacock, former CEO of Babygro. Anyway, this might be a {{cleanup}} candidate, but actually it looks to me like plain old-fashioned vanity. -

[T]/[C] (W) AfD? 18:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 00:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Janine de Swardt

NN writer who turns up 9 unique Google hits.

e ] 01:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was userfied and deleted, per below. It was userfied before this Afd, and the deletes have been unanimous. Also, since people want to have an article about another person by the same name, and this article's history is not useful in that regard, it seems a delete is quite reasonable without waiting the traditional 5 days. Friday 15:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Johnston

"Joe Johnston" was previously userfied, to its creator

FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 23:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Day

Hoax. No Google hits. ➨

REDVERS❞ 17:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Thank you... but no...it doesn't really help. PJM 21:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

¤Deletion of this entry would be near heresy: records show that fractions of Jonhinius's skull were treated as relics, and traded among Franciscan monks during the latter phases of the seventeenth century. Gillian Sitch, Canonbury Archeological Foundation, 2005. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.235.148.39 (talk • contribs) 10:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for that information, Ms Sitch. Oddly, I can't find the Canonbury Archeological Foundation in the phone book, nor any presence for it online - even with the misspelling of the name corrected. Perhaps you could leave details of how to join on my talk page? I'd be very interested. ➨
REDVERS❞ 16:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
  • keep? If it is Johannes, this guy sounds pretty interesting, even without all the rubbish about cats and stuff. 'thebasis' any more info on your guy? — Preceding
    REDVERS❞ [reply
    ]

indeed it is, sorry didn't know how to put my sig in. now I do. hello everyone. (129.67.61.197 17:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. -

ask? 18:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Jonathan Foote

This page is clearly (amusing) nonsense, and is nonencyclopedic to boot. Cmdrjameson 02:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Per nom, except the part of it being amusing - I disagree there. Ifnord 04:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ha, Ha, Ha! Now Delete. ♠DanMS 05:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Private joke/graffiti. Geogre 11:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no amusing part. Avalon 12:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - vanity/nonsense. --MacRusgail 13:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy delete as above (G3/A7). Rd232 talk 14:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was

T
02:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Jubasniper

Looks like urban legend, with sub-stub description and one questionable source. Some garbage in article itself (though that could be cleaned up). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Delete Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 02:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keith Bates

Non-notable vanity page. Only one google hit. Plus someone related to this Bates has been spam linking the k-type.com website associated with this person - Contributions for 86.133.157.7 -- Solipsist 20:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.

Rx StrangeLove 06:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Kent Labour Students

This body is entirley non-notable, and in fact was deleted through VfD a while back.

It was deleted before? Really? Why isn't there any mention of this in the article history? When referring to previously deleted articles, it's nice if you can link to the previous debate, or at least to the deletion log. — Haeleth Talk 22:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it really was, in May 2004. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kent Labour Students/old. I don't know why that doesn't appear in the article history, someone with more knowledge of how VfD worked might be able to tell us. The Land 10:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The first comment I posted was to say I wrote this article and hadn't realised a previous version had been deleted. I've never seen it before. - Author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.12.200.50 (talk • contribs) 23:51, November 15, 2005


  • Delete, per nomination. The Land 10:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for not being notable. --Frekja 10:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete because other similar articles are allowed to remain. (I am the author and only bothered to write it when I saw a similar one for another society. I hadn't realised that there had been a previous version deleted - I've never seen it before)
  • Delete. The group has a wopping 60 members on it's mailing list? As non-notable as they come. Ifnord 14:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, that would probably be something like Noodlesoc or the Varsity Trainspotting team. 60 active members isn't bad: it's larger than any of the societies I was involved with in my uni days. — Haeleth Talk 22:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No need to be nasty, just delete it if you have to. Like I say, I assumed it is equally as "notable" as ones for other uni societies of similar subject and size. Just make sure you demonstrate consistancy. - Author — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.12.200.50 (talk • contribs) 10:11, 15 November 2005

Incidentally I clicked a link saying "Kent Labour Studnets" and it said there isn't an article, but I could write one. Make sure you turn this feature off if you decide to delete - that will stop others possibly wasting their effort. - Author — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.12.200.50 (talk • contribs) 10:17, 15 November 2005

  • Comment. Of course the author is correct. If I type “qwertyuiop1234567890” into the search box, the Wikipedia will respond with a page that practically encourages me to write an article with such a title. ♠DanMS 19:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge a summary into University of Kent; it and the Tory equivalent have a couple of sentences in the "trivia" section, which could easily be expanded into a paragraph on student politics without unbalancing the article. — Haeleth Talk 22:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a very good idea. All I ask for is consistancy. I wasn't going to name names, but "the Tory equivalent" has already been mentioned by Haeleth. If you delete Kent Labour Students you have to delete Kent Universaity Conservative Association as well. How, exactly, do I go about changing the article as suggested above? Do I have to implicate myself in petitioning for KUCA to be deleted? I appreciate any help - negativity not so much. - Author — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.12.200.50 (talk • contribs) 23:46, November 15, 2005
      • UPDATE I have just revisited University of Kent and discovered KUCA has already been removed. Since it had no deletion discussion, I presume the chairman removed it. What should I do now? - Author
  • Merge a summary as per Haeleth, only weakly sourced --redstucco 10:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coment. ...nearly 15 members on the mailing list. Wow! When I was a student at Kent (1998-2002) a society needed at least 20 paid-up members just to qualify for financial support! Timrollpickering 23:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note LOL! I don't know who edited it but it's truely sad!! I assume it was you, Tim? Anyway, whoever it was, it's certainly a KUCA activist and that just goes to show what lengths tories have to go to to win an argument. I've already suggested this article can be deleted, but it's still here: yet yours got deleted! Must be gutting for you. I have the original still on disk but I'm not THAT bothered that I'm going to re-post it.
    • The only edit I have made to the article is to put in the University of Kent category as part of a wider building up of both that and several other University categories. I don't know who wrote what about the numbers on the mailing list, but perhaps the number of paid-up members would be a better statistic to use. That the KUCA article got deleted is not gutting for me - it had been VfDed before. Timrollpickering 05:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As Chair of Kent Labour Students, I can say with some authority that this page is entirely pointless. For the record, we have over 40 paid up members (plus 100 more on the mailing list), but if people are going to edit articles out of spite or some childish attempt at "politics", then the whole thing is even more pointless. We are a Labour Club at a University; one of hundreds in the UK and no one in the world cares about us apart from our loyal members. If anyone is interested in finding out more about us then they can visit our quite extensive website. Therefore I see no reason for there to be a Wikipedia page at all. Markleach 23:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep after Capitalistroadster's rewrite.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 09:15, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keurboomstrand, Western Cape

NN + advertising. Is this even a real place? GeeCee 05:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Article title seems to have no relation to content, which is a blurb for a web portal. Saberwyn 05:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite if Keurboomstrand exists, and delete if it doesn't. --MacRusgail 14:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • CR has made a proper article of it, keep --MacRusgail 15:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Keurboomstrand exists: it's a real place on the Plettenberg Bay in South Africa. However, the present article is just an advert, and Google is unable to provide any useful information on the place to build a stub from - there is simply too much Googlespam to sift through. Get rid of this for now, unless someone else has better luck salvaging it. — Haeleth Talk 17:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep now that it's a proper article about the place. Nice rescue job. — Haeleth Talk 22:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article has been rewritten as a South African geo stub. Real resort with archaeological site of significance nearby. Capitalistroadster 19:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as of Capitalistroadster's rewrite. I'm unsure what I should do as the article nominator at this point. Should I remove the nomination from the AFD list, or just let it run its course? GeeCee 23:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Bardales

Scandals towards Lady Bardales may be considered controversial issue in Peru, but to create an article about this person is non suitable on Wikipedia according to its policies about, what is encyclopedic and what is not and the article itself is more likely to be

Vanity page.HappyApple 20:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep. Article asserts sufficient notability. KeithD [[User_talk:KeithD|(talk)]] 20:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above and expand. Numerous pages of relevant Google matches. PJM 20:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We need more articles that are chiefly significant to other countries and not to English-speaking ones, not less. Stuff like this is the entire way to slowly fight the systemic bias of the English Wikipedia. And if we can have dozens of pages on Monica Lewinsky... -Silence 23:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Messhermit's argument (that she had minimal impact and quickly disappeared from public memory even in Peru) is vastly more convincing than HappyApple's argument (that she's controversial, and thus noteworthy, in Peru, but not here). Just as importantly, this article doesn't seem to exist on the Spanish Wikipedia, which contradicts my earlier assumption that an Anglocentric bias was the reason behind this VfD nomination. If this article shouldn't exist in the Spanish Wikipedia, it certainly shouldn't exist here. -Silence 04:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. Changing my opinion makes me hot. -Silence 05:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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


There is a unanimous call to keep this article, including two votes to speedily keep. The article describes an important Supreme Court case from 1984; however, it is entirely

unreferenced. From a brief search of law websites, the documentation available on this case is of such volume and notability that I cannot see how it might be termed "non-notable." However, it does appear that the article has been mistakenly titled. The case in question appears to be UNITED STATES v. LEON, 468 U.S. 897 (1984), argued January 17, 1984, decided July 5, 1984, with Justice J White delivering the Opinion of the Court. This is not the same as LEON v. UNITED STATES, 384 U.S. 882, a 1966 petition for a writ of certiorari. Therefore, I will move this article to United States v. Leon
, and source the article to references.

Finally, if I may be so bold as to suggest it, this underscores yet once more the importance of paying attention to

WP:V. The verifiability policy is a central pillar of Wikipedia article policy, and I hope we pay more attention to it than we currently do. This AFD is closed. encephalon 11:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Leon v. United States

NN. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 04:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP. This is a notable 1984 case dealing with our 4th Amendment rights, in particular concerning Search & Seizure. See Cornell Law School summary.   (I do note that this page reads as if it were taken from a reference work.)   ERcheck 04:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per ERcheck abakharev 04:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per ERcheck. A quick Google test of a few phrases doesn't indicate that this is a copyvio, but it could use some cleaning up. I've done very minor cleanup. --W.marsh 04:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't think Wikipedia should be a legal library but the really important cases will likely be searched for and read. Ifnord 05:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as important US case. Capitalistroadster 05:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep please! Ashibaka (tock) 05:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, annoying abbreviated nomination.
    Kappa 07:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep for obvious reasons Descendall 07:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, absolutely no reason given for this supreme court case being "NN". Plenty of reasons given for it being "N" though. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seriously. Reyk 10:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. SCOTUS cases are national news in the US when they're in progress, often have prominent places in even general history books when complete, and are heavily analyzed and discussed in both law and general circles. I would support a merge of this article to an article on evidence procedure (or even an article about the "good faith" evidence principle) in the US, but right now this article is fine as it is. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 10:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I find it very odd that an administrator nominated this for deletion. This seems like it would be a very obvious keep to anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of wikipedia. Descendall 11:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can understand the nomination since as it is written, the article doesn't do a great job explaining the significance of the judgment. I could provide a much clearer expostulation of its significance. Dottore So 11:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep after rewrite.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 09:45, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lesson plan

Dicdef plus collection of external links.

Wikipedia is not the place for either. — Haeleth Talk 13:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep and Expand, a notable subject in the field of education, potentially a rich article.Bjones 13:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. (No consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lex and Terry

Two unemployed radio jockeys in Jacksonville. They don’t seem very notable. Let the panel decide. ♠DanMS 04:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep and cleanup; subject shows some notability according to Google. --Merovingian 05:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep these guys were on in many national markets, actually, not just Jacksonville. 25 major cities according to their website. 150k hits on Google... I think that's notability. Current article has Crystal ball issues, but that can be cleaned up. --W.marsh 05:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable, and of no international interest. --MacRusgail 13:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. I don't think you need international interest, but you certainly need more than these two has-beens garner. Ifnord 14:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. These guys are notable morning DJs on many American radio markets. Youngamerican 16:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable - many more markets than just Jacksonville. Turnstep 01:55, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep . -

Mailer Diablo 00:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

List of songs that have been considered among the worst ever

The major problem with this article is that it's original research. Rather than a reproduction of a published list of bad songs, this article is made up of some titles taken from such lists with no apparent methodology. Since there are no set standards for inclusion, the article could be expanded indefinitely. Some sources are cited, but many are not. This results in significant NPOV and verifiability issues. If someone has a suggestion as to how this article could be brought up to wikipedia standards, please share it. djrobgordon 02:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Take note of the following past VfDs for articles nearly identical to this one: -Silence 22:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "entirely subjective, some people's worst song is another's favourite." - Hm. You clearly don't understand Wikipedia lists, or at least this one. The article is not about songs that everyone thinks are the worst ever, it's about songs that a powerful majority have said are the worst ever in various polls. Since nothing in the entire world is agreed upon 100% by anyone, I'm surprised that you'd make such a bizarre demand as to only allow this article to exist if it was somehow fancifully possible to magically see what songs everyone hates (as though such a song could exist). It makes no more sense than expanding "no original research" to "no research", as some on this vote seem to be arguing for. As long as it's not Wikipedia's opinion that's being expressed, but rather various third parties, the article is completely NPOV, and just needs some polishing up and expansion to reach an acceptable level of quality. Hopefully you will regret your delete votes if this page ever reaches the level of quality of, say,
    List of films that have been considered the worst ever; if not, there's probably no chance of reasoning with you. -Silence 22:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • "By whom?" - By any noteworthy, major source.
  • "Why should we care?" - Not caring about an article's topic is not sufficient rationale for deletion. Plenty of people do care about this topic, because they're interested in major popular opinions and their reaction to various songs. I don't care about
    Albert I, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg
    , but you don't see me putting him up for VfD. And this article will benefit, inform, and interest substantially more people than Albert I, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg.
  • "People's opinions vary; one man's trash is another man's treasure and vice versa." - You don't seem to comprehend the significant other aspect of that saying: yes, there is no unanimity in what is or isn't "treasure", but there is certainly a strong majority! Most people who see an unearthed trunk full of gold coins, for example, would call it "treasure", even though some wouldn't; the fact that there is dissenters no more means that we can't discuss what people consider "treasure" than that we can't discuss what people consider "terrible songs", as long as we cite sources. You fail to draw the line between "every song is liked by someone" (which is as true as it is irrelevant) and "it's impossible to call any song widely disliked because there are always dissenters" (which is patent nonsense; unanimity is not a requirement for majority): the whole idea of these articles is to base it on majority and widespread opinions that have been documented by major polls, lists, reviewers, etc. It's not to find any song "unanimously hated"; since such a notion is inherently impossible, I'm surprised that you even considered that as a possible goal for this article, or for any other article. All articles on Wikipedia focus solely on the most noteworthy, relevant, and significant bits of information related to the topics they encompass. If not, we'd have a 10,000-page article called History of the Yosemite area instead of a 16-page one. The minor details are always assumed to be excluded from any page; this one is in absolutely no way different.
  • "There is no coherent connection between entries on this list." - Sure there is. "Songs that have been considered among the worst ever by noteworthy sources". You'll have a hard time getting more coherent than that.
  • "It makes no more sense than List of songs that have been widely enjoyed" - It makes more sense because there are hundreds of ways to try to determine people's favorite songs; album sales, polls, etc. And we already host numerous ones of those on Wikipedia. This is the only page which attempts to address in a general way the opposite: songs that are very widely (or very noteworthy for being) disliked, according to the numerous attempts that have been made to study this. It's an interesting article on a nice subject that has a lot of potential. That's good enough for me. -Silence 22:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Intrinsically POV –Shoaler (talk) 16:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I'm not exactly sure, but this may have been the article that brought me to Wikipedia in the first place. It helps make the internet not suck, which is my primary wikiprinciple, I suppose. Youngamerican 16:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - generally sourceable, and well sourced.
    T
    17:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, lovely little article. Remove unsourced or dubious entries. Punkmorten 20:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with TLC (criteria, etc.) The JPS 21:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Subjective list bollocks of the worst sort. Since it is now obvious that this will be kept, at least change the name to reflect what it is: a list of Pop Songs in English. Otherwise, most French songs would qualify, as well as every Eurovision song contest winner starting with Abba. --JJay 21:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • POV is not a valid reason, on its own, to delete any article. It's a reason to put an NPOV tag on the page so people can focus on improving it. In fact, there's a tag specifically created for this purpose:
    Civil rights, Fox hunting, Massage, Freedom of speech, Middle East, Cordless telephone? Why waste people's past and future efforts like that? -Silence 22:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Fair enough. I certainly wouldn't be so quick to judge that this article won't be deleted, though. It's only been one day and the delete votes are increasing rapidly. Out of 29 votes, there are currently 11 Delete (including 2 Strong Delete) and 18 Keep (including 4 Weak Keep and 1 Strong Keep), making the percentage for keeping the article currently only 62%. Could change easily. Anyway, I apologize for putting any words into your mouth which you didn't intend; I didn't mean to. And I'm glad you're willing to help improve the article even though you don't think it should exist—excellent attitude for Wikipedia in general. Though I still must disagree with you entirely—reproducing POVed lists on Wikipedia is completely in keeping with NPOV policy, which only states that we can't put our POV on Wikipedia; every noteworthy source's POV is absolutely fair game. That's how we can write any article at all: by representing all noteworthy POVs, not trying to pick and choose which ones are more or less "subjective" than others. If it's an external, significant POV, than we can mention it, no matter how distorted its views are. And if there are significant rebuttals, of course, we should include those too! -Silence 10:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: "Have been considered?" Excuse me? That's every song, ever. This is a ridiculously inherently POV, ridiculously unverifiable, ridiculously purposeless article. Geogre 21:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's what we have a shiny "move" button for. To move articles to a more appropriate title, but read the comment below. - Mgm|(talk) 22:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • All lists on Wikipedia are automatically assumed to only have the most noteworthy examples of possible things that could be listed on them. That's why we don't have "famous" or "noteworthy" or "widely" in every single list on Wikipedia: it's pointless. Just think about it.
    People speculated to have been autistic only deals with noteworthy speculation, "List of songs that have been considered among the worst ever", for obvious reasons, and quite clearly to anyone looking at the page, deals exclusively with major, widely-publicized polls and other noteworthy sources for various people's opinions on the subject. It's not meant to be an objective list of the worst songs in the world, which is why it's called "list of songs that have been considered among the worst ever", not "list of the worst songs ever". "Considered" assumes "considered by a noteworthy amount of people" and possibly "considered by especially noteworthy individuals" (like perhaps if Bob Dylan consistently labeled a certain song as the "worst ever"; though that might not be within the scope of this page). Arguing that an article should be deleted because a literal interpretation of its title would make it unmaintainable, even though it's actual topic, dealing, as it does, with only the most noteworthy and well-known "songs that have been considered among the worst ever", is quite maintainable indeed, is arguing for the deletion of tens of thousands of Wikipedia articles. -Silence 22:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Strong delete as original research and inherently POV. Plus it's listcruft. Plus all the songs I consider "the worst ever" seem to be No. 1 in the charts. This is an unsalvageable concept.
    [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 22:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. A well-written, thoroughly referenced article. I found no evidence of original research. When I browse Wikipedia for fun and education, this is exactly the kind of stuff I look for. Owen× ☎ 23:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as intrinsically POV. Nandesuka 23:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Because of the references to many lists of 'worst songs ever', even though Im not happy that We Built this City is up there. Astrokey44 23:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I like the comment about how "this helps the internet not suck." Well put. Jtmichcock 01:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Most entries are properly cited; those that are not can be removed. Denni ☯ 03:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Utterly Neutral. I hope this article doesn't give anyone the wrong impression about Wikipedia, because it seems at first to be inherently POV. And it will need to be constantly monitored for vandalism. Of course, every item on the list will need to be referenced. Yet despite all its setbacks, I think it has the potential to grow into an informative, helpful article. --TantalumTelluride 05:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I love looking at lists like this -- but not on Wikipedia. The person who wrote this article should put it on the web. They probably put it here either 1) to get more eyes -- which it is not Wikipedia's job to provide -- and/or 2) lazy. It IS a good article, but that's not the point -- is the article concept good for Wikipedia? Also articles like this will be maintenance problems. On the other hand, since Wikipedia kept the Worst Films list, its hard to justify deleting this one.Herostratus
  • Comment - Would anyone object to my linking to this VfD on the Talk page of
    Films that have been considered the greatest ever, Computer and video games that have been considered the greatest ever, etc. I'll link to this vote there, too, if no one has any problems with letting all the editors most informed and experienced in this topic and very specific type of article have their say. -Silence 10:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I think this article already does a pretty good job of policing its entries and making sure they all have sources. I agree that a separate list of "removed songs" could be interesting, to avoid having people re-add songs that have already been rejected and to keep tabs on them. Not vital, though, and could be more of a hassle than simple removing anything that isn't properly sourced and explained. I did link to some of the above pages to help people get suggestions for various ways to improve this article, though; some images would help spice it up, and it might not be a bad idea to broaden the perspective to include other determiners for being considered "worst song" (like if an especially noteworthy critic, musician, celebrity, organization, etc. called it the "worst song", not just various polls and such). -Silence 11:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't the deletion review page for articles that were deleted in a previous AfD? (Since the section was previously called "Votes for Undeletion" and was recently changed.) Or have they expanded it? -Silence 20:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom, A Man In Black, flowersofnight, and others. This is inherently POV and unmaintainable. Side question: Does Trollderella ever vote Delete? Ever? Did I miss it? KillerChihuahua 16:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A. Occasionally - you have to keep your eye on the ball if you want to see it! ;) Trollderella 16:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Smerdis of Tlön 20:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In this case it's just way too subjective. Although there have been magazine polls of worst song. A list of what "won" in those would be acceptable.--T. Anthony 17:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is such a list. Look through the actual page: it's all magazine polls and so on, all cited sources that have claimed "X is the worst movie ever". If you disagree with the name rather than the subject matter, vote for renaming rather than for deletion. -Silence 18:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree with Silence. As long as it adhere to the NPOV, it seems encyclopedic. --Andylkl 18:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For reasons given above. For persons who argue that list is POV and unmaintainable have not checked the
    list of worst movies, which is excellent. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 23:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep, looks like a very nice list and well-maintained. Tuf-Kat 21:18, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, well sourced and not just being pulled out of nowhere, every song was deemed the "worst" by professional reviewer(s) and publications

--Fallout boy 04:54, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment. Unfortunately not very true. The article claims to be a list of songs that have:
achieved a notable level of infamy, through critical and popular consensus... based on specific mentions by music critics, producers, promoters, or other industry-related individuals or groups who have presented their informed opinions.
Sources viewed as noteworthy and major (to quote Silence) include www.Bestandworse.com [[44]], a site with an alexa of 106,000 that features voting on topics like How would Jesus Drive? or Least likely place to find a Nun?; unsourced citations from local DJs; non-industry humorists Dave Barry and Mad Magazine; humor site www.popculturemadness.com (Alexa 96,000), which doesn't explain how it came up with its list except to say that it was voted on by visitors [[45]]; so-called BBC online polls, that had a very low sampling and were apparently not conducted either by or for the BBC. More reputable sources include VH1 (but no link is provided and I haven't found the polls online), maybe WFMU (a small local radio station) and Blender magazine, for which wiki already has an article that could be expanded-Blender Magazine's 50 Worst Songs Ever!. Now maybe I've left off a few valid sources, but I fail to see the notable level of infamy or the critical and popular consensus. I do see a list drawn from a seemingly random selection of ad hoc sources, largely geared to humor, without any real criteria in terms of polling validity, industry knowledge, or informed opinions. --JJay 06:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a subject on which people will inevitably have POVs; this is not the same, as some erroneously assume, as being inherently POV. To point out that something needs work does not demonstrate that it needs deletion. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:54, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • So how does that square this article with
    [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 00:29, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 00:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

List of songs with only one word in their title

  • Delete. Not useful, who would need such a list? - splot 02:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Alot of lists may be subtrivial, but subtrivial value is separate from degree of public interest, not to mention, not too many songs are only one word long. (unsigned comment from anon)
  • Delete. Listcruft run amok. This not only serves no useful purpose, but is so broad a definition the list could run into the thousands of titles. 23skidoo 02:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm surprised there are so few songs listed. I think I could easily grab a few hundred from my iTunes library, but I just don't see the point. Mrtea 03:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I suppose. Unless they're really notable one-word songs for some reason, there's too many to just add. Case in point: From my near-700 MP3 collection, I found 120 songs with only one word, which totalled up to nearly 8-and-a-half-hours. There's just too many, and there's not enough rules (what about nonsense words? Words with numbers? Names?). Sillstaw 03:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete what could the use of such a list possibly be? --W.marsh 03:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - one word, six letters. Edwardian 04:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Is this the same jolly contributor who brought us List of Songs with an Adverb in the Title and List of Songs with a Fraction or Non-Integer in the Title? ♠DanMS 05:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, have no problem with lists, but can't really see a use for this one. - Mgm|(talk) 09:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Arbitrary criteria, no unifying theme or subject, and a hopelessly broad scope mean that this list will never be a useful navigation aid. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 10:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Listcrust. I hate listcruft. Reyk 10:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete junk list. Dottore So 10:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per many of the comments above. Unmaintainable. Thousands of songs have only one title, and I don't think Imagine or One (U2 or Metallica - take your pick) are on it. --MacRusgail 13:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and I'm a big supporter of lists. Now we just have to wait for List of songs with more than one word in their title... Turnstep 14:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am probably one of the more inclusionist AfD voters in regard to lists, but this does not meet even my loose standard of whorthwhileness. Youngamerican 16:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, deplorable liscruft. Punkmorten 20:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not seem well thought out --TimPope 20:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Help!: I mean delete. (Distinction without difference.) Geogre 21:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete listcruft --Jaranda(watz sup) 22:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. May not be very useful but someone might be needing to use this list. This list needs to be expanded.
  • delete listcruft run amok Pete.Hurd 23:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 04:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Liverpool (NY) Public Library

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lobster man from mars

Looks like patent nonsense to me. Speedy deletion recommended.  Denelson83  08:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be a copyright violation (see: [46]) so I've listed it on copyright problems - Akamad 09:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:ISNOT a forum for reviews. As the page is ill-suited for WP anyway, irrespective of copyright status, a delete consensus will relieve the WP:CP backlog by one entry. Incidentally, this is not patent nonsense, which has a
    very specific meaning on WP. encephalon 15:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • delete pointless UkPaolo 14:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 04:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Love Puddi

Non-notable band. Fails google test. Haakon 13:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. TheMadBaron 14:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator. --MacRusgail 14:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after sniggering at the title (but only if we have Asian friends).
    [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 21:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was move to Lucky Cow. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky cow

Article for a comic strip that doesn't seem to exist. No Google hits. I've never heard of it, either. Wikipedians, do your duty. Bumm13 04:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 00:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Macarburettors

Not notable, doesn't meet

WP:MUSIC criteria - Akamad 06:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was redirect to

Mailer Diablo 04:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Male Wire Frame

The article is duplicated in the Super Smash Bros. Melee entry. --Frekja 10:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 00:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Malveaux

Biography of a moderator for a handful of online forums. Fails

WP:BIO as far as I can tell. Saberwyn 05:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was speedied --AllyUnion (talk) 12:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Shadduck

Alleged hoax. — Phil Welch 21:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 00:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Mike chambers

Non-notable vanity page, and promotional to boot. A quick jaunt through Google shows no mentions of Mike Chambers in the stated context aside from blog pages. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 11:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete this article. I am scouring the web to find more links and references about Mike Chambers. Give me a few days and you will see plenty more references and more information. Thanks!

  • Well, this discussion will continue for five days. Until some evidence is produced I'm voting delete. The Land 11:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add, I am NOT Mike Chambers. I am just another programmer who has benefitted greatly from some of his stuff. Particularly his QuickBasic sockets interface! I understand the "promotional" thing you mentioned though, and thus deleted the download.com link! Sorry. There are a lot of other coders on forums who thank him in huge numbers for his works!

If you can provide examples of his work and evidence its importance to a significant group of people (preferably numbering in the hundreds of thousands), then I'll happily change my vote. The Land 12:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link isn't the only problem. You're using overly praising language when Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view (
    WP:NPOV). Calling Chambers "the greatest Visual Basic programmers of the 1990's and into this decade" and saying "He has written numerous amounts of software, all of which is top-notch." are both examples of not being neutral. - Mgm|(talk) 12:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
User:209.163.126.240 has been vandalising the page... why does that make it a speedy candidate?
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 00:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Mirthful Mind

Band vanity / promo. No relevant hits on Google and the band hasn't released any records. –Mysid 10:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Vanity. --Frekja 10:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article says the band "are about to record their first EP." Non-notability is thus established. Delete. TheMadBaron 14:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, reads like a newspaper article. - Bobet 15:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note:Reverted vandalism (blanking) by 59.167.21.196 at this point. - Bobet 22:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverted blanking of the vote (again), this time done by 203.51.65.118. - Bobet 16:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete once as per nom, and then again once more for vandalizing AfD Pete.Hurd 20:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 00:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Moesman

Wikipedia is not a geneaology resource (did I spell that correctly?). Written by IP that also commited sneaky vandalism to Culture of New Zealand and possibly others. Delete. - Mgm|(talk) 11:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as definite hoax and possible attack page. - Mgm|(talk) 23:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moseman

Appears to be utter nonsense, could not find sources to back this up. Written by user who also commited sneaky vandalism to Culture of New Zealand. Very much like to speedy, but bringing it here, just to be sure it is as nonsensical as I believe it to be. - Mgm|(talk) 11:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Had I been in a bad mood I would have marked this as speedy for being patent nonsense. As it stands, delete. The Land 11:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons above. Lame name for a demon anyway. PJM 12:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator. Possible personal attack. --MacRusgail 14:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 05:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Most Impactual men of the millenia

Not encyclopedic list. feydey 21:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, though I'll have to remember the word impactual for future use. —HorsePunchKid→龜 21:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, though I'm glad to see that AfD can embiggen the vocabulary with all sorts of perfectly cromulent terminology! Anville 22:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect to UltraSPARC T1.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 09:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Niagara (chip)

This page is both incorrect and a duplicate. It is not a chip, it's a microprocessor. "chip" is slang for microprocessor. Additionally, this article is talking about the

Niagara Processor link, which is now a redirect to UltraSPARC T1. The only contributor is anonymous. In summany, this page is misleading and a duplicate, and does not serve to enhance wikipedia. — Fudoreaper 22:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Redirect to UltraSPARC T1. Dragonfiend 22:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Dragonfiend. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No need for a redirect. The chip is already on the Niagara disambiguation page. I doubt anyone is going to type “Niagara (chip)” into the search box. It is much more likely that a person would just type “Niagara” and thus be sent to the disambig page. ♠DanMS 01:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Dragonfiend. Redirects are cheap. I can see how someone might link to it from an article.
    e ] 17:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 00:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Nimo family

Wikipedia is not a geneaology resource (did I spell that correctly?). Written by IP that also commited sneaky vandalism to Culture of New Zealand and possibly others. Delete. - Mgm|(talk) 11:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete as per nominator. Not one of Germany's largest families - I think "Mueller" would have that honour.--MacRusgail 14:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.
    e ] 17:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 20:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 05:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Nodewar

Hoax, vanity, etc. Delete. — Phil Welch 21:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nullium

Non-existent element. It's been speedied before (sans infobox), but I don't think it quite qualifies. —

Cryptic (talk) 23:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep Neutronium, it's a widly (and generally consistently) used concept in sci-fi, also has some limited scientific credability although I'm too lazy to look up the references Astaroth5 08:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article doesn't assert any notability. - Bobet 02:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Transwiki.

Rx StrangeLove 06:54, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Numpty

Dictionary entry. (and is it really true?) --Aleph4 20:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. This doesn't belong here.--Alhutch 20:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Wiktionary. It's a real word. It may be slang, but it'sfairly widely used, primarily in Scotland but also throughout the rest of the UK. KeithD [[User_talk:KeithD|(talk)]] 20:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's common in the UK generally (especially the uk.rec.* Usenet hierarchy) but it's a dicdef for all that.
    [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 20:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Rewrite and move to Wiktionary Term is definatly real and in moderatly common usage. Astaroth5 22:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki per KeithD and Astaroth5. Certainly not a common term throughout the UK, given that I've never heard it anywhere in the country in my life, but the more modest claims the article makes appear to be true and appropriate for Wiktionary. — Haeleth Talk 23:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Always check Wiktionary first, before suggesting transwikification. Uncle G 07:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The wikipedia article contains a more complete definition, (well, apart from meaning (a)) so merge/transwiki is still relavent Astaroth5 08:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wrong. You yourself said immediately above that the article should be rewritten. There's no point in rewriting an article here and then transwikifying it. If the article needs to be written afresh, as you state, then anything that is to be written should be written in the dictionary directly. Uncle G 09:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Rewrite then move, copy and paste the content, new (similar) content to wikitionary, what does it matter so long as the relavent content moves to the proper place? Astaroth5 10:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • It matters in that it is sheer laziness and a knowing and deliberate imposition on the editors who transwikify articles. If the article needs rewriting, then the right thing to do is to write the content in the actual place that one wants the content to end up, not to write it somewhere else entirely and then ask other editors to perform the complex process of copying what one has written to the place that one desires it to be. Uncle G 11:59, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or move to Wiktionary. It is a common term of mild abuse in Scotland but is not encyclopedic. Keresaspa 13:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • move to wiktionary UkPaolo 14:25, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly a word. Used as slang, heard on Radio 2 Terry Wogan show and in chat rooms in UK in past 2 weeks (20 Nov 05)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 under G4 recreation of previously created content and A1 short page with little or no context. Capitalistroadster 16:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oberin

NN ad for RPG. "Is still in beta so I can not go into great detail". jnothman talk

  • delete per nom jnothman talk 16:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as devoid of content, merely a link to a web site. Ifnord 16:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Oberin

This is a computer game that is still in its beta test version and not available to the public. No Google hits for its developer, Creative Vision Interactive. Delete. — Brim 08:58, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not a part of an established franchise so this article is a tad premature, rewrite if it ever gets released --
    nixie
    12:45, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Four year old private beta. -- Longhair 13:56, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As a private beta, it is too early to be in Wikipedia. Zzyzx11 19:29, 20 Feb 200 (UTC)
  • CommentDrizzt2"- Four year old private beta. -- " Longhair
  • Wrong, its been private beta for 1 year and a half, nice try tho.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 04:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Omj

Dicdef. Also seems to be a neologism, couldn't find any uses in a quick google search. Thue | talk 22:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ove von Spaeth

Advertisement for one guy's fringe theory. See Talk:Ove von Spaeth for more info. Delete tin foil hattery ad. Lupo 13:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep after radical editing, and POV editing. --MacRusgail 14:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity. One minor journal article does not a notable person make. However, there may be a page - List of Crackpot Egyptologists or similar - that we can merge it to. The Land 15:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't believe you came up with a list that has not yet been created! -
    [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 21:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 04:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Overcoming procrastination

How-to self-help guide. Original research. An HTML comment in the article correctly says Wikipedia articles are descriptive rather than prescriptive however this article is irretreivably prescriptive. -- RHaworth 22:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's purdy. Could we make it a Wikibook ? Kim Bruning 23:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or transwiki. Wikipedia is
    WP:NOT an instruction manual. Indium 23:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I'll also add that there's also a similar section in the main procrastination article added by the same user. Whatever is done to this article should be done to it as well. Indium 23:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

it's importent subject. but it needs improvment. li — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.80.0.52 (talk • contribs) 23:41, November 15, 2005

The user's only edit. Indium 23:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(but since it's a comment, that's ok :-) Kim Bruning 01:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC) )[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:03, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Loughton

NN-bio. Only 8 Google hits for "Glasgow's number 1 quizmaster" and only 4 of them are him.

e ] 23:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 04:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Pcidata

A program written by (apparently) an undergraduate at the University of Wisconsin Madison. No evidence of notability. dbenbenn | talk 19:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's used by people, I know that much, but is it commonly used? Gee whiz, I don't know about this one...weak delete for now since it doesn't seem to be in very common usage but I'm open to change. Lord Bob 20:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. As is, I don't even think it's even good enough to be a dictionary definition. Ifnord 20:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some Google hits point at the developers site, Wikipedia and its mirrors., and some are obscure, but most seem to point at bug reports. My impression is of flawed software in early stages of development. Anyway, the article sucks, so delete per Ifnord. TheMadBaron 21:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted under categories G1,G2, G3, G4 and A1.Capitalistroadster 16:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pew pew

nonsense nonattempt at an onomatopoeia dicdef

Davidrowe 13:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedily delete per G3 and G4 – vandalism, previously deleted as nonsense. –Mysid 13:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily delete, I added a template. --Aleph4 13:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily delete, total nonsense. Descendall 14:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 04:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Pierre Shepherd

If I understand this article correctly then he is not notable. Thue | talk 23:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was I wouldn't normally close an AfD in which I had participated, but since I didn't actually state an opinion about this article and it is a slam-dunk... Keep -

brenneman(t)(c) 06:43, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Pierrot Lunaire (band)

You know the drill; fails

WP:MUSIC but sadly can't be speedied under CSD A7. Deltabeignet 23:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 00:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Pinkzilla

Not notable, fails

WP:MUSIC criteria. - Akamad 06:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive Bloggers

Old VfD is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Progressive Bloggers2

Not notable Skrewler 01:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Alexa ranking is 760,324. --
    Joel7687 02:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep - There was an acrimonious debate over this entry just a few months ago, I see no good reason to revisit the subject. - SimonP 02:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vote pending further review (see below) Despite claims that they're important in the political scene (on the talk page) in Canada, I find no actual media coverage to that effect. If they're as important as the New York Times (again a claim from the talk page) you'd think there'd be at least ONE reference to them on Google News... but alas, nothing. Doesn't really seem to be many comments at all to blog entries, suggesting not a large community. Low Alexa rank. Nothing to suggest there's a reason to have an article. --W.marsh 03:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If someone can verify the claim of their importance, then I'd quite possibly change my vote. But claims alone != proof. --W.marsh 03:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh god, not this again. What a pain in the ass this debate was last time. All sorts of newbies and anons and arguments and name calling. Someone even claimed that deleting the article would harm polticial debate in Canada. Anyway, nominal delete, because that's how I voted last time, and I don't think anyone ever convinced me otherwise. -R. fiend 04:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Please keep in mind non-American systemic bias identified in Wikipedia. Using Alexa ranks to support deletion of non-American entries is a biased situation, because of the low national populations of other countries compared to the US (Canada has 1/10th the population).--Simon.Pole 05:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then divide the rank by 10 (or even 50) and it doesn't meet the proposed guidelines of
      WP:WEB. By your logic any non-US site, no matter how trivial, should be included. --W.marsh 05:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Strong Delete. -- As notable as my mother. (she's not unless you have a list of porn stars with huge tits) 65.34.232.136 05:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Do we really need to list every blogging group on wikipedia? And if you start saying that there's a lot of American blogger groups entries in wikipedia, please point them out so I can VFD them as well. --Timecop 05:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable blogging group in Canada. Simon.Pole made it quite evident in the last AfD discussion that this site is politically notable in Canada with a fairly large number of media citations, notable memebers, etc. Luigizanasi 06:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you provide a link to any of those media citations? I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm just trying to be informed. I can't find the references, I've looked. --W.marsh 06:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alot of the references were in the last vfd, and are actually collected in the Progressive Bloggers entry. I'll list some of them here though:
        • Role of Canadian blogging groups, including Progressive Bloggers on the Gurmant Grewal national political controversy discussed on [CTV]
        • Progressive Blogger member Dominion Daily weblog entered in the Parliamentary record during a constitutional debate by Seantor Anne Cools.
        • Columnist Antonia Zerbisias at Canada's highest circulation paper the Toronto Star regularly cites Progressive Bloggers as a source of news and ideas eg. 1, 2
        • Progressive Bloggers includes notable Canadians as members. These include pop star Matthew Good, Young Liberal Executive Co-Chair Jason Cherniak, and candiates for Parliament from the national parties including NDP member Crystal Leblanc.
        • The Progressive Bloggers "opposite number" the Blogging Tories, has almost the same qualities, including national public figures members like Adam Dafallah, national party candidates like Stephen Taylor and a good number of sitting MPs like Monte Solberg,Jeremy Harrison,Steven Fletcher, Jeff Watson and Andrew Scheer. Blogging groups, both left and right-wing, have national political signicance in Canada, something, judging by the reactions of non-Canadians, does not exist elsewhere --Simon.Pole 07:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thank you for that information, I've retracted my vote for now and will review those further when I get time tomorrow. --W.marsh 07:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a no-brainer in the Canadian media; this site is used as part of any good barometer of Canadian public opinion. Deleting this article would be a mistake, and I think significantly demonstrates an offhand US systemic bias on Wikipedia. It *is* tantamount to saying that Canadian political debate (which naturally contains a lot of debate about US policy, for reasons any Canadian would see as obvious) is irrelevant. As a Canadian, I'm inclined to object to that. References to PB or 'Canadian Blogosphere' as 'non-notable' here seem to be offhand and poorly informed. I don't hesitate to say that an American isn't going to be naturally inclined to make an informed choice about this. There are, after all, only 30 million Canadians. . . for US perspective, that's NYC and surrounding areas, and we're a pretty politically splintered group. That said, the Alexa rankings make perfect sense, and actually don't justify deletion based on overall popularity. Overall popularity among whom? Americans interested in Canadian political scandals? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.129.117 (talk • contribs)
  • Weak keep for the above reasons. --Merovingian 07:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anybody who seriously wants to base a deletion argument on Alexa ranking alone needs to ponder these numbers very carefully. Every one of these is a legitimately notable and important Canadian media outlet or blogger whose actual importance within Canada is completely unreflected by its Alexa rank:
Rabble - Alexa ranking 112,658
The Tyee - Alexa ranking 114,045
Colby Cosh's blog - Alexa ranking 263,925
Andrew Coyne's blog - Alexa ranking 360,265
This Magazine - Alexa ranking 818,198
  • And hey, let's save the funniest for last, shall we? Rick Mercer's blog gets an Alexa ranking of 3,439,915. RICK MERCER, one of the most influential Canadian media personalities in existence, only ranks in the 3,000,000 range? Excuse me?
    Any metric which ranks all websites on a single scale is inherently going to favour American website traffic to the expense of other countries, and can quite easily misrepresent the actual importance of a non-American site to its own national context. Alexa is simply not a reliable gauge of a Canadian website's importance within Canada -- it's a reliable gauge of how many Americans visit a Canadian website. If a site as undeniably important as Rabble can't even meet the stated guidelines, then there's something seriously wrong with the guidelines. Every Canadian voter in this debate has clearly stated that Progressive Bloggers are notable enough. If our actual experience doesn't overrule the obviously flawed metric of a website whose statistical method isn't even regarded as valid by professional statisticians, then why don't we just let Alexa ranking stand as a speedy criterion and save everybody the trouble of thinking their opinion actually mattered or something? Notable enough within Canada to keep. Bearcat 07:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just because something is supposedly notable in Canada and not in the rest of the world doesn't mean it deserves it's own article. Should a country of similar importance, say.. Christmas Csland had a blog group be notable because everyone on christmas island reads it.. of course not. Also, because blogs are webcentric, Alexa is a good metric for their notability. Of course using Alexa as a metric for Time Magazine doesn't make any sense. Skrewler 09:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - This is ludicrous. User: Skrewler, who put this article in Vfd in the first place, has just admitted that the criteria for notability is the United State of America. What a joke. Are non-American to be treated as second class citizens on Wikipedia?--Simon.Pole 16:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Christmas Island is hardly a country "of similar importance" to Canada. And Alexa is only a good metric of how many Americans read a website. Citing Alexa without context is essentially endorsing an "American stuff is automatically more notable than any other country's stuff just because it's American" policy. Bearcat 17:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable/trash Adamn 08:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the first two sources cited by W.Marsh. Include them in the article if they're not there yet. (If Alexa doesn't show the notability of a website, one should not complain about US bias, but find alternative means to back up its inclusion) - Mgm|(talk) 09:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as blogcruft and canuckcruft. Dottore So 10:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Whatever else we have is always an argument by analogy. Looking at this article, we get unverifiable claims and, essentially, an ad for a particular blog. Blug. If there is a systemic bias, it's the bias created by slashdotted votes whenever a forum/blog/website comes up for deletion. Geogre 11:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn.  Grue  13:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I'm sick of these far-right yahoos trying to crush the opposition with dirty-pool tactics like this.Dawg9:10, 15 November 2005 [DST]
    • This is not a war. I could care less if you're left or right, frankly I don't even know the difference. This is a not notable article promoting a blog. That's why it's on VFD.
      • Right. Which is why you've moved to delete Blogging Tories too. I must have missed that.
  • Delete, not notable. Fer real. I don't care what country you're in, if nobody reads your website even adjusted for population, your website's not notable. Although, I dunno, maybe I'm just ruthlessly promoting systemic bias against the country I'm from. Lord Bob 17:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • And how exactly do you propose to judge that "nobody reads the website even adjusted for population"? Bearcat 17:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are no certain measurements at hand, of course, but the evidence listed above by others is circumstantial but, in the situation, persuasive. I choose not to assume that, lacking evidence, this blogger group is notable because they say so. Lord Bob 17:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Lacking evidence? The evidence already presented in the article is fairly substantial; if you can't see it, Simon.Pole summarized some of it above. Do you seriously find anybody else's argument-by-Alexa-rank persuasive in light of the fact that a blog as widely read and talked about as Rick Mercer's doesn't even manage to rank in the top 3,000,000 according to Alexa? Or were you just asleep during the whole Gurmant Grewal thing? Bearcat 18:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've read the article, and the "evidence" does not impress me. And as for Mr. Mercer's blog doing so poorly...guess what? As a blogger, Rick Mercer is not notable. As an actor, he is. Just because a famous person's blog isn't notable doesn't mean that all traffic rankings are crap. Lord Bob 18:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • "Not impressing you" is not generally my bottom-line metric of notability. Its role in the Grewal affair spells notability whether that personally interests you or not. Citations by Antonia Zerbisias spell notability whether that personally interests you or not. And I'm most certainly not conflating Mercer's significance as an actor with his significance as a blogger; his blog, specifically, is one of the most-talked-about Canadian blogs on the web. Unless you're proposing that it's somehow possible for people to talk about Rick Mercer's blog as much as they do without anybody ever actually reading it, the dichotomy just doesn't do Alexa any favours. Bearcat 18:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well, if my reasons for deletion don't impress you, then that's too bad, one fewer 'delete' vote on this AfD. But I stand by them, and we'll just have to agree to disagree, I suppose. Clearly, neither one of us is going to convince the other. Lord Bob 18:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • I'd be more impressed if you were actually attempting to address and/or refute the stated facts — how does PB's role in the Grewal affair not equal notability? how do regular citations by Antonia Zerbisias not equal notability? how does citation in the Parliamentary debate record by Anne Cools not equal notability? etc. — instead of relying on the "because I said so" school of assertion. But whatever floats your boat, I suppose. Bearcat 18:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • (So much for me agreeing to disagree!) Anyway, regarding citations: in my opinion notable people citing you does not automatically confer notability onto you. Said citations are not mentioned on the Wikipedia article on Progressive Bloggers, incidentally. And their role in the Grewal thing seems, to me, almost trivial. As in, the only mention of Grewal in their article is in the 'trivia' section. Actually investigating what role they seem to have played bears this out...ooh, look out, one of them made what amounted to a diff. Notability is a subjective issue, we all know that. And I do not think these guys meet it. Lord Bob 19:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Both Blogging Torries and Progressive Bloggers enable Canadian web users to access blogging communities of like minded individual. These communities enable anyone to engage in a common forum across Canada where ideas and politics can be shared and critiqued. Without these blogs, Canadians from the grassroots to the top would not have a central online source to measure what other like minded individuals think on topics important to them. This in my opinion makes them notable. --Jtorgers 19:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    user's second edit, has only editted this AfD. Lord Bob 19:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have a feeling this might not be the only new user we're tagging today, since they're calling out the vote on us. Lord Bob 19:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah this really is getting needlessly nasty. While I think the site is probably notable at this point, the attitudes and actions of the people supporting it (who all appear to be connected to the site) really don't make me want to vote to keep. Trolling for votes, acting like it's some big conspiracy against Canada, labeling critics as "The Vile Syndicate" in various places... that's not going to endear many people to your blog. I guess some don't care though. --W.marsh 19:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Yeah, I really don't care what you Americans think. Trying to impress upon you what is notable in the other countries of the world is up there with taking out the garbage in my book. You can bomb the shit out of other countries, and destroy what they've made -- but that doesn't mean you have to bring that attitude on Wikipedia.--Simon.Pole 20:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Case in point right there... geeeeeeeeeeze. I'm trying to agree with you and still just get abuse. --W.marsh 20:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The nastiness is being perpetrated by this "Lord Bob" guy, a self-admitted supporter of the Canadian Conservative Party, who has crawled out of the woodwork in the midst of election fever in Canada, and is doing his party-hack thing right here. Nothing from "Lord Bob" about the notability of the Blogging Tories entry. This kind of thing is another reason to fear the election of Stephen Harper: rabid intolerance, intellectual dishonesty and a love of censorship. Don't take my word for it: read "Lord Bob."John Baglow 15:11, 15 November 2005 (DST)
        • ...riiiiiiiight. Lord Bob 20:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • John and Simon, would you both please tone down the rhetoric and keep this discussion on topic? This isn't about bombing or war, and it's not a nefarious Tory plot to sideline progressive discussion. It's just a debate about whether or not the article is notable enough on its own merits; the argument is easily made without resorting to ad hominem attacks. And while it is true that a single contextless Alexa-rank cutoff can distort the notability of a non-American site, it's not a conscious and intentional plot to institute American bias; it's just an accidental side effect of a policy that wasn't designed carefully enough. So would you guys cut out the conspiracy theories and stay on topic, please? Bearcat 21:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well said! Lord Bob 22:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thank you for saying that, seriously. --W.marsh 22:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thanks. I needed that. What is Blogging Tories' Alexa rating, btw? John Baglow 17:44, 15 November 2005 (DST)
              • Sorry. W.marsh called me out. He was actually citing my user page in this vfd, which I took as a personal attack. So I replied in spirit. I'll keep it professional in the future.--Simon.Pole 23:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • I'm sorry you took my quoting you that way... that wasn't my intent. I was just responding to how I perceived this discussion/situation. --W.marsh 02:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. Non-notable except to the people who write in it. And the puppets? Eeeww. Ifnord 21:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this goes, Daily Kos -- which is directly comparable to this in both purpose and level of influence within its specific political context -- will have to be considered deletable per precedent. Bearcat 21:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree, bearcat, maybe you should VfD Daily Kos yourself, you have my vote! Skrewler 00:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're the one who thinks these things aren't notable, not me. Sarcasm duly noted, though; can you actually explain to me why Daily Kos is notable enough for an article but a site serving the exact same function in another country isn't? Bearcat 02:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -- Femmina
  • Keep - Notable group of Canadian bloggers. Bloggers are becoming increasingly influential and Wikipedia should maintain a comprehensive coverage of significant bloggers and groups. Capitalistroadster 23:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. 86.139.205.160 23:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    User:86.139.205.160's first edit. Two other edits on another political blog AFD. Luigizanasi 03:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is clearly NOT notable. --Impi.za 00:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    user's eleventh edit, has only edited AfDs. Lord Bob 00:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it real
    vote by 207.200.116.66 (talk · contribs). Lord Bob 00:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as blogcruft, and I say this as neither an American or a Canadian. I'm leaning towards individual country "blogosphere" (shudder) articles as weak keeps, but any subset NO unless there's a damn good reason. (CC of my Blogging Tories vote cos I don't want to sound biased) - Randwicked 01:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't believe much of the opinion that goes on there, but I don't see that as a reason to delete it.Semperf 02:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. One of Wikipedia's recognised strengths is that it is up-to-date, especially on recent phenomena. We have articles on every single imaginable video game, most music albums you care to mention, practically every single piece of software out there, a number of
    newsgroups, Wikipedia did better than the regular news media on recent events such as the London bombings and Hurricane Katrina, and so on. Where else but Wikipedia can people find hopefully neutral information on the recent and increasingly important phenomenon of blogging, especially political blogs, which are not neutral by their very nature. NPOV articles on Blogging groups (not necessarily individual blogs, mind you), perform a vital service to the world at large. Luigizanasi 04:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete Nope, sorry, "blogs" are not worth a shit in the real world. JacksonBrown 05:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The deletion of this entry appears to be part of an organized effort among several users to erase all blog-related entries from Wikipedia. The organizing list is
    J.D. Lasica's entry up for deletion. If that alone doesn't show a profound ignorance about what is actually happening in the world, well, they must be in high demand for jury duty.--Simon.Pole 08:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Please note that User:Timecop has proclaimed a "War on Blogs" on his user page. His user page also says that he is a leader of the Gay Nigger Association of America. The GNAA is a notorious group of organzied trolls on the internet, who actually forced Slashdot to go their original karma system because of unrelenting spam. Looks like they're targetting Wikipedia now. Great. --Simon.Pole 09:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This definately a GNAA exercise. User:JacksonBrown who voted delete above had a huge GNAA slogan on his user page that was removed by administators (you can see it here). I don't know what else to say. The GNAA is organizing a mass deletion of blog-related entries. All blog-relate vfd's should be stopped immediately.--Simon.Pole 09:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Whats with the systemic bias of the GNAA? Skrewler 09:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know, I thought it was a bit odd how many sockpuppets were kicking around with nothing but AFD votes on blog articles to their names. I really should've been digging harder. All votes which are identifiably GNAA sockpuppets are to be considered struck from this debate at once. Bearcat 10:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As this is a discussion all "votes" which do not provide a rational are to be considered... oh, wait a second, isn't that the job of the closing admin to decide? Gee, maybe I'd better keep the commands to myself then.
      brenneman(t)(c) 23:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Delete. More stupid blogging crap. Enough already. --86.2.56.178 12:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Every political blogger out there wants it's 5 minutes of fame, and wikipedia really isn't a grounds for that. Google's cache is all you really need, not worth writing about, or reading for that matter. --Depakote 12:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Simply not notable. Incognito 13:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • sockpuppet Dawg (yep) Bearcat 19:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Excuse me? im a sock puppet simply because I agree with the deletion of this article? Can we atleast see some proof of your inane childish accusation? Thank you. -Incognito 13:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Same with this one, what criteria are you using? Skrewler 09:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Anybody calls me a
    FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 14:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete Blogcruft. Reyk 01:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still waiting for somebody to explain to me how this would be inherently less notable than Daily Kos in the absence of a "Canadian automatically equals unimportant" criterion. Bearcat 01:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Canadian blogosphere, since I went through all of the links provided above, and I could not find any evidence that this site had any overwhelming influence in Canadian politics. That said, I believe the content does deserve a mention in the overall blogosphere site, since as a whole, it does possess more influence than in other countries. Titoxd(?!?) 04:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Organized deletion vandalism merits banning. --FOo 05:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's notable for anyone who's interested in Canadian blogging, same as Blogging Tories. -- The Invisible Hand 08:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    user's eighth edit. Lord Bob 08:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 05:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Racho Hiley

Nonsense. Borderline to speedy. Delete Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 17:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 00:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Raging Ranter

Not notable, advertisement/vanity Skrewler 09:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Advertising each insignificant blog on here makes no sense. If you insist, create a List of blogs and put a url + one-liner for each one. But then, why make Wikipedia a blog index? --Timecop 13:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Femmina 22:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Impi.za 00:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 65.34.232.136 02:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable, vanity page. --86.2.56.178 12:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agreed with above. --Depakote 12:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reyk 01:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails to assert notability. "Conservative blog that some other conservative bloggers think is pretty cool"? Sorry. - Randwicked 07:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity. Incognito 13:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 05:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Regulator 7

I can't find much information about this band. It appears to fail the music guidelines.

NSR (talk) 14:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 23:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Relenter

NN band. Fails

e ] 00:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 00:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Repairmanual.com

Advertising for a website/service. ERcheck 04:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 05:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Revelation 4:11

I believe there is (but am too lazy to find) precedent for deleting specific biblical verses. Nothing "Links Here." Boxclocke "!" 22:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Malachi 2:3. Indium 00:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is certainly not a precident for deleting Bible verses mearly for being Bible verses. (Attempts to establish one spectacularly failed.) Good, referenced, NPOV Bible verse articles have always survived AfD. However this is mearly the text with a POV commentary - so it should be deleted unless somone has the time to write something worthwile. --
    ask? 00:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete There is a Revelations topic that deals with the whole thing. Jtmichcock 00:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy. mikka (t) 02:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rew

Nonsense, but not exactly in the Wikipedia sense (npi). And it even tries to assert the signifigance of the great h4x0r in question. –Mysid (talk) 08:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The chronicles the life of the infamous AOL Instant Messenger hacker "Rews." It's informative, and I think it should stay. --12.111.153.194 08:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 04:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Rock Hard Anims (RHA)

Non notable. Vanity. Advertising. User keeps deleting various advisory tags placed on it. ➨

REDVERS❞ 20:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. I'd normally re-run this, but the final edit (though by an anon) seems to confirm the hoax. -Splashtalk 03:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sandile Basuthwe

This page is a hoax. Such a person has never existed.

The idea of this person being non-notable is a paradox, since the article proclaims his supposed "notoriety". However, a quick way to assess this article's falseness is by the mention of a "South Park Hospital". This is clearly a joke, and such a hospital does not nor ever did exist in Johannesburg, South Africa.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 05:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Sashikanth Chandrasekharan

Looks like a corporate website bio, nn-bio? Weak Delete or Cleanup, but figured I'd see what others feel.-- Syrthiss 20:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splashtalk 03:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific Community Metaphor

This is an acticle about a non-notable paper1 written by it's author. I could live with that (being an inclusionist) if it wasn't for the fact that he links from a lot of

R.Koot 14:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

1 The author has removed the fact that this is a paper from the article after it was listed on AfD. --
R.Koot 20:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
The particular reference in question mentioned above is a journal article on the Scientific Community Metaphor that is cited in the following publications (among others):
  • Tad Hogg and Bernardo A. Huberman "Better Than The Best: The Power of Cooperation" Lectures in Complex Systems. CSSS: 1989 Lectures in Complex Systems. The Proceedings of the 1989 Complex Systems Summer School.
  • L. E. Hall and N. M. Avouris. "Methodological Issues of DAI Applications Interface Design: Transparency Analysis" (1992)
  • L. Moreau and C. Queinnec. "Distributed and Multi-Type Resource Management" (2002)
  • David Fitoussi and Moshe Tennenholtz "Choosing Social Laws for Multi-Agent Systems: Minimality and Simplicity" (2000)
  • Dejan S. Milojicic and Gul Agha and Philippe Bernadat and Deepika Chauhan and Shai Guday and Nadeem Jamali and Dan Lambright and Franco Travostino "Case Studies in Security and Resource Management for Mobile Object Systems" AAMAS 2002
  • Gul Agha, Ian A. Mason, Scott F. Smith and Carolyn L. Talcott "A Foundation for Actor Computation", Journal of Functional Programming Vol 7. No 1. 1997.
  • S. Labidi and W. Lejouad "De l'intelligence artificielle distribu'ee aux syst`emes multi-agents" Rapport de recherche INRIA SOPHIA-ANTIPOLIS 1993.
  • Luc Moreau and Christian Queinnec "Distributed Computations Driven by Resource Consumption" International Conference on Computer Languages. 1998
  • P. Moscato and F. Tinetti "Blending Heuristics with a Population-Based Approach" R.Rep.: Universidad Nacional de La Plata, 1994.
  • S. Laufmann "Toward Agent-Based Software Engineering for Information-Dependent Enterprise Applications" Journal of Software Engineering 1996
  • Michel Coriat "Formal Specification Using Agents Conceptualization" Labo MASI, Universite PARIS VI
  • R. M. Turner "The Tragedy of the Commons and Distributed AI Systems" Proceedings of the 12th International Workshop on Distributed Artificial Intelligence. Hidden Valley, Pennsylvania. 1993.
  • Gerhard Weiss "Some studies in distributed machine learning and organizational design" Technical Report FKI-189-94, Institut f¨ur Informatik, TU München 1994.
  • J. Euzenat "Building consensual knowledge bases: context and architecture" Towards very large knowledge bases. Knowledge Building and Knowledge Sharing 1995, pages 143--155. IOS Press, Amsterdam. 1995.
  • Keith Decker "Environment Centered Analysis and Design of Coordination Mechanisms" UM-CS-1995-069. 1995.
  • Shaw Green, Leon Hurst, Brenda Nangle, Pádraig Cunningham, Fergal Somers and Richard Evans "Software Agents: A Review" TCS-CS-1997-06 Dublin. 1997
  • Nadeem Jamali and Gul Agha and Indratmo and Xinghui Zhao "Decentralized Resource Control for Multi-Agent Systems" AAMAS 2004.
  • L. Gasser and J. P. Briot "Object-based Concurrent Programming and Distributed Artificial Intelligence" Distributed Artificial Intelligence: Theory and Praxis Kluwer Academic publishers. 1992.
--Carl Hewitt 21:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A google search turns up references to the paper, and plenty of encyclopedia links, showing Carl Hewitt's linking handiwork, but little to substantiate its presence beyond the confines of this paper and the power of WP. This looks like self-promotion by other means. Delete pending demonstration of wider significance. To the point about the user's inappropriate behaviour, that is clearly no reason to strike down an article if it is otherwise noteworthy. If he persists with such violations, there are measures that should be taken and other editors can go in and excise the cruft. Dottore So 17:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The article lists 4 publications directly on the subject matter.--Carl Hewitt 17:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So all the other references are not on the SCM (as I suspected)? --
R.Koot 20:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
As in many encyclopedia articles, references are cited for material that is relevant to the article.--Carl Hewitt 20:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record the article to which you are referring was published in IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics SMC-11. 1981.--Carl Hewitt 21:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Original research it is, then. Thanks for clearing that up. -
[T]/[C] (W) AfD? 21:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
Are you familiar with Wikipedia:No original research?--Carl Hewitt 22:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Are you familiar with the old saw "when you're in a hole, stop digging"? I'd say all you are doing right now is pissing people off. -
[T]/[C] (W) AfD? 22:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
On the Wikipedia, nobody can tell if you are a <pause> jokester;-)--Carl Hewitt 05:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Anville 22:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bringing it up for deletion before a paper trail of arguments for and against content has been made seems overly agressive. Does not appear to be original because at least four articles have been published on it, and many more, and very notable people, reference it, making it seminal. It can't be just vanity because the prime author of the the concept is Kornfeld, not Hewitt. You can't delete articles just because the primary contributer is pissing people off. I think Hewitt can be persuaded to be more cooperative. Take your differences out on the Talk page first where it's more appropriate.
Montalvo 02:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Non-notability and (therefore) being extremely close to original research are reasons enough.
The area discussed by the Wikipedia article is notable as evidenced by the 18 citations listed at the beginning of this page.--Carl Hewitt 15:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. From the references section in the acticle, I can only find one article which is directly about the SCM. That another paper cites this one doesn't mean they are about it or even related to it, just that the authors felt inspired by parts of it. Also Carl Hewitt is trying to make this paper seem like a methodoly of constructing distributed systems. He claims that it is notable now but refuses to give a satisfactable proof. Adn that it is becoming increasingly important, on which I can only reply that Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball.
The Wikipedia article cites the following publications on the subject matter:
  • William Kornfeld and Carl Hewitt. "The Scientific Community Metaphor" IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, SMC-11. 1981
  • Bill Kornfeld. "The Use of Parallelism to Implement a Heuristic Search" IJCAI 1981.
  • Bill Kornfeld. Parallelism in Problem Solving MIT EECS Doctoral Dissertation. August 1981.
  • Bill Kornfeld. "Combinatorially Implosive Algorithms" CACM. 1982.
--Carl Hewitt 15:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Check again [49]. Carl Hewitt seems to be as much the prime author as Kornfeld.
  2. Then please help me persuade him.
  3. Have already done so and I don't feel like putting more effort in it if the article ends up getting deleted. --
    R.Koot 10:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Recuse. I am withdrawing from this discussion. I am not able to comment intelligently on the topic, and I can no longer deal with this editor’s antics with a neutral attitude. That no constructive work can be on any article that he has had a hand in without that article being under the interdiction of an AfC is disgraceful and is an indicia of the contempt that he holds this community and the values that it strives to uphold. DV8 2XL 16:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't think a delete outcome is appropriate for this article: the topic is notable as Carl Hewitt has amply documented, and as I am aware of from colleagues who are working in AI. There are problems with leaving the article as it stands, as CH is using the article to push his ideas in an inappropriate manner. I'll make an alternative suggestion that instead the article is merged into a broader article, where the SCM ideas are seen side-by-side with rival theories and a more balanced picture of the history emerges. The currently stub-like Intelligent agent article might be a better home. --- Charles Stewart 15:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The topic has notability, agreed. Nevertheless, the position and importance of this idea in the network of sociological and philosophical concepts is still unclear. Carl Hewitt who appears to be one of the proponents this idea and the article, has extensively linked this article to other articles, (see [50]) thus possibly establishing for it a position in the network that it might not have had otherwise. This is damaging to WP. More seriously, I also regret that I need to mention the following: This action makes Hewitt suscepible to the charge that he is not acting in good faith, trying to use WP to distort the importance of his work. This is aggravated by similar behaviour in other places: see for instance Denotational semantics, which in my view should be rewritten from scratch, with only relatively minor mention of the actor model. I would urge Hewitt to stop this activity which is widely seen as pushing his own agenda. He can usefully contribute with his knowledge and experience to WP, but does not need to mention the actor model and other work of his at every turn.--CSTAR 19:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This article is really an advertisment of Carl Hewitt's work, with its proper title being "Carl Hewitt's personal scietific community metaphor". It starts out OK, but quickly degenerates into a combination of discussion of this Ether thing and references to Carl Hewitt's other work. When he makes references to physics, I find this article to be erroneous. The comments of Charles Stewart and CSTAR above also demonstate the inappropriateness of this article. Even if the subject of this article is notable, it should be documented by someone who can do so in an impartial manner and focussed on the concept itself. Until then, Wikipedia is better off without an article on this "scientific community metaphor" than with keeping the current article. --EMS | Talk 19:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I should emphasise that I do find encyclopedic value to this article, and an article on this topic could hardly fail to put CH in a prominent place. The problem is with the role this article is playing within WP. --- Charles Stewart 20:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that most abstracts of scientific papers have some sort of encyplopedic value. The question that is interesting is when it stops being original research and start being and mainstream scientific knowledge. A second point, the article start with The Scientific Community Metaphor is an approach to understanding scientific communities by extending pattern directed invocation programming languages that invoke high level procedural plans on the basis of messages.... Shouldn't that be the other way around? E.g. patern directed invocation programming languages modelled according to scientific communities? Carl? --
R.Koot 20:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
Historically, it was the other way around. The pattern-directed invocation programming languages came first and the Scientific Community Metaphor was developed afterwards. However, you are correct that at this point the pattern-directed invocation languages should be developed according to the Scientific Community Metaphor which is in fact the way that research is currently proceeding. However, the results have not yet been published.--Carl Hewitt 07:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't fully agree that the only problem is the role this article plays in WP. The fact of the matter is that for or better or worse, concepts and links of concepts created within WP have a tendency to diffuse outward; this tendency is in fact one of the best arguments against wikipedia . For example, the relations between Latour and SCM or Popper and SCM I believe are tenuous. I don't dispute that associations have not been made, but does this really justify the following statement in the 4th or 5th graf of the Bruno Latour article?:
In computer science there are interesting parallels with Latour's work on science in action and the Scientific Community Metaphor. Subsequent work by Latour and others in the sociology and philsophy of science have deepened this connection.
If such statements are placed in articles, they should be thoroughly vetted. They have not been.--CSTAR 20:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Try it, and time how long it takes before Carl puts it back in. --
R.Koot 20:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
This suggests the possibility of shortening (drastically) the article and removing most of the links into it as an acceptable compromise (although there is nothing to compromise, not with me at least, because I'm not voting to keep). --CSTAR 05:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse per DV8 2XL above. I have already had too many unpleasant interactions with Carl Hewitt and am not interested in engaging in yet more. I agree with almost every statement made above that wasn't made by Carl: the topic is probably sufficiently notable for some mention, somewhere; this article almost certainly needs editing and revision; it will be impossible to revise due to endless edits wars and lack of civility from Carl. There is a broader problem here: Carl is repeatedly engaging in behaviour that violates the spirit if not the letter of Wikipedia policy, and he seems immune to criticism and unable to reform. I am at a loss for what to do in such a situation. Its easy enough to vote delete but that hardly seems fair, and I certainly don't have the energy to do more than to ask Carl to, once again, take the criticism of others to heart and try to react to that criticism in a positive, constructive fashion. linas 02:45, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. What parts of this article strike you as "invalid"? If you could be more explicit, it would help to improve the article. The article is constrained to talk about Ether because it is reporting on published work. Also it would be helpful if you could say a little more about what you would like to know about the "Metaphor". Regards,--Carl Hewitt 18:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Re-Write - A neutral party should rewrite this from scratch. 86.3.213.128 20:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Your opinion may carry more weight if you log in, as per this graf in the AfD page:
Unregistered and new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons).
--CSTAR 00:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Google Print indicates that this term and paper by Hewitt are referenced over forty separate books. I think that is sufficient evidence that it is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. I don't know anything about the guy himself or his tactics but this basic question seems beyond dispute. Whether the author himself wrote it means it should be parsed over for NPOV, but it doesn't violate NOR at all (it is published in a mainstream, peer-reviewed source). The place to discuss the behavior of the editor/author in question is RfC, not AfD. --Fastfission 22:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or re-write - as is, the article is little more than a POV advertisement: it doesn't make clear exactly what the metaphor is or why it is relevant. It should either be deleted or completely rewritten by a neutral party. zowie 04:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sconsing

Wikipedia is not a dictionary ➨

REDVERS❞ 17:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

no, in the Oxford context it is specific act of forcing a drink on others. long heritage, banned in many colleges since a student died at (Balliol? Brasenose?) in the 80's. And it's sconcing:
[[51]]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 02:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Scott Chuss

Complete and obvious hoax; if anyone has a reason to speedy, please speedy. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Serendipity County

Not actually a football club, even in a lowly league, but a Fantasy Football team. Not notable. DJ Clayworth 17:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page has been recreated. Propose to delete agin, and perhaps action to be taken against the creator,

User:Roserex57. See also Serenity Park Grunners 18:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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

brenneman(t)(c) 06:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Shakespeare on DVD

I hope I don't come across as if I'm accusing User:Rick Norwood of spamming films.com, since he is apparently not doing it intentionally (either here or anywhere else he linked to that site), but this article does seem rather spammish and I don't see what the point is otherwise. Adam Bishop 17:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Article is biased, and somewhat poor in condition but I feel it is salvagable. The end product shouldnt look anything like articles current state tho.... :P --Cool Cat Talk 17:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • De-POV-ify the article and Merge it with
    Shakespeare on screen. Doesn't warrant its own article. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 17:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge with
    ask? 18:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge Per Doc. Durova 18:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Per Doc and redirect in case the term is searched. Youngamerican 18:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, Merge Per Doc and redirect. PKtm 19:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'merge per doc and Extreme, if there is anything whihch isn't already there (which kind of assumes the existence of straight-toDVD notable Shakespeare productions, but that way madness lies) -
    [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 21:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge per above. Worthy subject matter but should be grouped under one general theme like Shakespeare on screen. 23skidoo 22:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge There seems to be a consensus. I will attempt the merge, and also attempt to improve the article and remove POV. Rick Norwood 14:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I wrote the article without knowing about the article
    Shakespeare on screen. All of the information from Shakespeare on DVD has now been moved to Shakespeare on screen, and this article can be deleted. Rick Norwood 00:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep and use

brenneman(t)(c) 06:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Shal Khichi

Shal Khichi was the former drummer for the

Bouncing Souls. As Khichi has since quit the band and long longer is involved in music, this isn't going anywhere. Descendall 08:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete bu Jni as nn-bio. --GraemeL (talk) 17:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sian maynard

student bio--

Davidrowe 13:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 00:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Slam off

Dictdef. Also can't find any evidence that this slang term exists - if it does it's probably localised to a small group and so non-notable. My guess is that it's just an invented term intended to be offensive. But if anyone can find evidence to the contrary I'll take it back. Deco 07:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 00:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Snigbug

Google declares: "No standard web pages containing all your search terms were found. Your search - snigbug - did not match any documents." I smell a hoax. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 11:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Purposely introducing errors of this kind exist, but they don't appear to be called snigbugs. Unless someone can rename it, delete. - Mgm|(talk) 12:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, pretty clever hoax, however. Descendall 12:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above. The Oxford English Dictionary lists "snig (n)" as a "young or small eel", a "covetous or avaricious person" and a "slight projection or process". "snig (v)" is "to drag ... by means of ropes", "to steal" Pilatus 12:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. PJM 12:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete either a hoax or a non-notable neologism or a dicdef. Feel free to pick any one.
    [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 21:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 05:59, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spider-Man 3 (video game)

e ] 20:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted. The deed was done by

talk 22:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

St_Margaretsbury_F.C.

link advertising 212.63.55.77 10:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No attempt has been made to write an encyclopedia article. TheMadBaron 14:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. I've tagged it with {{db-a3}}. Punkmorten 20:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. This is on the two-thirds level if I include the very very new editor (and above it if I don't). Since at least one editor has revisited the debate after the comment without changing their mind, and an additional deleter also turned up, there would seem little reason to look for a significantly higher than two-thirds level, and the requests for meeting

WP:MUSIC don't seem to have satisfied those making them. -Splashtalk 03:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Stacy Vance, Jr.

NN singer. Only 25 Google results and no AMG entry. Fails

e ] 20:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

Vance is a talented song-writer. It's only his first released album. Give the man a break.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 01:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Star and stripe

Political/website promotion ERcheck 05:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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


This article was

User:Doc glasgow with the summary "patent nonsense". This AFD is hereby closed. encephalon 09:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Tababtab

Silly article, unlikely to ever become encyclopedic. Wolfychan 06:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as nonsense. There are no results for the title on google. Indium 06:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as nonsense. Akamad 06:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 05:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tacos Sinaloa and Mariscos Sinaloa on the corner of East 14th and 22nd Ave.

nn restarant Delete --Jaranda(watz sup) 23:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 05:59, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Stewart

Unverifiable musician stub - only claim to fame is opening for Lucky Dube - no Google results on "Tara Stewart" "Lucky Dube". No album as of yet. Phil Sandifer 22:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable per nom. Dragonfiend 23:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now now - I never said "notable" one way or another. She has a claim to fame - just not one that seems verifiable. Phil Sandifer 23:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: She appears to be getting a fair bit of interest from what I can tell, but probably isn't worth an article just yet. However, deletion of this one should not mean a future article could not be created - David Gerard 00:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and protect against re-creati... oh wait. Dottore So 14:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 05:58, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Teenage Plus

This afd nomination was

(operator) 14:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Very minimal debate, but it is blatantly a copyvio from the first link in the article (I spotted that instantly, somebody else should have, too, from the 'we' mode of writing). So I'll delete it since it's plainly being promotional in addition to the discussion here. -Splashtalk 03:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TEKSYSTEMS

This article claims notability for its subject ("Ranked number one in the industry by IT Services Business Report and as the nation's largest IT staffing firm") but I was unable to find any independant confirmation of the company's importance; that, combined with the fact that the article is written in the first person and largely copied from promotional text used elsewhere leads me to suggest deleting the whole thing as advertising. If the company is in fact important, of course, a complete rewrite would be fine. - squibix 14:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - The page's author removed the AfD notice; I've reverted that edit. - squibix 19:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And then he removed it a second time... - squibix 20:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 05:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures Of Hao

Hoax. No such books according to Google and Amazon. And kinda coincidental that it would win the "Haobread" Award?

e ] 20:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 23:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The Allied Republic national soccer team

Hoax. -- Curps 22:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. What on Earth is "The Allied Republic"? Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Bad joke Keresaspa 13:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN/Vanity/hoax, not sure, but it's at least one. Pete.Hurd 19:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 23:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The Clown God

  • Delete - Vanity/not notable - history before blanking shows that it was made up by a single group - Tεxτurε 14:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Since this is apparently a Chinese parody religion, Google hits will not accurately represent its significance. The best course of action, in my view, is to go to the Chinese Wikipedia, and if this article is approved of there, it may be noteworthy enough to be here too. -Silence 16:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since it's now blank anyway :-)
    [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 21:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 01:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The death of the red clown

Hoax / Vandalism. Was previously speedied with different content. (Wonder if it's a coincidence that the article creator has 'Vfd' in his/her name?) HollyAm 02:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or Speedy Delete as nonsense. ...More than 3 internets? Indium 06:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, blatant nonsense. - Mgm|(talk) 10:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete apparent hoax. --MacRusgail 13:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax/nonsense. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Obvious hoax from someone with a limited imagination. Geogre 22:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article. Fast.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 both articles. -

Mailer Diablo 23:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The imperium, Sa-fora

NN forums and their founder. Searching "The imperium BDSM" brings up a whole lot of blogspam that happens to include some sort of sci-fi reference. --

e ] 00:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 05:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Real Al-Qaeda

Minimally verifiable garage band. http://www.google.com/search?q=%22The+Real+Al-Qaeda%22+grindcore gets 16 hits, 15 of them on Myspace. Ashibaka (tock) 17:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete all 3 pages. -

Mailer Diablo 23:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The Reserve, J.T. Jester, Ace Destro

This is a collective AfD for the band The Reserve and two of its members. With one self-published album the band does not fulfill the criteria laid out in

WP:MUSIC. Pilatus 19:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Yes, they only have one album, but what you are all forgetting is that anyone who doesn't like The Reserve is gay. -mx9

That was a joke, Pete. Nothing gets by you, does it?

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

The result of the debate was The Sexy Delete. -

Mailer Diablo 00:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The Sexy Fears

No entry on Allmusic.com, 0 google results does not appear to meet criteria of

WP:MUSIC. -- malo (talk-myedits) 06:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was Userfy. Bishonen|talk 18:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Swiss Knight

Vanity page, utter nonsense, no real claim to notability, elaborate hoax, extensive joke, pick your favorite reason. -- malo (talk) 00:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not funny. Ashibaka (tock) 00:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this isn't the place for creating random fiction. - Bobet 00:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Don't Delete it should be known that all of the events written of did actually happen, with a couple minor adjustments to make them more spectacular. Gentlemen, if you kill this article, 1000 more shall spring up in its place, I beg of you to save the Knight and the justice he stands for.AshJW 00:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Better yet -- why not transfer the Swiss Knight and associated pages into Wikipedia:Once upon a time... - a project designed for writing "creative work" or "fiction." That quiet site has never really gotten off the ground, and your fine effort might create a spark there as well. Best Wishes. WBardwin 02:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete probably funny, but utterly UE FRS 01:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but the user can keep it in user space, a la the ancient European toilet paper holder hoax. Geogre 02:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If the Swiss Knight we're alive he wouldn't want his image corrupting this bastion of knowledge. Do with this article what you wish. AshJW 02:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too long for BJAODN and unverifiable. Capitalistroadster 02:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete Whilst not complete truth, what other entry will occupy where 'The Swiss Knight'? The events are actually truth-based, and i'm sure this page holds a very special place in the writer's heart. 8:03 P.M., 14 November 2005 (UTC) Taylor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.23.190 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 14 November 2005
  • Don't delete I think it needs to be moved somewhere where this kid's creative genius could be better used. It's mostly true, but it's not really a reference page.68.145.239.14 02:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC) Dan[reply]
  • Speedy delete Worthless to anyone not in on the joke. Jasmol 22:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because it's just poppycock, and I really can't stand people who make a buttload of sockpuppets in a futile effort to get the article non-deleted. Mo0[talk] 02:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy if appropriate; delete otherwise. Bearcat 05:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Userfy, as per above, and the puppetry is very annoying. If only contributors would devote that kind of obsessive energy to real articles... Sigh. MCB 02:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 00:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The Warden of Glasswall

Vanity page, no real claim to notability, elaborate hoax, extensive joke, pick your favorite reason. -- malo (talk) 00:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as above. Ashibaka (tock) 00:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete along with the previous article. - Bobet 01:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not-notable fiction. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete if there is any good in you... save this brilliant peice of writing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AshJW (talk • contribs) 20:53, 14 November 2005
  • Dont Delete If indeed wikipedia is a centre of knowledge then it should do well to host such myth so that we may broaden our minds — Preceding unsigned comment added by M1thrand1r (talk • contribs) 20:56, 14 November 2005
  • Move Wikipedia has an appropriate place for the creation of group fictional projects. I suggested this placement last month on The Swiss Knight's discussion page. See below. WBardwin 01:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Better yet -- why not transfer the Swiss Knight and associated pages into Wikipedia:Once upon a time... - a project designed for writing "creative work" or "fiction." That quiet site has never really gotten off the ground, and your fine effort might create a spark there as well. Best Wishes. WBardwin 02:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Jokes are fine in user space, but not article space. Geogre 02:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will join the ranks of Dave the Malevolent and Chad the Scornful by voting Delete. Capitalistroadster 02:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Sweet mother of pearl! I mean, really... Ifnord 04:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per above. Dottore So 10:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Same garbage as The Swiss Knight. Descendall 12:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete for same reasons as The Swiss Knight. Smaller meatpuppet problem here, but still... Wcquidditch | [[User talk:Wcquidditch|Talk]] 12:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, continuation of The Swiss Knight nonsense above. HGB 19:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Long-winded dumb jokes don't belong on Wikipedia. Jasmol 22:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is good stuff, just not Wikipedia-worthy. Mo0[talk] 02:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In My Defense Ill have all of you know, the swiss knight's legend merely crosses the path my own (and inspired its record) this is a tale unto its own. I lament for the knight as he laments for me. Alas that we should see such days where the legends of the old are burnt as heresy and nonsense.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 05:53, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The X-Files Timeline

This article has been around for three months now, and is basically just an external link. Delete CLW 10:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep (16/5).--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 09:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thum Ping Tjin

This page is about me. I didn't write it or ask for it, but it's here. I was fine with it until someone made a personal attack on me on this page, and I don't like it. 163.1.231.147 14:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not just the channel swim, he was also olympic athelete and Rhodes scholar. Individually they may not be encyclopedic but combined indicates a notable person - at least to me. Ifnord 16:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
PJ have became a person with significant note in Singapore, courageous in a sense for the course of charity. He is the sort of person we need once in awhile, just to make sure that at least we pursue for dreams - not merely contrite over our losses. Slivester 06:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that's reading too much into one activity of channel swimming. Either case it makes Singapore sounds really dreadful (a place where people don't care to pursue their dreams - eek) Mandel 06:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep (5/1).--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 09:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Porter

Found while cleaning out speedies. No vote Titoxd(?!?) 06:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nn person from nn church. Indium 06:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - how could English bishop be nn? Budgiekiller 07:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Current rector, future bishop. Indium 07:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Downing St. has anounced his appointment, so for all intents and purposes he's Bishop of Sherwood. Article should be expanded. Dottore So 11:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Dottore, could you cite the place where Downing Street is referred to? - Mgm|(talk) 11:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
here you go Dottore So 12:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Redirect to

brenneman(t)(c) 06:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Toyota Motor Manufacturing Kentucky

stub article, merged into (euqally short)

[T]/[C] (W) AfD? 18:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

These manufacturing plants are generally pretty huge, and employ a great number of workers. I'm certain a decent article could be written on it. For the American car makers we seem to have articles on most of the major facilities, see for instance Category:General Motors factories. I'll thus vote keep and cleanup. - SimonP 18:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Definite merge -chaz171 nov05

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

talk 01:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Troublesome five

Vanity and nonsense. SGBailey 23:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--- I can't find a proper place to report this, so here will do. The folk who created this page are also constantly removing the AfD notice. They are also constantly adding Afd to my User and talk pages. The users may need monitoring for other inappropriate actions. -- SGBailey 09:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 05:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Typhoon Longwang (disambiguation)

This page should be deleted because it is an unnecessary disambiguation page. It is general practice with articles on tropical cyclones that if there are two storms in a basin with the same name, and one has an article, a link at the top of the article pointing at the season for the storm without an article is added. The precedents of

Klaus do just that. I have made that very change to the Typhoon Longwang article. In addition, if the name Longwang is not retired, it will very likely be several years before there is another one. For both of these reasons, this article is unnecessary. Nominate and vote for Deletion Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 22:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 00:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Ukraine Brain

Neologism, Inflamatory. Delete abakharev 05:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; as a descendant of some Ukrainians, I am officially insulted. --Merovingian 05:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete —Michael Z. 2005-11-15 06:01 Z
  • Delete. Nonsense. --Irpen 08:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Additionally, Google finds this only in general sense
    Ilya K 09:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. Don't be, Mero. This is tripe. encephalon 10:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; insulting, trivial, nn. And stupid, to boot. SchrödingersRoot 20:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sadly, Encephalon, you're mistaken. One shouldn't be so insulting to tripe. --
    talk 22:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 05:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ungame

Is this real? Progress Quest is real but i dont think there are any other similar things in this "genre". Niz 22:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Ungame is the name of a real commercial board game which has been around since the 1970s - for example see [60] (Amazon). Perhaps this article should be about this game instead. Sheldrake 23:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Actually there is one other (older?) similar game Stat Builder (StatBuilder?) where you just clicked a single button but the term itself is a neologism made up by the author. See [61] for proof. Indium 23:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an useless neologism. There are other such games besides Progress Quest, for example, my own game Miller's Quest. But I don't call it an "ungame". I use the proper, established term for this kind of things. But then again, I'm just a theory guy. =) --Wwwwolf 00:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and recreate as article about board game —Wahoofive (talk) 04:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think this article might also include robotfindskitten, but this neologism has no currency. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 23:25, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Unintelligent Design Theory

An unencyclopedic joke - or, if you prefer, original "research". CDC 17:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 23:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Vigo Bai Lin

Fan fic Star Wars character, completely non notable. See Google [62] and this forum post [63]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 05:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Windsor_Hall

Residence hall, nothing more. Please add the others in Category:University_of_Reading. ∴ here…♠ 06:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 00:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Wintermoon

Not yet released album. ERcheck 05:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball." Album has not yet been released. Not notable enough to warrant inclusion in advance of release. ERcheck 05:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a notable band anyway (fails
    WP:Music for example), as far as I can tell. --W.marsh 05:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per above. --MacRusgail 14:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 00:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Yamamoto Yuji

_ _ Nom & vote Del on this 1999 U of Chicago MA Humanities graduate with "263 of 515" Google hits on

"Yamamoto Yuji" -"Yuji Katsui" -"Yuji Matsumoto" -golf -actor

and (due to apparent high prevalence of both surname & given name, so that combinations give false hits) very few possibly relevant hits among the first few dozen.
_ _ Initial edit of

6 English words,
4 Japanese characters (name), and
2 lks to lists

was 22 February 2003 with summary "Takubot" by IP that now rdr's to the very prolific User:TakuyaMurata; that puts it in the first 2 months of their editing.
_ _ The rest of the CV-style body text was contributed 14 months later in 6 edits in a 33-minute window by a different IP with, entirely in one 1.25 hour window, these & 9 other edits to 3 other articles and a Dab, all with apparently Japanese-language names.
_ _ IMO, this should be presumed to be a stub near the edge of speedy deletion, converted (probably in good faith!) into a n-n autobio by its subject, pending evidence to the contrary.
--Jerzy•t 02:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no assertion of notability. Edit history is suspicious. Dottore So 10:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dottore So. --MacRusgail 13:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was initially suspicious about the likely accuracy of searching in English for a Japanese author who writes in Japanese, particularly given that the romanisation issues mean that the guy's name could also be spelt "Yuuji", "Yuuzi", "Yuzi", or half a dozen other ways, but it turns out that Japanese searches actually produce fewer hits (about 100, though they all seem to be about the right person). He has released a number of translations of authors like O. Henry, Kipling, and Conan Doyle, but they have all been published only as free e-texts, so I don't think they count for
    WP:BIO purposes. — Haeleth Talk 17:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 05:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ZARUM

I have just reviewed the article in question having come across the deletion notice while searching for the artist. I am familiar with his works and while the other gentleman is not, this does not seem to me to be a reason to delete. This artist may not be as notable as Miro or Picasso, but is important for a new generation. A simple internet search using the main engines yields enough information and comments by others who see the importance of the artist.


Appears to be self promotion / autobiography of an artist who is not yet notable. The article provides a link to a review of a recent artshow, but this review appears to be also self authored or written by a friend. Solipsist 07:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nominator. Vanity.--MacRusgail 14:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Puppet vanity. Ifnord 14:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article copied in part from artist's website -the remainder appears elsewhere on the net as a "statement from the artist". This is clearly self-authored and non-notable. Swegner 19:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_15&oldid=1081093064"