Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 November 19

< November 18	November 20 >

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Keep Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 14:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MuggleNet

MuggleNet was nominated for deletion on 2005-07-30. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MuggleNet/2005-07-30.

MuggleNet was nominated for deletion on 2005-10-07. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MuggleNet/2005-10-07.

See also MuggleCast (AfD discussion).

Wikipedia is being used as a media to publicise a Fan Site. 203.145.137.226 11:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixing malformed AfD notice. That being said, speedy keep as a bad-faith nomination from a vandal. Hermione1980 13:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. Previously nominated twice, and kept. I don't see any reason to delete this article. MuggleNet is notable enough for J.K. Rowling to invite its founder to her house for an interview. --Deathphoenix 14:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a site that gets 20m hits/month. Marskell 14:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep This is the third nomination in less than six months. This is getting absurd. Jtmichcock 14:35, 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.

]

Spazz

looks like yet another non-notable band... -GTBacchus ^(talk)00:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep A few releases listed on AllMusicGuide and Amazon albeit on obscure label (Slap A Ham). The label's website is defunct. Seems to have a reasonable cult following Jasmol 01:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't quite agree with the above. (I have an AMG entry on my band, and I zealously oppose an article on it, so I'm not being hipocritical.) The reason is that the article says nothing, really, about a band, but merely offers a substub about a guy in the band who owns some..something... and then that there is a screen name in use with the same name. Basically, two CSD "empty" articles combined into one. If this is all there is to say about them, they're not encyclopedic. Geogre 02:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete another minor band. Power violence? That's a new one. Oh, maybe it's just them doing it...
  [T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 17:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per Geogre. Pburka 21:12, 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.

Gary Bajaj

I'm unclear on whether this person is sufficiently notable, submitting to AfD for review. --Alan Au 00:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. He looks like a lokal businessman to me. Pilatus 00:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Notable in his local area but not prominent enough for Wikipedia. Doubt his company would meet
  WP:CORP.Capitalistroadster 00:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: It appears that he founded and runs an ISP and has been honored by his local newspaper and Chamber of Commerce. A locally significant figure, but not a person known or sought in a wider context. Geogre 02:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  [T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 17:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. --
  Joel7687 21:50, 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.

]

Eric J. Lindblom PhD

This looks like some sort of vanity page. Harvard University is mentioned in the text, yet the Harvard phone dictionary (which lists all staff and students in addition to the teaching faculty) doesn't have his name listed.

The article states that he has a monograph published, but the daily bread of social scientists is to publish monographs.

• Delete as vanity unless notability established. Pilatus 00:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nominated. Apparently this is a forum username of someone from Buenos Aires, Argentina. --Timecop 00:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The article text is a jumble of references comprehensible only to the author, I think. No actual teaching job is mentioned, and the "book" cannot be found. At best, he appears to be a professor, of which there are many. He doesn't appear to be notable among those with such qualifications. Geogre 02:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - notability not established. --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 08:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unverifiable - Google Scholar knows not of him either. Dlyons493 Talk 10:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unverifiable and probable vanity.
  [T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 17:45, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. I have never been so sure about an AfD. This is probably autobiographical, badly (worthlessly) written, not wikified.. name something good, please. Nazgjunk - - Signing is ^{for Whimps} 19:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Er, the AfD tag is nice... :-) -

[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 21:32, 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'

]

Coffee Comic

Must afd non-notable comic. feydey 00:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 01:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Jasmol 01:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, don't see any evidence of notability. -- SCZenz 16:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as no evidence of passing
  [T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 18:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. The comic is not funny, has a spelling error in it's title, it is ugly drawing, and no one seems to know it. Yes, it *is* that simple.
  Signing is ^{for Whimps} 20:25, 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.

]

St. Blog's Parish

Umm, right... wikipedia is not a directory of the web/vanity/advertisement. This appears to be hosted off earthlink, so I couldn't really do an alexa ranking of it. The google hits are full of incestuous linking so I don't find those relevent considering this is some webring. Skrewler 00:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nice thought, and condolances for the death of the founding member, but very much non-notable. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 00:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As nominated. non-notable blogjunk. --Timecop 01:02, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Stop clogging my internet. -- Femmina 01:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The aggregate of separate blogs is not a cumulative significance. Essentially, this is a portal page for blogs. Although a few of these, such as blogspot, might be so overwhelmingly central as to pass the threshold, almost none others will. Geogre 02:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable. Jtmichcock 04:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. per nom. Don't worry about the Alexa issue, the intersection of notable websites and Earthlink hosted sites is probably a null set anyway. -
  [T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 18:17, 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 speedy delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Kaplansky

Attack page, Hoax, Deleteabakharev 00:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 00:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete somewhere between db-bio and nonsense. Jasmol 01:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete: Libel/slander page. Geogre 02:45, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as an attack page. I don't know why he buried those people in his crawlspace, it'd be really hard to dig down there. Also, what do human resource hedgehogs do? -- Kjkolb 08:03, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - attack page. --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 08:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy deleted. Libellous attack page. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:09, 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 Speedy Delete.

]

Levi Connolly

Appears to be non-notable vanity bio. The show that he produced, "Country Close," is not listed in IMDB. No Google hits for +"Levi Connolly" +"Country Close" Jasmol 01:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or speedy delete: Another "up and coming" musician whose first album is supposed to come along next year. Seems like the usual fantasy article. Geogre 02:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agree with nomination, existence of participation in a series called "Country Close" is unverifiable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:11, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no evidence of notability, no releases to date, come back when you're famous.
  [T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 18:24, 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 no consensus to delete; article moved to

]

LifeSongs Radio

Eh, no google news, 12,000 google hits, not even bothering with Alexa as this is a radio station. Skrewler 01:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Die please. -- Femmina 01:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: It's not a web radio station, according to the article. Thus, if this is an actual radio station, the article is mistitled, as it should be listed by call letters, and not slogan or trade name. Verification is therefore made all the worse. It is likely that the station that hosts this programming already has an article, but it's impossible to know. Geogre 02:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: How would you name radio station foreign to the US which don't have call signs? As far as I know stations are named by their frequency in the Netherlands. Naming them by call signs (if existing) would break the rules of using the most common name. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, its call sign is WBSN. It's a class C station and those aren't usually
  notable enough for inclusion (still only a proposed guideline). It appears to be a religious station that rebroadcasts content made elsewhere. -- Kjkolb 08:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete although since it is an actual station broadcasting on actual FM (apparently) others might disagree. It is undoubtedly of strictly limited importance.
  [T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 18:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep/Rename Call the article WBSN. It's a fairly large and popular New Orleans station.Vonspringer 21:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and Redirect to
  WBSN. Radio station broadcasting in New Orleans; notable enough to keep. Eusebeus 14:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Move to
  WBSN and make this redirect there. I don't support articles for individual radio shows, but if we can confirm a station's existence, then I don't see why we can't keep it. Jacqui^★ 15:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Move to
  WBSN. Seano1 22:07, 24 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. --Titoxd^(?!?) 02:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Weate

Vanity, 1,000 google hits. Skrewler 01:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment - this was an orphaned AFD. Now listed properly. Eddie.willers 01:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. -- Femmina 01:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if verified. Forget the blog: the book is verified, and that is a tremendous number of hits for a philosophy popularizer. Geogre 02:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 1,000 hits is a low number of google hits for a philosophy popularizer who claims notability. No indication of notability. Mr. Weate also lists Consultancy as his profession on his blog. Bwithh 03:53, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep To help work against systemic bias. For someone working in philosophy from Africa that's a lot of hits. He's also published scholarly papers Achille Mbembe and the Postcolony: Going beyond the Text in Research in African Literatures and Postcolonial theory on the brink: a critique of Achille Mbembe's On the Postcolony in African Identities. That would be below my bar on an American/European academic but I'd keep this. Dlyons493 Talk 10:54, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dlyons493 and for Young Person's Guide to Philosophy, available in many school and public libraries. - squibix 15:50, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per
  WP:BIO as author of widely published and reviewed book. Capitalistroadster 16:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep marginal but systemic bias argument is persuasive in this case.
  [T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 18:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep author listed on amazon with a popular title. --Quiddity 04:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the verifications above. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:33, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per, um, everyone. Good research, guys. Jacqui^★ 15:05, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. Why was this targeted as part of the The war on blogs? The blog link is incidental. He is writing and publishing in a country where 1% of the country has internet access. Google is not likely to be an accurate measure of his notability. As above, this is a great example of systemic bias. mennonot 00:04, 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 Keep. --Titoxd^(?!?) 02:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Austin

vanity/bio Skrewler 01:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. -- Femmina 01:44, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The Firesign Theater is quite popular, quite well known, and Nick Danger is still quite well remembered. More particularly, there are many references to the character/skits in other ("hippie") media. The article could be better, but it's not deletion material as it is. Geogre 02:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per
  WP:BIO. Appeared in several films see IMDb [1] and New York Times movie guide. [2]. Capitalistroadster 17:03, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak delete - yes, he has an IMDB entry, but the most recent (of very few in total) items were all TV or straight-to-video, and reviews for the two verifiable films include such choice comments as "This movie is proof that the Firesign Theatre's best medium is radio." Maybe
  [T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 18:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Oh, radio was their medium, absolutely. Duck's Breath Mystery Theater and Firesign Theater were, with the National Lampoon Radio Hour, very popular high brow entertainment in the early days of FM (1970's). Their albums sell/sold well, and their syndicated shows were very popular. However, they were never a visual act, and Nick Danger, in particular, is very thin visually. This is the scene that the first Saturday Night Live cast came out of (not this particular troupe, but the nightclub and radio performers of the West Coast in the 1970's). Geogre 04:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, keep it is then, thanks. -
      [T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 11:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Keep per IMDB entry. One shouldn't go on the most recent entries. This guy has several acting and writing credits for regular and TV movies even if straight-to-video stuff was ignored. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems to have been a notable radio personality in the 1960s and 1970s. Pburka 21:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Tuohirulla 21:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Firesign Theatre? Of course it's a keep. Denni ☯ 00:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. It's ridiculous to claim this is about his blog when he's been doing work on radio and in theatre for years. It just means no one has bothered to do any research. I've added a few links to external sources and made a start at an expansion. There's plenty of information out there if someone wants to take the time. mennonot 23:52, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nick Danger! -- DS1953 04:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Geogre and Capitalistroadster. Hall Monitor 23:44, 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 Keep. --Titoxd^(?!?) 02:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

La Shawn Barber

Previous nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La Shawn Barber

Vanity. 3 google news hits, but some of them are from BLOGS? since when does google news point to blogs?.. alexa is 100,000. useless Skrewler 02:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Since provision of news online has become increasingly important. Google News checks all of its sources before adding them and inclusion in the Google News database is an indication of notability for a blog. Further, both Google and Yahoo have a blog search given that blogs are becoming increasingly important in the news cycle. To this nomination, Barber meets both
  Washington Times see list of writings [3]. Over two million hits for La Shawn Barber see [4]
  .

Keep. Capitalistroadster 02:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Terrible article, terrible person, but extremely well attested in outside media. He is referred to quite often in other formats. Geogre 03:03, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep--notable blogger, often referenced on other notable sites (e.g. National Review Online or Redstate.org) and has a wide readership. As per Geogre--terrible person, but notable. Meelar (talk) 04:11, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Has made several appearances as a commentator on Fox News. Agree with Geogre and Meelar: Barber is a truly odious person, but a notable one. Andrew Levine 04:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Rhobite 05:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. What gives with the anti-blog campaign dude? —RaD Man (talk) 11:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. You people are a bunch of uninformed, anonymous screaming squirrels. First of all, I am NOT a man, so dispense with the "he." Second, I have NEVER been on FOX news. What kind of voting process is this when voters don't know the facts? I never wanted to be on Wikipedia and hoped the "Deletes" would win the first time I was nominated for deletion. Unfortunately, the "Keeps" won. This time around I hope the Deletes win so my name will no longer be associated with this site. VOTE ME OFF! - La Shawn Barber
  • LOL <3 Skrewler 16:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep odious but verifiable and almost certainly notable. Quality sock above, BTW, congrats to whoever it was :-)
  [T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 18:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong Delete if the author herself wants deleted. I'd personally think she deserves to be included, but we've deleted numerous more bloggers with a lot more traffic and a lot more links. So in the interest of consistency, and especially if La Shawn wants off, this is a no-brainer. --YHoshua 19:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• comment User:YHoshua has emailed me (and presumably other users as well as I have had no previous involvement with this article or the previous AfD) in an attempt to canvas delete votes:

  Please help me remove this entry that's simply a vanity blog ad: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/La_Shawn_Barber_%282nd_nomination%29

  We've deleted many more blogger entries that had more traffic, hits, and publications, so in the interest of consistency we need to delete it. Besides, the blogger herself asked to be removed, so it's a no-brainer.

• I note this here in the interests of openness and fairness to all sides. no vote. Thryduulf 00:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Peculiar use of "no-brainer" if you ask me. Keep. A ninny, but not a non-notable ninny. --Calton | Talk 00:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because not notable, and author wants to be removed. See the Wiki terms on that.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.166.224.237 (talk • contribs) Thryduulf 22:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As long as the article is factually correct and NPOV, it should not be up to the author whether it is included or not. Ms. Barber is notable for her publications both on and off the Web. What's with calling someone a "terrible person"? That says a lot more about the person writing it than with the one so described. Logophile 14:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's a dinky stub that could use some heavy TLC, but she fits the "published author" criterion on
  WP:BIO. (I was also e-mailed by User:YHoshua, FWIW.) - jredmond 15:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Also, color me skeptical about that comment being from the real La Shawn Barber. -Colin Kimbrell 15:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Being published isn't enough, and her list doesn't meet the criteria on
  WP:BIO. -- User:Bobby B 15:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • No such user as "Bobby B". The vote was actually by User:149.166.220.125. Rhobite 21:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Can we tone down the attacks towards the subject here? She's well known enough to warrant an article, whatever your opinion of her. In addition, a subject doesn't get to choose whether Wikipedia contains an article on her (though I highly doubt it was the real person making that comment). Carbonite | Talk 20:19, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't see anything that's changed since the last nomination. --Carnildo 22:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• This anonymous squirrel screams delete an article on somebody who's touted as yet another rightist -- and doesn't the US have more of them than of schools? -- but whose own website redirects to some "Teletubbies" nonsense. -- Hoary 03:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per everyone else Joe I 03:57, 24 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 Superman

At best, this is an inferior reproduction of Superman. At worst, it's an attempt to present fiction as fact. Delete and redirect. On a related note, delete Image:TheSuperman.jpg as unsourced. Melchoir 02:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Sure looks like a joke. A redirect is cheap, but I hate even having the possibility of preserving this in history. Geogre 03:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination and Geogre's comments. Do not redirect. ERcheck 04:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There are plenty of free websites that can host joke pages. Jtmichcock 04:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agree with everything above. Gsd2000 17:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is almost funny. It doesn't add anything for people who haven't been living in a bunker since 1938.
  Signing is ^{for Whimps} 20:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete semi-amusing nonsense.
  [T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 21:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. I suppose in the fictional DCU Earth this article would require a
  request for expansion, because it's very incomplete :-) --Pc13 22:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. PJM 07:03, 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. --Titoxd^(?!?) 02:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scott W. Johnson

Vanity W Johnson 900 google hits nn Skrewler 02:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a substub: No position on the worth of the subject, but the "article" is a predicate nominative. A fact is not an article. Geogre 03:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per
  WP:WEB. Highly notable blogger and opinion leader. Co-founder of PowerLine, Time Magazine blog of the year for 2004 for the their role in exposing the use of fraudulent documents by 60 Minutes leading to the end of Dan Rather's career. [5], Website has 80,000 visitors a day see [6] "Scott Johnson" Powerline gets 141,000 Google hits see [7]
  .

Johnson appeared on CNN's reliable sources program in response to a book from CBS Producer Mary Mapes see [8]. Highly notable blogger. Capitalistroadster 03:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Independently noteworthy from Powerline. Jtmichcock 04:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Agree with capitalistroadster. His blog is notable and if one of the blog co-founder's Wikipedia article has barely survived the AfD process. I don't see any harm of keeping this one. --J. Nguyen 04:53, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I have expanded the article including the material cited above. No change of vote from Keep. Capitalistroadster 01:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. You know how I am with substubs. (I squish 'em!) Geogre 04:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Skrewler, if you don't know what you're talking about, you should probably stick to reading instead of trying to edit anything. --Daniel11 02:05, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please, let's not insult nominators or other voters. It's enough to vote to keep. Geogre 04:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but don't bite the Skrewlers. Jacqui^★ 15:09, 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

]

Notmyrealdomain

No Alexa rank, WP:NOT a web directory. --Alan Au 03:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Basically a forum site. WP is not a web directory, and it absolutely isn't a forum Yellow Pages. I'm glad its participants enjoy it and find it humorous, but it isn't encyclopedic content. Geogre 03:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

notmyrealdomain is more then a forum. To some, it is an entire way of life. In the forum private section, some of the more venerable have made such threats as to kick their dog if the site is not listed in Wikipedia. By no means am I an animal lover, but I would hate to see a dog be needlessly kicked. notmyrealdomaintites are all very upset. Also note that notmyrealdomainism may eventually evolve into a religion.

• Delete, but I suggest we BJAODN the above comment. Jacqui^★ 15:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Non-notable website/forum. ERcheck 04:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable. Herostratus 05:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will edit the article to make it more neutral.

• Delete NN mdd4696 21:44, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. --
  Joel7687 21:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. --Pc13 22:03, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Wikipedia is not a forum or web guide means we only include articles about websites with a significant amount of visitors. Since the nominator couldn't verify this was the case with the particular site he nominated this for deletion. It's nothing personal and you shouldn't feel upset about it. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • See
    WP:WEB for suggested criteria for the inclusion of websites and forums. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:40, 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 no consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unsafe sexual practices

Not suitable for an encylopedia. Not useful information. Rubbish Alex Bartho 03:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I don't see why it's not suitable, the information needs some cleanup but it is useful. Ifnord 03:54, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Suitable topic for entries and (potentially) very useful information. Jtmichcock 04:44, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep although article needs some work. Herostratus 06:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: if this is to be kept, it needs objective definitions of how a practice qualifies as safe or unsafe, with statistics and references for proof about what is actually dangerous. -- Kjkolb 08:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: 1. Mistitled (should be
  Unsafe sex. 2. Already covered in Safe sex. 3. Because of the title, it is POV. Let me explain this last: These are practices that qualify as "unsafe sex," but they are not practices that are unsafe inherently. Inasmuch as "safe sex" and "unsafe sex" are both compounds that refer implicitly to HIV/AIDS, they have lost their literal meaning of "safe" and "unsafe" + "sexual intercourse." 4. In this form, it's rather a Wikibooks entry. To be encyclopedic, it would need, really, to indicate sources, history of the scheme, implications of the campaigns, etc. Geogre 13:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete and transfer useful info to sex. --YixilTesiphon 17:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Effectively a mirror image of Safe sex. --Last Malthusian 18:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Geogre. KingTT 18:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• VoiceOfAll closed this debate as no consensus after a single day. Since that is improper, I have reverted. Also, delete, fork. Radiant_>|< 23:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. This page needs a lot of cleanup but it contains what is very useful information in these days. --Kurt Shaped Box 00:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete User:Ejrrjs says What? 00:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is almost certain to be searched for at safe sex. Replication here is silly. Denni ☯ 01:09, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge antyhing useful and redirect so people who look for this actually find something. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Geogre is exactly right. Eusebeus 14:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, especially per Geogre... and Denni. Jacqui^★ 15:12, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect redundant article to Safe sex. — RJH 16:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. -Sean Curtin 01:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Why not have a section in safe sex that outlines what are considered the riskiest practices? Sethie 07:11, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge anything useful per MGM.
  Kappa 12:54, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Has a lot of potential. Voyager640 05:43, 27 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

]

King Sandy's Castle

Obscure, only appeared in one episode. Kookykman|(t)e 03:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge with the episode in question.
  Kappa 06:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge with
  WP:FICT. —RaD Man (talk) 11:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to Codename: Kids Next Door. Merging is unnecessary, IMO, as items found in single episodes are far below the threshhold of what is part of an encyclopedia's coverage of a show. Geogre 13:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Geogre. I agree with him again. Eusebeus 14:44, 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. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 17:07, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is a hard call, so I'm exercisigin my judgement. Several said the entry to be kept only if changed to some titles. For instance current title (about "standard classes") has a HUGE systemic bias. The titles as "known by many" are way ambiguous, etc... There's also a majority of delete votes (almost twice as keeps) but I concur with several math fellows here that this list is not the proper approach. However there are some interesting ideas (an entry about NAMED formulas, etc.... and I want to chip one more: how about an entry about trig formulas, one about calc formulas, etc so you can put them in context and explain the relationships between them (as they relate to the same topic) so to avoid the list gathering for the sake of gathering (and then using a category to group those themed lists)?

List of well known mathematical formulas

Delete title is far too broad; there's no way this list could ever be sufficiently inclusive while staying within a reasonable length for an article. --Trovatore 03:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Trovatore. Dmharvey File:User dmharvey sig.png Talk 04:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, if it got longer, it could be split. Bizarre nomination.
  Kappa 06:03, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak delete. I have no objection to a list of well-known articles. I could sort of enjoy a list with Euler's formula, de Moivre's formula, Pythagoras'. But a+b=c? That isn't a meaningful formula. I might change my vote if the article improved a lot. -lethe ^talk 07:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • After thinking about it some more, seeing the improvements made to the article, and reading other peoples votes and comments, I'd like to change my weak delete to a normal delete lethe ^talk 23:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if someone actually puts some work into this. I could turn into a intresting page eventually.--Ewok Slayer 07:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• ¿Should we change it to Significant mathematical formulas? as some of these formulas will only be know to people who have taken their respective math classes.--Ewok Slayer 08:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not useful article. If someone is looking for some formula on Wikipedia, there are better starting points (like articles about the objects in question). Samohyl Jan 07:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete Much as per Iethe. This could become an interesting starting point but needs a lot of work. Dlyons493 11:02, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Ewok Slayer has done some good work and the list is less trivial now. But it's still a grab-bag of things thrown together for no obvious reason. I still think that no list produced under this title is going to be anything else, because as I said in the nomination, the title is far too broad. --Trovatore 16:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)*'[reply]
• Strong keep - Definitely must keep, for people who are generally looking for formulas should use this, but for a more exact formula then, perhaps they should use the appropriate article. --Kilo-Lima 16:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as useful list. Well done to Ewok Slayer for his work on this list. Capitalistroadster 17:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Arbitrary list of questionable use, and poorly written. "Well-known to whom?" is the key question here.--David Dumas 17:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If this looked like List of equations I would support its inclusion, but few formulae have their own articles. KingTT 18:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The list might possibly make sense under a title like List of formulas taught in standard mathematics classes, and I suggest that this is possibly the original intent. A title like that would provide some sort of logical rationale for the choice of the results presented. The intro could specify that it's talking about classes presented in a standard sequence, meaning up to basic calculus. (After that, things start to branch out.) --Trovatore 18:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Impossibly broad. There are thousands which are well known to scientists and mathematicians. Vonspringer 21:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. useful list. --Vsion 22:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We don't need yet another poorly written, unmaintainable, impossible list. It could be useful if it was split up by category, and referenced real articles. Editorial energies would be much better expended by improving the articles in Category:Elementary mathematics, most of which cover the topics in this list. Elementary math topics on WP are in terrible condition, and creating something like this list does not improve that situation in any way. linas 23:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. I'm not sure this is encyclopedic, but it's at least handbookic. I have before me Pocket Ref, Thomas J. Glover, 1999, Sequoia and it's full of stuff like "Formulas for electricity: 1) Ohm's law, 2) Resistors in series, 3) Resistors in parallel," etc. CRC Standard Math Tables (does anyone still use those?) has its tables of derivatives, integrals, mensuration, etc. An argument for something like this is that if you know there is a formula but you don't know what it's called, you might not be able to find it by name, but you be able to find it in an article like this. On the other hand... well... it's listcruft. I agree with Trovatore that I suspect this of being the sort of thing you'd bring in as a "cheat sheet" for an examination that allows it... Dpbsmith (talk) 00:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC) But only if it is moved to List of well known mathematical formulae Dpbsmith (talk) 00:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• If kept this should be renamed to List of mathematical formulas per naming conventions. Any formulas that are not well-known or notable don't belong on a list in the first place. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:46, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Formulae! Formulae! True, I just checked and discovered that some debased, meretricious so-called "modern" dictionaries accept the barbaric and incorrect spelling of the plural, but I never, never will! O tempora, O Moses! Dpbsmith (talk) 15:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mores! Mores! Even debased, so-called modern dictionaries of quotations won't use "Moses" (I hope). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Hugely and impossibly broad topic. We could never fit this into one article. It is spelled 'formulae' as well. --Bucephalus [[User talk:Bucephalus|<small>talk to me</small>]] 11:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain. CRC Standard Math Tables are still used, as are other handbooks with mathematical formulas. The problem is that these are complete books, so we need to be extremely selective if we want to keep the list within a reasonable length for an article. On the one hand, I think this can be done in principle; on the other hand, I don't expect this will be done in practice. I am not happy with the list, and I shared my worries with the author at User talk:Member#List of well known mathematical formulas a few days ago, but I cannot find a good enough reason to vote to delete the list, hence I abstain for the moment. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:29, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "can be done in principle... don't expect this will be done in practice." Nicely put, and my own thoughts precisely. When are we going to get the article rating feature turned on? Dpbsmith (talk) 15:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't believe this is encyclopedic or manageable. Eusebeus 14:48, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If there are other lists on Wikipedia, then why not keep this one? --Member 21:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  The difficulty is that it is not at all clear what belongs in this list, even with the new title. To me, it sounds too much like

  Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Appropriate topics for lists.) Dmharvey 22:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply

  ]

(that should have been "

I have a bad feeling about this") :-) Dmharvey 23:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. There's no such thing as standard mathematics classes. Conscious 07:19, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • My bad on that one; I suggested it and Member took me up on it. On reflection a better name would be List of formulas from elementary mathematics. That's at least plausibly a manageable and useful list, and seems to be more or less the original intent, provided Elementary mathematics is defined to include basic calculus (which I think it should be). --Trovatore 07:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to list of common mathematical formulae. There is no reason why we can't have an easy-reference list of formulae. Charles Matthews 10:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP. On the condition that its title is changed to something more specific, such as "formulas commonly known by many." With the current tile, it could be interpreted as: "okay, who are these forulas most well iknown to?" Now, I know it refers to those that are commonly known, but it needs to be specific. The Wookieepedian 19:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete under any of the names so far proposed. (Is continually redirecting the article appropriate while it's under AfD?) Cannot be encyclopedic. Could be appropriate for wikibooks, if the title is established. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I see no use or purpose. Fredrik | tc 06:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment as it is, the article lists rather lame formulas, not notable in their own right. I think an article which lists "named" formulas (like Euler's formula and so on) might be a good idea, but this is just a collection of trivial school stuff.  Grue  17:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Half-cooked, unencyclopedic, and not helpful. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the updated list. Klonimus 06:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It seems this page was created for the purpose of listing high school algebra/trig formulae, calculus formulae, etc. I note that most of the supporters of this page seem to have this idea also. There may be nothing wrong with a page entitled "list of common trigonometric formulae" etc., but the current title (and all redirects so far) are misleading. I recommend deletion and that people interested in creating lists of trig formulae,etc., do so under an appropriate heading. --C S (Talk) 22:36, 24 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. --Titoxd^(?!?) 02:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ionian School

This article refers to a non-existent 'school' of philosophy, and causes unnecessary confusion WhiteC 03:54, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Many Google hits for "Ionian School" as a pre-Socratic school of Greek philosophers. 70.122.87.59 04:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the concept began as a reference to the Ionian philosophers and got transferred to an mythical school by analogy with the Milesian school.Dave 05:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep real encylopedias have articles about this.
  Kappa 06:02, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Is not Wikipedia a real encyclopedia?Dave 05:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Even the puny Encarta encyclopedia mentions this school of philosophy [9]. The article looks good to me. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If it looks good to you, then you ought to be able to say what the school platform is, right? Would you care to enlighten us?Dave 05:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep. What the hell is wrong with you? Five seconds on google proves this is real. Night Gyr 09:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very emotional. But what do you mean by real in this context?Dave 05:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. *ahem* Looks like someone is confused alright. —RaD Man (talk) 11:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying you are able to judge what is confused and what not? If so, care to fill us in?Dave 05:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but please, please, please, let's not go off insulting nominators. AGF applies to all edits, including nominations. It's sufficient that the article will be kept. Geogre 13:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But I thought that was what was to be decided!Dave 05:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and cleanup. The 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica had an article on this school. Google books comes up with 10 books mentioning them including two by Karl Popper [10]

27 results from Google Scholar see [11]. Notable philosophy school. Capitalistroadster 17:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that this article was in several encyclopedias does not mean that it is not inherently misleading. Referring to any group of philosophers whose only common attribute was geography as a school is misleading--they didn't all agree with each other, and were from several different time periods in Ancient Greece. Perhaps this usage is sufficiently common that it should be retained in Wikipedia as a stub to point at schools of philosophy which are not arbitrary classifications. Anyway, I challenge anyone to come up with a different reason than geography for including all these philosophers in a 'school'. WhiteC 02:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all of them were

mythology that they tried to keep out of their philosophies (makign the the first true Western philosophers). Isn't that enough? Karol 10:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

• Accepting for the moment your argument that there is nothing that can actual be called an "Ionian school" of philosophy, the fact that this term is in several other encylopedias makes it inherently likely that users will try to look it up in this one. If usage is inconsistent then we should do our best to describe this inconsistent usage in an NPOV way.
  Kappa 03:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

There is something to that argument, but does Wikipedia want to be in the business of overtly correcting error in other encyclopedias? I say, no. Let those in error correct themselves.Dave 05:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Karol 10:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if other encyclopedias cover it, we should as well. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:48, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No. Wikipedia should strive to be independently excellent and in so doing provide information that is fresh and not always to be found elsewhere. Why should I not get my Britannica or MS Encarta off the shelf if Wikipedia is only a parrot?Dave 05:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. WhiteC, I can understand your logic, but it appears that so many other sources call this group by that name, that that's what people would search for. If you'd like to add something to the article pointing out their differences, that's your perrogative. Jacqui^★ 15:14, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But what if they should decide to search for sky-hooks. Is it our business to provide an article on sky-hooks?Dave 05:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, immo vero! I had a lengthy section in here but someone altered it without any indication of who, and no record of the alteration in the history. That can only be a Wikipedia sys admin. It is pretty hard to answer tactics of that nature. This is beginning to sound like Plato's ideal state, where only the few get to do any thinking and talking. I hope that will not be the case, but it will be if you let it.

Let me retiterate and summarize, there is no Ionian school. I have no idea who on the Internet is promulgating the notion, but you know, once something gets said once, it gets repeated over and over. The pre-socratics are not physicalists, neither are they all monists. As for the panmetabolists, that term is incomprehensible to the general public and certainly is not ancient. Wikipedia seems to be having a lot of trouble with its philosophy. I suggest that getting back to basics will improve things considerably. Don't we have to think about the public? As a bottom line, I would like to say, if you have to start out by saying there really is no Ionian school, you aren;t building any confidence that what you say is true.Dave 19:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS I'm really talking to you, aren't I , Karol? No, the reasons you cite are not enough to distinguish an Ionian school. The coast of Anatolia was diverse, Different dialects of greek and different languages were spoken there. So there is no geographic unity. As for the cultural background, it was Hellenic. The Ionians came from Attica and bronze age Peloponnesus. Why not call the Athenians Ionian? And the mythology, they didn't believe anything no other Hellene didnt believe. Where's the distinction? And physicalist? A very obscure neologism I dare say. It is nowhere defined. I don't see ANY method at all here, sir. No way to distinguish an Ionian school is presented.Dave 05:11, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am replying upon request. I don't doubt there were substantial differences between the particular Ionian philosophers, and we know they didn't "collaborate", but they had alot in common, at least in my view of them. I can't argue specifically about cultural backgrounds and history, because I don't feel knowledgable in that area. In any case, grouping philosophers into schools is really a post factum job, chronologically speaking, so the concept of "school" goes beyond who they were and what they spoke/wrote/thought to include our contemporary interpretation of their philosophies. I'm probably writing more than needed. Let me just add that physicalism is not a neologism (you can also find references outside Wikipedia), and I know I used the term "off limits", but that was intended, becuase I couldn't find a better one at the moment - perhaps materialists? Karol 08:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. The discussion seems to be centering on the concept of materialism. See the next comment. My main doubt is that I do not see the "materialism" as distinctively Ionian.Dave 18:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The "Byzantine Empire" never considered itself that. To it's subjects, it was the Roman Empire, and they considered themselves Romans. They preserved Roman culture for nearly a thousand years after the Western Roman Empire fell. But historians have a problem with calling it the Roman Empire, because the original territory of the Roman Empire was lost. Oh well. They can call it whatever they want. It's a convention. That's what names are. Conventions. "Byzantine" makes it easy to differentiate the later Roman Empire from the earlier. Which brings us to the distinction of the Ionian school of philosophy. So what if it's geographically based. It's also called the Melesian school, also a geographical distinction. It was started by Thales of Melitus, so go figure. Thales had a couple really cool disciples (well one disciple and one sub-disciple), and some contemporaries who no doubt benefited from all their wisdom. Between the lot of them they pumped out enough philosophical material to be considered a school. For this, maybe we should call them "materialists". Hey, I can make any distinction I want, but that won't get it in an encyclopedia until it becomes some kind of consensus. But they are already materialists by another more popular distinction, and Ionians, so let them stay in our wonderful encyclopedia!!! We can work on my new definition of materialism later. Go for it! 16:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize that the term 'Ionian School' has widespread usage. But I thought that since the 1911 Britannica article recognized that the term did not refer to a coherent classification scheme, perhaps it might be time (after almost a century) to remove it. I suppose I will have to keep the article, and try to stay NPOV in a (hopefully brief) discussion of classification schemes for philosophical schools in the article. I will start a discussion over on the Philosophy tasks, since this seems to be more specialized than just deletion.

Out of curiosity, what kind of criteria would an article from 1911 Brittannica have to meet in order for it to be deleted? Factual error and/or extreme bias? WhiteC 17:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More on materialism. I like the way this discussion is centering in on materialism, which is partly at the heart of the problem. I grant you many of the philosophers - Thales, etc. and the pluralists - DO seem to be concerned with the explanation of nature. 1) What do we moderns call their interest? I'm not sure materialism does the job, as our materialism (I think - maybe I'm wrong) implies that there is no spirit, no God even, and that matter and the laws of matter are supreme. None of the philosophers thought that. Also, we want to avoid any connection with our physics, as the only one who thought numerically was Pythagoras, and he is not an Ionian. 2) What do you do with the incipient skeptics - Heraclitus and Xenophanes etc. The latter is not in the article but he was an Ionian. Is Ionian to include all Ionians or just some of them?Dave 18:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is considered a school. --FranksValli 20:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Speaking of "movements", there is "one" taking place at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy right now. It's a general stir up, really. And you are all invited!!! There's an election going on, and it's not for mere keeping/deleting. We're deciding on what to CREATE! Come on and vote on our December collaboration. Go for it! 00:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Is this some sort of vindictive joke? Banno 20:38, 26 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

]

/pizza

A single command in Everquest 2. And haven't I read somewhere that pages with forward-slashes in their names are bad ideas? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Hilarious, if true; if a source can be found, merge to either
  /dev/null, for example—but don't behave quite the way you'd expect sometimes.) Kirill Lokshin 04:11, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Don't have a source, but it was in the news some time ago. --Halal 08:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everquest II#Business already talks about it; I don't think a redirect is going to be useful here. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]

  Would it hurt to have it, though? I doubt anyone will search for the command itself, but it's still possible. Kirill Lokshin 04:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Kind of funny, actually. How about a merge? - Lucky 6.9 05:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I don't mind the merge, but it's non-GFDL kosher to merge and delete, and I really can't imagine command line entries in article space (i.e. in the resulting redirect). Perhaps there should be a section
  Everquest 2#Easter eggs. Geogre 13:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. No mergable content and pointless as a redirect. KingTT 18:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Already covered in
  Everquest II. (I'm hoping people would be smart enough to look up a game to find out about it if they can't find anything using the /pizza command). - Mgm|^(talk) 10:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge with product placement if it's not already there. The mention at the Everquest article should stay, too. But this doesn't need its own article, though it's funny, and it seems an unlikely search term.Jacqui^★ 15:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, really nn.  Grue  17:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, subtrivial gamecruft. MCB 22:34, 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 Speedy Delete by CambridgeBayWeather as no context. --GraemeL ^(talk) 12:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Samsel

Image posting of "real person". No text in article. No assertion of notability. 70.122.87.59 04:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. If there were words in the article, it might be a clear case of speedy delete for non-notable bio. 70.122.87.59 04:07, 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 keep. There also seems to be a desire to merge, so someone may want to take care of that. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 23:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Temperance organizations

Page is superfluous now that Category:Temperance organizations has been created, and largely re-hashes material in that category and in Category:Temperance movement.--chris.lawson 04:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Duplicative material per nomination. Jtmichcock 04:45, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Temperance movement. Capitalistroadster 05:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: If there is a cat tag now, I don't see the utility of a merge, so delete for duplicate material. Geogre 13:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, de-listify, and expand. The fact that a category has been created is not a deletion criteria. Just the opposite, really. I have made this the lead article in the new organizations sub-cat. Marskell 14:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Marskell CalJW 15:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, if the article doesn't provide any useful info not already present in the cat (for example, an unannotated list that cannot be usefully annotated), that is a deletion criterion; it's dupe content. That said, this is useful prose, so merge this into Temperance movement. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A rarely invoked guideline that I present here: Wikipedia:Abundance and redundancy. Redundancy is admittedly a merge criteria (not a delete criteria) but this isn't enshrined: lead articles in a cat ought to be somewhat redundant. Here is the subject in manageable chunks within the cat, and here is a lead article that sums them all up. This article should be expanded, not deleted or merged. Marskell 19:50, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think we're in disagreement, even given that guideline (which I'm not entirely happy with, but for completely unrelated reasons). I think this should be merged into temperance movement because temperance organizations and the temperance movement are the same subject. That guideline suggests duplicating info in separate but related subjects, whereas I see these two articles as covering the same subject. (I wasn't arguing this should be deleted anyway.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:45, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Temperance movement and redirect. The list/cat argument doesn't do it for me. It's not about the fact that this is a list of sorts. It's about the fact that like information likes to stick together. Jacqui^★ 15:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Preferably Keep, otherwise Merge with Temperance movement and redirect. The Temperance movement article is actually not very adequate and I came to this article from that one. There is much more to be said on the movement as a political force. This article should be expanded to show that there was a diversity of organisations within the movement, many with different agendas, even though with the same professed goal. While there was overlap with organisations there was difference too - the Ku Klux Klan and the non-conformist movements (eg Methodists) on the Australian gold fields are not the same. How such disparate groups co-existed and their successes with prohibition and early closing in the early twentieth century would make an interesting article beyond the scope of what is already there and the article on the movement.--A Y Arktos 08:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- I certainly wouldn't object to a merge and redirect either, per AYArktos and Jacqui M.--chris.lawson 02:33, 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 NA. Admin speedy deleted article as non notable bio. Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 09:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Cox

• Keep. Why delete it? it hardly takes up any space on their servers and ill never see it unless iam looking for it. I cant think of any reason why anyone would care to post this but whatever, if someone wants too let them.
• Delete. Agreed, this is no place for obituaries.
• Delete. I agree! I understand the purpose and it noble, however I beleive it in appropriate. Entries such as these are ok now, but allow this, and you must allow all
• Delete. there is no conspiracy here and it's sick to crawl all over it when none of you actually care what happened.
• What? Why should it be deleted? What if it was your kid?
• Delete. encyclopedias are not a place for obituaries
• Delete. just another person dead, sorry but it happens everyday

nn death, OR, speculation, no sources, probably a copyvio though I haven't found from where. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Although sad, death was not notable. Jtmichcock 04:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sorry for the loss. --Halal 09:45, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Let's try to avoid acronyms in our nominations, please; not all VfD/AfD deliberators will be veterans. At any rate, Delete for violating WP:NOT (sorry): Wikipedia is not a memorial site. Geogre 13:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, along with the photo, per Geogre. Pburka 16:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The photo is a family photo, no copyvios, and I don't see why a good person cannot get an entire Wikipedia page when an off-brand computer game from the 80's can. Johnroberts 12:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wikipedia is
  FCYTravis 19:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• What? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_%28Tekken%29 And THIS is of widespread interest and worthy to have its own encyclopedia article?! Not only that, but it contains copyrighted images! Here's a list of people who want this article kept and think this had significant influence on their community and lives: Kayla Stultz, Reagan Allison, Britney Bullins, Justin Ingold, Kenny Johnson, Brandy Dillard, Robbie Bennett, Donna Swain, Meredith Walch, Holly Byerly, Karen Cline, Maggie Summey, Brandy Osborne, Zig, Andrew Martin, Michael Ring, Matt Poindexter, Brittney Imam, Jessica Mays, Luke Basinger, Ryan Friddle, Ashley Brown, Cody Brown, Clint Basinger, Codie Calloway, Gena Cox, Jared Branch, Sarah Winters, Samantha Swink, Kristen W, and Amanda Mikles Unsigned comment from User:Johnroberts. Pburka
  • Comment. The link you've posted is a character from a game. As the game in question has been released worldwide and is a large part of pop culture and gaming culture, it is of widespread interest and worthy enough to have its own article. Cody, however sad the death may be, is neither an icon of pop culture, nor of any widespread interest outside of his hometown. dpkonofa
• Delete Not a notable person. Does not fit with article guidelines whatsoever. Unsigned vote from User:67.171.230.147. Pburka
• What is wrong with it?? Unsigned comment from User:65.94.135.170. Pburka
  • Comment. Clearly, Cody Cox was very important to the people who knew and loved him and his death is tragic. To be encyclopedic, though, there needs to be some indication that the story is more notable than many similar stories. This story does not seem to have been picked up by news sources outside of North Carolina, indicating that, at this time, it is still a local story. Sadly, killings are sufficiently common place that they are not, in themselves, notable. Additionally, the last section (The Conspiracy) appears to be
    original research. This is doubly inappropriate for Wikipedia. Pburka 04:46, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete: This is an information database as it should always be, free from personal opinions and feelings. If his death has a noticable impact, then it should be kept and Cody wil be put up there with Martin Luther King and Abraham Lincoln, and the other important historical figures, until then.. sorry. On the otherhand, I'm sorry for your loss and may you try to find another way of keeping Cody's memory alive. Unsigned vote from User:216.58.17.167. Pburka
• Abstain At the moment, I do know what significance this has on any matter, but it does give me an interesting idea. I will return to change my vote in a few days if I feel it is necessary. Sweetfreek 05:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree that wikipedia is not a memorial site. If one obituary is allowed then it'll open the floodgates to all. Noone would expect to find this story however tragic in any other encyclopedia. Orcus 05:50, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't delet it. This website is not so damned important that it can't include the informa

tion on the life of one young man. He died young; who he may have become will never be known, but this is a website for information, and I want it there. I don't think that many people are going to put shit up for a "memorial" so that's a stupid point anyways. And this website is not completely free from personal feelings. If it were, you would not care whether or not this was put up. User:Colin D. Fee 05:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

---

"This website is not so damned important" -> subjective (to you it may not be important). Objective: wikipedia has gained a huge reader base, high pop. and many services/software applications depend on it nowadays.

,... "this is a website for information, and I want it there." -> the internet is for information, this website is for entries meeting the definition of encyclopedia and leeway making room for the information age. "And this website is not completely free from personal feelings." -> that's one of the fundamental ideas of the project, a vast user base reaching a common consensus in a joint effort (learn/ look up def: objectifying / objectification). "If it were, you would not care whether or not this was put up." -> it is cared for because information has to be confined herin to objective criteria. If somethings not cared for, it is neglected by definition, resulting in prematured decay ( Also see thermodynamics, entropy). You right in that personal feelings are involved in keeping this project running! Hope i could help in clarifying some points for you, and showing you that no-one here wants to work against you.

---

• • The above is in reality 152.23.196.170 (talk · contribs), and this is his/her only edit to Wikipedia. User:Zoe|^(talk) 08:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'm sorry but Wikipedia is not a memorial and this is a non-encyclopedic article. --Camw 07:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Same reasons others have mentioned.
• KEEP - Of Course this should be kept for reference if someone had to do a report and wanted to reference this incident. Having items like this makes WikiPedia a good source of information. If something with this entry is incorrect it can be changed.
• Delete - To the person above, please figure out how to format. Your argument is also difficult to swallow, since ANYONE can change this article. If I wished to insert a comment that distorted the events that led to the death, (ie given how there are different viewpoints, someone inserted writing in support of the person who stabbed Cody Cox) then how is it a reliable reference? This is not the appropriate place to remember someone, therefore I must support deleting.
• Delete - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia... not the obituary section of the newspaper. Tezkah 08:15, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is a local news story.

Delete, there are thousands and thousands of people murderd every year why is this one special? I do have sympathy for the family, however I don't see the relivance on Wikipedia.

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

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

]

List of African musicians

Categorize Absolutely nothing here that could not be handled with appropriate categories. No indication of why these particular musicians were selected for inculsion. Some lists are useful, but this one isn't. Caerwine 04:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, this way users can see a whole continent at a glance, instead of having to click on 50 categories.
  Kappa 05:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep However a Category for African musicians sounds like a good idea. An advantage with this though is all the red names can hopefully inspire someone to "turn them blue." Usually a list with a great many red names I think is a bad sign. However African issues are so poorly dealt with at Wiki anything that encourages better coverage I think is a good idea. All the names there needing to be filled could do that.--T. Anthony 06:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kappa 07:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Good catch, I have just created Category:European musicians and have started adding Category:Austrian musicians, Category:Belgian musicians, etc. to it. Andrew Levine 00:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Two reasons for keeping this list: 1) The red links are suggestions for new articles, as Anthony said. 2) If you want to search in Category:African musicians, you need to browse all the subcategories as well to find a musician if you don't know his or her nationality. Riki 12:54, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep being African has a fair chance of having influenced how they play music, whereas ebing Jewish has little chance of influencing how you play chess. -
  ^ask? 20:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per Riki and Doc. Andrew Levine 00:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Kappa and T. Anthony. You can't categorize red links and we need them to improve coverage of African music. It also makes searching for a musician a lot easier if you don't know where they live. Lists and categories serve different purposes, and I think the use this list serves is clear. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Riki, Doc and
  WP:CLS. No problem with keeping the cat too, though. Jacqui^★ 15:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy keep this list is useful. That Europe does not have an equivalent list is not an adequate argument – there are lists that adequately accommodate even the most non-notable European garage band (eg. List of death metal bands). Removing this list will only lead to the need for 42 eternal three sentence stubs like List of Benga musicians, which will do nothing but exacerbate the existing bias. / Ezeu 05:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Given that the only thing these lists have at the moment are names, one wonders why the search box in the sidebar won't suffice. The only other reason I've heard expressed for keeping this list and the other one that I proposed for deletion is not that a reader will find the list useful in its own right, but that it will somwhow act as a spur to improve the coverage of this area of knowledge by Wikipedia. Exactly how this magic is supposed to occur is never explained, but I'll assume for the moment that it will somehow occur. If that's the case, why shouldn't this list be moved to Wikipedia:List of African musicians that Wikipedia needs articles on or more normally Wikipedia:WikiProject African musicians? Caerwine 07:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Exactly how this magic is supposed to occur." You get new people interested in African musicians. If this is placed in the category of that name all the better. Anyway I have an interest in China. I think I found List of Chinese painters because for a time I had a Chinese involved category on my watchlist. All the red names I saw on the list did inspire me because I had information in my own books that could add those names. There might be an article on Mi Fu without that list, but it would've been done later and the list gave me a job to work on, with pleasure, for a time.--T. Anthony 01:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That said if a Project is preferred for that okay. The thing is not all of us are as social as others. I don't follow projects very well or go to the community portal that much.--T. Anthony 01:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The search box would suffice if the search result could yield a list of African musicians sorted by country (now, that would be magic). This list, like every other list on wikipedia, is a compliment to the search box, and a compliment to categories. With your argument, all lists should be deleted. According to Wikipedia:Lists, Some lists are useful for Wikipedia development purposes. The lists of related topics give an indication of the state of the 'pedia, the articles that have been written, and the articles that have yet to be written. This and other examples of why this list is useful is given there. / Ezeu 14:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are three purposes Wikipedia:Lists gives for lists, Information, Navigation, Development.

    Information Unlike a

    List of Baku metro stations

    , or anyother number of lists on Wikipedia where there is some reasonable prospect that a person would seek the list as a whole and thus as information, why would anyone seek this list as information in its own right and not as a aid to navigation or development? By its very nature it is inherently incomplete and can never be completed. There is no indication of why these African musicians and not others have been included. Considered only as information it is at best a collection of indiscrimate information, not worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia.

    Navigation There is nothing in this list that is an improvement over the ability to navigate provided by the category system. It lists its entries in alphabetical order for each country, the same as is provided by the category system. Considered only as an aid to navigation, it is not an improvement over categories (at least in its present form) and thus not worth keeping.

    Development I will concede that this list is potentially useful for development (if we can find someone who is willing and able to do the development), but since it has no other apparent value, it belongs in the Wikipedia namespace, not the main one. Caerwine 16:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• You said "if we can find someone who is willing and able to do the development" - do not patronize those who have contibuted to that list. What will you crusade against next,
  List of African writers (by country)? / Ezeu 08:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Possibly it could be divided into East, West, North and Southern Africa. My interest in African music is mostly Southern and West although I like Souad Massi a fair amount. Alternatively if it lives maybe we could divide the nations up that way instead of alphabetically. Or I'm just babbling due to the hour.--T. Anthony 09:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• At the risk of repeating myself, this list offers the navigational advantage over the category that users can see every member without having to click on a separate link for each country. From the point of view of information, it has the advantage of including an alternate name for
  Kappa 09:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep — RJH 16:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 09:15, 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. --Titoxd^(?!?) 02:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Punjabi musicians

Categorize Absolutely nothing here that could not be handled with appropriate categories. No indication of why these particular musicians were selected for inculsion. Some lists are useful, but this one isn't. Caerwine 04:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, helps fight
  Kappa 05:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Strong keep, see
  _געשׁ״ך 07:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Categorize or Merge with
  Punjab_(Pakistan)
  . I prefer Punjab_region, to avoid offending either Pakistan or India.
• Strong Keep. Categories can't contain red links (per Kappa). I'm guessing they were included because those were the Punjabi musicians the creator knew about. If you think the coverage is insufficient, feel free to expand with more. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per what I said at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of African musicians. Jacqui^★ 15:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:17, 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 Delete. --Titoxd^(?!?) 02:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spacker

Neologism, previously deleted page (although apparently with different content). Also see old deletion debate for Spacker template. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Neologism and dictionary definition. Wikipedia is not the Jargon File. Geogre 13:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. PJM 07:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as per Geogre Pete.Hurd 22:29, 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 Speedy delete by Lucky 6.9 as attack page.

Trexing

Neologism. Delete.

]

• Attack page as well. Going away right now. - Lucky 6.9 05:10, 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 KEEP. — JIP | Talk 08:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Loxian

nn conlang. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although I personally think the concept is silly, I have to concur that being promoted on an Enya album, thus reaching millions of people, is sufficient enough for inclusion. It also Googles well. The article needs serious improvement, however. wikipediatrix 04:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep, and not very enthusiatic. Needs cleanup, definitely. Jtmichcock 04:50, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, conlang sung to a large audience.
  Kappa 05:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, I guess, if Enya used it. Herostratus 06:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Erg. Shoot, I don't think even use by Enya makes it a conlang that needs coverage. I'd rather see a merge and redirect to Enya and the article on the newest album. Geogre 13:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A conlang created for use on a single CD can only be described as non-notable. I don't care how many people will hear this - babble is babble. Denni ☯ 01:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep having a large audience is one of the major points in determining the notability of a conlang. Failing that, merge and redirect to Enya. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's a nn conlang. Delete and redirect to either Enya or Wikipediatrix's new entry on the conlang creator Roma Ryan.Eusebeus 14:55, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all trends that Enya sets. :-P Jacqui^★ 15:24, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, not only used on the Enya CD, but also in a book by Roma Ryan, thereby more than one reference. Chrysalis 18:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Roma Ryan. I should note that there *is* no book which uses Loxian yet; Water Shows the Hidden Heart has not yet been published, and no details are yet available. Indigozeal 05:18, 24 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 by Zoe as nn-bio. --GraemeL ^(talk) 12:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Bouboushian

Significance not established. Google finds 11 hits, at least 9 of which are Wikipedia-based -Rholton 04:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable. ERcheck 04:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy deleted under the nn-bio CSD. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:35, 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 Speedy deleted as vandalism by Lucky 6.9

Dungalized

Neologism. Much to my surprise, no google hits. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. An article about things covered in crap being an article that is. . . no, won't go there! Jtmichcock 04:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Crappy article on crap. (Notorious4life 04:54, 19 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

• And what do we do with crap, fellow wiki workers? Right! We flush it. Bye, crap! - Lucky 6.9 05:16, 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. --Titoxd^(?!?) 02:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DWWE

Either a greatly embellished account or a pure fantasy -Rholton 04:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wow, this article is too funny. (Notorious4life 04:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete. An amusing article that I will enjoy when it finds a home on Geocities. Jtmichcock 05:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Definitely fiction. --Bookandcoffee^{(Leave msg.)} 05:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Somebody had too much coffee. Herostratus 06:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Retain. This organization isn't fictional. I currently live in Jacksonville and I've heard of them. From what I understand they put a lot of humor into their production, which can be seen in this article. DaveRogers(I'm a little guy) 11:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete even if only because of the blatant sock-puppetry. Pburka 16:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sock-puppetry appears to have been vandalism, and has now been fixed. My vote stands. Pburka 17:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Direct quote from article: " this is a greatly embelished and humorous account of the companies dealings and history." Delete --YixilTesiphon 17:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• The Digimon Wrestling Federation is a great idea... FOR ME TO POOP ON! Delete. --Pc13 22:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Funny like leftover pasta. Denni ☯ 01:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and BJAODN. If only people devoted this much effort and energy to real articles. MCB 22:39, 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. --Titoxd^(?!?) 02:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blogroll

• Useless neoljizzum, merge into
  List of Blogging Terms if it's not already there. Skrewler 05:02, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • This is already int he
    List of Blogging Terms
    . Why do we need a whole article on a term that refers to your list of blog sites
• Keep--valid article on a potentially confusing (and certainly interesting) term. This amount of information wouldn't fit into
  List of blogging terms. Meelar (talk) 05:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Transwiki to Wiktionary. A definition for a frequent term in the blogosphere that is useful as a dictionary item. Jtmichcock 05:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable term in blogging. Long enough to stand alone. Capitalistroadster 05:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Since
  List of blogging terms already has enough information on this. After all, this is just a list of blogs on a blog. Heeello. Borderline dicdef here too. --Timecop 05:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete; being a real word is not sufficient for an encyclopedia entry. —Wahoofive (talk) 05:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As is stands the article is more than a dictionary definition. -- Curps 06:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Herostratus 06:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Duplicate content and dictdef. Every phenomenon generates epiphenomenal slang. Geogre 13:44, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: interesting article about a widespread term that has seen more press than most other silly blog-related vocabulary. - squibix 16:02, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki as per Jtmichcock. Qwghlm 16:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep word transcends simple blog-culture jargon. Jessamyn 02:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. agrees with Jessamyn. __earth 04:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• If this is deleted, please replace with a redirect to the list of blogging terms so the entry there can be found. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this word has been everywhere. CNN has used it! Jacqui^★ 15:25, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is a term that is widely used enough that it merits a discussion of its origin and history. It exemplifies wikipedia's importance as a flexible encyclopedia that adapts to changing terminology of the internet. mennonot 10:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Informative article. Just because you don't agree with the contents doesn't mean its not encyclopaedic. Rhobite 20:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Capitalistroadster and Jessamyn. MCB 22:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Very helpful to someone unfamiliar with a term to be able to Google it and find this page near the top of the list.dawno 23:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As a blogger newbie this article was very helpful. Lawyer2b 03:00, 26 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. --Titoxd^(?!?) 02:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Warblog

or merge into llist of blogging terms. same rationale as poker blog. do we need a Food Blog Giraffe Blog Pedo Blog, too? Skrewler 05:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable category of blog and article gives context. Some of the most notable and well-read blogs have been called war blogs. 547,000 hits for warblog see [12]. Four replies in Google book search [13] and 10 original sources in Google Scholar [14] indicate that the phrase has gone well beyond the blogging community. Capitalistroadster 05:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable for its historical relevance. This is not the same as
  Current Relevance section in the article. Just because it's not as relevant now as it was 2 years ago, doesn't mean we should delete it. To the contrary it should be expanded and better documented as a part of a historic event. mennonot 09:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Is it difficult being a moron? --Daniel11 01:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read
    WP:Civil, thanks. Skrewler 05:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep Per capitalistroadster. Jessamyn 02:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --NeuronExMachina 05:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and please note that the criteria listed at The War on Blogs are not the same criteria that most of Wikipedia would share. I suggest you limit your AfDs to ones that you think are the most reprehensible. Jacqui^★ 15:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Informative article. Just because you don't agree with the contents doesn't mean its not encyclopaedic. Rhobite 20:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Little Green Footballs Klonimus 20:16, 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 Delete. --Titoxd^(?!?) 03:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Experimedia

NN/Vanity. Another netlabel. Alexa doesn't even have any info on it. Skrewler 05:11, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. -- Femmina 13:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP not a web directory. --Squiddy 14:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. There are thousands of unknown netlabels, no need to list them all here. --Timecop 07:52, 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 ☎ ) 19:45, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ghetto_Slime

Appears to be an advertisement for the game's authors and company. 202.89.173.183 05:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --Squiddy 14:11, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable, advertisement --Halal 23:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. -- DS1953 04:57, 22 November 2005
• Don't Delete-entertaing game and it is a slime mod with apparently lots of hits.

(UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.200.212.193 (talk • contribs)

• Delete-I changed mine. I played the other slime games and this it the exact same except that the colors and names have been changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.93.194.216 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd^(?!?) 03:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Robert Bell

Google turns up hits, but only about a 1000. The article contains numerous links, but I'm not entirely convinced they prove notability. --Locke Cole ^{(talk) (e-mail)} 05:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. --Locke Cole ^{(talk) (e-mail)} 05:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable as per nom Bwithh 05:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems to be notable. See [15], for instance. He seems to have had quite a few solo exhibits. Pburka 21:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not yet notable enough, Pburka's point notwithstanding. He seems to be mostly known for erotic paintings of Kala, which is to say, a svelte rubenesque female Sasquatch luxuriating. Also, 151 distinct google hits, so returns on total sample size of 1000 is 90%. Eusebeus 15:08, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as per Eusebeus Pete.Hurd 22:29, 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 Delete. --Titoxd^(?!?) 03:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Ronald Thatchwald

Marked as speediable. I removed the speedy tag and am listing it here instead. User claimed that Thatchwald has no hits on Google, and claims this is a hoax. I haven't checked into the assertion myself. No vote. —

]

• Delete as hoax, possible speedy as silly vandalism. No Google results at all for "Ronald Thatchwald" see [16].

A Google Scholar search proved to be similarly fruitless see [17] Capitalistroadster 06:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete hoax.--
  nixie 08:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. . Capitalistroadster 08:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hoax. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fleep. --Scott Davis ^Talk 08:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Longhair 08:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per nom.
  Ben Aveling 10:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete away, per nom. --Roisterer 04:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete hoax Pete.Hurd 22:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete hoax and no google hits for name with/without "professor". Sarah Ewart 03:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete hoax IanBailey ^(talk) 09:33, 26 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. --Titoxd^(?!?) 03:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hurley Expressions

Delete Not notable, may be self-promotion Chris the speller 05:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Advertising for non-notable store. Dlyons493 Talk 11:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as adspam. I think there's a skateboard company by this name, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete advertisement for NN company Pete.Hurd 22:22, 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 Delete. --Titoxd^(?!?) 03:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yyrt

The term "yyrt" turns up few hits on Google, and most of those seem to be nonsense. I could have sworn I'd heard of this before, but I'm having little luck turning up anything to prove that this isn't a joke/vandalism/hoax. --Locke Cole ^{(talk) (e-mail)} 05:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral for now, will wait to see if anyone can turn up anything else. :P --Locke Cole ^{(talk) (e-mail)} 05:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC) Delete, given the opinions stated below. —Locke Cole ^{(talk) (e-mail)} 00:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Needs careful consideration. The main point of the article seems to be a possible POV re Armenians rather than Zoroastrian circles. So at least verify and cleanup - else delete. Dlyons493 Talk 11:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unverifiable, and non-notable even if real, which I doubt. 337 unique Google hits, all for mistranslations, misspellings, secret codes or random characters strings; none for the subject of this article. No references = no article. --A D Monroe III 16:09, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Google search for yyrt and zoastrian (also tried zoroastrian) comes up with 0 hits. Fake. Alex Bartho 03:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete unverifyable Pete.Hurd 22:19, 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 SPEEDY DELETE. --Nlu 11:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jhandugiri

Entire contents is: "slang for a highly specialised way of passing time without noticing it". No google hits, possible "short, no context" speedy.

]

• Delete. "Burn it! Send it to hell!" wikipediatrix 06:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's probably just a newbie test...
    Kappa 06:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Speedy Delete no contest. Herostratus 06:53, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete no context.--Alhutch 07:44, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In the future, just tag something like this with {{no context}}, don't even bother with AfD.--Alhutch 07:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete due to no context added. Capitalistroadster 08:28, 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. --Titoxd^(?!?) 03:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Gallup

Delete. Nonsense. --Foobar 06:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Gallup already has a mention on the

Rich Gallup is the line stating he's the features producer, thus making the article unnecessary (unless someone wants to create a biography, which is unlikely considering that even the creators of GameSpot don't have biographical information on wikipedia). --Foobar 16:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

• DeleteNon notable Alex Bartho 03:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. Dirty pool cribbing the background of one of the few X-Men I actually like.
  You can call me Al 21:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• delete as above Pete.Hurd 22:18, 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 Delete. --Titoxd^(?!?) 03:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of poser bands

Poser Bands is not a NPOV, just someone opinion Ewok Slayer 06:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nomination --Halal 08:54, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, POV-pushing. Punkmorten 11:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Poser and relevent artists' articles. These bands/artists are considered posers by the group named, and well here on WP we do not push POVs, we do report on them; this is considered a major distinctive property of music by those who use the label. --User:Taejo | Talk 14:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as unverifiable. Taejo is right in saying we report on POVs - but we do not report on anonymous POVs attributed only to the nebulous "punk/goth/emo/hip hop music cultures." That is encyclopedically unacceptable. Without published references, this article is unsourced original research and must be deleted as such.
  FCYTravis 19:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete this per above. But I would support a small list at poser that was properly sourced. Jacqui^★ 15:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as NPOV. One mans poser is another mans rock god. Also oppose poser list on the poser page. Megapixie 09:57, 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 speedied. --

]

Big Timers

Nonsense, attacking and non-notable if real CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:49, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete as attack and silly vandalism.--Alhutch 07:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nonsense --pgk^(talk) 10:14, 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. --Titoxd^(?!?) 03:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dave kayani

Non-notable producer of a local cable channel show. Delete —Brim

• Delete as per nom. Harvestdancer 18:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 22:21, 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 DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fukitol

Self-confessed viral marketing. Delete. --Scott Davis ^Talk 07:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Advertising.--Alhutch 07:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete self-promotion. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete acknowledged advertising. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:44, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Pc13 22:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of chemical compounds with unusual names, where fucitol is listed as an entry. Denni ☯ 01:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's to be redirected, I'd suggest direct to Fucitol, rather than to a list containing it, but I still think this is better deleted, as it does not seem to be a misspelling of fucitol. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Fucitol. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:07, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• If Fukitol is deleted for "self-promotional" purposes because it is a commercial entity, then entries like Microsoft should also be deleted. What is the purpose of this Public Encyclopedia? Fukitol has been a spoof that has been around since 1974; and it's here to stay.

Entry: "Microsoft Corporation (NASDAQ: MSFT) (HKSE: 4338) is the world's largest software company, with 2005 global annual sales of 40 billion US dollars and more than 55,000 employees in 85 countries and regions." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.232.219.163 (talk • contribs)

• • One way to get the article to be accepted is to improve it. Reading the article at the moment, I can't tell if
    guerilla marketing raises it as suspicious. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete, apparent advert or company/site vanity. Incoherent article. MCB 23:38, 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 DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clan Oo

Sorry folks, wikipedia isn't a place to publicize your mapmaking clan.

]

• Delete. Advertising,
  which Wikipedia is not made for. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete --Halal 21:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete individual gaming clans. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:08, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn, advertising --Ebz 13:03, 26 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 as rewritten by

]

Libcom

vanity page Halal 08:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, of some importance, I have cleaned it up and removed most of the vanity. —
  Wackymacs 09:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, notable in anarchist circles. Jessamyn 02:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw nice job on the clean-up. --Halal 18:07, 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. --Titoxd^(?!?) 03:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fleep

Hoax, see also

]

• Comment.According to Google, Fleep refers to a comic strip which has won an
  Eisner Award which would make an article on it notable enough for mine. The current article is detritus which should be swept away. A search for Fleep Thatchwald strikes out completely on a Google search see [18]
  .

Capitalistroadster 08:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. . Capitalistroadster 08:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per nom.
  Ben Aveling 10:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. --Roisterer 04:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 22:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Needs some form of proof that the term exists (Im not talking about newspaper articles or anything), even an unreliable source which simply shows that the term is in common usage --Sparks 333 00:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom Sarah Ewart 03:11, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete IanBailey ^(talk) 09:31, 26 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 by Ingoolemo as hoax.

]

Rugby league in Argentina

Steps 1 and 3 of AfD were done by

]

Speedy delete. Sorry I missed a part of the procedure; I'll check it out because there are more of these hoax RL articles. Quite simply, RL is not played in Argentina. Therefore, how can the subject have a WP article? It is noticeably quite empty and isn't even a stub! --

]

• Delete Rugby Union is a national sport in Argentina. That's a different game. Delete all similar articles nominated below before we end up with Water-polo in Tibet (article=It's not played there). Dlyons493 Talk 11:28, 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. Robert ^{T | @ | C} 23:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Misfit

Appears to be nonnotable. In the absence of further information I propose that it be deleted. Jogloran 09:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to The Misfits. Pburka 16:45, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non notable, vanity, self-advertisement most likely. Alex Bartho 03:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 22:13, 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 Keep. --Titoxd^(?!?) 03:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby league in Japan

Speedy delete. Hoax page as RL is NOT played in Japan

]

• Comment Japanese Rugby League. You are patently wrong. - Randwicked 15:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and tag for cleanup. KillerChihuahua 00:25, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Prove that it isn't played there. I say it is, and there is a website: [19] Grinner 12:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As above pointed out. Work in progress pages as the template testify. POds 12:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not the first spurious attack on wikipedia's rugby league coverage by this user. Please leave off. CalJW 14:04, 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 Speedy delete as silly and meaningless vandalism. The article makes no mention of its subject, and is just daft and incoherent. I tried to rewrite the article to be about the independent record label by this name, as per "What links here", but couldn't find out anything at all about it, and so couldn't even create a stub. Uncle G 14:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Colt Records

This is plain nonsense warpozio 10:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete -
  Patent nonsense -GTBacchus ^(talk)10:45, 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 Keep. --Titoxd^(?!?) 03:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby league in Kenya

Speedy delete. Although this article admits that RL is not played in Kenya after an abortive attempt to introduce it in 2000, the information is not important enough to constitute an entire article and the single paragraph about the abortive attempt should be added to a wider article about attempts to expand RL. It is quite true that RL is not played in Kenya; indeed the sport is not played anywhere on the whole continent of Africa.

]

• Keep, users should be able to find out that an attempt was made to introduce rugby to Kenya. Possibly rename to
  Kappa 16:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Not a hoax. Kenya does not play rugby league any more. This is here mearly to document its begining and end. Perhaps slightly useless. Tried to delete it myself once, but my reason "because they don't play rugby league anymore" was not good enough. There may yet be more information on this topic. POds 12:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Separate article necessary for categorisation purposes. This nomination is a reflection of the old antagonism between rugby league and rugby union, which almost everyone except George Williams has put behind them now. CalJW 14:01, 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 Keep. --Titoxd^(?!?) 03:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby league in Morocco

Speedy delete. Hoax article: RL is NOT PLAYED in Morocco or indeed anywhere in Africa.

]

• Comment. Member of Rugby League European Federation [20]. Plays in Mediterrean Competition. Capitalistroadster 18:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Please provide a source that says RL is not played in Morroco. Grinner 10:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not a hoax. These pages are a work in progress. Have patience. Morroco have participated in the last 2/3 Mediterranean cups as documented else where on Wikipedia and other many sites. Give it up George. Focus your attention on being creative, not destructive. POds 12:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Separate article necessary for categorisation purposes. This user once tried to get the rugby league category deleted, apparently under the misapprehension that the deletion of all the articles in it would automatically follow. CalJW 14:00, 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 Keep. --Titoxd^(?!?) 03:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby league in Canada

Speedy delete. This is a hoax article. RL is not played in Canada.

]

• Comment. You're quite wrong, according to this. Have you actually checked up on all of these nominations? - Randwicked 15:54, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment You should stop by Canada one afternoon. Of bloody course we play rugby here.

Denni ☯ 01:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Work in progress pages, plenty of information available.

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

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

The result was Keep. Non-admin closing. -

]

rugby league in Canada

Rugby league in Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Delete - While rugby league once was played in Canada it no longer is, so I don't think something virtually nonexistant merits its own page. James Bowes 21:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*keep - I refer the nominator to this site, which clearly demonstrates that rugby league is still played in Canada. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for historical value at the very least. The site I referred to above (and which was used in the previous AfD) is in fact about rugby union, a mistake which was made due to my browser being unable to load the entire page first off. That said, the nominator and I are both unable to find any evidence later than 2003 dealing with the sport in Canada - things can change drastically in 3 years, but at the very least we know it was played that recently. Importantly, there is no
  reliable evidence
  that the game is not played still

Comment - If you read the source you'd realise it was a rugby union competition and thus irrelevent to this rugby league article.James Bowes 17:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't want to go calling names, but a check of this user's contributions makes for odd reading. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - even if it was not currently played in Canada, a major sport in a major nation would still be article-worthy.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the
  Review Me!) 00:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep The word "duh" comes to mind. -
  Review Me!) 00:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Yeah but it's not at me, maybe at people who think a rugby union competition is a rugby league one.James Bowes 17:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep obviously. History is a key component in an encyclopedia. Resolute 01:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'd like the nom to give his source for the assertion that rugby isn't played in Canada. Since when? If that's the case, there's a rather active rugby club near where I live that never got the message. (All this said, the article needs work, but that's not grounds for deletion). 23skidoo 04:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • -Check the articles for rugby union and rugby league. The rugby you know is a different sport to the rugby league of the article. James Bowes 17:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Still delete That webpage is quite clearly rugby union. Rugby union is a semi-major sport in Canada, rugby league there is dead. Can you check the sources carefully before making claims. I refer people to this article rugby union in Canada and this one Rugby Canada Super League James Bowes 10:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You get one "vote" to delete, not two or more. There's no sources indicating a dearth of rugby league. Additionally, remember

WP:NPA and cease calling people "ignorant". BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry I shouldn't name call but using a rugby union site as evidence for rugby league in a country is clearly wrong. The only site I can find for rugby league in Canada is this one:http://www.angelfire.com/ab7/canadianrl/. Despite being an active site there is no mention of seasons post 2003, and the guestbook has loads of people asking about rugby league in Canada, but no replies suggesting there is. It's quite clear that the sport is dead in the country but I'll try find better sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by James Bowes (talk • contribs)

I'm impressed you can get anything at all out of that site. I've tried it a couple of times and the best result I got was a series of links with broken pictures (which were thankfully still clickable). Sort of a feeling-your-way-in-the-dark thing. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you move your cursor over the boxes to the left there are still open links, but that site, with no matches played since 2003 is the only page concerning rugby league (as opposed to the rugby union played in the Canada Rugby Super League) suggests that the sport is at best dormant in Canada.James Bowes 14:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; even if something is defunct, it still has historical value. This is, after all, an encyclopedia, not just a directory of "things that are current in 2006". Bearcat 20:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; article needs work but no need to delete it. Also I'm pretty sure Canada had two competitions at one point, either a East/West split or a split because of Superleague. Need to do some more research but that should be included in the article. Mattlore 07:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There were Ontario and Manitoba 9-a-side leagues up til 2003 as evidenced by this site http://www.angelfire.com/ab7/canadianrl/ (you need to run the cursor over the left hand boxes for the link). However, all evidence suggests that rugby league in Canada has been dormant since 2003 (at least on an organised level, who knows if there have been ad hoc matches). I think the article needs heavy improvement as to describe rugby league as an emerging sport there is both inaccurate and a non-NPOV as there's no evidence it will ever emerge there. Not sure of the split but I would assume all rugby league in Canada was allied to Super League, as it was in most countries, with the ARL largely being localised.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Titoxd^(?!?) 03:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby league in Ireland

Speedy delete. There is no RL competition in Ireland although abortive attempts have been made to start the game there. The minimal information in the article should be added to a more general RL article. There is nothing here that justifies an independent article.

]

• Delete It is not a popular team sport in Ireland. [21] gives a totally misleading impression of its scale and popularity which is somewhere well below throwing a ball as far as you can down a road. I suppose there's a case for merging all these misleading substubs into
  Rugby League Dlyons493 Talk 11:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • the Ireland team lost 22-6 to the Cook Islands from Ireland_national_rugby_league_team. I think that says it all. There is no need for separate articles. Dlyons493 Talk 22:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Rugby league is definately played in Ireland. No-one is claiming it is a major sport, but it certainly exists. Ireland Rugby League Grinner 10:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-written the page to an extent. Grinner 12:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Not a hoax. These pages are a work in progress. Have patience. Ireland have bee playing as recently as the last few weeks. Just because your not familiar with the topic, doesn't mean its not worthy. This is not the first attempt of this style of culling by this person before. Refer to my user rugby league page POds 12:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If there isn't a separate article the information cannot be categorised properly. CalJW 13:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The history of a major team sport in a country where it is played is certainly encyclopedic. Sam Vimes 22:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is something like a 15-team competition in Ireland. They recently hosted a game of the ENC. RL is most certainly played there.Smerk

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Titoxd^(?!?) 03:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby league in Lebanon

Speedy delete. This article is a disgrace. RL is not played IN Lebanon but the sport in Australia is played by a number of Lebanese ex-pats and, in order to artificially increase the number of teams playing in its so-called "World Cup", the RFL included a team that largely consisted of these ex-pats and called it the Lebanon national team. This is disinformation of the worst possible kind and it has to be said that it is typical of certain elements in the RL fraternity who will go to any lengths to "talk up" their undeniably minor sport.

]

• comment The Lebanese Rugby League website suggests there has been a domestic league since 2002. Its contact address is in Lebanon. Are you sure they don't play there? The two national teams seem to be one made of Australians, and the other made of local Lebanese players. I agree the current article is useless. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is a Lebanese rugby league team. It has won the Mediterrean Cup for the third year in a row with other nations participating including Morocco, France and Serbia-Montenegro. This year, they beat France in the final see [22] France has a long history in rugby league although it is overshadowed by rugby union. Nevertheless, the French played Australia last month. 102,000 Google hits for "Rugby League" Lebanon see
• Keep Not a hoax. Do some research before declaring these pages are a Hoax. For example, see the references or external links at the bottom of the pages. POds 12:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[23]. Hasem El-Masri who played for Lebanon set an Australian point scoring record in 2004 as the

]

• Keep This one especially over any of the others nominated. Lebanon had a team in the last RL World Cup for goodness sake! Keresaspa 14:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The history of a major team sport in countries where it has been played at a senior level is encyclopedic. Sam Vimes 22:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have added some actual content to the article now. Grinner 15:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Grinner's expansion --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Ridiculous. Please do not waste time by making claims like this, if you even did the slightest research you would know that RL is indeed played in Lebanon. Instead of disturbing Wikipedia, find some other way to satisfy your dislike for Rugby League.Smerk ^Talk

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