Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 October 15

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

Votes for Undeletion

nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 00:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

02 Rock 'n' Roll Riot Tour

nn rock tour from three years ago. article text looks like it was pulled off site advertising the concert. nom&vote delete. Gaff ^talk 23:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No claim to notability. In fact, no readable content. --A D Monroe III 03:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Indeed, reads like an advertising poster. Either some form of shameless promotion or simply worthless. Cool3 03:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Votes for Undeletion

nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. – Rich Farmbrough 10:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

10061092961

The subject is not notable there are infinte number of integers having to prime factors abakharev 13:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I'm getting tired from voting to delete non notable numbers.Rhetoricalwater 14:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. NNN (non-notable number). This one seems even more non-notable than most. Plus, per WP naming convention, years, not numbers, have all numeric titles, as 2005, 1945, 476 and 3. This article should be about the year AD 10061092961. Redirect to 10061093rd century!? --A D Monroe III 15:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Barely notable. Title makes it look like the article is about a year. --Optichan 17:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's pages like this that need to be speedy deleted. We really don't need to even have a vote on this, do we? Masterhatch 18:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Very few numbers deserve articles (e, pi, the golden ration, etc.). This is not one of them. I agree, that some guideline should be put in place to speedy delete such articles. Cool3 03:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as above. Jitse Niesen (talk) 20:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as NNN per AD Monroe. Xoloz 12:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Totally uninteresting number. Title makes it look like a year. Boot the wretched thing. Reyk 02:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Real number, NPOV and verifyable.
• Delete this one really is nn as far as we know now. Rich Farmbrough 10:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  In fact I cant help wondering if it was a case of

  WP:POINT. Rich Farmbrough

The result of the debate was speedy delete. – Rich Farmbrough 10:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

10173

Not notable there are infinite number of integers having two prime factors abakharev 13:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. NNN (non-notable number). This one seems even more non-notable than most. Plus, per WP naming convention, years, not numbers, have all numeric titles, as 2005, 1945, 476 and 3. This article should be about the year AD 10173. Redirect to 102nd century!? --A D Monroe III 15:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Barely notable. Title makes it look like the article is about a year. --Optichan 17:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete do i really need to comment why? It seems pretty obvious. Masterhatch 18:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• either delete or redirect iff there is an article on the Zipcode. Grutness...wha? 00:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, article has no information beyond what is obvious from the title. Jitse Niesen (talk) 20:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Boring number. Looks like a year. Reyk 03:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Votes for Undeletion

nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Gareth Hughes 21:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

5ideways

commercial vanity and non-notable Gator1 18:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. - Gator1 18:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is basically
  advertising — and is already mentioned in the author's article K. Sandra Fuhr (which should probably also be AfD'd). Given that the article doesn't even know which day of the week the comic will be published on, it's not too surprising that Alexa does not register a traffic rank at all — there are approximately 8 billion more notable websites than this. -Splash^talk 20:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete the advertising. -- Captain Disdain 00:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I did not create the article for advertising purposes, K. Sandra Fuhr only recently unveiled the project, which is why Alexa doesn't register the page, as it's 3 days old. My intent in creating it was the same as that for any other author, to credit their works. If you all feel that it would be better served to list this and ANY other project that Ms. Fuhr has created on the web, I don't object to it. I do re-iterate, this was not created as an advertisement. If it is the consensus to delete, I vote instead that this and any other pages for Ms. Fuhr's creations be made into one page with her biography, as I've seen with many other authors. Bo-Lingua 23:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Comics have to be notable to be listed here. As this comic is 3 days old, I'm pretty sure it's not yet notable. In the future, when it is notable, it may be relisted. I've copied the articles to Comixpedia.org --Tedzsee 00:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I apologize for my ignorance of criterion. As author of the article, and that the vote seems unanimous, delete it. Thank you, Tedzee for pulling it to Comixpedia, and maybe it will return here, eventually. Thanks, all. Bo-Lingua 01:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was ambiguous.

I have discounted the opinion of one "voter" whose contributions so far have almost exclusively been to AFD discussions and VfU discussions. I continue to find it improbable that a new user will so quickly find AFD and consider it more likely than not that this may be evidence of sockpuppetry.

The author of the webcomic raised several arguments in favor of the article but failed to persuade the other participants in the discussion. While the Alexa rank was not reported in this debate, my own research shows it to be very high. See here.

I am going to call this one as a "delete" decision but without prejudice against recreation if/when the webcomic achieves the recommended level of notability. Rossami (talk) 16:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

8 1/2 by Eleven

None notable webcomic, probably made in violation of

Just a comment... I agree with you that this comic is not particularly notable, unless you're looking at Alexa rankings as the only sign of notability (which is a big if, given past votes in this community). However, one thing I'd like to point out is the following (and keep it in mind that I am not asking this in a confrontational way, despite the tone of the question... I am simply curious): since when are articles supposed to establish or prove notability? Articles should document a notable subject, but they should not exist simply to prove that subject is notable. Check out this particularly pathetic webcomics stub for example. Now, I think this comic is notable, but the article certainly doesn't do a very good job "establishing" it. Should the stub be deleted just because of that? No. The article should be left and added to over time. Anyways, just a thought. I'd be interested in your response if you want to reply on my talk page or here (although here might clutter up the AfD a bit). --Tedzsee 06:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Abstain: seems to be somewhat popular but may not be notable. File:Smilie.gifMolotov File:Caranimationforvmolotov.gif (talk)
  
• Delete possibly redirect to paper as it's a standard US paper size. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:45, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain:

Hey

1. arguing that this comic is notable: The assertion by the nominator that Google does not give any relevant links to "8 1/2 by Eleven" is incorrect. The first hit on a Google search for "8 1/2 by Eleven" results in this comic appearing, a search for "8 1/2 by Eleven comic" shows several pages of relevant hits, and a search for "Lucas Teodoro da Silva" (in quote marks) returns three pages of links about this author. The search "8 1/2 x 11" points to the US standard paper size.
2. arguing that this comic is notable: the Alexa rating for this site is 346,728. While this is below
   Able and Baker (Alexa:1,117,031) and Built for Comfort
   (Alexa:2,235,134) by a significant margin.
3. arguing that this comic is notable: The author of this comic, Lucas TdS, is one of the administrators of Comixpedia.org, a growing online resource about webcomics. This site does have the an Alexa rating of better than 200,000.
4. arguing that this comic is not notable': The article does seem to have been created in response to a sarcastic comment I made in a deletion debate arguing that it would be difficult to delete this article based on this comic's popularity. The creation of this article probably violates
   WP:POINT
   . Please note, however, that I had nothing to do with the creation of this article by its said author and did not instigate its creation on purpose!!!
5. arguing that this comic is notable: Comic has a deep archive (219 strips) and a year-and-a-half publishing steady 5 days a week (it has not missed a day).
6. arguing that this comic is not notable:
   webcomics
   , but is not mentioned by any comic critique sites, probably because of its relative newness to the comic scene (only a year in print). However, this would suggest a lack of notability within the webcomics community, despite its relatively high readership numbers on the net itself.
7. General Comment regarding the idea to redirect to US standard paper size. As the comic title is written out half in numerical (8 1/2) and half in regular english (eleven). I would suggest that a redirect for this article to the article on US standard papersize is a bad idea for two reasons:

• If someone came here looking for the comic and was redirected to the article on paper size, they may get confused.
• No one is going to type in "8 1/2 by Eleven" when they are looking for "8 1/2 x 11"... would you suggest we create a redirect for "Eight and a half by Eleven?" No.
• At some point in the future, this comic may gain notability. Its readership numbers and Alexa ranking are already almost high enough to warrant a Wikipedia entry. At that point, having a redirect would be terribly inconvenient and confusing.

1. General Comment regarding the article itself: except for the picture, this article is a copy of an article found at [1], which may be a more appropriate venue for such an article.
2. General Comment regarding the assertion that the article not giving links to the website is grounds for deletion: obviously the article would need to be improved if that was the case, however that hardly qualifies as a reason for deltion.

--Tedzsee 21:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC) I've deleted a few of my comments because I figure that if I say I'm going to stay out of the debate, I should actually not comment any further. You can look at the history if you REALLY want to see what I wrote. --Tedzsee 17:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Tedzsee: "However, this would suggest a lack of notability within the webcomics community, despite its relatively high readership numbers on the net itself." This, I believe, is the key thing here -- it just hasn't made enough of an impact (not yet, anyway; obviously, I have nothing but good wishes on that front). Delete. -- Captain Disdain 00:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The above comments seem to indicate that the comic is an up and comer on the webcomic scene. The article is factually sound and I am normally reluctant to vote delete on articles where notability is arguable. I agree with Tedzsee above that it is not the job of an article to prove notability; however, it is the job of supporters in an afd debate to do so. As such, Iwould like to see the arguments of an objective party for the notability of the subject. Until then, I, personally, can reach no decision. Cool3 20:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep OK, I know I'm not neutral. This one's going quite well though, so I thought I'd better show my face! The fact is, there's no guidlines for webcomics on wiki other than Alexa, so this should probably be kept. -- Hijamiefans

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

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

Votes for Undeletion

nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merge — the vote did not reach a clear consensus — 2 votes delete, 2 votes keep and 2 votes merge — there is recognition that the article as it stands is sub-standard and there is little scope for much expansion — all useful content is to be merged with Sara Evans and the page is to be kept as a useful redirect to that article. --Gareth Hughes 14:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A Real Fine Place to Start

Unsalvageable POV based article Cdyson37 | (Talk) 17:45, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Sara Evans Dlyons493 Talk 18:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but certainly clean up, and possibly shift focus to the album, not the song. It's a notable song, that was at the top of the country charts for 2 weeks. The album is also notable, having been #3 on the Billboard charts for all genres. Just FYI, POV level isn't a criteria for deletion-LtNOWIS 18:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. All the interesting information about this is already mention in Sara Evans. The overwhelming majority of this article is not even about this song (yes, it's a single song!), preferring instead to wax POVical about the singer. With the fluff removed, there's nothing left that isn't said more cleanly in the singer's article already: and that only takes one line. -Splash^talk 20:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rewrite reads like a fan site. Cool3 20:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge it into Sara Evans and forget about it--Ewok Slayer 01:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Votes for Undeletion

nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 02:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After School Knife Fight

Does not meet

• Delete per nom --JAranda | watz sup 05:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Xoloz 12:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN --Rogerd 09:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Votes for Undeletion

nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 02:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amaxment

Vanity, but even if not, needs to be cleaned up and tf to WiktionaryStaffelde 11:54, 15 October 2005 (UTC) delete per nomination Staffelde 12:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom Dlyons493 Talk 13:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Rogerd 09:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Votes for Undeletion

nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE, per A8. -Splash^talk 21:23, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amelia Henry

Not particularly notable; not particularly helpful information; created by a vandal --Nlu 05:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out, it's also a copyright violation. --Nlu 06:18, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as copyright infringement. Whether as one of the hopefuls for this season of the Apprentice, she is notable enough to warrant an article is also a matter for some debate. In my view, only the winner would meet the notability criteria. Capitalistroadster 07:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as a copyright violation. This one could actually be considered a commercial content provider. -- Kjkolb 13:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Votes for Undeletion

nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Hermione1980 20:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Teresa López Vives

Non notable student and website. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 00:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• delete. nn.--Gaff ^talk 00:55, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 01:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete vanity. maybe someday the website will be notable enough, but the founder is certainly NN at this time. Youngamerican 05:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Jesse 18:45, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity --Rogerd 03:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity --Leonardo Alves

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Votes for Undeletion

nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Gareth Hughes 21:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apostrophe (Band)

nn - does not meet inclusion guidelines set out at

• delete per nom. Tempshill 14:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• —Michael Z. 2005-10-15 15:55 Z
• Delete performances at three different high schools does not qualify as a national or international tour. No other indications of coming close to
  WP:MUSIC. --Allen3 ^talk 02:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The result of the debate was Delete --Gareth Hughes 21:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arm0nia

Non-notable, defunct open source software project. Freshmeat ranks them very low indeed; their website was last updated in 2004. — brighterorange (talk) 15:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist. Redwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 23:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete defunct, and never was very funct in the first place. -DDerby-(talk) 03:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per brighterorange. --Allen3 ^talk 02:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Votes for Undeletion

nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 02:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bad eating habits

I fail to see how this band will ever pass the criteria listed on

• Delete nn. Ganymead 06:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, does not meet
  WP:MUSIC. Punkmorten 12:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete nn. *drew 05:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN --Rogerd 04:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Votes for Undeletion

nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 02:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bam Morgan

nom&vote delete. nn. wrestler Gaff ^talk 22:54, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. NN --Fire Star 22:56, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Agreed. Delete. -- Captain Disdain 23:56, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Votes for Undeletion

nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Hermione1980 23:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Banned From Life

Web forum with 900 registered members, and a core group of "less than 50 members." tregoweth 03:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. tregoweth 03:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but don't vote for your own AfD nomination please. -Greg Asche (talk) 03:54, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • An odd comment. Virtually all admins count the nomination as a vote, if they feel they must merely count votes. Seperating the vote from the nomination is fine, since not all nominations are for delete (since some newbies misunderstand the point of AfD). -Splash^talk 21:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. (And frankly, as long as
  WP:AFD says "Consider creating the first entry, for example: *'''Delete''' per nomination. - ~~~~ to begin consensus gathering," I'd say there's nothing wrong with him voting for his own AfD nominations. I know I do.) -- Captain Disdain 04:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Yes, that's actually why started doing it. tregoweth
• Delete non-notable. *drew 05:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-nontable. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 05:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We'll probably never have a specific "forums with X members are notable" standard, but this is definitely below all reasonable criteria. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Btm 22:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN --Rogerd 03:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. NN. - Sensor 02:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Votes for Undeletion

nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 10:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Basquerade

Hoax, no relevant Googles ( Souls Of Mischief ), not in OED Dlyons493 Talk 00:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.--Gaff ^talk 00:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, apparent hoax.
  Kappa 05:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. Ganymead 06:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Hoax. Banes 10:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Optichan 15:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Jesse 18:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I am reluctant to use a google test as the be all end all; however, a social occurrence of such purported significance would have more google appearances. If, however, the author can provide some form of substantiation, I would support keeping the article. Without any such substantiation, I have no reason to believe that the article is not pure fiction. Cool3 04:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -Haon 14:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. If not in OED, that confirms it. Not in Merriam-Webster either. A somewhat amusing hoax. - Sensor 02:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Votes for Undeletion

nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 02:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bethel Christian Ministries

Article reads like a mission tract; not an encyclopedic tone. No content changes have been made since original post, only template additions. the iBook of the Revolution 22:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with delete.--Gaff ^talk 22:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as advertising and/or copivio of this here. Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as ad. Xoloz 12:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as ad --67.166.178.60 20:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unverified/unverifiable --redstucco 09:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Votes for Undeletion

nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 02:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bored and Evil

Non notable webcomic, found here. It's forums can be found here, with a massive 54 members, split between 5 different comics. No assertion of notability either in the article, or could be found on google. -

• Keep [2] apparently somewhat notable. File:Smilie.gifMolotov File:Caranimationforvmolotov.gif (talk)
  
  • Hello? Please try a more restrictive google search, and have a look at the actual links. Most are webcomic crosslinking. There have been no major coverage by any respected (even in the webcomic world) journals/magazines/newspapers. Was your keep vote based purely on the google search? What makes this website stand out from all the other websites out there? -
    Hahnchen 18:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Instead of jumping to conclusions, and insinuate that my vote was based only on technicality (which you have no way of knowing) let us just wait for more votes to come in. I may be wrong - you may be wrong, time will tell us. Thanks : ). File:Smilie.gifMolotov File:Caranimationforvmolotov.gif (talk)
      
      • Easy tiger. You need to put speech marks around it, or Google searches for every instance of each of the words "bored" "evil". It's not surprising that there are millions of such instances. It's not unreasonable to suppose that your reasoning is based on the Google search you conducted since you offer no other justification. If you were thinking other things but didn't write them down, people aren't going to be able to guess. -Splash^talk 21:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • please stop playing Devil's advocate every time I vote "keep" on an article. I am not trying to get into debate, I am only trying to address my opinion - which I think should be plausible without comments under what I am saying to tell me that I am wrong. I respect your opinions, but somethings are a little too serious. I vote delete on most articles, and I think I have enough decision making capacity to vote yes or no. Again, thanks...but sometimes, no thanks. Plus that, I was concentrating more on Google hits that were obviously related to the topic...which I thought was others would obviously do because the rest are pretty irrelevant. Thanks. Also note that the first hits dealt with the topic at hand.File:Smilie.gifMolotov (talk)
          23:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • I'd have replied sooner, but have cut down time from the wiki. I just thought that the external link you gave was your justification of keeping. Apologies if you took offence, happy editing. -
        Hahnchen 13:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
        ]
• Delete. The correct Google search gives 127 useful hits, and a substanital proportion of them do not apply. Alexa rank is off the bottom of the scale. Since there appears to be no reliable third-party sources in amongst the Googles, there is no reason to suppose this has any influence outside it's small sphere. -Splash^talk 21:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable webcomic fails google and Alexa tests. Dragonfiend 22:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Just isn't notable enough in any way that I can see. -- Captain Disdain 00:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Changed my vote after some reserch, now seems not notable! Bwfc 12:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• how do u delete an artacle
  • I would think the admin will delete this and any other articles Vfd'd. Bwfc 23:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

what?

• Delete after thorough review of the article, I change my vote. I still don't like being argued with constantly for every opinion I have on this site. File:Smilie.gifMolotov (talk)
  00:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unverifiable. Xoloz 12:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Votes for Undeletion

nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete and Move to Wiktionary — 4 votes delete, 3 votes move to Wiktionary (of which, 2 votes delete here), 1 vote keep and 1 vote redirect — Gareth Hughes 14:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"burger munch"

Obscure neologism NeilN 13:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nn-neo, or dic-def at best. --Daveb 13:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• move to wiktionary, abstain on keeping in wikipedia.
  Kappa 14:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, few Google results are even close to the given definition. -- Kjkolb 01:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup. Terrible article, notable subcultural phenomenon mediated by Usenet and the Internet; history back to 1992. There was once only one burgermunch (usage is split as to one word or two); there are now hundreds or thousands. I wonder why the author left out the BDSM community, which is the origin of the event. Alternatively, merge to one of the BDSM articles. (Oh, and if kept, it needs the name normalized.) MCB 07:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge Honestly, I can't believe it wasn't up for a speedy deletion. Masterhatch 10:23, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Relisting, as closing right now would be diffacult. Meanwhile... Redwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 22:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Redwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 22:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Munch_(BDSM). Bikeable 00:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or move to wiktionary: While I will not comment on the importance or lack thereof of the term, I will say that every single phrase does not deserve an encyclopedia article. So, either delete it or move it wiktionary. Cool3 03:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move - per Cool3 - Bwfc 23:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Votes for Undeletion

nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 02:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cinco de Ocho

If we can cite a source that shows Jesus delivered pistolas to the

• Racist garbage. Delete with extreme prejudice. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not delete for extreme prejudice?
    brenneman^(t)(c) 04:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Hoax and a half. Delete.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 04:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't understand with what substancial evidence you back up your disrespectful and ineffectual qualms... I would be very interested to see what (if any) evidence demonstrates a lack of cogent content. For a holiday that I have several times participated in (and know my town is not the only), I find it disgraceful that you would throw such rag-tag nonsense about. The claim that this is a hoax is not just false, it's disrespectful and insulting. Mastab
  • Source Mexican Immigration & Popular Culture by David Maciel cites Cinco de Ocho, I believe... I am sorry I cannot provide a page Mastab
    • Both of these are unsigned edits by
      Aaron Brenneman). Aforementioned book does exist, but Googling for "cinco de ocho" brings up nothing useful. Delete badfaith hoax but willing to change mind if presented with solid evidence. Marblespire 05:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• I will attempt to do so [by which I mean provide solid factual evidence]. I apologize for not making more official posts. I am still fairly new to the wikipedia community. How might I go about posting additional comments while including my Username as you guys have previously? Mastab <- My wanna-be tag
• Delete unverifiable nonsense --Anetode 05:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment At least give me some time to provide further evidence. The information provided in the article is a conglomeration of various beliefs, myths, and traditions observed by people both in my town and about the wider global community. I have provided this article with the best intentions, and would appreciate it if people could be a little more lenient in their rulings... as soon as a find a chance to investigate more in depth, I will do so. I plan to make a trip to my local library early tomorrow morning so as to provide you all with verifiable quotes from assorted texts. I hope you all have the patience and maturity to act rashionally, as you have thus far. - Mastab Will someone please tell me how to set a Tag!?
  • Dash (-) followed by four tildes (~). Like so... -Parallel or Together? 12:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, silly hoax. --
  _{tɔk tə mi} 07:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as obvious hoax. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 09:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nonsense hoax. Mastab, do you really think that you are going to convince anyone that there is a holiday in Mexican mythology based upon the Frito Bandito? --Metropolitan90 16:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Quite possibly yes. By the way, it is not a holiday in Mexican mythology as you have stated, though it now marks a new occurence within the mythological realm. I concur, that would be nonsensical garbage, as the Frito bandito wasn't around until the 1960's. However, it is a "holiday" that is celebrated every October the 13th in various homes across the country and in the wider global community in protest to the discontinuation of Frito Bandito. The mythological story that comes along with the holiday may be infactual, however, I don't see anyone providing better. As I have stated before, the contents of the pages "is a conglomeration of various beliefs, myths, and traditions observed by people both in my town and about the wider global community". I am now off to the library to gather about further resources to support my claim. I cannot believe I am spending so much time defending an article who's deletion would not affect me, but rather thoughs who feel they may gain something from the information provided. I will return shortly. Thanks by the way for the advice Anetode. Mastab 16:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• Throwing my vote in for hoax hoax hoax hoax hoax kill it with fire. DS 18:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Seven of Nine. What? Oh, sorry, delete as preposterous hoax, and let's keep an eye on this author's edits. MCB 23:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  I have nominated the two other related nonsense articles for Afd:

  Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pistolas

  Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pistolos

• Delete Me vale madre! Es un chiste! Yo vivo en Tampico, en el norte de Mexico. Aqui, no hay 'Dia del Cinco de Ocho' - este es una chinga de mierda! Eddie.willers 04:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nonsense hoax. *drew 05:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Excellent candidate for
  WP:BJAODN or Uncyclopedia. --Clay Collier 06:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Thanks for the Contribution Seniore Eddie Willers of Tampico Mexico. I ecspecially appreciate your statement.. of este es una chinga de mierda. Spanish or not, that translates to "this is a 'fuck of shit' ". I do not believe that kind of language and disrespect is in order in this setting. Regardless of the dialect in which it is spoken. I will cease posting/editing further articles to comply with the many complaints I have recieved as a result of my first (and last) contribution to Wikipedia. If you guys cannot appreciate the practices of another generation, then it's your loss. Whether it's a matter of faith or morals, the fact that you people would dare to critisize these practices is undermining to our society and the common good of the people (minority or not). Thanks. Mastab 06:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • You refer (several entries above) to "Mexican Immigration & Popular Culture" by David Maciel as your source which cites this holiday. This appears to be a reference to the book "Culture Across Borders: Mexican Immigration & Popular Culture" edited by David R. Maciel and María Herrera-Sobek (Amazon.com finds no other similarly titled work by this or any similarly named author). Fortunately, Amazon.com makes available online the entire index to this book. There is no entry in the index for "Cinco de Ocho" [3]. By the way, the article under discussion claims that "The crisis hit rock-bottom when, at one point, four out of every three Mexicans was a bandito" (emphasis added). Pardon me if I find it hard to believe this. --Metropolitan90 09:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not even good enough for BJAODN. Rossami (talk) 07:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I bet the only reason we didn't speedy this is because the article was actually written, spelled and formatted properly. ~Mbsp
• Comment Also not mentioned in the index is Cinco de Mayo, a celebration into which the book delves substantially. As the saying goes... don't judge a book by it's cover... Don't judge it by its index either. Agreed the four out of every three Mexicans is unrealistic... a sentence structure mistake. Forgive me for my crime against humanity, that will be corrected to as it should be... 3 out of 4. Keep throwin the hardball... Mastab 16:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: We now also have Cinco de Neuve, created by a username that attempted to vandalize the AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pistolos. I'm attempting to get it speedied. --Clay Collier 22:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Thank you. It is really frustrating when additional articles pop up in order to mock and degrade my own. I fully support any actions you take. Mastab 23:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. This page was vandalized by User:Amdahlj who removed some votes and changed others from Delete to Keep [4]. I have since reverted his changes and reinstated the changes made after his vandalism; please review this page to make sure your votes say what they were intended to say. --Metropolitan90 23:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amdahlj is the critter that pulled the same trick on the Pistolos discussion. He's already been warned once about vandalising AfD discussions. He should be blocked as a vandal if this continues. --Clay Collier 01:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete crap --Rogerd 04:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Votes for Undeletion

nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect — 9 votes redirect (delete/redirect included), 4 votes merge, 3 votes delete and 1 vote abstain — the page will be made a redirect to Comixpedia --Gareth Hughes 15:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comixpedia.org

A POV essay about how Wikipedia has refused to accept

• Delete -- it appears to be a mirror of [5], the article presents a one-sided criticism of Wikipedia, it unsalvageably fails
  WP:NPOV, and in its current form, has no place in the article namespace. --Mysidia (talk) 01:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

As for the idea of this site not meeting web standards of notability, please take into account the following:

1. This comic encyclopedia is linked to by several pages in the Wikipedian webcomic project pages as an alternate venue for webcomic pages that are found to not be sufficiently notable for this encyclopedia.
2. This site is owned by Comixpedia.com, a site that is notable enough in the webcomic community to both have an Alexa rating of "181,818" and be listed in Wikipedia.
3. The site has only been operational for 2 months, which serves to deter it from having a high Alexa rating.
4. The site was born out of criticisms raised by the writer Eric Burns of the popular Websnark blog site. Both of which are listed in Wikipedia and are seen as notable in the webcomics community.

Additionally: As for the argument that this piece is "original research" article and fails to meet

WP:NOR

standards, this is a baseless accussation. All the facts documented in the article are available at one of the following sources:

• [6]
• WP:COMIC
  and related talk pages

These sources are cited in the article itself. Rather than hitting delete so early, why not suggest improvements to the article if you feel it is not adequate.

ALSO OF NOTE: the idea that this article is a copy should not be a problem under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. Obviously, I hope that this article will be added to by the

--Tedzsee 03:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Molotov (talk) eFile:Caranimationforvmolotov.gif
  
• Abstain - I'm ambivalent about whether Comixpedia.org is an encyclopedic subject or not, but this is, as written, overly self-referential to Wikipedia, as it seems to focus more on the controversy that lead to the creation of WebcomicsWiki than the actual creation and history of WebcomicsWiki. The POV issues can be fixed, but first the article needs to be rewritten to be more about the site and less about the (largely unimportant in a larger sense) controversy. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 03:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Regarding your above comment... That has to do with the fact that the site has been up for only a short while. As the site grows, this will obviously (hopefully) be resolved. Also, as writing about the creation of the site would be undocumented-- THAT would certainly qualify as original research, and thus make this an unencyclopedic article. I tried to write the article using sourced material to avoid it being judged as original research and failing the

WP:NOR provision. As I said, it probably makes sense to just merge this with the appropriate section in the Comixpedia article more than anything. I'd do it myself now, but I don't want to open myself to criticisms of running or whatnot. --Tedzsee 04:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

• Merge with section "Comixpedia.org" of Comixpedia article. Just to make my vote official. --Tedzsee 04:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete & redirect to Comixpedia, as that article's summary of the comixpedia.org wiki is sufficient --Anetode 06:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Why even bother arguing on this one. This is not encyclopdia caliber stuff. The author should take up his beef with the public relations department or somesuch and really, spare us all the pain of this debate. WP is not a crystal ball.--Gaff ^talk 10:23, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What's with the personal attacks. I HAVE NO BEEF! sheesh! This article documents the formation of a service that was created. That is all. my goodness, you people have a stick in your eye or something. --Tedzsee 15:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For the comfort of Tedzee and everyone interested in this debate, I will withdraw my vote and abstain from further discussion. I have striken out my above comments, which were not meant intended as personla attack.--Gaff ^talk 08:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. Perhaps I took the comment too personally? However, it was written quite harshly. Either way, thank you for your positive attitude prevailing. --Tedzsee 22:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete ranting and create a new redirect to
  Cryptic (talk) 12:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

How is it ranting? It documents a series of ARTICLES written. Those articles were essays found on the site Websnark. What you interpret as ranting is sourced material. --Tedzsee 21:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Cryptic. Article is unintelligible to anyone but Wikipedians; can't stay in mainspace. --A D Monroe III 15:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As rewritten stub by Splash, conent is now okay, but I now vote to delete based on being non-notable. --A D Monroe III 15:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Forget it. I will add the appropriate material to the main comixpedia article and delete all the rest. --Tedzsee 15:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with
  Hahnchen 16:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Merge per Tedzsee. not to be taken personally, but I fail to see the need for seperate articles. Jesse 18:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't take anything personally. In fact, I didn't know that a .org section had been created in the

  Hahnchen and A Man In Black (conspire | past ops

  )

• I've replaced it with an NPOV-stub. Article space is emphatically not where we carry rants on Wikipedia guidelines. Do that either on the guideline's talk page or in your userspace. I nevertheless would strongly delete my own stub because it's a brand new website that has yet to meet any kind of notability bar. -Splash^talk 21:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Once again, I would suggest you read the article. You emphatically argue that the article is a rant, I emphatically argue the opposite. The site was formed because of disagreement with Wikipedia guidelines. The original article documents that disagreement with cited sources and points to 2 outside articles. The original article does not attempt to say who is RIGHT or WRONG in the dispute. Also, replacing the article with a stub does not allow voters to see the original article. --Tedzsee 23:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  I did read the article. I don't participate in AfD without doing so. And rewriting the article has turned into something that is at least not s writing out of someone's disagreement with a Wikipedia policy. Everybody has a history button, and is able to use it with a click of a button. It is everyday practise to rewrite an article during AfD, and is positively encouraged. As I said, such commentary on one persons view of a formative guideline belongs either on that guideline's talk page or in userspace. We avoid self-references in article space, and even if we allowed this one, it would be a hopeless POV article since it wouldn't include any other POV. If it did, it would immediately duplicate the proposal's talk page, so we go full circle. -Splash^talk 03:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Comixpedia article. -Sean Curtin 07:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Comixpedia --Rogerd 03:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Comixpedia. Regarding Tedzee's precedent below, I actually think it's better to just say something was founded by disaffected Wikipedia members. If you have criticisms of Wikipedia guidelines in an article, you can't make it NPOV without including the other side also. And Wikipedia articles are not the place to argue about Wikipedia guidelines. Therefore I can't really see how to include the original discussion of concerns while keeping the article in line with Wikipedia policy. -- SCZenz 16:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Comixpedia. There's hardly enough left of the article to even call it a merge. -Abe Dashiell 12:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please note:

• PRECEDENCE: I recently found precedence for this sort of article at
  Star Wars Wiki. It both references Wikipedia and notes the same sort of complaints that I document in my article. The difference? My sites are sourced and relevant material is cited to document the dispute. If anything, I'd say the other article is more unencyclopedic. Either way, neither article is presenting an argument that Wikipedia is bad... they're just saying that because of certain frustrations users decided to go elsewhere. --Tedzsee 02:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Redirect, as there's nothing left to merge. Saberwyn 03:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I found amusing that some people think comixpedia.org is nonotable and pov when there are many reason to say it is notable and not Pov. Oblivously some people don't read debate. As a mattter of fact, our ranking for 1 week aveage is 99,133 which clearly make us more notable than asserted.[7]--Kiba 23:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Votes for Undeletion

nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Gareth Hughes 21:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberyogi

The article seems to be questionable -- not heard of anyone named Cyberyogi behind the myth, and cannot find any sources that support the idea. Google search for Cyberyogi turns up 500 unrelated results - it seems to be a claim not notable enough to merit its own article. --Mysidia (talk) 22:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom. non-notable, no possibility for expansion. GTBacchus 00:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unverifiable. --Allen3 ^talk 02:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Votes for Undeletion

nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 02:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Mathews

Appears to be non-notable. No Google reference to the Indian Immigrant Initiation. Several to Daniel Mathews but do not appear to be in reference to this particular one. CambridgeBayWeather 05:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• This is very offensive to the two members of the community who decided to publicly acknowledge Daniel and his efforts. We will be continuing to upload more information on both Daniel and the Indian Immigrant Initiation. -- Geordanh 10:28, 2 October 2005
  • KEEPGeordanh 06:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC) Geordanh[reply]
  • We have finished putting up the page on the Indian Immigrant Initiation, please read through that if it is any form of cross reading you are seeking to learn about. Geordanh
  • Can we yet remove the deletion tab? It makes the article look like it is made by some hoodlums Geordanh
    • comment Wikipedia is (or: tries to be) an encyclopedia, not a place where dedicated community service is rewarded by public acknowledgement. I suggest you create a webpage for him. --Aleph4 10:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete appears to be bogus article. MONGO 06:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —
  Cryptic (talk) 11:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete. Unable to find any independent references to show notability. --GraemeL ^(talk) 13:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unverifiable. Dlyons493 Talk 14:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While this initiative sounds commendable, there are no third party sources to verify this information. If the author/s could cite sources such as media coverage to verify this information, it would be a different case. Capitalistroadster 17:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unverifiable. Xoloz 12:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN --Rogerd 09:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Votes for Undeletion

nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 02:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Darkhardware

I think this article should be deleted

• No content (except for a link)
• A request for Cleanup of Nov 2004 went without trace on the article

Unless of course someone tells me that the site is so improtant to turkish cultural life that it has its place in wikipedia. But then, there should be a lot more content, and not just a link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eptalon (talk • contribs) 16:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Undecided. Might meet
  Cryptic (talk) 11:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Almost a speedy for little or no context and has been marked for cleanup since November 2004. If somebody wants to expand it from a substub, let me know and I'll reconsider. --GraemeL ^(talk) 13:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete just a random website among 8 billion other random websites. It hasn't had any external examination that can attest to any possible factual insertions and so it must stay as it is, which is virtually a substub. -Splash^talk 21:21, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN --Rogerd 09:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Votes for Undeletion

nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 10:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Madore

Non notable mathematician and amateur computer scientist with no major academic work done. (This is not a personal attack, I'm a personal friend of his.) David.Monniaux 00:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not quite A7, but close. --CastAStone 00:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Interestingly, he is listed as the inventor of computer language Unlambda. Unlambda survived a VfD about a year ago. One could argue that this warrants keeping him. On the other hand, the link to Unlambda's homepage is dead. Perhaps better to delete both the inventor and the language, if infact dead. --Gaff ^talk 00:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Google search on unlambda gives 36,900 votes. Have to disagree with nom's claim that no major academic work. I vote keep.--Gaff ^talk 00:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Unlambda is not an academic work. It is a computer implementation of a well-known academic concept (SKI combinators, a form of lambda calculus without lambdas) that David originally wrote as a half-joke. David.Monniaux 02:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Must admit I'm dum as a rock on this topic. seems to me that even if it was a "half-joke" that is widely used that may warrant his article being spared from the scrap heap.--Gaff ^talk 10:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  It is not used for anything practical. You do not program anything practical in Unlambda, unless you're doing it especially to make a point that all Turing-complete languages are equivalent. David would surely tell you the same. :-) David.Monniaux 17:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep <pseud>Surfaces de del Pezzo sans point rationnel sur un corps de dimension cohomologique un seems notable to me</pseud> (well it might if I knew anything about the area). Seriously, [8] isn't a completely nn publication list. Dlyons493 Talk 00:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

With that kind of criterion, any person working in higher education or research, including myself, deserves an article. I don't think I deserve an article. David.Monniaux 02:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you do! - [9] and working at ENS cannot be dismissed out of hand. I feel the Madore article is not clearcut - there's some notable work being done in his general area but I'm not competent to judge if his is. Then Unlambda gives him wider claims to notability. So I'd give him the benefit of any doubt - wiki is not paper. Dlyons493 Talk 07:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of number of papers and numbers of citations, my publication list is better than that. And I certainly don't warrant an article. And I work for an establishment that can claim two Nobel Prize winners in the last five years, but that makes them notable, not me. Average Earthman 18:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keeep notable for writing Unlambda. -Greg Asche (talk) 01:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, writing Unlambda grants him some degree of fame or notoriety.
  Kappa 05:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Not quite sure this meets the bar. Gamaliel 09:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• what bar? please be specific.--Gaff ^talk 10:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The bar for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Gamaliel 17:57, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• What if the article just said This guy wrote Unlambda. Would that be enough or should his name be absorbed into the article on Unlamba where he could be listed as its dreator. I'm not a programmer, so I have no idea how important a computer language he wrote. Any experts want to weigh in?--Gaff ^talk 08:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keeep His Unlamba work is notable. Banes 10:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep based on above. Marskell 16:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this article is linked to by several pages. It needs to be expanded, but it does have notability. Jesse 18:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain because I am personally involved. The argument I see in favor of "keep" is: Unlambda is definitely worth having a page (I certainly didn't expect it to be so popular when I created it, but there it is), and I generally find it good policy to have a page (if only a stub) for the author or inventor of any work of any kind mentioned in the Wikipedia itself. The argument I see in favor of "delete" is: the category "French mathematicians" (don't know how to link to this!), as it is, is utterly ridiculous (some people a zillion times more important than I am do not have a listing there). On the whole, I tend to think that the page shouldn't have been written but, now that it is, it might as well remain (basically, there were more important pages to write, and there are also more important pages to delete!). Just to clarify two points: I did not write the page (and I do not know who did), and David.Monniaux is indeed a friend of mine. --Gro-Tsen 19:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question from a newbie: what is the value of a weak keep vote other than to leave the administrator who gets stuck making the final call feeling like they are out on a limb? Shouldn't votes be either keep, delete, or abstain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaff (talk • contribs) 03:33, October 16, 2005

That is a good question, but I don't see it as one being answered in a single AfD. I personally don't like them either, but you should bring it up at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. -Greg Asche (talk) 18:03, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: we have a stub on brainfuck's creator, and Unlambda is equally notorious notable. Haeleth 20:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but expand stub. Unlambda makes him notable. - Sensor 02:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Votes for Undeletion

nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect to Death Note. Physchim62 17:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Death note

This should be deleted, or at the very least, redirected to Death Note. I'd bet every penny I've earned that this was created only to add further attention to the Death Note LiveJournal community debacle. cma 02:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect →
  Death note; {{R from other capitalisation}} --Mysidia (talk) 02:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirct per above. File:Smilie.gifMolotov File:Caranimationforvmolotov.gif (talk) e
  03:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Another example of the stuff that will be WP's undoing. delete it. and how!--Gaff ^talk 10:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• How about a redirect to Death certificate. Lets deal with real things on WP. Not abstract who-haw.--Gaff ^talk 10:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to
  Cryptic (talk) 11:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Not in the hospital I work at. I'll withdraw my vote to delete and let it get redirected wherever.--Gaff ^talk 08:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Death Note. --Optichan 16:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per nom. Jesse 19:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as there is already a perfectly acceptable article located at Death Note. cma 01:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Rogerd 03:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Mysidia et al. --168.12.253.82 14:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Death Note, which is a far better article anyway. - Sensor 02:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Votes for Undeletion

nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Gareth Hughes 21:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deuce (character)

This article seems to lack relevance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.191.87.148 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Redirect to
  Cryptic (talk) 11:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as per nom. Don't see a need for a redirect. Dlyons493 Talk 14:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN --Rogerd 09:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Votes for Undeletion

nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP The Land 15:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dhasan River

Borderline nonsense, no context. Delete.

• • Now that it has been rewritten, keep. Good job, Allen3.
    Alr 00:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep. Real river in India. The article has been rewritten as a simple geography stub. --Allen3 ^talk 23:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the rewrite. (The original, however... whoo!) Good job, Allen3. -- Captain Disdain 00:11, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand Allen3's rewrite about notable Indian river. It helped mark the borders of the land of the
  Chandela according to the Britannica. Capitalistroadster 00:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The result of the debate was no consensus (4 keep, 3 delete).Robert 15:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disgaea characters

Delete - According to A Link to the Past, articles such as these are not notable/encyclopedic due to the fact that the characters only appear in one game, such as those of Final Fantasy VI. For a discussion, see User talk:A Link to the Past#Excuse me? ~ Hibana 02:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —
  Cryptic (talk) 11:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong Keep a list is a perfectly acceptable way to organise minor or single-game characters. The Disgaea: Hour of Darkness article is already too big to merge them back into. Besides, Disgaea 2 is coming soon anyway, so the "one game" argument won't be valid for long. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, having an article for the characters is perfectly acceptable per
  WP:FICT. Kirill Lokshin 17:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep as preferable to seperate articles for each of the characters --TimPope 09:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete on grounds of content:
  Wiki is not GameFaqs. The page contains capsule bios that could be easily merged into the main Disgaea article, but the special-attack data and stats don't belong here. -Marblespire 11:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep --Mateusc 03:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Rogerd 09:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Votes for Undeletion

nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedied. android79 03:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doha, Urdu

Problem: Content is 'hello' Molotov (talk) File:Caranimationforvmolotov.gif

Hope you dont mind, but ill go and delete the entire article now; it meets the criteria for speedy deletion.

The result of the debate was Delete. Gareth Hughes 21:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Draken

Dash has written an article about his own imaginary race. That is a kind of about-myself articles. Sorry dash... -- CannibalSmith (159.148.138.159) 06:26, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree, I have heard of Drakens before. Namely in the game "Draken". His entry fits the description to a tee. - Trapical 05:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Delete, nn vanity. I believe Trapical is thinking of either
  Cryptic (talk) 11:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 14:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Rogerd 09:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Votes for Undeletion

nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Gareth Hughes 21:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dubai dream

Vanity and non-notable. CambridgeBayWeather 05:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• delete --Ixfd64 05:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Delete, promotional. Real book, but impressively abysmal Amazon sales rank of 1,219,396, I can't find anything about the publisher except their online storefront, and the book was published September 30. —
  Cryptic (talk) 11:56, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 14:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Rogerd 09:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Votes for Undeletion

nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Gareth Hughes 21:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dubism

its true — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.242.211.189 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

• This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. Delete, nonsense, and I rather suspect a {{
  Cryptic (talk) 12:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 14:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There isn't a nomination. Uncle G 14:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wasn't
      Cryptic (talk) listing a nom? Delete anyway. Dlyons493 Talk 15:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
      ]

• The article is about a religion whose holy books it states to be "the Duble, the Dorah, Dubdas and the Du'ran", one of whose tenets it states to be "There Is No Pie", and whose characters it states to include the "Muffins of Doom". This is an obvious parody. Furthermore its edit history shows that it is a parody being constructed here on Wikipedia directly. Ironically, the article appears unrelated to the fact that people who have ceased to be Jehovah's Witnesses refer to practitioners of that religion as "dubs" and the religion as "dubism". Delete. Uncle G 14:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete per Uncle G. Xoloz 12:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN --Rogerd 09:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Votes for Undeletion

nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Gareth Hughes 21:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DUMMY

BJAODN? Not an encyclopdia article. Gaff ^talk 20:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - nn item from some game? Dlyons493 Talk 21:18, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Yeah, a game item. A non-notable game item, at that; I suppose this could be merged into Animal Crossing, but as the topic is so insignificant, I don't really see much point in it. I'd rather delete. -- Captain Disdain 00:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete so specific that it would almost seem out of place in a video game strategy manual. Cool3 19:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Votes for Undeletion

nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP The Land 15:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

E-rate

Tagged as having no context (A1 CSD), but it has enough that I can easily make out what it's about. Whether it's really an advert or not, is for AfD to consider. -Splash^talk 23:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —
  Cryptic (talk) 12:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, assuming it can be expanded, it's a notable program. Also, the federal government doesn't do much advertising on Wikipedia, as far as I know. ;-) -- Kjkolb 14:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/Expand perhaps get data from this page? E-rate is a notable program, very important to schools and libraries in the US. Jessamyn 20:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. Rhobite 02:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Votes for Undeletion

nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect — 3 votes for redirect to electricity, 2 votes delete, 1 vote keep --Gareth Hughes 15:21, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Electrism

neologism Salsb 01:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• keep --MarSch 17:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Delete, dictdef, and I don't think it meets Wiktionary's
  Cryptic (talk) 12:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• This appears to be nothing to do with the "electrism" espoused by Viktor Schauberger, which is the only "electrism" that research turns up that isn't just one-person crank physics or that isn't simply synonymous with electricity (as is the case in the mainstream physics writings that I've found). A merger seems inappropriate, since the article content appears to be wrong. The few mainstream physics references that I can find give the term in contexts that imply that it was a 19th century term (with "magneticity" being an alternative name for "magnetism" and "electrism" being an alternative name for "electricity") contemporary with Michael Faraday, not a recent coinage, prior to the advent of the concept of electromagnetism. Redirect to electricity. Uncle G 15:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to electricity, per Uncle G. GreetingsEarthling 17:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Uncle G. Xoloz 12:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Keep — the article has been translated into English. Although it is still a stub, the grounds for AFD have been dealt with. --Gareth Hughes 15:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Elisabeth Jordan

Article is entirely in Spanish. Perhaps move to eswiki? after notablity established.

• Delete or Move to Spanish Wiki--MONGO 13:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: article claims that Elisabeth Jordan was one of the winners who got to form the musical group Bellepop on the Spanish version of the reality television show Popstars and later became an actress on a television series. Apparently this is true; see IMDb. If this article is kept, move and redirect to Elisabeth Jordán to conform to Spanish orthography. --Metropolitan90 16:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — I'm going to list this on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English (it should have been sent there first). I'm going to leave this AFD open, so that translators can comment, and so that, if it's not translated within 2 weeks, it can be deleted immeadiately. --Gareth Hughes 22:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The article has now been translated into English. I didn't transwiki the Spanish version, as it was a bit fancruftish. I also haven't moved the article to the correct orthography, to avoid disrupting the AfD. No vote.

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

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

Votes for Undeletion

nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Gareth Hughes 15:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Elkhart Musical Instrument Company

• Delete, NN. Four Google hits only, and shares significant (useless?) information with Harry W. Pedler Company and American Manufacturing Company. All of these articles are about unremarkable (hence NN) and near identical companies. Budgiekiller 15:52, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —
  Cryptic (talk) 12:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. No claims to notability. --A D Monroe III 15:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Votes for Undeletion

nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Gareth Hughes 15:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ElNacho

Seems to be a vanity page. Molotov (talk) File:Caranimationforvmolotov.gif

• Userfy and delete.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 04:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity. - Gimboid13 11:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 13:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. --Optichan 17:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity --Rogerd 03:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Votes for Undeletion

nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep --Gareth Hughes 15:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Emu Bay shale

• Delete, to specific to be encyclopedic. Citizen Premier 21:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article and its links speak for themselves. PAR 23:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• the article is none, it's more a small number of facts. one or two sentences and it could be a stub (but thats no reason to delete within a short period of time). --Saperaud 01:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, if it's a Lagerstätte then it's certainly notable. Lots of ordinary geographical/geological features have articles anyway, don't they? Should be recapitalized "Emu Bay Shale" though. DopefishJustin (･∀･) 02:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, much more needs to be written of course, but there is no reason not to have an article on an individual formation. In fact I plan to create individual articles on the various formations that make up the
  mav 04:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Definite Keep No reason to delete and it's not too specific, especially not for Wikipedia. --DanielCD 21:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —
  Cryptic (talk) 12:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep. Seems to be one of only two sites for Redlichiida. I've expanded a bit and put it in categories to help the right people see it. Definitely needs expansion by someone who knows though. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Scott Davis's rewrite as place of geological interest. However, there are two images on the page copyrighted to Dave Simpson which could be of concern for copyright. Has Mr Simpson given his permission for these pictures to be used on Wikipedia? Is there a special place for copyright violations regarding pictures?Capitalistroadster 18:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The image page contains "The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed.". This text comes from the Wikimedia Commons {{Attribution}}, so I presumed it to be acceptable. I note the corresponding template here suggests to the uploader using {{Cc-by-2.0}} instead. --Scott Davis ^Talk 23:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Simpson has given permission for the use of the image. PAR 23:54, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. Keep File:Smilie.gifMolotov File:Caranimationforvmolotov.gif (talk)
   

• Keep, as one of two sites with fossils of the first arthropods to appear in the fossil record. Average Earthman 20:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Keep — I've expanded the article to a three-point dab. --Gareth Hughes 17:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Enste

One sentence isn't good enough... Have lengthened some, but still not sure if it's a keep bjelleklang 23:01, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —
  Cryptic (talk) 12:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, but modify. A check on Google and de.Wikipedia shows that this is a small city in Westphalia, not a dynasty as stated in the entry. Jtmichcock 13:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Votes for Undeletion

nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Gareth Hughes 15:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eriq Wities

Delete, appears to be more of a user page, person in question doesn't seem to be too famous (only about 141 google hits, few of which seem to refer to him).

• Incomplete nomination, listing now. No vote. --MarkSweep✍ 21:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article claims that he's a filmmaker and that he's big in Taiwan and San Diego county, but unless we see some references to notable works or proof of sufficient fame, I'd say this article's a goner. -- Captain Disdain 00:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy or delete. Denni☯ 01:17, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Votes for Undeletion

nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Gareth Hughes 15:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Errolesque

Not in common usage, even it if were it would be more appropriate to wiktionary. GreetingsEarthling 17:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete.
  WINAD for a start, and mnost of the 34 useful Googles are Wikimirrors anyway (at least 9 of them, according to my browser) so there is a vanishingly small amount of usage that we can rely on to establish that this word is actually in wide acceptance. Since I'm not really of the mind that this can be expanded to an article that talks about the history and abstract concept of the word, as an encyclopedic article would demand, it should go. -Splash^talk 20:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per Splash. Xoloz 12:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Votes for Undeletion

nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Gareth Hughes 15:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eusoe and The Principality of Gwynedd Newydd

This place does not even exist, and does not appear in any published work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SFGiants (talk • contribs) 04:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• Indeed it does not. Neither does its spinoff article,
  Cryptic (talk) 12:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete both as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 14:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. They both confess to being figments of an (overactive and underoccupied) imagination. Wiki is not a braindump. -Splash^talk 21:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Votes for Undeletion

nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 22:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eversummer Eve

Webcomic, found here. Alexa gives it an atrocious rank, but I would guess most traffic comes from Wirepop, on which its archives are hosted with others. Wirepop gets a ranking of just over 150,000. I still don't think the webcomic is notable enough, at best, it would best be included in a

• Transwiki to comixpedia, that's where this belongs. Ilmari Karonen 16:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable web comic, even by our
  Cryptic (talk) 12:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Relisting. Not enough discussion. Redwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 22:45, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If somebody wants to transwiki this somewhere else, that's fine with me, but if that leads to wikis outside Wikimedia, it's kind of a stretch to assume that someone here's going to do it. -- Captain Disdain 00:05, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, NN. See User:SCZenz/Webcomics. -- SCZenz 16:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Votes for Undeletion

nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 00:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Execution_and_murder_rates_countrywide

Rubbish, POV article, heavily biased, unsourced.

• Delete virtually no information of an encyclopedic nature.--MONGO 13:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Also countrywide in title is inherent systemic bias. Dlyons493 Talk 14:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but would keep if it could be salvaged. File:Smilie.gifMolotov File:Caranimationforvmolotov.gif (talk)
  
• Delete. POV, original essay, comment rather than facts, US-centric title and badly written. Average Earthman 20:45, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Recommended only as part of a low-content diet. Can be used to increase your POV level. Consult a brain surgeon before keeping. -Splash^talk 21:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Country? Which country? Saberwyn 04:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Votes for Undeletion

nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 00:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

False Alarm (Russian band)

A non-notable band: fails to meet

• Delete per nominator. — JIP | Talk 16:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unless it can be established that they meet inclusion guidelines. -R. fiend 16:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per User:R. fiend. Punkmorten 21:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Votes for Undeletion

nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy DELETE as attack. -

Fifi box

Problem: article created by a vandal for vandalism; I added a speedy tag as wellFile:Smilie.gifMolotov File:Caranimationforvmolotov.gif (talk)

• Obviously a speedy candidate. By the way Molotov, what is up with your signature?--Gaff ^talk 04:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there something wrong with it? I guess I can change it, I liked it : (File:Smilie.gifMolotov File:Caranimationforvmolotov.gif (talk)
    
• Comment - There was no need to nominate this for AFD if it meets speedy criteria. — Kjammer ⌂ 04:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Votes for Undeletion

nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 00:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Five pound electron

Trivial result of special relativity

• Delete. Gazpacho 07:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, arbitrary topic.
  Kappa 07:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, nn, trivial, silly. GTBacchus 09:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Interesting, but contextless nonsense. How about an article on the 2.272727kg electron? --Cactus.man ✍ 09:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete crap --Rogerd 04:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• This looks like garbaaaage. But are there any expert physicits around to comment on the topic prior to deletion of the stub?--Gaff ^talk 10:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• comment This may well be a good example to include in an article like special relativity, but at the moment I'm unconvinced it's deserving of its own article. I'm also having trouble figuring out what it's saying, because it's lacking enough technical information (which means I'm having trouble believing for sure that it's factually correct information and this isn't a hoax/imaginary item). For instance, "weight" is just a description of the force due to gravity, so is this saying that the electron's had enough momentum imparted to it that it strikes a target and the impulse in the collision is five pounds of force, or is it saying that the electron's accelerated to such a speed that it has a relativistic mass with regards to the earth (I'm assuming this is going on on earth) that earth's gravity is able to impart 5 pounds of normal force on it? The Literate Engineer 16:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, now has a happy home on BJAODN. Alphax ^τεχ 14:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it's pointless. But good for a laugh.--Vertigo200 16:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Votes for Undeletion

nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 00:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Foohon

non-notable online videogame slang Dalf | Talk 09:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Does not seem notable except to a eew thousand people who play this game or hangout with eachother on IRC. Dalf | Talk 09:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable at all. -DDerby-(talk) 03:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN --Rogerd 09:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Votes for Undeletion

nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 00:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Full flavor

Fails criteria of

• delete article fails to demonstrate notability --Isolani 22:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• As Isolani says. Delete. -- Captain Disdain 00:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Votes for Undeletion

nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was moot, as I speedily deleted this as a biography with no claim of notability. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 08:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gageendal

dude with a MUD character

• Delete. Gazpacho 06:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nonnotable fictitious character. --
  _{tɔk tə mi} 07:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 00:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Get up the yard

• Definition and quite detailed Etymology of a
  Joestynes 21:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nomination.
  Joestynes 21:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete I'm well familar with the phrase, being a Dub and all that. It belongs in Wiktionary, though .. - Ali-oops^✍ 21:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Ali-oops RMoloney 23:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This kind of article is original research until proven otherwise. -Splash^talk 03:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am the author of this article and would like to respond to criticisms: It is maintained that it should be in Wiktionary but the article is more than a definition, it explores at length the origin of the term and is as much a social study as a definition. It is certainly not local to Dublin as it is heard throughout Ireland. Nor is it ephemeral to the 1970s-80s. It is very much in use today. There are no references because I know of none: I went to the school in question where the phrase arose and witnessed its origin, development and growth personally. It was not in use prior to the 1960s. The link suggested by a critic to an alternative etymology offers no proof of its speculation about "yardarms", which were not an item in common conversation at the time the phrase arose, in the 1960s. Yardarms were common in antique conversation. The development of "Get up the yard" was something I witnessed personally: it is the only word or phrase I have seen from its inception.
  Odea 02:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• umm - then it's 1) original research and 2) non-noteable? It's certainly not in common parlance in Ireland today, BTW, other than maybe with Dustin the Turkey - Ali-oops^✍ 03:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Votes for Undeletion

nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 00:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GNAE

This is blatant advertising spam. Even if it were completely rewritten to avoid the self-promotional tone, it hardly seems noteworthy. —HorsePunchKid→龜 05:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as obvious advertising. And phew...I was worried this was a European branch of the GNAA, at first. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 09:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Copyvio from [10]. Unfortunately outside 48 hours speedy time. --GraemeL ^(talk) 13:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all blatant copyvios, speedily if possible. Capitalistroadster 00:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Rogerd 04:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Votes for Undeletion

nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Withdrawn/Kept Marskell 16:56, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gravedigger

Problem: Dic-def. File:Smilie.gifMolotov File:Caranimationforvmolotov.gif (talk)
04:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • I withdraw nomination. File:Smilie.gifMolotov File:Caranimationforvmolotov.gif (talk)
    
• Keep. I agree, it's not a great article right now, but surely this is a real profession? Maybe they call them graveyard technicians now or something, I don't know, but surely there's enough knowledge about the profession of gravedigging to fill an article? I think this article needs work, not removal. (Obviously, if there's already an article about this under another name, then a redirect would be the way to go -- I couldn't find one, though.) -- Captain Disdain 04:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep some of the nominations baffle me. This article is clearly a stub, but any reputable encyclopedia in the world has an article for "gravedigger". No question that the article needs expansion/improvement. Check and see if Britannica has an article before nominating.--Nicodemus75 04:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry to baffle you. File:Smilie.gifMolotov File:Caranimationforvmolotov.gif (talk)
    
• Keep. I have expanded the article to include notable people who have worked as gravediggers and gravediggers in arts and literature. The latter includes the gravedigger scene from Hamlet - one of the most notable scenes in theatre. There are also notable people who have worked as gravediggers including two blues musicians who have Allmusic.com articles and have recorded several albums and performed national tours. Sid Smith, the author has won a Whitbread Prize in literature while the Pappenheimer Family were unfortunates wrongly accused of murdering seven pregnant women and improbable acts of witchcraft, tortured and burned alive during a witchcraft scare in 1600. Capitalistroadster 06:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good job! -- ���Captain Disdain 10:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nice one Cap' Alf ^melmac 14:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Votes for Undeletion

nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 00:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gravite.tk

It appears to be a non-notable website. --Mysidia (talk) 02:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nn, Wikipedia is not a website directory. -
  ^☼ 02:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Molotov File:Caranimationforvmolotov.gif (talk) e
  03:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nonnotable. tregoweth 03:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. *drew 05:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and vote for having votes for inclusion in the future.--Gaff ^talk 10:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN - someone removed the AfD - I restored it --Rogerd 03:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. - Sensor 02:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Votes for Undeletion

nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Gareth Hughes 15:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Holden Dapenor

Possible hoax. A search for Holden Dapenor on Google returns 0 hits.[11] Delete unless sources are provided for verification. --Allen3 ^talk 22:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Please check the edit history of this AfD when closing, there is evidence of possible chicanery in the form of valid votes having been edited out.[12] --Allen3 ^talk 12:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Added recently to the article: "See also: A stupid joke by members of the internet community www.totse.com". So yes, definitely a hoax. Delete accordingly. -- Captain Disdain 00:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as probable hoax see Captain Disdain's comment. The lack of Google results also shows distinct verifiability problems. Capitalistroadster 00:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it is a hoax, check out [13]. If you don't want to check the link, basically a member wants to name a road near him Holden Dapenor road (Holding Da Pen0r, link holding the penis) so others made stuff to support him. It's a fine joke, but a fraud as far as wikipedia should be concerned.
• Anon user 65.95.230.15 has removed at least one vfd from this page (mine), and possibly others as well. Still say delete as google doesn't return a single result on a search for Holden Dapenor, or Dapenor alone. Delete unless reliable sources can be found. bjelleklang 12:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Temporarily OK so its a hoax. We could at least keep the article until after the vote. It would be too funny to have a street named Holden Dapenor. --AGruntsJaggon 05:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even though it's a hoax, it has no notability outside of the forums or the fake little biography. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 05:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I ment to that we should keep the fake biography. It wouldnt be seen only by forum goers, it would be a street name where only one of the forum members works. After the street is named there is no reason for any of this to be here. The intention of this article was solely for credibility to get people to vote for the name. There was no intention to trick regular wiki users, and if left alone would have taken up its own little space until the vote. [I would like to note that I am taking no part in revert wars or in deleting other users comments]--AGruntsJaggon 06:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• To be used as a tool to perpetrate a real-world hoax would damage Wikipedia's reputation considerably. To do so knowingly would be inexcusable. We cannot keep this article in its original form for that reason. In Merovingian's truthful version, it's merely totally non-notable. Haeleth (not logged in) 08:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Then it should be deleted. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 08:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• So forget about it for awhile. If no one had said anything then it would have run its course and been removed. But whatever, I'm arguing a moot point. --AGruntsJaggon 05:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I know, and I trust you. I doubt the street will actually get this name. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 06:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)*FAP*[reply]
• Locke: despite the rather unfortunate fact that DaPenor's name does have some rather ...interesting... implications to it, Holden was a true pioneer, ask any historian who has studdied the colonization of Michigan. his legend clearly has been altered, but if you have ever been to some of michigan's lesser known museums, you can still see several maps with "Holden DaPenor" signed in the lower left hand corner, proof that this cartographer from the 1800's existed.
• Captain Shimsham: "Very true. I have seen on of Holden DaPenor's Maps in person in the museum in Michigan."
• Binary Pirate: "While there is not much information to go on, Holden was real and did (to the best of my knowledge) do the things said in this article. Keep it. YA RLY
• Comment: I tried to clean this up and restore the deleted votes. -- Kjkolb 13:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i did about holden for history, and even visited one of the outhouses he used.

Anyone who wants to delete this article is doing the State of Michigan a disservice. Even if it is a fake it deserves to be kept for its humor value alone.

This is REAL

• Pingy*: Holden Dapenor needs to be recognized as a influential member of American history. Without him, we would not have the Michigan that we have today. Besides, this can be used as historical evidence for reports for instance.

• Berrien County Historical Society: Holden Dapenor was a real man. Although some facts are misrepresented, he was a cartographer in pioneer-era Michigan. There has been hardly any information widely released about him, hence the lack of results in search engines. We are hoping to change that, and bring Dapenor's achievments to light.

• If this person is real, and of great importance to the history of Michigan, then explain the following: Why does not a search on the term Holden Dapenor return ANY related results on Google, Altavista, Lycos and Yahoo? If this is a real person, he should be mentioned somewhere, at least once on the billions of pages indexed by google! If this article has any humouristic value, it should be stated clearly in the article that it is a hoax! Still say delete, unless an authorative source is found, and referenced! bjelleklang 20:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Berrien County Historical Society: Every subject in Google has to be brought up a some point. Sites don't just come up out of nowhere. Information has to be transferred from records to websites. This hasn't been done yet, and that's what we are working on.

• Even so, if a person is significant enough (as the article claim), he is likely to be mentioned by other sites, and not only on local historic sites! Google has per today more than 4 billion pages indexed, and should contain at least one page where the person is mentioned, as should the other search engines. If an article can't be verified, it does not conform to
  the sources policy or the verifiability policy, and thus, should be deleted as we have no way of knowing if this is is true! bjelleklang 21:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete as non-verifiable. The references in the article are not from reputable sources. Even if we could assume good faith and suppose the guy is real: even in that case, this should still be deleted for now. It can always be restored when reliable references are available. Not but that the totse thread makes that really rather difficult to believe... Haeleth 21:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that the presumed hoaxers have now created Holden Depenor too, with broadly similar content. I've redirected it to Holden Dapenor for now; presumably it can be deleted at the same time. Oh, and this discussion page continues to be vandalised regularly too. Is there no way we can speedy this? :/ Haeleth 00:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Hoax. No google hits for any variation. Funny name, but it didn't make me laugh or even smile. —deanos {_p^t_a^a_*^l_g^k_e} 00:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • same people are at it again
    Scrat's_missing_adventure this time a couple have usernames —deanos {_p^t_a^a_*^l_g^k_e} 00:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]

HallofMirrors 01:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Google shows not even the slightest trace of recognizing Dapenor. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 04:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• No, You don't even live near Michigan, Mero. We've said before in the biographies that the guy is only known locally, and we recently decided to make his former presence known on the internet. You have vandalized the page.
  • Of course not, but I have full documentation of the TOTSE users' construction of the hoax. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 05:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • ..., you're begging the question. Please state your parameters.

HallofMirrors 06:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • I can post the creation of the hoax, if you'd like. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 06:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Even if he is a local hero, let's take a look at some things....:

Michigan has approx. 10 mill. inhabitants. The place where I come from (Sandnes, Norway) has approx. 55.000. Even so, a search on a local 'hero' of ours (Jonas Øglænd) return 600 results on google, and the only thing the man did was to produce some bikes about a hundred years ago. My point is that even if he is a local man, he should have been mentioned somewhere on the net, if not, the article is to be removed due to Wikipedias policy on verifiability and original research! You claim that the man is who he is, so it is up to you to provide us with a reputable source, instead of trying to blaim the lack of sources on the fact that he was a local hero... Bjelleklang - talk 06:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The entire thing is staged. It cannot be verified, since it's a hoax. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 06:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The creator of the thread who is also the one who came up with the idea to name the road is also an admin on totse. However creating a web-hoax and a wikipedia page was not his idea. No one in charge at totse condones any vandalism here. --AGruntsJaggon 06:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete admitted hoax; puppetfest. Xoloz 12:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• keep temporarily at least until the vote goes in for the road. just think of how priceless it would be to be driving along a road named Holden Dapenor Street. (Anonymous comment posted by 24.194.244.40)

• NOTICE The article discussion page is receiving a huge amount of vandalism.

• Delete, the article is pointless now, I may make a new one about him clearly stating that he was a hoax with information on his "life and works" after it's deleted. But heck, all of my articles are immediately added to speedy deletion because someone felt my changes weren't important enough. So maybe I won't. HallofMirrors 02:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I took it upon myself to edit the article to include the hoax, while preserving the truth (that it IS a hoax). I hope I saved it. HallofMirrors 02:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you Mero for fixing spacing. HallofMirrors 03:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure. Even impending deletions deserve to look their best. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 03:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it should stay exactly the way it is now, with the admitted hoax pretext, and the original article. I think it deserves that status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.91.20 (talk • contribs) 09:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may deserve a place in the hall of fame at WP:-O; I'm not sure it's been notable enough to stay in the main namespace (for example, it didn't fool anyone for long, or attract any comment from those not directly involved in the efforts to spread and/or suppress it). Besides, it's already on Uncyclopedia, isn't it? ;) - Haeleth 11:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is definitely a
      WP:BJAODN candidate. Good thinking, Haeleth.  :) --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 13:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
      ]

• Delete the hoax.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 07:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Everyking 11:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable, sockpuppets. --
  Galatea!) 14:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 00:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hopeless Riot

bandvanity, never signed, no major tours

• Delete. Gazpacho 06:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity --Rogerd 04:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, vanity. — JIP | Talk 16:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Votes for Undeletion

nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human Shit--Allen3 ^talk 00:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Human Shit (band)

Just another unheard of band (the article even admits it), who has not done anything to stand out from the rest of the thousands of other bands that shared the same fate. Appears to be a duplicate article in attempt to evade a previous deletion request Fsdfs 01:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non brainer per nom and title. Molotov File:Caranimationforvmolotov.gif (talk) e
  03:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There is no duplicate, but the article was moved. All votes should be done at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human Shit. --rob 03:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete --

I Think They Like Me

Delete -An adverstising link to Yahoo musicDakota 00:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• (Speedy) Delete - I'm sure this qaulifies as spam in most people's dictionaries, there has to be a rule to speedy something like this. — Kjammer ⌂ 02:54, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete NN- --JJay 03:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, speedy. This is just blatant advertising. -- ���Captain Disdain 03:21, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• SPEED DELETE --Tedzsee 03:23, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete! Ganymead 06:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Votes for Undeletion

nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep — but I'll add a cleanup tag, and expect the interested parties below to do the cleaning up --Gareth Hughes 16:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinability Theory of Truth

Um... I honestly have no idea. I'm getting a slight whiff of OR, or possibly copyvio (although Google doesn't turn up anything for a few randomly-selected strings, it could be from a textbook). False alarm? DS 13:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• This article is non-neutral and unsourced. However, have a look at correspondence theory of truth, in particular its "see also" section and references. Research is needed to determine whether this is an accepted theory alongside the others. Uncle G 14:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • note that the link in the "see also" section was added by the author. ---DDerby-(talk) 20:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rewrite Tarski's theorem certainly exists and the article is plausible (at least to a non-philospher). However the context that would make it encyclopedaic is missing. Maybe merge to Theories of Truth or some such? Dlyons493 Talk 14:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I vote confusion. to be honest, I've not heard of this (and I'm the sort of person that should have). But, this article attributes such a view to Gottlob Frege. I will try to investigate this a little further. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 16:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • We await the results of your research (as does the article ☺). I haven't found anything in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Uncle G 19:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • correspondence theory of truth is in the standard dictionaries. This article seems to be related to Tarski's semantic theory of truth but I'm out of my depth here. Dlyons493 Talk 20:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not the correspondence theory that is at issue here, though. It was the indefinability theory that I searched SEP for. Uncle G 15:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I talked to my friend who knows more about this stuff than I do. The general feeling is that such a position exists, and I correctly attributed the view to Frege. It is not terribly well regarded, because the argument for it rest on a mistake, but nonetheless, it exists. I vote keep, but with a cleanup tag. (If this gets kept, I'll try to tell the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy about it so they can clean it up, I don't really know enough about Frege to do it myself)

. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 17:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This appears to be a legitimate topic in philosophy. It is poorly written as an encyclopedia article, however. It should have a history of the idea, including who originated it, when it originated, why it originated, what schools of thought are in opposition to it, etc. Deletion is too drastic. It does need cleaning up. I am not the person to do it, as I am also out of my depth here. (comment by
  Rohirok
  )
• Comment: if this turns out to be nonsense, delete the red link for the lowercase version of this on the truth article. -- Kjkolb 08:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Votes for Undeletion

nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 02:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Immigrant Initiation

Non notable club for Indian immigrants to Vancouver.-- GraemeL ^(talk) 14:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unverifiable. Dlyons493 Talk 14:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN --Rogerd 09:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Votes for Undeletion

nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 22:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interflop

It seems to be a non-notable website, negligible google hits for interflop.com. --Mysidia (talk) 21:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a rogue group! Not that I want to enrage these bad boys, but delete it just the same. -- Captain Disdain 00:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above.--Carabinieri 13:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Fire Star 02:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Votes for Undeletion

nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete — already performed, but vote not closed --Gareth Hughes 16:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jer jer

Delete - Made up by a group of kids. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.77.33.201 (talk • contribs) 12:18, 6 October 2005

Comment: Malformed AFD nomination, listing onto the deletion log. — Kjammer ⌂ 05:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. Article has no context. Tagged. --GraemeL ^(talk) 13:23, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Votes for Undeletion

nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merge and Redirect to

Kert-

nom&vote delete or move to wiktionary (I don't know how to do that). What is a "hypothetical Indo-European root word"? Gaff ^talk 20:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not a new issue. Is there a policy for these articles? See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indo-European root word articles.--Gaff ^talk 20:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into a general article about PIE root words Denni☯ 01:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Votes for Undeletion

nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 22:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Killzone PSP

Appears to be non sense. File:Smilie.gifMolotov File:Caranimationforvmolotov.gif (talk)
17:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Among other things, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. GreetingsEarthling 17:55, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  Thunderbrand 18:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Unverifiable that the game is being developed. Also, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --J. Nguyen 18:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agreed. It isn't even really known if this game is in development. --Homestar14 8:59, 17 October 2005 (EST)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Votes for Undeletion

nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete, obviously. DS 20:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Klied

Problem: N-n notable, verifiable or encyclopedic. File:Smilie.gifMolotov File:Caranimationforvmolotov.gif (talk)

• Is this crap? Yes. Yes, it is crap. Delete. -- Captain Disdain 04:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Anetode 06:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Blizzard-cruft. Punkmorten 12:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Votes for Undeletion

nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 22:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kosijama

Band vanity - I'm Icelandic and I don't think this band is important enough to have an article. Introgressive 13:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist. Needs more discussion. Redwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 22:57, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• ...it's a band? Right now, the article doesn't even tell us that much. Unless someone can establish notability, delete. Being an art group in Iceland is not in itself particularly significant. -- Captain Disdain 23:55, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No claim to notability. In fact, virtually content-free. --A D Monroe III 03:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]