Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 September 11

< September 10	September 12 >

September 11

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete and outgrabe. Nandesuka 16:29, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbey Momerath

nn and nv bandcruft Tonywalton | Talk 00:00, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with above. Delete CambridgeBayWeather 00:05, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established. Hamster Sandwich 00:20, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither notable or verifiable. Capitalistroadster 00:45, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Amren ^(talk) 01:45, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Outgrabe.
Kappa 01:55, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete.
♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ _{(Contributions)} 03:35, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, band vanity. — JIP | Talk 07:27, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a notable band. mrholybrain 11:21, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Reads like a hoax article, at best nn ---CH (talk) 04:13, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:35, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbey momerath and the stranglers of the heart

non-notable, non-verifiable bandcruft, if even that Tonywalton | Talk 00:08, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above.Capitalistroadster 00:53, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominatoar. -Splash 01:29, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Amren ^(talk) 01:46, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, band vanity. — JIP | Talk 07:28, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 23:20, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rory Conroy

(UTC not-notable and article is obvious nonesense. Notjim 00:05, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of assertions of notability. None actually verifiable, though. Delete. Tonywalton | Talk 00:19, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Amren ^(talk) 01:36, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn and non-sense. --rob 02:02, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN; I love that anyone would take that long to write an article about themselves.
♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ _{(Contributions)} 03:36, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Keira Knightley loves ME. TheMadBaron 04:01, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. – AxSkov (☏) 07:02, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move. Make it a user page if its a real user. mrholybrain 11:22, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
Don't delete I saw this man during my visit to Ireland. He was in a play that we saw at the Abbey theatre. Very good too. I don't understand why you want to delete the page, I thought he was well known in Ireland?. janedickson 09:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't find any evidence via Google that an actor by this name exists.---CH (talk) 07:03, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's because in Ireland he uses his name in Irish: 'Ruaidhri' Conroy. If you check the Internet Movie Database @ http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0175860/ you can see his profile. You shouldn't be so quick to condemn people because they have unusual lives. janedickson
- Janedickson's only edits are to this AfD discussion.[1] Postdlf 18:36, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He must be real. I had to use his book during the presintation of my thesis. It was exactly as described. I can't vouch for the other information though. Jestermax 22:42, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- What book, Jester? I can't find any books by a Rory Conroy in my unis' library or on Amazon. And I can't find any eprints by Rory Conroy on the arXiv, which would be very strange if this alleged person was ever a promising young physicist.---CH (talk) 07:03, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Apologies CH, I was refering to the book containing his paper on sexuality in ancient Ireland. This was published in 'New agendas in Irish prehistory : papers in commemoration of Liz Anderson / edited by Angela Desmond ... [et al.] in 2000. I don't know about his physics background ---jestermax 15:03, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Jestermax's only edits are to this AfD discussion.[2] Postdlf 18:36, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless verified. Google (etc.) research indicates that there appears to be a minor Irish actor with this name, but there's absolutely no verification of any of the other material, which appears fanciful and hoaxish. Needs sourcing. MCB 22:33, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's either a hoax or it's Rory Conroy's personal delusions writ small. | Keithlaw 22:41, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Amend I don't know who wrote this, but his 'associations' with Keira Knightly amounted to them both attending a charity function in Co Down a few months ago. Rory Conroy is a real person who WAS a physicist, but it seems like a fan may have gotten a bit over enthusiastic. Since I have the interview with him in Physics' Today, I would recommend amending the text rather than deleting. | ShaolinvsNinja 23:45, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- ShaolinvsNinja, can you provide a link to the alleged Physics Today article? I read that, but might have missed this particular article.---CH (talk) 07:03, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Shaolinvsninja's first two edits.[3] Postdlf 18:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can provide hard evidence that some of the claims made are both verifiable and true, in which case I'll change my vote---CH (talk) 07:03, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why delete an accurate account of one of Ireland's great unsung heroes? Mr. Conroy is an influence to everyone in Ireland and is adored by thousands---~~CH (talk)~~ 11:30, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by neither CH nor Colossus, but 13.8.125.11, who also voted as "Ninja420" below.[4] Postdlf 18:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Amend I saw him on Irish TV last night (11 Sept 05)FFS! I cant understand the whole "its not on the internet so it must not be true" attitute of some people. What did you do before the internet??I cant remeber the physics stuff, but i never did care much for him as an actor, personally i think he stinks!NippyChippy
- User's only edit.[5] Postdlf 18:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonsense. Even if the Rory Conroy is Ruaidhri Conroy (which is suspect; see picture of Ruaidhri Conroy here), the additional accolades aren’t true. The "International Astro and Theoretical Physics Consortium" doesn't exist, nor does the album The Transformed Man 2. Whoever's putting up all this stuff is infecting other articles with the nonsense, too: e.g., having [Johnny Cash] collaborate on an album after Cash's death. (Also notable is that the pages of Cash, [Trent Reznor], and [Woody Allen] reference Conroy's supposed band, "Centipede on the Roof" even though that name is not mentioned in the main article— it's obviously being made up as it goes). Rynne 18:20, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Amend His life seems really incredible if it's true. I would be cautious however in deleting this. The article does say he's not well known outside of Ireland, so his album may not be on general release. Consortiums can also be small groups rather than large international ones. I am also concerned that where as the Johnny Cash article may be confused with the dates, this article does not give mention of these so cannot be held at fault. way2busy
- User's only edit.[6] Postdlf 18:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Incredible if true. Luckily for AfD purposes, anything that's notable doesn't seem to be true, so it's an easy delete (despite the best efforts of our amend-happy friends). Lord Bob 19:33, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
Keep Rory Conroy is a well-known figure within Ireland. Amongst many other things he IS the singer with Centipede On The Roof, a popular band in Ireland. He has featured in many magazines, radio and television programmes to say the least.---Ninja420 (talk) 15:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No such user; comment actually by 13.8.125.11.[7] Postdlf 18:46, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- A Google search on "centipede on the roof" returned no documents, and there is no entry in allmusic.com for Rory Conroy, Ruaidhri Conroy, or Centipede on the Roof. If this band is so obscure that it doesn't appear anywhere on the Internet at all, I don't think the article meets the standard for inclusion. | Keithlaw 01:33, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Centipede on the Roof are a reality. Ask anyone from Ireland who has their finger on the pulse. Granted they're not U2, but their level of fame is rising and will be big news one day. | Bad Tan 01:33, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Bad Tan" is another sockpuppet from 13.8.125.11 (also known as Ninja420, ShaolinvsNinja, and the fake CH) - see [8] | Keithlaw 21:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ruaidhri has starred in enough successful Irish films and theatre productions that he can easily be considered for raising the bar for Irish acting standards, thus warranting a decent entry here.---Dr_Faulk (talk) 16:04, 13 September 2005 (UTC):[reply]
- User's only edit.[9] Postdlf 18:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a real actor, just because he is not american he is not worthy of a mention?? My advice, my american friends is to get a passport and look at the world, rather than viewing it through the internet ---Seamus 19:01 13 Septermber 2005
- - No such user as "Seamus"; comment actually by 82.6.182.159.[10] Postdlf 18:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I've never in my life seen so many sockpuppets come out for something so insignificant. It's never once happened in all my days. I mean, you'd think we'd AfD'd Scientology or something the way the reaction is. It's kinda scary. Lord Bob 18:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Having to resort to personal insults shows the weakness in your argument and the gaps in your knowledge Lord Bob ---Seamus 22:28 13 Septermber 2005
    - Seamus, in your earlier post, you accused everyone who voted Delete of ethnocentrism. Isn't that a "personal insult?" This AfD started because the bulk of the content in the article is
      patent nonsense. Can you give us a response to that argument, rather than attacking Lord Bob or throwing around baseless accusations of bias? | Keithlaw 22:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      - Thank you, Keithlaw, for saying about what I'd say so I don't have to. Well, except for this reply that says 'thank you'. But it doesn't count. Lord Bob 00:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        There truth does hurt Keithlaw, if you are insulted by the truth, I cant help you. I have seen the films he is in, have you.....? ---Seamus 08:19 14 Septermber 2005
        Name them. Tonywalton | Talk 15:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        
        "Into the west" and "The Van" ---Seamus 20:1414 Septermber 2005
        Both of which are credited as Ruaidhri Conroy (his IMDB page), whose existence is universally accepted and for whom we still have no evidence is this Rory Conroy to whom the article refers. And there's certainly no evidence of any kind that he was a great young physicist or a rare martial arts master (and I've looked) as the article claims. It's been three days, and you sockpuppets have made a billion edits trying to keep this thing, and your evidence does not exist. For the sake of argument, I present now a list of questionable aspects of this article. This list is by no means exhaustive. Feel free to prove me wrong on any or all of them.
        
        "Rory Conroy", as an actor by that name, is not known to exist. As a physicist or Irish historian, he has no articles or textbooks in university libraries that a number of Wikipedians, including myself, have been able to find. As a martial arts master, his achievements cannot be verified.
        
        The claims that Rory Conroy are Ruaidhri Conroy cannot be handily verified.
        
        If Rory Conroy is Ruaidhri Conroy, it is unusual that this fact was not mentioned on the page until after the Articles for Deletion notice went up. Surely the name he was credited under would at least be worth a mention in a fairly comprehensive article written by what must be a very knowledgeable fan!
        
        He is mentioned as playing key roles in the Irish dramas "Fair City" and "Batchelor's [sic] Walk". IMDB lists "Fair City" as an Irish television series beginning in 1988. No Conroy, Rory or Ruaidhri, is credited. IMDB does not list a "Batchelor's Walk", however, "Bachelor's Walk" is listed as an Irish television series that ran from 2001 to 2003. No Conroy, Rory or Ruaidhri, is credited.
        
        Mr. Conroy is listed as a recipient of the "Best Young European Physicist of the Year" award. No such award is mentioned on Google. The awarding body is the European Science Foundation, which has no reference to a "Conroy" on its website.
        
        Mr. Conroy is not listed as a recipient of the 1998 Theatre World Award for his role in Martin McDonagh's "The Cripple of Inishmaan", despite the fact that Ruaidhri Conroy did win this award. Another glaring omission in what is otherwise a fairly comprehensive article.
        
        Pictures of Ruaidhri Conroy available online (such as this one and this one) show a non-glasses-wearer with dark hair who doesn't look a thing like the picture in the article. The picture in the article does not appear online in a Google image search for "Ruaidhri Conroy", nor for "Rory Conroy".
        
        This page is supported by an unusually large number of sockpuppet votes, which, while not an indication of the article by itself, is worth considering on top of the other evidence, listed in part above.
        
        Yours very sincerely and respectfully, Lord Bob 20:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        
        You were doing so well Lord Bob until your last point, insulting people by calling them socket puppets demeans all your other points, the source of the pictures has hard to verify, people can wear glasses and dye hair for roles etc. I think that you are confused by the use of irish names, my name "Seamus" which is Irish for James, we in ireland live in a multi lingual society I can (and do) use both names, perhaps this should be editted and the name chaned from Rory to "Ruaidhri". To the other users I'm sorry that I havent eddited other posts, I'm new to the community, but were we not all new once?? Respectfully ---Seamus 20:14 Septermber 2005
        If Ruaidhri is Irish for Rory (which, to my very considerable surprise, it actually seems to be!), then why why why wasn't his actual freakin' name mentioned in the article?!? He's credited under Ruaidhri everywhere. He appears as "Rory Conroy" nowhere. Two of the credits in the article, if IMDB is to be believed, are absolute lies. His academic background seems to be total fiction. The stuff on martial arts seems to be dubious at best. There are important omissions and facts that are false in the pre-AfD'd article (and in the present version). Heck, for all I know the author of the article also happens to be named "Rory Conroy" and is doing his damndest to pass himself off as the more famous Ruaidhri. You say that my referring to sockpuppets when a bunch of first-time users and anonymous IPs unanimously vote to keep an article demeans my other points. I could have called you anything I want but it wouldn't change the reality that my points are real, unassailled facts that could be disproved very easily if the article were actually true. A reference on the ESF's website to Conroy's award. Known and documented pseudonyms that he also performs and writes under, so as to explain the discrepancies in the claimed and his actual credits. Something on his martial arts work, or his album. Proof of his involvement with
        Sigur Ros during their December 2004 Irish concert stop, despite the fact that their official page claims they neither toured in December 2004 nor appeared in Ireland all of that year. If you could actually verify all of those things, my argument would collapse utterly. But you can't. That's why you haven't, despite repeated calls from different editors to do so. That's why the only way you can try and win this AfD is by flooding the ballot box, rather than by actually convincing us of your point of view. I don't care if you think it cheapens my argument: this vote is supported by sockpuppets, barring you actually revealing solid evidence this vote will be to delete, and this hoax of an article will die. And I will be a little happier because it did. Lord Bob 21:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        
        Ok Lord bob, we will have to leave it at that, i have never said anything other than I know he is an actor, i'm not that well informed on his musical career etc, I do know he is an actor, thats all. I cant answer for the person who worte the article in its past or present form because I dont know who did it. I came across this by accident (email actually) however i havent been spamming this site, as my ip address will show. Keep Safe ---Seamus 23:01 14 September 2005
        That's alright, then. I didn't mean to imply that you were one of the sockpuppets or one of the article's major editors, the evidence doesn't seem to bear that out. And I'm certainly not going to argue that Ruaidhri is Irish for Rory, and that Ruaidhri Conroy is an actor, which seems to be your main bone of contention despite my addressing other arguments in a thread with you. I took out my anger at the sockpuppets on you, and though I stand by my points above, I didn't mean to cause any offense to you (although I wouldn't mind offending the sockpuppets a bit. Lord Bob 22:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Ruaidhri Conroy is a real actor; you can find him on IMDB and google. However, no one has given any proof that Ruaidhri Conroy is in fact the same person as Rory Conroy—I haven’t seen information that would indicate that Ruaidhri has gone by the name "Rory." Rynne 16:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rory is really famous in Ireland. He has appeared on a lot of t.v. shows on Irish television. His face is known to all. His band are less well known in Ireland, but that's not his profession. He was on a late-night talk show recently and told the incredible story of his life. As a fluent Irish speaker, Rory and Ruaidhri are interchangeable, and although while it's true that he prefers to go by Ruaidhri, he is also know as Rory, especially by non native speakers.---Hector5 (talk) 17:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC):[reply]
- More assertions without facts. And yet another user with no contribution history. Until someone demonstrates that 1) Rory Conroy is Ruaidhri Conroy and 2) that even half of the stuff in this article is valid, I still say Delete. | Keithlaw 16:49, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- [11] Read the full review for user of the name Rory ---Seamus 20:14 Septermber 2005
  - That’s not true that he has no contribution history, Keithlaw. If you check the contributions of 13.8.125.11 (aka Hector5 and some other posters on this page), it seems that he’s contributed a good deal of Wikipedia’s current information on Rory Conroy and Centipede on the Roof. It certainly looks like he's playing a joke to me and creating sockpuppets to back himself up. So I'll reiterate my delete vote, too. Rynne 17:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have been trying to find any information on him. He does appear to be credited as Rory Conroy for 'Into the West' at this site: http://www.filmaffinity.com/en/film144297.html It also seems that a Liu Zhen Juan has been known to come to Ireland: http://www.ucd.ie/shaolin/newsletters/2003/Septb2003.html Still, nothing conclusive though. I can say however that A Rory Conroy did write an article on sexuality in eary Ireland. I have given the book details above. Hope this helps.Jestermax 20:31, September 14, 2005
- I did some searching, and I can’t find any reference to New Agendas in Irish Prehistory containing any papers by an Ruaidhri/Rory Conroy (e.g., here and here), nor does a google search of the paper's title, "Man, Father, Priest and Martyr" bring up any hits. That seems suprisingly non-notable for a paper that's alledgely "[l]auded in History circles as the "definitive" work on the subject." Rynne 18:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. And worra lorra sock puppetry! CLW 18:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax or vanity, or some bastard hybrid thereof. And the flurry of sockpuppet support doesn't help the case either. Postdlf 19:02, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and block 13.8.125.11 for vote fraud! --
^talk
19:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to do with this, but we appear to have a full-fledged vandalism problem on our hands. The user at 13.8.125.11 behind all these sockpuppets is inserting references to Rory Conroy and his fictional band all over the site: Eva Longoria, Elisha Cuthbert, and about ten other pages so far. Rynne seems to have cleaned most of them up, and I got those last two. I suggest that a Wikipedia sysop slap a block on that IP address. | Keithlaw 20:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The vandalism, the attempts by the anon to vote multiple times, and the creation of all of these new users to vote keep on a person whose very existence cannot be verified leads to only one conclusion -- hoas. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:36, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. Friday (talk) 15:49, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It appears this article is made up from false facts.--Kaonashi 02:33, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rory Conroy's life is bizarre and reads like a fictional tale to anyone outside Ireland, but folks it's all true. Just because Google etc. haven't verified these points it doesn't nullify them. Keep as is. Cat With Goggles 16:58, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No such user; comment actually first edit by 159.134.77.51.[12] Postdlf 16:12, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So... what happens now? Are we just waiting for an administrator to rule on this? Should I go over to the curb and flag one down? | Keithlaw 22:13, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep as merge and redirect.

Having looked at both articles, I didn't find anything in this article which I thought really added to the existing article on obesity. Given the timing of some of the edits, I suspect that someone else has already implemented the merge. I am going to turn this into a redirect. If someone else sees something worth merging, please feel free to recover it from the article's page history. Rossami (talk) 23:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental causes of obesity

Dupicate of material in obesity, no individual merits, quotes Wikipedia (suggesting this was originally an essay). Delete. JFW | T@lk 00:30, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any verifiable, properly sourced material into obesity, and then delete. Nandesuka 01:02, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is rambling and unreferenced, but it's a topic worth having.
~~T/C 01:08, 11 September 2005 (UTC)~~[reply
]
- Merge. I am swayed by the impeccable logic of Geogre, et al.
  T/C 20:19, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Keep per
~~Fernando Rizo. --Apyule 09:09, 11 September 2005 (UTC)~~[reply
]

Please read Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. Merges should be finished with a redirect to retain the edit history per GFDL requirements. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:45, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Merge per

Fernando Rizo again. --Apyule 02:09, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

Hmmm. Fernando Rizo is right that it would be good to have a discussion, but we can't have original research. Cleanup definitely can't or won't handle a job this detailed, where the duplicate material from obesity is stripped and unsourced claimed are cut. We don't have a template for "cut out the stuff that came from X." I have to say that, unless the original author can do it (which would be a case for RfC on the article), I don't think the things that need to be done can be done, so I have to vote merge with obesity, even though I agree that an individual article is possible. Geogre 11:07, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If anything needs splitting off from obesity it is not a section on environmental causes. I'd much prefer the "policy responses" section to become its own article, as this is a very hot potato (e.g. fat tax). JFW | T@lk 20:25, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. As per Geogre. Just don't clutter
Isotalo 12:58, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge as per all. Owen× ☎ 16:13, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect. There is not too much sourced non-OR stuff here that will survive a merge, IMO. Sdedeo 20:13, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Optichan 20:01, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Borderline but I think I'll go with not enough notability here. Woohookitty 10:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Space Station 13

Does a totally obscure online RPG made by a one man dev team, using

Hahnchen 00:44, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep. EIGHTEEN PLAYERS!? Look at the forums, 211 members so far, it may not be huge, but it is NOT 18 members. While I do admit that the game may not be huge, it is growing and effort has been put into this article (As you said) and I myself am planning to add more to the article, I feel that this should stay, although that is just me and I feel biased. -
Mrdie

Comment - Sorry, mistake made there. Maybe there were 18 players online? As the player count right now is 11. -
Hahnchen 13:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Non-notable,
T/C 03:38, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep. True, not yet notable, but very well written. More worthy of keeping than most elementary-school articles... Owen× ☎ 03:57, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- ... which, in fact, we delete unless notability far beyond the average elementary school is verified. Barno 22:09, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Not notable. Fairly well written, I'll give that... but 211 members isn't enough for wikipedia notability. Fieari 03:59, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. SS13 is ranked 10 on BYOND itself and has a LOT more than 18 players.Gparent
- Comment - Ranked number 10 on BYOND is not notability, I doubt being ranked number 1 on that network is notability. It's like saying your flash cartoon was number 1 on newgrounds, it's meaningless, and that's a great first edit
  Hahnchen 13:49, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Keep. SS13 has no need to "make it big". It has problems already with morons who can't role-play and sit there killing everyone. Feh, I don't even care. If you want to delete it, go ahead, it's only a "brag page". Phoenix Man
- Above comment is by anon user User:80.61.196.1 (which is me -- Phoenix Man). — JIP | Talk 07:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Presumably you were accidentally logged out from Wikipedia? However your user name is User:Phoenix Man with a space yet you sign your posts as User:PhoenixMan without a space. Why is that? — JIP | Talk 09:06, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oops. Fixed.
Weak delete. Fairly well written, but not notable enough, and still under development. — JIP | Talk
Weak keep. It's hard to see why it should be deleted, but I don't have a strong view on this one. --Apyule 09:03, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article needs a some more work, but seems sound to me. Dread Lord CyberSkull 10:05, 2005 September 11 (UTC)
Weak delete: I must say that this article does indeed have more information about the game and it's aims than the website does. As previously stated this should be on the game's website. As is the nature of the game's community, I suspect that the information on here will not make it to the website. It is good, but sadly mis-placed. Stephen Badger 10:15 September 11 2005 (UTC)
Delete: WP is not a web guide. The game would need to be significant, not just popular. The "Osama in a Blender" sort of thing gets a lot of hits and then is forgotten. In this case, it's an online game that isn't even finished, so, to have an article here, we have to be a crystal ball *and* a game site *and* a web guide. Geogre 11:10, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per Geogre. Please don't screw over official policy in this manner. This is only of interest to utter gaming nerds. /
Isotalo 13:02, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
- Comment - That's like saying that Red Shift is only of interest to utter scientific nerds. Even if SS13 doesn't affect our life, it's still a growing game and there's a wikipedia article to describe it. Is one subject about a good game worse than the one about Half-Life 2 ? Gparent.
keep, of interest to gaming nerds.
Kappa 14:09, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. nonnotable. mikka (t) 16:29, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a friggin' internet encyclopedia! If you think Space station 13 is too small for this site, you are a snob...

I don't particularly like the "Recommended games" links in the BYOND article, looks too addy. I would recommend listing the top 10 BYOND games in an objective manner on the BYOND article without the flurry of external links. They barely change. We don't need the promotion. As for the article itself. Delete if we delete forums for having too few members a game with 11 players online and a 211 member forum really isn't enough. A quick description in BYOND is fine, though and I would like to see this info on their website. (WP isn't a webhost). - Mgm|^(talk) 17:53, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Does it matter?* I feel, being one of the chief Administrators and developers for Space Station 13, that I should step in and say a few words. First of all, nobody really cares weather this article exists or not. I don't care, nor do a lot of the community for SS13. However, there is the problem with the morality of the whole idea of deleting this wikopedia addition. This website is here purely for the sole purpose of providing it's users with information on more than what the standard encyclopedia offers. This means users can also add their own defintions of anything they want.

Why do you all go completely made over a insignificant post that hardly takes up any space at all? Maybe if NASA or another national space assosciation launched a Space Station, labled #13, that would be good reason to delete this addition, in order to make room for a more official addition. Otherwise, the name isn't required for anything else, and therefore your argument is fruitless.

Don't start with this advertising crap, because if I wanted to, I could find at least 50 additions advertising products. Such an insignificant addition shouldn't be 'worried' about in such a way. Do what you want, it doesn't bother me, the original creator of SS13 nor does it bother any of the important members of the SS13 community. - AZA
- Then those 50 articles should also be deleted. Please nominate them ASAP. --DavidConrad 07:06, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this is a matter of inclusionism/deletionism. I nominated this article for deletion, not because it was badly written or incorrect, but because I feel that wikipedia should not just cover arbitrary topics of little encyclopedic worth. I think the article would be a lot better, and do
  Hahnchen 21:37, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Delete. Not notable. android 79 20:20, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I think Space station 13 is too small for this site. I am a snob. TheMadBaron 20:42, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.Delete it now It is irrelevant to the course of the universe and world events. The SS13 website has 3 links or something and a login thingo. That this article exists is a disgrace to my uncle's cat!! The article on socks is better than this article. Confusing rubbish. Burn it Burn it now!!!! Qlorplox

Keep. Keep it. Wikipedia isn't being "overcrowded" or anything. No harm being done. Dukefan
Delete. If the only argument for keeping is "no harm being done", it is not encyclopedic. Zoe 23:52, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment - It is not the only argument, but we don't think it merits being deleted because similar articles about games such as Half-Life 2 exist, and HL2 is irrevelant to the course of the universe and world events too Gparent 23:56, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - He is comparing HL2 to Space Station 13. Let's get some perspective here, HL2 was one of the most anticipated games ever, used an experimental delivery system, covered not only in the specialist gaming press, but garnered attention in mass media as well. It will spawn countless mods, official add on packs and will be remembered by many. Space Station 13 is a small online game, with a tiny community, made using commercial tools by a bedroom group, more people are likely going to see the article then are going to play the game. Course of the universe? That's not your criteria for notability, that's your
    Hahnchen 00:24, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    - Comment. Just to bolster the above, consider that Half-life 2 had sold more than 1.7 million copies in 2004 alone.
      T/C 00:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      - Comment. I expected that kind of answer. I was talking to the guy above that says that SS13 doesnt change anything in the world and stuff. I dont see how Half-Life 2 compares to the laws of physics. I can see the Source Engine having an entry, but Half-Life 2 ? A couple of other games use the engine too, it's not extraordinary. Why not have a half-Life 2 wiki instead ? The hack could be described it, the millions of mod his predecessors have spawned. Thing is, the SS13 entry isnt really harmful, and I dont know why we should remove it unless you really hate the game/games in general. Gparent

If it gets deleted, I wouldnt moan about it. But realy it is the principle of it. I enjoy looking through Wikipedia because I see it as the encyclopedia that DOES have everything in it. But whatever.
keep please it is a good article and is neutral and verifiable so why should we erase this that does not make sense Yuckfoo 04:14, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete The proponents of this article need to review
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I certainly hope that Wikipedia never becomes "the encyclopedia that DOES have everything in it". I for one would certainly stop contributing. --DavidConrad 07:04, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
- I'm not advocating it, but why would you stop contributing if wikipedia became that kind of encyclopedia?
  Kappa 22:26, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
- Comment. I am not voting, but I'd just like to point out that nothing in the link you posted indicates that this should be deleted. It's not any of the 7 things listed. Perhaps you meant to point to a different section of WP:NOT, in which case I suggest you clarify. --Jacqui M Schedler 02:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - He meant thing #0. The remaining 7 are major ones with strong consensus. But I hope you would not defend the article Pet names in Sunnyvale, CA because it is unfit for these 7 categories. mikka (t) 03:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Gamaliel 07:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or die. You guyssuck! LOL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.34.50.254 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 12 September 2005

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.

The community consensus was clearly for deletion with 19 people unconvinced by any of the arguments in favor of keeping it. I count only one "keep as is", 3 "keep as redirect or merge" and one that was too ambiguous to call.

Phil is correct that the merger which happened while the discussion was on-going complicates the decision. This is exactly why we strongly discourage any mergers while the discussion is in progress. In order to preserve the attribution history, I am going to copy-paste the history into the Talk page for Gallery of flags by design which is, I think, the only place that actual content was merged to. In the future, please wait until the deletion discussion is complete before merging any material. Rossami (talk) 23:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of flags featuring one or more stars and the colors red, blue, and white

This article is just about flags that "feature one or more stars and the colors red, blue, and white". It seems kinda pointless to have this as a separate article. If it shouldn't be deleted, there has to be some article out there that this can be merged into... --

Hottentot

Delete, Delete, Delete So a user is really going to type a title like List of flags featuring one or more stars and the colors red, blue, and white - it was a stretch to even cut and paste it! And why discriminate against List of flags featuring one or more crescents and the colors green and white? And just to be clear about this Delete Dlyons493 01:17, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Flag of the United States. — Phil Welch 01:25, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Merge with Flag of the United States. Merge into List of flags by design. Crypticfirefly 01:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Flag of the United States, which already has a section listing flags with similar design that links to this article, making it easier to merge there. Also merge to List of flags by design. — Phil Welch 01:35, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw Delete in favour of suggestion by Phil Dlyons493 01:39, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The two flags in this article that were not already in Flag of the United States' relevant section have been merged. Redirect to maintain attribution history. — Phil Welch 02:38, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Delete, Delete. The flag of my country feaures one or more stars and the colours red blue and white but someone decided that it doesn't qualify. Let me say again in case I haven't made it clear, the title of this page lists flags ''featuring one or more stars and the colors red, blue, and white" but there are flags "featuring one or more stars and the colors red, blue, and white" which are not permitted on the page. Sheesh. Moriori 01:46, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Again, the relevant section of Flag of the United States seems to make the point more clearly than the title of this article, making a merge there appropriate. — Phil Welch 02:30, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Negative. The Flags with a similar design section of Flag of the United States features 12 flags. Six of them do not have stars, and six of them are not coloured red white and blue. What an earth could the point be of merging List of flags featuring one or more stars and the colors red, blue, and white in that section. What on earth is the point of List of flags featuring one or more stars and the colors red, blue, and white anyway, when a flag fitting that specification is not permitted in the article? Moriori 02:48, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
    - The point was apparently the same as that of "Flags with a similar design", only with stricter and more arbitrary criteria. Clearly, the point is better made in the newly merged version of "Flags with a similar design". — Phil Welch 02:57, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If the topic of the article is flags featuring one or more stars and the colours red, blue and white then the flag of New Zealand qualifies. No one ever said it was flags featuring only one or more stars and the colours red, blue and white. Heck, if it was, over half of those flags in there would be disqualified, as they obviously feature stripes, which are not stars. — JIP | Talk 07:37, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do your homework. You will see that User:Blahma removed the New Zealand flag September 3 because although it is red white and blue with stars it has a red white and blue something else in the corner.
    - I repeat, where does it say the flags have to only feature one or more stars and the colours red, blue and white? — JIP | Talk 08:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Are you hard of hearing? ):- ..Do You Homework. The introduction criteria in the article specified the following - "This is a selected list of 'flags featuring one or more stars and the colors red, blue, and white'. Flags listed here contain at least one star and contain three different colors: red, blue, and white". So, I added the New Zealand flag which qualifies under that specification, and on September 3 User:Blahma removed it, stating "removed flag of NZ (features the Union Jack)" and announcing some sort of nebulous change to the criteria. The fact is, it doesn't matter where you want to put a list of XXXX, if everything that qualifies as XXXX isn't allowed to be included, then the article about XXXX must not be allowed to exist on Wikipedia. Unless there has suddenly been a new policy adopted that censorship rules. Moriori 09:39, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
        Sorry, my reply was too confusing. I know the New Zealand flag was removed because it contains other pictures than stars. But what I wanted to say was that nowhere in the title List of flags featuring one or more stars and the colours red, blue and white can I find anything saying other pictures aren't allowed. If the Union Jack isn't allowed it should be mentioned in the name of the list, not as an additional rule added later. — JIP | Talk 10:28, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        I do not understand what is the aversion to the inclusion of the Union Flag! The Union Flag is red, blue and white (perchance the founding fathers of America used the same colours since it was prior to their UDI a British colony), and therefore if the list includes or or more stars New Zealand DOES qualify. As does Tuvalu, Cook Islands, Australia, Cayman Islands, Niue, Ross Dependency and more .... or do not ANY of these count since they are not US-centric nations. STRONG DELETE for this very badly written article!!!! Rhyddfrydol 22:51 11 September 2005 (UTC)
        Sorry, but before insulting the article as being very badly written, maybe you could bother to read through the whole discussion and find what its original purpose was and so what cause did that "aversion" against the Union Flag have. As I told below, I won't repeat nor evolve here anything further, but just two hints are: 1. The purpose was to distinguish between some very similar flags which consist a virtual group, so mixing them with flags from other groups does not do much good. 2. The flag of NZ was deleted at the same time when the criteria was clarified, but later someone for some reason generalized the criteria again, so now really the flag of NZ would qualify. Blahma 00:03, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Not only is the article very badly written, it is extreme in its generalisation, an insult to the science of Vexillology, and as such no place in Wikipedia. I have seen Children's flag books which are more comprehensive. I reiterate STRONG DELETE. Rhyddfrydol 00:18 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete or merge somewhere else or rename to List of flags featuring one or more stars and the colors red, blue, and white but which do not have the Union Jack since apparently the flag of New Zealand is not allowed on this page. --Henrygb 02:15, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- See comment on previous vote. — Phil Welch 02:30, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unnecessary article. The section at Flag of the United States is all that is needed, and a more logical location for this information. --JW1805 03:06, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Since content has already been merged, leaving a redirect is necessary to maintain attribution history. — Phil Welch 04:04, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Delete everything including the page history. The Australian flag also fits the list criteria, but apparently it is also not allowed, because it has the Union Flag in it. (Sounds like discrimination to me.) – AxSkov (☏) 07:16, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Topic is far too narrow for the list to be useful. — JIP | Talk 07:33, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but remove artificial limit on other objects. If you want a list of these, make an article at List of flags featuring only one star and the colors red, blue, and white. This is probably something that can be done better with catagories though. --Apyule 09:07, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is too narrow, and the information has been merged into Flag of the United States. Don't redirect List of flags featuring one or more stars and the colors red, blue, and white to Flag of the United States because the Australian and New Zealand flags meet these criteria but don't look much like the United States flag. Jll 10:45, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A really pointless article. If there are flags here that arn't on a list of flags, put them there. mrholybrain 11:25, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
~~Keep~~. I am the original creator of the article and would like to defend its purpose here. But first thanks to User:Henrygb, who put the AfD template to the article's page, because without it I would not notice this discussion at all. Well, and now: I got the idea first while at an international event, where there were thousands flags displayed by individual participants. I could easily recognize a lot of them, but there were some which kept both me and all my friends confused and uncertain. If you live in Europe and do not meet those flags so often, you really can't tell the difference between e.g. the flags of Texas and Chile, or the flags of Flag of Cuba and Puerto Rico (which is often a crucial difference, in terms of the language and/or the general background you may await while addressing the person who is waving this flag). That's why I thought it'd be handy if also we here in Europe could have an easy way how to make the things clear and see all those similar flags in one place, without having to look them up in the list of all existing country flags. Now I hope I have made it a bit more clear while e.g. the flag of New Zealand has not been included (please don't feel offended for that just because you come from there). Also, to all you U.S. guys over there, sorry, but the similarity with the U. S. flag was also not the original idea, though now it has become a considerable one. I agree that maybe the article title as is now is a bit confusing, too long and looking to be too specific. Still I suggest the article should not be deleted (because of its prospective usage described above) - maybe rather splitted into several articles like "List of flags similar to the flag of Texas", "List of flags similar to the flag of Cuba" etc. But I just alert that with this solution, another problems appear like which flag is the "base one" and which are the "derivatives" etc. Also, I think that unless you prove that all of the listed flags have been inspired by the U.S. flag, this article should not be merged with that one, since then its original purpose will vanish as you will have to either break up the list (and along with that its original purpose) or introduce false facts into the article on the U. S. flag. I hope I have not sounded too bossy or boring, just wanted to explain my motives and opinions. I am open to any further discussions. Blahma 11:55, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, can I feel offended about the New Zealand flag not being included when I don't come from there (in fact I come from pretty much directly across the entire world from New Zealand)? If the title of the article is List of flags featuring one or more stars and the colours red, blue and white, it doesn't make sense not to include a flag featuring one or more stars and the colours red, blue and white, as the New Zealand flag does. If you want to amend the rules to exclude flags that feature the Union Jack, rename the article to List of flags featuring one or more stars and the colours red, blue and white but not the Union Jack. — JIP | Talk 12:12, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, let's do that and rename the article. Anyway, I too am not really contented with its current name. But first we have to settle on some name, which would clearly describe the list. I think that you too will agree that the title you just proposed ("...but not the Union Jack") would make the title even longer and less straight-forward. I have tried to give explanation on the purpose of this list above, but fail to find out a good name so far. Probably we should start from the other end, and not give the name according to what the flags feature, but rather to the similarities. Still, my worries about listing it simply as being derivates of the U. S. flags are expressed above. If you propose a fitting solution for another name, I am for rename as well. Blahma 12:24, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet something worth thinking over: Originally I did not intent to include the U. S. flag in the list and the goal was just to list all flags which feature a single star and the colors mentioned. Also the title, which originally was List of flags featuring a star and the colors red, blue and white, respected this original intention. However, somehow also I got influenced by the ubiquitous U. S. flag and decided to include this as well, maybe also because of historical reasons and its relationship with some of those flags already listed. Now I think I could withdraw from it (also in order to make the original purpose of showing just really similar flags together), so we could resign on listing the U. S. flag, which would make it easier to find a suitable title for the article (maybe something which would include lone star flags, as this is a common enough term which could constitute a group of flags - but take this just as an idea). Blahma 12:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have images of flags. Pilatus 12:08, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This is just what I feel to be bad on the List of flags by design. It features only a list of links, while only by listing images as well you make the list really well aranged and easy to be used to serve its original purpose, as I described above. Blahma 12:18, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of flags by design. If you want to, change that to a gallery of flags by design. — Phil Welch 12:27, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- A gallery of flags by design would not be a bad idea at all. Actually I recall I originally wanted to include this group of flags in the List of flags by design, but after finding out a list would not satisfy the purpose of the article (distinguishing between similar flags), I decided to start a new article. If we would make the present List of flags by design into a gallery (which I think would be a good idea, since if one is focused at the design, it would be good if they could see the designs immediately and all at once, instead of having to click on each of the links), then we could also easily incorporate the contents of this article into such a gallery and this article would become superfluous (and could be also redirected to that gallery). Blahma 12:39, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Care to help? I've gallerized the first section. As soon as we finish the whole thing let's do a page move to Gallery of flags by design, redirect the article in question, and call it a day. — Phil Welch 12:45, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Of course I care to help. Started somewhere from the end so as not to interfere, and have already made one section and going to gallerize further until the job is done. Just did not want to start myself since I was not sure if the decision had already been taken to start this. Thanks for doing the first step :) Blahma 13:36, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, bury and don't even think of merging. Ahahahaha! What next?
Isotalo 13:06, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, horribly POV and US-centric, violates
WP:NOR, article claims "Ultimately, the designs of these flags are derived from the Flag of the United States." Alphax ^τεχ 13:20, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
Sorry, but I really do not consider this work of mine US-centric. I live in the middle of Europe and if you would bother to read my comments above, the idea was not related with the US flag at all already from its very beginning. The only sentence which may seem US-centric is really the one you cite, but that has been added by another user (not me) and since I did not understand its perfect meaning (not a native speaker of English, sorry :p), I kept it there. If you feel incomfort with that sentence, feel free to modify it or delete it. Blahma 13:36, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to
Rohirok 16:44, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Delete. Incredibly narrow and subjective list. I like Phil's gallery idea if we need somewhere to help distiguish flags -- lists like this could get out of hand quickly. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 20:15, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Listcruft. android 79 20:21, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect. After the above discussion I have changed my opinion. Now I agree that the article may be got rid of, but for archival purpose that it should preferably be redirected to the one it got merged with, which now is List of flags by design#Object-Pentagram and hopefully will soon be moved to Gallery of flags by design#Object-Pentagram or something similar. Also because of that job being almost done at this moment, I think we have reached a consensus and there is not much sense in discussing this further. I have placed my last words and a personal opinion on what has been happening with the article and why I reacted in the ways I reacted into the article's discussion page. That's it. Blahma 22:01, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is a satisfactory listing on the web of all the variants of flags throughout the world - with stars, crescents, colours red, yellow, blue, wavy lights, lions rampant etc etc - refer to http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/keyword.html - an external link to a flags page to this site would be far better than individual wikipedia articles on the many hundreds of variations in flags throughout the world (and yes this includes flags outwith the United States of America! Rhyddfrydol 22:40, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a bizzare way to categorise information. If it's merged as suggested I won't complain, but do not treat that comment as a vote for keep. Sabine's Sunbird 23:46, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or move to imaginary listwiki or triviawiki. >>sparkit|TALK<< 01:41, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Gallery of flags by design is live, and List of flags by color and List of flags by number of colors are next up. Since this article is being merged into these new galleries, I think (although I'm not certain) we're legally obligated to keep the attribution history one way or another and thus deletion is impossible. Since it's very unlikely any good article can be created at this title, I suggest we are forced to accept a redirect as our only remaining option, and as a remarkably harmless option at that. — Phil Welch 03:12, 12 September 2005 (UTC), 22:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete silly list --TimPope 20:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pointless.
Talk-o to Taco 22:13, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - ........... (for the above reasons) --
talk) 23:56, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 11:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Atheistic Creationism

Article represents one person's philosophy, rather than a genuine movement or school of thought. Article is also nonsensical, as creationism refers to theories regarding theistic cosmological origins.

Rohirok 01:12, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete. — Phil Welch 01:33, 11 September 2005 (UTC)'[reply]
Delete. Neologism, personal essay, original research. Note that no source citations are given that would suggest any significant use of the term or the concept. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:42, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Originally researched essay. Amren ^(talk) 01:48, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. From a google, there seems to be something out there, though insignificant. Tintin 02:02, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I also did a google. There were plenty of articles with "atheistic" and "creationism," but I found only two links, both to the same very brief personal essay, that contained "atheistic creationism." Interestingly, the essay revision is dated July 1 of this year--the same as the Wikipedia article and the 3 revisions made by Bokkibear. I suspect Bokkibear is one and the same as Chris Richard Harter (AKA Chris Harter, AKA C. Richard Harter), and that this "atheistic creationism" is his own pet idea. Are there any articles on the subject by other authors, or any scholarly apologies reconciling creationism with atheism?
  Rohirok 03:07, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - I am still not sure. Raëlism page says that they believes that scientifically advanced extraterrestrials created life on Earth through genetic engineering. If this is a belief that is followed by many and atheistic creationism is the only term that correctly describes it, we may keep this page. Alternately, redirect as suggested by AxSkov is also fine. Tintin 09:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I googled. Looks like a neologism that numerous people have concurrantly come up with, usually as a joke. I see no reputable sources that use the term. Thus, as a neologism, it needn't be on wikipedia. Fieari 04:45, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Raëlism. – AxSkov (☏) 07:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --Pjacobi 10:59, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Delete: Infinite monkeys with infinite typewriters, and someone will claim to be any adjective+noun. Essay. Geogre 11:12, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after reading the
talk) 13:01, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. As per Geogre. /
Isotalo 13:09, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment also if this helps, the
talk) 13:22, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect To Flying Spaghetti Monster if we keep this article at all. Gotta love that monster... Karmafist 13:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Although Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is obviously a joke and its main "followers" are actually atheists, it still qualifies as a religion (in this case joke-religion), because the Flying Spaghetti Monster is regarded as a deity. --
  talk) 13:57, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Redirect to
Ancient astronaut theory. Alf ^melmac 19:01, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 11:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Young men

Original rant. — Phil Welch 01:07, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to adolescence or something. -- Bobdoe (Talk) 02:09, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Slugs and snails and puppy dogs tails - not neutral. TheMadBaron 04:11, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The title is good, the silly little rant is not. In fact, heck. I'm going to redirect it to adolescence right now. (I didn't remove any of the other text of the page, since it said not to, but it redirects anyway) (also, please let me know if this is going grossly against policy here. It looked like a good thing to do, but if the week really has to be waited out, please let me know. I don't venture into this area of WP often.) Fieari 04:47, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Reverted. You can't remove the VfD notice while it's still listed. I know it's important to be bold, but this is worth waiting out, especially because the closing admin would have the chance to delete and redirect, helping to prevent a re-creation. — Phil Welch 04:52, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Adolescence. – AxSkov (☏) 07:23, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then Redirect as above. --Apyule 08:58, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I seriously doubt that anyone is going to be looking for a discussion of adolescence when they go looking for young men, and that particular term is too narrow to be a redirect, IMO. Geogre 11:14, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, complete nonsense. — JIP | Talk 16:07, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I changed this into a definition; and I vote to re-direct to Boy if cannot be expanded to an article. 66.32.171.29 16:14, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- User's second edit. — Phil Welch 18:07, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- While I commend you for making the article less egregious, it's still a dictionary definition, and I doubt the room for expansion. Then again that's what the long deletion period is for :) — Phil Welch 18:07, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to adolescence, as Wikipedia is not the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and therefore doesn't need that snarky, NPOV tone. (I am speaking of the original, not the edits, which seem to me well-intentioned enough) --Jacqui M Schedler 02:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Joolz 00:34, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nettara

Not properly nominated originally Henrygb 01:09, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a hoax. (original faulty nomination unsigned 19:50, 29 August 2005 User:137.124.9.20)

I came across something like the 3 August version which looked dubious. [13] provided a few links. The current very different version simply say this is a hoax, and if true then it is not notable, even as a hoax, and shold be Deleted. --Henrygb 01:09, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The current rewrite is nice, NPOV, and informative, but the hoax is minor, so it really should be a delete. Geogre 11:16, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per Geogre. /
Isotalo 13:12, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:36, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dr KA Jaggar

Tagged as nn-bio but holding that record is an assertion at least. Needs verifying and stuff, and probably merge to the studentbox that I presume we hav an article for. -Splash 01:28, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable person. Article seems like a rant of Sydney Boys High School – AxSkov (☏) 07:27, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or if not, redirect to the school. --Apyule 09:27, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some dude, and everyone needs a job. Geogre 11:17, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if the record claim is really true and verified that trip should get an article. Not Dr Jaggar. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:01, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn Is this more revenge of the "all the schools of the world" team?---CH (talk) 03:57, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:39, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Drigluidjunblégruidjundlei

No google hits. Unverifiable. —

Cryptic (talk) 01:44, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete as above plus the second sentence is nonsense. Who elected it? CambridgeBayWeather 01:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Voters, presumably.
  Kappa 01:54, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Delete as unverifiable unless some reliable source can be found for this information. Capitalistroadster 02:00, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it can be sourced. --
talk
) 02:03, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The world's strangest place name would have to be LLANFAIRPWLLGWYNGYLLGOGERYCHWYRNDROBWLLLLANTYSILIOGOGOGOCH. TheMadBaron 04:19, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course. All villages are notable. Article wikified and unsourced second sentence deleted. Someone can put in the geographical coordinates, population, football team, principal exports, etc. at their leisure. -EDM 06:00, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If I had been able to find any evidence whatsoever that this place existed, I would have cleaned it up myself. Do you have a reference? —
Cryptic (talk) 06:32, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
Nope. Just assuming good faith, don't y'know. I'm not surprised to find no google hits for this "village." Maybe someone with access to a good academic library, the paper kind, can find a Malaysian gazetteer. Or maybe someone wants to cough up the cash to look it up here. -EDM 06:54, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"All villages are notable" is a bizarre claim. An article about a village Google's never heard of seems unlikely to be expanded. Oh, the world's strangest place name turns out to be Shitterton.... TheMadBaron 08:13, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is a pretty bizarre claim, it's quite surprising that it would have such solid support.
Kappa 09:28, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

SPEEDY DELETE. This is
Voice of All (talk)
06:33, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Speedy, as per Cryptic. – AxSkov (☏) 07:30, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. --Apyule 09:13, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have left a message with the two Wikipedians who use Category:WIkipedians in Malyasia, asking them for their input. Alf ^melmac 09:18, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or speedy delete in its current state as a substub. For our overly loving voters, remember that Wikipedia can only have articles that are verifiable. All attempts thusfar of verifying have failed. Given the silliness in the first version, it's probably a good idea to check one's assumption of good faith against the execution on the screen. Once unsourced, irrational claims start showing up, there is evidence of bad faith to counter your assumption of good faith. Geogre 11:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't turn things into speedy candidates just by removing unverified parts.
  Kappa 11:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - Why not? "Unverified parts" are to be considered false until proven otherwise.
    Isotalo 13:20, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    You and
    Kappa 13:34, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    That's some very unwholesome rules lawyering coming from someone who disrespects official inclusion policy with just about every vote. /
    Isotalo 14:20, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I believe it is damaging to wikipedia if editors, especially Afd voters and admins, have widely differing interpretations of what are supposed to be strictly defined criteria.
    Kappa 14:27, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
- You mean if we don't agree with you? Kappa, I'm not very interested in Yet Another Discussion Framed by the Include-All folks where it is impossible to make headway. I will agree with Tony Sidaway on one point: the reason one is an admin is that one is trusted to make interpretations. If one shows that one cannot be trusted to interpret, then that one should no longer be an admin. When this hoax was stripped down to its non-vandalized elements, it was a substub. However, you will note that I did not actually go ahead and delete the article, which I will do if I feel that it is an unambiguous speedy delete candidate. However, you are prepared to fight the whole project to keep something that in every respect seems to have been a prank? No, I don't agree with you. Geogre 16:57, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Unverifiable and non-notable. /
Isotalo 13:20, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

DELETE. I've been living in Kuala Lumpur and Malaysia for 19 of out of 23 years of my life and have NEITHER seen NOR heard any place called Drigluidjunblégruidjundlei. This is most likely a hoax. Plus, if there were a place called a chore-to-type kind of place, Google would've probably have caught it up. __earth 14:04, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as hoax.—encephalon έγκέφαλος 14:19:13, 2005-09-11 (UTC)
Sorry that my sarcasm "all villages are notable" seems to have spawned a mudfight. Sheesh. Delete in view of informed comment (the only one in this discussion) by User:Earth above. -EDM 17:22, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete my thanks to __earth for responding to the call. Alf ^melmac 17:49, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even in its initial state this article was an unverifiable substub. No prejudice against recreation if there's actual sources involved. I'd like to put in a slight nuance "Existing village are notable. Articles that state more than their location and population are helpful to wikipedia.". - Mgm|^(talk) 18:06, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Rumor has it that the parents of
Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116 are originally from this small Malaysian village. Sadly, this cannot be verified, and Wikipedia is not a rumor mill. —RaD Man (talk) 21:17, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: article creation was the only edit by an anonymous editor. If there really is such a village, and it really deserves an article, it can always be recreated later with rather more proof of existence. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 10:18, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. I would have been willing to entertain the idea that the place does indeed exist, and just isn't mentioned on that "all-inclusive" (/sarcasm) Internet, but based on __earth's comments, my faith in that possibility has been very much weakened. Plus, there's no notability established. --Jacqui M Schedler 02:45, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:40, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Fletcher

Nothing but a page of vandalism. This page has been deleted before. BJAODN? --

Hottentot

Delete. That page is... amazing. Delete as unsourced, nonsensical... whatever it is.
T/C 03:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. His ears unnerve me. TheMadBaron 04:14, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In time (deo volente) I will create a page about the real David Fletcher.--MWAK 07:07, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nonsense. – AxSkov (☏) 07:34, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked at all the previous versions of the 'article' in the hope of bashing into some useful shape. I think anyone wanting to write an acceptable 'David Fletcher' might like a blank page to start from. Alf ^melmac 09:27, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete generally crappy article, suspect some combination of hoax, vanity, non-notability. PatGallacher 09:33, 2005 September 11 (UTC)
Delete. Just a vanity page. mrholybrain 11:27, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
Sheesh, right, Delete. What utter rubbish. — JIP | Talk 16:09, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Check out the history page. Someone has blanked the article to try to evade his VfD, and prior to that was apparently using the article as a chat room. Flagrant misuse of Wikipedia plus vandalism.---CH (talk) 02:46, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All other criteria notwithstanding, posting the same picture of a guy that many times just dwarfs our current conception of "vanity page" on Wikipedia. --Jacqui M Schedler 02:48, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The version as of now, September 16, is copied verbatim from [14]. So copyvio, too. --JoanneB 09:56, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. --

^talk

04:57, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Leo Clijsters

~~non notable father of a tennis player Delete --Aranda56 02:06, 11 September 2005 (UTC)~~ Keep per below --Aranda56 00:59, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Being related to a notable person does not make someone notable. I was going to redirect this to
Cryptic (talk) 09:40, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep and expand as notable soccer player. Played in the
1990 World Cup for Belgium see [15]
.

Apparently, he won Belgium's golden boot award as a soccer player in 1988 see [16]. He is notable enough as a soccer player to warrant an article. Capitalistroadster 03:23, 11 September 2005 (UTC) PS. Our Belgium national football team credits Clijsters with 40 internationals. Capitalistroadster 03:28, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kim Clijsters. – AxSkov (☏) 07:39, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Expand. He deserves a page a a soccer player. If it wasn't for this it would be a clear redirect to his daughter. --Apyule 09:26, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Expand per the Capster. Alf ^melmac 09:30, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Capitalistroadsterand and Alf, seems sufficiently notable. PatGallacher 09:36, 2005 September 11 (UTC)

Keep per Capitalistroadsterand --rob 10:20, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Expand not only was he a notable soccer player in the Belgian national team and winner of the MVP award, he was also the captain of
European Super Cup 1988 and after his playing career, he was manager of several professional soccer teams. Fdewaele
12:41, September 11 (CET)

Keep per Capitalroadster. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:10, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Keep and Expand - This is a very trival case, the person who marked it for deletion didn't do his homework. --WouterVH 21:09, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Expand - Indeed very trivial case, he was a famous soccer player, his daughter's career isn't what's made him well known. Some public tv footage where Kim Clijsters appears as a child merely exists because of some tv interviews with Lei Clijsters. --LimoWreck 22:46, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as a notable soccer player. Hall Monitor 20:22, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Expand - for his soccer achievement and because I love how Wikipedia is the ultimate resource for anything you would ever want to know, especially trivia like this guy. Divad 22:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 19:10, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Queens Place Mall

nn mall Delete --Aranda56 02:12, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with
Kappa 09:25, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

If there is any indication that this place is an integral part of Elmhurst (never been there), then I agree with Kapp: merge and redirect. The article states that this mall is an adjunct to a place called
Queens Center (which should get deliberation), so it seems that it's not particularly significant in the town except as part of another mall that is probably the major shopping outlet. Therefore, this is an article about a tiny thing. Delete and let the author perform the merges him/herself. Geogre 11:26, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep I dont see much wrong with this article. With some expansion it could be just fine.

Keep and shut the fuck up geogre. --SPUI (talk) 22:42, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Here goes the Bad Language Again I think he had been warned about it as i found out from that road article i nominated for VFD and i feel like he placed keep in sign of bad faith. --Aranda56 23:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Kappa. JYolkowski // talk 02:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A non-notable mall, just like most other malls. Quale 05:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This isn't a business directory. Pilatus 13:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For one thing, I know this perfectly know that it isn't a business directory but it is noticable when viewed from arial photos and articles that know its existance wheather it's supportive or controversial. I agree with previous keep reason, it just need expansion. I'm just acknowledging the existance of such a place.SignalMan

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. --
talk) 23:54, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Zwook

Tagged for speedy as "promotional hype", which is regrettably not a speedy criterion. I couldn't find a direct copyvio, either. Anyway, I'd say delete as promotional hype. -Splash 02:19, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's advertising for non-notable software. Has no place here. Magicker71

Delete. Fair enough. Looks like a diffuse copyvio: First para from [17], the eight reasons from [18], and the middle para's [more...] gives away that it's from some webpage. Tearlach 02:50, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I also agree with Splash. Current contents do not justify continuation of the page. --Bhadani 07:16, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Advertising. Geogre 11:27, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If a real thing. I tagged it as a advertisement. It needs to be neutral, not deleted. mrholybrain 11:29, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Looks like shill to me. -Some random Wiki user.

Keep. It is a real thing - an Open Source project with relationship to the very well-known Zope and Python. Try Googling for sourceforge+zook. Since Open Source, totally non-commercial and I think copyvio can't be an issue. There are articles on less notable pieces of software. Could surely do with a rewrite to put it in context though. Dlyons493 11:45, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Non commercial, potentially useful. TheMadBaron 13:17, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wikipedia does not allow advertising for non-profit, open-source, or any other products. I'm not trying to be scolding, but advertising is one of the grounds for deletion and always has been, and this would apply to a Red Cross appeal or the latest C# product alike. We don't assess the intent, just the performance. Also, Wikipedia is not Freshmeat.org. Geogre 17:01, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable software. /
Isotalo 13:23, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, even if the advertising is removed, it will still not be notable enough. — JIP | Talk 16:10, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Advert for random non-notable open source project. Aquillion 07:24, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was MERGE/REDIRECT to List of English words of Indian origin. There is only one word here, and it's already listed in the Indian origin article. — JIP | Talk 19:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of English words of Telugu origin

A word list. Belongs in Wiktionary, but no use transwikiing it, since it should be an ===Etymology=== section in the individual entry. I'd say "entries", but there's only one word here as yet; kill it before it grows. —
Cryptic (talk) 02:24, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep and let it grow. Even if it never grows, it takes up less room than its VFD page. It's an honest and verifiable article and does no harm. Fg2 05:39, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Keep as above, or merge with
Kappa 09:24, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge with
_{tɔk tə mi} 10:52, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge and redirect per above (note my faith that whoever closes it won't treat "merge and redirect" as an excuse to simply remove the VfD tag). Geogre 11:28, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Why are we even voting about this? Isotalo 13:32, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
You want an admin to collaborate with you in breaking the rules? I think you might be disappointed. Please respect the fact that there is no consensus for your opinion. I am also voting Keep CalJW 18:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect per Geogre. Sdedeo 20:15, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per Angr.---CH (talk) 23:37, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect per Geogre. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:07, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect as above or to
Chick Bowen
01:45, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

Some sort of merge is in order, but I haven't been convinced enough in any one direction as to where I think it should go, yet. --Jacqui M Schedler 02:52, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep and move to
^talk
05:00, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Note: move has already been done by
^talk 05:05, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Bryan johnson

Hoax Google Search with Bryan Johnson and the exact phase I am not a purely democratic leader turned up Nada Not sure if it qualifies for speedy but still get rid of that nonsense Strong Delete --~~Aranda56 02:33, 11 September 2005 (UTC)~~ Keep Now its about the NFL Player Not that Nonsense Junk Ty --Aranda56 05:16, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Bryan Johnson. I have rewritten the article from scratch. It is now about the NFL's Bryan Johnson. Pburka 03:25, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Keep and move, with thanks to Pburka for the work. Alf ^melmac 09:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pburka's rewrite. Capitalistroadster 10:19, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move per everyone else. — JIP | Talk 16:11, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move ---CH (talk) 02:04, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename as above. Hall Monitor 20:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep, since he seems like a real player, and NFL makes him notable enough in my book. — brighterorange (talk) 13:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move as per Pburka, to whom we owe our thanks for the nice rewrite. --Jacqui M Schedler 02:53, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --
talk) 23:59, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Peakoil.com

Barely notable, if at all; looks like advertisement; does not meet WP:WEB; the issue this website deals with may be notable but that doesn't justify the article. Paul 03:07, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's in the external links at Hubbert peak theory (which Peak oil redirects to), and that's enough recognition for that site. -- Grev -- Talk 03:58, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Delete: I'm not sure it even needs to be in those external links. However, WP is not a web guide, and this is a seriously minor one, with an article that has been hastily pasted in. Geogre 11:30, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject matter is important, but the website itself does not deserve its own article. (This is also not the only website on the
Peak Oil theory.) Eduard Gherkin
01:14:43, 2005-09-12 (UTC)

Delete: It is notable that PeakOil.com is the official site of ASPO, perhaps the foremost organization studying peak oil, but as Geogre pointed out, this is not a links database. I would suggest that before deletion, some effort is made to contact the authors of the page and invite them to integrate such information into the peak oil page as is appropriate, such as a paragraph about ASPO. --Bytesmiths 18:04, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedied. Grue 19:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dericulation

Was tagged {{
Cryptic (talk) 03:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete as nonsense. Owen× ☎ 04:08, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, hoax. Bunchofgrapes 04:36, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete dicdef hoax. Alf ^melmac 09:35, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. --
^talk
05:08, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Matt Vogel, Jennifer Barnhart, Eric Jacobson

Three articles about non-notable Jim Henson company puppeteers. Google searches for Mr. Vogel, Ms. Barnhardt and Mr. Jacobson return 493, 87, and 550 hits, respectively. Cautionary note to anyone who wants to do their own searches: these names are quite common, and searching for the subjects' names without the addition of '+"Sesame Street"' or something along those lines pulls ups dozens of tax attorneys and girls college volleyball players. Interesting ying/yang of hell and heaven there, but I digress.
T/C 03:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, they are performers with an enormous audience. Also
Kappa 03:38, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
That's what I'm trying to tell you brother; I don't think puppeteers are notable above and beyond the big ones like
T/C 03:42, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
Kappa, that's a down-right pointless definition of fame. By this reasoning any person who is ever featured in a major movie even if just for a fraction of a second, has "an enormous audience". You're conjuring up definitions to back your vote. It's supposed to be the other way around. /
Isotalo 13:39, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
Well I note that in this case the enormous audience is actually paying attention to what the performers are doing, and watching for several complete seconds or longer.
Kappa 13:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
When "several complete seconds or longer" is the only thing to separate "notable" from "non-notable", you've clearly lost touch with reality. Or at least believe that Wikipedia shouldn't be bothered with such nuisances. /
Isotalo 14:05, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Having your hand in the backside of beloved children's characters isn't quite encyclopedic enough. Paul 03:49, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All three have reasonably substantial IMDB entries. Jennifer Barnhart (note the spelling) also performed in the Tony award-winning Avenue Q. There are entire classes of creative contributors who are ignored here (animators are another; most pages here seem to be based on the idea that cartoons draw themselves) even though their work is notable. Monicasdude 04:17, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; Strong Keep for Eric Jacobson, whose roles are more notable than the other two, if I can judge from the articles themselves. They're actors. The puppets don't run themselves when you stick your hand in the backside. Bunchofgrapes 04:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable performers. — mendel ☎ 05:12, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Keep as notable. 23skidoo 07:10, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but change all of them to start "n is a muppet performer..." what a great lead line (only joking). Alf ^melmac 09:40, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per nominator and Paul. /
Isotalo 13:39, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep these guys are notable, especially Jacobsen who performs some very big parts. Also when people write that the puppeteers "perform" these characters dont they mean they do their voices as well as pulling the strings (or however they animate them) etc.? that is my impression and I wonder if its something that some of the people who have voted delete above do not realise.

Keep all per IMDB entries. (Move Jennifer Barnhardt to Jennifer Barnhart). Side note: Don't trust Google too much on this. Puppeteers work mostly behind the scenes, so have less of a fanbase and thus less googles dedicated to them. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:01, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Keep all, non-notability not established by nominator. —RaD Man (talk) 21:11, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to infer that with the Google hits. Apologies for the subtlety.
T/C 21:46, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, nn. You'll have to forgive Kappa, he's under the bizarre impression that every single fashion model who has ever appearered in print is notable, so these people would certainly qualify under his odd interpretation. Zoe 23:59, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
Please don't misrepresent my beliefs.
Kappa 03:18, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
Kappa, saying your an inclusionist isn't a misrepresentation, you have something of a reputation on VfD. However, I saw that you did finally vote Delete on Yellowikis today. Congratulations my friend, in the words of
Obi Wan Kenobi, you've taken your first step into a larger world. Remind me to buy that lottery ticket ;-)Karmafist 03:25, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
Normally I don't have to bother voting delete, because there are plenty of eager deletionists to do it for me, they seem to enjoy it.
Kappa 09:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Your vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janelle Pierzina 2 clearly says "nationally published models are notable". Zoe 04:26, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
"nationally published models" are not "every single fashion model who has ever appeared in print".
Kappa 09:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

remove personal attack by Radman1 User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:15, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Delete or Redirect into their respective muppets. They're nn on their own. BTW, I think Zoe's definition of Kappa's deletion standards is a bit restrictive: the day he votes delete on something, i'm gonna buy a loterry ticket because I know it's a day for astronomically rare occurences. Karmafist 03:12, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't misrepresent my voting patterns.
Kappa 03:18, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
See above. You've got to lighten up, my friend. I say what I said because often it seems that people see your votes not because of what you think, but because of your reputation. I cannot speak for Zoe, but I do not intend my words with malice, because your replies to my comments sound like they have been. For that, I apologize for any miscommunication. Karmafist 14:09, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

merge disputed articles into an article on muppets---CH (talk) 04:12, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all per Monicasdude. —
Cryptic (talk) 06:21, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Gamaliel 07:55, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, among the most notable people in their field. Aquillion 07:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Aquillion above. utterly notable. Most puppeteers would kill for the chance of animating muppets. This is exactly the sort of article Wikipedia is most useful for. Vizjim 11:12, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm curious, but does anyone thing that it's ironic that there has been a lack of sockpuppet votes on this article due to its subject? Please BJAODN this comment if you'd like. Karmafist 14:19, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Monicasdude and similar comments. Hall Monitor 20:26, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to
Muppet. The characters are notable to millions, but I'm not persuaded that their primary puppeteers are notable -- or even heard of at all -- outside the community of puppeteers. (No Larry Niven jokes needed here.) Nor are these the only people to operate these characters; see several touring companies of "Muppets on Ice", "Baby Muppets", etc. Barno 22:31, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep and expand. As Monicasdude pointed out, they have been part of significant roles in Sesame Street, have respectible resumes -- & IMDB entries. (And correct spelling to Jennifer Barnhart.) If a band is on Almusic, it gets listed; shouldn't IMDB be used in the same way? Or is Paul correct above, & there is no such thing as a puppeteer worth listing in an encyclopedia? -- llywrch 23:46, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Barno, excellent point. Anyone having any association whatsoever with something notable does not become notable, and I hope this point is incorporated into the policy on deletion/inclusion. Paul 06:02, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as per
Muppet. --Jacqui M Schedler 02:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:45, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anvil Salute

Bandity. Sounds intriguing, but no allmusic listing, only a handful of Googles, released their first CD in 2005 —Wahoofive (talk) 03:38, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN. Marskell 10:30, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:MUSIC. - Mgm|^(talk)
21:02, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Delete bandcruft. --DavidConrad 07:14, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:46, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gabe Wingfield

NN founder of Anvil Salute, above —Wahoofive (talk) 03:40, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN. Marskell 10:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, substub. Merge with Anvil Salute if need be. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:03, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Delete non-notable musician. --DavidConrad 07:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:48, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maritime Fist Glee Club

Vanity record label of Anvil Salute —Wahoofive (talk) 03:42, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN. Marskell 10:33, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete label vanity. Don't forget to remove from the
list of record labels. - Mgm|^(talk)
21:04, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Their web site has a list of albums. Any evidence these are actually distributed in stores, and not just for sale online? Weak Delete, but this might need a little more research. (I'm not volunteering, tho.) --DavidConrad 07:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was No Consensus
Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 21:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

YSFlight

Article about a non-notable flight simulator; little room for expansion -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 03:30, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, 19,800 google hits. [19]
Kappa 09:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak delete the google hits seem valid enough, but the current article is nothing more than a substub advertising for the official site. If anyone who knows the game would take the time to write a real stub, I'd be happy to reconsider. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:07, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Woohookitty 11:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Malus Darkblade

Delete. Elfcruft. Doesn't appear to bear merging since we don't have anything for Darkblade. I don't know my comics though, perhaps there's someone who can find a merge for it. -Splash 03:51, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Elfcruft indeed. /
Isotalo 13:40, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to Dark elf#Dark elves in fiction. Alf ^melmac 18:43, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per melmac

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete -- Joolz 00:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stoned_and_toped

This is an article about a series of parties, with nothing to indicate that these are in any way notable. There's an 'Artists Impression' in the form of a movie poster, but I can find no reference to indicate the existence of such a movie. TheMadBaron 04:42, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Apparently an unnotable beer bash. — Joe Kress 04:19, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Delete Salesian humour and false advertising: only one gender represented, not three. There's more of them here, or check the parent directory here. Looks like they had a good time though. Good work on the photoshop job. If deleted repair this edit Alf ^melmac 10:00, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think we have precedents on what makes a notable beer bash, though... Aquillion 08:00, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no-one's proposing to delete Oktoberfest - 6 million people attended in 2002 - that's notable. TheMadBaron 09:26, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not an encyclopedia article. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 10:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hi, my name is Geoff, & I was once an adolescent. I get drunk every now & again. I used to smoke dope periodically, too. I can make an illustration of doing both of these at the same time. But I can't imagine that anyone would care to read about it in an encyclopedia. -- llywrch 23:56, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Yeah the Octoberfest is a notable Beer Bash alright! We also have an article on
rag week, it involves more than just beer but you know what I mean! Jezze 00:37, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete -- Joolz 00:35, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lizdexics

Delete nn band failing
WP:MUSIC. Article admits they only released work themselves, and that they only performed within one city if I read it right. The bit at the end about the reunion is just hyperbole. 95 useful Googles. -Splash 03:56, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nominator Bunchofgrapes 04:26, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's reasoning. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:12, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Delete this article which is full of
unverifiable statements such as "they were often quoted as" — quoted by whom? — "Their live shows were known to" — known by whom? How do we know? — "It is without doubt that" — I, for one, doubt it. --DavidConrad 07:24, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 10:02, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seng

I would have speedied this one as vanity, but the claims are of notability, so...
Google hits for "seng" + "aztec" are few, and none in a context that would support this article. Furthermore, "seng" doesn't fit the patterns of Nahuatl word creation (and I somehow doubt that the Aztecs used English acronyms. DS 14:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete per ref DV8 2XL 15:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Reverted blanking of this AfD page by the creator of the Seng entry (211.28.164.52).

Delete hoax —Wahoofive (talk) 04:09, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. – AxSkov (☏) 08:01, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a near certain hoax. --Apyule 10:01, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough discussion for consensus, reposting-
T/C 04:04, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 09:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kenyatech

Non-notable KeithD (talk) 15:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn 15:24, DV8 2XL 15:25, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough discussion for consensus, reposting-
T/C 04:06, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete real but insignificant —Wahoofive (talk) 04:10, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 09:58, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Racial Compact

Advertising for a series of essays. Also possible copyvio. Demogorgon's Soup-taster 15:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete do to POV issues if nothing else, Not even an attempt at NPOV DV8 2XL 15:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll get the consensus ball rolling, right within the lines. Delete no notability asserted or shown; OR. -EDM 05:52, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per EDM. – AxSkov (☏) 08:06, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough discussion for consensus, reposting-
T/C 04:07, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was ambiguous.
I count 8 "deletes", 3 "keep as is", 2 "redirect" and 4 "merge". I note, however that all four of the "merge" opinions came before rob's comment about the merge and the copyvio finding. I confirm his finding that the copyvio is still in the article's history. I also note that this article is an orphan which seems to contradict the claim that this is a "notable product".
Given the copyvio, I am going to exercise my discretion and call this one as a "delete" decision. Rossami (talk) 00:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasy Britney Spears

Tagged for speedy as an "advert" but isn't pure spam so isn't a speedy. Abstain. -Splash 04:09, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to
Curious Britney Spears, already redirected there (it was essentially contentless, unlike this one). Also note that these are some bad page titles. Bunchofgrapes 04:17, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge as above - a couple of sentences worth keeping. It reads just like a commercial at the moment. Tyrenius 04:25, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the Britney Spears page says "Following the success of "Curious", Spears released the scent "Fantasy" in September 2005." I think that's quite enough. TheMadBaron 04:30, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Britney Spears. – AxSkov (☏) 07:48, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Britney Spears gren グレン 09:13, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable perfume.
Kappa 09:18, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Simply mentioning she came out with a perfume, doesn't require a merge. It's something editors can do (and I guess have done), without using content here, which has no value. The last para is copyvio from mass e-mail, so deleting the whole article, with edit history, is probably good. Also, the normal GFDL requirement to keep the source of text used in a merge, doesn't apply, since all useful information comes from the Britney's e-mail sent out and her web site, which is copyrighted, and not licensed under GFDL. --rob 10:50, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Britneycruft. /
Isotalo 13:41, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete still looks like an ad to me. I put the original speedy on it. CambridgeBayWeather 13:56, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an ad. This deserves one line under Britney Spears--which it already has! No need to merge. Owen× ☎ 16:18, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Britney-cruft. —RaD Man (talk) 21:10, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redundant, waste of an article.
Voice of All (talk)
21:14, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Delete: Duplicate material, and here I thought the article was going to be about a home game like Rotisserie League Poptart. Geogre 23:03, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Important product. OmegaWikipedia 23:44, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, no need to merge already there. Looks like spam, smells like spam, quacks like spam. With the added bonus that you click on the link in the hope that Britteny is being all dirty or something. Even if it wasn't an ad or a besotted fan's word for word transcription of the marketing gumph, no need for breakout into it's own article. Sabine's Sunbird 23:55, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, no merge. It has lush grey pork shoulder, tender pink ground ham, tangy salt, luscious sweet sugar, and exotic sodium nitrite. It even has a hint of pure, fresh water in it. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:12, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no redirect from this bad title, in agreement with rob and Owen. When I saw the title, I expected this would be an AfD about a porn website. Geogre's game would have been more interesting. Barno 22:38, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP. moink 04:49, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yolk plug

Has been moved to Wiktionary. KeithD (talk) 15:51, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it speedy then~? Punkmorten 19:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Only if it previously had a VfD which mandated a transwiki, per
WP:CSD
A5.

It ought to be. That's silly. We should be able to speedy transwikis if we can give the link to where they've been put. Anyway, delete. [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 07:41, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
On the contrary, it's sensible. Your idea would make the transwiki system into a backdoor deletion mechanism. Deletion should take the normal routes. This was the subject of discussion during the recent expansion of the speedy deletion criteria. Please read the discussion. Uncle G 11:26:58, 2005-09-11 (UTC)

Not enough discussion for consensus, reposting-
T/C 04:08, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, no reason for deletion given. Thanks for reposting Fernando.
Kappa 08:44, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Ouch. There is a better chance that someone will improve this substub on amphibian development than anyone will take a second look at any of the sch**l entries that are routinely kept with no consensus. Pilatus 12:05, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
LOL not only do school articles improve wikipedia's coverage of education, they also help to protect its coverage of amphibian developmental biology.
Kappa 13:17, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
To keep non-notable schools serves a function only by satisfying extreme inclusionists and (sometimes) people who attend the schools themselves. Most others either don't care or see them as obviously non-encyclopedic. /
Isotalo 13:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. This does not require a separate article. /
Isotalo 13:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep You learn something everyday, I just did from that short article. Alf ^melmac 18:48, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. I am sure that more could be said about these. Capitalistroadster 00:07, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP AND MERGE with Rotten Tomatoes. moink 04:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rottentomatoes Monday Photoshop Contest

Non-notable; no other articles link to this article --Ixfd64 16:00, 2005 September 1 (UTC)

Delete nn DV8 2XL 16:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Rotten Tomatoes, the site it references. Mcfly 16:21, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Rotten Tomatoes. Too short for own article. – AxSkov (☏) 07:46, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough discussion for consensus, reposting-
T/C 04:09, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Rotten Tomatoes-cruft. /
Isotalo 13:49, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to RT after selective pruning. Alf ^melmac 18:50, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prune, merge and redirect. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:13, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete -- Joolz 00:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fineapple

Tagged for speedy as "one-line link", only it isn't. Google results cursorily suggest some media attention, so some examination of
WP:MUSIC seems in order. Abstain. -Splash 04:12, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete; does not appear to meet
WP:MUSIC as far as I can tell. Bunchofgrapes 04:40, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Non-notable. – AxSkov (☏) 07:42, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, band vanity. — JIP | Talk 16:13, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, one line stating the band's location is just there to be able to promote the link. Doesn't include any real info and fails to tell us why it's important, fails WP:MUSIC. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:15, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 11:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Trouble With Roy

Seems to be severely non-notable, possible vanity. One relevant-looking google hit, selling the t-shirts described in said article. Alai 04:13, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable person. – AxSkov (☏) 07:42, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - vanity. Why so few votes?
Chick Bowen 02:56, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Userfy. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Briane Frederick Pagel, Jr.

Tagged as a potential vanity for some time, no subsequent input. Userify. Alai 04:11, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Move content to User:Briane, and delete. TheMadBaron 04:42, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. This is most likely vanity created by user Briane. – AxSkov (☏) 07:52, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. Might have been honest newbie mistake, but seems unlikely he'll return, so alternatively, can probably delete without harm.---CH (talk) 02:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete -- Joolz 00:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rock and Roll Girlfriend

Tagged for speedy as "song lyrics", but they're not speediable. Are lyrics copyvio? Can an article be written about the 'song'? Abstain. -Splash 04:37, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrics are copyvio, but excerpts could be considered fair usage, and yes, an article can be written about a song if it's sufficiently notable. This one isn't, however, and the 'article' serves only to augment Tré Cool - it's not even necessary for that purpose. Delete. TheMadBaron 05:05, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as copyvio of non-notable song. Capitalistroadster 10:23, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, American Idiot seem notable, but I don't know if subtracks are.

Anyway, copyvio lyrics need to go. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:20, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete -- Joolz 00:50, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abnotic Records

Apparently the record label exists. But only 2,330 Google hits makes me wonder whether it's encyclopedic. Also, note the vanity-like writing ("Abnotic was founded in 2004 by Hassan Ansari, a proven teen prodigy." Ral 315 05:34, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
Getting over 10,000 hits a day just for its instrumentals page makes the label quite worthy of an article. Plus the website counter shows well over 25,000 hits, while the website is still fairly new. www.soundclick.com/freebeatsbyabnotic is operated by Abnotic's producers on Soundclick.com. Soundclick has the world-leading internet charts with millions of songs on its servers, yet Abnotic still managed to stay number one on the charts for years. If you check the Soundclick.com front page, FREE BEATS by Abnotic is the second-best overall artist (charts are updated everyday). unsigned comment by 68.9.59.75 05:52, 11 September 2005 EDT

strong delete clear vanity. No albums have even been released yet! — brighterorange (talk) 14:36, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Albums have been released by the artists, but not yet under the record label. The vanity was there, but is now removed. A $50,000 project is in process right now for the album "The Dawning". The artists from the record label, including the founder, have been featured on MTV and VH1. The Hulk DVD features menu tracks produced by Hassan. The label is fairly new, recently launched in 2004. However, the artists under it have years of experience. Unreleased songs by its artists are in rotation on many radio stations around the nation. The label recently raised $18,000 for the victims of Katrina with a concert in Hartford, CT. If any vanity still exists, please feel free to reword it. And again, albums have been released by the artists and the first official album under the record label is due in a few months. Peter Gunz, Mr.Lucci and Lord Tariq are some known names supporting the label. unsigned comment by 172.163.18.11 20:52, 11 September 2005

Delete promotional article. Wikipedia is not an appropriate venue to promote your record label. The Alexa rankings show that abnoticrecords.com is not in the top 100,000 web sites. What makes a record label notable? Web site traffic? Famous artists? I think that what a record label is about is producing records, and your label has not yet released one. You write that "Abnotic still managed to stay number one on the [Soundclick] charts for years" and that "The label is fairly new, recently launched in 2004." Apparently it has been on the charts longer than it has been in existence, which would be pretty impressive if it were not a load of bull. Here's a crazy idea: become famous for making records first, then get in the encyclopedia. --DavidConrad 06:36, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article is in no way promotional. It does not tell people to buy music from the label, or even mention a URL. There are basic facts about the label in the article. Famous artists....well, there are many "famous" artists that neither I nor you have heard of. A record label is about talent and the quality of the music. However, the article, again, does not state anything about the record label being the best at making music! It states facts...not opinions. I am sure you have never heard many names working with our label, such as Talib Kweli...does that make them not "famous" or untalented? NO! In fact, Talib is a genius, and he is one of the many people supporting our upcoming release, "The Dawning". As mentioned before, the label's artists have released albums while signed under various other labels and have been making music for years. The name Abnotic was a name of a group containing about 14 artists and producers who decided to make it a label. Abnotic has been on top of the charts FOR YEARS and STILL IS ON TOP OF THE CHARTS, except now with the word "Records" after it. The label is new, however, the name and the people working under it have been making music for over 12 years! In fact, Mos Def and Talib are both on Wikipedia! Other names supporting our label include XI, an artist/producer who recently went on tour with the Ying Yang Twins (major), Wyshmaster, who produced for EA Sports NBA Ballers video game and Peter Gunz, who has worked with Nore, a major artist in the music industry. We also have produced for HUNDREDS of labels around the world! Calling our team unfamous bullshiters is a pretty deep statement, especially when you don't personally know the people who make up the label. And the whole point of the article is so people can get to know the subject...same as the point of every other article in Wikipedia. You can blame almost ANYTHING listed in Wikipedia as a form of promotion, but WE ARE NOT TRYING TO PROMOTE. THE GOAL IS TO LET THE WORLD KNOW THAT THERE IS SUCH A LABEL AND IT HAS SOME AMAZING PEOPLE WORKING BEHIND IT AND IT HAS HUGE GOALS WHICH IT MAY SOMEDAY REACH! With over a million fans worldwide, I think the label deserves a spot on Wikipedia. It seems as if the matter is related more towards racism or descrimination against the type of music the label than your concerns of it not being good enough.
It has known people working for it who have been working on and off in the major industry for years. It has been on top of the most respected internet charts and still is! It has music in rotation on over 150 broadcast radio stations world wide. It has produced for hundreds of other labels around the world. It has had music featured on MTV and VH1. MTV Cribs and Pimp My Ride should be some recognizable names. It has over a million fans who have purchased CDs from its artists. However, the albums were not released under Abnotic Records. The team is made up of award winning artists and producers. The label is without a doubt legit. It has already put on 2 concerts in Connecticut. I CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH OVER FIVE THOUSAND EMAIL ADDRESSES OF FANS OF THE LABEL! Now these are only the ones who signed up for our mailing list online. AND YOU CAN CONTACT [email protected] and ask them about the history of the two accounts associated with Abnotic: Abnotic Records and Free Beats by Abnotic. Finally, have a listen for yourself and judge if the quality of the music is as good, if not better than many major, or as you call them, famous, artists.
http://www.soundclick.com/player/single_player.cfm?songid=2783494&q=hi&ref=2
http://www.soundclick.com/player/single_player.cfm?songid=2244020&q=hi&ref=2
THEN TAKE SOME TIME TO REVIEW THE MESSAGE BOARDS ON:
www.soundclick.com/freebeatsbyabnotic
&
www.soundclick.com/abnoticrecords

YOU WILL SEE WHAT WE MEAN. OH YES, YOU CAN ALSO CHECK THE NUMBER OF INTERNET RADIO STATIONS PLAYING OUR MUSIC! SHOULD BE WELL OVER 100!
And if you still feel Abnotic Records is not worthy of an article, feel free to remove it. I'm done wasting my time trying to explain why we deserve a spot on Wikipedia and reading false accusations. If you read right, I mentioned that the people in the label have been making music for years. Abnotic Records was just launched in 2004, but the people running the show have been earning awards and been on top of the charts for over a decade! mp3.com, soundclick.com, best new talent, ears showcase, you name it, we've done it. We are members of The Orchard distribution company...AND....
ONE LAST THING....
Our website is only a few months old! PLUS THE ARTICLE IS NOT ON OUR WEBSITE, IT'S ON THE LABEL! AND ALL OF OUR TRAFFIC IS BASED ON www.soundclick.com/freebeatsbyabnotic
http://www.geocities.com/flame21014/traffic.jpg
ABOVE ARE THE TRAFFIC REPORTS FOR THE PAST FEW DAYS. AND THESE ARE ONLY FOR OUR BEATS PAGE. WE ALSO HAVE ANOTHER MUSIC PAGE ON SOUNDCLICK RECEIVING ABOUT THE SAME TRAFFIC AS THE BEATS AND OF COURSE, OUR OFFICIAL WEBSITE. HOW ARE YOU GOING TO TELL ME ABNOTIC DOES NOT HAVE ANY TRAFFIC!?

Delete per DavidConrad and a rant longer than the article itself. Good rationales are always concise. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 14:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was MERGE to The New Republic. — JIP | Talk 19:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

&c. (weblog)

This is a stub article about a political
&c., which I hope succeeds even if the result of this AfD is keep. --Quuxplusone 05:34, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as non-notable and unencyclopedic (nominator's vote). --Quuxplusone 05:34, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any useful content and redirect to The New Republic. --Metropolitan90 06:26, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Merge to The New Republic. – AxSkov (☏) 08:03, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Metropolitan90. Septentrionalis 22:43, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Merge
Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 05:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Bloodlust Software Universe and related articles

Non-notable universe. I'm also nominating everything in the list of characters in that article. Nifboy 06:17, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All Items.Nothing demonstrates importance or encyclopedic value here, so this stuff should go. There can not be an article on everything.
Voice of All (talk)
06:24, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Merge what can be merged to Bloodlust Software (which is notable, but mainly for creating two high-profile console emulators rather than for this.) Failing that, delete. Oh, yes, and if this is where we vote on the characters then delete all of those, I doubt there's anything there worth merging. Aquillion 08:05, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Bloodlust Software has been making underground games for a decade and was around during the first days of Shareware. They helped pioneer what was possible with fighting games on the PC. They've created games for Troma Entertainment (Toxic Avenger, Cannibal: The Musical) in the past. How is this not notable? The emulators were popular, sure, but they weren't original entertainment.

Comment: I do believe that the entire point of the Wikipedia is to serve as the most comprehensive Internet resource. By that token, there can indeed be an article on everything and anything. Also, I do not think that articles on The Simple Life, Insane Clown Posse, and Inuyasha are exactly important or worthy of encyclopedic value, but here they are...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Simple_Life http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insane_Clown_Posse http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuyasha
Of course, your opinion may vary.

Delete agree. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 00:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC) Merge all the subarticles into the main one (and create redirects for them) -- (☺drini♫|☎) 00:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete -- Joolz 00:53, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Atomic Portfolio Selection

Page created along with
Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Anti-moment, all articles about a non-notable portfolio selection method created by Lanz Chan as part of an academic paper. ---- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 06:43, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Cleanup from Lanz Chan. Dlyons493 07:15, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn. – AxSkov (☏) 07:57, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, like all other articles from this series, which were deleted as non-notable/vanity. This one wasn't yet, because at the time of the other VfDs this one was under copyvio investigation. --IByte 23:33, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete -- Joolz 00:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Labuan

Not a micro-nation in any sense. An article on Labuan as an island won't hurt, but claiming it to be a micronation with a coat of arms and other things is a little bit too much. Note that this article comes from the same editor who promoted the fictitious
VfD for the deleted article) Ragib 06:45, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: NN, dubious, not substantiated. --Ragib 06:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the Republic of Labuan does not have any de jure or de facto recognition under the international law. The name of the article is misleading, and the information available in the article may be integrated with the contents in the article on Labuan. --Bhadani 07:07, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per Bhadani. – AxSkov (☏) 07:55, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. I think we need to do a cleanup of Labuan unless former Scotsman Morris Davidson did lead an independence movement there. Given that a Google search for "Morris Davidson" Labuan came up empty see [20], I suspect that the information in our article/s is nonsense. Capitalistroadster 10:36, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete
talk) 13:33, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Hoax. CalJW 19:01, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Highlander Drum Corps

non-notable high school percussion band.
Graham 07:13, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

delete hs bandity. — brighterorange (talk) 14:33, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to
Riverview High School (Sarasota). The band has played at the Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade. Not bad for a high school band from Florida. Pburka
16:46, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Delete and merge (partially) with
Rohirok 17:04, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Ral 315 02:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RIPPPLE

Looks like a copy and paste of the introduction to a forum. -- RHaworth 07:25:32, 2005-09-11 (UTC)

Delete. Nothing to indicate that this is notable. TheMadBaron 07:32, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This page is meant for the summary of discussions from the forum which are relavant to the people of two nations viz. India and Pakistan. Right now I simply pasted the introduction of the forum, but in near future we will not only change the introduction but also incorporate the summary of discussions which is the sole purpose of creation of this page. --Ahpoddar 08:22, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have incorporated a few more changes in the page, and have clarified the intent further. --Ahpoddar 09:15, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I still think this should be deleted. You could always repost when you have the makings of an encyclopedic article, but this is a long way from it. TheMadBaron 11:27, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, and for now we have decided to make a separate website where we will compile it over the period, and maybe sometime later post it her. I really appreciate your comments. --Ahpoddar 22:11, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As far as I can see thi is vanity. – AxSkov (☏) 09:45, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia isn't a discussion forum. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 22:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotion for nn forum. MCB 22:45, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete .. what a bunch of morons

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 11:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Inventory-centralized Retail

Original research, POV Xen0phile | (talk) 07:58, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original research, not encyclopedic, and very, very boring. TheMadBaron 08:36, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reserve. In its current form, it is as TheMadBaron says, Original research, not encyclopedic, and very, very boring. I'm trying to see a way to fix this, but don't know if it can be done. --Apyule 11:52, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. When I first saw this, I thought the name was
T/C 20:44, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete 1 vote to delete, several discounted anon votes, 1 discounted logged in user vote (very few edits)
Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 02:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Young Uttaranchal

Non notable internet group. 1200 members. Advertisment.Zeimusu | Talk page 08:08, 2005 September 11 (UTC)

copyvio I tagged it as such. --rob 11:27, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete This a non-notable organization engaged in self-promotion. It might not be copyvio, since according to talk page, it was put up by the author themselves. Note: when I say non-notable I'm only refering to the internet group, not the people or place it's about. Members of this internet group should contribute to relevant articles, if they wish, but should avoid self-promotion. --rob 04:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Even WikiPedia on Net is non-notable

Partly agreed to. When you say non-notable to internet group, in a way you are challenging the authority of all those internet communities made on net including the Wikipedia Community. So should we say that Wikipedia too is non-notable??
Regarding self-promotion, Organization doesn't survive without promotion. And if one is not primitive, he would understand that Internet today is the unique platform to reach the members who are located in different parts of the world for different reasons.
However, leaving aside these issues, an organization is identified with its aims and objectives and its contribution towards a society. The Young Uttaranchal has been involved in various field activities such as Organizing essay writing competition in schools of Uttaranchal and presently is involved in Compiling / Publishing a Book on Career Guidance for the Students of Uttaranchal. The work of the group speaks for itself.
Just go through this article in Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Bengal
When dead movements are mentioned no harm in mentioning a live one. Afterall Wikipedia is a Community meant for the Community.
Purnendu

Retain Cannot agree to rob. Young uttaranchal is biggest non-profitable group on Uttaranchal at internet, One of the newest state of India. All activity of group aimed at upliftment of Uttaranchali people and culture.

Though 1200 member, Young Uttaranchal, is voice of one of the poorest state of India, where internet density is below 0.1%. The group members have added sigificant information about uttaranchal on wikipedia. Wikipedia should encourage such group. --Ganesh
Retain Cannot agree to rob. I am Public Relation Officer of the group and I think that the group is more than just a internet group. Its a movement in itself and with more than 1500 members worldwide, it in true sense working towards the development of Uttaranchal and its Culture. I vote to retain the Article

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy delete as per
T/C 20:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Brendan Engrahm

vanity Geni 10:13, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Utterly unnotable, and surely a candidate for a speedy delete. TheMadBaron 11:19, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy under A7. --Apyule 11:20, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy. Failing 8th grade is not notable. Pburka 16:30, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Smells like a speedy. Closing out.
T/C 20:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was to delete the article.

Corilas

This company was founded in 2005, and Alexa has no data on it. Searching for the exact phrase "Corilas Productions" on Google currently produces 8 results, of which only 2 do not feature text from this very article. Delete.
Joel7687 10:26, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, advertising for nonnotable company. --
_{tɔk tə mi} 10:57, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Woohookitty 11:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rasterbation

Looks like pure linkspam to me. And it became popular with this specific website's app? Heck, it was done with
chain printers in the big iron era. --Pjacobi
10:48, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. I think the application is widespread enough to be considered notable, and the article has good potential for expansion. TheMadBaron 11:06, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Definite keep - the process and the term are very widespread. DS 14:46, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence? I googled it and did find examples of it, but I also found a site using the term in a different sense. Weak keep, but it would benefit from additional references. --DavidConrad 21:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep from me as well. It's fairly common as a generic-ish term in some of the online communities I frequent, even though it's just a one-site web toy. Jessamyn 22:35, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep please and not even a weak one Yuckfoo 04:15, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it - many amateur artists now use this as a matter of course. "To rasterbate" is on the way to becoming a dictionariable verb.Vizjim 11:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Move to the more polite Tiled printing. Gazpacho 20:42, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But the only thing notable about it is the name. The so-called "amateur artists" using the technique are doing no innovating nor artistic creation. Frankly it was more interesting on 1970s chain printers as Pjacobi notes. Had the article been about online pornography "active viewing", which is the only use of this word that I'd previously heard, it might at least have merited transwikification. As it is, I vote delete as advertising for insufficiently notable web trivia. Barno 22:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you know some history, by all means add it. Gazpacho

When I did it, not quite pre-Internet but far pre-World-Wide-Web, nobody found it notable enough for inclusion in print journals or books that I know of. IBMers sometimes seemed to spend more time on what are now called "emoticons" than on programming the actual data processing, and that didn't generally get recorded for posterity either. Today, every junior-high-school kid's made-up game or made-up word gets put on a website and some people treat this as automatically conferring encyclopedic notability. Barno 17:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why that means we shouldn't have an article about tiled printing, which is not some kid's neologism and is available in many well-known commercial programs. But your vote is noted. Gazpacho

MOVE and refer to
Tiled Printing It serves a purpose to those who are not artistically inclined but would find great inspiration from it, like I and my colleagues did. ConradKilroy 23:00, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep this is is a valid entry and could come in handy because people hear the term and then look it up. Liface 05:59, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep content and Move to 'tiled printing'. The specific Rasterbator program/website can be mentioned there. -SCEhardt 19:13, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete because it does not appear to exist. -- Joolz 01:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ashfield North, New South Wales

Was listed for speedy deletion, but is not a speedy candidate. No vote from me.
_{tɔk tə mi} 11:10, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - substub with very limited info, but info all the same which could potentially be of use. Also has the potential to be expanded. CLW 12:00, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Precedent is that suburbs should be listed under the city they are in. Besides we have Ashfield Municipality. Delete. Pilatus 12:12, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't require a separate entry. This delete votes counts for the other suburbs nominated below as well. /
Isotalo 13:53, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per CLW.
~~Kappa 14:03, 11 September 2005 (UTC)~~[reply
]

Strong keep provided such a municipality exists. — JIP | Talk 16:15, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expandas Part of Wikiproject Sydney. Real suburb. If it were to be merged, it should be part of Ashfield, New South Wales not Sydney. Delete further to Nickj's pertinent points for the deletion of this article, there is no place listed in the Suburbs and Localities section of the Gregory's Street Directory. Capitalistroadster 00:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)Capitalistroadster 18:40, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all real communities. CalJW 19:03, 11 September 2005 (UTC) - but it now looks like it doesn't so delete. Same applies to the others below. CalJW 00:40, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely Strong Delete, because this suburb does not exist!:
There is a state government body that defines suburbs called the Geographical Names Board of New South Wales. You can search their database, and I encourage you to do exactly that, because it will reveal there is no suburb called "Ashfield North" or "North Ashfield".

There is a federal government body called Geoscience Australia, which is "the national agency for geoscience research and geospatial information", and it has a database on place names of Australia, which you can search here, and I encourage you to do exactly that, because it will reveal there is no suburb called "Ashfield North" or "North Ashfield".

Local knowledge: I have lived less than 200 metres from Ashfield for the past 9 years, and I have never heard of this suburb called "Ashfield North".

Street Directory: The definitive Sydney street directory is called the UBD, and it contains a comprehensive list of "Suburbs and Localities". This list does not contain any entry for "Ashfield North" or "North Ashfield".

When I asked the person who added these suburbs about this, they indicated there was "a bit of gunk" in the data they were using.

The local council which would cover this suburb (if it existed) defines the actual suburbs it covers, and it says "the Municipality includes Ashfield, Summer Hill, Haberfield, the eastern part of Croydon and the fringes of Croydon Park, Hurlstone Park and Ashbury." Note that there is no mention of "Ashfield North" or "North Ashfield".

The current list of Sydney suburbs should be fairly complete and definitive (errors and omissions can happen of course, but I'd venture to say it's now > 95% accurate), and myself and others have put a lot of effort into making it as accurate as we can, so if something is not on that list then it's most probably not a suburb.

For all of the above factual reasons, if you do not delete this entry, then there is something very seriously wrong. In fact, when I mentioned that there was to be a vote over whether to delete a ficitional suburb to my partner she burst out laughing, and proceeded to ruthlessly mock the Wikipedia, and in all honesty she's got a very valid point. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 00:02, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hey, just asking, don't bite my head off... so, what about

an Ashfield North postmark mentioned on a philately site...

some election results from "Ashfield North"

an election story about Stephanie Kokkolis receiving 33% of the vote in "Ashfield North"

an online Ashfield Community guide which says, very bottom of the page, that "The Area of Ashfield is located in Greater Sydney, New South Wales, Australia and includes the local suburbs of Ashfield, Ashfield North, Ashfield South, Dobroyd Point, Haberfield, Summer Hill, & surrounding areas."

Howzabout we rewrite the article to NPOV, so it would read: "Ashfield North is an alleged suburb in Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. Those who believe in its existence frequently suggest that it is part of the Municipality of Ashfield. Critics, however, deny the existence of such a suburb, pointing to the absence of any mention of it by the
UFO
activity in the area."

Dpbsmith (talk) 01:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the comment:
That's a stamp or envelope from 1957, which is 48 years ago. For all I know there may have been a place called that then, but there sure isn't now.

It clearly says "POLLING PLACE" on that page. Other polling places in the same electoral division of Low include "INFANTS HOME". Are seriously suggesting that "INFANTS HOME" qualifies as a suburb?

Same as above, it's the name of a voting station. The paragraph above refers to "Stanmore Public School" in the same way. Are you proposing that "Stanmore Public School" is a suburb? The paragraph below that refers to "Marrickville Town Hall" in the same way. Are you seriously proposing that "Marrickville Town Hall" qualifies as a suburb?

They're spammers! They're trying to make a link farm to push up their google rankings, so you already know they can't be trusted. In fact, if you go to http://www.sydney.communityguide.com.au/ you'll see that they also consider "Hmas Kuttabul" to be a suburb of Sydney! Are seriously proposing that "Hmas Kuttabul" qualifies as a suburb?

<rant> Please, enough with the silly arguments. Google is not a substitute for using your brain. It's not a suburb, OK? I should know, because I've spent much of the past week cleaning up the list of Sydney suburbs, plus I live right next to it. Moreover, there is a government body that exists to define what is and is not a suburb. They say no. You can't just randomly make up new ones up whenever you feel like it! Jeez, I'm dealing with morons! I really cannot believe I'm seriously wasting my time having this discussion - for me, it defines everything that is wrong with the Wikipedia, in which people with knowledge backed up with references aren't given more credence than people who don't know what they're talking about, and in which getting the most useless crap deleted becomes an extended political process! </rant> -- All the best, Nickj (t) 02:20, 12 September 2005 (UTC) P.s. sorry for the rant - but it was that, or kick the cat.[reply]

Delete as per Nickj.--
nixie 02:25, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks for not biting my head off. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:02, 12 September 2005 (UTC) P. S. I was trying to determine whether this was a case where there are neighborhoods that have informal names that are not officially recognized, together with strongly-held but varying local opinions on the validity of said names. It is sometimes hard to distinguish between the rightous indignation of someone truly well informed, and the simulated authority of a POV-pusher. Sometimes the name of a post office or a polling place is an administrative convenience that is all but ignored by locals, and sometimes it is the neighborhood's "real" name. People who live in Boston never say "I live in Boston." They say "I live in Jamaica Plain" or "I live in West Roxbury" or "I live in Roslindale." Not a parallel case, because these are not just post office names; the neighborhoods—which are officially called neighborhoods—do have official existence. Anyway, there's a reason I made a comment rather than a vote... Dpbsmith (talk) 12:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I apologize, I overreacted in my response. You are fully entitled to play devil's advocate and ensure that there is merit to the proposed deletion. I was frustrated with the Wikipedia's process (in particular the asymmetrical nature of how quick and easy it is to unilaterally get content added, but how hard and slow it is to get multilateral consent to get bad content deleted), but that does not just justify my response, and I apologize. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 00:01, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Onya! No worries, mate. Throw a prawn on the billabong, and get a nice Foster's out of the coolibah. G'day! Dpbsmith (talk) 12:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If this existed it would be a strong keep, but it seems that it doesn't, so it goes. Same for the other suburbs below. --Apyule 04:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Change vote to delete as per Nickj CLW 05:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and thanks to Nickj for doing the legwork on this. --DavidConrad 06:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NickJ. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:02, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, name doesn't seem to be used by anywhere other than the confused lists of the Department of Local Government. JPD 08:08, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per Nickj. Ambi 11:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nickj. It is not listed by Australia Post, either. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:58, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete because it does not appear to exist. -- Joolz 01:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ashfield South, New South Wales

Was listed for speedy deletion, but is not a speedy candidate. No vote from me.
_{tɔk tə mi} 11:10, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - substub with very limited info, but info all the same which could potentially be of use. Also has the potential to be expanded. CLW 12:00, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Precedent is that suburbs should be listed under the city they are in. Delete unless expanded. Pilatus 12:11, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per CLW.
~~Kappa 14:03, 11 September 2005 (UTC)~~ [reply
]

Strong keep provided such a municipality exists. — JIP | Talk 16:16, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All real communities. I do not believe the precedent referred to by Pilatus exists - there are many cities with dozens of articles about districts or sububs. CalJW 19:04, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely Strong Delete, because this suburb does not exist!:
There is a state government body that defines suburbs called the Geographical Names Board of New South Wales. You can search their database, and I encourage you to do exactly that, because it will reveal there is no suburb called "Ashfield South" or "South Ashfield".

There is a federal government body called Geoscience Australia, which is "the national agency for geoscience research and geospatial information", and it has a database on place names of Australia, which you can search here, and I encourage you to do exactly that, because it will reveal there is no suburb called "Ashfield South" or "South Ashfield".

Local knowledge: I have lived less than 200 metres from Ashfield for the past 9 years, and I have never heard of this suburb called "Ashfield South".

Street Directory: The definitive Sydney street directory is called the UBD, and it contains a comprehensive list of "Suburbs and Localities". This list does not contain any entry for "Ashfield South" or "South Ashfield".

When I asked the person who added these suburbs about this, they indicated there was "a bit of gunk" in the data they were using.

The local council which would cover this suburb (if it existed) defines the actual suburbs it covers, and it says "the Municipality includes Ashfield, Summer Hill, Haberfield, the eastern part of Croydon and the fringes of Croydon Park, Hurlstone Park and Ashbury." Note that there is no mention of "Ashfield South" or "South Ashfield".

The current list of Sydney suburbs should be fairly complete and definitive (errors and omissions can happen of course, but I'd venture to say it's now > 95% accurate), and myself and others have put a lot of effort into making it as accurate as we can, so if something is not on that list then it's most probably not a suburb.

For all of the above factual reasons, if you do not delete this entry, then there is something very seriously wrong. In fact, when I mentioned that there was to be a vote over whether to delete a ficitional suburb to my partner she burst out laughing, and proceeded to ruthlessly mock the Wikipedia, and in all honesty she's got a very valid point. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 00:02, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There has to be a vote, not because a fictional suburb is so controversial, but because if there were no review process then someone could just go in and delete Sydney. --DavidConrad 05:37, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I just feel there has got to be a better way. For example, let me make a constructive suggestion: if an article or redirect is less than 1 week old, then any logged in user with > 1000 edits can speedy delete. Also any user should be able to speedy delete any article where they are the only contributor, irrelevant of article age, or whether they are anon (which would make it easier for people to fix silly mistakes). That would prevent Sydney from being deleted, and it would also prevent anons from deleting new valid content created by others, yet it would allow everyone to fix their own mistakes. Essentially it would allow a reasonable level of trust that is currently lacking from the deletion process, whilst avoiding the worst problems. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 00:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Nickj. The Gregory's Street Directory for Sydney doesn't list this suburb as a suburb or locality. Capitalistroadster 00:20, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nickj. --rob 01:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nickj G Clark 02:06, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Change vote to delete as per Nickj CLW 05:29, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nickj, and thanks for doing the research on this. --DavidConrad 05:37, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, name doesn't seem to be used by anywhere other than the confused lists of the Department of Local Government. JPD 08:08, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Nickj. Ambi 11:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nickj. It is not listed by Australia Post, either. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:54, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was redirect and merge to Oatlands, New South Wales. -- Joolz 16:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Burnside, New South Wales

Was listed for speedy deletion but is not a speedy candidate. No vote from me.
_{tɔk tə mi} 11:15, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - substub with very limited info, but info all the same which could potentially be of use. Also has the potential to be expanded.CLW 12:02, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Precedent is that suburbs should be listed under the city they are in. Delete Pilatus 12:13, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per CLW.
Kappa 03:10, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong keep provided such a municipality exists. — JIP | Talk 16:17, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All real communities. CalJW 19:05, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete, because this suburb does not appear to exist~~:
There is a state government body that defines suburbs called the Geographical Names Board of New South Wales. You can search their database, and I encourage you to do exactly that, because it will reveal there is no suburb called "Burnside". (There is a "Burnside Public School", but no suburb or locality of that name).

There is a federal government body called Geoscience Australia, which is "the national agency for geoscience research and geospatial information", and it has a database on place names of Australia, which you can search here, and I encourage you to do exactly that, because it will reveal there is no suburb called "Burnside". (Tip: State needs to be "NSW", and "FEATURE CODE" needs to be "SUB" for a suburb, or at the very least "LOCA" or "LOCB" for a locality)

Street Directory: The definitive Sydney street directory is called the UBD, and it contains a comprehensive list of "Suburbs and Localities". This list does not contain any entry for "Burnside".

When I asked the person who added these suburbs about this, they indicated there was "a bit of gunk" in the data they were using.

This suburb is not shown in the map Baulkham Hill Shire provides of it's own boundaries, nor is it listed in the list of shire suburbs names and their origins.

The current list of Sydney suburbs should be fairly complete and definitive (errors and omissions can happen of course, but I'd venture to say it's now > 95% accurate), and myself and others have put a lot of effort into making it as accurate as we can, so if something is not on that list then it's most probably not a suburb.

For all of the above factual reasons, I encourage you to delete this entry. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 00:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Nickj. Not listed in the Suburbs or Localities list in the Gregory's Street Directory. Capitalistroadster 00:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Change vote to delete as per Nickj~~ CLW 05:29, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and thanks to Nickj for documenting these in a way that makes them
~~verifiable by other Wikipedians.~~ --DavidConrad 06:02, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

I have changed the article to reflect the unofficial use of the name. My knowledge is based on living in the are when i) I was too young to remember much and ii) the Homes were still operating. I don't know how much the name is used now. No vote yet. JPD 09:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have had a look at JPD's edits although not berified. If verified they would warrant at least a merge with Oatlands, New South Wales reflecting a local name as shown in the Primary School. Capitalistroadster 10:16, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GNB itself gives the primary school: [21]. The school website gives a little bit of the history. The Burnside site doesn't give many details of the history. Google search says that real estate agents use the name. It's not clear how much of the area is in Oatlands, and how much in
North Parramatta, but then Oatlands is a fairly new suburb name (it didn't exist when I lived there). JPD 11:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Change vote to abstain further to JPD's added information, as I no longer feel that I can make a judgment either way without any personal knowledge of the area. CLW

Redirect as per Nickj. --
nixie 11:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect as per Nickj and Petaholmes. Ambi 11:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Change my vote to redirect and merge with Oatlands, based on JPD's research, partial local knowledge, and the recent update that JPD has made. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 00:26, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Change my vote to abstain. Like CLW, I no longer feel competent to make a judgment on this, but I think it's great the amount of research that folks have done on this. It should probably be retained in one article or the other, I'm just not sure which. --DavidConrad 04:54, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge - I am convinced Oatlands is the best place for it. JPD 09:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to/with Oatlands. Burnside is commonly used as the name for one particular estate within Oatlands. --Daveb 04:34, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per JPD. --
talk) 13:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete because it does not appear to exist. -- Joolz 01:09, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cattai North, New South Wales

Was listed for speedy deletion but is not a speedy candidate. No vote from me.
_{tɔk tə mi} 11:15, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - substub with very limited info, but info all the same which could potentially be of use. Also has the potential to be expanded. CLW 12:02, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Precedent is that suburbs should be listed under the city they are in. Delete Pilatus 12:13, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep provided such a municipality exists. — JIP | Talk 16:18, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All real settlements. CalJW 19:06, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep towns such as D'Lo, Mississippi have articles here for God's sake (even though I don;t think that is notable either).Molotov (talk) 20:40, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the stub. Perhaps it is borderline, but it looks like the members of
~~Wikipedia:Wikiproject Sydney are motivated and intent on improving Wikipedia's coverage of Sydney and its environs. Good on ya, mates!~~ --DavidConrad 21:36, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, because this suburb does not appear to exist:
There is a state government body that defines suburbs called the Geographical Names Board of New South Wales. You can search their database, and I encourage you to do exactly that, because it will reveal there is no suburb called "Cattai North" or "North Cattai".

There is a federal government body called Geoscience Australia, which is "the national agency for geoscience research and geospatial information", and it has a database on place names of Australia, which you can search here, and I encourage you to do exactly that, because it will reveal there is no suburb called "Cattai North" or "North Cattai".

Street Directory: The definitive Sydney street directory is called the UBD, and it contains a comprehensive list of "Suburbs and Localities". This list does not contain any entry for "Cattai North" or "North Cattai".

When I asked the person who added these suburbs about this, they indicated there was "a bit of gunk" in the data they were using.

This suburb is not shown in the map Baulkham Hill Shire provides of it's own boundaries, nor is it listed in the list of shire suburbs names and their origins.

The current list of Sydney suburbs should be fairly complete and definitive (errors and omissions can happen of course, but I'd venture to say it's now > 95% accurate), and myself and others have put a lot of effort into making it as accurate as we can, so if something is not on that list then it's most probably not a suburb.

For all of the above factual reasons, I encourage you to delete this entry. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 00:12, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Nickj. The Gregory's Street Directory does not list this as a suburb or locality. Capitalistroadster 00:25, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.
Kappa 03:08, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

I'm changing my vote to Delete; Nickj has me convinced. --DavidConrad 05:19, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Change vote to delete as per Nickj CLW 05:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, name doesn't seem to be used by anywhere other than the confused lists of the Department of Local Government. JPD 08:09, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Nickj--
nixie 11:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, as per Nickj. Ambi 11:37, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nickj. It is not listed by Australia Post, either. Nickj has done a good job sorting suburbs localities and local names. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just me - others (especially JPD) have done a lot too. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 00:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete -- Joolz 01:11, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

West Baulkham Hills, New South Wales

Was listed for speedy deletion but is not a speedy candidate. No vote from me.
_{tɔk tə mi} 11:15, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - substub with very limited info, but info all the same which could potentially be of use. Also has the potential to be expanded. CLW 12:02, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Precedent is that suburbs should be listed under the city they are in. Bauklham Hills Shire has its own entry. Delete. Pilatus 12:14, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep provided such a municipality exists. — JIP | Talk 16:18, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All real settlements. CalJW 19:07, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, because this suburb does not appear to exist:
There is a state government body that defines suburbs called the Geographical Names Board of New South Wales. You can search their database, and I encourage you to do exactly that, because it will reveal there is no suburb called "West Baulkham Hills" or "Baulkham Hills West".

There is a federal government body called Geoscience Australia, which is "the national agency for geoscience research and geospatial information", and it has a database on place names of Australia, which you can search here, and I encourage you to do exactly that, because it will reveal there is no suburb called "West Baulkham Hills" or "Baulkham Hills West".

Street Directory: The definitive Sydney street directory is called the UBD, and it contains a comprehensive list of "Suburbs and Localities". This list does not contain any entry for "West Baulkham Hills" or "Baulkham Hills West".

When I asked the person who added these suburbs about this, they indicated there was "a bit of gunk" in the data they were using.

This suburb is not shown in the map Baulkham Hill Shire provides of it's own boundaries, nor is it listed in the list of shire suburbs names and their origins.

The current list of Sydney suburbs should be fairly complete and definitive (errors and omissions can happen of course, but I'd venture to say it's now > 95% accurate), and myself and others have put a lot of effort into making it as accurate as we can, so if something is not on that list then it's most probably not a suburb.

For all of the above factual reasons, I encourage you to delete this entry. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 00:19, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Nickj. The Gregory's Street Directory does not list this as a suburb or locality. Capitalistroadster 00:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Change vote to delete as per Nickj CLW 05:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nickj, who did a fine job researching this. --DavidConrad 05:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would also just note, to avoid potential confusion, that Geoscience Australia does list Baulkham Hills and Baulkham Hills Cross Roads, however WP already has a Baulkham Hills article, and the site says that Baulkham Hills Cross Roads is "unofficial". --DavidConrad 06:13, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, name doesn't seem to be used by anywhere other than the confused lists of the Department of Local Government. JPD 08:09, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per Nickj. Ambi 11:37, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nickj. It is not listed by Australia Post, either. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:04, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is not a suburb, rather an informal locality within a suburb.--Daveb 04:37, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was del . mikka (t) 03:43, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nanophilia

Was listed for speedy deletion but may not be a speedy candidate. The topic is a
_{tɔk tə mi} 11:45, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge and redirect to
-philia. Pburka
16:27, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

delete, no redirect. Dicdef at best. Nonnotable, nonverifiable. mikka (t) 18:36, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no redirect. This is not mentioned in paraphilia. I don't think anything more than a definition is ever going to come of this. Dave 19:13, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — a google search seems to indicate that this is the standard, accepted term for this sexual preference. It should be added to paraphilia. I wouldn't think that even so much as a dicdef could come from robot fetishism, but if we have an article on that then surely we can and should have an article on this. --DavidConrad 21:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A more careful ispection of googel search results shows about 160 unique pages with no serious content, only copycats of someone's silly coinage. mikka (t) 22:12, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I saw a number of porn sites in the results, but looking further on I found a number of lists of fetishes and/or unusual words, with this word in it. They did not all have exactly the same set of words, so they did not all appear to be derived from one another. I don't believe this is a silly coinage. It is from the Greek νανος, dwarf, and φιλία, love of, fondness for. Try this Google search. --DavidConrad 05:18, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. The article is basically an advertisement for Cambridge Solutions, with Dilip Keshu only mentioned in the introduction. — JIP | Talk 19:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dilip Keshu

Non-notable, at least as long as there is no Cambridge Solutions Austrian 11:48, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The company exists [22], but that isn't a reason to keep vanity like this. Pilatus 11:58, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not sure if this is also a copyvio. It was created by 68.45.92.221 (talk · contribs) who has uploaded other articles that are directly pasted from scandentsolutions.com. Angela . 12:30, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Delete nn vanity---CH (talk) 03:55, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was redirect to
Waterdeep (city). --Canderson7 01:50, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Waterdeep and the North

There must be hundreds, if not thousands, of Dungeons & Dragons "accessories" - nothing here to say why this one is notable, and simply listing its name and adding an image doesn't consitute a worthwhile encyclopedic entry CLW 11:54, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I merge the image onto the Waterdeep city page, where this module was referenced. A redirect to
Waterdeep (city) would suffice I think. — RJH 18:38, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect Alai 00:46, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is nothing wrong with an artilce on this product if someone is willing to write it with specific info on this product rather than just generally about the city. (who wrote it, what is the north, what info does the book provide, what version of game, etc) But as there has been no such attempt to add info, so Merge and Redirect. It can always be split off again if and when sufficient specific info is written. - Waza 04:04, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 19:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sammy Sieger

Was listed for speedy deletion but is not a speedy candidate. No vote from me.
_{tɔk tə mi} 11:58, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep professional athletes. Pburka 16:23, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

DELETE Unless: Can you find any more information on this guy in anywhere? I did find [23], but I would like to see more. The article at least needs to be CLEANED-UP, Wikified, and some of the information needs sources, or its POV. WikiDon 21:10, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What additional information do you have in mind? You found his boxing record; some of that information should be incorporated into the article. Since he lived a hundred years ago it is likely that much more information is available in print sources than on the internet. As it is, this article is a good stub with room for expansion. Pburka 23:10, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Keep and Expand as professional boxer who fought at Madison Square Gardens. There should be more info about his fights. Capitalistroadster 00:38, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--This was my grandfather and this is all the info. I have on him. I am the source of all info. on Sammy Sieger.

keep please there is probably more info on him since he is a professional fighter Yuckfoo 06:37, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't agree that everyone who ever worked in some profession is automatically notaable; that is absurd. Appears to be a obit, and Wikipedia is not a memorial.---CH (talk) 07:11, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, definitely needs to
WP:CITE its sources or it will likely be relisted. Hall Monitor 20:29, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:BIO. This is in fact an example of what we're discussing as a possible candidate for speedy deletion under guideline A7. The only assertion of notability is "was a talented featherweight boxer". There's no indication that he ever was any sanctioning body's national champion, or that he got nationwide news coverage, or once defeated someone as famous as Jack Johnson, or anything else that would qualify. Obviously the Google test is unlikely to be relevant for a 1920s boxer, but he needs to appear in some history-of-boxing books or something other verifiable authoritative sources; otherwise he just wasn't sufficiently notable. Barno 23:06, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

keep I Say Keep....for personal Reasons....the 3 grandchildren he never knew were Christopher, Alan and Robert...I know this because I am Christopher, and sadly, am almost totally devoid of any family history. Any questions or comments please send to [email protected]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete -- Joolz 01:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Smear Campaign against Iran

the name itself is inherently POV Austrian 12:07, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely POV. mrholybrain 12:16, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

"Smear Campaign" is a reality in our world! beleive me ! If not, then why not deleting "Smear Campaign" entry in wikipedia ? The article needs to be rewritten and cleaned up. Sir Jeremy First and so far only contribution of this user. Austrian 13:11, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Iranian and the US government will certainly agree that "Smear campaigns" exist. But whether there is a "Smear campaign against X" is usually a matter of POV. --Austrian 13:11, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hopelessly POV based on name. --rob 12:51, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It doesn't contain much except for a list of mostly broken links, and what little there is (including its title) doesn't consider alternative viewpoints, let alone in a balanced way. Jll 13:01, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's just a short intro with no evidence of a smear campaign, and a load of links. TheMadBaron 13:29, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hopelessly skewed title. /
Isotalo 13:56, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Inherently POV. ProhibitOnions 16:53:20, 2005-09-11 (UTC)

Delete. It's so POV it's almost funny. --Apyule 04:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in agreement with TheMadBaron. A bunch of mostly unrelated accusations does not make an objective article demonstrating an organized conspiracy. Maybe an NPOV section could be developed in the Iran article, but this isn't the basis for it. Barno 23:15, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP as rewritten by User:Csw3coder. The article is now more detailed and in correct English. — JIP | Talk 19:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bilişim Kulübü

Was listed for speedy deletion, but may not be a speedy candidate. Perhaps an encyclopedia-worthy stub or article could be written about this Turkish website before this AFD is over. No vote from me.
_{tɔk tə mi} 12:15, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: too little information even for a stub. Is this website even in English?---CH (talk) 01:50, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per CH and it's not in English. --Apyule 05:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: as the writer of this stub. :) It's an encyclopedia-worthy stub anymore. --Csw3coder 18:05, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was to keep the article. --Canderson7 02:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

House of 9

Was listed for speedy deletion but is not a speedy candidate. It's a movie with
_{tɔk tə mi} 12:24, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - Copied and pasted - Googling the first paragraph (between speech marks" produces a lot of hits. See eg. [24]. TheMadBaron 13:55, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I removed the apparently copied text, and a left micro-stub, which I think has good potential for improvement, especially given this is a recent film with a major star. --rob 14:04, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain - I removed the copyvio, and my changes were replaced with a plot section that is a complete copyvio. So, I'll leave this for others. --rob 14:09, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that was just an accident - the user edited in the same minute you did, reverting your edit.... and I reverted it right back. Your opinion should still count.... but personally, I'm inclined towards delete. TheMadBaron 19:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per rob's original vote; I agree with his reasoning that this stub has potential. --DavidConrad 21:02, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm very sorry about my flip-flopping here. I shouldn't let a revert effect my voting. I'm back on keep, on the same grounds, that a recent movie, by a big star, will garner improvement, regardless of whether it's me, or somebody else who does it. Also, the Dennis Hopper article has so many film credits, there's really no space to describe his role in each one there, so a separate article for each full-length movie he's done seems jusstified to me. --rob 22:50, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am sure there will be someone who will want to expand this. Alf ^melmac 07:34, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete all -- Joolz 01:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SEPTA Route 7

This is a collective AfD for four bus routes that traverse Philadelphia from North to South. Another bus line,
SEPTA Route 2, came up for deletion the other day; its AfD can be found here
.
The entries merely list the bus stops and contain no further information. Wikipedia isn't a mirror for the SEPTA timetable. Pilatus 12:22, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neither is it
Isotalo 13:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Death to all inconsequential bus route articles! Okay well maybe just a delete then. :) — RJH 18:25, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Pilatus. Sdedeo 20:18, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per RJHall. Molotov (talk) 20:33, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per everybody.
T/C 21:52, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete all.
Talk 23:42, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep or merge the lot together and allow for expansion. JYolkowski // talk 02:13, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:22, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of video game animals

Non-encyclopedic. Would be too large if it was fully populated. Little point in having this information compiled into one article.
indiscriminate list of information. --Daniel Lawrence 13:46, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, encyclopedic and useful way of grouping articles, how else would you group video game animals? Can be split if it gets too large.
Kappa 13:57, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Indiscriminate list. Why would you even want to group video game animals? What's next? List of animals in animated cartons? List of animals in children's fiction? List of animals as fluffy toys? List of all animals? List of all lists? TheMadBaron 14:04, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And if we're including fictional dinosaur species, can we count Pacmen as a species? Space invaders? TheMadBaron 14:07, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You would want to group video game animals because they are things of the same type and people might be looking for different examples, or a general overview. There are plenty of other lists in
Kappa 14:41, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

keep important pop culture item, maintainable and interesting. — brighterorange (talk) 14:29, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep, but re-organize and expand.
The list needs to describe what kind of animals these are. (e.g. what kind of animal is Yoshi?)

The list should be sorted by animal type, not console type. Where will we put an animal from a game which is available on multiple consoles?

It needs a clear criteria for inclusion — is
Pac Man
an animal? Are dragons animals?

The links need to be cleaned up. The
Hunter
link doesn't say anything about a video game character.

Pburka 16:18, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Keep, with the caveats given by Pburka and Kappa. Nandesuka 18:17, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Molotov (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since I cannot find fault with
Disney characters must have appeared in a video game at some point.) --DavidConrad 21:13, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Arbitrary list. /
Isotalo 21:17, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. This article does need to be fixed up somewhat, but the list itself is something to which items can be added. It's a notable subject. Eduard Gherkin 01:05:47, 2005-09-12 (UTC)

Keep and follow suggestions above. --Apyule 04:56, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep please we should not erase information just because it is too large that does not make sense Yuckfoo 06:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Valid as other video game lists. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:55, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unmaintanable, although the entry "Donkey Kong from Donkey Kong 64" is funny. Ever heard of
Donkey Kong (arcade game) of 1981? Martg76 22:30, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Categorize or Delete Caerwine 23:14, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:23, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And the Band Played On (disambiguation)

Uneccesary. No articles link to this page.
List of Pokémon episodes, and wouldn't have its own article, anyway. --Daniel Lawrence 14:00, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete unnecessary disambig. --DavidConrad 20:44, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Apyule 04:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it is my understanding that you do not need to nominate a disambiguation page for deletion if it is disambiguating between an article that does exist and one that does not, as this would more be considered a technical correction. It is not the policy of wikipedia to disambiguate between two articles if one does not yet exist (unless there are MULTIPLE existing articles in addition to the nonexistant one.) Pacian 07:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy delete as a mistake. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:56, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hudson Street

This is my own article. The name is wrong, it should be Huston Street Grmagne 14:17, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Speedied as a mistake (criteria G-7). No harm done. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:26, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted as an attack page. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:57, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sneha

Seemingly about a real person, but this article looks like an attack page, hence it should be deleted. Punkmorten 14:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

speedy as an attack page. — brighterorange (talk) 14:27, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied as a clear attack page. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:29, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete -- Joolz 01:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Halliburtonstan

Neologism with 63 google hits. Punkmorten 14:20, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete pov neologism. — brighterorange (talk) 14:26, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete, POV, if not rubbish then it's dictionary definiton. --Commander Keane 16:43, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Hilarious! Although I would prefer Bushistan. Still, Delete POV neologism. --DavidConrad 19:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete unencyclopedic. --Apyule 04:57, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this apt neologism. Alf ^melmac 07:42, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clever, funny, delete.Vizjim 11:19, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete -- Joolz 01:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Season 2 Week 5 Recap

Episode 5 of The Apprentice. Unsalvageable. DS 14:40, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My eyes, my eyes! A play-by-play account of everything that happened on an episode of a reality show does not strike me as encyclopedic. --DavidConrad 20:06, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it appears to be an orphan article (no Season 2 Week 4 Recap, etc.). However I'm not against some sort of episode guide on the basis that precedent exists for other shows and we shouldn't discriminate. But this level of detail for a reality show isn't necessary, and it seems to be on its own. 23skidoo 20:36, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It makes my head hurt to think about it. --Apyule 04:59, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone wants to merge far less content (one or two sentences per episode would be appropriate) into an episode-guide sub-article under The Apprentice. Barno 23:21, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was deleted by mikka. -- Joolz 01:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Go-Jyone

del. nonnotable. Primitive flash with
Dragostea din Tei music with nonverifiable claims of priority. mikka (t) 16:11, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The article has
verifiability problems, among other things. "Generally, this video is being referred to as ...." Referred to by whom? How many people refer to it as that? How can this be verified? Delete unless the claims in the article are verified. --DavidConrad 20:56, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was to keep the article. --Canderson7 02:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip H. Wiebe

Non-notable professor at Trinity Western University. Delete. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 16:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — He is a Dean, which places him a cut above. Also a published author. — RJH 18:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be notable. CalJW 19:10, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non noble. No evidence of Dean-hood. TWU simply says he is the Chair of the Philosophy Dept. The first sentence (of the page's two sentences) of this article was copy&pasted from the bottom of this page which, again, provides no evidence of its claim. Most professors are authors and they become best-sellers by making it required reading in their classes. I've had high school teachers who were authors. --maclean25 20:40, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. RJHall, I don't think being a published author or being a Dean at some a small college makes you notable. (Oddly enough, I see there is a published author who goes by R. J. Hall. Presumably that is another RJH?)---CH (talk) 06:21, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'll admit that I hadn't heard of this university before, but Wiebe has two books published by the Oxford University Press, both of which I can find in the Swedish National Library catalogue Libris[25], one of them in three copies in different libraries (i.e. somebody bought the books who didn't have to do so). I just found a review on JSTOR of a third one from a different publisher: Theism in an Age of Science (American University Press, Lanham, MD, 1988). I added some bibliographic data to the article. Uppland 07:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Published, head of Uni department. Alf ^melmac 08:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep expanded version per Uppland, on the basis of being a substantially published author. Other than that, he doesn't seem to meet the "more notable than the average professor" test from
WP:BIO. Barno 23:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Vanity page of non-notable professor of a minor private institution. Being a published author makes one notable? Publication is a requirement for professorship in most institutions, I know lots of grad students who are published authors. -- Corvus 16:20, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep (No consensus). --Ryan Delaney ^talk 23:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Plenair

There's already a well-structured
Disgaea characters article. Don't think there's anything worth merging from this article. Dlyons493 16:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, there's nothing about Plenair in
Kappa 22:46, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Maybe she's not in that article because (per this article) "She appears in both Disgaea and Phantom Brave as a back(g)round character, which is exactly what it sounds like and she cannot be played." Delete per
WP:FICT or any other policy relevant to minor characters in video games. Barno 23:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Woohookitty 12:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Richard J. Sutcliffe

Non-notable professor at Trinity Western University. Fails pokemon test. Delete. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 16:27, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Seems mildly notable. Canadian representative on the board that manages the Modula-2 language standard. Also a sci-fi author. — RJH 18:16, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per RJH. Sdedeo 20:19, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have articles on any of his books? They all seem to be self-published online. Amazon has nothing on him. I would say either Delete or merge with Modula-2. --DavidConrad 20:28, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes the Pokemon test. —RaD Man (talk) 21:08, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable academic. /
Isotalo 21:09, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per RJH and being a modula-2 author.
Kappa 22:43, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete nn vanity. Kappa, gimme a break, being an author does not alone make you notable.---CH (talk) 06:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Gamaliel 07:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Respectable professor. Alf ^melmac 08:14, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please see
WP:BIO: "The professor test -- If the individual is more well known and more published than an average college professor, they can and should be included." Merely being a "respectable professor" is not itself grounds for inclusion, any more than "respectable blogger" or "respectable janitor". Barno 23:37, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Non-notable professor of non-notable institution. If being a member of a board or having a book published makes one "notable", then a significant fraction of the developed world's population would be "notable". -- Corvus 16:29, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete -- Joolz 01:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Niggawatt

Found a CSD tag on it, but seems slightly notable (51 googles and a website), so going to AFD instead. -~~ N (t/c) 16:38, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I forgot to mention: Delete. ~~ N (t/c) 22:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to be nothing but a bad racist joke. The web site has nothing but a splash page with an image. The image in the article is a black man in african garb photoshopped into the foreground of a still from Back to the Future. ("1.21 gigawatts" was in BttF.) --DavidConrad 20:28, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Racist hoax and advert for non-notable website. Grr.
T/C 22:41, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete please. Utterly worthless. Sliggy 23:51, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Joke articles with accompanying silly pictures are Uncyclopaedia's territory, not Wikipedia's. There's no such concept. Delete. Uncle G 03:09:44, 2005-09-12 (UTC)

Keep because I'm not a humourless *****. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.165.225 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 12 September 2005 (Homophobic personal attack removed, Barno 23:42, 12 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Strong Delete per
Fernando Rizo. --Apyule 05:06, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

With not only an apparent consensus to delete but a consensus that this is racist, I think it should be considered for speedy deletion. --DavidConrad 08:09, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not an encylopedic topic, no loss of human knowledge when deleted. Alf ^melmac 08:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lame humorless "joke". Would support speedying. Barno 23:40, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:23, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Metalibrary

Non-notable definition, never heard of it. Delete. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 16:40, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It could have potential. TheMadBaron 19:33, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In its present form, the article does not distinguish sufficiently between fact and fiction (at first it sounds like there is such a library, perhaps at metalibrary.ca, and then it is revealed that it is fictional), and serves mainly to promote the web site. Also, note that the same content was created on wikiverse.org (what is wikiverse?). Delete unless a good place can be found to merge it. --DavidConrad 20:13, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete...actually I just don't understand it. First of all is it real? This, this and this link says so but completely independent of the Sutcliffe guy and...kind of...in the context mentioned in the article. Is it a neologism? a dicdef? or what? I'm thinking a 'Metalibrary' is real and worthy of an article but this article does not describe a 'Metalibrary', only one guy's science fiction creation of one. --maclean25 01:25, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Gamaliel 07:57, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is spam for the author's self-published sci-fi novels. -- Corvus 16:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete -- Joolz 01:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

These New Puritans

Band vanity, I'm afraid. Flower party 16:46, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete any band that can't get a record deal. (Unless I start a band, of course.) TheMadBaron 19:36, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — "They have released a number of very limited edition, home-made EPS." I can burn a CD on my mom's computer, too. allmusic has nothing on them. --DavidConrad 20:40, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, plus no assertion of meeting
WP:MUSIC. Friday (talk) 17:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Coffee 09:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heimech

Was on CSD, but doesn't seem to be purely nn, so taking it here. I do think it's nn enough to delete. -~~ N (t/c) 17:35, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete any production company that hasn't produced anything. TheMadBaron 19:38, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dip Dap Dop

Non-notable, obscure NeilN 17:53, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sounds like one of the games from Takeshi's Castle. Pburka 18:52, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, obviously. TheMadBaron 19:40, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When I was in high school, a friend created a game called "Baw, Waw, Hand" which involved throwing a ball, bouncing it off a wall, and catching it with his hand. Should it have an article? Wikipedia is fast becoming a dumping ground for all the garbage on the internet. --DavidConrad 19:55, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If your friend didn't know what wikipedia was for, and created an article about the game because he thought people would like to know about it, that wouldn't make him a bad person.
Kappa 22:41, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
That doesn't answer the question asked. DavidConrad didn't ask for your judgement of his friend's character. He asked whether Wikipedia should have such an article. My answer is "No, not unless that specific game is widely played, or there are multiple independent sources that discuss that game.". The same applies here. There are plenty of sources that discuss the many varieties of ball games that there are, according to Google Web alone. Also according to Google Web, this game isn't mentioned in any of them by this name. The article cites no sources itself, of course. This is original research, the publication of a newly invented ball game (or, at the very least, a newly invented name for a ball game) in Wikipedia. The article nigh-on states this outright. Delete. Uncle G 01:03:28, 2005-09-12 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought it was a
Kappa 01:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete -- Joolz 01:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-Madonna

No evidence that this is factually correct. Delete or consider turning it into a redirect to prima donna Phi beta 18:16, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a pun. It's not even a clever pun. TheMadBaron 19:42, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is surely wrong. See [26] and [27] which simply refer to it as an error with no reference to the meaning given in the article. Merriam-Webster and dictionary.com don't list it. Delete with no redirect. --DavidConrad 19:44, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it's silly. --Apyule 05:31, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedied. Grue 19:11, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Burns

Delete probable vanity page, one-para biography of a 2005 college graduate with nothing to indicate any notability. --Russ Blau (talk) 18:25, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Delete per criteria A7. Pburka 18:48, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Speedy deleted under criteria 7. From the article: "...trying to conquer the world." Har har har. How original! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:11, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy delete as patent nonsense.
T/C 21:58, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Repercussionist

Vanity neologism Jkelly 18:43, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Certainly delete, perhaps speedy delete as nonsense due to "who knows the plastic squirrel Onre' in Mrs. Moorhead's 7th Grade Classroom". --DavidConrad 19:12, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, nonsense. johnpseudo 19:53, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this is stupid delete it.

Comment The above was posted from the IP that created the article. Jkelly 20:50, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Delete. Codswallop and balderdash. TheMadBaron 20:18, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and it should have been speedy. CambridgeBayWeather 20:20, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Molotov (talk) 20:37, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was in a band with a repercussionist once. It was like having Jiminy Cricket for a drummer. Hey-o!
T/C 21:58, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete -- Joolz 01:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mind Pollution

The article is about a former band with no results on allmusic. Most of the information in the article is sourced from the band's web site, or band member's or fan's blogs. This is the second time I have nominated this article for deletion. I believe the outcome of the previous vote was influenced by multiple unsigned keep votes from the article's creator, and a lack of interest on the part of other Wikipedians. I would ask that people review the article, the previous vote, and follow the links in the article. Some are broken, and some don't show what the article claims. For instance, a search on the Marilyn Manson site turns up no references to either Mind Pollution or Sin Star. I would also ask that all participants here sign their votes with four tildes: ~~~~. My vote is to Delete. DavidConrad 18:42, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I have no idea why the closer of the previous vote chose to count all the unsigned/sockpuppet votes as keeps. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:55, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Delete fails music notability Jkelly 19:17, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per DavidConrad. johnpseudo 19:52, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia's Anti Bullcrap policy. Molotov (talk) 20:25, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am the closer of the previous vote and did read the voting history thoroughly. Sorry about that. — JIP | Talk 15:02, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP David You are full of shit, you keep lying. Marilyn-Manson.net Clearly shows Sin Star on their front page, If you use the Wayback Machine you can see where Mind Pollution was listed in MMDN's Marilyn Manson news, and a Banner for Mind Pollution as well. allmusic DOES have information on [Sin Star], Mind Pollution has CDs released on Record Labels, They have 2 nation tours ... The sources are from their official news from years ago in the internet archives.. This information cannot be altered. This was the source for several things. What is wrong with citing Fan Sites as sources ? What is wrong with citing the band members Blogs as sources. You know for a fact that those Livejournal entries & dates cannot be forged. There are pictures of Davien Crow (the singer of the band) with [Gidget Gein] ... I dont even feel like repeating the fact they can be found on SO MANY different sites. AND I DONT NEED TO POINT OUT THE FACT THIS IS RELATED TO [SIN STAR] .... David stop lying and handing people bullshit. I don't know what your problem is with this band, but you could at least be Honest instead of taking things out of context to try and get rid of them WHEN YOU HAVE OBVIOUSLY put no effort into looking at the sources and only keep pointing out some of the official site sources and so on. NONE OF YOU ARE READING THINGS OVER. THEY MEET WP:MUSIC by at least completing 2 catagories ! not to mention other ways. Dont be fooled by David Twisting things around to suite his little vendetta, trying to keep himself from looking stupid for being wrong. Sin-thetik 23:41, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I followed the link to marilyn-manson.net. I see nothing about Sin Star on the front page. I entered a site search for "Sin Star". It returns three results. [28] [29] [30] None of these have anything to do with Sin Star. There were no results for Mind Pollution. You are correct that allmusic does have something on them. A search for "Sin Star" finds a "Sin Star Project" with the following information: "Genre: Rock". Again, there were no results for Mind Pollution. If you search for a real band on allmusic, you would find their albums and much other information. I have by now spent hours looking at your sources, and I have no problem whatsoever with this band. I wish them much success, and I hope someday they make it and are deserving of an encyclopedia article. You say they have albums. Can I buy any of these albums in a music store? I searched Borders, Barnes & Noble, and Amazon, with no success. Livejournals entries cannot be forged? Anyone can write anything they want in a blog or on their own website. The
verifiability standards of Wikipedia ask for more reliable sources. I have not made any untrue statements, and I do not appreciate being the target of personal attacks. --DavidConrad 03:26, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

All information is verifiable through http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://mind-pollution.net or in the cited sources. Sin-thetik 23:40, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP or MERGE Meets at least 2 requirements under
WP:MUSIC with at least 2 or 3 requirements met. ALL SOURCES ARE VERIFIABLE Gadget is God 23:57, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
I have not made any false comments, nor have I removed any votes. You may be referring to the previous vote on this article, which I linked to in the description of this 2nd nomination. Regarding non-valid sources, please follow the link to Davien Crow's Livejournal in the article, and tell us what you find. --DavidConrad 03:26, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE with [Sin Star] as a sub section. There is no reason for there to be an article on Mind Pollution when [Sin Star] better meets WP:MUSIC with the aid of this article. It meets the Guidelines set by Wikipedia for WP:Music because they have 2 national, verifiable, tours and have releases on notable independant labels Kid Atrium and Mushroomcloud records.

KEEP If it is not merged I say keep it. It meets the Guidelines set by Wikipedia for WP:Music ... They have 2 national, verifiable tours (through fan sites and the internet archives, the archives cannot be altered) and have releases on notable independant labels Kid Atrium and Mushroomcloud records as said before. There are also several other non-music related guidelines both articles meet. I mean hell guys if Brian Peppers can get put on Wikipedia when all the government links verifying him dont work you guys should have no problem accepting NOTABLE WORKING references to a well known underground band. Christina Jacobs 00:43, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT Member Darien Starr is responsible for creating the genre "Death Pop" currently used by Orgy and Deadstar Assembly

COMMENT' I REALLY THINK THIS SHOULD BE MERGED WITH Sin Star's vote A LOT OF THE INFO THERE PRETAINS AND VERIFIES THIS ARTICLE AS WELL !!!! Christina Jacobs 02:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT PLEASE CONSIDER VOTING AT SIN STAR instead of here. There is no need to be voting on both articles.

Delete. There are more puppets here than the American Senate. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:54, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. -- Joolz 01:35, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sin Star

The article is about a band that is not signed by a label and does not have an album out. allmusic has nothing on them. This is the second time I have nominated this article for deletion. I believe the outcome of the previous vote was influenced by multiple unsigned keep votes and a miscount of the delete votes. I would ask that all participants here sign their votes with four tildes: ~~~~. Many of the sources for the article are the band's own web site, myspace.com pages, and blogs. Some significant quotes are, "promotional activities carried out by fans have gone as far as having MTV.com tricked into placing a Sin Star artist biography on their site however this was promptly removed the same day", and, "Sin Star's debut full length album (under that name) has been in the works for over a year now ... this LP will be released commercially through national distributor 101distribution with or without the aid of a major label" . Please review the article and the previous vote. I believe this is a vanity article and my vote is to Delete. DavidConrad 19:04, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment None of you have reviewed the article, pointed out what information is false, can back up your claims that they are false, there are several lies or mistakes in David's statement and it is simply unfair to vote DELETE just because there might be sockpuppetts. At least SOME people realize David's full of horse shit and whatever Admin reviews this should go look at the BLATANT AND VERIFIABLE sources including ALLMUSIC (which I have never heard of until this gayness) that verify that they meet 2 requirements of WP:MUSIC ... If this article is deleted it will be against your own standards and rules that it is done so and I'm sure it will just continue to be a problem for everyone. SO I ASK YOU ALL TO TAKE THE TIME TO ACTUALLY LOOK OVER THE ARTICLE AND POINT OUT VALID REASONS FOR IT TO BE DELETED, THAT ARENT FALSE LIKE MOST OF DAVIDS, JUST AS WE WHO WANT IT KEPT HAVE POINTED OUT SEVERAL VALID VERIFIABLE REASONS THAT IT MEETS WP:MUSIC BY 2 REQUREIMENTS WHEN ONLY 1 IS NEEDED !!!!!!!. EVEN THE SOURCES FROM YEARS AGO ON INTERNET ARCHIVES CAN NOT BE ALTERED. If it comes down to it I will continue to battle to have this page up, I think the users are being biased and simply taking David's word for it instead of looking at the facts. 64.12.116.196 10:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:07, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, as per DavidConrad. johnpseudo 19:50, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, see discussion for Mind Pollution. — JIP | Talk 15:05, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Meets at least 2 requirements under
WP:MUSIC, David Conrad is fabricating information about the sources included. I have personally checked Sin-thetik's sources and decided to sign up to keep this article from being deleted. I myself have heard of this band several times over the past 6 months in various places. Gadget is God 23:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
Where? --DavidConrad 04:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP meets WP:MUSIC Guidelines. Christina Jacobs 00:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment David Conrad is faling to mention that several of the sources such as Rock Detector, Allmusic.com, IMDB, VH1, Blabbermouth, The Internet Archives (Waybackmachine.org), soundlick, and SMNnews are the source of most of the information. There are several obvious, blatant, credible sources of their link to bands such as Marilyn Manson, especially in the case of Gidget Gein, and Nancy Marzulli.I beleive David is trying his best to misguide the readers into ignoring the factual notable places with references to Sin Star. There are plenty of bands such as Orgy for whom you cannot easily find results on google for because of the adult entertainment industry related links that appear. Christina Jacobs 00:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rock Detector has a link to register and the copy "GOT AN ALBUM TO SELL? Sell it on Rockdetector!" on the front page. Apparently, anyone can sign up to sell an album there. Allmusic has nothing but "Genre: Rock" about "Sin Star Project". I searched for an actual notable indie artist, Ani DiFranco, and found a wealth of information. We are not discussing an article on Marilyn Manson, Gidget Gein, Nancy Marzulli, Orgy, or anyone else other than Sin Star. I entered a search for Sin Star on Blabbermouth.net and found nothing related. I did find them on soundclick.com, but not on Borders, Barnes & Noble, or Amazon. I have no intention of misleading anyone. I hope all interested Wikipedians will look at all the evidence and vote as they see fit. For myself, I would much rather be spending my time on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_articles, but I am concerned that if people use Wikipedia as free web space to promote themselves, eventually Wikipedia will lose both support and reputation. --DavidConrad 04:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to point out that there have several contributors to this article. Some of the quotes may have been fans adding to it. The quotes pointed out by david "promotional activities carried out by fans have gone as far as having MTV.com tricked into placing a Sin Star artist biography on their site however this was promptly removed the same day" is essential to the facts about the internet promotion, there is also a screenshot of the article. The quote "Sin Star's debut full length album (under that name) has been in the works for over a year now ... this LP will be released commercially through national distributor 101distribution with or without the aid of a major label" is taken from information found on their official site's news posting. I reall don't think this is a Vanity page, they don't even have this much information about themselves up. I also noticed somone has deleted their real names (perhaps the bands doing??) Christina Jacobs 00:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the structure, or lack thereof, of the rest of this page, I will simply respond to a few points here, and then wash my hands of this. I don't doubt that these individuals are ruthless self-promoters. My concern about the MTV.com quote is that it suggests that they may be doing the same thing to Wikipedia now. If their album comes out next year and is a huge hit (and I wish them luck in that), there will be plenty of opportunity to create an article about them then. Regarding the mention on imdb.com, I don't see how that supports their notability. I did find the listing on BMI. It seems they have a song licensed by BMI. Is BMI producing their debut album, due out next year? Can I buy any of their music at my local record store? Most of the other sites, like Myspace, BYOFL, and Bandname Register, are ones that anyone can put anything on. --DavidConrad 04:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE Mind Pollution should be merged into Sin Star as a new section in the article. I am not going to join this site just to argue about this, but I will support that the article is correct, the sources are credible. David is taking things out of context and has stated false information in some cases above.

Comment I agree with the other posters that claim David has misguided the readers of this discussion. Most notable in the fact Allmusic does have an entry for Sin Star and there are several links to sites such as IMDB.com, VH1:Driven's episode guide, and even screenshots backing up the bands links to Marilyn Manson. I will admit Sin Star is hard to find through SOME searches, but I have found many more links that David would lead us to beleive exist.

Comment David has not backed up his claims with links or evidence. Where as Sin-thetik has (as well as previous posters on the previous pages). I beleive he is simply asking people to take his side.

Keep Fits Criterea for WP:MUSIC ... David Do you have anything better to do than to try to get rid of this band when you KNOW YOU ARE WRONG ? There are several bands on here who are not Signed to a Major Label, They have released music under Mushroomcloud Records, are a member of BMI, They are directly linked to [Marilyn Manson], [Gidget Gein], The Band Orgy, [Suicide Girls], and several other famous people and organizations. Several of the sources are LARGE sites such as [SMNpromotions.com SMNPromotions] and [Marilyn-MAnson.net Marilyn-Manson.net] which can even be found on Marilyn Manson's entry here at Wikipedia. [VH1] is one of the cited sources, [Nancy Marzulli] makes a TV appearence in this, they have been on 2 Nation Tours under a different name, They have Several CDs such as (LPs, EPs, and so on) that were short run Nationally Distributed places. There are other sources that include [RockDetector], They have a Music Video Out, Davien Crow has works on other band's albums released in places such as Hottopic... You keep trying to twist the quotes around into something they are not and are trying your best to mislead people into not noticing the other significant sources. ALLMUSIC.COM DOES HAVE THEM LISTED I AM NOT THE ONLY PERSON WHO POINTED THIS OUT ! BYOFL has them listed. Bandname Register has them listed. There are several promotional companies listed in the sources that have information on them. If you were paying attention you would notice that Sin Star's CDs are currently out of print, which is why they are no longer avalible on this site. You really are a iggnorant and naive individual with absolutely no researching skills David Conrad. AS FAR AS MYSPACE.COM GOES if you should be aware that even bands as big as [Nine Inch Nails] and [Motely Crue] use Myspace.com for promotional reasons. ALSO STOP TRYING TO TWIST THIS QUOTE AROUND "Sin Star's debut full length album (under that name) has been in the works for over a year now ... this LP will be released commercially through national distributor 101distribution with or without the aid of a major label" that is a cited quote from one of their sites, 101distribution is a major national distributor, and the fact that it says the debut LP is under THAT NAME should show any literate person there has been a nationally released under another name and also ... ALSO AN LP is a full length album, EPs are Albums as well (Short ones) under 12 tracks or so. REDEFINE Magazine out of seattle will be featuring their back cover ad this fall issue (as cited on their site recently). One of the sources is Blabbermouth.net which is owned by major label Roadrunner Records ! I'm not sure what else you need other than perhaps some glasses to see that this entry meets all criterea ! The list goes on and on and on and on... You truely are turning this into something personal... And your just going to keep making a Fool of yourself by lying !!! TO SHOW IT MEETS WP:MUSIC I will highlight in Bold which critereas they meet and provide sources if needed.

Musicians and ensembles There are a lot of bands, singers and other musicians and musical ensembles with articles in the Wikipedia (see category:Musicians).
A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, hip hop crew, dj etc) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:
Has had a Top 100 hit on any national music chart, in a large or medium-sized country*
Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in a large or medium-sized country* They have been on 2 national tours. 1 of which was halted after 2 or 3 shows into it (i forget what the article said). The information those tours can EASILY be found by looking at the internet archives for their official site. Why would an then upcoming band's tours be featured on large sites ? A lot of sites containing such information such as mp3.com no longer exist.
Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable) They music released under Mushroomcloud Records.
Has been prominently featured in any major music media Blabbermouth.net , SMNpromotions.com , their manager on [VH1] (all you have to do is watch the episode to see Nancy Marzulli I will find a screenshot if needed) , [IMDB.com Internet Movie Database (IMDB)] has them under [Gidget Gein]'s biography. MegaMetalOnline.com, SMNews.com, and Allmusic all have Sin Star. These sites are some of the largest music sites and databases on the net.
I would also like to point out this quote from WP:MUSIC "A good online resource for music and musicians is the All Music Guide, (http://www.allmusic.com/) which although often out of date, does give a level of indication as to what a band or musician has done." Don't you guys think that since Sin Star is on Allmusic.com that perhaps the information just hasnt been put up yet ? Use your heads.
As far as [Mind Pollution] goes, don't you think Sin Star would have changed most information and profiles online about [Mind Pollution] into [Sin Star] by now ? That all fan sites would have converted or gone away, and since the CDs are out of print there would no longer be in catalogs ??????

Proof of their links to [Marilyn Manson]

Nancy Marzulli was featured on VH1:Driven - Marilyn Manson , She was their manager and that is easily verifiable. Nancy Marzulli was one of Manson's superiors at the 25th Parallel Magazine that he worked at when they were Marilyn Manson and the Spooky Kids. Read any biography that goes back that far and you will have your source.

[Gidget Gein] is Marilyn Manson's former Bassplayer, there are videos online of [Sin Star] members Davien Crow and Alison bordan , as well as Nancy Marzulli with him at his debut Artshow in Miami FL. They were guests. There are also pictures online of this (the video is linked on the entry). It is also stated on IMDB on [Gidget Gein]'s profile that they were responsible for one of his nicknames. HE ALSO ENDORSES THEM ON MYSPACE, where is official profile there is there is a screenshot avalible here [31] and the original bulliten's link here [32] .. Here are pictures of them all together [33].

http://www.livejournal.com/users/daviencrow/9948.html has information, the guestlist passes, and the first hand account from Davien's first meeting with [Marilyn Manson]. [Alison Bordan] also has met him a few times before on behalf of [Marilyn-Manson.net MMDN] which can be verified by contacting Marilyn-Manson.net's staff if you wish.

Proof of their links to Other bands & People.

[Otep] Daviens Link to Otep - google image search Davien Crow you'll see the picture of a much younger him and Otep at an event. [Orgy]'s link to Darien Starr - http://crackwhore.htmlplanet.com/orgypics.html (search the rest of the site as well if needed) Hanzel Und Gretyl (metropolis records) -

also a lot of information that was not included as a source can be verified here for both [Sin Star] and [Mind Pollution] [34] check the creation date if your weary of it being altered.

Another argument I have is that Sin Star has not had time to build up search results and hits in goodle yet. Sin Star and the words Sin and Star are very common with porn and other sites that get WAY more results. Try searching for the members names. Alison Bordan, Davien Crow, Darien Starr... Information can be found there easily. There are tons and tons and tons ... of things you guys are overlooking and its rediculous you have such a Bias in this case Sin-thetik Sin-thetik 23:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, they have not had time. Let's give them time, and only then write an encyclopedia article about them. What do you say? --DavidConrad 04:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, because their official sites and several sites related to them DO show up first when searching for them.They have had plenty of time and really do meet WP:MUSIC .. Some things are harder to verify than others David. I hope you consider some of the more intangible sources that were listed. BTW where else other than an official site would keep records of a national tour not sponsored by Tickermaster ??? or a Major Label ?? I'd like to see you find dated Tour Dates for several bands that fit WP:MUSIC 152.163.100.192 01:14, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP
WP:MUSIC Sinteger 01:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

KEEP Sin Star meets WP:MUSIC , all references are legit. Square3D 01:20, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Meets at least 2 guidelines in
WP:MUSIC Morbidpoptart 01:23, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

KEEP' Sin Star fits the critera for WP:MUSIC .. I am their former manager Nancy Marzulli , you may contact me to verify any information pertaining to myself or my involvement with Sin Star, Marilyn Manson, or Gidget Gein. E-mail:[email protected]Nancy marzulli 02:08, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Meets at least 2 guidelines in
WP:MUSIC

KEEP or MERGE
WP:MUSIC Guidelines and they fit 2 , almost 3 guidelines. Only 1 guideline is required. They also fit some other catagories. I'm unsure as to why David is having such a hard time finding them on [Allmusic] and why he does not consider [IMDB] or [SMNnews] legit sources. Those are very renoun websites, SMNnews is even linked on Ozzfest's site. This deletion matter has sparked much debate on some Sin Star related message boards and other places, I would not doubt if some Wikipedia users notice and come to give their takes. Anonymous Internet User 122.143.101.196 01:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. There are more socks here than Sharie Lewis' trashcan. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:52, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT and that is a reason to delete it ? Despite the FACT they meet
WP:MUSIC
.. YOU are the puppett and David is the Puppett master. Noone is checking these claims themself obviously.

KEEP' Meets at least 2 guidelines in
WP:MUSIC NeonDevil 01:48, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

COMMENT Who tries to block an AOL IP ? Wikipedia Mods are n00bs, sockpuppets may appear that way on AOL IPs because its all from a pool fools 64.12.116.196 10:28, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Meets at least 2 WP:Music Requirements as EVERYONE but you hard headed illiterate 40 year olds can see easily because they aren't just taking Davids misguided rant up there as being 100% true :: rolls eyes :: 64.12.116.196 10:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: HOW THEY MEET THE REQUIREMENTS in
WP:MUSIC

Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in a large or medium-sized country*

They have been on 2 national tours in the US, one was cut short, there are links to information, dates, and footage of these shows linked directly in the sources. Most from the internet archives which are intangible. There is also information listed on several fan created sites about these tours and random information in other places.

Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)

How they qualify: Releases on Mushroomcloud Records, Kid Atrium Music, and their self owned label Red Pill Music. Allmusic.com has them listed as the Sin Star Project and does not have information on their EPs, Singles, and other things any longer because such older media is out of print (as it is stated in some of the sources).

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN LP/Full Length Album (which is mentioned as the Debut) and an EP (extended play) Album , single CD, and so on. I hope you guys realize this.

Promotional language was probably added by a fan, it appears several people have attempted to FIX the article to get rid of b/s and promotional shit somone added. It's not like you guys can't remove it yourself.. your just obviously trying to get it removed with a bias.

Has been prominently featured in any major music media

How they possibly qualify: Manager was on VH1:Driven. Sin Star is mentioned in Marilyn Manson's former bassist Gidget Gein's profile on [IMDB]. IMDB is a major movie and music database. Allmusic.com has them listed as the Sin Star Project.

Just because some items are no longer catalouged because of companies that went under and are now RARE does not mean they did not exist. Why would an intangible source from 1 - 5 years ago be a lie ? Because it's obviously not possible for it to had been changed just to get on this encyclopedia.

So can somone actually make an argument ? NO , why ? Because the sources are legit and noone is paying attention. THEY ARE CLEARLY MARKED AND I SERIOUSLY DOUBT ANY OF YOU have viewed them all, because even I haven't, but there are VERY KEY LEGIT MAJOR SOURCES LISTED!! Pay attention, don't be lazy.

END COMMENT 64.12.116.196 11:01, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with
WP:MUSIC. Factitious
11:09, September 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus. There are five votes overall (six including the nominator), two for redirecting and three for deleting. Therefore, I find no consensus to delete. However, there's no point leaving a duplicate article there but anybody can redirect the article themselves after the AFD is closed. - Joolz 16:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Astrue

This is an EB-1911-derived article on the physician and classicist, whose name is correctly spelled Jean Astruc. The article at the correct spelling includes nearly all the information from the EB, so we might as well delete this entry. Pilatus 18:54, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator Jkelly 19:18, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Redirect as per the request of WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 19:42, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
Comment Blame the misspelling in the title on hiccups in the OCR software. There were a few spelling mistakes in the body of the article, too. Pilatus 21:08, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure I understand why we would want to redirect a misspelling, but perhaps there is a reason. My only concern would be that if there is any additional information in this article, it get incorporated into the Astruc article. --DavidConrad 19:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think the idea is so that people realize its an OCR mistake and don't try to recreate it over and over. I can't imagine what the harm of having a redirect there, and if it saves another AfD or someone a lot of work... --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 21:18, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Delete -- nothing in this acticle that is not in the correctly spelled one. Also delete it from the project page list. RustySpear 21:06, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obviously.---CH (talk) 04:40, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jean Astruc. This is only because the bad OCR may turn up elsewhere, and someone may come here looking for more info. I think that a note about this on Jean Astruc's talk page would be a good idea too. --Apyule 05:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Has been correctly transwikied. -Splash^talk 00:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Necromance

This article has already been transwiked to wiktionary and doesn't belong here johnpseudo 19:38, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep or no consensus. Woohookitty 04:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How to keep an idiot busy for hours

non-notable Fito 19:51, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Completely void of encyclopedic too. /
Isotalo 21:04, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Wikipedia should avoid self-reference. :P
T/C 22:09, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, extremely well-known type of joke.
Kappa 22:30, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Not informative, and not something users are even remotely likely to be looking for in an encyclopedia. | Keithlaw 22:35, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cannot discern encyclopedic value. Sliggy 23:26, September 11, 2005 (UTC) 81.131.76.156 00:30, 12 September 2005 (UTC) (Oops). I'd delete both 'keep an idiot' and 'keep a genius' articles, but I want to find an inflatable dartboard first. Sliggy 01:02, September 12, 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Kappa, but delete annoying How to keep a genius busy for hours. Sdedeo 00:18, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge How to keep a genius busy for hours into it. -Apyule 05:47, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge ..genius.. into this, extremely well known and very clearly written piece of our culture's humour. Alf ^melmac 08:37, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge per apyule and Alf. Punkmorten 09:35, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, perfectly good stub on a very well known meme. I'd support merging the other article in too. sjorford #£@%&$?! 10:08, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Great work. Now we'll have to keep articles about every half-assed generalized joke ever to grace the Internet. Shame on you, guys. /
Isotalo 16:18, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
For heaven's sake, this is much more than an internet joke - I read this in books when I was a kid, way before the internet was all that. sjorford #£@%&$?! 19:42, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if it's not confined to the Internet. It's a joke, and jokes aren't encyclopedic in the leas. I don't even see why we should have to explain this. Most of our readers are going to take us less seriously if seeing this. You're mocking our standards of quality by keeping these kinds of pseudo-articles. /
Isotalo 06:23, 13 September 2005 (UTC) /[reply
]

I'll have to respectfully disagree with you on this. A major class of jokes has a good claim on being encyclopedic. Also, I think that you are starting to come way to close to some personal attacks there. --Apyule 08:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything there that is even a little close to a personal attack. Peter expressed his viewpoint without any personal reference to Sjorford. If you disagree with Peter's views, then criticize the substance of his argument, not its style. | Keithlaw 12:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, the specific comments that I don't think are appropriate are "Shame on you" and "You're mocking our standards". --Apyule 13:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jokes can be encyclopedic. This one is, and fits in very well alongside the rest of Category:Jokes. (Oh, and just to set everyone's mind at rest, I don't see any "personal attacks" (surely the most overused phrase...) either, but I will say this: Peter, what is this "you" and "we"? I'm not an interloper here, we're all working to build the same encyclopedia.) sjorford #£@%&$?! 13:09, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, extremely well-known type of joke. Not at all encyclopedic. Tell you what, let's give up on compiling verifiable facts and just rename this to Jokepedia. I bet we'd have more fun. I bet we'd make this project useless as a reference work. Barno 23:49, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge How to keep a genius busy for hours into it. Failing that, transwiki to Wikibooks and put it into the Jokebook (I assume there is one). Alphax ^τεχ 02:14, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These are the kinds of articles that usually atrract people to Wikipedia -- they're of quality about subjects you'll never find anywhere else. Merging "genius" into it seems fine, too, as suggested above. --Jacqui M Schedler 22:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 23:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Erb's Covered Bridge

Completing nomination from today. No vote. Nabla 19:57:53, 2005-09-11 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable. mrholybrain 12:14, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Grue 19:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TigerDirect.com

Advert for an electronics dealer. TheMadBaron 20:10, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly advertising Jkelly 20:19, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Keep and cleanup. An electronics dealer, but a very major one. Over Ten MILLION Google hits for "TigerDirect". Clearly deserves an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:39, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Keep as per
WP:NOT. —RaD Man (talk) 21:07, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep major online retailer, does need to be cleaned up though. -GregAsche (talk) 22:34, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Delete - It doesn't have ten million sites mentioning it, and it doesn't even have that many *real* pages mentioning it. It has 247 unique hits. Also, if you do a search *just* inside "tigerdirect.com" you'll find "1,140,000" so-called "hits" there alone. In other words they have an infinate name space (their web server never says "404: file not found", which I even tested with a bogus url). Nothing they do seems special or unique, or having a great impact on anybody. --rob 23:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Although there are 12,000,000 hits when I search, it turns out to only have 243 unique hits. However, Alexa ranking of 221. Keep. Zoe 04:16, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
This makes no sense. Only 200 unique hits among 12.000.000 would mean that at average, every page is duplicated 60.000 times! Google never lists more than 1000 hits total, and it appears that the 200 unique ones have been sorted out from the 1000. - Mike Rosoft 08:14, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, no sense whatsoever. *sigh* This is one of the largest and fastest growing direct computer resellers in the United States. The article has been overhauled and appropriately stubbed, but there is much more that could and should be said about their civil suit against
Apple Computer. —RaD Man (talk) 08:49, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Spam. The site seems to be notable, so my vote is keep if somebody rewrites the article. Failing that, delete. - Mike Rosoft 08:14, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The article seems to have been rewritten already, so keep. - Mike Rosoft 13:40, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep big enough company, bit of a ruck with Apple, just the ticket. Alf ^melmac 08:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Apple dispute makes it notable enough. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 08:18, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable company. -- DS1953 00:32, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete -- Joolz 01:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reclarinetist

Not encyclopedic or notable for an encyclopedia. Did not have any hits on Google, [35] either. Molotov (talk) 20:23, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete attack neologism. I nominated repercussionist for deletion above. Jkelly 20:25, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Delete it like the repercussionist and another deleted nonsense entry from this user should have been speedy. CambridgeBayWeather 20:30, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Tish and pish. TheMadBaron 20:48, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neologism —Wahoofive (talk) 23:36, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Nonsense and a recreation.-Splash 20:34, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Results of 2007 US Presidential Election

10 on my Bullcrap scale, but a nice joke. There is a place for that on here called
Wikipedia:BJAODN or something like that. Molotov (talk) 20:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 was no consensus again. Mango juice^talk 17:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zip cube
(second nomination)

The article has already survived an AfD a year ago. The
WP:CORP#Criteria for products and services this does not seem to merit its own entry and I would be hard pressed to say what sort of encyclopedic value the article could have in the future if it is expanded. As far as I understand this firestarter is no different, in its composition, then your everyday firestarter. Pascal.Tesson 22:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Plenty of reasons per nom - No more bongos 23:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE. The nominator moved the original AfD discussion. I've tried to fix it, but as a non-admin I can't move the renamed original AfD back to where it came from. It can be seen here. Agent 86 00:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep. What makes me say the weakest of keeps is that the article cites this product as being a top seller. I don't think we're supposed to be "North Ameri-centric" (and the product is sold in N.Am. in any event). I think at one time, before gas barbeques came to dominate, this product may have been "so well-known that its trademark has suffered from genericization" per WP:CORP. However, I suspect the better option is to Merge this into Barbecue#Charcoal, Briquette, or Kerosene. Agent 86 01:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have a reference to let us meet
WP:VERIFY - and to the above comment, gas barbeques dominate? They certainly don't in the UK.... LinaMishima 02:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, leading brand in Ireland.
Kappa 11:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 05:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yellowikis

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yellowikis (old)
.

Yellowikis was nominated for deletion again on 2005-10-07. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". For the prior discussion see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yellowikis 2.

It's a wiki for business information, that apparently intends tries to fill itself by grabbing deleted articles from Wikipedia. Except that it doesn't really. It has been around for nearly half a year, still has an Alexa rating of 137,331, and has as little as 1024 legitimate content pages. (
renom). Wikipedia is not the place to advertise a start-up business. Linkspam, delete. R adiant _>|< 21:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Yellowikis doesn't "grab" articles, Uncle G's bot transwikis them. Yellowikis has been around for just over one year. Most of the articles are considered incomplete in some way so they are marked as stubs - and for that reason they are not included in the count of legitimate pages. Yellowikis isn't a business. The use of the "rel=nofollow" tag prevents the external link from acting as linkspam.--Yellowikis Admin 01:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. --King of All the Franks 21:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per below --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's had some verifiable media coverage, it's now notable in the field of business directory wikis even if it fails.
Kappa 22:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep the article. This Alexa ranking is below the
WP:WEB threshold, but that's a ~~proposed~~ guideline, not a rule, and there seem to be other notability things in its favour (per Kappa, and the links given in the article). DELETE the spamming links to it seen in other articles and see if it can't be rewritten to be more POV. It seems to have grown somewhat since the first nom. On the other hand, if it keeps growing, maybe even if it gets deleted this time, it can always come back later. Perhaps the article content could be transwikied to itself? ++Lar: t/c 22:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks Larry, but Yellowikis already includes a page on Yellowikis :) . I'd post a link to it here but I am afraid that you'd castigate me for linkspamming.--Yellowikis Admin 01:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not me! ++Lar: t/c 04:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WEB is a guideline, not a proposal for one. R adiant _>|< 00:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks R!... The recent changes were what was proposed, not the guideline itself, so strike that. Do we know who's actually doing transwiki-ing? It seems to read like someone on their side is doing the work of moving (about to be?) deleted articles over? ALSO, they can't be THAT tiny, they have [36] the WoW! vandal... PS, has anyone tried asking them to stop spamlinking? (need to go review the prev 2 AfDs) ++Lar: t/c 02:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Until Radiant! edited it out, the article actually told you outright who was doing the work, and whose resources were involved. ☺ Read the article's history. And I pointed out to them that they should not add links to Wikipedia articles, back in the first AFD discussion. Read it. They stopped. Uncle G 03:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP has lots of links to other WikiMedia Projects that are in construction - We thought that it would be OK to link to a FDL, non-profit, (but non-foundation project). Uncle G advised against it so we stopped. But I still think we should be able to encourage people to add information to Yellowikis. Just as some articles point people at WikiBooks or WikiSpecies. --Yellowikis Admin 01:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've now read the first and second discussions, as well as reviewing the article history. I'm confused as to why some of the cite material was redacted, and now aware it's you that causes semiautomatic transikification to happen (and if you have any ins with the team there, you may want to recommend they take some antivandalism steps!). But I have not seen anything to change my vote from keep as noted above. Thanks for the pointers! ++Lar: t/c 05:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I fail to see how grabbing deleted articles from Wikipedia is a bad thing. In my opinion Yellowikis is different enough in concept from any other business directory to be worth its own article. Nikai 00:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and I think we should stop transwiki-ing things to them as well, it's a diversion of our resources. I love Lar's suggestion that they be made to eat their own tail, though! -
brenneman^(t)^(c) 00:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
How, exactly, is it "a diversion of our resources"? Please specify precisely what resources involved in the process are "our resources". Uncle G 00:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm basing that on looking at
brenneman^(t)^(c) 01:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm basing that on looking at
WP:TL. — As per the name of that page, that's the log of things that have been transwikied, not a queue of things to be transwikied. And "our resources" are those that go towards the aims of the project. — That is still not specifying what resources "our resources" actually are. Hint: There are no such resources. Uncle G
03:36, 16 January 2006
Er. I didn't say "here are a bunch of resources that are going to be used," but I could have been more clear in that. I also said that bot work still consumes resources. It's a minor point, but I'm not seeing any indication that I'm wrong. The bot runs on Wikipedia servers, it's consuming a Wikipedia resource, albeit a tiny amount. Clearly there is such a thing as "our" resources, which is why I can't use my user page as a de facto myspace and why we eliminate spam. I now yield the floor.
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 04:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
What makes you think that "the bot runs on Wikipedia servers"? Was the hint from the person who runs the 'bot that there are no such resources perhaps too subtle an indication that it doesn't run on Wikipedia servers? ☺ And I didn't ask what "our resources" were in general. I specifically asked what resources involved in the process (of transwikification) are "our resources". I'd like to know when my machines became the property of the Wikipedia community. ☺ Uncle G 06:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All your bots are belong to
R.Koot(Jimmy Wales) 14:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
chuckle Uncle G 07:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on user's talk page. -
brenneman^(t)^(c) 15:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Presumably the question of what load on WP transwikification causes is entirely seperable from this AfD, though, right? ++Lar: t/c 16:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Totally irrelevant to this debate. --kingboyk 22:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (regrettably), does appear to be notable. Cyde Weys _vote^talk 00:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, low alexa ranking, only 205 unique Google hits. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what "205 unique hits" are. I get 104,000 results on Google
Go to the last page of your search. That shows only 52 unique hits. That means that, of the 104,000 mentions of yellowikis on the entire Intenet, those mentions are only on 52 pages. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you think there are 52 pages on the internet each with an average of 2,000 references to Yellowikis? Doesn't sound very likely.--Yellowikis Admin 09:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Notable to some extent, I guess. But POV and unencyclopedic content needs to be trimmed. -- Krash 01:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK
) 01:36, Jan. 16, 2006

~~Delete~~ ~~Move to Wikipedia namespace~~ Keep per attempted
cut-the-knot
deletion and place on spam blacklist per this statement on their site
Any organisation big enough to have an article in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/) should also be in Yellowikis. If you get the chance please remember to add a link to Yellowikis saying something like "Listed in Yellowikis" from the appropriate Wikipedia page AND add a link back from the Yellowikis page to the appropriate Wikipedia page. [37] —
Ruud 01:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Yellowikis collects quite different information about companies than Wikipedia does. There are hundreds of links from WP to Yahoo! Business information - are you going to add Yahoo! to the spam blacklist too?--Yellowikis Admin 01:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would not mind adding a link to Yellowikis if the company does not have a website on which they state their business information, but the if you get the chance ... add a link sounds like an invitation to spam Wikipedia. -
Ruud 02:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

That statement pre-dates the first AFD nomination (read the discussion that is linked to above), and that practice has long since ceased. Uncle G 03:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, low-traffic wiki, where shit like this goes rather unnoticed. --
~~Willy on wheels 04:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)~~ -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.158.85.83 (talk • contribs) [reply
]
He only blocked Willy for 208 days and 8 hours! --King of All the Franks 14:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe by then Willy will have reformed, or gotten a life, or whatever? I suggested infinite is a better expiry. Also I raised a question on the talk page of this AfD, and would appreciate thoughts of others... thanks! ++Lar: t/c 16:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. enochlau (talk) 06:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Kappa. Stifle 16:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable and having received transwikis, etc. Ral315 (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Thoroughly non notable. And as for notable 'having received transwikis' are we to 'gift' notability to every site we send deleted content to?! That just wouldn't be fair on the webmasters of the thousands of other non notable sites we routinely delete. --kingboyk 22:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain. The amount of energy that has gone into this (and previous) discussions could have been better spent improving Yellowikis to the point where it became notable. --Yellowikis Admin 01:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So why are you here abstaining instead of over there, actually improving it? User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If that's who I think it is, xe has just spent the past day doing exactly that. Uncle G 06:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable/advert. Incognito 05:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets notability threshold. -- Curps 06:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the first AFD discussion, I asked
WP:WEB, and rightly so because they are bad metrics. WP:WEB asks for non-trivial published coverage of the site by multiple sources independent of the subject, and the article links to several such published works. True, this web site is at the bottom of the notability scale. But it does satisfy the WP:WEB criteria. Keep. Uncle G 07:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep I'm a long time wikipedia user, been using wikipedia for the longest time, even though most of my edits are done without logging in. I don't understand the fuss about yellowikis, since wikipedia is full of other junk stubs of companies that probably needs clean up. Most are even under the wrong name. Furthermore, currently Yellowikis is not for profit, thus a place to advertise start up businesses should not really classify into this argument. Also, why aren't other articles like wikicompany etc. not being considered for deletion, seems like utmost bias to me on part of the users of wikipedia towards other wikis. --Stabani 20:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Having been listed twice and received no support, I'm going to delete it this time. -Splash^talk 00:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bxml

This is more or less an advertisment for Backbase. They have been creating articles of NN products that they offer, for example, an Ajax alternative (Ajax_(Declarative_Programming)) which looks like it'll soon be deleted as per this VfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ajax (Declarative Programming). Nn. Advert. Delete. --Quasipalm 13:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mostly non-notable, but also advertisement as per article talk page. Jason t c 14:53, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

More debate needed here. -Splash 20:53, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Avidemux

Non-notable software. --
Howcheng 16:25, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep I'm seeing 74,100 Google hits. Seems notable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:40, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

More debate needed here, and didn't keep the AfD tag for very long. -Splash 20:53, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Same findings as Andrew.
T/C 22:13, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, survived an Afd even when the tag was removed early.
Kappa 22:15, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as all of above. --Apyule 05:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep interest is present and growing --Saulgoode

Keep I see 189,000 google search results for it. This program has a large user base and is probably the second best known open source encoding software. --SadaraX 10:29, 12th September 2005 (UTG)

Keep ! --83.171.150.54 19:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC) :)[reply]

Keep Useful article on a popular program. I was surprised to see the possible deletion flag, it seems completely unwarranted

Keep Agree with above, well known and popular software, Howcheng is out to lunch.

Keep Will likely become a must have app for video work on Linux. (Much like VirtualDub etc on Windows).

Keep A GoogleGroups search shows it gets mentioned aprroximately once a day across many different groups. As more GUI oriented users migrate to Linux will will become a de-facto standard tool for video conversion. (Much like TMPGenc on the Microsoft platform).

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Comparing the timestamps you'll notice that User:Splash requested more debate when there was only one delete vote. The consensus is now unambiguous DELETE. — JIP | Talk 19:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Massacabre

Does not meet notability per
Howcheng 20:46, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, at least half of the albums in the discography section don't exist. No label. Punkmorten 21:28, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More debate needed here. -Splash 20:53, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete bandity. There's no AMG entry, and no other evidence of notability. — brighterorange (talk) 23:19, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Friday (talk) 17:56, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 19:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Street fair

Page is ridiculous, lists Seattle's popular street fairs.

delete contents is way too specific for the possibly encyclopedic topic "street fair". — brighterorange (talk) 21:35, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think its better for street fair to be a redlink than contain this hyper-specific information. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 22:56, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Delete — The information can be merged onto the
Seattle, Washington page where this is linked. The topic probably deserves a more general page. — RJH 14:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Woohookitty 12:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Swordfish (password)

Delete as a non-notable and vaguely associated culture reference.
Isotalo 21:01, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Article needs improvement, particular
citing sources. Frankly I wondered whether this material was verifiable. But a quick check shows it's true about its being in the Marx Brothers' Horse Feathers. That film is massively notable and I can well believe that film buffs would recognize references to it even if I wouldn't. The movie "Swordfish" was pretty popular, Terry Pratchett is pretty popular, on the whole I think this is encyclopedic and I wouldn't be surprised if it were expanded. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
Oh, spare me the notability-by-association argumentation. It's a blanket excuse for anything that obviously violates
Isotalo 16:24, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

keep I agree with dpbsmith. — brighterorange (talk)

Keep. Sufficiently notable. Jonathunder 00:19, 2005 September 12 (UTC)

Keep - I was looking for exactly this information, and here it is.
Above vote by by 66.209.88.130. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is the kind of eccentric topic that helps distinguish Wikipedia from typical encyclopedias. --Metropolitan90 00:21, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Keep: notable, interesting, and informative. --Smerdis of Tlön 19:54, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. WP does not need an article on every funny cue line! Nabla 23:21, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete -- Joolz 01:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tonal Differences among Popular Whistle Register Singers

There are no similar articles for other vocal registers; this is a highly specialized topic that few will want to read; there are no similar entries in an y other encyclopedia I can find, including Grove's Dict. of Music George 21:02, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Real term, actual use, interesting topic... but adequately dealt with at Whistle register#Register use in contemporary recordings. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:15, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced OR —Wahoofive (talk) 23:35, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All worthwhile information is duplicated in Whistle register. TheMadBaron 16:02, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, copied from the info in whistle register. I don't even know if the information should stay there, it seems like typical Mariah-fan-gushing. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:57, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was merge · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ballard Bruins

This is apparently about the sports teams of
Ballard High School (Louisville), which already has an article and can be expanded to include sports related content Rogerd
20:56, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Merge with
Kappa 22:12, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge (but if the main article comes up for VfD, I'd vote to delete it as nn)---CH (talk) 03:39, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the above mentioned article. High school sports teams are not notable enough to be mentioned as separate articles. Personally, I don't even think articles about high schools themselves are notable enough for an encyclopedia, with a few exceptions in the event the school had several notable alumni are particularly good programs (though much of that can be thought of as POV). The copyrighted images need to be removed ASAP in this article, too. Dr. Cash 01:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was MERGE to DuPont Manual Magnet High School. -Splash^talk 00:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Manual Crimsons

This is apparently about the sports teams of
DuPont Manual Magnet High School, which already has an article and can be expanded to include sports related content Rogerd
21:03, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Merge with
Kappa 22:12, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge with the above mentioned article. High school sports teams are not notable enough to be mentioned as separate articles. Personally, I don't even think articles about high schools themselves are notable enough for an encyclopedia, with a few exceptions in the event the school had several notable alumni are particularly good programs (though much of that can be thought of as POV). The copyrighted images need to be removed ASAP in this article, too. Dr. Cash 01:33, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is NOT about the high school, only its football team.

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Merge and Redirect to Louisville Male High School. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Male Bulldogs

This is apparently about the sports teams of Louisville Male High School, which already has an article and can be expanded to include sports related content Rogerd 21:04, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Merge with
Kappa 22:09, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge per Kappa. What an unfortunate name for team. Poor kids.
T/C 22:39, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge. Redundant.
Voice of All (talk)
06:44, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Merge with the above mentioned article. High school sports teams are not notable enough to be mentioned as separate articles. Personally, I don't even think articles about high schools themselves are notable enough for an encyclopedia, with a few exceptions in the event the school had several notable alumni are particularly good programs (though much of that can be thought of as POV). The copyrighted image needs to be removed ASAP in this article, too. Dr. Cash 01:32, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete -- Joolz 01:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A bridge connecting the future and the past

signed personal POV essay; unencyclopedic and unexpandable. MCB 22:14, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Binabik80 22:51, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete original research --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 22:51, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per Wikipedia is not a blog.---CH (talk) 00:41, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Blogs are not needed here.
Voice of All (talk)
06:47, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Original research, unencyclopedic. TheMadBaron 16:07, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Charming personal diatribe but not encyclopaedia material. Budgiekiller 18:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Markenson

Five Google hits, none of which show him as admiral. Denni ☯ 22:22, 2005 September 11 (UTC)

Comment. This Google result, translated with my horrid Portuguese appears to verify the claim to notability. Whether a Brazilian Navy admiral from WWII is notable or not is another matter entirely.
T/C 22:37, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete unless Fernando cares to expand the article. I tend to think admirals even of major navies are not neccessarily notable.---CH (talk) 01:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reserve probably deserves an article, but needs to be expanded and verified. --Apyule 05:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that it passes notability, and that if it stays it will (eventually) be expanded more. --Apyule 00:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've googled, translated and expanded the article as much as it's ever likely to be expanded, IMO. Now I think it should be deleted. TheMadBaron 17:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he was the only ever Jewish admiral in a Latin American navy. This is in itself is a claim to notoriety!

Keep He's notable enough for me. Paul August ☎ 18:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP--
(?) 01:46, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

AFL's Southern Division

Devoted to a single division of a minor league of indoor American football, which isn't widely followed to begin with and already has a network of articles devoted to it. What little hard information is in this article can already be found in the Arena Football League's other articles. Several months ago the subject of deletion was raised on the article's talkpage by another user; this produced a cursory attempt to improve the article, but it remains a pretty much unexpandable stub about a non-noteworthy subject. Binabik80 22:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Assuming this is a professional league, which I assume it is, and it has "12,400" paying attendees per game (according to league article), I think the league is notable. The division is a borderline case, but there seems to be an inkling of unique content about rivalaries specific to the division. I tend to follow the rule, that if sub-topics (e.g. teams) warrant an article the larger one does. --rob 00:34, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Professional sports leagues are notable.
FCYTravis 03:50, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment - Two people have now said or implied that I've called the Arena Football League non-notable, which of course I have not. Rather, the AFL's Southern Division is non-notable. There's nothing in this article, nor can I think of anything that could be in this article, that wouldn't fit better elsewhere, whether in the general AFL articles or in team-specific articles. Articles on teams are not sub-topics of the divisions, they are sub-topics of the league itself. The division is an artificial construct of the league to allow it to organise competition, and discussion of it belongs in articles on the league. Binabik80 22:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Arena Football League. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:38, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

I would vote to merge to Arena Football League if there were any new information of substance here. Mainly I agree with Binabik80's second posting. Barno 00:01, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, logical breakdown of league organization. Consider a rename to Southern Division (AFL) or the like for a more standardized name. Also, as far as "isn't widely followed" being part of the rationale, the AFL had a national broadcasting contract w/ NBC last I checked -- that's better than hockey can rate in the States. See also Southeastern Conference, AFC East, and National League Central for similar stuff. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 14:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Um, the Southeastern Conference is a complete collegiate league, not a division of anything and not professional. I would vote to merge the other two into parent-league articles if nominated. They're also part of major leagues, and the Arena Football League isn't acknowledged as such. Barno 18:04, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
While I acknowledge that the SEC isn't an apples-to-apples comparison, it's still reasonably similar. I'd say it's much closer to an NCAA division than a "complete league." Division vs Conference probably doesn't matter to you any more than it does to me as minor semantics. Anyway, I see these articles as filling a List of whatever-it-is champions (a well-established list) plus List of whatever-it-is members (another well-established list) plus other potentially encyclopedic information about whatever-it-is (and there's certainly a lot of these). Three articles for the price of one seems pretty good. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 23:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedily deleted - As I interpret the CSD A7, someone's simple statement that he is an "up and coming young songwriter" does *not* constitute an assertion of notability. Otherwise, the entire point of the CSD would be ridiculously easy to circumvent.
FCYTravis 02:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Andrew McAuliffe

Vanity page; non-notable; use of material that asserts its own copyright Cdyson37 22:54, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain. If the same person with the very same lack of notability had entered himself as "an up-and-coming young stockbroker"— this would have been speedily deleted. "Soon to be a millionaire" is any not more fatuous than "soon to be famous" --Wetman 22:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per nomination. -- Austrian 23:14, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comment I don't think this is a speedy because a. it asserts its notoriety and b. whenever I nominate something for a speedy that isn't obviously nonsense somebody changes it to a VfD anyway. Cdyson37 23:24, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete as copyrighted adspam ---CH (talk) 01:20, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 23:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Hedgehog knows

Okay, so a character in a now-cancelled television show said a line. That's great, but I don't think it's worth an article. -- Supermorff 23:02, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete or merge. The dude abides. — brighterorange (talk) 23:20, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ridiculous. TheMadBaron 16:09, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

not voting, but hey, the article title qualifies as "quote", so why not:

{{
Move to Wikiquote}}I mean: wikiquote:Sonic the Hedgehog exists (but appears not linked yet from the Sonic the Hedgehog article, for no discernable reason). Why not use that sister project's page and add this "quote" there too! (and link wikiquote from the article, you Sonic fans!) --Francis Schonken 10:40, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

I've now linked the main Sonic page to wikiquote, and I've added the line on that page. I still think this page needs to go. -- Supermorff 13:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete - Joolz 01:43, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Football 365 forum

nn forum vanity/ad. — brighterorange (talk) 23:14, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agreed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:59, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Forum ad. Joyous (talk) 02:44, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Not notable. TheMadBaron 16:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 23:37, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chain-helping

Neologism-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:48, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, looks like a new invention or discovery. Wikipedia doesn't take
Kappa 00:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as OR. --Apyule 06:05, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. OR.
Voice of All (talk)
06:46, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. OR, POV, and just plain silly. TheMadBaron 16:11, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

~~Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_September_11&oldid=1081093603"~~

Environmental causes of obesity

Leo Clijsters

List of English words of Telugu origin

Bryan johnson

Matt Vogel, Jennifer Barnhart, Eric Jacobson

Rottentomatoes Monday Photoshop Contest

&c. (weblog)

Bloodlust Software Universe and related articles

Highlander Drum Corps

Rasterbation

Burnside, New South Wales

SEPTA Route 7

Plenair

Jean Astrue

TigerDirect.com

Zip cube (second nomination)

Ballard Bruins

Manual Crimsons

Male Bulldogs

AFL's Southern Division

Zip cube
(second nomination)