Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 September 25

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

The result of the debate was DELETE as COPYVIO. -Splash^talk 02:08, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arambašići

This is a recipe an d does not belong in Wikipedia --

• It's a copyvio. —
  Cryptic (talk) 10:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

Votes for Undeletion

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

The result of the debate was Keep Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: As per

Pornocracy a disambig page. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

Neologism; no references that mention the term. Should be renamed or merged. +sj + 05:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong and Speedy Keep. References? There are over 11,000 Google hits (didn't bother to see how many were unique). This is an extremely well-known period in the history of the Roman Catholic papacy, widely discussed, appears in other WP articles about the papacy, etc. It may also have appeared as a modern neologism, but that is not what the article is about, which is the 10th century. I suggest the nominator read the article and the references. I can only assume this was nominated in error. --MCB 06:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I vote for the keepocracy This seems good enough [1] (In fact this looks like the primary source). --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 06:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the good reference. Moving to

  The Rule of the Harlots, as the term 'pornocracy' should be a disambig mentioning its more general meanings. +sj +

• Keep as per MCB. --JahJah 08:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The Rule of the Harlots, or The Pornocracy are names given to a period of the papacy in the early tenth century, doesn't indicate it to be a neologism. I'd actually prefer if it was moved back and the dab was moved to Pornocracy (disambiguation) and linked to the top of the page. Not only are the other links still red, but I imagine this is by far the mosst common use of the term. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is a real term. i saw it used in a wikipedia article on a pope earlier this year.--Alhutch 17:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the term certainly exists outside of Wikipedia and the net. I've seen it used in fairly reputable history books. --Neo 17:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Not a neologism. CalJW 18:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I see nothing wrong with this Janizary 23:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the
  _{tɔk tə mi} 07:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep as per... everyone. :) --Jacqui M Schedler 12:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep'. Not a neologism.--Pharos 03:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please pornocracies are real Yuckfoo 21:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable non-neologism. Klonimus 20:29, 30 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 on a

Votes for Undeletion

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

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rules of Make Believe

Article for a webcomic, which can be found here. Alexa ranks it at 2.5million+. Although the comic seems to be at a slight hiatus since July of this year, the page rank, if it is a notable comic should be higher than stated. A Google search shows up nothing that would distinguish this from any other random webcomic. Just because it's a 100 strip+ webcomic does not mean it is inherently notable. Are we going to start making articles for 100+ post bloggers now? -

• Delete per Alexa rank. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete per Alexa rank. JobE6 00:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Alexa. Shauri 01:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, appears to be Just Another Website. Friday (talk) 02:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable. Amren ^(talk) 04:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with regret. It's a somewhat decent article. I might have voted keep if the thing actually worked in Opera.
  T | @ | C 16:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Binary Research Institute

The mission of the Binary Research Institute is dissemination of the theory that the Sun has got a companion star. The outfit has a website, which is rather well done, but doesn't seem to have a presence in the physical world. (At least I couldn't find any). The theory that the Sun has a companion star does exist, but as the pages at the Institute never mention the existing research they are run-of-the-mill crackpots.

Please consider in this context Walter Cruttenden as the founder of the institute, whose page is also up for deletion. Pilatus 00:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Binary model of equinox precession, a POV fork of Precession Pilatus 16:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"run-of-the-mill crackpots" ... there's a nice NPOV for you. Further, the pages of the Institute are replete with information and links to the research. Don't let the agenda of militant skeptics fool you. comment left by anonymous user 65.11.192.128

We are not concerned with the veracity of the theory, merely with its importance. If it has ever been mentioned anywhere in the press (not the vanity press!) it would boost the case for keeping. Pilatus 00:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comment below for a link to a mention in mainstream. Oswax 11:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"The ground-breaking and richly illustrated new book, Lost Star of Myth and Time, marries modern astronomical theory with ancient star lore to make a compelling case for the profound influence on our planet of a companion star to the sun." is how the review starts. This is hardly a review, it reads like advertisement copy, and on the PBS website there is no trace of the Cruttenden-sponsored documentary "The Great Year" that is mentioned in the text. Pilatus 11:52, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The point is they didn't ignore the institute and the book they published. So why should we ignore them? Don't mistake me, I think the theory is bull, but you wanted a mention, and there's one, no matter how lousy. Oswax 13:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The same text (plus or minus a paragraph) can be found at physorg, where it has the attribution "Source:Binary Research institute". It looks as if the folks at the Institute sent out press releases to everyone and their dog, and some websites did put them up. Giving space to someone's advertising material is different from reviewing a theory. Pilatus 16:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Do we have an article on this binary star system theory, however basic (just saying: this psuedoscience theory is x y z)? If we do, I'll shift my vote on this and Walter Cruttenden. Oswax 16:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is a small paragraph in the Precession#Alternative views entry (section "Alternative views") where the "double star" theory is mentioned. Binary model of equinox precession is just a POV fork. Pilatus 17:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll shift my vote on both. Oswax 18:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This is AFD, if we were to be NPOV in AFD, we would all vote neutral wouldn't we, and everything would be kept, which would probably satisfy many of the inclusionists here. -
  Hahnchen 00:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete non-widespread pseudoscience, probably
  original research as it's extraordinarily unlikely to have received peer-reviewed publicaiton. -Splash^talk 01:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• We are not concerned with the veracity of the theory, merely with the verifiability and notability of the subject of the article, surely?
  Phlogiston's twaddle as well, and nobody's putting that on AfD.
  I vote Weak Keep, although I note even the only contributor asking to keep this can't be bothered to quote something that verifies the article, not the theory. The theory is not the concern of this AfD. This crackpot institute exists, as does the crackpot theory. And I will vote to delete any article that tries to promote a POV that the theory is true. Tonywalton  | Talk 01:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, not because it's crazy, but because it's non-notable crazy. -- Kjkolb 02:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it is currently only a stub. How can the article be developed if it is attacked and shot down as soon as the stub went up. It takes time to attract interested contributors. Modern scientific research into this topic is in it's infancy, even though it was known to the ancient Greeks and other ancient civilizations. Modern science isn't going to embrace it overnight. It is, however, gaining more and more recognition, and I think the topic is important enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. Comment left by anonymous user 65.9.1.159.
• Delete. Attempt to use Wikipedia to promote original research. Not a widely recognized theory either within or without the scientific mainstream. Within: Search of Proquest Research Library, an electronic index of two thousand scholarly journals: Searching for "binary research institute" did not find any documents. Apparently members of the institution have publishing nothing in these journals. Without: 315 Google hits on "Binary Research Institute," high-ranked hit on Wikipedia and its mirrors, most of them referring specifically to Cruttenden. No obvious evidence of widespread belief. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• As an inhabitant of an invisible non-existant
  Shazaam! - <*> 04:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC) This vote on the VfD of an Archeology-Astronomy-Astrology-Hinduism-History-Mythology-New Age-Star stub is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by voting delete![reply
  ]
• Delete, OR crackpottery. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Sasquatch, would appreciate it if you would please stop vandalizing my work. Thank you, 65.9.1.159 .
• Keep, if this organization exists and is likely to affect the beliefs of a fair amount of people. Anthony Appleyard 05:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Yes, it's crackpottery, but sadly, I have to acknowledge that it is apparently notable, non-OR crackpottery, in that IMDB confirms the documentary, the producers, and that James Earl Jones appeared in it, and assuming it was released as a film and/or shown on PBS, it had a sizeable mass audience. Sigh. --MCB 06:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Changed my vote due to lack of verification that the film was shown on PBS or anywhere else. --MCB 18:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Gee, that's funny, but there's not a trace of this documentary (nor of BRI or Walter Cruttenden) at pbs.org. And having the funds to pay James Earl Jones for a few hours of voiceover work -- if it took that long -- doesn't say a thing about notability. --Calton | Talk 08:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete some crackpottery is be notable, this isn't. Dunc|☺ 08:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It may be crazy, but it is a real theory and these guys seem to be important exponents. Mention on spacedaily.com here. Oswax 10:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Pilatus' has convinced me of it's worthlessness. Oswax 18:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain with comment. People are missing the note in the nom that the idea isn't quackery just the institute. See:
  Nemesis (star)—it's very much minority but it's not Flat Earth. If the folks at Sol Station see fit to mention a topic (See Sol b? at bottom [2]) then it's usually good enough for me. If the first anon proves the pages of the Institute are replete with information and links to the research (which I couldn't find) I'll vote keep. Marskell 14:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment - I voted delete above, because I was voting for the institution. Wikipedia is a place for
    Hahnchen 15:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete nonnotable, self-promotion. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and heavily npov it. this rises a bit above the garden-variety crank site. plus, it has received some attention at large. if they're regarded by reputable folks as quacks, make that clear in the article. but quackery does not imply non-notability. and, yes, this clearly looks like shameless self-promotion, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have a good npov'ed article on it. Derex 16:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete less than 100 unique googles? Must not have a very far reach...
  T | @ | C 16:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, as per above. Piecraft 16:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn organization promoting unverifiable, probably false science.
  Talk 17:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Crackpot or no, the group is notable enough to be featured in a documentary. 23skidoo 17:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On the website for the movie, Walter Cruttenden is listed as one of the sponsors. Vanity press, anyone? Pilatus 18:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness gracious, it was his idea to finally introduce this very ancient theory to the modern day public, the documentary is his work, he wrote it, he worked hard to produce it, he financed it, his institute is the one carrying out the research into it. If that seems like vanity press to you, I wonder how many serious, professional endeavours you've ever been involved with. IP 65.9.158.81

If he financed it himself, then it would seem exactly like vanity press to me. Publication through normal channels proves that the author of the work was able to convince others to put their money where the author's mouth is. A normal book or movie has survived a difficult external review (albeit one based on profitability rather than truth). It sets a reasonably high bar, one which a self-published work does not need to hurdle. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

'I do not know if he financed the entire thing himself, or what part of it he did. A more accurate description might be that it was financed through his institute I guess. I have no idea how much came from where. It is obvious that getting knowledge of this theory out into the public is an uphill battle (that might be an understatement), but the theory itself has the potential to alter the beliefs of many millions of people (the entire population of the planet) if it were to be proven true. Like I said before, research is in its infancy, and faces heavy attack from the scientific establishment. Witness what has happened here, within a few minutes of the stub appearing it was marked for deletion. That is the kind of uphill battle Mr. Cruttenden, the Institute, and the theory face. But the potential for it to affect the lives of every human being is there.' IP 65.9.158.81

And when it is proved true, we should have an article about it. More to the point, when it can be shown to have altered the beliefs of hundreds of thousands of people, we should have an article about it. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for the promulgation of worthy theories. It is a encyclopedia, a secondary reference, that reports facts that are already widely accepted. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Crackpottery indeed, but a very notable one at that. Owen× ☎ 18:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, those who are referring to this article or it's subject as crackpottery should re-think their statements, what is crackpottery one day is factual science another. Piecraft 22:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the words of Carl Sagan - "They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown". Sometimes a crackpot is just a crackpot.Average Earthman 22:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Some who have voted keep here and at the Cruttenden vote are basing their votes on the existance of the DVD narrated by James Earl Jones. It should be re-stated that no-one knows for sure if the thing has even aired on PBS, which throws into doubt it's notability, and thus the notability of both related articles. In all seriousness, these need to go. --
  Shazaam! - <*> 05:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • good point, i have removed PBS claim from article as it is unverified. Derex 06:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it actually aired, it should not be hard to verify this. Any supporters of the article care to step up to the plate? Dpbsmith (talk) 09:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Did it air on PBS or not? This is important to me, at least, in assessing whether we should have an article on it. If it did, it should be easy to provide verifiable evidence, and I hope some supporters will do so. For my part, I note that the Amazon listing makes no such claim (nor do any reader reviews). It is trivially easy to self-publish books and get them listed on Amazon; I don't know if this is true of DVDs. Search for "Cruttenden" at www.pbs.org yields six hits, none referring to this film. ("Abigail Cruttenden is a British television and film actress...") Search for "Great Year" at www.pbs.org yields 46 hits, non referring to the film. Search for "James Earl Jones" returns 40 hits, none referring to the film. DID IT AIR? IF SO, WHEN AND ON WHAT STATIONS? If someone will provide this information I think it could be verified quickly. I can't find anything at http://www.thegreatyear.com/ suggesting that it ever aired. If it aired on the PBS network I would change my vote. If it aired on a single PBS affiliate station, I would want to email them and find out more about the circumstances. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

23skidoo has verified that it aired January 28, 2004 on KOCE-TV in Huntington Beach [3]. That reference doesn't indicate whether it was distributed by the PBS network, or whether it was aired by one PBS affiliate (not the same thing). I've submitted an email query to KOCE's program department inquiring about the circumstances of its airing. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, those opposing these articles should have the ability to simply type: Walter Cruttenden in Google to come up with many sites relating to the man and his research along with the PBS broadcast. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out this is a factual and notable person who has already been discussed throughout: [The Great Year] Piecraft 10:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the discussion about the institute. The man, the theory and the movie have each their own discussion. As far as the "Binary Research Institute" goes, it has 300 Google hits, 97 of which are unique. A bunch of these are speaking engagements on the esoteric circuit, the rest are copies of the press release on the movie and Wikipedia entries. There is no indication that the institute or the theory ever hit the mainstream. A Google search for '"The Great Year" Cruttenden' returns 48 unique hits; again many of these are copies of the press release. The movie is self-produced; there is no inducation that Cruttenden managed to find an investor. No indication is given anywhere that it was shown on PBS or anywhere outside the esoteric circuit. Walter Cruttenden himself heads an investment firm with a staff of three. Cruttenden exists, sure, but he has done nothing but finance a movie and set up a website. Even fervent inclusionists usually draw the line at personal vanity and self-promotion. Pilatus 13:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It hardly seems like a vanity page and does not fall into what appears to be the category of the
      WP:NOT - you can find further relevance to this article by seeking out the official site of the [Binary Research Institute] and checking the link for Board of Advisors, the names placed are of notable people which can also be Googled, this is a relevant Institute which has been around since 2001. Even fervent deletionists can't come up with a good enough excuse for deletion, until you can prove to me this is purely for vanity purposes than I rest on the case that it is a relevant encyclopedic article that ascribes to an Institute founded by a notable individual as can be seen from the notable and reputable background and coverage on the Net. Piecraft 13:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • This discussion is about the institute. It was founded four years ago, and if it had made any impact it would by now clock up more than 100 hits on Google. Again, the discussion is not about the qualification of the members, it's about what the organization has achieved. If they haven't done anything except self-publish a movie and a book they ought to go. (I guess I'm applying a standard similar to
        WP:MUSIC.) Pilatus 14:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
        ]

If this discussion is about the article about the Binary Reasearch Institute, then I would suggest it be kept - i've read it's less than 10 lines several times, and found it not objectionable at all, nor it falls into any category of non NPOV - it's merely a stub about what IS this institute, nothing else. If the pseudoscientific theory they're trying to promote shouldn't be here according to wikipedia (original research) then well, that's another thing - the article about that theory should be deleted. The same about article on Walter Cruttenden himself and the film "The Great Year". Registered at least, hope this helps (BattleTroll)

• Delete. Non-notable crackpot institution. If it is kept I will say that the article shows remarkable restraint for a crackpottery-related topic and sticks to neutral and verifiable (or practically verifiable) statements. Quale 08:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep, this is obviously a bad faith nomination. The delitionist attitudes here are unbelieveably oppressive. The rabid, visceral comments reek of hidden (or not so hidden) agenda and ulterior motives. Why are they are trying so hard to silence and suppress. It's suspicious. Earthian 16:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC) User registered on September 27 and made contributions only to this and related AfDs. Special:Contributions/Earthian[reply]
  • Comment, thank you Pilatus for proving my point. I couldn't have done it better myself. The rabidness with which you are going about this, and the fact that now you are stalking me and adding "special comments" to my contributions here further proves that these three nominations were in BAD FAITH. You proved it better than I or anyone else could. Earthian 17:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If your edits are only to this and related VfDs Pilatus has every right to point that out. Roughly, 100 diverse edits prove an editor stopping by a VfD is "disinterested" rather than pushing their own cruft or creations. Marskell 18:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Conflict of Interest - Question: should the person who nominates articles for deletion also be making changes to those articles? In this case, Pilatus has nominated these three articles for deletion - Walter Cruttenden, Binary Research Institute, and The Great Year - and has made extensive changes to them. In most of his changes he leaves behind typos and grammatical errors, broken links, and straggling headers (i.e., after he's removed everything that was under a header), not only messing up other users' work but leaving the article in much poorer shape than it was before. He also deletes extensively, and removes categories and stubs aggressively. He goes in after anyone adds anything to an article and removes everything the other person contributed. He seems to be working to increase the chances for deletion of the articles. In light of this, it would be appropriate, in order to avoid this obvious conflict of interest, for the person who nominated the articles to refrain from modifying them until the decision has been made? Syug 21:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Most articles up for deletion are not judged upon the quality or quantity or their content, but rather the appropriateness or notability of the topic. Any edits that Pilatus may have made to the content of the article are irrelevant, for he cannot make a worthy topic unworthy by bad grammar or misspellings. Oswax 21:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • AfDs are closed by an admin who was not involved in the debate to prevent conflicts of interest. The offer still stands: instead of complaining feel free to add content to improve the article. Also note that there is broad consensus for my edits. Pilatus
  • WP:RFC on this. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• keep please this might not be good faith here Yuckfoo 21:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, for reasons expressed many times already. -R. fiend 14:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is exactly zero primary evidence for Cruttenden's notions about the Sun being part of a binary system. There is no excuse for inclusion of this trash in an encyclopaedia, except as an example of pseudoscience/bad science. Comment left by anonymous user 62.64.220.164 who has only participated in this and the three other related articles being nominated for deletion and left the same comment in each.Red herring! Surely it is the content of the comment, not who left it, or where else he left it, that is relevant? 62.64.237.112 15:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Original research, unlikely to have many non-POV contributors.--inks 08:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the institute has not yet had enough impact on the world to be encyclopedic. The Literate Engineer 22:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Proposal Though I know most would like to see these three artciles deleted, why not merge them altogether into one article describing the phenomenon, the man and the institute (including his film) - as for the title it could be placed under "Binary model of equinox precession" Piecraft 12:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

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

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

Votes for Undeletion

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

The result of the debate was Delete

Walter Cruttenden

Walter Cruttenden is an investment banker and has its entry here as the founder of the Binary Research Institute, which is also up for deletion. Please consider the two AfDs together. Pilatus 00:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Binary model of equinox precession, a POV fork of Precession Pilatus 16:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And what is wrong with being an investment banker? Or the founder of a research institute??? comment left by anonymous user 65.11.192.128

Since you asked, the fact that his theory and the institute devoted to it have attracted no attention from anyone are reasons that it shouldn't be listed here. Sources that the institure (and its founder) are somehow notable are good grounds for inclusion. Pilatus 00:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - speedy? I'm going to guess that the anon editor is our Walter, am I correct? He's an ex-investment banker and this is his attempt at creating a money spinning cult. Hey L Ron Hubbard managed it! -
  Hahnchen 00:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete doesnt seem notable. Anon IP isnt helping it very much either. JobE6 00:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, ditto on lack of notability. Shauri 01:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn, probable vanity spawned from the entry just above. -Splash^talk 01:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, vanity, only 577 google. -GregAsche (talk) 01:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Binary Research Institute and delete. No intrinsic notability. Tonywalton  | Talk 01:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the target you suggest is also on AfD. -Splash^talk 02:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Vanity. Amren ^(talk) 04:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it is currently only a stub. How can the article be developed if it is attacked and shot down as soon as the stub went up. It takes time to attract interested, knowledeable persons who can make valuable contributions. Modern scientific research into this topic is in it's infancy, even though it was known to the ancient Greeks and other ancient civilizations. Modern science isn't going to embrace it overnight. It is, however, gaining more and more recognition, and I think the topic is important enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. I posted this as IP 65.9.1.159 (haven't registered yet).

• As the previously aformentioned inhabitant of an invisible non-existant
  Shazaam! - <*> 04:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC) This vote on the VfD of an American-Business-Hindu-Writer-Mythology stub is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by voting delete![reply
  ]
• Comment: Now there's stub vandalism, someone must be bored... Sasquatcht|c 04:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete', whether the theory is kept or not, its creator has absolutely no notability. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Sasquatch, would appreciate it if you would please stop vandalizing my work. Thank you, 65.9.1.159 .
• Weak Keep. The subject may well be (and probably is) a pseudoscientific crackpot, but he is listed with the writing credit of the film
  The Great Year, apparently funded or whatever by the Binary whosis, and it';s listed in the IMDB, was narrated by James Earl Jones, and was asserted to have been shown on PBS (and I think I remember something like that). --MCB 06:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Delete. Changed my vote, as above, due to lack of verification that the film was shown on PBS or anywhere else. --MCB 18:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Self-promtional OR -- and there's no trace of this documentary at PBS's website. If Cruttenden had enough money to pay Jones for a little voiceover work, he probably had enough to pay for showing it on a few public TV stations that needed the money, so it proves nothing regarding notability. --Calton | Talk 08:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity. Dunc|☺ 08:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Quoted in this spacedaily.com article here. Definite delusional, but hey, we have an article on Napoleon. Oswax 10:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - See the VfD for Binary Research Institute. Non-notable. Oswax 18:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nonnotable, self-promotion. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The orginazation itself has less than 100 unique googles....
  T | @ | C 16:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge as per Tonywalton. Owen× ☎ 18:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the article needs time to grow, this is a notable person that requires further detail to information. Piecraft 00:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Some who have voted keep here and at the Institute vote are basing their votes on the existance of the DVD narrated by James Earl Jones. It should be re-stated that no-one knows for sure if the thing has even aired on PBS, which throws into doubt it's notability, and thus the notability of both related articles. In all seriousness, these need to go. --
  Shazaam! - <*> 05:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment, those opposing these articles should have the ability to simply type: Walter Cruttenden in Google to come up with many sites relating to the man and his research along with the PBS broadcast. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out this is a factual and notable person who has already been discussed throughout: [The Great Year] Piecraft 13:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yeah, and if you'd read
    T | @ | C 19:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Delete. If the crackpot theories were encyclopedic, Cruttenden should be mentioned on them. I think they're not encyclopedic, and Cruttenden himself does not appear to meet
  WP:BIO. Quale 08:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy Keep, this is obviously a bad faith nomination. These delitionist attitudes are unbelieveably oppressive! The rabid, visceral comments reek of hidden (or not so hidden) agenda and ulterior motives. Why are they are trying so hard to silence and suppress. It's suspicious. Earthian 16:01, 27 September 2005 (UTC) User registered on September 27 and made contributions only to this and related AfDs. Special:Contributions/Earthian[reply]
  • People are included in an encyclopedia because of a degree of importance, not because of personal vanity. Instead of crying "Oppression", why don't you list Walter Cruttenden's achievements? Pilatus 17:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no reason to list his achievements, they are readily availble on the net for all to see. They were included in the articles, with links, and you deleted them. The fact that you feel the need to stalk me and add the stupid disclaimer above to my contributions in the deletion pages only further proves my assertion that these three nominations you made are in BAD FAITH. Why are you so afraid of Walter Cruttenden, his Binary Research Institute, and the film they produced that you must work so hard to censor them? You vandalized the articles, removing other people's contributions, you hang here 24 hours a day making sure your supress any information that appears. I am no longer suspicious, after reviewing your history here, I am certain that you have hidden agendas and ulterior motives. Furthermore, if one were to apply the unbelieveably strict standards you are setting up for these three articles to all the articles on Wikipedia, half the articles would be deleted immediately, and on further consideration, few of the other half would survive. They'd be lucky if 10% of the articles survived. I repeat, this is BAD FAITH. Earthian 17:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Conflict of Interest - Question: should the person who nominates articles for deletion also be making changes to those articles? In this case, Pilatus has nominated these three articles for deletion - Walter Cruttenden, Binary Research Institute, and The Great Year - and has made extensive changes to them. In most of his changes he leaves behind typos and grammatical errors, broken links, and straggling headers (i.e., after he's removed everything that was under a header), not only messing up other users' work but leaving the article in much poorer shape than it was before. He also deletes extensively, and removes categories and stubs aggressively. He goes in after anyone adds anything to an article and removes everything the other person contributed. He seems to be working to increase the chances for deletion of the articles. In light of this, it would be appropriate, in order to avoid this obvious conflict of interest, for the person who nominated the articles to refrain from modifying them until the decision has been made? Syug 21:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Most articles up for deletion are not judged upon the quality or quantity or their content, but rather the appropriateness or notability of the topic. Any edits that Pilatus may have made to the content of the article are irrelevant, for he cannot make a worthy topic unworthy by bad grammar or misspellings. Oswax 21:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is exactly zero primary evidence for Cruttenden's notions about the Sun being part of a binary system. There is no excuse for inclusion of this trash in an encyclopaedia, except as an example of pseudoscience/bad science. Comment left by anonymous user 62.64.220.164 who has only participated in this and the three other related articles being nominated for deletion and left the same comment in each.Red herring! Surely it is the content of the comment, not who left it, or where else he left it, that is relevant? 62.64.237.112 15:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Proposal Though I know most would like to see these three artciles deleted, why not merge them altogether into one article describing the phenomenon, the man and the institute (including his film) - as for the title it could be placed under "Binary model of equinox precession" Piecraft 12:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and No to the proposal all of them likely to get deleted --JAranda | yeah 21:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

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

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

Votes for Undeletion

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

The result of the debate was Keep Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ky-Mani Marley

Tagged as a speedy for not asserting notability, as it stands I'm inclined to agree with that. Not sure if it's a speedy though. --fvw* 00:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. So is he a singer or what? According to article, only claim of notability is being the son of Bob. Owen× ☎ 00:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to Keep following Flowerparty's re-write. Owen× ☎ 01:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. He has an AMG page and two albums, so meets WP:MUSIC. Flowerparty■ 00:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep
  All Music Guide page certainly shows that hes notable. JobE6 00:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment: rewritten. Flowerparty■ 01:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep barely. Notability is not acquired from being nearby other notables. But if we're going to cite not meeting
  WP:MUSIC as a deletion criterion, then I suppose we must cite it as a keep criteriod when it is met, which it does seem to be. -Splash^talk 01:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Rewrite works for me, change my vote to keep. --fvw* 01:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Guettarda 01:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Shauri 02:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the references given in the article suggest to me he's worth an entry. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep looks decent flower :).
  T | @ | C 16:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Notable. Cnwb 23:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep FlowerParty's rewrite as per
  WP:music and well done to him. Capitalistroadster 07:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• keep please we all agree now so can we take it off here Yuckfoo 21:39, 29 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 on a

Votes for Undeletion

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

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Station V3

Total webcomic vanity, see the webcomic here and its ghost town forums here. A webcomic reaches its audience purely by the internet, so a current ongoing webcomic, if popular, should have a decent Alexa rank, ie one which is better than 5 million. (note that it's web rank will probably breach the sub 5million mark if people visit it from this AFD) This one however, doesn't. -

• Delete nn webcomic among hundreds of millions. Also has only 230 non-repetitive Google hits. -Splash^talk 01:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. Shauri 02:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Hahnchen. I'm glad someone's checking these out. -- Kjkolb 02:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Besides pennyarcade and ctlaltdel, every webcomic is not notable enough for an encyclopedia. Amren ^(talk) 04:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Alexa rank, google hits and their forums all suggest it's not as popular as it claims to be. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Generally, webcomics on Keenspace are non-notable, in 99% of cases. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 11:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN --Rogerd 03:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As the author of the comic, I figure I should at least make a few comments here. I didn't write the article, and haven't made any claims about the comic's popularity apart from the fact that it has on occasion made the top 40 on some of the voting lists (buzzComix, TopWebcomics, Webcomics List). I was surprised when the article appeared, since it didn't meet the original notability guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics. It did meet the alternate proposal guidelines (and the alternate alternate ones, with well over 500 comics), though. But I'm not the one interpreting the guidelines, and I can't exactly claim that Station V3 has a great rank on Alexa or an especially active forum! I'll leave this up to you guys - the article's been copied over to Comixpedia's wiki and expanded there anyway. - Axonite 02:01, 29 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 on a

Votes for Undeletion

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

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:18, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Bottle District

Ad. --fvw* 00:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Owen× ☎ 00:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I thought this was up for speedy. Shauri 01:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete This should have been speedy. Olorin28 01:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ads aren't speediable, regrettably. -Splash^talk 01:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete,
  WP:ISNOT a crytal ball which almost every word of this article is. It can be remade once someone can actually say something definitive about it. Or it can be rewritten to include what may already be verifiably known, but only if that information is not likely to be stable. (I don't think this is an ad though: it's just too bad!) -Splash^talk 01:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete I disagree with Splash It is an ad and it is bad. Avalon 04:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you misunderstand Splash. He also thinks it is an ad, and he hates ads as much as you do. He is lamenting the fact that ads are not eligible under

  WP:CSD for speedy deletion, which is why we have to waste time here on AfD to get rid of them. Owen× ☎ 15:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Delete advertising for place that doesn't exist yet. Feel free to rewrite if something definitive and non ad-like can be said about it. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:05, 25 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 on a

Votes for Undeletion

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

The result of the debate was Delete, content is already at Wikibooks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Goodbye Russia With Love

A recipe for a cocktail.

• Change to Abstain; we already have hundreds of other cocktail recipes. Owen× ☎ 00:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Wikibooks Cookbook, and delete. Recipes are not encyclopedic — they are how-to's. If the article were to discuss the concept of a Goodbye Russia with Love cocktail, or its impact on society, or on cocktailing, or perhaps if it had some interesting history or some media attention for some reason beyond being alcoholic, then it would have some encyclopedic mileage. It does not cover any of these things. That we have other, equally inappropriate, articles should not be an excuse for hanging onto this one. -Splash^talk 01:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Bartending wikibook had Wikibooks:Bartending:Goodbye Russia With Love even before you wrote that. ☺ Uncle G 01:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for already existing on Wikibooks. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• We do have some cocktails on wikipedia, but the articles should have more than the recipe listed. For good examples of cocktail articles that fit well into wikipeida, see
  Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster. This is nothing more than a recipe, and wikipedia is not a cookbook. Plus it's already in wikibooks. Delete. --Jacqui M Schedler 12:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The result of the debate was Redirect to Janice Dickinson for now. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No Lifeguard on Duty

No useful information. Looks like a 3rd grade article. .::Imdaking::. ^{Bow | DOWN} 00:21, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Owen× ☎ 00:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or BJAODN per nom. JobE6 00:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  Janice Dickenson. Redirects are cheap. Pilatus 01:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect as per Pilatus. Shauri 01:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No useful info Olorin28 01:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Janice Dickinson (note spelling differs from previous entry, which is a redirect). If and when an article is written about the book, this article can be filled out and the redirect moved. ♠ DanMS 01:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per DanMS, unless somebody can rewrite it with a lot more information. If redirected or deleted, then unlink all of the book titles at Janice Dickinson to discourage creating articles on the other books. --Idont Havaname 02:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nominator. Amren ^(talk) 04:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Pilatus. Not only are redirects cheap, but they can also keep things off of AfD. WCFrancis 16:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  Talk 17:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to Janice Dickinson unless someone is willing to rewrite. Andromeda321 23:21, 25 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 on a

Votes for Undeletion

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

The result of the debate was Redirect to

• Delete. same as above --.::Imdaking::. ^{Bow | DOWN} 00:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  The Simpsons DVDs. Kertrats | Talk 00:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect as per Kertrats. Shauri 00:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect would be useful. Flowerparty■ 01:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Amren ^(talk) 04:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect likely search term. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Kertrats
  T | @ | C 16:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect Saberwyn 03:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect (as Kaizersoze said).  Thorpe ^talk 22:42, 26 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 on a

Votes for Undeletion

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

The result of the debate was Keep Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-ana

I have been contributing to this article for a little under a year in hopes of making it something worth keeping on Wikipedia, but recently I've realized that it is not only unencyclopedic, but completely unverifiable. All of it is hearsay. Not an appropriate topic for Wikipedia. ♥

• Keep - It is heresy, but I'm pretty sure it exists. It was probably on
  Hahnchen 00:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • It exists, but is it verifiable? Are there statistics on pro-ana? Sources? Articles? No. ♥
    purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^(contribs) 01:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep: I applaud the nom for investing time into what I find a reprehensible topic, but it appears legit and encyclopedic. I'd have no objection to the above section suggestion, though. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 01:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Pro-ana and Pro-mia have become important topics lately, and we must have an article on the phenomenon. As for verifiability, I've stumbled myself upon that sort of webpages, and with medical articles that deal with the subject also. The way I see it, we should work on improving the article, not on deleting it. I also commend the nominator for his courage, but this is simply not the way to deal with the problem. Shauri 01:14, 25
  • Keep. I agree with Shauri. Wikipedia is especially important as a source on controversial subjects, even though it's especially hard to keep things factual/descriptive. Galaxiaad 03:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I have to disagree with Angel on this one, although I often tend to agree with her. This seems to be a legitimate and growing phenomenon. Keep up the good work, Angel! ♠ DanMS 01:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aw, shucks. ;) ♥
    purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^(contribs) 02:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep, verifiable [4] - I first heard about this stuff in the linked WaPo article last year. The WaPo article is a solid link. Guettarda 01:52, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable phenomenon. Amren ^(talk) 04:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't like the phenomenon one bit, but it's certainly real, verifiable and notable. It's also been around for some time now; Here's a 2001 article on the topic from The Observer (UK). Loganberry (Talk) 23:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A few years back, LiveJournal was swamped with these sites and, I believe, started a pretty active campaign to remove them. Possibly more useful in shortened form as a merge with existing Anorexia nervosa page? Jessamyn 21:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WebMD has an article on this. There have been countless self-help and talk-shows about this topic. It has been featured in books and magazines. It is a real thing in the real world and we need an article on it. Qaz 00:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a local news paper did an article on pro ana/mia recently, and true it may be getting smaller its still going and was at one point quite large. dragonriseing 10:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Shauri. Maybe this should get a peer review or similar. --Apyule 05:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm voting for a keep on the article and a round of applause for the nominator, who evinces such a conviction in the tenets of scholarly writing that she's willing to put something she worked on for a year on the chopping block if might be unverifiable.—encephalon 11:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep notable internet subculture. Klonimus 20:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Census is no longer valid, sure. But that's because it's been a while. Look for new stats. However, pro-ana sites ARE growing, and there are many campaigns to stop them, news articles on them, etc. They're important. We NEED a page on them.

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

undeletion request

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

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

Votes for Undeletion

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 20:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Sound of Animals Fighting

Non-notable side project of a member of the band

• Delete as per Kertrats. -- Kjkolb 02:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As nomination. Hear that? It's the sound of articles dying. Oswax 11:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, side projects are even more notable than albums.
  Kappa 15:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• This is The Sound of Editors Deleting. Side projects are even less notable than albums. Often indifferentiable from Guy Who Had a Fight With His Real Band Goofing Around With His Buddies. Notability of the specific "project"'s actual work, demonstrated through major media or a zillion non-fansite Google hits or something, would be needed to get my "keep" vote; and the work is barely being recorded, let alone released. The only external link, to an AbsolutePunk.net "article", is actually just to a chat board where some fan claims a person will be their new lead singer. No indication of passing
  WP:MUSIC enough to overcome "not a crystal ball". Barno 05:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The result of the debate was A Narrow No Consensus. Redwolf24 (talk) 22:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cat Town

Does a website with an alexa ranking of 1.2mil notable enough for a wikipedia article? Probably not. What about a subpage of that said domain at CAT TOWN. A set of captioned photos, each one featuring a cat. Apparently, it's some sort of

• Delete nn webcomic vanity. To be notable among 8 billion websites, you've really got to go some. -Splash^talk 01:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Hahnchen. -- Kjkolb 02:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Shauri 03:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable site. Amren ^(talk) 04:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Miaow. Not notable. Delete. Leave it at the animal refuge. Anthony Appleyard 05:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Refer to the August 2004 VfD for arguments which remain valid. --Jake 16:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Up for deletion before and voted a keeper. -- Gunther 16:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's only vanity if the article is written by the creator - so, the vanity rule does not apply. Nor do opinions about whether it is funny or not count. Keeping this article doesn't harm wikipedia. --Fangz 16:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There are many
    Hahnchen 23:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete. I count 23 strips (not enough for
  Talk 18:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, nn comic. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable comic as far as I can see. Piecraft 00:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete First of all, it looks like someone's first attempt at a animation series AND a website, somethin that does not automatically qualify for an article. Second, the series is in no way noteworthy, so I see no reason to keep it. -bjelleklang 01:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep' please this is not vanity it is notable Yuckfoo 21:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete good this hadn't closed yet ;) -- (☺drini♫|☎) 22:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

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

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. Either a user test or an A1. -Splash^talk 01:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cruzes

An entirely perplexing entry on the plural for the Spanish word for Cross followed by some entirely unrelated website. Delete (if not speedy). --

• Speedy Delete - nonsense. -
  Hahnchen 00:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy nonsense although slightly hilarious nonsense ♥
  purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^(contribs) 01:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The result of the debate was MERGE to Consumerium. -Splash^talk 21:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ConsuML

ConsuML is not notable and never was and will likely never be since the design paradigm of

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —
  Cryptic (talk) 08:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge to Consumerium. Not notable as a separate article but notable as an aspect of Consumerium history. — Phil Welch 23:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting in search of more discussion. -Splash^talk 01:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Consumerium as per Phil Dlyons493 03:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to
  Talk 18:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1987 TV series). I'll add a link to the dab page, too. -Splash^talk 21:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Carter (Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles)

This article states the name of a character from an old tv show, but provides no other data. It doesn't even say whether "Carter" is a first name, last name, nickname, etc. I don't think it adds anything to Wikipedia. -- Supermorff 19:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1987 TV series) where the character is mentioned in more detail. — Phil Welch 20:49, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting in search of more discussion. -Splash^talk 01:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as originally suggested by Philwelch. Shauri 01:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with no redirect, no one's going to search for that. -- Kjkolb 02:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as per Kjkolb. If anyone knew enough to search on Carter (Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles) rather than Carter then they'd have gone to Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles in the first place Dlyons493 03:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete outright, per Dlyons493. --Calton | Talk 08:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as suggested and link it on the Carter disambiguation page, where people looking for the character are likely to start their search. It's bracketed disambiguation info is needed to distinguish it from other Carters. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per Mgm|^(talk) That seems best solution. Dlyons493 15:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirects are cheap. Making a redirect helps discourage recreation, and directs the original author to the correct place, if he or she needs some encouragement. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 11:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect — easy and cheap.
  Talk 18:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. The nominator appears to retract in their later comment (perhaps an accident, but important nontheless) — since some cleaning has been done their later comment certainly leans in the direction of a keeper. Given the work that was done and the wavering of the nominator, and the lack of an outright consensus to delete, I'm not persuaded that there is a rough consensus on what should be done, so I shall do nothing. -Splash^talk 21:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The College of Wooster Greeks

No way to verify, as far as I know, and any attempts to get original poster to edit the page have met with silence. --Jacqui M Schedler 03:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC) (Sorry, signing things is generally considered good Wikiquette)[reply]

• Merge anything useful (i.e. not the whole thing) to
  The College of Wooster. --Metropolitan90 07:40, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisting in search of more discussion. -Splash^talk 01:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Don't see that there's antyhing worth keeping (neither does its author apparently). Dlyons493 03:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. College cruft. TheMadBaron 05:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (no vote). Some attempt at verification has been made, though the listings could sure use some author names. I personally would like having an article on this topic once it were properly cleaned up, but as I am indeed a College of Wooster student, I believe my opinion to be biased. --Jacqui M Schedler 00:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I cited my sources (and recited once I had time to return to the College of Wooster special collections to find the Independant Study and Book authors names), and worked to clean up any hint of an agenda (I had none in creating the page except to create an easy-refrence guide to the greeks for students and others; as I belong to none of these groups, I have no benefit from setting any agenda in regards to them. The problem probably stemmed from writing too late at night...). This was only my second major edit to a Wiki page, so excuse the mess if the page started out poorly; I feel my changes have improved it significantly.--CastAStone 21:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• At the very least, if you don't keep, userfy, as I researched exhastively.CastAStone 18:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

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

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

Votes for Undeletion

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Content is already on Wiktionary. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dumbass

Another perfectly good dictdef that I cannot imagine could ever be anything more. Jkelly 01:21, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to insult or something and add as an example there. gren グレン 01:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, useless dictdef. Shauri 01:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nonsense, it can also be redirected --.::Imdaking::. ^{Bow | DOWN} 01:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ASAP. Not an encyclopedic entry. Probably someone's idea of a joke, to make a page of this. ♠ DanMS 01:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Amren ^(talk) 04:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Creator using IP 24.161.115.114, home of one or more vandals. There have been ten deletions of Dumbass articles in the past. Spock: "Double Delete on you". WCFrancis 05:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nonsensical dic def. Would support a redirect to insult or a list of insults or something similar to avoid recreation. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Soft redirect to dumbass on Wiktionary. --
  ^talk
  15:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup and Transwiki to Wiktionary, offensive but unfortunately very common slang.
• Delete, unencyclopedic. Smerdis of Tlön 22:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and protect from recreation. -- Kjkolb 01:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not encyclopedic. doesn't belong on wikipedia.--Alhutch 02:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this dumbass misdefinition, no transwiki (it's already there). Barno 05:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• BJAODN Dudtz 9/29/05 6:51 PM EST
• Delete Arker 19:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Robert Fisk otherwise delete. Klonimus 20:35, 30 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 on a

Votes for Undeletion

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

The result of the debate was keep. Hermione1980 00:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MPI Home Video

Delete. No content other than advertisement. ♠ DanMS 01:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Although I have just excised the worst of this blatant adspam (contact details etc), IMDb does suggest they have distributed (but not made) many films [5]. This rather inflates their Google count, I expect, since they will be in the small print all over the place. Whether doing something that is not notable of itself (distribution) and collecting lots of small-print mentions adds up to corporate notability, I am unsure, but doubtful. -Splash^talk 01:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Major distributor of home video since the 1980s. They were the first to release The Prisoner to home video, for example. Needs more content, but this isn't an advertisement. To my knowledge, being a distributor doesn't disqualify a company from being notable. 23skidoo 05:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per 23skidoo. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. Major home video distributor.
  Talk 18:21, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• keep this too please they are pretty important Yuckfoo 21:40, 29 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 on a

Votes for Undeletion

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

نتائج مسابقة الفنون النسوية

Very short article in Arabic which has been on

• Should it be transwikied instead? Alba 14:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I looked at the article and a lot of the words in it look exactly the same as the ones in the title. Specifically, the last three words of the article. In that case it could be speedied as "a rephrasing of the title" or just "patent nonsense." ♥
  purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^(contribs) 16:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Machine translation of the title (from Systran): "Results contestant of the arts the feminism"; of the body: "Results contestant of the arts the feminism number 1930 Manal Mohammed [e'bwd]". Seems to be rephrasing of title with a small amount of stuff added.
  Talk 18:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Pretty, but ultimately useless. --Apostrophe 03:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, its two weeks at
  _{tɔk tə mi} 07:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. It is not suitable for WP. -- Eagle^amn 07:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nonsense..::Imdaking::. ^{Bow | DOWN} 23:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete-Hardly any info and not appropriate for the English Version of Wikipedia.

Dudtz 9/29/05 5:06 PM EST

• Delete - It's already been given vastly more time than something this short deserves. --rob 00:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

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

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

Votes for Undeletion

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 06:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Alasky

Marked for speedy deletion as being a hoax. No vote. --fvw* 01:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete / Speedy. No mention of this guy anywhere outside WP, which is puzzling considering he is claimed to be an Oscar winner, no less. Probably wishful thinking on someone's part. Owen× ☎ 01:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain, umm... if there is no evidence for him really being the creator of Mr. Game & Watch then delete... but, if he did then definite keep. Someone with Nintendo games want to look at the credits? gren グレン 02:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. How could a successful video game developer not show up on google at all?
  Chick Bowen 03:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete apparent hoax. Dlyons493 03:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete hoax. If he did develop the character it should be mentioned in the article on the character. And since game character developers don't win Oscars (and usually show up in Google searches, I'm quite confident in saying this is a hoax. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We can't even confirm the exsistence of the supposed cartoon Mr. Game & Watch exsisted in. I also don't belive anyone "created" him; he's a fairly generic character, sort of resembling a plump stick figure with a large nose. -- gakon⁵ (talk)
• Delete unverifiable/nn video game developer.
  Talk 23:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The result of the debate was KEEP and clean up. — JIP | Talk 09:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Gordon Teather

Claim to notability is that he saved two fishermen. Displaying heroism is non-notable for Canadians. On a less flip note, a similar article in French about someone who saved some people from a fire I just tagged as nn-bio speedy, as it had been tagged as a "speedy transwiki" to the French wikipedia. Jkelly 01:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Changing vote to Keep, as per unsigned User:Maclean25 below. Jkelly 02:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Eric Meunier. Someone is copying everything from the Governor General's honours index. Jkelly 01:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Clean-up. Though the article does not mention it, please note Robert Gordon Teather won the Cross of Valour, and the Commissioner's Commendation for Bravery (RCMP's highest award). He has written several books on the RCMP (Scarlet Tunic: Vol. 1 & 2 and Mountie Makers: Putting the Canadian in RCMP, Encyclopedia of Underwater Investigations, Scarlet Tunic Inside Our Cars Inside Our).
  • --maclean25 03:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC) (sorry, forgot to sign).[reply]
• Keep but needs expansion and clean-up. Dlyons493 03:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, cleanup and expand — notable person who received notable award.
  Talk 23:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The result of the debate was DELETE. Well, the numbers are towards three-quarters at 11d-5k. This is the kind of debate that could be swayed by work during, though. That does not appear to have happened as the deleters continued to stack up throughout. Also, Piecraft's comment though numerically I put it as a keep, sounds more like a categorify, without any particular desire to retain the article. -Splash^talk 21:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous hypochondriacs

Unsourced, useless, possibly libelous. Delete. Neutrality^talk 01:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unless rewritten with sources and facts, the 2 ingredients of wikipedia. -
  Hahnchen 01:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, and add sources. Owen× ☎ 02:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this information should go into the articles on the people listed, if it can be verified. -- Kjkolb 02:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but add sources and some introductory information. Unsourced != deletable, because then we could delete all stubs and would have to really raise the requirement for a newly-created article. --Idont Havaname 02:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • How long can an article remain in an unverified state, once serious questions are raised? I've rather assumed that once seriously challenged, any item of information is deletable if not sourced fairly promptly. Surely verifiability does not mean that any assertion can remain in Wikipedia indefinitely until it is proved false. In fact that page, which is official policy, says in so many words: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit." Dpbsmith (talk) 03:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've moved the unsourced entries—that is to say, all of them—to the article's Talk page and replaced the opening sentence to one similar to the opening of
  List of people believed to have been affected by bipolar disorder, namely "This is a list of people accompanied by verifiable source citations associating them with hypochondria." This means the number of valid items presently on the list is zero. I've also added Oscar Levant to the list on the talk page, as I'm about 99% certain he has discussed this in his own autobiographies, and our article on him asserts that he was a "notorious hypochondriac." I sort of think sources can be found for Samuel Johnson and Hans Christian Andersen. I think it is sloppy and irresponsible to put up an unsourced list like this and expect others to do the work of digging for verification. Find sources first, add names after sources have been found. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I've started adding sources to some of the more well-known cases. Any help would be appreciated. Owen× ☎ 03:21, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as completely idiosyncratic non-topic. Much better done by putting the information in the bios of the individuals involved and creating a category for hypochondrics. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A subjective term anachronistically applied to people from an era with a complete different understanding of disease, before germ theory. . . impossible to write verifiably.
  Chick Bowen 03:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Exactly, Chick. Diagnosing historical figures and/or people who have never been diagnosed by a doctor (not a historian, fan or gossip columnist) is sketchy at best. -- Kjkolb 04:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete possibly create a category. Dlyons493 03:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and make a category if this list can be verified. 23skidoo 05:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have an extreme dislike for these types of lists... for one thing, "famous" is POV. Another is the self-diagnosis thing which is both annoying and libellus.
  T | @ | C 17:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Better as a category, if at all.
  Talk 21:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep as a category, useful and informative list for future reference. Piecraft 15:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep. If able to be verified. Roodog2k (talk) 17:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep this if they can be verified it should not be erased Yuckfoo 21:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete could only ever be a category at best. Cursive 02:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• This information belongs in one of only two places on Wikipedia: in the article
  Hypochondria or nowhere at all. Since there doesn't seem to be any interest in merging it (or else somebody'd have suggested that already), I call for it to be Deleted. The Literate Engineer 04:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 06:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vendmax

Ad. --

• Delete, ad. Shauri 02:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Ad. Dlyons493 03:25, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Ad. *drew 03:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Ad Amren ^(talk) 03:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC
• Delete Amen Avalon 04:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, no vote. I don't know how notable this company is but it appears to be a legitimate vending machine company. See their website. If kept, the article needs to be completely rewritten so that it does not read like an advertisement. ♠ DanMS 05:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't an article about Vendmax the Canadian vending machine company. It's an article about Vendmax, a software product of the U.S. Streamware corporation. (
    WP:CORP has notability guidelines for both companies and products.) Uncle G 14:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Uncle G is correct. My apologies, Uncle G. I should have read the article more carefully. Changing my vote to Delete. I wonder if the software company is impinging on the trademark of the vending machine company. ♠ DanMS 16:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• This article about the vending machine company is not a simple parroting of the company's "about us" page or its press releases, and thus means that the Canadian company satisfies the first
  WP:CORP notability criterion. However, I have yet to find any independently written published works about the computer software. All articles turn out to be simple regurgitations of Crane Streamware's own press releases. A wide circulation of press releases and submitted business directory listings by the vendor of the software itself is not grounds for an encyclopaedia article. Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages nor a product catalogue. There has to be evidence that people know about the software product, and the litmus test for that is whether other people have published things (manuals, reviews, courses, guides, commentaries, and so forth) dealing with it. No-one has, apparently. Unless completely rewritten to be about the notable company rather than the non-notable software product, delete. Uncle G 14:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete ad
  T | @ | C 17:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 06:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ras El-Khaimah cave monster

This article discusses a minor internet hoax that seems to have long since died out. Most of the Google hits are to Wikipedia mirrors. Delete.

• Delete as per nom. TheMadBaron 05:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not-notable today, positively obscure tomorrow. Oswax 11:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Oswax. Maybe the content could be merged someplace else or put a on talk page before deletion if it warrants it
  T | @ | C 17:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Delete per Oswax.--Alhutch 17:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. CambridgeBayWeather 16:14, 27 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 on a

Votes for Undeletion

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Lyons

Colin Lyons is supposedly a playwright, writer, director and actor, but I was unable to find evidence of this through Google or IMDB. I especially like this sentence, "In his early twenties he has become a bit of an alcoholic but great things are expected from him." -- Kjkolb 02:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. For a writer, assertion of notability has to include having written something (i.e., something in particular), surely.
  Chick Bowen 03:21, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete probable hoax. Dlyons493 03:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• He has become a bit of an alcoholic... hmmm... if he's Shane MacGowan's left testicle, or something, I suppose we should keep him. Otherwise, delete. TheMadBaron 05:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Vizjim 15:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. he's nobody. not encyclopedic.--Alhutch 17:18, 25 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 on a

Votes for Undeletion

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

The result of the debate was keep. Hermione1980 01:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zohar Manna

This page surivied vfd back in April but only got 4 votes 2 Del and 2 Keep and this page havent expanded since. Looks like a nn professor. Delete --Aranda56 02:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, he seems pretty well established... maybe an ego but definitely on par with many other articles we have here. gren グレン 02:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd say Keep and expand if possible. Google search gives 63,400 hits [6]. I can't say they all correspond to him, but at least the first 10 pages of results do in full. Shauri 02:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. He is the author of a textbook from a major press and reprinted by another major press, which has been established by consensus as sufficient notability for academics in other cases. I've added book info.
  Chick Bowen 03:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep adeqautely notable Dlyons493 03:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep His work seems to have been translated into several other languages, seems notable. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 06:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and EXPAND lots of googles, medium-notable author.
  T | @ | C 17:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep I also agree that this one needs to be expanded. --Keyfinder
• Keep and allow for organic growth. Klonimus 21:28, 30 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 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 06:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

God's Fury

Article about software which doesn't exist yet. Delete. Owen× ☎ 02:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete crystal ball. Dlyons493 03:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with above. Amren ^(talk) 03:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, ditto. Shauri 03:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• The Lizard Peo-- oh, wait, nevermind. Delete. --
  Shazaam! - <*>
  04:01, 25 September 2005
• Delete. TheMadBaron 05:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete *sigh* more non-notable crystal-ball-esque vanity
  T | @ | C 17:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Article about software which doesn't exist yet. covers a lot of Microsoft's products. I'm not saying that this product is any better than Windows 2008, or even Microsoft Word 13, but.... -- Arthur Rubin 01:34, 29 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 on a

Votes for Undeletion

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus... Redwolf24 (talk) 22:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Vestibule

Non-notable forum. --fvw* 02:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom. Joyous (talk) 02:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Have given it a rewrite and moved it to IGN. Not necessary. FF CID 02:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That has been reverted and the page has been protected (not by me, though). -- Kjkolb 04:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per fvw. -- Kjkolb 06:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect with IGN --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 06:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect with
  T | @ | C 17:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The result of the debate was Keep. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 06:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight Macabre

• Del. Nonnotable 2005 webcomic. Only 149 unique google hits. mikka (t) 03:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Alexa rank is 138,988 (above the minimum suggested on
  Something Positive (as per "new webcomics authored by creators of an existing webcomic that meets the above criteria"). Ziggurat 04:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep or Merge - As noted above, this webcomic is notable in that it's a spin-off of
  Something Positive. This article was created as a way of introduction to that webcomic. Should a keep not be reached, I strongly suggest merging the article with the Something Positive article. Diego001 13:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Meets the criteria as per Ziggurat above. Keep. Vizjim 15:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep number of unique googles is decent too for a webcomic.
  T | @ | C 17:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Meets webcomic notability requirements as described above. -Abe Dashiell 18:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As per previous.
  Talk 21:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ResMap

This article is an ad right now, and it doesn't seem very notable. -- Kjkolb 03:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Copyvio from [[7]] Dlyons493 03:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Or it was put up by a member of the ResMap firm. Anthony Appleyard 06:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• It's a copyvio no matter who put it there. Delete, speedy if possible.
  Chick Bowen 16:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Yes, let's Delete the ad please.
  T | @ | C 17:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The result of the debate was Keep. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 06:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rusty Foster

This survived a Wild and Confusing VFD back in March

• Keep. Unless I am missing something, this guy verifiably created Scoop, and is the founder of Kuro5hin. The article could use some attention, but that's not enough reason to delete. Jkelly 04:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. You were right to re-list it given the whole
  Chick Bowen 05:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. The article leaves much to be desired, but Rusty Foster is notable.. the claim that the subject of the article is a "nn blogger" seems rather silly. --Mysidia (talk) 09:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and ask for clean-up. Vizjim 15:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Chick Bowen.--Alhutch 19:52, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable enough for me chowells 04:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable as creator of Scoop engine and founder of Kuro5hin, more notable than most software programmers or website founders. It could use some expansion, but I would bet it's been vandalized in the past. Barno 05:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable blogger, founder of Kuro5hin. Jessamyn 21:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete article has never been very informative, has been the target of vandalism (and you can bet it will continue to be), and I agree with those who say I'm not noteworthy enough to warrant a page in the first place. The most informative a page about me is ever likely to be is "Created Scoop." Can't that just be said on the Scoop (software) page like it already is? Kuro5hin 01:25, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's true that you're CTO of
    Chick Bowen 22:58, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• keep and please stop renominating things over and over and over Yuckfoo 21:42, 29 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 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 06:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fang Technologies

Spam. NN. Jwissick^(t)(c) 03:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Copyvio from[8] (although they presumably created this advert themselves). Dlyons493 03:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete commercial spamming crap chowells 04:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Advert. TheMadBaron 06:05, 26 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 on a

Votes for Undeletion

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Once again, sockpuppet votes have been ignored. — JIP | Talk 09:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shinra Online

Non-notable message-board, Delete Amren ^(talk) 03:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Alexa rank of 607,931; so Delete Ziggurat 04:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Article contains some POV, and is, as Amren put it, a non-notable message-board. Nihiltres 04:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Other articles are more questionable than this one, like the donkey-punch article. At the same time, there are various important articles that seem to be missing due to a contrast of opinions in history. Also this is a article based on fact not POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.34.221 (talk • contribs)
• Delete. No evidence of notability. Gamaliel 07:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Shinra Online has been one of the longest consistently running communities on the Internet, which is astounding given it has no real content other than the forum itself to keep people coming back. SO was once said to be the forum equivalent of a cult film; this can be seen in its hardcore member base, as it is ranked #6 out of ~1,400 on Big-Boards.com (a site dedicated to statkeeping for forums possessing over 500,000 posts, a milestone in all itself) for average posts per user. Keep It. Gerk 07:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable. *drew 07:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Shinra Online admins have created their own vb coding such as the Store exclusively into existance for the website which many other forums have tried to emulate. Shinra features forums like the War Room which was one of the premier flaming websites on the net. It has had over 12,000 members register in the five years since it was created. Certainly notable. Keep It. Chibi Hikaru
• Delete Not notable, poor Alexa rank. Sockpuppet supported. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Innovative site with large member base and wide spread notability among other forums. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.211.74 (talk • contribs)
• Keep. One of the first forums to use a form of currency (gil) that could be used to buy items from the store. This feature was widely sought after for years.--Picard102 14:25, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A crap site seeking only to advertise and find new members from people looking up Final Fantasy topics.

• Delete This is a commercial site that promotes acts that would be illegal in most countries with the exception of Aruba, Let them spend their own money advertising, rather than use Wikipedia to anonymously communicate. 15:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC) User:209.178.165.58

*Delete, for the sentence "We offer many free pictures of underage girls and boys that will get your whilstle blowing" if nothing else. Vizjim 15:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC) Didn't spot that this was vandalism. Still deserves a delete, though. Vizjim 22:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It Don't let the white man get us down! Black Power! 81.159.235.251 17:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It This is not advertising, but a archive of the site's history. Also, "Sockpuppet Supported" and "Crap site only based on Final Fantasy" are poor and unsupported claims for deletion. Keep the childish excuses to yourself please. Also, why would we communicate through wikipedia if we already have a forum?
• Keep It If you look at the history, some anonymous member decided to edit our article to the point of non-recognition. Someone with the ip 71.114.80.103
• Side Note: All comments ranging from "A crap site seeking..." to "Delete for the sentence..." were made based on vandalized versions of the page created by the IP Address 71.114.80.103 (the first comment mentioned having been created by said IP Address, no less), and I move they should be stricken from the record. Gerk 18:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Ziggurat. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable Internet bulletin board.
  Talk 23:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

1. It was one our members who approached us asking to create this wiki article to record some of the sites rich history. You can read that for yourself here: http://shinraonline.com/board/showthread.php?t=139474

2. Why are you using Alexa Rank? Everyone knows that its not a true estimate or accurate guage of a sites popularity since only a select portion of surfers use thier software. If you would like some better statistics, try our google rank of 4 (not bad) or our stats over at www.big-boards.com where we are ranked 581 in posts made just last week, this is great considering slashdot, dslreports, offtopic and howardsterns forum rank at the top of these lists. We are also ranked very close to the top in other catagories.

3. "No evidence of notability" - our site and our reputation are duly noted at a dozen other internet sites.

We are also the creators of the "forum points and store system", a system which was copied onto every major bulletin board package available, including phpbb, and has had well over 5 thousands unique installations across various incarnations. Please see http://www.vbulletin.org/forum/showthread.php?t=35267 for some of the demand prior to its first release in which even a vbulletin developer said they may code something akin to it.

4. We are not a commerical site, at this time all expenses are paid out of pocket with the occassional member initiated donation. We have no advertisements, no adsense, nothing. We make not one dime, it's a labor of love.

Now that that has been said, I personally think the article itself could use some work as I feel it would be more appropriate to chronical the actual history of the site rather than list the forums we have which change continuously but like all articles, this was something a member initiated and not something I or any of the staff had been actively engaged in until this moment.

• Delete more annoying sock-puppet-supported vanity of a non-notable web board
  T | @ | C 23:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete poor quality, vanity, non notable chowells

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

undeletion request

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

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

Votes for Undeletion

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

The result of the debate was DELETE, kyl määki Turuus. — JIP | Talk 12:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unikankare

Non-notable webzine: it has an Alexa rank of 3,290,532, and 152 backlinks. There's a link to it on Turku, and that's quite sufficient. Ziggurat 04:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete low alexa rank and no other claims to notability --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 06:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not-notable, and unlikely to be expandable. Oswax 11:14, 25 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 on a

Votes for Undeletion

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 12:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Webscope.tv

Non-notable website, spam.--Shanel 04:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, this is an ad. Jkelly 04:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Ad WCFrancis 05:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Linkspam ♠ DanMS 06:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Ad *drew 07:20, 25 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 on a

Votes for Undeletion

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

The result of the debate was speedy redirected. — JIP | Talk 12:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unschool

obvious reason.. Yonir 04:25, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete and warn the user against adding things like this. --
  Shazaam! - <*>
  04:34, 25 September 2005
• Speedy Delete Isn't there a specific criteria to speedy stuff like this? WCFrancis 05:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy ♠ DanMS 06:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Malformed redirect to a user describing himself. Sling it down the
  dev/null. Anthony Appleyard 06:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - Should
  Unschool redirect to Unschooling? Natgoo 19:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Support a redirect to Unschooling per Natgoo. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the new redirect. Good common sense. --Jacquelyn Marie 03:49, 27 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 on a

Votes for Undeletion

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 12:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Albions Crusaders

nn gaming guild, first person. Created by User:AlbionsCrusaders. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. nn.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 05:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. User:Colin Kimbrell 20:19, 27 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 on a

Votes for Undeletion

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 12:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A T M

nn musician. "No exact release date has been set for ATM's Album but Dynasty has mentioned you can expect it very soon.". User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, doesn't meet
  WP:MUSIC.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 05:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Vanity. “Rumors”. ♠ DanMS 06:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above --Mysidia (talk) 08:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above
  T | @ | C 19:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete vanity. worthless.--Alhutch 19:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  Talk 23:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Vanity. Cnwb 00:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per
  _{tɔk tə mi} 07:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, even the redirect. No one's going to search for that. --Jacquelyn Marie 03:49, 27 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 on a

Votes for Undeletion

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 12:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

T.E.R.R.O.R. (band)

nn vanity bandcruft. Delete with fire.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 05:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete.
  WP:MUSIC. Gamaliel 05:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep~ Representative of a new style of music and a style of music found in Schenectady New York — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martren (talk • contribs)
  • Sorry, Martren, but unless they pass the
    WP:MUSIC test, they don't get articles on Wikipedia. User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Martren was also the author or at least major contributor to the article (see history). ♠ DanMS 06:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The band has not even released an album yet, and the album they are working on will be “self-produced” according to this page. ♠ DanMS 06:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. *drew 07:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as complete garbage. That unrelated image, too. --
  Shazaam! - <*> 07:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete looks like a vanity article.
  PRueda29 10:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Very rude comments towards the author in his inbox from deleters. When this band becomes big, and it is perminantly deleted, wikipedias database will be incomplete. When they reach the top 100 billboards or reach a level of superstardom, there will be gnashing of teeth.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.194.111.145 (talk • contribs) User is a contributor to the article and possible transparent edit by Martren, who ha also modified the disambig page Terror, adding a link to this one.

• When that bright and beautiful moment arrives, we'll be sure to congratulate you sincerely, and I'll be the first one to request for the article to be re-created. Until then, unfortunately, we should delete it. Shauri 16:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• What are you talking about? Neither User:24.194.111.145 nor User:Martren even has, nor has ever had, anything in their Talk pages. Where are their "inboxes" that you are complaining about? User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, sorry, but minor bands are not included on Wikipedia.
  Talk 23:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete doesn't even come close to
  T | @ | C 23:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment: Come on, I'm sure if pressed he'd rob a lot of hearths.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 18:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. NN band vanity. Cnwb 00:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, doesn't meet
  WP:MUSIC. It just looks like a little vanity mixed with some excessiveperiodcruft, per F.E.A.R. and S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl. --Idont Havaname 05:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 12:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Select Start

nn band, no artistdirect or allmusic entries. User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No assertion of notability, no public performances, no albums produced. ♠ DanMS 06:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. nn band.
  Talk 23:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete unless notability can be established. Cnwb 00:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There may not be, but I've seen them perform twice and they do a mean Zelda. -Hawk

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

undeletion request

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

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

Votes for Undeletion

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 12:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An introduction to Valiant

I suggest not merging this with Valiant Comics. It is pure POV and wildly overstates the company's historical importance. Delete. Gamaliel 05:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There's a perfectly good (in fact, better) article over at Valiant Comics. No harm in leaving a "redirect", though. Vizjim 15:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't think anyone would search for this.
  Talk 23:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 12:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of rights

My main reason is to nominate an invalid speedy candidate. I however vote weak delete in the sense I have really no idea in what context this article is about, whether it is redundant or not, and not sure if it's complete nonsense and will readily change my vote if someone else can justify this article's existence.

• Delete - A very short article with no context -- it's also just plain nonsense --Mysidia (talk) 08:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no context. Dlyons493 12:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom Jwissick^(t)(c) 16:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - article claims that protection of rights is restriction of rights of one group for the sake of another (I think). Google does not support that as the primary meaning of the term, which is used to mean pretty much what it sounds like in virtually every context.
  Chick Bowen 17:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Neologistic use of term, personal essay, original research. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:05, 25 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 DELETED. A7, almost A1.-Splash^talk 02:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anastacia donde

NN. Not found on google or amazon. Jwissick^(t)(c) 06:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not to be found anywhere. Oswax 11:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Obvious A7 candidate
  T | @ | C 23:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The bradley

Complete and utter neologism Malo 06:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --
  TM ^(talk) 06:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Nonsense. ♠ DanMS 07:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nonsense, and Wikipedia is not a howto book. --Mysidia (talk) 08:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The sooner the better. Jwissick^(t)(c) 16:55, 25 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 on a

Votes for Undeletion

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit Blvd.

Non-notable website, or at least fails to provide a purpose for its existence on how it adds to the project of documenting the total sum of human knowledge. For one, it seems to detract from human knowledge by representing subjective opinion as fact, while not adding anything significant. This is different from the addition of a

• Delete. NN. *drew 07:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. non-notable website, forumcruft --Mysidia (talk) 08:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete CalJW 08:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteMONGO 11:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom Jwissick^(t)(c) 16:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, bullshit article. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 10:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, The site is about two weeks old as of this vote. More than a whiff of self-promotion.Bjones

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

undeletion request

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

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

Votes for Undeletion

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

The result of the debate was Delete

James Arthur Ray

Vanity page apparently created by its subject. There are a lot of millionaires out there, most of whom aren't notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article. —Brent Dax 07:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Advertisement, unencyclopedaic. Dlyons493 07:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy --
  Shazaam! - <*> 07:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Vanity. *drew 12:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I am related to two millionaires and neither are notable.
  Talk 23:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 14:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Harry W. Pedler Company

• Non notable. I did a google search and all I found were sites pointing back to Wikipedia. Also reads like a copyvio. Woohookitty 07:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I was being generous by asking for the article to be wikified. Top Google hit on this is this page, no real notability. Budgiekiller 09:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. NN. *drew 12:16, 25 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 on a

Votes for Undeletion

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. The only keep vote is by User:J87, who is a sock puppet (only contribution ever is to this AfD). — JIP | Talk 14:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Kennedy (writer)

Non-notable, vanity type article CambridgeBayWeather 08:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable guy. His website looks like a blog to me. *drew 12:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom Jwissick^(t)(c) 16:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Well respected writer and satire developer, may need editing though. J87 05:56, 26 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 on a

Votes for Undeletion

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 14:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CHANGES IN THE EARTHS DAY DUE TO MOONS ROTATION

This article is very odd Swollib 09:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, highly POV, highly crackpot. Not speedy, though; I can see a glimmer of hope for cleaning it up, NPOV-ing it, and moving or merging it somewhere, if anyone feels up to it. --Ashenai 09:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, original research. Pilatus 11:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Patent nonsense. *drew 12:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless cleaned up during vfd. Dlyons493 12:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete:
  • The only salvageable content here would be the fact that the moon's gravitational influence affects the Earth's day over geologic timescales, already covered under Moon and Earth articles. Studies that the author suggests, such as examination of tree rings, etc. to ascertain day and year lengths, have already been done and/or are less reliable than other methods.
  • Original research.
  • POV, especially concerning Biblical descriptions of astronomical timescales.
  • Redirects are unneeded, as this title is not likely to be used. Alba 14:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - TIME IS CUBIC INFINITE. SAY NO TO YOUR WORD GODS. -
  Hahnchen 15:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. There are some grains of truth in this article, but they are covered elsewhere. By the way, the author of this article is also the article of the article “PROJECT TIC TOC”, which is on the AFD list below. ♠ DanMS 17:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Or at least redirect to a page that talks about this sanely. Dsmouse 02:42, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and no chance for redirect. Is someone really going to type this phrase in the search box? In all caps, no less? --Jacquelyn Marie 03:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete There is no "salvageable" content in this article that isn't available elsewhere on Wiki - in a place it might actually be searched for.--CastAStone 17:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

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

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

Votes for Undeletion

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 14:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PROJECT TOC TIC

Non-notable, incomprehensible crackpot theory --Ashenai 10:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. *drew 12:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Although the wine aged with radio waves bit may be true - think I've drunk a few of those in my time. Dlyons493 12:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Incomprehensible flummery. By the way, the author of this article is also the author of the article on the AFD list above, “CHANGES IN THE EARTHS DAY DUE TO MOONS ROTATION” ♠ DanMS 17:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I've seen alphabet soup with more coherency. Delete Oswax 17:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nonsense. Articles like this reaffirm the thought that the criteria for speedy should be expanded. Shauri 17:43, 25 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 on a

Votes for Undeletion

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 14:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

19th Street Subway Station

Was speedied once as nonsense - that version was all in caps and the designer was Harold Jackson. Is it nonsense or just 'very badly written in need of cleanup'? -- RHaworth 09:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. *drew 12:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.Still nonsense.Logophile 15:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It’s beyond hope of cleanup. ♠ DanMS 17:25, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nonsense — claims that it was built to replace the 66th Street subway station. They are quite far away from each other.
  Talk 23:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• There is certainly no 19th Street station in New York. zOMG 76th Street is real delete. --SPUI (talk) 22:54, 27 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 on a

Votes for Undeletion

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 14:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Levitica

Fiction, hoax. Can find no reference on Google. -- RHaworth 10:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, leave a redirect to
  t c 11:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as per Proto. *drew 12:21, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hoax. TheMadBaron 12:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete apparent hoax. Don't see much point in a redirect - it's an unlikley mistake for anyone wanting
  Leviticus. Dlyons493 12:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Jarrod Herscu

• Nonexistant person, nonsense--MONGO 10:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete for utter stupidity--
  SoothingR 10:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Vanity. Maybe it can be listed on
  BJAODN. --*drew 12:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Nonsense. TheMadBaron 12:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• WTF! speedy deleting --
  (?) 23:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Evidently not a delete, but much uncertainty over whether to merge or keep outright, especially as several people give both options without a conditioning (note to such editors: it's hard to know what you really want.) -Splash^talk 21:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Banana (person)

dicdef. I propose transwiki to wiktionary 202.156.2.75 11:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree. This is a mere discussion of the meaning, origins and usage of this particular slang phrase. It has already been transwiki'd to Wiktionary. See wikt:banana. Note, however, that transwiki is a pagemove from one Wikimedia project to another, not a deletion from the project altogether. As such, transwikis do not have to be discussed first on AFD. This particular pagemove has been contested and is being discussed on the article's Talk page. I would ask that the interested parties make their comments on the article's Talk page instead of duplicating the conversation here. Rossami (talk) 14:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, ethnic stereotype.
  Kappa 15:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge all articles (incl. this,
  ^talk
  15:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
• Just changed my vote to Merge. If Banana (person) proves itself that it can grow beyond the dicdef status after being merged, then it will have the right to become a separate article. --202.156.2.75 16:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  Chigger and Coonass. Jobe6 16:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep as per
  ^talk. Piecraft 17:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, I personally like the suggestion of
  BD2412. If a project to merge all ethnic stereotypes get through, I'd like to partcicipate in it. Shauri 17:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep this has been VFDd so many times before. ♥
  purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^(contribs) 18:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge all of these per BD2412 - SimonP 18:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, per BD2412.
  Talk 23:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep or merge, common, offensive slang.
  Talk 23:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. There's more content here than a dictionary definition. I also disagree with the "merge" proposals from various folks. Wikipedia is not paper and we can leverage hyperlinks. I personally do not like long articles as they are much harder to edit than short, focussed articles. Samw 03:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect as per
  BD2412. Saberwyn 04:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep or Merge per
  BD2412's suggestion. Nae'blis 15:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment - Many are voting to to "merge". Would you vote to "merge" for "nigger"? Why or why not? It would seem to me this article and "nigger" are in exactly the same category and decisions made here should apply equally there. Samw 00:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nigger (unfortunately) seems to have much greater use and history than this particular slur. (No vote.) - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 00:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, that's a false analogy. "Nigger" is a word with a long history associated with social and historical ideas. In fact, it's the title of two books and a play, and has 1.7 million google hits. "Banana" is a word of far less significance and of recent invention. Neutrality^talk 00:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah so I finally got people to admit the issue is notability and not the fact that this article is an alleged "dictdef" per the original nomination since it's only about the word and not about the subject. So how do we go about establishing "notability" criteria? For those in the ethnic group, "banana" is far more notable than "nigger". No doubt "nigger" has more google hits but where do we draw the line? The whole beauty of Wikipedia is that it can cover the "long tail". Restricting articles to "notable" subjects actually hurts Wikipedia in the long run. So long as the article is factual, it should be kept. Samw 01:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • The argument is still that this cannot expand past a dictdef. There's much that can be said about nigger, but not much that can be said beyond a defition and context for Banana (person). This is, however, an argument to merge this into a list or transwiki it to Wiktionary, though, neither of which keep this term from being covered. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 01:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Banana Boys" illustrates usage of the word. "Banana Boys" has 12,000 Google hits. It's not only a book but a play[9] that has been reviewed by major Canadian newspapers, is supported by government arts funding agencies and has toured in the Canadian national and provincial captial cities. I believe that establishes notability for "Banana Boys". If we agree "Banana Boys" is notable and worthy of a Wikipedia entry on it's own, then I would argue the root word "Banana" is also notable. BTW, I learned about "Banana Boys" from this article. Samw 23:47, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect per
  BD2412. Neutrality^talk 00:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep There's valuable information here beyond a dicdef. If someone actually merges it gracefully rather than just voting for it to happen, there'll be no objection from me. However, hyperlinks preclude the need to merge. Unfocused 02:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep  -- 
  Talk 10:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - There's also an on-going discussion at Talk:Banana (person) Samw 00:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep anons are not allowed to delete anyway `Yuckfoo 21:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]