Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 September 7

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

The result of the debate was keep. --

Kalomira Sarantis

Not notable as musician as per

• keep If she won the contest, and it's anything like American Idol (even if Greece-only), then I'd say that makes her notable. It is hard to find info in English, though. — brighterorange (talk) 00:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Appears to meet it under, "Has won a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno or Mercury Music Award". Falphin 00:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Looks mildly notable, at least in Greece. Flowerparty 00:36, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I NPOV'd the heck out of this thing; it should be an acceptable stub now.
  T/C 01:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Fernando Rizo's rewrite. Winning the contest makes her notable enough especially if the album or one of the singles from it charted in Greece. Capitalistroadster 01:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Brighterorange. Nandesuka 03:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - In addition to winning the show, her CD went gold [1][2]. --rob 07:44, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable as per
  WP:MUSIC. —RaD Man (talk) 07:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, seems to be a notable musician. — JIP | Talk 09:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep you wouldn't believe how big a deal Fame Story is in the Greek-speaking world. Imagine a show that combined the ratings power of Survivor, Big Brother and Pop Idol, and you're still nowhere close. This woman is and will continue to be a megastar. Vizjim 11:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's difficult to find
  WP:MUSIC info on non-english performers, sometimes it's worth putting a 'pre-afd' request for info on the Talk page. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, appears to meet the criteria of
  WP:MUSIC as a notable and award-winning musician within her country. Hall Monitor 18:13, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The result of the debate was Delete, with or without copyvio concerns. android79 15:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Allee

Looks like a vanity page, written by John Allee himself. See also http://churchofsatan.org/gallery.html . "Critical acclaim" for a US movie that is not in IMDB? (But if somebody can find facts , such as the size of Allee's community, that would be different. Austrian 00:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete -- Obviously a vanity page, however if someone took the time to clean it up a bit and add some more factual info I'd be willing to change my vote.--Isotope23 00:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Copyvio in fact. (Although since its author was user:Johnallee, who knows.) Flowerparty 00:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Even if it's the author copying his own material over, it's a copyvio without confirmed permission, if the original material was not released by GFDL or public domain. Copyright adheres without any statement of copyright, and copyrighted material can only be here if it is first declared free. Geogre 01:57, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as copyvio. Capitalistroadster 01:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete It is possible that this guy is notable outside of Satanic circles (references to him to appear on a lot of free homepages). Needs more factual info. 68.20.28.234 02:05, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN Marcus22 10:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. Dottore So 19:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable. CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:12, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Copyvio, therefore delete. However, were the copyvio not an issue, I would have said weak keep, because wikipedia is not paper and it has some merits. --Jacqui M Schedler 16:12, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.  Grue  13:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Zimmer

A non-notable figure, and does not make the google test nor any of the others. Falphin 00:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As far as I can tell he only seems to have written one essay published online. He doesn't seem to be a 'published author' offline or have actually done anything else of note. Jezze 01:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: He has a website. Wow. No other notability. The article's claim for notability is that he's a Scientologist. Geogre 01:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence of notability. Flowerparty 07:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn Marcus22 10:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Scientology alone does not notability make --NielsenGW 11:20, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity, does not meet
  WP:BIO inclusion criteria. Hall Monitor 18:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete nn. Dottore So 19:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

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

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

The result of the debate was deleted.  Grue  13:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Girardin

Delete NN - Only Google on the title of the book he supposedly authored is this article and its mirrors. No other evidence of notablity found by me in a brief Google on his name. Caerwine 00:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Is this the same Andrew Girardin as the one in the dubious Suburban Vegetable? Flowerparty 01:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as a substub, or delete for lack of any claim of notability. Writing a book is not very unusual. Getting a book published is better, but still not notable. Getting a book published and read or widely discussed -- that's notable. Geogre 02:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: non-notable, per Caerwine. mholland 09:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn Marcus22 10:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. Dottore So 19:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, also amazon gave nothing. feydey 21:32, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.  Grue  13:29, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wicked pissah

Regional slang term, not encyclopedic Kjkolb 01:03, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete.
  T/C 01:35, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: Slang dictdef and, honestly, one that comes more from Saturday Night Live than from Boston usage. Geogre 02:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Clumsily typed-out dictdef. Flowerparty 07:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete all chowdahcruft Roodog2k (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete --Mecanismo 17:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Encyclopedia not dictionary. Psy guy ^(talk) 01:33, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per
  Fernando Rizo. --MCB 18:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - ridiculous. Dottore So 19:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Wicked retahdid. -Sean Curtin 06:57, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
• If this article is not Deleted, it should be merged with Pissah and expanded. What other encyclopedia would have an article on this subject? Fg2 01:21, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

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

undeletion request

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

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

The result of the debate was: Article kept. →Raul654 18:48, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Sam Sloan

• Non-notable person... arguing a case before the Supreme Court and making thousands of posts to a Chess newsgroup does not make one notable. I'm not voting as I nominated this for deletion. --Isotope23 01:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This guy is extremely weird, but read the article: totally notable just as a function of all the crazy things he's done. Sdedeo 01:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep and Cleanup. Sloan has had a colorful/weird life, but so have a lot of people. It seems to me the guy's done one thing maybe warranting inclusion in Wikipedia: arguing and winning a case, pro se, before the Supreme Court. That is indeed quite a feat. If the article were pared down to this one noteworthy fact and a paragraph or two of biographical information, I think it would be appropriate. But all this stuff about Sloan's perfect SAT score, his sex life, his custody battles, other litigation, prison sentence, Usenet, blog, etc. is way too much IMO. Krakatoa 01:28, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I originally had the above down as "Weak Delete," but that wasn't quite right. Seeing Andrew Lenahan's vote below for "Weak Keep and Cleanup," I have changed my vote to that, which is a more accurate expression of my views. Krakatoa 15:32, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Looks to meet the bar as an author, amongst other things. Paring it down sounds sensible. Flowerparty 01:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A non-lawyer who successfully argued a case before the US Supreme Court and is a published author to boot? Smells like notability to me.
  T/C 01:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak Delete: It's marginal, but the question that it fails, to me, is whether this is a proper biography rather than incident. Is this person, as a person, notable? Is a biography necessary/useful? It's close, but I'd say not. Instead, it seems to me that he is curious and that the article itself is actually about the eccentricities rather than the man. Geogre 02:05, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak extreme keep. Tastes like chicken to me. —RaD Man (talk) 02:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. Notable enough for me. Isotope23: why nominate something if you don't feel strongly enough to vote to delete it? — brighterorange (talk) 02:18, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I generally don't vote on things I nom for deletion, unless it is obviously an advert or cruft. my opinion is Strong Delete, but as the one who nom'd it, my vote is biased. --Isotope23 13:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Concur with Fernado Rizo.
  Talk 02:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Somewhere down the line, some day, someone will ask the question that nominations such as this beg: does it actually do any harm to an encyclopaedia of the size and scope of Wikipedia to include well-written articles on people of marginal interest or is that actually what makes this project worthwhile? If the idea was simply to create a rather inaccurate and poorly written version of Britannica, would half of us be here? Is it simply a vanity project for geeks and nerds who don't get out enough? I can't believe that. I believe we're here to create something grand, not just a collection of "useful" biographies or articles about what we personally feel is "notable" or "important". It's rather saddening that that view is not widely enough held that nominations such as this aren't just laughed out of the place. Grace Note 03:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's sad to me that there are still people trying to dissuade VfD nominees, that there are still people whose standard is merely that it is in coherent English. A beautiful essay on your MUD avatar is not encyclopedic. If you believe that we are here to please ourselves, then your vision of what a reference work is is fringe. I think we're here to be of use to researchers, to serve. The hypothetical someday when the hypothetical someone comes along who doesn't seek this person in the context of his SC argument but solely by this particular variant of his name is not sufficient to vote "keep." Euphony is a false god, and Wikipedia is not Everything2: it is not a project for self-expression. Geogre 10:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Normally I would agree with you, but you didn't answer the question at all: What harm is there in having a well-written article on a subject of a borderline interest level? --Ryan Delaney ^talk 19:43, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • My answer about harm is that, of course, harm isn't really the criterion. However, if pressed I can demonstrate it. The article establishes that this person is known by 2-3 names. His major activities are 1) a court case, 2) pounding at a keyboard. So, how is this information going to be retrieved? Where is it going to do some good? Secondly, how much of a context is he generating for himself? The court case is a court case and should be discussed in that place alone; how it was won by an untrained guy is marginal, and this biography doesn't give us any reason to believe that his victory is a sign of anything or part of his character or an attribute of his life -- he just did it (and none of the issues are mentioned). As for slapping a keyboard, that's what I refer to as fiction about fiction: it is an ephemeral event in an epiphenomenon of a series of conversations that have taken place. We don't feel like writing the biography of the chatterbox who goes to every departmental meeting and won't shut up: we want the biography of the guy who goes to the departmental meetings and sets policy or changes the elections. What I see here is a biography of a life that isn't given any reason and a memorializing of someone whose accomplishment is prolixity. The harm is that a common name space is primarily occupied by a largely irrelevant person. Geogre 03:07, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because it does no harm does not mean it is necessary to include the information in Wikipedia. Sloan is an interesting character, but does he truly merit an article, particularly an article that contains so much pointless trivia about his life? There is a difference between "interesting" and "notable". How does an bio of Sam Sloan contribute to "creating something grand"? By your criteria Grace, we might as well start including people like Abdner Ashman because I'm sure someone, somewhere, feels that the World record holder for Ms. Pac-Man is a notable person...
  • I empathize with Grace Note's comments, but wonder if this opens the door for self-promotional biographies. Is the test for notability how colorful and fascinating of a biography that you can write about yourself? --goethean ॐ 21:19, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pretty safe this article is going to be kept based on the votes here. I still stand by my VfD because an article of this nature has no merit unless there is an obvious desire by the majority Wikipedians to catalogue this information. The VfD establishes that one way or another. If the consensus is Keep then so be it, though it could certainly stand a cleanup. --Isotope23 16:26, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep and Cleanup This is an odd article indeed: a bio of a notable (or at least borderline) person that's just overflowing with trivia, with a death of actual encyclopedic info. Anyone who's written that many books probably deserves an article, but the trivia (usenet posting habits, etc) needs to go. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:55, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. By itself, Sam Sloan's chess playing does not make him notable, except that he is the strongest player I know of who likes to defend the Black side of the Damiano Defence, but being a non-lawyer to win a case at the Supreme Court, is unusual, and does make Sloan notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It looks like it's not going to make any difference to the outcome but I say delete. So he's a little odd/clever whatever.. big deal!! None of that makes for any reason to keep this article. There. Had my two-penny worth. I can go home happy now.... Marcus22 10:27, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep And strongly agree with Grace Note's comments above. I'm currently researching a group of people considered marginal (like this guy) in the mid-60's, and you wouldn't believe how difficult information like this is to find. it's precisely articles like this that Wikipedia will be used for in the future, not the so-called "main" entries. Vizjim 11:29, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Dotty, colourful, no doubt the most entertaining taxi driver in New York if you like that kind of thing, but ultimately nn. Peeper 14:56, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Winning a Supreme Court case pro se seems notable, and some of the other stuff in his life sounds interesting; he's also pretty (in)famous in chess circles. *Dan* 15:43, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Fernado Rizo and others. Hall Monitor 18:39, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete. Since this article will be kept, hwoever, I'll echo [User:Starblind|Andrew Lenahan]]'s sentiment that it needs to be cleaned up, and probably shortened, given the subject matter. I strongly disagree with Grace Note's comments; this mindset is why we are moving toward keeping articles on every preschool, Trek BBS, and the lighting guy on Friends. Dottore So 19:35, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Obviously --Ryan Delaney ^talk 19:41, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Let us not go through this again, folks... Nagaflas 02:39, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well known net.personality, might be a KOTM recipient (forgot). Article could stand being edited mercilessly. Phr 20:05, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Well written, asserts and proves notability. Owen× ☎ 23:39, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Why is this up for VFD again? This is the second time within a month [3]. It appears that the last decision was to keep [4]. --PhilipO 00:22, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

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

undeletion request

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

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

The result of the debate was speedied as re-creation, implemented by Andrew Lenahan. Phil | Talk 17:15, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Tallon Zek times

non=notable forum.--Shanel 01:17, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Doesn't seem notable. Flowerparty 01:27, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Lazy hack of the TNT logo, even. Ashibaka (tock) 01:52, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: More people who need to go play outside. A funzone playtime thingie, and WP is not a webguide. Geogre 02:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedied as re-creation. Previous VfD here:
  Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Tallon Zek times Andrew Lenahan - Starblind
  02:18, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was speedied by me. Scimitar ^parley 15:12, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Fried

The current article is a copy of the

• Speedy delete as vandalism. This is a person born in 1988. At 17, he has done lots of things actually done by others, it seems. If we were kind, we'd say it's a hoax. I'm not particularly kind about it. Geogre 02:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As much as I would like to agree with Geogre, being a blatant hoax is not a
  T/C 02:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as a hoax. Born in 1988 and he was an aviation pioneer in 1897. Capitalistroadster 04:56, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, makes no sense. Flowerparty 07:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Take said blowtorch, apply to article until David's Fried (Delete). Alf ^melmac 14:36, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I've speedied it under general criteria 3: vandalism. This is vandalism because it attributes the achievements of
  Carl Rickard Nyberg to somebody else. If you disagree, feel free to yell at me ;)--Scimitar ^parley 15:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Blogsnob

Please note that this is a renomination, where the article already sported a deletion notice linking to an existing discussion at

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Blogsnob

that was on-going at the time.

WP is not a dictionary Paul 01:38, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Wikipedia is not a place to coin sniglets, either. Ugly and wasteful. Geogre 02:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Joelito 02:10, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nice neologism, though. Nandesuka 03:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Neologism. Flowerparty 07:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. Anville 11:05, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, because blogsnob spelled backwards is bonsgolb, and, well, that's just unacceptable. (also, neologism). --
  ^talk
  01:44, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Should the above Delete comments be classed as Blogsnobbery.?

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 dealt as copyvio. -

ServiceCenter

Advertising. Delete. -- DS1953 03:01, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Almost spam, but not quite. Advertising, and Wikipedia is not Freshmeat.org. Geogre 14:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: As it stands it's just an advert. Jezze 15:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete --Mecanismo 17:26, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Advert/NN. --MCB 19:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Copyvio. Done. -Splash 18:21, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 10:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Coral Reef Library

nn i just hope libraries are not the next big wiki thing Delete --Aranda56 03:18, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Information would be properly included in the municipality entry. However, some people think there is no "merge" vote, so delete. Geogre 14:44, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and delete is the right thing, and easy to do since the material merged is a single edit by a single author. If the closing sysop does not wish to honor a merge and delete vote, then delete. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:47, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Wikipedia is supposed to be a comprehensive attempt at an encyclopedia but it doesn't mean that it should host information on all obscure and irrelevant buildings. --Mecanismo 17:27, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete but as per geogre, merge if not intrepeted as keep. Does not warrant own article. --TimPope 20:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge unless the author decides to explain why it needs its own page. Maybe there's a good reason, and it's just stubby... but I don't see any proof. --Jacqui M Schedler 16:20, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

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

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

The result of the debate was speedied, implemented by Zscout370. —Phil | Talk 17:18, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Biniqdu

Unremarkable software, self-described "A quick, dirty and ugly frontend...Backup your files before you start editing!". Only 48 displayed hits[5], and most are forums. Waterguy 03:27, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete since it is a one-liner with no claim to fame. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Joolz 17:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Godspeed You! Underrated Guitarist

Meeks is a real person, but this band is non-notable if it even exists. The rest of the article reads like a bad joke/nonsense. BrainyBroad 03:47, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. It doesn't exist. The complete failure to mention Godspeed You! Black Emperor (a genuine band) is cause for alarm, really. Flowerparty 04:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This title is too long for a Googlewhack but achieved 0 results see [6]. This presents obvious verifiability problems. Perhaps BJAODN or the author could be directed to Uncyclopedia. Capitalistroadster 06:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete --Mecanismo 17:28, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• weak delete Someone invested a stupefying amount of effort in this weird joke. Anetode 22:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete You! Fake Article -Sean Curtin 07:00, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

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

undeletion request

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Joolz 17:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Hak Boon

School principal that brought a school from top 20 to top 10, non-notable.

• Merge with
  Catholic High School (Singapore) and delete the redirect. Flowerparty 06:27, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: Remember, no one is doing merges anymore or honoring merge votes. The information here is slight, the subject not notable, and a redirect only is fine. Geogre 14:47, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- the information is already contained in the High School article. --Scimitar ^parley 15:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Scimitar. Sliggy 16:13, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• delete --Mecanismo 17:28, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without redirection. Hall Monitor 18:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per User:Scimitar 129.215.194.205 20:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn headmaster --TimPope 20:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Even ignoring the sock puppets, there are only 7 more delete votes than merge votes. However, I can't find any article to merge to, as neither Interdictor Webcam or DirectNIC exists. And the concept is too specific to merge to a generic webcam article. — JIP | Talk 10:32, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bouncy

The subject is not notable. Jobarts^-Talk 04:01, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Tell that to the 500 people in the IRC chat room watching these guys. Admiral Justin 04:14, September 7, 2005 (UTC)comment by article creator. --PhilipO 17:19, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Clarification: I don't mean to say that DirectNIC is not notable, or that using something like "Bouncy" to let you know that a stream is live isn't a good idea, just that "Bouncy" itself is not notable. I would have said merge, but the article (at the time that I listed it for deletion) didn't have hardly anything worth merging. The content there now could be a start for an article on DirectNIC (or similar.) By the way, 500 people knowing about it isn't really a phenomenon (and I'm one of those 500). (Edited.) Jobarts^-Talk 23:45, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep but move to New Orleans webcam or something. The fact that someone is broadcasting live 24x7 on the internet from the Big Easy, and has been all week, is surely notable. If you haven't seen their blog, you should check it out. --DavidConrad 04:39, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep where it is, and maybe rephrase as a general concept that can be applied to any webcam, citing the Interdictor webcam as an example. — boredzo (✍) 04:51, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Has the phenomenon of 'bouncy' really taken off _that_ much? I can't say i'd ever heard of it until today. Bouncy could be perhaps mentioned in an article somewhere on wikipedia, but I don't think it needs it's own entry. Also, I don't really think 'bouncy' can possibly be applied as a general term to webcams, seeing as the article mentions it refers instead directly to the No Signal message on the monitor at the back of the webcam image. Kyelewis 06:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify that, I would be more than happy to see an article about the specific webcam, but not the 'bouncy' phenomenon on it's own. Kyelewis 06:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to an InterdictorWebcam, OutpostCrystal, or DirectNIC page. I'm another of the folks who've been distantly watching this whole ordeal they've been going through, and can attest that it's notable. A handful of determined folks are managing to keep a large swath of the Internet viable while literally camped out on the 10th floor of a dead office building in a dead city. That's worth a page. I just now did my best to flesh out the page some more, but it really needs more work from more people who have been closer to the story. stevegt 08:56, 7 September 2005 (UTC) Vote actually by anonymous user User:66.166.78.130. Vote then modified by anonymous user User:66.166.78.130[reply]

I'm that "anonoymous user", now logged in from same IP. And I'm going to modify my vote again, to clarify: keep the content, move it to another page (I take it Wikipedia doesn't support page renames?). While the page title is wrong, the topic is encyclopedic; very few

Comment Hello Stevegt and welcome to Wikipedia - I see you created your account today. I hope you stay with us. You should be aware that since this is only your 4th addition to Wikipedia, and all four edits have been related to this topic, your vote may be discounted. Cheers. --PhilipO 06:17, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep but Move to an InterdictorWebcam, OutpostCrystal, or DirectNIC page. Bouncy did not just serve as entertainment for webcam viewers, but also provided a source of comic relief and exchange between viewers and the OutpostCrystal team. snaxxy September 7, 2005 Vote actually by anonymous User:67.64.73.78

• Keep Bouncy is not just a screensaver or a random collection of pixels. Rather, Bouncy refers to the ideology of normalacy in a time of extreme duress. As NOLA fell into lawlessness, as basic rules of civility werestripped away as quickly as were basic utilities, as the city was besieged by both water and fire while its residents fell over the breaking-point, the bold professionals at DirectNIC succeeded in keeping at least a little corner of the city connected to the world. Bouncy may refer to the screen saver that was the team's mascot, but for those thousands of us who were glued to the news and video feeds that came out of that small office, Bouncy was a symbol of the need to "do as we are doing" and stay the course. The article must stay. User:Blackrobe:Blackrobe Vote actually by anonymous user at User:66.91.152.125

• Merge anything actually encyclopaedic into one of the countless articles about the hurricane. Not worth an article on its own.
  t c 09:43, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Merge. Interdictor should get a page, but Bouncy? Totally non-notable. --Moritz 12:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Wikipedia is not a place to advertise or announce anything. It is not the place to document week-old events. Remember: this is an encyclopedia: it is intended to be a tertiary information source. Geogre 14:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete C'mon - not worthy of inclusion. Fake votes always a bad sign too. --PhilipO 17:10, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete It's an article about a clever little graphic on a web feed. Yes, a web feed from NOLA, but it takes a drastic stretch of plausibility to go from hurricane stricken area (very notable) to web feed about area (perhaps notable because few exist) to animated mascot of web feed (shockingly not notable). Oh, and no merge. I really would hate to see the word "Bouncy" be a redirect to a webcam page. --Icelight 17:27, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• delete Article void of encyclopedic value and merit. --Mecanismo 17:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge to an appropriate place, per the suggests of others. -Fang Aili 18:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Even though some people might find this event notable today, in a month it will be a non-notable event. We must also remember that this is an encyclopedia not a newspaper. Joelito 18:41, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Clear delete and how can such a risibly unimportant topic spur such sockpuppetry?? Dottore So 19:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't really sockpuppets; I recogize some of the names from the #interdictor-chat IRC channel. Jobarts^-Talk 21:33, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete not encyclopedic. -feydey 21:39, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I would possibly support inclusion of an article on Interdictor, DirectNIC, or Outpost Crystal, as part of the history of a major disaster (and specifically the effect of the Internet on public response to disasters); however "Bouncy" itself is not notable as an article subject, and surely is no more than a short mention, if at all, in an article on one of the subjects above. -- MCB 22:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Commendable resolve of DirectNIC employees, but the article is not worthy for inclusion in an encyclopaedia! --GilHamilton 23:33, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice; this smacks of Wikipedia:Recentism. Nandesuka 04:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. I agree that Interdictor/Michael should get a page. But should it be the Directnic page, the Interdictor page or the Operation Crystal page? Also, James/jwinston wants his own page and should get one as well, imho. And while we are giving out pages, can I have one too? Pretty please? ;-) --Astartae 23:41, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If the Interdictor webcam is notable in some verifiable way, perhaps it could have an article. But an article dedicated to Bouncy is just silly. And apparently it's sockbait. Friday (talk) 13:30, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Move or merge both look like good options right now, based on the above arguments... I will decide which way to vote as the conversation progresses. --Jacqui M Schedler 16:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Move or merge. Subject is very notable. The name is not; I'm an avid reader of the blog but have never been able to see the webcam. Article should be about the DirectNIC post-Katrina experience, not just the webcam. Given comments above perhaps a good name for the article would be Operation Crystal, which would reference the event as a whole rather than just the webcam. Perhaps needs to be cleaned up to a higher standard of quality. Jdavidb 22:17, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Move / Merge I think the content should be merged/moved to DirectNIC and linked to/from Katrina entries as it could be the basis for building an experience record. --Matt Ishida 09:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into some other article about Katrina. It does not deserve its own article, but don't lose the content entirely. –CConrad 15:59, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Another mostly trivial-though-seemed-important-to-someone-at-the-time article relevant to Hurricane Katrina. I can't event support a merge. We're geting a bit too flooded (no pun intended) with Katrina minutaie. 128.119.199.102 19:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Move or merge, per above. Interdictor's notable, but Bouncy is news t'me. --Jack (Cuervo) 21:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. In 3 weeks absolutely nobody is going to care. Corporal 02:07, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - thats the whole reason wikipedia exists - to document things and events without respect to current interest, but rather to incidental impact.... there are tons of articles about which "nobody cares". Who cares? Definately keep! 24.148.27.74 08:44, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to another page, editing to keep to new name/topic. I would suggest Outpost Crystal or Interdictor, possibly DirectNIC though that might smack of advertising (or even create a redirect from each, directing to a central page), as these are perhaps the most recognizable names associated with this notable, direct, and extremely up-close source of Katrina NOLA relief efforts. It would be a shame for this herculean effort to slip into obscurity because some felt the term "Bouncy" was inappropriate. --Huntster 13:32, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge the content with something more germane -- perhaps some article on activity indicators or screen savers. It might stand as an interesting footnote on another page, but there's no need for it to have its own entry. --Scott F 01:41, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I am unconvinced of its significance. — Eoghanacht ^talk 15:08, 2005 September 12 (UTC)

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

undeletion request

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. android79 15:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle J. d’Entremont

A letter from an irate U.S. soldier. Having a Livejournal doesn't make you notable. Delete--Shanel 04:04, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

• This is out of place. Unencyclopedic rant (whether anyone agrees or not.) Opinion piece that is strongly POV essay with miniscule chance of becoming Neutral POV. Delete is consistant with Wikipedia policies. Comment for conspiracy theorists - I can't seem to find this online, it either has scrolled off blogs that had Google hits, including the included link, or was otherwise removed. -- WCFrancis 04:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I found one site that stated that the article was struck at the request of the author (with the text still there with html strikeout tags surrounding it). Another said that she has been court-martialled. I have not found any confirmation and cannot find this in Google news yet. The court martial, if true, has the potential of making her notable real soon now. -- WCFrancis 05:38, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• See [7]. I would say delete this, we all have our bad days, and things have sucked recently for sure. But if it does turn out to be newsworthy, then someone should source it. Sdedeo 06:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. At the moment it's unverifiable. If this changes before the VfD finishes, I'll change my vote. If it happens after, a new article can be created. By the way, the text is probably a copyvio. --Apyule 06:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused here. It looks like you blanked the text, but without putting up a copyvio tag, which complicates things. If it's copyvio, it should have a copyvio tag and go to the copyvio resolution page, rather than here in AfD. I'm not sure why you blanked the text, because that means that technically we are evaluating (for AfD purposes) a fundamentally empty article. Yes, the text can be recovered from the history, but we're supposed to be voting on the article as it presently exists. Puzzled, MCB 22:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not actually blanked, just the copy-and-paste of the letter itself. Yes, technically, we should submit this to the copyright page, where it will sit for ten days, but sometimes it's better to just be bold. Sdedeo 00:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I mention it is because (entirely independently of the worthiness of the article, which I think is approximately nil as stated below) I don't think it's a copyvio, in that I think there's a very good Fair Use case to be made for republishing anything self-described as an "open letter" or containing other assertion that the author intends, for public policy purposes, for the work to be redistributed without limits. But, I'll pick a better case to make that argument for. :-) MCB 01:07, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I probably should explain why I deleted the letter from the article. The main reason that it went was that it wasn't encyclopedic. Even if the copyright status was clear, I don't think that it belongs in wikipedia. The copyright is still interesting though. Does fair use enable us to licence it under the GFDL? --Apyule 01:13, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I should probably state that notwithstanding the above comment, I don't think the article should stand, regardless of sourcing and verification (that she wrote it), until & unless there's some sort of actual controversy of public note here. MCB 23:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Online search of New York Times turns up nothing, so it's not big-time notable anyway. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:08, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am becoming more suspicious of the validity of the claim of the source of this. If it were true, I would expect the signature to read "US Army Reserve Corps of Engineers" instead of "US Army Reserves Engineer Corps". The discrepancy here makes me doubt it was created by a member of the US armed forces at all. - WCFrancis 01:35, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as per WCFrancis. --Jacqui M Schedler 16:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unverifiable, not NPOV, probably not even notable ---CH (talk) 05:48, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. android79 15:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Funxion

Maybe I just suck at searching, but I can't find anything on these people.--Shanel 04:13, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Well, they are Greek, so maybe we had to search in Greek. Until proof and notability have been established, delete. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• This must be them. They might be worth an article, but this is a copyvio, buried in a flash animation. Flowerparty 04:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Advertising and rappanity. They may be the dopest freshest yo, but they're not making a dent in the world of references yet. Geogre 14:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Mecanismo 17:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. android79 15:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Olchowy

Not an encyclopedia article 70.144.20.226 04:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Notwithstanding the apparent copyright violation (copied from here), the subject of the article appears to be non-notable. Crypticfirefly 04:38, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Normally, I would vote delete as copyvio. Instead, I am voting for an A7 speedy delete as no notability is asserted in the text. Being a grandfather, former soldier and textile worker is not notable. While I am sure his family thought the world of him, that is not enough to warrant inclusion. Capitalistroadster 08:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Mecanismo 17:32, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for nn, copyvio ---CH (talk) 04:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. The votes are: 7 to keep, 12 to delete (including the nominator). This is a very thin margin, and a renomination to get a wider sense of the community would not be out of order. --

Glomp

Non-encyclopedic neologism; little more than a dictionary definition. Oh, don't worry if we delete it, Urban Dictionary has 12 definitions. Paul 05:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC) P.S. anyone citing this as a reason to keep should eat cruft.[reply]

• Delete, rambling dicdef. --
  _{tɔk tə mi} 05:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, real method of showing affection.
  Kappa 06:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, interesting and informative, particularly in relation to anime fandom and internet culture. Some of it probably should be rewritten to sound more encyclopedic, though. Kamezuki 06:44, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per かめずき. —RaD Man (talk) 07:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this is a dictionary entry and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Colinmac 13:27, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Paul. Sad as I am to lose an article which contains the enlightening example Tape this to your butt; I'm going to go on the other side of the room and glomp you, it is indeed a rambling dictionary definition. Peeper 15:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not a dictdef.
  Cryptic (talk) 15:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. The encyclopedic content is not very encyclopedic, and what's at stake here is a pop culture ephemera. Where is the documentary evidence? Where is the verification? Is this original research, or can we find references? Geogre 16:44, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete wikipedia attempts to be an encyclopedia and not a dictionary. --Mecanismo 17:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Interesting and more than a dicdef. It could use some cleanup and expansion, though.-Fang Aili 18:38, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Glomp then weak delete, per Geogre. I agree with Peeper about the enlightening example. Barno 19:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pointless, ephemeral forumese that will doubtless soon disappear. This belongs on Urban Dictionary, not Wikipedia. Dottore So 19:43, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not verified, no sources. Non-notable even if verified. Quale 21:12, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Rubbish examples and dictdef. Unless you can go into the origins of the glomp and it's significance in the world outside of cosplay, I think it would warrant an article. But it seems very neologist to me. -
  Hahnchen 00:57, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Seems more than a dictdef to me, includes history, etc. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 02:27, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable IRCruft. Nandesuka 04:37, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As much as I'd like the phenomenon to go away, this is, sadly, widely-known in anime circles and is widespread especially at cons. And the article itself seems fine. RADICALBENDER★ 19:19, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Think: is anyone going to care about this word/"phenomenon" in a few years? This kind of stuff is going to hurt Wikipedia in the future. WP can either be a legitimate encyclopedia or a snapshot of what 12 year olds were talking about in the early 21st century. Paul 22:47, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Perhaps this should be moved to the Wiktionary until such time as more information about the subject can be appended. --ThatNateGuy 00:02, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

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

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

The result of the debate was MERGE with Fire Emblem. — JIP | Talk 10:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Valkyrie staff

Non-notable gamecruft, barely 100 Google results. Paul 05:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Fire Emblem article and redirect. Colinmac 13:35, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: A minor item for a minor game. Geogre 16:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Mecanismo 17:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Colinmac. -Fang Aili 18:41, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per Colinmac and Fang Aili. --Jacqui M Schedler 16:28, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete.

David Rankine & Sorita D'Este

Delete NN pair of New Age authors as far as I can tell. David has certainly written books with other authors so even if they do pass the notoriety test by reason of notorirty beyond my knowledge this stub should still be deleted and redone as two separate stubs. Caerwine 06:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Seems someone's already tried making David Rankine and Sorita D'Este. Makes no sense to merge them together, even if they do co-write the odd book. Flowerparty 07:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Individuals who are not known as a corporate identity. Geogre 16:47, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. -Fang Aili 18:44, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; it's an advertisement at this point. --Jacqui M Schedler 16:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as transparent adspam vanity nn ---CH (talk)

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

undeletion request

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.

Baker v. He

No claim to notability despit {{explain-significance}} being there for quite some time. Appears to be non-notable -

• Delete: News report. Without wider significance (rights of immigrants established/denied by precedent), there's nothing really here except a "Guess what? there was a court case." Geogre 16:51, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is not even an appellate opinion; it looks like Tennessee procedure is to hear the case in Juvenile Court and then bring it to Chancery Court with trial de novo on the motion of a party. In other words, even if the public interest factor was high, this is basically just a trial court decision. Geogre has it right; while the case may have some implications for public policy regarding immigrants, it's really just an ordinary child welfare/adoption case. MCB 23:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. My former
  ^talk
  02:16, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as per BD2412. Sheesh.
• KeepLevKamensky

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

undeletion request

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete.

Patriotic journalism

1. Delete - idiosyncratic non-topic. This phrase is a euphemism for propaganda - perhaps it belongs in a dictionary but what is its place in an encyclopedia? It is not used often enough to be notable -- a nexis search of major papers finds 10 articles since 1990 - some of them not even using the term in this way. csloat 07:29, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with propaganda or yellow journalism. CambridgeBayWeather 07:36, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Duplicate material of propaganda. A redirect would itself be POV, however. If the contents were not a duplicate of Propaganda, then they'd be self-evident (and also a delete). Geogre 16:57, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to yellow journalism. Gazpacho 17:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and maybe a redirect to Propaganda --Mecanismo 17:35, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's creepy newspeak, but it appears to be 100% non-notable as well. Sdedeo 18:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's already been covered in other articles, and to create a redirect would be POV, even if it's a POV I agree with. --Jacqui M Schedler 16:32, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per JMS. -choster 23:39, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Joolz 17:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Video Surveillance of Government Leaders

plus a redirect to it. Policy proposal/advertisement, bordering on blog. Nateji77 08:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, OR, advocacy. And what a horrible idea! Zoe 08:37, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Zoe. Except that presumably she thinks it's a horrible idea because no-one would ever want to become a government leader... I think it's an awesome idea for the same reason :-D. Last Malthusian 14:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point.  :) Zoe 21:55, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic information --Mecanismo 17:39, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, Zoe. Dottore So 19:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as advert ---CH (talk) 21:39, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 11:42, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the Silver Marmot

If this were an order issued by all of the Boy Scouts as a whole, then I could see keeping it. But it's only issued to camp counselors at one single nn Boy Scout camp. nn order. Zoe 08:29, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, nn
  t c 10:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge with Chief Seattle Council if that survives AfD, otherwise delete. Do holders of this get the "Order of the Golden Groundhog" if they do further good work? Alf ^melmac 15:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Mecanismo 17:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into
  Cryptic (talk) 17:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete I was in the Boy Scouts (albeit not in Seattle, but I never heard of this being an official Order or honor society. Zach (Sound Off) 18:41, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Like there's a reason to keep any Boy Scout order-articles. /
  Isotalo 01:55, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Green River District, Chief Seattle Council

nn Boy Scout regional organizations. And if any of the other red links on the Chief Seattle Council get filled in, consider them added to this list. And please, don't create all of those troops which are linked from the district pages! Zoe 08:32, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete --Mecanismo 17:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all three into
  Cryptic (talk) 17:47, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge. I'm not sure they're entirely non-notable, just not notable enough for individual articles. And what was that phrase again? "Wikipedia is not paper."  :) --Quintin3265 18:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, but probably leave out of any paper editions.
  Kappa 18:51, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as non-notable, or merge as per suggestions above.---CH (talk) 23:55, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Boy Scout-cruft. /
  Isotalo 01:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Christian City Church, Oxford Falls

nn church, advertising. Zoe 08:41, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and clean-up this is a mega-church (4,000 attending weekly is notable - certainly more notable than a singapore busstop) if this were a sportsground with 4,000 weekly spectators would we delete that? --
  (?) 08:47, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Considering that most small towns in Texas have a high school football stadium that meets that criterion, then, yes. Zoe 08:59, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
    • Justifying to keep one article because of the obviously flawed reasoning of a second nomination is what is terribly bad reasoning. /
      Isotalo 09:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Keep as notable church. Capitalistroadster 09:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into article on the town.
  t c 09:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. As per nominator.
  Isotalo 09:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, of interest to at least the 4,000 people who attend weekly.
  Kappa 10:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • If it can be proved that this megachurch is somehow relevant to anyone outside the congregation by all means keep. Pilatus 13:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless cleaned up to asserts its relevance. The Singapore "bus stops" are actually major commercial centers of Singapore suburbs, so User:Huaiwei informs us. I don't feel well about putting those up for deletion now. With some effort, those entries can be turned into something encyclopedia-worthy. I'm not convinced about this mega-church. Pilatus 13:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete -- borders on an advertisement for the church and as Pilatus said, unless someone can prove relevance outside the congregation, it should go. If it survives, someone needs to add a cleanup tag... there are entire sections without text. --Isotope23 13:35, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If we are keeping primary schools and bus stations - why is the bar so high for churches? 4,000 members should be notable enough for anyone- but if you need more see this [8] - and ask yourself how many churches have their own grammar school, TV studio, and got opened by the Prime Minister of Australia?? --

(?) 13:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep I have no problem with this article, a merge to
  Sydney, Australia would be bad for that article, merging to City of Sydney might be good, but don't know if that's the right place, so, OK where it is, but more work and clean up needed. Alf ^melmac 15:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • • It isn't in Sydney, it's in Oxford Falls, New South Wales. Zoe 21:54, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
      • Thanks Zoe, I only liked geography lessons at school when we got to use the coloured pencils. Alf ^melmac 00:28, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Mecanismo 17:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete in agreement with Pilatus. Barno 19:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete echoing above although justifying Singapore bus stops seems a hopeless task. Dottore So 19:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

6,000 members, one of the largest in Australia, they run a TV studio and a school, and attract support of a prime minister - but they are nn? Can someone explain what the notability threshold for churches should be? They run a school - if they had just been a school, there'd be a string of keeps here right now!--

(?) 20:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

• Merge into the town, or establish notability better then the article did. CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The town doesn't have an article --

(?) 20:27, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

• I usually vote to delete churches, but this is a particularly large one in a country where a congregation of 4000 is notable (an equivalent church in the US would be nn, IMO.) Keep. Sdedeo 21:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because it's the founding church of a worldwide church movement, and what happens there has wider significance than just locally. 203.222.133.98 05:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Most people who say "Merge" never seem to think through that very well. RADICALBENDER★ 19:22, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I don't see why there is even a question about deleting this particular church, because of the size of the church, and influence in Australia and broader. There are so many other churches out there in Wikipedia-land, so why question this one? 220.101.98.47 11:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 13:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Student Revolution and Generalismo Juncal

Hoax. Zoe 08:55, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: can't spell Generalissimo. And it does meet speedy deletion criteria: it doesn't assert any sort of importance beyond a reference to The Student Revolution, created by same author, and just as bogus. mholland 09:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whoops. Yes, you've listed that here too. mholland 09:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - it's connected with The Student Revolution novel which I listed as an AfD. CambridgeBayWeather 10:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• del, seems to be a hoax. [9] --MarSch 14:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• These articles very similar to two previously deleted articles (
  VfD for Student Revolution). Speedy delete as substantial recreation of a previously deleted article and/or no claim to significance or importance. (Plus hoax and vanity for good measure.) Sliggy
  15:44, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Mecanismo 17:46, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• This just in: Generalismo Juncal is still deleted. Same goes for the revolution, but I couldn't think of a Saturday Night Live reference for that one. Lord Bob 00:55, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax, or else nn fiction (see related VfD for article with very similar title).---CH (talk) 08:57, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 13:05, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arne & Carlos - Norway

Advertising. Probably a copyvio, but I'd rather get it deleted outright than have the chance it will be recreated without the ad-speak. Zoe 09:01, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: badvertising. Creator also made List of fashion designers in Norway with only item Arne & Carlos - Norway, and spuriously added the list to Norway. mholland 09:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep and cleanup, seemingly notable in Norway with mentions in Dagbladet, VG, NRK, TV2 and Aftenposten. Note that creator removed some of the peacock terms after it was tagged for afd. Punkmorten 12:32, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: But I agree that the aforementioned list had to go. In addition, the article must be moved to Arne & Carlos.
• Delete --Mecanismo 17:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn, ad. 290 Google hits, of which half are duplicates.
• Delete adspam.---CH (talk) 01:31, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. --

Cartoon physics

Impressionistic pop culture cruft that is very hard to verify other than through other fan writing and the cartoons themselves. Worth being mentioned (but not elaborated on) in

• Keep, seems like a good enough article. — JIP | Talk 09:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a fun article. Some verifiability in article but could use more. Capitalistroadster 10:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - boy, what a killjoy! - DavidWBrooks 10:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I'm an animator; this subject has a long history, and is discussed in the animation literature. An encyclopedia article must not be deleted just because it is humorous! The sub-article could be merged here, though. --Janke | Talk 10:54:08, 2005-09-07 (UTC)
• Keep - good article, illustrates an important principle of comedy, namely the "plausible impossible" RMoloney 10:57, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Janke, merge sub-articles . --Moritz 11:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with cartoon. While this article and sub-articles demonstrates a beautiful interplay of haughty seriousness and humor, it should be confined to its area. The real-life recognition of its validity (Esquire and IEEE) require that it gets elaboration, but only in its context. --NielsenGW 11:30, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Did you check the cartoon page? Not the place for this! --Janke | Talk 12:24:18, 2005-09-07 (UTC)
    • The main article is extremely short considering how major a subject it is. Whether or not you want to keep this,
      Isotalo 16:38, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Did you check "What links here" on Cartoon physics? We're talking animation here, not just cartoons, which has several definitions. --Janke | Talk 17:08:47, 2005-09-07 (UTC)
        • Isotalo 06:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • This is absolutely true. I have created the article
            Animated cartoon, formerly just a redirect, and added a "Main entry" link in the animation section of Cartoon. OK? --Janke | Talk
            06:53:52, 2005-09-08 (UTC)
• Keep, valid encyclopedia topic. Punkmorten 12:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This article is featured on Wikipedia:Unusual_articles ! Quote: These articles are valuable contributions to the encyclopedia, but are somewhat odd, whimsical, or... --Janke | Talk 12:47:06, 2005-09-07 (UTC)
• Strong Keep deleting good but different articles like this one is like trying to delete the heart of wikipedia. (by User:Bandraoi, who forgot to sign... inserted by Janke)
• Keep: Trivial but valid. The term has fairly widespread coverage, although this is one of those articles that attracts the obsessive crowd, and the wiki- structure means that it can become a tangle in an instant. The term may be fan coined, but it has been used by the creators of the form (incl. Chuck Jones in his autobiography, Chuck Amock). This differs, IMO, from the fictions about fictions and goes on to critical observation (when it isn't just degenerating into "list of funny stuff I've seen in cartoons"). Geogre 14:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  I wouldn't call this subject "trivial". These laws have been de facto "working rules" in animation for well over 80 years now - and just because they are funny, and make a Wikipedia article funny, isn't a reason for AfD, if you ask me. This is as serious as a treatise on a painter's tools, brushes, canvas, oils etc. But you are correct that this might grow uncontrollably - it sure needs to be watched. (I got carried away once here, too but was reverted - good thing, too! ;-) --Janke | Talk 18:46:55, 2005-09-07 (UTC)

• Keep much better than the article about animated breast physics we saw here recently, does the job for me. The idea of characters not succumbing to forces of gravity is not restricted to cartoons though, see: Arthur Dent and Ben Bova's The Man Who Hated Gravity for starters. Alf ^melmac 15:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep an actual, documented phenomena, not the physics but the fact that many cartoons even by different studios seem to have developed commom "laws" despite their being completely arbitrary. --Outlander 15:44, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - a glance at what links there shows that it is a wanted article. -- RHaworth 15:50:42, 2005-09-07 (UTC)
• Keep — a reasonable topic for an article providing some insights into human psychology. — RJH 18:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. -Fang Aili 18:51, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Optichan 21:40, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Genuine term in real use. Valid cultural observation. There are issues about what is factual, what is objective, what is neutral... but these problems exist in all articles on art or culture, e.g. Postmodernism. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• !!!qƏƏĶ ġñǒrłS --
  ^talk
  02:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The sub-articles should be nominated together separately from this, but they should either be merged and redirectd into this or simply deleted. -Sean Curtin 07:03, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Uhm, don't nominate articles if you only want them merged; you don't need a AfD-vote to decide that. Just marge them with or without previous discussion. Consensus can assumed unless clearly stated otherwise in an obviously well-motivated merger. /
    Isotalo 14:40, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Strong Keep. This article is a great example of why wikipedia exists. --Jacqui M Schedler 16:37, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. This article is fairly relevant, and should remain in the Wikipedia. --driscolj 21:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and merge
  Cartoon collision physics into it. Owen× ☎ 23:57, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep or at least Merge Very interesting. I think it is appropriate when tied to cartoon. Psy guy ^(talk) 01:36, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep, I guess ---CH (talk) 03:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Kýýp. If we have articles on pop records, and they're pop culture and can't be verified apart from the works themselves and reviews by fans, then why not this? --Damian Yerrick 01:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 09:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deutsche M9K

Fictional gun from a computer game. Say no more. Delete

• Delete and salvage. Put any usable trivia bits in the articles of its real-life counterparts. If we allow every game weapon in, we'd hit 800K articles by tomorrow. --NielsenGW 11:38, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment no objection to putting the trivia into the relevant articles, but would be concerned of doubling up, say (for example) one was based on a combination of five or more real weapons, what we do? Alf ^melmac 16:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • My solution is to put the information where it has the most relevance, in this case, with the article on the video game itself. --NielsenGW 16:37, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or merge with the video game's article. -Fang Aili 18:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it's a nice gun though. -- Kjkolb 01:56, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Cruft. /
  Isotalo 01:57, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 13:11, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Patapol Ngernsrisuk

Delete"Athletes who are widely known, widely acclaimed, or highly successful in their sport." Doesn't qualify on this basis. Follow the link to Nathan Robertson on the page for a counter example of someone who does qualify. Marskell 10:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Simply being in the Olympics does not notability make. --NielsenGW 11:41, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Actually competing in the Olympics does confer notability. It means on a *national* basis the person has been "highly successful in their sport" (since a country is allowed only 3 entries per event). Being at the top of your local town isn't good enough. Being in the top of the world is more than enough. Being in the top of your country is just enough. This is just enough. --rob 12:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Olympic athletes.
  Kappa 18:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak Keep because he was in the Olympics. And he may have some fame in Thailand. -Fang Aili 18:57, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep solely because of the disruption that would be caused if we deleted this and then had to endure an avalanche of AfD's for all of the hundreds, if not thousands, of other Olympic athletes we have stubs on. Zoe 19:19, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Re: "the person has been 'highly successful in their sport' (since a country is allowed only 3 entries per event)": Did the Jamaican bobsled team on which a Disney movie was based really consist of the twelve best bobsledders in the nation, or just a bunch of people who found it interesting; i.e. was there even a selection competition? There are several thousand athletes every Summer Games, and a few thousand more every Winter Games, most of whom will never gain enough widespread media coverage to merit articles in the English Wikipedia. Barno 19:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: You're mistaken to keep looking only at an international basis. Also, the large athlete count includes many large teams (probably with bench warmers), and I would be happy to say that not every player in a team warrants inclusion. Your allusions to "English Wikipedia" is something I strongly object to. The *only* thing English in English Wikipedia is the language *we* the editors use. Notability requirements for inclusion are wholly unrelated to language. In fact, we should bend over backwards, to realize that as English speakers, it's harder to judge a non-English person's notability. --rob 22:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I was working from some assertations I'd seen veteran editors make in VfD (now AfD) discussions. I just went looking through policy pages, and don't see much in the way of "must have notability among speakers/readers of English"; the closest I found is
      Wikipedia:Criteria_for_inclusion_of_biographies point: "Has the person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in the specific field?" No change in vote, but I'm willing to be persuaded if someone provides the verifiable documentation required by WP's fundamental policy. I agree that editors and AfD voters are often too centered toward the USA or the "western democracies". Barno 23:51, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Comment: The quote you made is for dead people. For living people, who are athletes, the standard is "highly successful in their sport".
        • Actually, an easier standard: "Athletes who are widely known, widely acclaimed, or highly successful in their sport". Sam Vimes below has provided an event that Ngernsrisuk didn't-quite-win and a world ranking, with sources. I don't know how significant the Thailand Open is among the international badminton community or among the Thai general public, and I don't know how noteworthy 26th in the world is among either group. For comparison, I was recently 41st of 83 in the World Diplomacy Championship, with players from 8 of the 20 or so countries with active Diplomacy hobbies, but I'm not asserting notability for me. Vote withdrawn; I'll leave it up to people with more cultural context and who care more. I still don't think that Olympians are automatically notable even if they don't get past the round of 32 teams. Barno 00:44, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as Olympic athlete and to counter systemic bias. Punkmorten 21:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - reached the final of the 2003 Thailand Open [10] in addition to his Olympic participation. He and Prapakamol is ranked 26th in the world. [11] Sam Vimes 21:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep badminton is hard. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 02:38, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

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

undeletion request

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 14:11, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Student Revolution novel

Unable to verify any information about either the book or the author. No-notable and also looks like a vanity promo for a upcoming book. CambridgeBayWeather 10:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed that this is the same person as listed above in "The Student Revolution". CambridgeBayWeather 10:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Either a vanity page for an unpublished "novel" which is very likely to stay unpublished, or a hoax. Couldn't find anything relevant on Google. Delete. Demogorgon's Soup-taster 12:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• This all is all very very familar, as the "novel" is just a re-creation (with a new slant) of two previously deleted articles (
  VfD for Student Revolution). Speedy delete as substantial recreation of a previously deleted article, and/or no claim to significance or importance, and/or arguable vandalism. (Plus hoax and vanity for good measure.) Sliggy
  15:52, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Mecanismo 17:47, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, more hoaxitude. Zoe 18:49, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete both this and The Student Revolution. Apparently a childish plan for an unwritten novel, but certainly not an encyclopedia article.---CH (talk) 09:00, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 04:33, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clea Rose case

Finishing an incomplete nomination. I also think it should be deleted, people get run over everyday.--

• Keep - I think the article was originally created as a memorial, which justified the initial delete tag. However, it has been fixed, to cover the controversy/issue surrounding police which which has already been noted in the national media. --rob 10:59, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment We also have a Clea Rose article referring to the same thing so I would vote merge. This case has had considerable publicity in Canberra, the capital city of Australia. There is concern about possible police involvement in the chase and the failure of security cameras in Civic (the CBD). A 15-year-old who was driving the stolen vehicle that killed her is facing manslaughter charges. Capitalistroadster 11:10, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if this is the Clea Rose page. Capitalistroadster 02:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Reply: That's just a re-direct, there's no duplication. --rob 11:38, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This was not an incomplete nomination. The page was moved from Clea Rose to Clea Rose case. A merge may be needed between this page and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clea Rose. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:36, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and, if it is proven that this case is a landmark case instead of yet another death in the world, rewrite the article. Until then, strong delete. --Mecanismo 17:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We already had this debate. Sdedeo 18:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable for media coverage.
  Kappa 18:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. This is a news item, not an encyclopedia article. We have dozens of cases or more like this every year in the U.S. Quale 21:18, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'm not sure why this was re-nominated given that there was a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clea Rose which appeared to result in a consensus to keep the article. I voted keep there based on the partial rewrite and name move, meant to change it from a bio of a NN person to an article about the case. MCB 23:39, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Addendum: I closed/archived the discussion on the old page and pointed it here. (Not normally done by a participant but I broke it so I'll fix it.) At this point I've said my piece and will leave it to others to reach consensus and close this one. MCB 00:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Same reasons as the old page. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 01:18, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Redundant, delete then merge with Clea Rose--Wikiwarrior 02:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, that page is a redirect to this one. MCB 07:20, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep no change of opinion from other page
• Delete Maybe a call later on for a reference in a Wikipedia article relating to Road Safety Issues in Australia, but of little signficance as a stand alone article --bacco007 07:41, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP, considering the early deleters may not have seen the rewrite. -Splash^talk 00:47, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zhang Hong Jie

Non-notable murder victim, Wikipedia is not a memorial and so on, delete--

• Is this non-notable, though? The article does at least try to establish notability... --Moritz 11:16, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete dying unnaturally (or even horrifically) does not notability make --NielsenGW 11:36, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete millions of people die every day. Some of them more notable in every aspect but they aren't worthy of an article. --Mecanismo 17:51, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, international incident.
  Kappa 18:47, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nominator Pilatus 19:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been expanded since the first three comments here, with more on how it is significant involving Chinese & Australian governments, links to national news sites and forums. Astrokey44 22:47, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete we have people killed all of the time overseas involving different nationalities and it is just another fight over the extradition and the death penalty. We have those in the US a bunch. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

how about it gets moved to Zhang Hong Jie case?, as it is the incident, not the person which is notable. Similar to how Clea Rose was moved Astrokey44 03:07, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and move per Astrokey. This case is significant given the political and diplomatic sensitivities involved both between the ACT and Australian Governments and the Chinese and Australian Governments. There is a strong possibility that the alleged murderer could escape trial because Jon Stanhope won't allow the ACT Branch of the Australian Federal Police to investigate the case. That certainly isn't a usual occurrence. The case has received plenty of publicity in Canberra and political attention. Capitalistroadster 03:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think the international angle argues for keeping this. Nandesuka 04:39, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and move per Astrokey. The case is notable, not the victim. MCB 07:28, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue the murderer is moe notable that the victim. Extradition cases aren't that notable. Pilatus 10:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep murder case that raises some important issues. --Vsion 05:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as long as it is not moved. No need to attach "...case" to it. Ambi 02:04, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are probably hundreds of college women murdered by their boyfriends around the world every year. We can't have articles on each locally sensational murder case, and this article utterly fails to explain why this particular case is worthy of such attention. Compare say Sharon Tate, who probably would be one of the rare examples of a notable murder victim.---CH (talk) 08:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, weak keep as per Capitalistroadster (international legal/political issues).---CH (talk) 08:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Joolz 17:43, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nightlife in Bermuda

Merge with Bermuda culture — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidanb (talk • contribs) 2005-09-07 11:33:38 UTC

• I say delete. Entry is basically an excuse to advertise a website, while the admission that Bermuda's nightlife is considered "quiet" hardly indicates notability. Demogorgon's Soup-taster 14:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete If the article had some substance, I would say transwikitravel, buty alas, its some kind of vanity... Roodog2k (talk) 15:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Roodog2k. --GraemeL ^(talk) 20:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--an article on this topic could be written, but this is merely an external link--quite possibly a speedy candidate. Meelar (talk) 04:09, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for above reasons. --Bhadani 14:11, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above - Rhyddfrydol 21:33, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 15:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ville Mönkkönen

nominated before but no consensus. appears nn bio —Gaff ^ταλκ 05:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. I originally both nominated this article for deletion and closed the debate as "no consensus", but a subsequent Googling found enough hits. — JIP | Talk 10:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep It survived Afd in September - this is far too soon to put it up again whatever its failings may be. Dlyons493 Talk 16:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.
  Kappa 16:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak keep, not an nn-bio. Moreover, his games are notable. Punkmorten 21:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable.  Grue  16:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 00:48, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Undinism (Band)

Google search for Undinism band gives 387 results, no allmusic entry. Punkmorten 12:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• delete with no allmusic entry, and no claim to notability, and hardly any information in the article, it can only be nn/vanity. — brighterorange (talk) 16:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete not notable --Mecanismo 17:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete -- speedy delete should be an option for bands that don't meet the notability soft requirments --Quasipalm 17:59, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. Author realised the mistake, created an account and reposted it at Steam Car Club of Great Britain. Kewp's tagging of this article within 8 minutes of creation constitutes "biting the newbies" in my view. -- RHaworth 23:27:34, 2005-09-07 (UTC)

See The Steam Car Club of Great Britain link below

nn car club in Great Britain with ~800 google hits. Kewp 12:27, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Bad article with horific title - contributor certainly does not understand WP. However, I'm still going to say keep, rename and cleanup seems to be a reasonably notable and certainly interesting club, see [12]. --
  (?) 13:41, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I second Doc's keep, rename and cleanup --MacRusgail 13:44, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll third Doc's keep, rename and cleanup --Outlander 15:53, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NN. -Fang Aili 19:05, 7 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 00:49, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Williams

• Delete I do not believe that these people are notable, especially Rhiannon Biddulph. The last sentence seems to be more or less an advert for their handfasting service. I would consider this a vanity article. MacRusgail 13:39, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I support that this is the worst kind of abuse of wikipedia, little more than an advert, and not even her real name too. - 84.69.16.92
• delete not worthy of an encyclopedia article and possibly vanity. --Mecanismo 17:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete vanity. --Quasipalm 18:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Please delete. How sad. Next we'll be hearing about people's hobbies or pets:) I had no idea Wikipedia was a place for free advertisements or free personal webspace. - 86.137.20.35
• Delete nn vanity and possible adspam---CH (talk) 05:36, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep This discussion has already taken place, and as far as I can tell the very person calling for a delete is the same person who vandalised both the Martin Williams entry and the Pagan Association entry. Pettiness and spite are not seen as valid reasons to delete pages. I do agree with the handfasting comment and have removed the link to this. Rhiannon Biddulph (and yes that is my real name!) - allegedly posted by "Rhiannon Biddulph" (article subject132.185.144.122 )
  • Before you slander me further, I'll have you know that I have never visited the Pagan Association entry, and did not vandalise this article. I don't think either of you appear to be worth an article. That's why I put this article up for deletion. It would be great if we could all have our own article on Wikipedia... we'd end up with several billion pages. Not very practical though eh? --MacRusgail 16:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, but verging on enough to call it an outright keep. -Splash^talk 00:53, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fossicking

Dicdef, and not a very good one at that. Demogorgon's Soup-taster 14:16, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Expand - fossicking is a big piece of traditional (white) Australian culture, and I believe there are various laws covering it. It originates in Cornwall, and the term itself is argued to come from Cornish. This stub is certainly worthy of more detail. --MacRusgail 14:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand if possible. I nominate MacRusgail in charge of that effort. I'll check in a week or two and if it's still less than a paragraph or two, i'll re-vfd and vote delete then. Karmafist 00:19, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable activity.
  Kappa 18:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Move to Wiktionary until someone wants to make it an encyclopedic article. --Fang Aili 19:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. Is this different from gold panning? Zoe 19:22, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep a little bit of Australiana. The defention is, if I recall, a little inaccurate, I'm sure it is searching through the left overs of mining activity to find useful leftovers. And is used particularly with opal mining. Sabine's Sunbird 02:03, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a dicdef. If more information is provided, and it can be distinguished from gold panning, I'll change my vote. If it can't be distinguished, we could and should just redirect it there. Nandesuka 04:42, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK definitely different from gold panning, since it is "dry" prospecting, and staking out land.

• Redirect to Placer mining. Owen× ☎ 00:02, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Owen, as far as I can tell it is not the same as placer mining, but you can correct me...--MacRusgail 15:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Encyclopedia not dictionary. Psy guy ^(talk) 01:38, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 00:54, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of chess resources

Wikipedia is not a repository of links. Because these links might be interesting I've added them to the "External links" section of the Chess article. CG 14:18, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not needed,
  t c 15:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete redundant --Outlander 16:00, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• delete --Mecanismo 17:59, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I work a lot on chess articles, but relevant resources can go into the External links sections of the related articles or can be put on
  Wikipedia:Wikiproject Chess. Wikipedia is not a collection of links. Quale 20:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Not a link depository. Optichan 21:42, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. Molotov (talk) 21:59, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for not telling me, you listed the page here for deletion, Cedar-Guardian! Very nice of you, but then your style is not my style, whatever... There are a lot of pages like the one we are talking about... "Delete, delete, delete... " but - what's the matter? Can somebody tell me precisely? It says Wikipedia is not a mere repository of links. And the policy page says why: "Excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia." Tell me what's wrong about having special pages for this purpose. And if you give reasons for deletions don't come me with "redundant" or "not notable." That's totally stupid here. Doesn't apply, think better. Ben ^T/_C 15:52, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

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

undeletion request

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Genetic Halfling

Appears to be original research. Googling the term "genetic halfling" resulted in zero matches, it is unlikely to be an accepted term under those circumstances. CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I hesitate to say delete -- some times there are real technical terms that I can't find on google myself, so I'm not sure this should be deleted until someone that knows Biology well can confirm that this isn't a real term. --Quasipalm 17:57, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — I recall that scientists are not even certain whether humans and neanderthals ever cross-bred, so this appears to be totally original "research". Perhaps it was meant to be relevant to Homo floresiensis? Otherwise it just looks like semi-gamer crud, with a link on the halfling page. — RJH 18:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless use of the word is sourced someplace not-crazy. Sdedeo 18:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - looks ORish.
  Shimgray 12:25, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Crossbreeding between neandertals and homo sapiens sapiens is at least controversial. It should not be presented as fact. The reality of genetic halflings itself seems doubtful. Not grounds for deletion as such, of course, but unless some supporting information can be found, I'd say delete this as an invention.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 00:53, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Tradition

This is a long proselytization tract, and I can't even figure out what they believe in. This will need to be deleted or seriously edited. -Fang Aili 14:44, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete either as original research, advertising, linkspam or all three ---Outlander 15:57, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as OR or inherent NPOV. -- MCB 19:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I suspect editing this to yield any sort of sense would be impossible. There's a lot in there about what it isn't, but very little coherent about what it actually is (and the author might do well to read the Vangello delle Streghe before asserting that it isn't paganism) Tonywalton  | Talk 20:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

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

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

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. Russ Blau (talk) 18:14, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Ed Warby

• Delete vanity page. --Russ Blau (talk) 14:49, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this is the drummer from Gorefest - a well known death metal band; natheless it needs a serious cleanup as it is probably a copyvio and written in the first-person. Spearhead 14:59, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the page to remove the copyvio and switched it to a drummer stub....

• Comment Each member of Gorefest has a similar vanity page, which should all be rewritten. android79 15:12, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Seeing as the
  t c 15:16, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Withdraw nomination since this person apparently is somewhat notable (I've never heard of the group, but I happily acknowledge that that's not part of the deletion criteria...). --Russ Blau (talk) 16:40, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When Good Robots Go Bad

Please kill this page, it is in violation of [13].(nominated by 144.118.196.165 whose only edit is this vote.)

• Don't delete. In no way promotional. Have been on tour in a large/medium-sized country. (unsigned comment by Dumplinberry whose only edits are votes in two VfD's for local bands.)

• Do not delete. Informative. (unsigned comment by 12.207.25.92 whose only edit is this vote.)
• Delete. Non-notable.
  Al
  13:25, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No entry at allmusic. There is a page at artistdirect, but it's blank. 136 unique Google hits, and they're not all for this band. 205 unique Yahoo hits, and not all are for this band. Zoe 21:26, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Do Not Delete. Not promotional.

• Sockpuppets: When Good AfD Processes Go Bad -- delete per Zoe. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 15:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Who? Begone --ElvisThePrince 15:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Banish to the pit of eternal non-noteworthyness --Outlander 15:50, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable - Tεxτurε 17:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete band vanity. (Couldn't find anything on their label using google either.) --Quasipalm 17:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete void of encyclopedic value --Mecanismo 18:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Vanity Joelito 18:12, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, vanity. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:00, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As above, found a web page on the band (obviously written by one of the members), but nada about the label. -- llywrch 20:49, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 00:57, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Refco Private Client Group

adspam Doctor Whom 15:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator.
  Al
  16:21, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• delete shameless adspam --Mecanismo 18:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ditto. Larsoner 19:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Information is factual; admittedly it is autobiographical, but did eliminate the POV/advertising elements to make more neutral. Is there a compromise? RPCG 20:35, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that RPCG (Refcopcg) is apparently the author of the article under consideration. I looked at the history and it appears to me that the change Refcopcg refers to above was to remove the words "regarded as an innovator". R, I have nothing against making a living, but Wikipedia is not a yellow pages.---CH (talk) 22:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete adspam ---CH (talk) 21:28, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE the redirect. I don't think userfication was appropriate in this case. -Splash^talk 01:03, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tanja Louise Stephen

Memorial Page, no hits on Google or Yahoo Outlander 15:36, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Userfy to Evianboy. Lets not bite the newbies. Looks like an honest mistake. Roodog2k (talk) 16:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment OK, I moved the content to Evianboy. I will leave him a message on his talkpage explaining why the page was moved. Roodog2k (talk) 16:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 01:02, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stripping the Gurus: Sex, Violence, Abuse and Enlightenment

Non-notable ebook. 144 Google hits. The author admits in his 26 Aug 05 blog entry to anonymously spamming Wikipedia in order to promote book. See further discussion at my talk page. --goethean ॐ 15:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Sorry... I see a lot of angry stuff on that page, a good deal of vitriol thrown at Wikipedia in general and goethean in particular... but which, exactly is the passage that you says is an admission of "spamming Wikipedia?" Dpbsmith (talk) 00:24, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Those are all links to free information on the Internet. And he doesn't even know that it was me that put them there! All that's given to identify the user who added the information is the IP address of his/her computer! So how can he call it "self-promotional"? What a beautiful example of "democratic censorship"! Granted, it's unlikely that anyone else but me would have placed all of those relevant links to my own free online content there; but you never know, and you certainly don't know enough there to go whole-hog on the censorship thing.) What he (and several other comparable fools) have done, in fact, is to systematically go down the entire list of the three dozen or so edits I made yesterday, and remove every one of them.

This, combined with 207.112.92.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), a series of edits placing a link to his website/ebook on each related article, I call spam/ads/self-promotion. Mass linking like this has happened before, and it is definitely frowned upon, and in my experience reverted. --goethean ॐ 17:32, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure. Most Wikipedians remove suspected linkspam on sight. The point I wanted to pin down is this. I read your original comment to mean that he acknowledged that the creation of this article was a conscious act of self-promotion. That's not quite true. He acknowledges systematically linkspamming Wikipedia, but does not actually acknowledge that this article is spam. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't actually believe that the author of the ebook created the article. But I do believe that it was created by a WP user due to the linkspam. A WP user followed the links and decided to write an article about the ebook. --goethean ॐ 19:40, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete.
  Al
  16:21, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Admitted advertising.
  T/C 17:12, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete No brainer, maybe speedy Molotov (talk) 19:10, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete spam spam spam spam I don't like spam spam spam spam spam. Sabine's Sunbird 02:08, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable book. Advertising. My personal criterion is that a book cannot be considered notable unless it has an Amazon sales rank of less than 200,000. (Amazon lists everything in Books in Print). This book isn't even listed by Amazon. Or by Barnes and Noble. Not under title, not under author, and not under
  ISBN 0973620331 (the ISBN listed on the website). "Million Monkeys Press" appears to have published exactly one title at the present time. This "press" does not even have a merchant account with the credit card companies; it only accepts payment via PayPal. It is possible that the "book" exists only as a PDF file. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• delete not a notable book (yet) . Andries 14:41, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 09:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flying scorpions

Probable hoax, I can't find any reference to this, or in association with Shinto or Oklaptianis. Was tagged a speedy delete as patent nonsense but it doesn't fit that criteria

• Delete. Hoax/Patent Nonsense. Google search of "Flying scorpion" and "shinto" had zero hits, as did "Oklaptianis". --Fang Aili 19:12, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As per Fang. /
  Isotalo 02:00, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 01:04, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

James Martin (DJ)

Previous vfd:

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/James Martin (DJ)

• Utter nonsense... delete - Unsigned by Billbennett

UPDATE: The nonsense (eg "Cracking") has been removed as of 06 Sep 05. - Unsigned by Billbennett

• Keep - DISAGREE - Is biographical. Vote to remain. - Unsigned by 84.65.191.242.
• Delete Notability not established. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:39, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete void of encyclopedic value --Mecanismo 18:05, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• speedy recreation of prior deleted content. Sdedeo 18:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete quickly as vanity. Hall Monitor 18:44, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speed delete nn, vanity, recreation of previously deleted material ---CH (talk) 04:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 01:04, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disrepair

dicdef that is already in Wiktionary Cje 16:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not only does Wiktionary already have an entry for
  Cryptic (talk) 17:35, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Not notable, no need for it. Molotov (talk) 19:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, so keep. -Splash^talk 01:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Paes

Delete Non-notable as per [14] PhilipO 17:02, September 7, 2005 (UTC) --PhilipO 19:13, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep—According to the Leander Paes page she was "captain of the Indian team in the 1980 Asian Basketball Championships". I think that makes her at least marginally notable. — RJH 18:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete void of encyclopedic value. Her "call to fame" is the career of her daugher. Let's not create an article on every family member of any semi-obscure athlete --Mecanismo 18:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mecanismo, Leander is her son, not daughter. Plz see below. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:54, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Cleanup. The information from RJH should be included for a start. Capitalistroadster 18:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep basketball player in her own right.
  Kappa 18:43, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak keep if this can be expanded further, otherwise redirect to Leander Paes. Hall Monitor 18:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as expanded, Olympic-class athletes are definitely notable. Hall Monitor 19:30, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Mecanismo, at least until someone wants to do some serious work on it. --Fang Aili 19:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no real assertions of notability in article. From the article: "She was a basketball player in he own right." Professional? Semi-pro? Olympic? Amateur? Hobbyist? Shoots hoops in the driveway? Top scorer on the NBA Jam machine at the laundromat? This article needs context, and without it, is worse than no article at all. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:41, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Either needs proof that she has represented India at basketball (played professionally seems unlikely) or should be deleted. Average Earthman 21:32, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable in and of herself. Will change my vote if references to her own notability can be cited.
  T/C 22:47, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per Fernando Rizo. Nandesuka 04:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Reasonably well-known, though almost always attached with the name of Leander Paes. Tintin 11:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep — very notable. I also believe she was in the Indian national team. Heard a lot about her. Take it from me. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:24, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Philip: Google rankings are not the sole criteria for notability. I've rewritten it in stub form. Hope the above users can change their vote. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:14, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • No, but there a pretty good indicator! ;-) However, the links added do seem to provide more evidence of notability. --PhilipO 16:37, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
      • As this article shows, google rankings are a terrible indicator of notability for people in developing countries or who were famous in the past but not now.
        Kappa 16:42, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Fair enough - changing my vote to Merge. --PhilipO 19:13, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
      • Philip and the rest of the AFD team: please use this as a guide in the future:
        Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deletion sorting/List control =Nichalp «Talk»=
        17:54, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
• I assume Women's Basketball must have been a demonstration sport in the 1972 Olympic Games, as the first medals awarded in that event were in 1976 (according to the IOC anyway) Average Earthman 22:04, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• But I just checked David Wallachinsky's massive The Complete Book of Olympics which should have mentioned about 1972 if basketball was a demonstration sport, but it doesn't. This book lists all the teams that took part in Women's basketball between 1976 and 1992 - India isn't in any of them. I was suspecting that she could have taken part in 1980 when the big teams boycotted, that 1972 could be wrong and some copywriter might have taken the 1972 from Vece Paes and attributed it to Jennifer. That doesn't seem to be the case. Tintin 00:14, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge but agree with Average Earthman that first needs proof that she has represented India at basketball (otherwise should be deleted) Dlyons493 21:22, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP with MOVE to Frisbeetarianism. The new name has a number of supporters following it, and one delete changed to it (whether Angr follows that support with Buncofgrapes is unclear, but the conditioning would seem to make Angr a keeper of some form). -Splash^talk 01:16, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Frisbetarian

This isn't even a parody religion, it's a sig file.

• nowhere in the deletion guidelines does it say something must be a phenomema; the text is entirely accurate. As far as I can tell, this is entirely within the acceptable content for wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Drcrumb (talk • contribs) 14:20, September 7, 2005
• Delete per
  WP:NOR, Wikipedia:Importance, etc, etc. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 19:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment: It was an idea invented supposedly invented by
  Al
  19:08, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. User:Popeccola and I have been bantering this term about for years. Turns out it's from a 1975 skit from The Jim Stafford Show. Heck, I mentioned it on Popeccola's user page when he established the account. I just updated it today. - Lucky 6.9 19:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but more sources are better. Sdedeo 21:18, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless sourced and better justified as notable. The 317 google hits for "Frisbetarian" (most message boards and blog entries) don't strike me as enough to merit a keep here. Bunchofgrapes 21:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: "Results 1 - 10 of about 17,100 for Frisbeetarianism." --
    ^talk
    12:48, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Excellent point. Changing vote to Rename to Frisbeetarianism, which appear to be the correct spelling. The -ism parallels
      Flying Spaghetti Monsterism nicely too. Bunchofgrapes 14:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Thanks, I've put in a request to have the current occupant of the
        ^talk
        15:03, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Rename to Frisbeetarianism. Notable enough. Redirect to Carlin would not be quite right. --
  ^talk
  02:06, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete with the same provisos as per
  _{tɔk tə mi} 06:00, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment: Re: This [is not notable].
  Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is notable. Discordianism is notable. This is not. FWIW, I'd only ever heard of one of these three things until recently - although I've always seen it spelt Frisbeetarianism in the past. Widespread term. Needs either a keep or a redirect, but something of it should be kept somewhere. Grutness...wha? 08:23, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong Keep, Cultural reference, people could easily run across the term and look in Wikipedia for more info. We should have that info if we can. 24.97.252.34 13:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Rename to Frisbeetarianism. Remove redirect to Carlin. - Introvert ^talk 21:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• BJAODN, unless it attains real notability. Owen× ☎ 00:16, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash^talk 01:25, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Stiller

Weak Delete. I'm throwing this one out there to see what people think. He made a very ambitious attempt, but he failed. Obviously if he had suceeded, that would be qualifications for inclusion. The book itself has an Amazon sales rank of under 500k, so it alone is not enough to qualify him. Icelight 18:11, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, published author and got 1/3 of the way round Australia. Also media coverage "...has been profiled in publications like New York magazine and The New York Times. He has made numerous television appearances on shows like The Today Show, Good Morning America, and PBS's Trailside[15]
  Kappa 18:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per above. Molotov (talk) 19:12, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect, probably a common enough mis-spelling to not delete outright, whatever content not in

Sons and daughters

Void of any encyclopedic value and is a orphan article and without any links (it was found through the random article) Mecanismo 18:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete --Mecanismo 18:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Fang Aili 19:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. I've cleaned it up a bit, and the fact it seems to have fed both Neighbours and Home and Away makes it almost notable. More cleanup required though. Tonywalton  | Talk 20:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete following rewrites and merges below. Tonywalton  | Talk 23:50, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Tonywalton. It ran for years on UK TV during my childhood. --GraemeL ^(talk) 21:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Sons and Daughters. --GraemeL ^(talk) 11:05, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.
  Kappa 23:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge with
  _{tɔk tə mi} 06:09, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - I've already moved the small amount of useful stuff from this page to Sons and Daughters which has existed for some months. Links between Sons and Daughters to Neighbours and Home and Away made by the article are quite weak. Neighbours and Sons and Daughters are just two of many soaps made by Grundy; they share no particular or unique links to one another. Home and Away was probably inspired by Neighbours but really has nothing to do with Sons and Daughters at all. MinorEdit 06:51, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Sons and Daughters, especially if content has in fact been copied from here to there. -Sean Curtin 07:05, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with "Sons and Daughters" --MacRusgail 16:33, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.  Grue  13:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Panshanger yellows

British schoolboys ("under 16") playing soccer. Non-notable. DS 18:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• delete school sports vanity. — brighterorange (talk) 19:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. NN. --Fang Aili 19:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 01:27, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Coppertop

• Delete DJ with no allmusic page, (although there is a DJ Copperpot, but they appear to be different), about 130 unique google hits, and maybe one record. Icelight 18:34, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• delete dj vanity. — brighterorange (talk) 19:16, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vanity and possible adspam ---CH (talk) 02:22, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

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

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

The result of the debate was userfy. -- RHaworth 00:06:42, 2005-09-08 (UTC)

Simon Carlsen

Not notable. Not enough info. Molotov (talk) 19:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Addendum Hits on Google are in Swedish. Molotov (talk) 19:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• The google hits I saw was mostly Danish. But this is an nn-bio. Delete. Punkmorten 21:15, 7 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 01:28, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Schizima

This article was previously marked for speedy deletion for being reposted content that was already deleted. However, the article in its current form is totally different than what was deleted. That, and since it was previously deleted more than a year ago, I therefore moved it here to AFD. This article seems to describe an internet conspiracy among online message boards, but it still needs a list of third party references. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, forum...cruft. Zoe 19:31, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Forum cruft. Only 13 unique Google hits. --GraemeL ^(talk) 20:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 01:29, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Montenegrin language/German translation

• Delete There's not even an article, only talk page, the content is unbiased an unproved and without cited sources

RockyMM 19:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Someone obviously doesn't know how to use Wikipedia. But aren't articles supposed to be unbiased? Maybe you mean biased. Optichan 21:56, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• If this is an attempt at translating
  _{tɔk tə mi} 07:00, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Oh, I meant to use double negation, but then incorrectly corrected myself and just left the word unbiased. English is not my mother tongue. Sorry if this had caused any confusion. RockyMM 22:56, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

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

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

The result of the debate was MERGE to Samuel Z. Arkoff. -Splash^talk 01:31, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ARKOFF Formula

Delete or weak merge Doesn't warrant own article as per [16] PhilipO 19:22, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge info in Arkoff's article. Redirect ARKOFF Formula to that page. --Quasipalm 19:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per Quasipalm ---CH (talk) 03:21, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 01:32, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy fountains

Delete NN, Band Vanity --Quasipalm 19:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• delete bandity. — brighterorange (talk) 21:52, 7 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 redirect.

Completely unnecessary really, it's a superfluous copy of an article we already have (Keith Jarrett (the proper spelling)). It's like having an article for Miles Davis called Milse daviss. I don't think a redirect is justified, it's a complete waste Knucmo2 19:46, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Just make a redirect. It's plausible that someone could forget the last "t". --Fang Aili 20:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• speedy redirect. The existence of the article is evidence that at least one person misspelled it this way, and redirects are cheap. — brighterorange (talk) 20:05, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect As an awfull spell-er miself, Im offendedd.  :-P --Quasipalm 20:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't wikipedians want to get into the habit of redirecting from misspellings, it's just laziness not being bothered to retype a name properly (capitalizing the J and adding a t is not laborious stuff).--Knucmo2 20:18, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, we already have policy that says the opposite. Redirects from misspellings are good. Andre (talk) 20:38, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy redirect
  Stlemur 20:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy redirect - redirects are cheap. FreplySpang (talk) 20:33, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy redirect, if anyone's not too lazy to try it. --fuddlemark (talk) 20:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy redirect. Plausible misspelling. Nufy8 20:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above. Agreed, we don't want
  WP:CSD mentions redirects for common mis-spellings or misnomers as useful. I'd say "Jarret" for "Jarrett" would be far from uncommon. Tonywalton  | Talk 20:35, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy redirect. Why did you bother bringing this to AFD? Andre (talk) 20:36, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I find your tone patronizing. I brought this to AfD due to the reasons listed above, if you didn't agree with them, don't question why I did it, OK? All you needed to do with list your objections, not bring into question my motives.--Knucmo2 21:39, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hardly think your motives were being questioned. Andre was, and please correct me if I'm wrong, just expressing that fact that bringing this to AfD was pretty pointless considering WP policy allows, even encourages, misspellings to be redirected. Soltak | Talk 21:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • E'en so, only Andre can answer this, not you I'm afraid. Plus WP policy is not gospel (WP:IAR) and liable to change, I thought it deletable by the deletion policy.Knucmo2 22:05, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Article has been redirected to
  rfd}} Soltak | Talk 21:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The result of the debate was Keep --Aranda56 02:54, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statistical Methods for Research Workers

Not an encyclopedic article. No information on what's actually in the book. There might be a place for this information in Wikimedia; I'm open to suggestions. --Fang Aili 20:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it is a signifcant book in the history of statistics. Good lord, we have every Jessica Simpson album, why can't we have a book on something that has actually contributed to society? Dunc|☺ 20:21, 7 Setember 2005 (UTC)

You may be right (your comment about Jessica Simpson is compelling), but the article doesn't even assert that the book is notable, or how it has affected anything. Ostensibly the book has been read by people, but does that make it inherently notable? --Fang Aili 20:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Er, it's one of the most important books in the history of statistics. Dunc|☺ 20:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so, but I wouldn't know that by reading what was there when I first nominated the article. --Fang Aili 22:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Dunc; maybe Dunc can provide more info? Sdedeo 21:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A Google search turns up plenty of notability, as stated by Dunc. I added a couple notes to the article, but it needs more... --Daedalus-Prime 21:43, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep.
  ^talk 21:44, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Weak article about very notable book. Still in print after 80 years. 20,000 Google hits on exact phrase. Top hit is the full text online on a site entitled "Classics in the History of Psychology." I'm pretty sure (at the 5% level of significance) that this was the book that introduced the
  chi-square test to the research community. Jessica who? Oh, is she Bart's sister? Dpbsmith (talk) 22:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC) P.S. Don't knock the nominator. The original article sounded like it was just some random textbook. Nominators don't need to be subject matter experts, that's exactly why we have AfD. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep as per Dunc and Dpbsmith. Guettarda 02:08, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep this arcane evil book of villany and undergraduate torture... I mean this important text on statistics. (Can you tell my least favourite subject at uni?) Sabine's Sunbird 02:11, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• My thanks to Daedalus-Prime for updating the article to indicate the book's notability. Given that it's certainly worthy of an article, I withdraw the VfD. --Fang Aili 16:02, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to List of Japanese supporters of the WWII period. -Splash^talk 01:33, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese,East Asian and foreing supporters personalities in ww2 period

Delete and possibly Move to a correctly spelled title that makes sense (my guess is that this is just a poorly translated article) --Quasipalm 19:57, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I remember this list. Wasn't this already deleted once before? - Lucky 6.9 20:16, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup and do something to make it encyclopedic. Molotov (talk) 21:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC) *Eek! Delete it now, before all of those articles about captains get created!!!!! Zoe 22:03, September 7, 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and send to cleanup, helps to counteract systemic bias.
  Kappa 02:17, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Nice idea since it's potentially useful, but how would one title and categorize this? I'm good with keeping the info if it can be referenced. - Lucky 6.9 03:08, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Japanese supporters of the WWII period, which is a duplicate. Charles Matthews 10:13, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per Charles, but I still have problems with the notability of a lot of those names. Zoe 20:29, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per Charles. Dottore So 23:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, though frankly I can't believe no one has added the slightest hint of a source to this despite being sure they exist. -Splash^talk 01:36, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchist Communist Union of Seattle

Delete - more or less nonsense. --Quasipalm 19:52, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• delete nonsense/joke article. — brighterorange (talk) 20:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — An anarchist union? Oxymorons. :) — RJH 20:10, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Cleanup. Believe it or not, this is actually an established group. I'm not sure offhand if they are part of the group that disrupted the WTO conference in Seattle a few years ago, but from their website it looks like they may be affiliated. --Daedalus-Prime 21:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Cleanup. Established anarchist group. -Miborovsky 00:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 09:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oldskool produxions

Small, local, family-owned screenprinting shop. Only claim to fame is that they are not automated. Non-notable; likely ad. Delete — RJH 20:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• delete clear vanity. — brighterorange (talk) 21:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

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

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

The result of the debate was :Speedy deleted by Lucky 6.9 as experimental page per original poster.

Electrobytes

Advertisement page for a new toy. Notability has not been established, limited matches on Google search for the name. CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If these toys deserve an article, and I believe major toys do, this isn't it. - Lucky 6.9 20:12, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Sorry guys I was trying to make this on the same page. It is not a real toy per say but a character used a real toy a Shockini which is being judged for staying on Wikipedia. We were just trying to link it all together to have a more encyclopediac feel to the main article. Please do delete this as I am new to Wikipedia and did not understand it. I edited it to say it is an anime and not a toy, but if it is to be deleted we will understand!

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:38, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver's Woofing Theorem

Delete,

• Delete. Not encyclopedic. Stupid subject matter, anyway. --Fang Aili 20:26, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Fine, not a free host, not encyclopedic, understood. Delete it if these criteria apply, which they probably do. But please keep subjective comments to yourself. There are many that would disagree with your opinion. --Jeff Imes 05:21, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopedic, full of self-aggrandizing BS among the actual content, a fun and agreeable topic but not the least bit factual, and not of enough widespread significance to justify inclusion. Woof! Barno 19:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Dumb but funny, completely unencylopedic, maybe a candidate for BJAODN. MCB 00:00, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 01:37, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moppy

Article about a

• Delete. Not even remotely notable. Mention the mop in the appropriate wrestlers' articles if need be.
  T/C 22:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as per above.
  McPhail 00:24, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. It's more or less covered in
  Perry Saturn's article anyway. --Oakster 11:51, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete angle is mentioned in
  Perry Saturn's article anyway, and has no need for its own article --- Paulley 10:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, so keep. -Splash^talk 01:39, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Egoboo

• Delete unless Wiktionary wants it. Slang term. But I've heard the term used in non-Internet contexts. Zoe 22:04, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Wiktionary doesn't have an entry for "egoboo". The term used to be common in hobby where people published
  fanzines, such as science fiction fandom and postal Diplomacy (game). Its general noteworthiness is questionable enough that I could accept this article either being deleted or kept after transwikification. Barno 00:06, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Please, please don't vote to keep it. This will only result in a very good excuse for every imaginable kind of slang being kept. We're seriously burdened by young white (American) male geek cruft as it is without turning into a ethnological-etymological dictionary of Usenet slang. And, no, balancing with non-notable slang from other population groups won't make it more viable. /
    Isotalo 06:47, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Comment Notable to sf fen perhaps but when would a mundane hear it? Consider redirect (and merge brief info) to Fanspeak or Fanzine