Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 November 1

< October 31	November 2 >

Purge server cache

November 1

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Gun politics. --Cel e stianpower ^háblame 14:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gun ban

Is there any truth to what it says in this article? Is it useful? If not then delete. CarDepot 20:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gun politics (which is where gun control already points). I have taken liberty of doing exactly that. - Mike Rosoft 21:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It should not be done while the article is still on VFD though. CarDepot 21:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an article on making it illegal to buy and sell guns sounds useful to me. Earthling37 21:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Redirect, already covered under Gun Politics. IMHO, previous redirect by Mike Rosoft is simply being bold and has no bearing on AfD.--Isotope23 21:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly where does it tell in the Gun Politics article about the idea of making it illegal to buy, sell and make guns. Earthling37 22:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment, I think "many countries have an outright ban on full-automatic weapons, and some countries ban nearly all kinds of firearms..." under Degrees of Gun Control seems to cover that. If that is not sufficient, then by all means expand the Gun Politics article.--Isotope23 01:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Redirect. I would have simply have done it rather than bring this to AfD. MCB 22:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 64.200.124.189 22:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Expand. An article about gun banning which is a part of Gun Politics would be very useful, but the article needs expansion. Science3456 22:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with gun politics (as I had proposed on WP:DA). Aecis 23:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Expand. As far as I've read, the idea about the illegalization of guns is not mentioned in the Gun Politics article. FireTracks 23:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Three edits to Wikipedia, 2 of them to this page. --Calton | Talk
Speedy Redirect. --Calton | Talk 00:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Expand. Garr 02:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Redirect. - All of the gun topics on wiki could use work. It has been hard enough to keep "gun control" and "gun rights" under the neutral topic "gun politics". This current article adds no value, and I can't conceive of anything it could add that doesn't either belong in "gun politics" or in one of the nation specific articles. O^O 04:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect --Alynna 06:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 169.157.229.87 17:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Gun politics. This article is just silly. Why spread the discussion out over more articles?

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

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

The result of the debate was merge. Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good is Good

Song, Crowcruft substub. She deserves better than this. Delete or redirect to the Album or artist page if it isn't expanded. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 23:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any useful information to album article, preserving redirect, per WP:ALBUM. Jkelly 00:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, single from notable artist. Kappa 00:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Jkelly... -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 01:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if someone can expand it, or merge. Either way, no deletion required, as usual. Trollderella 01:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Sheryl Crow. This doesn't need its own page. - Sensor 01:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into whatever the album is, then Delete the page with no redirect. Johntex\^talk 01:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to appropriate album article.--Isotope23 02:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above --jnothman ^talk 07:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Wildflower Minor hit in the US reaching #64 in Billboard Hot 100. While it has received some airplay, it hasn't had much impact elsewhere. Capitalistroadster 08:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the Sheryl Crow album. — JIP | Talk 08:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into album. Didn't make top 10 => doesn't need a separate article. — Haeleth Talk 18:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Garr 00:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per everybody else.--Sean|Bla ck 00:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, reasons stated. zellin t / c 04:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:11, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My Favorite Mistake

Song fancruft substub. Can be easily merged with the album or simply just deleted Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 23:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hit song by notable performer. Capitalistroadster 00:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any useful information to album article, preserving redirect, per WP:ALBUM Keep expanded version. Jkelly 00:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CapitalistRoadster. Kappa 00:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 01:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hit song, notable artist. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Jkelly. This article, as written, doesn't provide much more information beyond the fact that it was a hit. - Sensor 01:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Veriable song. Trollderella 01:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep made the top 10 on a major top40 list. Johntex\^talk 01:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep rather than merge. We have plenty of other articles for hit songs. -- Captain Disdain 03:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. I recall there was a lot of media speculation at the time about who this song was addressed to (with Mick Jagger being a popular candidate. Perodicticus 13:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Almost no content. -R. fiend 16:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - What?! This is a very notable Sheryl Crow song. OmegaWikipedia 18:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if expandable: notable as a single, not as part of an album. — Haeleth Talk 18:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have expanded this article greatly. This song was nominated for a Grammy for Best Pop Vocal Performance of 1998 losing out to Celine Dion. This song was written about an unfaithful lover who is rumored to be Eric Clapton. No change of vote from keep.Capitalistroadster 04:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, especially after CR's rewrite, but I would have voted keep anyway. Jacqui ^★ 04:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Preaky 04:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan (American singer/songwriter)

Delete can't find anything significant on google about Ryan Palermo Arniep 00:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Jkelly 00:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 01:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC and as unverifiable nonsense. User has apparently done several vanity edits today involving the name "Ryan". - Sensor 01:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC. Johntex\^talk 01:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete jnothman ^talk 07:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Deleet, not notable. -- Foofy 13:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no album = no article. — Haeleth Talk 18:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:15, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vic Fieger

Non notable bio, claims to make freeware fonts and a webcomic, Dubmarine, also up for deletion - Hahnchen 00:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 01:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7 - nn - no claim to notability. Johntex\^talk 01:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't think it is speedy material, but the claims of notability fall short.--Isotope23 02:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a nice collection of fonts, but not all artisans belong in encyclopaedias. Comics are nn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnothman (talk • contribs) 2005-11-01 08:04:02 (UTC)
Delete; we don't have any guidelines on notability for typographers, but I'd suggest as a first consideration that notability in this regard should probably involve your typefaces having been used by multiple mainstream presses at the very least. — Haeleth Talk 18:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Responsive Software Ledger

Essentially an ad for Responsive Software.

Delete Dlyons493 Talk 00:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete adv -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 01:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Sensor 01:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable link spam. Johntex\^talk 01:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising. -- Captain Disdain 03:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ad
Delete per nom wangi 15:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising. Carioca 21:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam--Requiem18th
Delete Preaky 04:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We99 18:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ferbalize

Made up and unused. 11 Googles - many relating to Al Queida coincidentally.

Delete Dlyons493 Talk 00:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nn neogloism. -[[User:Mys e kurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]}_{01:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)}[reply]
Delete -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 01:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense. - Sensor 01:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete either nonsense or non-notable neologism. Johntex\^talk 01:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neologism.--Isotope23 02:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete made up and for wiktionary jnothman ^talk 08:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per wtf?? --Requiem ^{the 18th} 01:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Preaky 04:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. We99 18:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Syntagmaworld

Not notable 17 Googles.

Delete Dlyons493 Talk 00:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Vanity cruft. - Sensor 01:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable Vanity cruft. Let's not forget to delete the orphaned image if the article gets deleted. Johntex\^talk 01:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete biography? games mentioned not verifiable. (article also a mess) jnothman ^talk 08:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity. Good call on the image, John. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We99 18:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus (defaulting to keep). --Cel e stianpower ^háblame 14:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Enda Marren

An anonymous user has posted at Wikipedia:Help desk claiming to be the creator of this and several other articles and that these articles are hoaxes that should now be deleted. [1]. Unfortunately, the person asking for deletion is at a different IP address than the original creator, and the articles have been edited by other people. I believe most of these articles are probably speediable under G1 - hoax because not enough factual context is provided to allow anyone turn the article into something real. However, "Enda Marren" has survived VfD and "Enda Marren" + "Dublin" gets one Google hit, therefore, I will list this one for AfD. Johntex\^talk 00:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Several of the other articles are more clearly hoaxes. This one may not be, so I listed here. However, even if this article is about the person found by Google, I see nothing to show that the person is notable enough for inclusion, so I would vote to delte under A7 for lack of notability. Johntex\^talk 01:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He certainly exists and is active in Irish politics. Since he survived a recent Afd I don't feel he should be re-submit right now [2] Dlyons493 Talk 01:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- the AfD had only 2 votes. Therefore, I don't think the prior AfD should cary much weight Johntex\^talk 01:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is "Enda Marren" the same person as "Martin Enda Marren"? I can't find any source for MEM being his name.--Isotope23 03:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, stubbify. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 01:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep what can be verified. Trollderella 01:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Enda Marren" is verifiable [3], but "Martin Enda Marren" is not. Can someone source that this person's name is indeed "Martin Enda Marren"? I would change my vote if this person is indeed named Martin, but as it stands I recommend the text of this article be moved to Enda Marren (dropping the Martin of course) which currently is a redirect here and delete the version under this name. as far as I can tell, this person does not exist and the article text actually refers to Enda Marren.--Isotope23 03:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Short of 'phoning Fine Gael I can't see if Martin Enda Marren exists and/or is the same as Enda Marren. The latter does exist and I suggest I expand that entry slightly (see eg info from his old school in the link). That names his practice as Enda E Marren which argues a little against Martin Enda Marren as being his full name, but it's not conclusive (could be his father or something). Then Martin Enda Marren can be put to rest. If anyone wants to search add Fine Gael which is his political party to the search string! [4] Dlyons493 Talk 05:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Martin Enda Marren was the name used in the first sentence of the article by the anonymous poster who created the article. That is why I moved the page to that name and made the redirect. The person who claimed it was a hoax mentioned several other articles [[5] that have checked out as hoaxes, such as the claim that the Marren surname is tied to the "Earl of Kensington", which turns out not to exist. Johntex\^talk 16:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete Martin Enda Marren; keep Enda Marren. All sources seem to indicate that the name is only the latter. Martin may have been added by a misreading of lists in which he follows or precedes Senator Martin Mansergh as an Irish presidential appointment, and may well be a hoax. I also seem to not find support for his being a barrister, but rather a solicitor. jnothman ^talk 08:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Enda Marren, and cleanup/expand. - Mike Rosoft 12:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Since a much better article has been created at Enda Marren, delete (and possibly redirect). - Mike Rosoft 16:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Martin Enda Marren and Keep Enda Marren. I've now added what's verifiable into the latter. Dlyons493 Talk 12:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Easy solution to possible hoax or likely non-notable real person Bwithh 03:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 05:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angry Asian Man

Non-notable topic; no legitimate sources support the article, sources are made up by personal websites and blogs, violating WP:OR and WP:NOT#BLOG. Chris! _{my talk} 21:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also nominate this redirect for deletion.Chris! _{my talk} 06:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a directory of slang or neologisms. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 21:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It appears to be quite a well known sterotype, including a article about the blog at the Washington Post, see the links. It turned up over two million ghits, I know I know, WP:GHITS, however I say it should be kept, but sourced more so. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 23:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You know, blogs are not reliable sources according to WP:RS. And if you know about WP:GHITS, why would you support it? I don't understand. Chris! _{my talk} 23:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO, WP:RS, WP:CITE, and WP:OR. Possibly WP:NOT#BLOG. The article simply violates too many policies. Chris! _{my talk} 23:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete = WP:NEO says it all. --Markdsgraham 00:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't about a stereotype of angry Asian men -- it's about one Asian man, angry about stereotypes, and attempts to WP:COATRACK, or something, their self-chosen labels into a stereotype of its own. None of the sources really supports this. --Dhartung | Talk 01:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete this is also in violation of the no advertising category, it does not meet notability standards, NPOV and violates pretty much everyother basic principles of WP, i agree with every other delete comment and why, grossly violates the no OR rule.Cholga^talK! 02:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep' I think this should be kept. Angry Asian Man is pretty well known webpage and specially asian people know about it. This article is well developed though. Keep it or otherwise someone is going to create it again, so this point is moot. 75.166.55.118 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 03:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment well known to whom? it doubt it has significant enough traffic to merritt an article. It has to be proven its well known, have any sources? I could write a well developed article on my blog too, it would also and should also be deleted, because its not notable enough. Articles which are deleted are always easily and quickly redleted again and again, so that is not a problem. This has happened before and theres ways of dealing with it. In fact if it is recreated too often, it can be disabled from recreation entirely. I think its a subltle threat from you over recreation of the article. The burden of proof lies with anyone which wants to save this article. I suggest the creator of that blog try to attract more readers if he wants an article on wikipedia or that he begin a wikia project or find some other encyclopedia to become a part of.Cholga^talK! 05:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Cholga is right. Also we can prevent an article from recreation by banning the article name in case you didn't know. So try recreate it after it is deleted, and see what happen. Chris! _{my talk} 06:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, borders on WP:ATTACK. --Evb-wiki 13:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a serious article.--Bedivere 19:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Anyone wants to close this. I think we have a consensus. Chris! _ct 01:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Cel e stianpower ^háblame 14:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

YouThink.com

Advertisement. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-1 01:04

Delete as ad -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 01:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Alexa ranking of 21,166. - Sensor 01:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advertisement for non-notable website. Johntex\^talk 01:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ... advertising for website. ERcheck 02:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs a little rewriting but hardly a blatant ad by AfD standards. Site clearly has a very active forum and meets a guideline of Wikipedia:Websites... millions of posts (seems some are blog posts or something) and well over 5000 members. Alexa rank is around 20,000. --W.marsh 03:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alexa rank. Kappa 03:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Alexa rank still too low --JAranda | watz sup 04:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete according to WP:WEB. Note that the Alexa rank needs to be below 10,000 -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 10:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It only has to meet one of the three critera to pass that guideline... there are clearly enough unique forum members. --W.marsh 15:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just a forum. -- Foofy 13:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's a forum, and nothing in the article is verifiable. Friday (talk) 16:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Forumcruft.--Isotope23 17:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't believe this forum is particularly notable. --Scimitar ^parley 17:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Dottore So 22:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advertisement. *drew 02:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not an ad, fits the requirements, notable website. Also note that i-am-bored.com,. ranked in the 4000s on Alexa, is just the YouThink links section copied over. psychoman364 04:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Only needs to fit one of the Wikipedia:Websites guidelines, and it clearly does, with well over 5000 unique members.--burnt in effigy 01:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup & keep getcrunk juice 20:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup & keep because I prefer things I like to have articles, but the article isn't very good. billybobfred 04:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Macin-Talk Networks

Advertisement that actually admits it doesn't exist yet. WP:NOT a crystal ball, and it's still an advertisement. Wcquidditch | Talk 01:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Wcquidditch | Talk 01:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 05:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ad, presented as ad. jnothman ^talk 11:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advertising and not yet notable. -- Foofy 13:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination wangi 15:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Jkelly 21:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chase_Weeks

Joke page, not encyclopedic, involves homophobia 131.252.243.153 01:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. suggest speedy delete for nonsense. ERcheck 02:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete probable hoax, not WP:V, possibly an attack page.--Isotope23 02:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. -- Foofy 13:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Nonsense. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 17:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Closing early with clear consensus, to reduce backlog. Friday (talk) 04:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rockstar (drink)

Advertisement. BrainyBroad 02:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Advertising. Nothing in article to distinguish it from any energy drink. ERcheck 02:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not advertising. 3 varieties implies some commercial success. Kappa 03:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Doesn't look like any more of an ad than Coca-Cola does... -- Grev -- Talk 04:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I've seen this drink around the store a lot. If you delete this, then delete Red Bull, as well. --WikiFanatic^{Talk Contribs 00:06, 1 Nov 2005 (CDT)}
Keep. Looks like a valid encyclopedia article on a fairly popular brand of energy drink. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As above. Staxringold 11:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am probably only one of three people on my campus that doesn't drink this crap, so in my opinion it's highly notable. If it still sounds ad-like to you, feel free to change it. Jacqui ^★ 12:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If it's an advertisement, fix it. AfD is not a cleanup crew.--Nicodemus75 12:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup any advert language. notable energy drink. Youngamerican 14:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is a notable drink. Carioca 21:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This Product is huge. Not only is it the first energy drink in a large can, but numerous companies have copied the product. Rockstar has done so well that even Coke began to distribute the beverage last spring.

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. - ulayiti (talk) 23:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Goldencloud Weiner

Non-encyclopedic huckster whose creation (Rockstar) is also up for deletion. Oh, and he has a famous (?) daddy. BrainyBroad 02:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note—The primary definition of "huckster" at dictionary.com [6] is "a peddler or hawker." I suspect this article exists only in relation to the Rockstar advertisement, leading to my use of the word. No other meaning was intended. However, since we're throwing around wiki rules, how about WP:AGF?? BrainyBroad 03:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing notable about subject. (However, nothing in the article to suggest that creator is a huckster.) ERcheck 02:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete... no reason to attack the guy in your nom (see WP:CIVIL). Creator of an energy drink, and not an especially popular one at that. Having a famous parent does not confer notability in my opinion either. I'd say delete, or possibly merge into the energy drink article. Drink article is up for AfD too, but I have no opinion on that. A stronger case could be made for the notability of the creation than for the creator though.--Isotope23 02:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any notable information (there isn't any, really) with Rockstar (drink). Once again, Rockstar is a valid drink. --WikiFanatic^{Talk Special:Contributions/WikiFanatic 00:09, 1 Nov 2005 (CDT)}
Delete, there isn't really much to merge with Rockstar (drink) except his name as creator. -- Foofy 13:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Rockstar (drink) which I agree is notable. Factoid that Weiner is the son of Michael Savage (commentator), is too interesting to be lost to posterity (actually, I see its already noted on Savage's page)--FRS 20:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect after merging to Rockstar (drink) as per FRS, no need to disparage the subject during nomination. Hall Monitor 23:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, period. --Calton | Talk 01:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Any notable info is already in the article for the drink, which has survived AfD. No real need for redirect. Youngamerican 16:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per FRS. I don't even drink energy drinks and I've heard of Rockstar. - Pasiphae 07:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus (defaulting to keep). --Cel e stianpower ^háblame 14:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Athalite

Previous nom. No one voted except nominator (me), so I'm reposting this. -R. fiend 02:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No possibility of expanding to an encyclopedic article—unless the creator wants to divulge the proprietary, patented formula :) BrainyBroad 02:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 05:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment have a look at Review: A 'Cold' Soldering Iron. Fg2 07:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Appears to be new notable material if this MSNBC article is any guide see [7]. The product seems to have been widely advertised according to the article although there are only 700 Google pages for Athalite see [8]

Capitalistroadster 08:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I'm not convinced it's that notable. I see only 70 Googles (not 700) and some are wiki mirrors. [9] is one of them and it's sceptical - thinks that is just two-pieces of carbon that short-circuit. Since we're dealing with a commercial product which has an advertising budget dedicated to getting it coverage I'd err on the side of caution and delete. If it's really notable it will appear from third parties. Dlyons493 Talk 14:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See my comments in previous AfD. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 10:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to be notable enough for a stub at least. -- Foofy 13:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thought, I'm not really sure. Abstain. -- Foofy 13:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- perhaps it could be merged into an article on soldering? Does it fit in any of those? - Dandelions 18:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. This is a coined, purportedly Trademarked, name (i.e, a neologism) for a component or material used in a nn commercial product. Nothing verifiable about this component or material is known, except that it is not, contrary to the current text of the article, patented (at least in the US). Arguably,the founder of the company who does have two patents and two pending patent applications relative to cordless soldering irons is notable, and maybe the company itself, but NOT this neologism--FRS 21:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted by Friday.--Scimitar ^parley 21:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anders J. Nielsen

Vanity page for a high school comedian.

Delete per nomination. —BrianSmithson 02:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to actuality and relevance of facts despite apparent blatant vanity (72.224.175.89)
Delete, not notable yet.--Isotope23 02:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just becuase he exists doesn't mean he's notable. --W.marsh 03:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Define Notable (72.224.175.89)
Delete, notability not established. -- DS1953 ^talk 04:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn jnothman ^talk 11:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable Marcus22 15:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7. Have tagged as such. --howcheng [ talk  contribs  web ] 17:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the article does make claims to notability (ones I don't think are strong enough, mind you, but they're there). So I'm not sure A7 applies. It seems moot, though, as the article is currently destined for deletion anyway. —BrianSmithson 19:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speddily deleted by JoJan.--Scimitar ^parley 21:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

William Stewart

Unencyclopedic academic. Request for explanation of importance has been ignored for over a month. BrainyBroad 02:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Community college prof, and therefore unlikely to be notable. Isomorphic 02:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article does not assert any notability. Unable to find any publications by subject; only find was faculty listing (one of two in the department.) db-bio. ERcheck 02:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and actually this could go speedy CSD:A7 because there isn't even an assertion made.--Isotope23 03:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete Community College 'philosophers' who appear to not have done anything of note don't belong. Dxco 05:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under A7. -- Captain Disdain 06:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete
Redirect to William G. Stewart. Proto t c 15:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7. Have tagged as such. --howcheng [ talk  contribs  web ] 17:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7 then redirect per Proto. AndyJones 17:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have speedied it under A7. A redirect to William G. Stewart is not necessary, since there is already a redirect from William G Stewart. besides these are two different persons. JoJan 20:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I don't really follow JoJan's reasoning here, at all. I've created the redirect. Seems obvious to me that someone searching for the presenter of Fifteen to One might well type "William Stewart" into a search. Feel free to reverse this if you think I'm missing something. AndyJones 22:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Insanity peppers

NN, far too specific and particular

Delete per nom. Impaciente 02:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, or redirect to the appropriate Simpsons episode article.--Isotope23 02:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, should be in a Simpsons article and doesn't need its own article. Catamorphism 03:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge, verifiable fictional spice. Kappa 03:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We don't need an article about the fictional asylum that harvested them either. Gazpacho 05:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / Merge with appropriate Simpson's episode. Ok, I finally figured out what the heck this article is: Homer eats these peppers in a Simpson episode, and hallucinates. So: I dont think this is worth it's own article, but perhaps the author of the episode article would want to include this in it. Dxco 05:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom jnothman ^talk 09:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Megre to appropriate episode. Jacqui ^★ 12:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / Merge per Dxco. Youngamerican 14:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dottore So 22:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. - Mailer Diablo 11:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shivani Kak

Unencyclopedic athlete. Majority of google hits are mirror sites. No google news hits. BrainyBroad 02:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN. Dxco 05:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not even notable enough for a stub. --Foofy 13:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn Tintin 14:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7. Have tagged as such. --howcheng [ talk  contribs  web ] 17:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Speedily deleted by Wayward.

Short Biography of Albert Einstein

Obvious joke page. I think this is BJAODN country. -- Captain Disdain 02:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BJAODN per nomination. Or delete it. I don't really care, as long as it goes away from the actual encyclopedia... -- Captain Disdain 02:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - nonsense!! (A comprehensive articles exists on Einstein; this nonsense should be deleted quickly) ERcheck 03:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:CSD G1 (no meaningful content or history, text unsalvageably incoherent). - Sensor 03:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid that's not going to fly. G1 clearly states: This does not include: copyvios, bad writing, partisan screeds, religious excogitations, immature material, flame bait, obscene remarks, vandalism (although pure vandalism is speediable under CSD G3), badly translated material, hoaxes, or fancruft, unless the material is actually unsalvageably incoherent. Which this isn't. (And don't get me wrong, I would love it if this could just be deleted right away since it's painfully obvious that it's not a serious article, cannot be salvaged and even the article title cannot really be used for anything else, but the fact remains that it's not eligible for speedy deletion.) -- Captain Disdain 04:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete immediately (note I did not use the word speedy). There is no point in leaving this here for 5 days. -- DS1953 ^talk 04:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete jnothman ^talk 11:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate of Albert Einstein article. Content is verifiably incorrect. Complete bullshit. Delete with all haste. Saberwyn 11:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to make sense of it" is also classified as patent nonsense. See Wikipedia:Patent nonsense. Delete and move to BJAODN. Candidate for speedy deletion as patent nonsense and/or silly vandalism. - Mike Rosoft 12:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Cel e stianpower ^háblame 14:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chemsoc

This is almost a dictionary definition - at British universities Chemsoc means a social society for Chemistry students. Pilatus 02:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep in some form. Probably move to Chemistry student society and make more useful, eg. list of such societies. jnothman ^talk 09:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, could be mentioned in an article about Chemistry societies if one actually existed.-- Foofy 13:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP! Comment left by User:131.227.185.60 (contributions), an IP address registered to the Chemistry department at the University of Surrey
Delete little more than a dicdef.--Isotope23 17:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it could potentially be usefully expanded. Bondegezou 20:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Abbreviation for a type of student society about which nothing needs be said except that it's a kind of student society. If anyone can usefully expand it I'll reconsider. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Mel Etitis. MCB 22:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MCB and Mel Etitis -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 09:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. -- Necrothesp 02:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sh-

It may be slang, or it may be a joke, but it's not encyclopedic. BrainyBroad 03:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this sharticle as non-encyclopedic. -- DS1953 ^talk 04:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Dxco 05:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Shdelete. -- Captain Disdain 06:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree. may be true somewhere, but does not specify --jnothman ^talk 08:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Southern UK - the reference to Birmingham makes that clear enough. I remember this as a pretty brief fad in the late 90s, though I always thought it was a Yiddish reference and spelt "sch-". — Haeleth Talk
Redirect without merging to Shibboleth --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete schdicdef of obsolete schlang. — Haeleth Talk 18:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unencyclopedic. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 09:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Garr 00:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as stated. zellin t / c 04:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by Wayward as nn-bio. --GraemeL ^(talk) 17:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Casaula

Non-notable.-- Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 03:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy A7 - No assertion of notability. Dlyons493 Talk 05:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN, vanity. Dxco 05:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy as dlyons. jnothman ^talk 09:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The man with the smallest penis in existence and the microscope technician who loved him

Non-notable. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 03:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are Flash movies typically on IMDB? --SPUI (talk) 03:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move to The Man with the Smallest Penis in Existence and the Electron Microscope Technician Who Loved Him. Rampart 03:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment if it's that small, surely it shouldn't be captalised. Dlyons493 Talk 14:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move and keep. Verifiable film. CanadianCaesar 03:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only a short flash film. -- Kjkolb 07:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. List on IMDB isn't a bar for notability; you can get pretty much anything on IMDB if you want to. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 13:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just a tiny bit... Short film that falls below the threshhold of notability.--Isotope23 15:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, verifiable != encyclopaedic. Proto t c 15:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reported gross earnings or release beyond one small film festival 2 years ago. Basically a home movie. -R. fiend 17:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN. - Sensor 23:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 09:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. --Holderca1 02:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hoss (album)

Non-notable, doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 03:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, album by a group with an article. Kappa 03:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep? Rotten article. I had to search around a lot with google to find out which band this album is for ("Lagwagon")!. However, does appear to be an existing and established band (3 albums). Dxco 05:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- "What links here" usually works. Kappa 19:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep band well known in punk-rock world jnothman ^talk 09:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and slap a cleanup tag on it.--Isotope23 15:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable album by very notable group. Aecis 19:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and cleanup. Jkelly 22:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, usually regarded as the best album by the first band to be signed on to Fat Wreck Chords

Keep, I have heard of this band and am not into music that much. zellin t / c 04:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hook-up

This article isn't noteworthy. The expresion is clearly straight forward English --Requiem18th 03:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article doesn't seem to provide any new or notable informaition about the phrase. -- Foofy 13:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or transwiki to Wiktionary. BrianSmithson 21:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bob James (actor)

Delete. There is no "Bob James" in IMDB with the listed birthdate or anywhere close to it, the only film cited in the article likewise has no IMDB citation, and the article is a stub written in an incomplete style. RGTraynor 04:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Googling leads to a composer, not to this man. However, because his child actor status and movie are from so long ago, relatively early in the last century, Google may not be the best place to look. Jacqui ^★ 12:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Despite a lot of searching, I can find no mentions of this particular guy. I'm an old movie buff but I never heard of this guy. Since there are no sources to prove he even existed, this shouldn't even be a stub. -- Foofy 13:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unverifiable. Proto t c 15:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator. Hall Monitor 22:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. --Metropolitan90 01:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lydia Bethany-Rose Rupp

A girl who was kidnapped, and then found. There was extremely little coverage of her disappearance when it happened, and nobody outside of her family will care about her 5 years from now, much less 100. NatusRoma 04:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable --Dglynch 05:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is sad to say that in this day and age, this is not notable. Also, article contains link to pay version of CNN. Happy to see the girl has been reunited with her family. Dxco 05:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, no assertion of notability. No, being kidnapped does not make one notable. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 08:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Angr. Proto t c 15:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7. Have tagged it as such. --howcheng [ talk  contribs  web ] 17:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not really a speedy candidate; being kidnapped may not be notable, but it is an assertion of notability. That said, given the votes so far, it does seem unlikely that a full AfD process is going to lead to any other result... — Haeleth Talk 18:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7. Sadly, yes, just being kidnapped is not notable, nor is an assertion of being kidnapped an assertion of notability. If not speedy-eligible, then plain old delete as NN. Fortunately, she was found. - Sensor 23:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Recalled Audio Sequence ( R.A.S.)

The title of the article is a neologism, and it is therefore original research. Dglynch 04:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. - Dglynch 04:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dglynch -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 09:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Auronix

appears to be advertising. Does not meet criteria in WP:CORP. Gsd97jks 04:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nomination. Gsd97jks 04:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable --Dglynch 04:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, Dlyons493 Talk 05:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- not notable - BeteNoir 07:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 09:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Garr 00:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to New Zealand English. - ulayiti (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand slang

WP:NOT a slang dictonary Transwiki to Wikinaries (spelling) and Delete --JAranda | watz sup 04:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. But maybe change category to New Zealand Dialect. [Amake]-Annon User only has 3 edits 2 from this article --JAranda | watz sup 08:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and verify. Sources would be nice but article with potential to be very useful. Capitalistroadster 08:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all the uniquely New Zealand terms here are already covered at New Zealand English. The rest are slang terms used in a lot of countries. Merge any other NZ-specific ones to New Zealand English, delete the rest, and use as a redirect. Grutness...wha? 09:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with New Zealand English#Vocabulary and New Zealand English#Unique New Zealand English vocabulary into new article New Zealand vocabulary or New Zealand words, similar to Australian words. --jnothman ^talk 10:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

also, in response to Grutness, terms shared with Australian English should be given as an example in a separate section of this article on common slang shared between the two countries. Those shared with more general English should probably be removed. jnothman

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. Capitalistroadster 08:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]
Merge What Grutness/Jnothman said. JPD (talk) 10:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Interesting topic. - Sensor 23:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per jnothman --Requiem ^{the 18th} 01:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Jnothman --ElectricRay 18:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Jkelly 22:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Torbert

It's not technically a vanity page as Mr. Torbert didn't create it, but it's still not appropriate for Wikipedia. Kuciwalker 04:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

D Nonnotable high school teacher. Fawcett5 04:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. --Dglynch 04:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, no assertion of notability. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 05:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. This is A7 country. -- Captain Disdain 06:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7. Have tagged it as such. --howcheng [ talk  contribs  web ] 17:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tools for CVS

Wikipedia articles are not mere collections of external links. —Cryptic (talk) 04:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete This article very poorly replicates excellent resources already found on the web. Wikipedia is not intended to tool list resource. Dxco 05:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete as Dxco. Besides, most programmers looking for CVS tools will (and should) look elsewhere first. --jnothman ^talk 10:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This belongs in a category, and not an article....maybe I'll create it sometime later tonight. Bjelleklang - talk 20:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd agree if we had more than a single article listed on the page. I in fact found this by following whatlinkshere for CVS Suite (AfD discussion). —Cryptic (talk) 02:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. --Holderca1 02:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

707 (band)

Seems to be a pretty-much unknown band. (Does that make it a candidate for speedy deletion, or a VfD?) --jnothman ^talk 03:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 05:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. They do have an AllMusic entry, and apparently their single Mega Force made it to US Top Ten. They're not hugely notable, but they are notable enough. -- Captain Disdain 06:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

change to keep: I didn't find this information when I did a brief search. Should the afd be removed? --jnothman ^talk 07:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you declare that you withdraw the nomination, and no one comes in demanding that the article be deleted, I'm sure an admin type will come along fairly soon and just quietly close the AfD, remove the AfD tag and we'll be done with it... I think that as a matter of principle, it's best to let an AfD be officially closed once it's been officially opened. In the meantime, I added the {{cleanup-date|October 2005}} and {{band-stub}} templates to the article. -- Captain Disdain 08:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep according to WP:NMG. Allmusic.com notes that they have made five albums including a couple on Casablanca Records, a notable record label see Allmusic page [10].

A couple of albums charted in the early 1980s. The sing "I Could Be Good For You" reached #52 on the Billboard Hot 100. Capitalistroadster 09:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, nomination withdrawn and no "delete" votes cast. — Haeleth Talk 18:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Garr 00:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Preaky 04:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

C.R. Taylor

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 05:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable musician - BeteNoir 07:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. jnothman ^talk 10:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at best, redirect to Pray for the Soul of Betty. A 1 minute segment on American Idol is not notable enough for inclusion. The band itself gets slight notability from the lead singer's involvment with AI, but I don't think that confers to the individual band members.--Isotope23 15:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 09:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. --User:Lehla 02:42, 3 November 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.

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joao Joya

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 05:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- not a notable musician - BeteNoir 07:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. 10 google hits... jnothman ^talk 10:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at best, redirect to Pray for the Soul of Betty. A 1 minute segment on American Idol is not notable enough for inclusion. The band itself gets slight notability from the lead singer's involvment with AI, but I don't think that confers to the individual band members.--Isotope23 15:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 09:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. --User:Lehla 02:43, 3 November 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.

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hamboussi

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 05:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- not a notable musician - BeteNoir 07:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. jnothman ^talk 10:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at best, redirect to Pray for the Soul of Betty. A 1 minute segment on American Idol is not notable enough for inclusion. The band itself gets slight notability from the lead singer's involvment with AI, but I don't think that confers to the individual band members.--Isotope23 15:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. PJM 03:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 09:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. --User:Lehla 02:43, 3 November 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.

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. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 08:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nrgetik

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 05:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under A7. -- Captain Disdain 06:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Doh. You're right, of course; I was still in possibly-nn-band-member mode when I saw this. I'll go tag it. —Cryptic (talk) 06:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete BeteNoir 07:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete G7. Rd232 ^talk 11:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paulin Tay Straughan

This article is about my mother, a prominent sociologist, and I have written it recently. It contains personal information about my family which I regret placing on the internet. Thus, I strongly believe in the deletion of my article. Please consider my appeal. Thank you for your attention. 203.124.2.18 15:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 05:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the article doesn't actually establish notability at all; this is a classic "average professor" situation, and it's obvious that she's no more notable than any other professor out there. I propose that the article is speedily deleted under A7. -- Captain Disdain 06:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Captain Disdain. --Metropolitan90 07:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. -- Kjkolb 07:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The "average professor" case is not one where we should apply A7 speedy delete. That is applicable when the article makes no claim of notability about its subject. The article states :"Paulin Tay Straughan is a sociologist working at the National University of Singapore (NUS). She is the vice-dean of the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences(FASS), and also serves as the deputy head of the sociology department at FASS. She has a PhD in sociology and is an associate professor." That is an assertion of notability. It does not establish notability but that is a different case. I would vote to delete as the article does not state what Ms Straughan has contrbuted to the discipline but it is not a speedy. Further, my vote could easily change if someone could refer to her research. ~~Delete~~
Speedy Delete It is ~~almost~~not an A7/nn-bio. More signficantly, per G7, the user requested its speedy deletion *before* anybody else edited it. Even after that point, there's been little revision. Logic dictates we let people speedy delete their self-admitted mistakes. If this person is really notable (I doubt) then somebody will likely create a fresh new article. --rob 10:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article is eligible for a G7 speedy. However, it does not come within a bull's roar of an A7 non-notable deletion and should not be considered to be a precedent for any other "average professor" articles. As always, we should be very careful not to delete notable people because their current article isn't up to scratch. Speedy Delete under G7. Capitalistroadster 10:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete jnothman ^talk 10:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. --Holderca1 03:01, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Riblets

There is no good reason to delete this. They are a real product and the information about them seems to be accurate. It should possibly be marked a stub but certainly not removed.

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 05:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep and expand ~~but delete any advertising language.~~ as rewritten. Youngamerican 14:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I did a quick rewrite to remove adspeak and POV.--Isotope23 15:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, thanks for the rewrite. Kappa 19:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it is notable. Carioca 21:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Riblets are notable (and tasty). - Sensor 00:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- comment but those little bone shavings are like the same size and shape as a windpipe. Youngamerican 02:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. zellin t / c 04:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep tastey meat. Riblets are just pork ribs that have have been sawed down to 1 1/4 inch pieces and then covered/marinated in sauce. Klonimus 14:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by User:FCYTravis. —HorsePunchKid→龜 06:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer forman

I doubt that Spencer Forman merits his own article, even with the links to his (also dubiously noteworthy website). Delete as vanity. —HorsePunchKid→龜 05:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer himself agrees that I do not merit my own link. However, I strongly argue that www.trikepilot.com does. If one is interested in learning about ultralight trike flying, there is not one other single source on the internet sharing as much information about the sport or as much multimedia for free. Please feel free to suggest how one could otherwise provide this information to the wikipedia without uploading 5Gb or more of videos and content to the wikipedia server? As far as the link is concerned for Spencer Forman, feel free to kill it... that was a sandbox mistake that got out into the wild and I cannot figure out how to get rid of it. —Spineight→龜 05:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on your talk page, since this has already been speedily deleted. —HorsePunchKid→龜 06:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bahoots

If this article really, truly is a dicdef, then transwiki to Wiktionary. If not, then just plain Delete. --WikiFanatic^{Talk Contribs 00:02, 1 Nov 2005 (CDT)}

Delete, dictdef. Zero relevant google or google print hits. Doesn't meet wikt:WS:CFI. (And please remember to tag the article {{afd}}.) —Cryptic (talk) 06:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Cryptic. Google gives some other interesting meanings... --jnothman ^talk 10:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not urban dictionary. Delete. Friday (talk) 04:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by RHaworth as attack page (in Swedish). --GraemeL ^(talk) 17:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Areskog

Page consists only of Swedish, use of words such as "noob", "hobbies ... Warcraft 3", and "ROFL" suggests it's a vanity article. Qutezuce 06:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. - Qutezuce 06:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is an attack page, not vanity. Speedy delete. Uppland 10:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. jnothman ^talk 10:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not in English, no claim of notability, vanity page. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. I am marking the article as such. - Mike Rosoft 12:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Collibus

Thoroughly non-notable band, and page appears to be vanity and/or commercial self-promotion. Should be in my opinion a speedy delete.--Nlu 06:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but non-speedily for failure to satisfy any WP:MUSIC criteria. --Metropolitan90 07:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, morally it should be speedy, and one day it will be procedurally permitted. --DDerby-(talk) 07:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete can't find a thing on it. jnothman ^talk 10:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 09:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Platt

Vanity page. Absolutely no indication that this person or the band he belongs to is of any significant value to be included in an encyclopedia. Speedy delete is my opinion. --Nlu 06:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but not a speedy, I think. Jdavidb [[talk • contribs]] 06:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Fails WP:MUSIC Big time and not a speedy sadly --JAranda | watz sup 07:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just like Collibus --DDerby-(talk) 07:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete can't find a thing on him, or the band jnothman ^talk 10:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 09:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is this the same Stephen Platt who's a notable comic book artist? If so, keep after expanding article. Otherwise delete. DS 13:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not, based on the contents of the article. --Nlu 16:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stone Rule

Neologism with 12 unique Google hits, including Wikipedia. Only 3, really. GTBacchus 06:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. BlankVerse 10:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of significant use. JPD (talk) 10:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense neologism, and borderline POV attack on Christianity (see stub). - Sensor 00:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As the guy who did the stub sorting, I can say with absolute certainty that calling it a {{christianity-stub}} was my best good-faith effort to categorize it correctly, and not at all an attack on Christianity. If you follow the link, you will see that the idea of the "Stone Rule" is originated and circulated by Christians, in the context of clarifying and discussing the Golden Rule vis-a-vis other, not so good, rules, which they reject. I'm very sorry for that misinterpretation, and invite anyone with questions about why I sorted the article the way I did to my talk page. -GTBacchus 04:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 09:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as nn-bio. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rsmaniak

Vanity page of mere nickname BeteNoir 07:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. - BeteNoir 07:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. This is plain old {{nn-bio}} territory; see WP:CSD if you're interested in the "speedy" process. —HorsePunchKid→龜 07:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per above.--Alhutch 07:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per HorsePunchKid. Thelb ⁴ 08:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleted under criterion A7 (no assertion of notability) in WP:CSD. Technically the article is about the nickname of a nonnotable person, but that does not make any real difference. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Savior mary

vanity advertisement for non-notable book BeteNoir 07:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. - BeteNoir 07:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Alhutch 07:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Thelb ⁴ 08:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn book; nn author. jnothman ^talk 10:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: vanity article on book published by vanity press. - Sensor 00:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stripped art

Ad for nn company Delete --JAranda | watz sup 08:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This complaint states that the entry in question is an "advertisement for a non-notable company."

To address this I have demonstrated below::

(1)What an advertisment is...

(2)How this article is no different from similar, existing articles which could under the definition applied also be construed as advertisements.

(3)What makes something notable...

(4)How the subject of this entry is "notable."

(5)Therefore, this entry should be approved and included in Wikipedia.

(1)WHAT IS AN ADVERTISEMENT?

source:: www.dictionary.com

Advertise: To make public announcement of, especially to proclaim the qualities or advantages of (a product or business) so as to increase sales.

(2) Does this article aim only to "proclaim the qualities or advantages of 'stripped art' so as to increase sales"? No.

It describes an organization objectively, but does not promote the organization.

It describes the organization in a manner similar to that in which Wikipedia describes Playboy. How can one then allow Playboy to have a Wikipedia entry, but not Stripped Art?

(3) Notability?

WHAT MAKES SOMETHING NOTABLE?

source:: www.dictionary.com

adj Notable: Worthy of note or notice; remarkable:: notable beauty; sled dogs that are notable for their stamina.

This definition does not say that something is "notable" only because thousands of people know about it already...

But it does say the thing must be "worthy of notice."

Now, the fact that thousands of people already know about something could make it notable. But not necessarily. Millions of people are aware that Brad Pitt left Jennifer Anniston. Is it notable? Is it worthy of putting in Wikipedia? No.

Then we need a different test. Let's look to the definition of notable, then.

Worthy of notice. What makes something worthy of notice? Well, why do we have Wikipedia in the first place? To educate through informing.

What does this article do? It informs people about a unique business and a unique business concept that yes, thousands of people do already know about. But that shouldn't make it notable.

Then why is it notable? Because the business model can be applied to funding other kinds charities. There is a method, and method can be adopted by others. That is "worthy of notice." And a lot worthier than a great deal of the content already on this site.

-----james.j@consortiumbank.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.130.160 (talk • contribs) 2005-11-01 10:27:52 UTC

Delete, nonnotable. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 08::36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
- Please advise as to the location of the wikipedia policy on "notability." -----james.j@consortiumbank.com
  - Policy on notability
  - Wikipedia:Companies, corporations and economic information/Notability and inclusion guidelines
Delete nn ad. Created by one persistent user, who argues against non-definition of notability, but does not give evidence of notability, see Talk:Stripped art. --jnothman ^talk 08:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-evaluate your positions based on the arguments above. -----james.j@consortiumbank.com
- Done. Position not changed. jnothman ^talk 10:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable and advertising. Nothing to reconsider - simply stating the dictionary definitions of notable and advertising doesn't change the matter at hand - that the article is about something not the former and is definitely the latter. ●R EDVERS ^{HELLO●EMAIL●DOINGS} 09:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I have not simply stated dictionary definitions. I have applied the meaning of the definitions to the situation at hand. How have you done the same? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.130.160 (talk • contribs) 2005-11-01 10:27:52 UTC
  - Okay then. My vote remains delete, because simply stating the dictionary definitions of notable and advertising doesn't change the matter at hand and neither does applying those meanings selectively to the text. Happy now? ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 16:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete my criteria for notability are increasingly liberal - but this is nowhere close. No alexa rating - no evidence of exteral discussion/review or media interest. AFAICS no neutral information available - outside the website. Thus the significance is unverifiable (even minor schools have ofsted reports) --Doc (?) 10:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The jury has found that this article needs to be deleted. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 10:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no evidence I can find for this thing's importance, interest or even existence, except for a website. Wikipedia Is Not a Links Directory. As well as being non-notable, the subject is barely verifiable. The Land 10:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Research turns up no published works whatsoever by independent sources (no newspaper features, no corporate histories or biographies, no consumer reports) on the subject of this company. The WP:CORP criteria for inclusion of companies are not satisfied. Delete. Uncle G 11:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and border line advert per the author's (?) notability argument above that "Because the business model can be applied to funding other kinds charities. There is a method, and method can be adopted by others...". This would appear to be a clear indication that the article is at least in part intended to be an advertisement for the company's business model.

forgot to sign my comment--Isotope23 15:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. Marcus22 15:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn ad. AndyJones 17:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN spam, remove before it makes it to Google's cache. --Madchester 21:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of existence outside of one website, and creators argument for 'original business model' is more likely to get this to qualify for original research than notability without wider reporting. Average Earthman 22:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of verifiability, notability, and as advertising. MCB 22:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I appreciate the author's contribution and his/her arguments for keeping the article, but it doesn't meet Wikipedia standards. The article is an ad as written. If it were rewritten to assert notability, and it could be proven, perhaps my vote would be different. - Sensor 00:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tracie Cullum

Article is on a non-notable UK murder victim, one of several created by an anon with a racist agenda (See Talk:Anthony Walker). ●R EDVERS ^{HELLO●EMAIL●DOINGS} 09:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. - ●R EDVERS ^{HELLO●EMAIL●DOINGS} 09:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Rd232 ^talk 10:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom jnothman ^talk 10:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Qwghlm 11:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I wonder whether this is a candidate for speedy deletion per A7. Is an assertion that someone was murdered an assertion of notability? Food for thought. - Sensor 00:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Yates

Article is on a non-notable UK murder victim, one of several created by an anon with a racist agenda (See Talk:Anthony Walker) ●R EDVERS ^{HELLO●EMAIL●DOINGS} 09:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. - ●R EDVERS ^{HELLO●EMAIL●DOINGS} 09:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. jnothman ^talk 10:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - unlike the other two (Tracie Cullum, Daniel McGann), Yates may actually have been a racist murder; I'm not sure if this justifies Yates himself having an entry. If the murder itself is notable, maybe it should be mentioned somewhere else, not in an article about Yates, who is otherwise non-notable. Not sure where that somewhere else would be - some UK race-relations article? Not sure either whether it is notable. It may be too recent to say. Rd232 ^talk 11:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A Google suggests he died a year ago this week. BBC News Online has just two entries, both on local pages, nothing national. I'd say that a year with no more news, plus the lack of a national story on the UK's most comprehensive news site suggests that the story is over and the unfortunate Mr Yates is a non-notable - just another statistic, sadly. ●R EDVERS ^{HELLO●EMAIL●DOINGS} 11:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's an October 2005 court case. [11]. Rd232 ^talk 14:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Qwghlm 11:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Sensor 00:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. --Holderca1 03:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Organizing vision

nonsense with no meaningful content BeteNoir 10:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. - BeteNoir 10:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps there is actual encyclopedic content here, but just needs cleanup or rewrite BeteNoir 18:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not nonsense, has meaningful content. A description of a term referring to information systems, complete with a reference. --TM ^(talk) 10:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TM. Term used by research institutions, eg [12], [13]. jnothman ^talk 11:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is has meaningful content. Carioca 21:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 09:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Hancock (other)

Delete nn vanity, was an audience member of a show, self-described keen drinker etc. I thought some might argue the article claims notability if I put a nnbio tag so I brought it here, but speedy if you think it qualifies. TM ^(talk) 10:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable as per WP:BIO, A7 CSD candidate,audience member of a TV show. Capitalistroadster 10:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had thought that some of these personal notes may have been comedy routine. Have decided is nn. jnothman ^talk 11:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 09:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was SP DELETE A7. -Doc (?) 14:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Michael Mahon

nnbio BeteNoir 10:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SpeedyDelete per nomination. - BeteNoir 10:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete jnothman ^talk 11:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New Oscland

An online community of 50 people. Wikipedia Is Not A Links Directory. The Land 10:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Land 10:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete jnothman ^talk 11:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
del --MarSch 15:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. This borders on patent nonsense. - Sensor 00:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Montana and The Bar Association

musicians who are not notable BeteNoir 11:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. - BeteNoir 11:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn local band; no albums. jnothman ^talk 11:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 09:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable yet. BrianSmithson 21:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP and CLEAN UP. — JIP | Talk 20:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge debate

Keep and cleanup - I've been following this debate for a couple of years and will help clean up the page. APologies if I edited this page wrong but I didn't see any way to do it an add the time stamp.Tracy White
Nominate and ~~Delete~~ - Crazily non-encyclopedic, nowhere near the quality of conspiracy articles like Kennedy assassination theories. Staxringold 11:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup well-known debate. Low quality is a reason to edit, not delete. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup I have to agree, well-known debate. Low quality is a reason to edit, not delete. MaddMaxx 16:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC) Madd Maxx MaddMaxx 16:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Good grief - Admiral Husband Kimmel got scapegoated over unpreparedness/advance knowledge issues. This is definitely a notable subject about which lots has been written. Needs bigtime cleanup/expert attention and I have tagged it as such. - Sensor 00:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup. My mistake, sorry, vote amended as it still DEFINETLY needs a clean-up. Staxringold 01:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup, per Wahoofive and MaddMaxx. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 09:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion - Delete it entirely as it damages the spirit and intent of Wikipedia. Our group's interest is not well served here; this is the wrong forum for this now multi-generational squabble. Note that there are no totally agreed upon "experts" on this topic; a balanced pro/con view has not been abided. Various of the materials as shown even today are objectively incorrect as can be easily shown to be erroneous by simple fact checking.

This is not what a free, open, and insightful information sharing communities' encyclopedia should be about.

Merge with Attack on Pearl Harbor. -- Necrothesp 02:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, cleanup, merge with Attack on Pearl Harbor. Even though the article requires a lot of work, there are enough documents, research results and most of all academical comments to support an ongoing debate, which should not be swept under the carpet simply because some countries are a little sensitive about the issue. aeris 00:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Korean crime syndicate: 신속한 물고기 (black tiger)

A google search for "black tiger" Korea crime found nothing relevant. This, together with the article's contents, led me to believe that it is either a hoax or a fiction. (There exists a movie "Tears of the Black Tiger"; if this is what the article is about, it should be rewritten to make that clear and also moved to a more reasonable title.) Delete ~~unless verified/rewritten~~. - Mike Rosoft 11:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment could someone who knows Korean please Google this in the Korean language? There may be information on it that isn't in English. Thanks. Jacqui ^★ 12:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Haeleth's translation. Thanks. Jacqui ^★ 02:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unverifiable see Lizard People also on Afd. Dlyons493 Talk 14:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax; 신속한 물고기 means something like "quick fish", not "black tiger", and - incidentally - gets precisely 0 hits on Google in Korean. — Haeleth Talk 18:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 09:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted per author's request. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 19:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Midwest Lakes Policy Center

This appears to be advertising. Article doesn't establish notability. Martg76 12:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is not adveritsing, this is giving people a chance to research lakes and watersheds at a deeper level than Wikipedia can allow. (Unsigned comment by 24.180.186.74, creator of the article in question)
Delete per nomination. Website does not mention any notability and contains little research information. A Google search doesn't turn up much more than links to the site. --mdd4696 13:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable institution. Watch out for vandalism by article author, he already blanked this nomination once. jni 14:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am just trying to delete the article if people object to it, thanks. This way we can just end this now instead of waiting.(Unsigned comment by 24.180.186.74).
Speedy Delete per author request.--Isotope23 18:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(and don't bite the newbies... author appears to be fairly new and not familiar with deletion process)--Isotope23 18:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted by author's request. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 19:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Midwest lakes policy center

NN, copy of Midwest Lakes Policy Center --mdd4696 14:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. See AFD dicussion for Midwest Lakes Policy Center --mdd4696 14:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Martg76 16:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per author request at Midwest Lakes Policy Center afd.--Isotope23 18:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 14:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Morrissey

nn musician Isolani 12:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy nn-bio. PJM 12:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --mdd4696 13:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, national and international touring passes WP:MUSIC. Kappa 19:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dottore So 22:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Borderline case. The Mason Jennings Band has recorded five albums and is recording its sixth. However, Morrissey has been part of the band for only one album see Allmusic.com credits [14] and is recording with the band on its sixth see Billboard report [15]

He has also toured with the band notably on a tour supporting Modest Mouse see [16]. Capitalistroadster 01:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Drinking game. --Cel e stianpower ^háblame 14:38, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I Drink, You Drink

Was at one stage marked as speedy, but does not meet the criteria. However, appears to be unverifiable - Google searching finds only different, unrelated drinking games. Probably original research. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 12:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 12:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom --Isolani 12:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. PJM 12:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to either drinking game or pub. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to drinking game. CarDepot 21:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 64.200.124.189 22:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC) Suspected sockpuppet - see user page. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 11:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Garr 02:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC) User's 15th and 16th edits to Wikipedia. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 09:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well written article about the game. Science3456 02:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC) Suspected sockpuppet - see user page. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 11:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, redirect per fuddlemark if needed. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 09:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 169.157.229.87 17:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC) Suspected sockpuppet - see user page. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 11:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- O^O
Keep. Earthling37 19:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC) Suspected sockpuppet - see user page. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 11:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. FireTracks 19:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC) Suspected sockpuppet - see user page. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 11:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GuardDog 02:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC) Suspected sockpuppet - see user page. O^O[reply]
Delete per nom -GTBacchus 19:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Omega (fiction)

NN short story by NN student writer. Delete PJM 12:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --mdd4696 13:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete. The Land 18:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Carioca 21:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 09:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to baldness. - Mailer Diablo 11:32, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Allopecia

Near-blatant dicdef. Not even sure it is even appropriate for Wiktionary... Wcquidditch | Talk 12:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Wcquidditch | Talk 12:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. PJM 12:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to baldness, like alopecia does. Pilatus 14:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As per Pilatus, it's a mis-spelling of alopecia, which redirects to baldness and so should this. Although alopecia should really have its own article. Proto t c 15:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to baldness. - Sensor 00:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Baldness as a common misspelling of alopecia. -- DS1953 ^talk 01:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect but the Alopecia page is already complete and this page adds nothing to it. Also the 'balding in spots' Alopecia areata that the article mentions already has a full page. So this could just be deleted. Prashanthns 07:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Redirects are cheap, and prevent recreation as well as confusion. Xoloz 22:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Extraprotential

If this were a real word, it should go to wiktionary, but there are no google results, and it's not in the dictionary. — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 12:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --mdd4696 13:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete nonsense jnothman ^talk 14:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G1 patent nonsense. "Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to make sense of it" fits the bill here. If not, then delete as just plain nonsense. - Sensor 00:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Lefrancois

NN Vanity Page --mdd4696 13:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. This was a tough call for me, since I am not familiar with the illustrator, but ultimately I chose to put the article up for deletion since I could not find any professional reviews of his work. --mdd4696 13:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I did find samples of his art, but they seem a step below Napoleon Dynamite's efforts. Stu 15:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 09:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SiteKreator

Non-notable advertising. Alexa rank is over 90,000 with only one incoming link.

Delete as per nom, and thanks for taking care of the AFD work for me (I was about to nominate this myself). — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 13:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as ad and not notable. -- Foofy 13:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. — ceejayoz ^talk 13:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Its an ad. Stu 15:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete adv. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 09:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. I count 12 keep votes and 7 delete votes, with "strong" qualifiers on both sides. That is too narrow a margin for consensus. — JIP | Talk 20:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural references in Pokémon

This is still a list of random historical or pop-culture "references" in Pokémon, and is a collection of indiscriminate trivia. There's no good place to merge it, and no real use for it as a standalone article. The Pokémon Wikiproject, as far as I can tell, hasn't shown much interest in fiddling with this list of trivia, and other than some vandalism patrol and bot changes, it hasn't been touched since the last AFD.

Please note that this is not a merge target, and deleting it will not result in a bunch of Pokémon stubs popping up.

For those interested, this has been on AFD twice before. The previous AFDs are here and here. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 13:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Speedy Keep You have attempted to VfD this article twice in the past two months. Both times it was kept. Do not attempt to delete articles through attrition. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I listed this for AFD a month and a half ago; Apostrophe listed it a second time a week later, and I would have advised him not to. Both times it has received a majority of delete votes; the last AFD had a 2d:1k ratio, with several of the keeps because of the too-quick relist.
  Note that it has been a month since any non-vandal, non-bot edit of this article, despite being listed on the Pokémon Wikiproject's talk page. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 14:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Going a month without a major edit is hardly a reason to delete a substantial article which survived two very recent deletion attempts. If you really want it deleted, unlist it and try again in 6 months. 3 AfDs in two months is completely unacceptable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Both times it barely survived AFD for reasons unrelated to the quality of the article (a mistaken belief that it was a merge target, a much-too-soon relist). Both times it received a majority of delete votes. The only relevant Wikiproject has no interest in doing anything with this. Had I just redirected this to Pokémon (anime), I'm doubtful anyone would have noticed.
      Don't be so hung up on process, especially when there aren't any applicable formal rules. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 14:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - There aren't any applicable formal rules?! Surely you've read and are familiar with Wikipedia:Deletion policy, which explicitly states: "In some cases, repeated attempts to have an article deleted may even be considered disruptive. If in doubt, don't delete!" No applicable rules indeed! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm curious what this AFD is disrupting, exactly. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 15:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Here's two for a start: (a) AfD now averages some 150+ entries a day, and is more than bloated enough without re-noms of things twice kept in less than two months (b) repeatedly re-nominating an article hurts its chance for natural development and cleanup, as editors are unlikely to work extensively to cleanup something that gets an AfD nomination every couple weeks. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Andrew on this - leave it at least 3 and preferably 6 months. However pointless the article is! Dlyons493 Talk 14:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If you feel the article is pointless, why do you want to keep it for three months? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 14:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article will not get improved untill possible contributors to the article believe that their contributions will be kept. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unreferenced Original Research Cruft. I've not seen the "I Feel Skitty" episode, but does Meowth really kick someone in the style of Chun Li? Was this an actual cultural reference, or someone picking up the merest coincidence with something else? Meowth's ability to speak is reminiscent of Garfield? Even if the script writers confirmed these things, I still don't think Pokemon episodes should have every facet which deals with real life in a article. I mean, one of the episodes contains a samurai? Is this a notable event in the Pokemon world, do people sit up and think, "Wow, Samurai were mentioned, that's an important cultural reference in my favourite show!" - Hahnchen 16:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. Have any of the reflexive "keep" voters actually read the article? User:A Man In Black is right, Despite the title, which might lead one to believe that it contains references to popular culture this is a unsalvageable grab-bag of trivia. Delete. Pilatus 16:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a job for cleanup, not for AFD. Keep, keep, keep, a thousand times keep. ~~I want to be careful to avoid personal attacks, but I feel that this is verging on a bad-faith nomination.~~ -- Plutor 16:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - You've made a fairly serious accusation. Do you have any evidence to back it up? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 17:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're right. I apologize, I didn't really mean bad-faith. I really should have just agreed with Starblind that this is getting a bit repetitive and possibly disrupting. Based on your other edits and votes and whatnot, I'm sure that you do have the best of intentions. I withdraw my accusation. (But not my vote) -- Plutor 17:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Cleanup has failed since mid-August. No one on the Pokémon Wikiproject, who are a pretty active bunch, has ever wanted to touch the mess up. Can't blame them for it. Pilatus 18:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge somewhere (I'm not sure what the best target would be). In any case, I've trimmed the article down to less than half its former size and rewrote the lead; it should be somewhat more viable (aside from the choice of topic) now. Kirill Lokshin 18:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this. It is no longer a bad article, IMHO. Well done Kirill. AndyJones 18:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As the other two AfDs, I have no idea what on earth to do with this. Its a garbled mess. I could do with splitting and merging between various articles but I don't want to do it. Despite this however, the fact that it's been on AfD twice before and kept twice makes me lean towards keep. --Cel e stianpower ^háblame 18:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am a bit concerned it's a form of original research, but not very. The Land 18:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While it has scraped through by the skin of its teeth twice, it has improved beyond being a list of "references to general human culture in Pokemon"! I will however pop it on my watchlist and if any edits I consider blatently ridiculous come up again I will delete them with haste. Lets face it, before the edits half of it was complete rubbish and I fear the article may well attract the same kind of blatently obvious and pointless trivia it contained before... I mean the prunes comment... bloody hell! *sigh* Jezze 18:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Sorry, but this is just inherently unencyclopedic triviacruft. Even in the cleaned-up version, it's mostly nonsense: half the "cultural references" are just phrases like "all's well that ends well" and "another one bites the dust" that are simply everyday cliches! There is nothing here remotely notable. Nothing at all. — Haeleth Talk 19:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, quickly. Kappa 19:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverifiable. Jkelly 22:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete echoing above. Dottore So 22:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unverifiable, inherently POV, unmaintainable, fancruft. MCB 22:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic fancruft magnet. --Calton | Talk 01:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- "Even in the cleaned-up version, it's mostly nonsense" To be honest I wish the article had never existed! However it has been through AFD twice and got through, once with myself voting against it. 'All's well that ends well'? Considering that two sub-characters are called Romeo and Juliet, this could be easily seen as a cultural reference! See the article on cruft for one which is of equal merit to this (and yet it has been used in various offensive ways to the English language throughout this AFD)! Jezze 04:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Again, this is the third nomination, and the reasons given to keep still stand. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've read much better articles, and I'll admit that it's not particularly well implemented, but it's not inherently outside the scope of Wikipedia. It could use some cleanup by fans, but it's not delete-worthy even as it stands. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 23:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no basis for deletion. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- OR, indiscriminate trivia, covering a subject better covered by Pokémon (anime)...take your pick. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 16:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think at the page is original research fundamentally, although it may need a rewrite/cleanup to better align to what we can reasonably say from the sources we have. It's not indiscriminate trivia. Your third point is not a basis for deletion. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - The problem is that we have no sources whatsoever, other than the primary source (the anime itself). You have a number of fansites with disparate speculation, but varied, inconsistent speculation on fansite forums isn't an encyclopedic topic. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 04:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY KEEP IT RIGHT NOW I can't believe you're trying this sh*t again, AMIB. You've tried before, and you failed. Give up already! CoolKatt number 99999 02:56, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and if the result is keep, I want an admin to make sure that no one can ever put this on AFD ever again CoolKatt number 99999 02:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is unlikely to happen. That said, I won't relist this again (ever) if there's a bonafide consensus to keep. I only renominated after two AFDs that closed no consensus with a majority of delete votes.
    As for the rest, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, eh? I'd rather not see a repeat of the original debacle. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 04:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, plainly unencyclopedic; it not only an arbitrary list, but an arbitrary list based entirely on the interpretations, readings, and original research of a few editors. Relisting a deletion because new information has come up or because the original vote was based on errors strikes me as entirely approprate; but if deletion fails because its relisting was too soon, please do remember to list it again as soon as enough time has passed to dispel that concern. --Aquillion 04:06, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was SP DELETE A7. -Doc (?) 14:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jostein henriksen

Delete - Non-notable norwegian. Article created by what looks like his wife. Bjelleklang - talk 13:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete vanity jnothman ^talk 14:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. --Cel e stianpower ^háblame 23:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Real Big Prawn

Speedy Delete per nomination. Creator removed db-nonsense tag I placed on page. It appears to be nothing but "unfinished" nonsense - if the non-verifiability with Google is not enough to go by, then surely the title of the page is. LichYoshi 13:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dendrobranchiata. Bjelleklang - talk 13:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete nonsense jnothman ^talk 14:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY DELETE Stu 15:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Delete for all reasons above. PJM 15:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, per nom. -Andrew 16:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dendrobranchiata, per User:Bjelleklang. Maybe a neologism, maybe a hoax, but certainly not nonsense. Not speedyable. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Dendrobranchiata is a serious look at the species. Really big prawns is nonsense however you look at it. Not even a redirect. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 17:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under category A1 - an article with little or no context. A Google search shows that it is not a term in regular use see [17]. Capitalistroadster 17:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. . Capitalistroadster 18:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, just because author removed speedy tag is no reason to AfD it instead... it's still speedy for nonsense IMO.--Isotope23 22:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge with PlanetSide. - Mailer Diablo 14:15, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merger has been succesful, time for deletion Eirek 00:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After merging, there has to be a redirect to preserve the history. I've done that. -- Kjkolb 03:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PlanetSide Tanks

I've been playing this game since closed beta testing and I still love it. Even I don't think that this article needs to exist. The trivia of speed, armor values, and weapon type are better served by the PlanetSide wiki anyway. Whatever is left can be merged into the PlanetSide article. You can call me Al 13:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with PlanetSide, per nom. -Andrew 16:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Merge. Bit concerned that someon's included all that information and it's worht keeping it. The Land 18:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, do not merge with PlanetSide, please, think of the users. Kappa 19:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge clearly. Dottore So 22:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

6.001 (MIT)

Individual class; not notable Gerrit ^CUTEDH 14:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. - Gerrit ^CUTEDH 14:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Please let us not start down this road. -R. fiend 17:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Crikey! --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think "Individual class; not notable" is a statement of fact followed by an assumption; the assumption might be a natural one but I think it may be mistaken in this case. 6.001 is not just a class but a particular course design and as the article mentions, the design of this specific course has been actually copied by other universities. I think voters should be careful to make sure they are assessing the notability of this core class at this highly famous and influential university, and not the notability of a generic class at a generic university. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Carioca 21:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this article has existed for more than three years. Gerrit ^CUTEDH 21:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not the perfect article, but I assure other editors that encyclopedic writing can be done about this subject. As far as "notability" is concerned, surely this is one of the most "notable" undergraduate computer science classes in the world. Having said that, I wouldn't like to see WP start mirroring course catalogues from every university either... Jkelly 22:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ugh (i.e. nn). Dottore So 22:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. If someone wants to write an encyclopedic article on a particular teaching style in computer science, with references and explanation of why it is notable, fine, but that is by no means this. MCB 22:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article asserts notability, and such is demonstrated. Come on; it's a notorious elementary programming class at MIT. Sounds notable. And the article doesn't mirror the course catalogue. Like many things at MIT, the class seems to have developed its own folklore. - Sensor 00:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If this is worthy of inclusion, it seems to me it is only because it has been copied by other universities. If that's the case, surely it goes by another name? I've taken a bunch of classes in my day, but not one did I ever call "HIST 377" or anything. I'm still leaning going for delete, but if someone can offer a convincing move, and perhaps some tidying, I may reconsider. -R. fiend 14:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment At MIT numbers are used for everything. "History" is called "21H". Jkelly 23:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - But surely if it has been copied by other colleges (it's ownly potential claim of notability, as far as I can tell), they didn't keep this title. And (not that I know much about it) I have a hard time believing classes at MIT only go by numbers. When a father asks his son what classes he's taking, does he get the response "7.989, 45.997, 3.141592, and 77.771." Would that mean anything to anyone? -R. fiend 05:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't think it's appropriate to ask "would the father of a student know what 6.001 is?" I don't think my father knows what Elias omega coding is but that doesn't mean it isn't notable among people who are versed in that field. In the same vein, I'm afraid I don't see why the fact that those people who know it know it by the number seems to be classed as an argument for its non-notability; is RU 486 non-notable because its designation is just letters and numbers? -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        The question isn't whether the father would know what it meant, but what is a class actually called beyond a number designation. Surely when anyone discusses a class, they use some sort of descriptive words. Even the universal "101" has something describing what exactly it is you'll be studying at an introductory level. Other schools that teach this class must use a different title. Whenever I looked through a course catalog at any of the colleges I've taken classes at, I looked at the titles of classes, not just a bunch of numbers, because those meant nothing, and mean nothing without anoither context. -R. fiend 18:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are many classes at many prestigious schools (including my alma mater, Harvard College) which are notable on campus, and have legitimate lore associated with them at their schools. The best fate for such classes is a merge to the school, if they are really very well-known. Having lived in Cambridge, Mass., I'm not sure is. Xoloz 22:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. University courses are not notable. -- Necrothesp 02:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I went to MIT; I know lots of people who went through 6.001; I don't know a reason why it needs to be here. Anville 17:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

6.270 (MIT)

Individual class; not notable Gerrit ^CUTEDH 14:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. - Gerrit ^CUTEDH 14:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a course catalog for any university. -R. fiend 17:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Crikey! --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Carioca 21:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. MCB 22:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unlike the article on the 6.001 class, this one doesn't fit the bill. - Sensor 00:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are many classes at many prestigious schools (including my alma mater, Harvard College) which are notable on campus, and have legitimate lore associated with them at their schools. The best fate for such classes is a merge to the school, if they are really very well-known. Having lived in Cambridge, Mass., I'm not sure is. Xoloz 22:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! This isn't a regular class at MIT. This is the biggest sporting event at MIT. Moreover, this event is at least a little famous with the lego-robot competition often being shown to high school student. Finally, there are articles about particular sporting events at other colleges (e.g. Yale-Harvard boat race), so I think it would be unfair to not include this one. Kenny

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Durin. Friday (talk) 04:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Poisionous Tableminton

Delete per nom. The fact that it was apparently created recently makes it non-notable. LichYoshi 14:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. (google isn't aware tableminton at all. -Andrew 15:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, silliness. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. The Land 18:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Reptilian humanoid. --Cel e stianpower ^háblame 14:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lizard People

Probable hoax from user whose Korean crime syndicate: 신속한 물고기 (black tiger) is already on Afd

Delete Dlyons493 Talk 14:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete If there are only three reported cases of this disease, isn't that awfully fast to have gain this type of nickname? Besides the link on the page ties to the Buckminister Fuller Virtual Institute - hardly JAMA. Zap it before someone has the bright idea to add "Lizard Colonies" as places where these suppossed victims live. Stu 15:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. PJM 15:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"cuticula reptile" is unverifiable. Redirect to reptilian humanoid, just like lizard people already does. Uncle G 15:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, article already exists and is redirecting already, per above. -Andrew 15:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax/vandalism. Delete and redirect to reptilian humanoid. - Mike Rosoft 18:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to either reptilian humanoid or to David Icke since the Lizard people are coming for him.--Isotope23 21:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax unless evidence of a genuine medical journal article can be shown, which I very much doubt is possible. Average Earthman 22:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to reptilian humanoid ~~then delete that to keep our secret safe...~~ BL kiss the lizard 01:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Maru (talk) Contribs 22:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Darth Tarnum

Delete per nom. Non-notable. -LichYoshi 15:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. -Andrew 15:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I used to joke about Star Wars fanfic characters being given their own articles, and the "how-dare-you-use-the-word-cruft" lot screaming "KEEP!". Well, the first half of that has come true, let's hope the second doesn't. Delete. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Darthcruft. The Land 18:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Star Wars fanfic characters are not notable, only the real ones are. -LtNOWIS 21:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fanfic...--Isotope23 21:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-canon fanfiction. Saberwyn 22:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. This falls under speedy delete criterion. I will go and do so now.

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS (default keep) further 'debate' serves no useful purpose. Doc (?) 23:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dowling Catholic High School

Useless high school article. No content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.249.88 (talk • contribs)

Speedy Keep usual reasons - deja vu all over again. Dlyons493 Talk 15:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep school for usual reasons plus history --rob 15:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, one line substub with no assertion of notability. Proto t c 15:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, lots of high schools are listed on Wikipedia. -Andrew 16:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A good start. CalJW 16:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with West Des Moines until it can grow to the point where it's an article on its own. Karmafist 16:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Doing a merge accomplishes nothing but ensuring the article is not found in Category:High schools in Iowa or in any category. Categories are an essential part of navigation in Wikipedia, and redirects are not compatible with them. Right now, its a fairly easy matter to expand it, starting with the history of the school on the web site. A redirect ensures that its extremely unlikely for anybody, especially a newbie, will ever make a full article (as nobody wants to put lots of school history into an article about a city). --rob 21:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Prediction based on past school nominations this will end up roughly 50-50 keep/delete, after several days of acrimonious fighting. How about we just forget about nominating schools (say, primary schools and above) until the issue can be settled? Those of us who don't want them aren't getting anywhere against those of you who do, and it's time we admitted it. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- My reading of Wikipedia:Schools is that there is no concensus and will not be in the short-term. We can only agree to differ, recognise that schools aren't going to get deleted, and move on to using our limited time on work that will be fruitful like spam, nonsense ... So I believe that real schools should not at present be nominated - verifiability and not notability is the only currently-workable school criterion. In an ideal world, I think we'd assess each school on its merits but I don't see that happening any time soon. Dlyons493 Talk 18:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please assist User:Aaron_Brenneman (strong deletionist) and myself (strong inclusionist) in our upcoming attempt to do a good school merger article as a model for solving this persistant problem. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MarkGallagher. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep valid High Schools. — RJH 20:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not keep. I like the idea of merging this into an appopriate list, but right now there's almost no content, so this isn't even a useful stub. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 20:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as we have other high school articles. Carioca 21:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, there is no consensus to delete articles about verifiable secondary schools. Silensor 22:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was dealt with as copyvio. - Mailer Diablo 14:19, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Hall

nn vanity Gator (talk) 15:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. - Gator (talk) 15:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep H!tman 15:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC) All of user's edits in relation to this AFD nom.[reply]
Keep Seems to be biographical. Not vain. Dstrange 16:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC) Probable creator of article.[reply]
Keep but rewrite. Meets WP:NMG (national tour of UK, confirmed by Google), but has serious NPOV issues. --howcheng [ talk  contribs  web ] 17:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep does supporting another musician count as a "national tour"? I don't think it does, but, if in doubt, don't delete. Dstrange, you might want to look up the meaning of "vanity" on Wikipedia. H!tman, who are you, exactly? --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyvio either speedy or slow. This is a copyvio of the biography on his home page at [18]. The biography isn't easily linkable from here but if you ask to enter his page will pop up including a biography section. If you click on that you will find it is a direct copy. If this wasn't a copyvio, my view is that he would qualify under WP:NMG but he should have a proper article, not standard record industry bumph. Capitalistroadster 18:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone wants to write a proper article about Nick Hall. If copyvio is replaced I will change my vote to keep.--Isotope23 21:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete echoing above. Dottore So 22:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bushwhacker Liberal

Looks to be an advertising piece on a non-notable blog. I get one google hit. JJay 15:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --JJay 15:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Alhutch 17:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

it may not be notable to you but it is notable to the people who read it, and more articles on blogs in our community will be placed shortly. please do not delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.19.53 (talk • contribs)

Comment if you don't want it to be deleted, then you should vote "keep" on this page. I would also suggest getting an account on wikipedia. it takes no time at all, and it offers benefits.--Alhutch 18:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with your blog. However, this is an encyclopedia, and not a web directory. Blogs are only included if they're big enough to attract mainstream media attention or very significant web traffic. So I'm voting delete. The Land 18:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it can be demonstrated that the people who consider it notable are numerous. There are millions of blogs out there with devoted readerships, but only a few thousand that belong in an encylopedia. — Haeleth Talk 19:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable blog.--Isotope23 19:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's a well-written blog, but unfortunately it's not notable for the purposes of Wikipedia. Thus, delete. Thanks for contributing, though. - Sensor 00:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 21:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Rhoades

This was listed as a speedy because it did not assert importance/significance. I have removed the speedy tag and am AFDing it because it does assert significance, however, I am not sure if it is significant enough to remain on Wikipedia.-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 15:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Nothing in the article reads as asserting significance to me. If not speedied, just Delete Dlyons493 Talk 16:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of America's Top Model contestants or equivalent if there is one, otherwise delete. There is an assertion of notability, however weak: she was on telly! --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment OK, if if being on telly is an assertion of notability then it's not speedy. No objection to a merge if anyone wants to. Dlyons493 Talk 18:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've been on telly twice, and I'm still not notable. — Haeleth Talk 19:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is on clear consensus from looking at America's Next Top Model wiki article; some contestants have very robust articles, some have no article, some appear to have articles that were deleted as the result of AfD. I'd advocate a simple Redirect to America's Next Top Model if Ms. Rhoades only claim to fame is being featured on that show.--Isotope23 20:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete If it survives, I'm going to start writing seperate articles for every June Taylor Dancer that ever klicked her heels and smiled. Stu 22:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to America's Next Top Model for now, as nothing outside the show is mentioned. She's reached the point of mention, but not the point of an article. If something more notable comes out about her, than the redirect can be undone. --rob 23:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 14:20, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blogcritics

advertisement for a webpage -Andrew 15:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Unless article is re-written. The webpage may deserve to be in Wikipedia, but not like this. -Andrew 15:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A8 as copyvio of content provider see their about page. [19]. They are a notable blog with over 2 million Google pages and over 50,000 visitors a day but they deserve a proper article not a copyvio. I have rewritten the article to remove the copyvio. Change vote to Keep. Capitalistroadster 18:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep provided it gets a total rewrite. I hate articles about blogs, but this is one of the few that is actually notable enough to merit an article.--Isotope23 20:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, remove current copy, and stubbify. The site has an Alexa ranking of 8,137. As it is the article is an ad and nothing more, but the site is probably notable enough to merit its own article. - Sensor 00:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AH MY EYES THERE'S A JAVELIN IN ONE

None notable webcomic, has been around for less than a month, artist has no prior fame. A google search for the artists name "Vincenze Ravina" does reveal 100 links, but they are almost all to do with some guy who sells magic tricks, and not to a webcomic. - Hahnchen 16:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. nn. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 17:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as non-notable. Carioca 21:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:COMIC and WP:WEB on all counts (as far as I can determine). No Alexa rating. If kept, move to a title without all caps. Saberwyn 22:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC) Saberwyn 22:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need to satisfy those proposals, because they are not guidelines. As such they should not be used to justify a vote for deletion. You may as well write "because I feel like deleting it" as your reason. --John Lynch 00:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 09:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability isn't a criteria in the official Wikipedia guidelines. I follow those guidelines when creating articles, so because this article meets those guidelines, it should be allowed to be kept.--John Lynch 00:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Um, WP:N would suggest otherwise. Unless you're using an absurdly strict definition of guidelines, in which case I'd image you'd expect such articles to get deleted quite often because (most?) others have a different definition. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 00:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From the page There is currently no official policy on notability. I don't think "official policy" is to strict a definition.--John Lynch 03:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. Dragonfiend 02:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
References to official policy are odious. Policy is just congealed consensus, and consensus is what we get by debating. The clear consensus around here is that something created a month ago, that certainly almost no one in the world has ever heard about, does not belong in the encyclopedia and should be Deleted post haste. --DavidConrad 07:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 20:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Albert_Clark

Contains unverified claims of previously-unheard-of "Internet Pioneer" being "one of the primary drivers behind the modern computer revolution" and having made a decision that resulted in "makers of IBM clones and Microsoft" becoming "the standard". The talk page includes comments by his "old systems analyst" apparently trying to contact him, but it is unclear whether these are actual attempts at communication or attempts at giving the article credibility, written by the creator of the page himself (check the history of the article and the Talk page and look at the writing style). The article on personal computer contains an entire paragraph on Mr. Clark's alleged achievements, which claims that he had a pivotal role in making Intel processors "the standard". The person may very well be real but the "achievements" listed are completely unsubstantiated, so the article is at best a fraudulent vanity page (which should be removed) and at worst entirely false (in which case the page should also be removed and the personal computer article fixed). Google searches on Mr. Clark only turn up his resumé in the Google cache and a bunch of mirrors of his Wikipedia page. The likelihood that this is just a hoax is extremely high. Alskdj 16:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I believe this article may be verifiable, it might just take longer than we're used to here. A Freedom of Information Act request should turn up any records the DoD has on Clark and his computer pioneering activities. As the world's largest source of information, we might even get the fees waived and the process expedited. Gentgeen 17:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and list for the appropriate sort of review/rfc/cleanup. AfD is a poor way to get an article verified -- "Verify it or the article dies!" -- and verification will probably take longer than an AfD-period. — mendel ☎ 17:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, information is unsubstantiated, unsourced, and not WP:V. If someone wants to get a FoIA request and attempt to verify this, that would be great, but I suspect you would be wasting time and money. If any of this were true, you would think there would be at least one passing mention of Mr. Clark somewhere on the web... but alas, all that exist are wiki mirrors and other Albert Clarks.--Isotope23 18:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we can't take chances on potential hoaxes. It seems to me that a genuine internet pioneer would have a certain, y'know, internet presence as well, even if mostly in history documents and such. With nothing substantial on Google and no other sources to speak of, this has to go. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment substantial claims require a substantial body of evidence. This page should at least have a {{not verified}} template slapped on the top. Thanks. :) — RJH 20:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to emphasize that there are three possibilities. Scenario 1: The information in the article is correct. It is claimed that a heretofore unknown person has had a hand in creating the Arpanet/Internet and played a crucial role in making PCs, Intel processors and Microsoft the industry standard. This is in violation of the "no original research" policy: absolutely no sources have been mentioned, unless the "contact attempts" on the Talk page are considered to be circumstantial evidence in favor of these claims. It appears to be extremely unlikely that the claims could be true. We should assume that this information does not check out, and the burden of proof should rest on those who claim that it does. Scenario 2: The article is correct for the most part but the information on Mr. Clark being an Internet pioneer is incorrect. In this case, the page fulfills the definition of a "WP vanity page" and should be removed. Scenario 3: This article is nonsense and should be removed. — In light of these three possibilities, I fail to see how this article could be retained unless someone steps forward and provides extraordinary evidence for the extraordinary claims made therein. Alskdj 21:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2 Upon closer examination, it seems that the major contributions to the content of this article have been made by a single person with two different userids plus one anonymous IP address, posing as several persons (see the Talk page history and work backwards from there if you're interested in the details or check out Special:Contributions/Albert.clark, Special:Contributions/Allynnc and the contributions by 209.22.221.73). Several dubious things stand out. To name just one example, a critical comment has been removed from the Talk page entirely and the Talk page has been edited in an incoherent manner, apparently to make the article seem more convincing. Furthermore, the talk pages related to these users and to the article in question are a complete mess and contain numerous claims that are patently bogus. For example, see User_talk:Allynnc where it is claimed that Mosaic (the web browser) existed as early as the late 1980s. Anyone who looks at the history of this article and the histories plus talk pages of the users involved should see that there's something fishy going on here. Alskdj 22:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete highly suspicious entry based on above. Dottore So 22:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. I worked in this field from 1984-89, in ARPANET/MILNET design, testing, evaluation of equipment, network architecture, etc., on several government contracts including (mostly) the Air Force. I vaguely remember the name, but don't think of him as any sort of major figure in the field. I think the early history regarding network efforts and AUTODIN are probably correct, but to be frank, they do not really represent notable or widely-known developments in the field. I could probably write articles about at least half a dozen people involved in such projects -- myself included -- that were early implementors of network technology in DOD, but I don't believe that they necessarily warrant Wikipedia articles. And some editors appear to have wandered into the weeds of mythology here, too. MCB 22:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Redirect Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 21:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Irelands VCs

This is not an article. I think it's supposed to be about a book, but it's very unclear and poorly written. A complete overhaul might be able to save it, but I'm not sure. -R. fiend 16:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --howcheng [ talk  contribs  web ] 17:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- It's a research publication from an Irish government agency or NGO. That's below the "publications" bar for me; automatic resources are better than encyclopedias at merely listing publications. I've copied the bib entry to the talk page of List of Irish Victoria Cross recipients for that list's editors' reference. — mendel ☎ 17:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Irish Victoria Cross recipients. Useful search term. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirectas per fuddlemark (fuddle me! sounds good and mendel ☎ has passed the info on to the people who might be interested. Dlyons493 Talk 18:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Research publications do not have ISBN numbers, nor do researsh publications get recorded in the British Library. There were only 500 of these books published and I request it be left on "Irelands VCs" page as the ISBN number may be useful to researchers of Irish military history. George Fleming.

Redirect and put a ==Reference== at the bottom of List of Irish Victoria Cross recipients. Is that supposed to be ISBN? I never heard of “ISBM”. ♠DanMS 02:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is a list of (SHORT) references (listed by publication year) at the bottom of every Irish Victoria Cross recipient if you care to look. Its ISBN the typo M has has been corrected to N.

A short article describing the book Irelands VCs has now been written. I request that this is not deleted. Thank you George Fleming.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Author Jeff Benjamin

Unclear that this author is of any significance. Urjeff 16:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This reads like a copyvio, and author only has two books, one of which is self-published. --howcheng [ talk  contribs  web ] 17:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Keep. If the copyvio and general quality of the article improve it may stay. I don't think that the number of books one has published should be a criterion for inclusion. Chelman 17:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Number of books is one of only two criteria for establishing notability in an author (the other is sales). Doesn't appear to meet either. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 17:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although I think the disclosure of his Zodiac sign is far out. Gets points from me on humor (I have a weakness for those born under Taurus). Stu 22:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and Redvers. Also apparently vanity; edit summary for creation of article is "By Jeff Benjamin". MCB 00:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN vanitycruft. - Sensor 00:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 09:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hackers Canyon

Looks like vanity for a hacker forum to me. -R. fiend 17:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 18:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-verifiable. — Haeleth Talk 19:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Haeleth. BrianSmithson 21:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Harvest Moon: Rune Factory

Game that doesn't actually exist. Google has no related hits, and anyone even passingly familiar with the Harvest Moon series (a slow-paced farm RPG) can tell that whatever this is, it's not a Harvest Moon game. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 17:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Crystal ball information at best. —BrianSmithson 19:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a game called Rune Factory in development, though as far as I know there's no connection to the Harvest Moon series aside from having the same distributor, Natsume. I think this article was probably created as a mistake, someone misread a quote somewhere from the game's director comparing it to Harvest Moon, and mistook that for meaning it was to be a Harvest Moon game. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: the same IP changed the information in Harvest Moon: Online edition to reflect the Rune Factory misconception. Since that article had no real information before, however, it should probably be deleted as well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. According to GameSpy.com's page on the development company, 'Harvest Moon DS' and 'Rune Factory' are two seperate games. There is no infomration on the later, other than a vague 2006 release date, so could probably pass as Crystal Ball if I'm proven wrong. Saberwyn 00:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by User:Friday. --GraemeL ^(talk) 20:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Eisenberg

Vanity. Belongs on a user page (Deisenbe). Keithlaw 17:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY: Duplicate of content on User:Deisenbe. The Land 18:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Megabonr

Doesn't meet music notability standards, possibly complete nonsense.

Delete --badlydrawnjeff 17:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax at best. BrianSmithson 21:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete as neologism. - ulayiti (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LATSOT

Wikipedia is not a dictionary of unverifiable slang BeteNoir 18:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SpeedyDelete -- primarily a disdain pseudo-article - BeteNoir 18:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus default to keep. - ulayiti (talk) 00:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I Love You

The book itself doesn't seem notable enough, but the author is. Suggest redirect. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 18:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then why not just do that? No need for deletion. Trollderella 18:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- For a couple reasons, chief among them the fact that I'm no expert in Irish literature. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 18:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
^Delete but if anyone wants to merge it, note that the author's name is Cecelia Ahern but the wiki article is Cecilia Ahern - so a new article should be created and a redirect ledt in place. No literary expertise is needed, just cut and paste a few sentences. Dlyons493 Talk 19:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~For the record, contrary to what the above might suggest, the cure for a misnamed article is not a new article, but~~ A Move (Rename) operation, ~~which~~ has now been done producing Cecelia Ahern in place of Cecilia Ahern ~~(and the~~ with a free redirect ~~is free~~, distinct from the one mentioned by DL above).
  --Jerzy•t 19:56 &20:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yup, that's the right way to do it. Dlyons493 Talk 21:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in concurrence with Dlyons493.--Isotope23 19:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, book by notable author. Kappa 19:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Non-argument. Notable authors often write non-notable books.
  --Jerzy•t 19:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content to author's article. Saberwyn 22:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the content into the authors page if there is anything worth salvaging. Stu 22:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge per above. Dottore So 22:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To my generation, this is notable. Approximately half of my kindergarten class had this book; it was very popular. And every year throughout high school and college, someone's mom or dad has reprinted a section of this in the back of the yearbook after buying the space. Jacqui ^★ 04:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC) LOL well it looks like I jumped the gun. Sorry! Apparently there's more than one book by that name! Further research includes a lot of stuff. And the one I was speaking of wasn't this one. Jacqui ^★ 04:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Psymastr.com

Small forum that doesn't follow the guidelines of WP:WEB -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 18:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. -Andrew 19:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom.--Isotope23 20:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per mon. I mean nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. *drew 03:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. --Holderca1 03:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Bowden

No firm assertion of notability and probable vanity. Note that page has only been edited by anon IPs (not that this is a reason to delete). ~~No opinion~~. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 18:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Tommy Bowden is real! He's head football coach at Clemson.--Alhutch 18:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I fixed a few things in the article. If you want to know whether he's notable, simply do a google search. this article needs to be kept.--Alhutch 18:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, expand, and cleanup. I've tagged this because it needs attention (record vs University of South Carolina is random factoid at best). Still, he is a head coach of a moderately notable school, at least as far as NCAA football is concerned.--Isotope23 18:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after cleanup by Alhutch. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 19:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep expand and cleanup. Notable football coach at a university with a notable football program. Capitalistroadster 19:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. He is notable notable. Carioca 21:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Isotope23. Hall Monitor 22:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, expand and cleanup per Isotope23. He has been a head football coach in the top division of college football for eight years. --Metropolitan90 01:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong strong strong keep, most certainly not vanity. Highly notable. zellin t / c 04:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tarquinas Legion

A MMORPG Guild with something of a claim of notability -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 18:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-verifiable and unencyclopedic. The Land 18:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable videogame guild.--Isotope23 18:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)<--(This coming from a guy who's own page is up for Deletion?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.229.196.175 (talk • contribs) [reply]
- 24.229.196.175, would you be so kind as to direct me to where this deletion concering Isotope23 is, I'd like to review the page and vote on it's merits or lack thereof. While I'm here, delete for miserably failing the proposed guideline for inclusion on Wikipedia that is WP:WEB (While it's not a website, it is an online community and I feel WP:WEB covers these with only a very slight stretch). Saberwyn 00:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WEB is not a Wikipedia policy, or at least it isn't yet. As such, it should not be considered in a vote for deletion. Rogue 9 19:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete same reasons as The Land and Isotope23 Sycocowz 21:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

William Bryk

Vanity page for non-notable guy who's written a few articles. See also Bryk, William. Gsd97jks 18:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nomination both William Bryk and its dead-end orphaned twin, Bryk, William. Gsd97jks 18:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Mr. Byrk has written a few articles (most notably "The Conservative Case Against George W. Bush") but he doesn't seem to have a big enough body of work to be notable as a writer.--Isotope23 18:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete (only 64% voted delete), but should be redirected to Nick Lachey. - ulayiti (talk) 00:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Calo

is WIkipedia a gossip column? I think this information fits better to Nick Lachey--Austrian 18:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Snogging someone vaguely famous does not mean you should be included in Wikipedia.The Land 18:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - as usual, no need for deletion. Trollderella 18:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (ahem) with Nick Lachey. Capitalistroadster 18:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as non-notable person. This isn't the National Enquirer; I don't think this even merits a merge.--Isotope23 18:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Would not even be a slightly interesting addition to Nick Lachey's article, so a merge is inappriopiate in my opinion. -- SoothingR 19:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the incident is important, it could be mentioned in Nick Lachey. Friday (talk) 20:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Whoop de do. I'll bet six months from now, only her and her friends will remember or care about the incident. Kissing a 'celebrity' (I use the term loosely) does not make you one. Could pass WP:BIO on on a stretch of Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events, but as I said above, a few months from now, nobody will care, and someone else will have pashed Nick Lachey. Delete. Saberwyn 22:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- While we're at it, can someone who knows how (and when best to) put the picture up for deletion? Saberwyn 22:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Saberwyn --JAranda | watz sup 23:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, trivial incident, one sentence in Nick Lachey if at all. MCB 00:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - but maximum one brief sentence,and no photo for the Nick Lachey page Bwithh 02:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Content was already added to Nick Lachey article on the 14th October, almost word for word, by user 69.133.71.146. Could someone who knows about ISPs let me know the significance of the similarity of this ISP to 69.133.70.224, the creator of this article. Saberwyn 04:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, those are both Road Runner IP's. Road Runner uses dynamic IPs (or at least they used to) so there is a high probability that if the text is exactly the same it was added by the same person, just in two different sessions with their ISP.--Isotope23 13:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flash media server

Copy-pasted advert for a product. 62.56.47.151 18:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete adcruft.--Isotope23 18:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOT. Bjelleklang - talk 20:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE Simply gripping, but still adcruft. Stu 22:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. You can’t much more blatant advertising than this one. ♠DanMS 02:21, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regret

Simply a dictionary stub, and Wiktionary already has an entry on regret. It would make more sense for this page to refer to Regret, the racehorse, instead. Dandelions 18:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (per nom) or redirect, as you wish. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 20:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 22:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese intestines

Unsalvageable POV, bizarre nonsense not supported by serious enquiry. JFW | T@lk 18:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NPOV. [20] Kappa 19:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you clarify this vote, Kappa? Do you disagree that when all the dross is removed, all there is left is some chauvinist offhand remark from a politician? JFW | T@lk 23:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't believe it was offhand, anyway it sparked a controversy. "Chauvinist" is POV. Per WP:NPOV since there is significant and verfiable support for the (bizarre) idea that Japanese intestines are different, we are obliged to reflect that opinion. Kappa 00:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- So this should ideally be merged into an article, for example Nihonjinron - see below. JFW | T@lk 17:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; of the four links provided by the page, only the first one is about Japanese intestines, and is actually about what Hata said in 1987 (the second and the third are about the intestine in general and the fourth one is in Japanese). As far as I can see, this article can be seen as:
- a news story about a remark made by a Japanese minister of agriculture in 1987; or
- a piece of original research about that remark.

Either way, this is not an article for an encyclopedia. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 20:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete per Paolo. Dottore So 22:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete Dlyons493 Talk 23:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Famous example of Japanese exceptionalism. Was there once an article with that title? I can't locate it now. Fg2 07:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- There's Nihonjinron, that might be what you mean. Kappa 08:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Although I've heard Japanese intestines (three feet longer than the Western intestine) cited as an example of Nihonjin-ron, that article doesn't seem to be the one I remember. Thanks, though. I think the information belongs in Wikipedia somewhere, and it seems more widespread than the minister cited in the article. The question is, where does it belong. Perhaps Nihonjinron? Fg2 10:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Keep This is an interesting piece of material which should be developed and perhaps finally placed in the Nihonjinron page, which should then be better linked to related pages. Ideas like this are widespread in Japan and they have major social implications. The key about the Japanese hypothesis one is that it can be tested and therefore refuted. Because including it here will allow contributors finesse it over time, it should be included from the npov from where it now sits. (previous unsigned comment by 222.229.230.79 -- Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 14:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Vote disregarded by closing admin Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 22:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC) [reply]

- - A line in the “Nihonjinron as pseudoscience” section of Nihonjinron should be sufficent to cover this idea. An article is not needed. I also remark that the two facts used to disprove the claim of Japanese diversity (short time for evolution and same diet of other people) do not in fact disprove the claim. They only disprove that the difference is due to evolution and not, for example, to genetic drift. As for the social implications of ideas such as this one, they should be discussed in the Nihonjinron article: I do not see how intestine lenght and pronunciation of r and l differ from this point of view. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 14:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per JFW and Paolo. Alex.tan 14:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, but with proviso that it is better written to provide NPOV, and link provided to and from Nihonjinron page. However people may search wiki for Japanese intestines to see what the fuss is about and that should provide the answer. 15:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC) (previous unsigned vote by 202.228.229.71 -- Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 15:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Vote disregarded by closing admin Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 22:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC) [reply]

- Comment while the question of the Japanese intestine may be of some interest in the context of Japanese culture, it is is irrelevant to the context of intestine. Please stop adding the link from that page to this one. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 15:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Any Japanese person would expect to be able to find out if their intestines are different or not by searching from that page. Kappa 16:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - You can achieve this with a redirect from Japanese intestines to Nihonjinron. A short paragraph there should suffice for this, I don't think it deserves a whole article to itself. Alex.tan 17:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- A search for "Japanese" and "intestine" will take to Nihonjinron, in the same way this search currently gives intestine as a result (because of the link that points here). I think that the redirect is not necessary. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 17:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep Interesting storm this. I feel the issue of Japanese intestines is important as a testable and refutable element of Nihonjinron. The same goes for the importance of blood as a social signifier in modern Japan; this ideas was originally mooted in Nazi Germany and is one of the remaining legacies of the Axis alliance. While I do not think this topic should unduly impinge into the medial explanation of intestines, it is important to hold the ideology of Nihonjinron up to a more public mirror. And Wikipedia is perfect for that. The consensus seems to be that the article should stay but should be more appropriately housed. The size of the final article would be largely determined by the information provided by contributors familiar with the debate and who could, in accordance with Wikipedia's policy, enlighten the rest of us and. mpre importantly perhaps, chauvinistic Japanese who believe in unscientific fables like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.229.236.136 (talk • contribs)

Vote disregarded by closing admin Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 22:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC) [reply]

- - Genetic Drift There is also debate in Japan about the earliest foind specimens of pottery in the Jomon era; several researchers tried to maintain that Japanese pottery preceded Chinese and that the Japanese were therefore superior; the Nazis had an interest in archaelogy for much the same dark reasons. Genetic drift would take a much longer time to manifest itself and it is not clear why it would manifest itself with the Japanese and not the Indians. This important point could also be included in a revamped entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.229.236.136 (talk • contribs)

Vote disregarded by closing admin Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 22:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC) [reply]

I don't think the article should be deleted, but added as a sub-page to nihonjinron. Anyway, this scientific study that I found through Google scholar has a possible explanation for the myth.http://www.springerlink.com/(mlmsb445aiduhp55ykroozuw)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,1,13;journal,20,57;linkingpublicationresults,1:100430,1 Abstract

Background and aims. Colonic diverticula are located predominantly on the right-side in patients in Japan, in contrast to those in Europe and the United States. This study compared the etiology of right-sided diverticula in Japan with that of left-sided diverticula in the West.

Methods. A literature review was conducted from 1950 to 2001 using Medline and Index Medicus.

Results. Diverticula occur predominantly in the right-sided colon (over 70%) in Japanese patients, and even among Japanese who emigrate, in contrast with the diverticula in Western. Incidence (detection) rates of colon diverticula have rapidly increased in Japan since World War II with the increased dietary fiber intake. The increased detection rate over time is higher in urban areas than in rural areas, and it corresponds to the distribution of dietary fiber intake. Birth cohort analysis suggests that right-sided diverticula is affected more by environmental factors than other types. Furthermore, the significant relationship of right-sided diverticula with intraluminal pressure in Japan is similar to that of left-sided diverticula in the West, and the pathological feature of these diverticula are similar.

Conclusion. The etiology of right-sided diverticula in Japan (and perhaps also other Mongolian peoples) is very similar to that of left-sided diverticula in the West. The location may represent a difference in morphology of the large intestine between Mongolians (including Japanese), and Westerners, rather than environmental differences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mutantfrog (talk • contribs)

Delete per JFW and Paolo Liberatore; the article is pointless alarmism masquerading as widespread political opinion. Had the researcher provided several verifiable sources to support the assertion that many agree with the minister of agriculture, there may have been just cause to produce this "rebuttal-like" entry as a footnote to the Nihonjinron entry in a NPOV tone. 219.5.144.3 (talk · contribs) 17:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote disregarded by closing admin Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 22:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Keep I wanted to note here that the belief is widespread in Japan. All one need do is to do a search on a Japanese search engine. When I type in the phrase "nihonjin no chou" (Japanese intestines) and "nagasa" (length) at Yahoo! Japan, I get 143,000 hits. If nothing else, this belief deserves at least being mentioned under nihonjinron. --Matt Dioguardi (first edit by Matt Dioguardi (talk · contribs) -- Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 11:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

- Comment with due respect to the previous discussant, citing Yahoo! Japan and other Japanese search engines as "verifiable sources" to the assertion that many agree with the minister of agriculture, is weak and suspect, and should not be used as a litmus test for encyclopedia entries. By entering the same keyword searches for "American," "British" or "Western" intestinal length one gets 276,000 hits, 121,000 hits, and 161,000 hits, respectively. Do these relatively high number of hits suddenly tell us that Americans, British, or Westerns generally believe their intestines to be longer? Of course not. In fact, these numbers tell us nothing at all except that the keywords appear somewhere on the pages in question. A more convincing (and verifiable) source would be a formal nationwide survey, or poll, or series of public statements by elected officials or columnists that explicitly agree with the assertion. Anything else is baseless supposition. Delete per JFW and Paolo Liberatore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.5.144.3 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 5 November 2005

keep I typed in "British intestin" and " Western intestin" and got no hits on yahoo search. This indicates, as has been pointed out, that the difference is a POV in Japan but not the West. The point about the claim, which most of us suspect has no factual basis, is it is statistically testable. It is, like the idea of blood being a significant signifier, widely adhered to in Japan. Comprehensive encyclopedias must cover modern myths as well as more ancient ones and show us where they can lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.229.233.242 (talk • contribs) 06:25, 5 November 2005

Vote disregarded by closing admin Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 22:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC) [reply]

- Comment The gentleman has misspelled intestine which perhaps explains his conclusions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.5.144.3 (talk • contribs) 06:51, 5 November 2005
  - Comment on Comment: The gentleman, who may be a lady for all we know, did not misspell intestine but instead typed in intestin to catch some other words such as intestinal. The gentleman also made no conclusions but instead pointed out how ideas like these are linked to other (politically inspired) myths. Please note the marks around the searched for items in the posts above. This is to get them in the desired sequence, standard search progress both in English and in Japanese. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.229.233.242 (talk • contribs) 10:25, 5 November 2005

Comment; I have reverted the last edit in which an anon (an unlogged user) changed all unsigned signatures with {{Mambo}}. If the intended meaning was to communicate the creation of a new account, I suggest to add a sentence like “this anon is now using the account User:Mambo” at the end of each comment, instead. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 16:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment to Keep: This article raises a number of interesting hypotheses, none of which have been significantly/scientifically proved or disproved anywhere and some of which can lead to nasty conclusions in line with the Nihonjonron/Nazi thesis/theses. There is an eminently testable hypothesis here: that there is a significant difference in length between the intestines of one "people" and those of (all) others. The idea that the intestines of the Japanese are different is used to prop up the idea, widely held in Japan, that the Japanese are different and somehow superior and special. As part of this process, the idea's apologists come up with figures comparing the relative lengths of the intestines of all kinds of animals, in some Japanese version of The Ascen]]t of Man. In targeting this social, "pseudo-fascist" myth, we end up having to address a wide number of issues, including the lengths of intestines of humans and all other animals. Wikipedia is the perfect place to pool our common, if limited knowledge together in a positive way and not to get bogged down in pedantry or cheap irrelevant shots/deletions. (anonymous aka Mambo)

Vote disregarded by closing admin Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 22:20, 6 November 2005 (UTC) [reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The spunkers

Does not meet WP:MUSIC. Searching for '"The spunkers" spattico' on Google returns zero matches. CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. By the way, I think this got re-nominated for 2 November, as well. BrianSmithson 21:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tifnod

Non notable neologism. Google finds no references either. delete. -- SoothingR 19:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --howcheng [ talk  contribs  web ] 23:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neologism. BrianSmithson 21:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was deleted early due to sock brigade. There's no way there will be any serious discussion of keeping this. Friday (talk) 00:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Friday Night Line

High school comedy team and show. Not notable at the moment. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anders J. Nielsen. Delete. —BrianSmithson 19:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete...non notable.--Dakota 20:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, two shows, highschool production... simply not notable enough for inclusion.--Isotope23 20:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Well, I have heard that it has received notoriety in Maine, and within the context of this situation, it possesses some notability.--Zetherus 5:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC) (User:72.224.168.84)
Keep* I think Wikipedia should lighten up and give these kids a break. Have you no soul? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.224.144.234 (talk • contribs)
Keep* Cause it brings me back to the days when Wikipedia used to have a sense of humor! I miss those days god dammit! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.224.144.234 (talk • contribs)
Keep, Despite the "possible" lack of notability it is still an interesting piece of literature to read, and I hear it will be updated often — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.224.168.84 (talk • contribs)
Keep, dood this artcle is soooooooo funy, u guyz r jerks? u no that? big jerks! lol! f u dont lik wat im sayin then u can stfu! lmao! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.224.144.234 (talk • contribs)
Comment. All the unsigned Keep votes appear to be from the same location as the two main contributors to the article, 72.224.168.84 and 72.224.175.89. Saberwyn 00:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom., and kindly stop vandalising the votes page. - Sensor 00:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by Friday as nn-bio. --GraemeL ^(talk) 20:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

William Ho

Vanity, non-notable, borders on patent nonsense, but thought I'd play it safe. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anders J. Nielsen and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friday Night Line. Delete. —BrianSmithson 19:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bogus article. William Ho (Ka-Kui Ho) is a Hong Kong film actor[21] who has nothing to do with any american tv.-Dakota

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"55 STITCHES"

Appears to be band vanity. Unsigned and does not meet WP:MUSIC. delete --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 19:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom.Harvestdancer 20:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Beware of anonip changing votes and adding fake "usernamed" votes. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 20:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obvious self-promotion. Boojiboy 15:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. --maclean25 00:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New California Republic

Per WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The thought of how California might be called if it ever was to become independent is very interesting and entertaining, but imo it is not Wikipedia material. It would in my view only become Wikipedia material if a group was to declare Californian independence under that name. Aecis 20:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC) PS. There is a seemingly notable organization called New California Republic[reply]

Delete - The fact this group "New California Republic" has a web site, doesn't make them notable. Most obscure fringe groups have web sites. Also, not that it matters, but the above web site, seems to propose something different than the article (e.g. a country made only of the US state). However, I only gave it a short read, and can't tell. It really doesn't matter. --rob 22:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Aecis' first idea was right. There are exceptions to the crystal ball policy, in particular when the event will almost surely take place or when the proposal is really notable. This seems not to be the case, however. A search for “link:www.newcaliforniarepublic.org” on Google returned that only 27 pages link the web site of the organization (including the pages in the site). I do not especially trust Google for establishing notability in general, but in this case I think it's fairly accurate. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 00:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP is not a crystal ball, but there has been enough talk about California secession/division that this may well rank its own article. - Sensor 00:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment an article about a current and notable controversy is perfectly fine. In this case, the article should be named Controversy on California secession or something similar, and contain information about the controversy (who proposed separation, etc.). In this particular case, I have some doubts about the notability of such a controversy. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 14:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone provides good, solid, verifiable evidence that the phrase "New California Republic" is in genuine, widespread use in California and not just promotion for a website. I am very skeptical (hence my provisional "delete") because the article conspicuously fails to cite any references and because Googling on exact phrase "New California Republic" gives unimpressive results. The serious prospect of a "New California Republic" would be of national concern, so I think it is also revelant that an online search of The New York Times from 2000-present yields no occurrences of the exact phrase "New California Republic." Dpbsmith (talk) 19:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Jkelly 23:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Alchemy Substances and Symbols

This article is nonsense. I move for a speedy Harvestdancer 20:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied as nonsense/vandalism. For future reference, please do not bring articles to AfD after marking them as speedy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. First time nominating a speedy, so I didn't know.Harvestdancer 23:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, no harm done. Good call on the speedy part, by the way. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 11:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Downingtown Area School District

Non-notable, attack, no context. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 20:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Harvestdancer 20:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Downtown where? Evidently Geography isn't something that offerred in this school district. Stu 22:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC) Change my vote to KEEP after seiing the edits made. Stu 01:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep, Suitably improved.Gateman1997 00:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, short but informative article. Please consider fixing pages instead of biting newbies. Kappa 00:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the edit-conflict version rewritten by Kappa. Silensor 00:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that it's been rewritten. Mwalcoff 00:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. - Sensor 00:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. -- DS1953 ^talk 01:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep School District --JAranda | watz sup 06:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. School districts with several schools deserve articles, even though I am more skeptical to individual articles about the schools within them. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep and gateman can you please fix your vote this is not really eligible for speedy deleting any more Yuckfoo 20:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 22:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep real school district. Xoloz 22:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all school districts. --Nicodemus75 01:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a suitable place to merge articles on area schools. Denni ☯ 03:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep school districts, it's the articles on individual schools that are the problem. — Haeleth Talk 19:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford University Tory Reform Group

This is a minor student political group in one university, the article being placed here by its President elect. It's a vanity article on a non-notable organisation. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (to keep things clear). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Has lasted 40 years though. Dlyons493 Talk 22:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I appreciate that some Oxford student organizations are ancient enough to qualify, despite general precedent against student groups. This group is not one of those few noteworthy ones. Xoloz 22:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Barbier

I suspect a hoax. I can find no confirmation of the material in this article. The "youngest CEO" of a Fortune 500 company ought to have some internet presence. Original author also has vandalized a few articles, one by inserting the name into an article where it didn't belong. Joyous (talk) 11:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, most likely a hoax considering that Selvok Pharmaceutical Co. is based in India and doesn't seem to have a CEO (it is run by Executive Director Dr. S. C. Gupta) [22].--Isotope23 21:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Isotope23. —BrianSmithson 21:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Oliver. Stu 22:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Note the later related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Ivies. This note aded to avoid confussion. DES ^(talk) 21:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Southern Ivy League

Although it is qualified as "colloquial term," this term appears to have been invented by the author. While I can imagine colloquialisms like "Southern Ivy" or "Southern Ivies," the very nature of a League is formal, and no formal relationship exists between any of these schools, as the article itself mentions. Furthermore, unlike Public Ivies, Little Ivies, Jesuit Ivy and other terms that derive from the Ivy League, this term appears to have no historic context or documentation to support it besides the subjective opinions of contributing Wikipedians 129.105.35.219 20:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. - 129.105.35.219 20:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No Google hits; no formal association among the schools. | Keithlaw 20:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if its a coined term, its used in very, very, very limited circles. Stu 22:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is not a formal association 160.39.243.196 16:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neologism, probably invented, no evidence presented of real or widespread use e.g. by guidance counselors. Not only are no sources given for this subjective list of "prestigious" Southern schools, I note that no sources for the "Magnolia League" mentioned in the article are given, either. This is really just a subjective list of good schools together with a proposal for their promotion. Neither is encyclopedic. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have heard this term used in the South, but not with the consistency or frequency necessary to warrant an article. Xoloz 22:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a widely used term in Southern academia. It is acknowledged to be a colloquial term in the article. Just because some other people haven't heard of it, it's no less valid. I know the Magnolia League was a proposal in the mid-to-late '90's. Check with the student government archives at Emory, Vanderbilt, Duke, etc. I don't think the author made it up, because I have been hearing it for the past 20 years. Why delete a phrase that many Southern wiki-users know? That smacks of regionalism.
Delete. Unsourced and unverified, apparent neologism, smacks of boosterism, apparently unencyclopedic. -- Rbellin|Talk 05:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heedless Coding

Certainly does not appear to be a real term--possibly a vanity page, or simply inaccurate--a Google search turns up no other references to this term.

+ Delete per nomination.

Delete as per nom. The underlying coding philosophy exists, but I've never heard it given that name. Dlyons493 Talk 21:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism. Lots of people do it, but nobody calls it that.--Isotope23 21:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Richard teasell

thus in title but the article calls him Richard Teasall. Alleged DDR-born porn star. Hoax - zero Google hits. -- RHaworth 21:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Modular. (Talk.) 22:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly Speedy as an attack page. MCB 00:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Cel e stianpower ^háblame 14:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Badical

Hoax. Delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 21:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

this is not a hoax - the badical uses the robot thing as an novel gimmick, from what i can gather. Check out the Aquabats on wiki for a similar deal. sorry new to this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.30.161 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If it's not a hoax, it's certainly not verifiable. Google "badical discotronic robot" and you get nothing. --howcheng [ talk  contribs  web ] 01:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

while its pretty doubtfull that the badical is actually a robot, he/she does make and distribute music that I have heard on a (DAB) radio station

I have seen 'The Badical' play small gigs in venues around London. Despite the fact that he wears a robot costume made of cardboard on stage, the man behind it all takes the music very seriously and is a valuable member of the music society. Do not delete this entry for it provides those interested with valuable information on this artist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.245.248 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, he still fails the guidelines set in WP:NMG. No change in vote. --howcheng [ talk  contribs  web ] 16:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete it? There is Badical music out there, he/she/it does claim to be a robot. It exists, it is as it says on the entry, thus, it should be kept!

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

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

The result of the debate was MERGE. Denni ☯ 03:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Massless gauge bosons in heterotic string theory

This topic should be covered within the article on heterotic string theory. We don't wish to set a precedent for gravitons in type I string theory, Kalb-Ramond fields in heterotic string theory, etc., do we? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phys (talk • contribs) 23:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to merge then, Phys. --howcheng [ talk  contribs  web ] 01:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Invalid criteria for a AfD. Poster could have inserted a suitable merge template to resolve this issue. — RJH 15:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merged and redirected. Denni ☯ 03:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as a recreation of content already deleted via Afd. Friday (talk) 04:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Creation-evolution poll

Already deleted under evolution poll the author of this article User:Ed_Poor moved it to a new namespace to prevent its deletion. Actually, this looks like an administrator abuse. He undeleted the article without going through the proper channels. We maybe should refer this admin for discipline. Joshuaschroeder 22:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as having already been chosen for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolution poll. Ed also recreated Evolution poll as a redirect to this article, which should be re-deleted, as well. His edit summary was:

Evolution poll moved to Creation-evolution poll: Was deleted in part because misnamed: "it is not a poll on evolution but rather a poll about the creation-evolution controversy"

However, looking at the AfD, its pretty obvious that the consensus was that if information was to be merged, it should be merged into creation-evolution controversy. There was no consensus to simply rename the article. I, too, am troubled by another unilateral act by Ed Poor that goes against consensus. -Satori ^(talk) 22:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleted as a recreation of deleted content. I'm rather baffled by this. Friday (talk) 00:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I see no reason to "discipline" anyone; he hasn't undeleted it again. I'm confident he's aware of the situation, as I left a note on his talk page referring him here. Friday (talk) 04:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Thue. Friday (talk) 04:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Infamous P

Non-notable, probable vanity Modular. (Talk.) 22:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. --Holderca1 03:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FREECOG

Almost meeting WP:CSD A2 (except for the foriegn language part), this is a straight copy and paste from another wiki, notability on its own is questionable. Karmafist 22:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- First organized anti-cult movement seems rather significant to me. howcheng [ talk  contribs  web ] 07:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The Children of God page links to FREECOG several times, I believe it is notable. Athf1234 04:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Final Fantasy XI. --Cel e stianpower ^háblame 14:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Final Fantasy Online

While one my favorite websites, it's not-notable. Doesn't meet WP:WEB. Has an alexa rating of 44,266. ~~Delete~~ --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 22:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Final Fantasy XI is not and shall never be known as Final Fantasy XI: Online, Final Fantasy Online or any other Final Fantasy containing the word Online. It should be deleted more rather than redirect to Final Fantasy XI. That's simply inappropriate and incorrect.

- It is true that Final Fantasy XI: Online and Final Fantasy Online are not correct titles. However, it is a common mistake [23] [24] and thus is an appropriate redirect. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 11:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Change vote to Redirect to Final Fantasy XI. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 22:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above, but isn't there also a game by this title? 23skidoo 23:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You are thinking of Final Fantasy XI, also known as Final Fantasy XI: Online.

--JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 00:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Final Fantasy XI. Saberwyn 00:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Saberwyn.--Isotope23 01:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quoted from WP:WEB

"1. Having an Alexa ranking of 10,000 or better 2. Having been the subject of national or international media attention within the last 2 years 3. Having a forum with 5,000 or more apparently unique members"

The site is short on its Alexa, however it has been the subject of media attention, and I am referring to the site itself, rather than the forum. It has a forum with approximately 5,000 members, and has had forum membership above that at times. In addition the policies and procedures of the forum have been a topic of discussion on the internet for many years and its procedures have been a reason for the creation of many other forums in the genre as a model and as a counter. It is historically noteworthy in this regard for its forum mamagement, in addition to its content on the actual site itself. Arckanghel

I do consider WP:WEB to be a pretty good guide to which sites are noteworthy. While it is impressive that the site has been covered by Electronic Gaming Monthly, I don't consider this to be a worthy national media source, since it isn't broad in it's subject matter. What is important to EGM isn't necessarily notable. Also, I'd like to know exactly how EGM covered FFO. Was it a full-page article, or just a sentence or two and a URL? 4,776 forum members is close to the guideline (which I feel is too low anyway.) How many of those users are actually active?

Basically, I'm still not yet convinced. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 02:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The media coverage in print is shown here http://www.ffonline.com/site/press.htm. There has been more in depth coverage in online sources such as ZDNet & IGN, but I don't have a link for those on hand. As for forum traffic, the wiki page cites 4,776 members, 32,574 threads and 793,855 posts on November 1st, and as of this writing on November 3rd the page reports Threads: 32,691, Posts: 800,693, Members: 4,786. Arckanghel

Despite being a member of the site in question, I have to agree with JiFish and others. FFO just does not reach the requirements stated in WP:WEB. There's no two ways about it, and, no matter how many times people link to that mention --- not an article by any means -- in EGM, FFO just doesn't cut it. C-Man

I'll concede. There have been a good few arguments for and against on the site itself. Delete.Arckanghel

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

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

The result of the debate was move to India Today's top 10 colleges of India. - ulayiti (talk) 00:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Top 10 colleges of India

There is a strong consensus to maintain secondary and post-secondary school articles on Wikipedia, but a "Top 10..." list is inherently subjective and violates NPOV policy. Silensor 22:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as with other POV lists. Gazpacho 01:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the article cites sources for both of its lists, and (as it currently stands) is, in fact, India Today's top 10 colleges of India (India Today). Uncle G 15:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Legendary Pokémon. - Mailer Diablo 14:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Legendary bird Pokémon

Delete: Poke-cruft, seeing as there are already extensive articles on all three legendary birds, which mention all the information in this article.--Zxcvbnm 22:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (merging anything salvagable) to Legendary Pokémon - possible search term. --Cel e stianpower ^háblame 22:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Celestianpower makes sense. Redirect. Saberwyn 00:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect in agreement with Celestianpower. --Sparky Lurkdragon 00:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is cruft but it should still be a Redirect per Celestianpower --JAranda | watz sup 06:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. - Mailer Diablo 11:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clyde Allen

Clyde Allen is not notable even if his son is. Filceolaire 22:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7. No assertion of notability. Have tagged as such. --howcheng [ talk  contribs  web ] 00:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. - Mailer Diablo 11:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bachala

Article is fairly devoid of content Modular. (Talk.) 22:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A1. Have tagged as such. --howcheng [ talk  contribs  web ] 00:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 6, 2005 01:59 (UTC)

Rant

Is a dictdef which a page in Wiktionary already exists... bottom links also look more like web advertising rather than informative links. 'Delete.Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 05:53, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Delete It's not even a good dicdef, and I can't conceive of anything that could go into this article that would change its dicdef status. Except for maybe links to examples of rants - but that would need deletion too. The Literate Engineer 08:24, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep I could totally see this being a great article. Ranting as comedy, ranting as propaganda, ranting for muckraking, street-corner ranting... SchmuckyTheCat 02:24, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete dicdef. JamesBurns 28 June 2005 03:57 (UTC)
Delete, possibly redirect somewhere suitable. R adiant _>|< June 28, 2005 11:44 (UTC)
Delete. I could see this as a great article, but I don't see this as a great article, or even a keepable one, right now.--Scimitar 28 June 2005 14:13 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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. - Mailer Diablo 11:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rant

Somehow this page was reinstated. Like someone said earlier, it's not even a good dicdef, and it would need to be modified even before being placed in Wiktionary. 136.165.114.215 22:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and start a separate Wiktionary article. The article consists mainly of a long unattributed Simpsons quote. Modular. (Talk.) 23:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there should be a Wiktionary page with this, but this isn't appropriate for a transwiki. Wcquidditch | Talk 23:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G4. Have tagged as such. --howcheng [ talk  contribs  web ] 00:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as patent nonsense, regardless of source. Gazpacho 01:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was to Delete the article. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mybanglamusic

Advertising for what I consider a nn website. Creator has username indicating ties to this website. Wcquidditch | Talk 22:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Wcquidditch | Talk 22:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Indium 03:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:52, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Asking For It

Delete as a non-notable, unsigned bunch of bored teenagers. Eddie.willers 23:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete..non-notable. borders on vanity aticle.--71.28.240.89 23:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NMG. --howcheng [ talk  contribs  web ] 01:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN. *drew 03:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. PJM 03:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Why do you guys even care? its not hurting anyone by having it there, and its been porperly done and looks alright? cant you just leave it untill theres something important for an "asking for it" article to put there. What its the harm of leaving it there?? delete the crappything about chris, he did that himself, but the thing about the band i did and it took a bit of time just for you guys to delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.20.69.3 (talk • contribs)
Delete. NN Srl 10:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:52, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Under the Bed

Not notable band - WP:MUSIC. No releases, major tours etc. feydey 23:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --howcheng [ talk  contribs  web ] 01:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. PJM 03:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:52, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Burrows

Delete as vanity page for teenage wannabe in a non-notable band that's tagged AFD. Eddie.willers 23:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --howcheng [ talk  contribs  web ] 01:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. PJM 03:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lesbian mothers

Essay, not encyclopedic. Wcquidditch | Talk 23:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possible post-deletion redirect to gay marriage per nomination. Wcquidditch | Talk 23:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete essay.--Isotope23 01:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research abakharev 05:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Michael L. Kaufman 08:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Gay adoption. Contains some useful information. Very relevant to same-sex adoption debate. In fact, I remember looking at the gay adoption article earlier this week and wondering why there weren't more references to studies done on children raised in same-sex households. - Pasiphae 08:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Longhair | Talk 11:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Cel e stianpower ^háblame 14:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Heterosexuals

This page is not really a re-creation of "List of people who have publicly denied being gay", but it is essentially the same topic, which has already been judged unencyclopedic and voted for deletion. I can do no better than quote Sherool's nomination, in which he said "I feel this is non-encyclopedic, and while the persons are notable in the vast majority of cases their mere denial of being gay is not. It is basically a list of people who have responded in a certain way to rumors or sometimes (joking) questions from the press. Verifiable and factual yes, but not encyclopedic or particularly helpful. I can't think of any use for such a list...To sum up: If this information belong anywhere at all it's the 'trivia' section of the respective persons articles, not on a list of every famous person who's ever said 'I'm not gay' in public. " Delete. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone explain why it is ok for there to be a list of Famous Homosexuals but not a list of Famous Heterosexuals? grazon 00:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
- Did you create this article in order to illustrate a point, for example to demonstrate that Wikipedia does not give equal treatment to homosexuality and heterosexuality? Dpbsmith (talk) 10:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dpbsmith. This is essentially listcruft in the same vein as the recently deleted list of "men famous for being well endowed." I would argue that this list isn't even WP:V in the strictest sense. If is were titled "List of Famous People who have Claimed to be Heterosexual" it would be verifiable, but a person saying they are heterosexual in an interview doesn't necessarily make it so. Even retitled though it is of dubious encyclopedia value.--Isotope23 02:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move to its correct title List of people who have denied being gay and then delete it. ♠DanMS 03:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Long as we have a list of famous homosexuals this article has every right to be here too. grazon 03:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
- Articles do not have rights. Articles created to make a point should be deleted. --DavidConrad 06:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Well, we have a list of deaf people; so does that mean we need to have a list of hearing people? If we have a list of amputees, do we need a "list of people who still have all four limbs"? Such lists would be very long, boring and pointless. (Note: I am not equating homosexuality with disability; it's just an example.) HollyAm 04:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - If some one feels the need to compile such a list why not? grazon 05:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
    - Because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Set complements have inclusion criteria that are too broad to be useful. Uncle G 17:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The topic is unencyclopedic in its essence. NatusRoma 08:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

These people are both famous enough to be in the nndb and heterosexual hence this is not a "indiscriminate collection of information". grazon 17:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

- That isn't an accurate representation of what Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information means. I suggest you read it again. Xoloz 22:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Uncle G. Xoloz 22:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as preposterous listcruft, and violation of WP:POINT. MCB 00:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MCB. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 14:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Army Of In Between

Non notable, band vanity. See also Pitt Ripply (this article was created by User:PittRipply). keepsleeping say what 23:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --keepsleeping say what 23:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --howcheng [ talk  contribs  web ] 01:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Xoloz 22:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pitt Ripply

Non notable bio, possible vanity keepsleeping say what 23:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --keepsleeping say what 23:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --howcheng [ talk  contribs  web ] 01:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Xoloz 22:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Pearson

not notable, few Googles. Part of a series by user MikeRM to promote an admittedly small Baptist group.

Delete Dlyons493 Talk 23:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only two relevant Google results; associated web sites unknown jnothman ^talk 04:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Xoloz 22:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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