Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 September 16

< September 15	September 17 >

Purge server cache

September 16

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

The result of the debate was DELETE --Doc (?) 22:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Dream

WP:NOT a recipe book. Do we delete cocktail recipes, regardless of notability? This one has the added bonus of apparently being an incorrect recipe, based on a google search. — brighterorange (talk) 00:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOT book for badly named recipes. --Miborovsky 00:32, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ISNOT a recipe book indeed. And we don't need to unload incorrect recipes onto Wikibooks. -Splash^talk 01:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Could you explain a notorious non-drinker why this recipe is badly named or incorrect? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just search google and compare the recipes that come up; they are mostly inconsistent, but at least they name a specific liquor (this one just says 1/2oz liquor!) and include something that might turn it golden, rather than milk. — brighterorange (talk) 14:56, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, thanks for the clarification. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:25, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- May be a regional variant, but I can't find anything to back that up, so I'd say it doesn't even deserve a transwiki. --Isotope23 15:31, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darth Vader (cocktail), a cocktail can be tranwikied to the bartending Wikibook, but an incorrect recipe for a cocktail we shouldn't bother. — Phil Welch 20:45, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was del. mikka (t) 03:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prime Number Shitting Bear

Even though it survived a nomination for deletion here I'm putting this article up for deletion again since there is no reasonable claim to notability and this appears to be just another internet animation. It also appears that all information on the subject is vague barring the little bit of info that you can obtain by going to the animation website. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 00:35, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete forgot to add right after nomninating and figured that the nom on it's own might not be counted as it's own delete vote. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 00:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous Vfd, useful for anyone looking for examples of popular internet memes. Kappa 01:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- "Popular" is debatable with this one. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 15:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
While the previous VFD had no consensus on keeping or deletion, from looking at it, it is just another flash cartoon online. Delete. Zach (Sound Off) 01:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-known enough to be called an internet phenomenon, albeit a minor one. Stlemur 01:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Phenomenon? Cult status? 320 Google hits? I think not. Wikipedia is not a repository for all the endless junk that floats around cyberspace. -Splash^talk 01:30, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if it's reasonably well-known (not a given in this case), that doesn't make it notable or encyclopedic. —Cleared as filed. 02:39, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Splash Derex 03:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for all the reasons this nomination survived it's previous VfD attempt.--Nicodemus75 03:51, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Splash, Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 03:52, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Kappa. -- BD2412 ^talk 04:14, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since this article doesn't appear to be about a particularly notable subject. It's just some web animation that a few people apparently like. Make an article when something important happens involving it. Tuf-Kat 06:35, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep please like liast time this is a notable article on wp:ua Yuckfoo 06:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Splash. While "survived its previous AfD" is useful data (because the previous AfD discussion may contain persuasive arguments), it does not really constitute a reason in and of itself to keep unencyclopedic articles around. Nandesuka 11:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Correctly claims notability, and with 770 Google hits (plus a handful on Usenet), it's more deserving than some of the garage bands we've kept. Owen× ☎ 12:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- 770 hits is nothing for an internet phenomenon. Plus, like I said more than half of them are repetitive. Note that this applies particularly to things with fewer than 1000 hits in the first place: Google reports unique hits in the first thousand, so Wikipedia starts out with millions, but appear to finish up with a few hundred. This is because Google isn't checking through the other 113 million. If a topic starts out with fewer than 1000, then the unique search finds them all. This has 320 useful Googles, and that is nowhere close to what an internet phenomenon should have. -Splash^talk 13:05, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are correct, it is only 320 hits. My mistake! However, since it is surviving the test of time, and has (slightly) more merit than most nonsense sites, I'd rather keep it. Being a Number Theory guy, though, I am possibly biased. :) Owen× ☎ 13:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - To say it's surviving the test of time is a bit of a misnomer I think, the only thing it's done to "survive" is not get AfD'd again until now. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 15:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - In "surviving the test of time" I meant generating interest for four years, as seen on Usenet and such, not just surviving the previous AfD. Owen× ☎ 20:02, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Marginal delete. I don't think this is notable, but I could be convinced otherwise, I guess. Everyking 13:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete i'd never heard of it, and if longcat is so terribly worth deleting, this sure as hell is KeiKusanagi 13:13, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per longcat. A page for every amusing forwarded email in the world? Vizjim 15:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Kappa. I've heard of it and a replication of it is a good basic project for newbie programmers. ;) splintax ^(talk) 15:26, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If people keep adding drek like this, Wikipedia is going to quickly turn into a repository for every stupid java or flash animation that somebody creates and then posts on the web. That being said, this article has survived one AfD and does generate a fair number of Google hits. While my personal opinion is that it is useless drivel, I will have to say Weak Keep. --Isotope23 15:37, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that it survived an AfD is a reason to keep it. There was no consensus last time, as it was a fairly contentious "vote" then too. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 15:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this must be the first time I have seen someone call an article "drek" and "drivel" and then vote to keep it. A previous no-consensus AfD is hardly binding either way in future, surely? -Splash^talk 19:10, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "Internet meme" = "it got forwarded." Silly, transient epiphenomenon. Let it survive for two years, retain popularity, and break out into non-Internet usage. Right now, the only people who hear of it are already on the Internet, where they can see it. How is this answering questions or expanding the contexts of information? Geogre 17:57, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be a minor internet meme. 320 unique hits is pitifull for something that can only claim it's notability on the net. WP:NOT a programming guide, nor does survival of a past AfD garuntee current notability. Especially on a medium as transitory as the net, what may appear to be the next big thing one day, in retrospect can appear nothing more than a very minor flash in the pan. --Icelight 18:03, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that we're even talking about it at all, when the page itself dates from 2001, says something about its "flash in the pan" status IMO. — Stlemur 18:20, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Between then and now we haven't talked about it all, though. -Splash^talk 19:10, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nonnotable. mikka (t) 18:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not "surviving the test of time", it's abandoned -- last updated in 2003, promising to move to a domain which is now owned by a squatter. And it's no meme -- there's no body of derivative works like you'd see with goatse, badgers, or All Your Base. The bear is dead, let it rest. — mendel ☎ 19:01, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivial, nn Internet meme. MCB 19:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons as in the earlier no-consensus vote when this was VfD instead of AfD. No indication of increased significance. Not mentioned by either Republicans or Democrats in 2004 elections. (US-centric bias!!) I agree with Mendel and MCB. Show me any impact on the planet except letting people waste their time. Barno 19:47, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Dottore So 20:25, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Let's apply some modus tollens to this. If the Prime Number Shitting Bear is a notable internet meme, it would have thousands of google hits. The Prime Number Shitting Bear does not have thousands of google hits. Therefore, we can conclude that the Prime Number Shitting Bear is not a notable internet meme. — Phil Welch 20:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn meme, nonsense. Voting "keep because I've heard of it" is no more acceptable than "delete because I've never heard of it". User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:57, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An "internet meme" with only 320 Google hits isn't successful. For comparison, various permutations of AYBABTU get upwards of two million hits. --Carnildo 21:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn foolishness. Fawcett5 21:40, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Eric119 22:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Carnildo. Bishonen | talk 22:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn, 59% delete votes (11 keep/19 delete/2 merge) in the previous VfD does not make a keeper. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:19, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Splash. Coll7 01:02, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Marginal Delete If it truly were notable I'd think the article would be able to actually describe the notability. Maybe in a wiki devoted to web humor, but not for a general purpose encyclopedia. Caerwine 04:05, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Never heard of it myself. And I get forwarded all manner of nn garbage. Sabine's Sunbird 04:49, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally insignificant internet meme. This is just a flash animation, not a phenonemon. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 06:14, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete - if someone really cares, they could merge it into a List of Minor Internet Memes, where we could then argue about it there. But there's no way that it needs it's own article. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:52, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete it's hardly badger badger badger --TimPope 11:01, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TimPope, Tuf-Kat, Carnildo.Dpbsmith (talk) 21:33, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with wanton lust. A sizeable majority votes to delete this nonsense and people claim it's an obvious "keep"? Laughable. / Peter ^Isotalo 00:17, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I honestly cannot imagine why anyone would want to delete an article like this. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 01:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- ...what about all the reasons listed above with delete votes? - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 06:05, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- "nn" is not a reason. Grue 17:45, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, none of the reasons given above is a reason for deletion according to the deletion policy. Minor branches of a subject that don't merit an article on their own are merge candidates. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 20:30, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep again and again. Don't let it turn into another GNAA. Grue 17:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. It should be possible to speedy this kind of page. Martg76 18:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as before. -Sean Curtin 00:28, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and hang it's organs on the Main Page to warn away others of it's kind - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 02:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per previous VfD. No sensible reason to delete. —RaD Man (talk) 04:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The previous VFD is no consensus, not keep. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 07:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not every single flash animation in the world is notable. --redstucco 09:34, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE--Doc (?) 22:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bixby

I don't believe this group meets WP:MUSIC guidelines. The "article" is closer to an advertisement. Joyous (talk) 00:36, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of meeting WP:music. No allmusic.com article. The top article on a search for Bixby band was for a marching band based in a town called Bixby although there are some hits for this band including this article see [1]. They have got an album to their credit but no evidence of it charting or having a significant critical impact. Capitalistroadster 00:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nnbv as above. Since the album doesn't appear to have charted, they'd need at least two of them to meet WP:MUSIC. -Splash^talk 01:31, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for non-notability. Tuf-Kat 06:35, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I would think of Bill Bixby first and Bigsby tremolo bars second and Blixa third. No record contract, no distribution, no notability at this point. At least it's a C&W band and not another deththrashneumetalfunk. Geogre 18:00, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Will the closing admin please note that there is an image in this article that should be posted at WP:IfD as an orphan as soon as we delete this? Thanks. — Phil Welch 20:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. If this is deleted (and it will be), move Bixby (disambiguation) to this location. -Sean Curtin 00:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP--Doc (?) 22:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

London Season (The Real World)

Why should this not remain on Wiki? Let me count the ways...

It was not the first or last season or a non-notable show.
It produced no persons of note (other than Jacinda Barrett, who has her own page).
It was not a 'groundbreaking' show in its concept or execution.
Er...that's it...Delete Eddie.willers 00:55, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a whole TV season is even more notable than a single episode. "There is no reason why there shouldn't be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly cross-linked and introduced by a shorter central page. Every episode name in the list could link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia." wiki is not paper. Kappa 01:10, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--TV shows, watched by hundreds of thousands if not millions, are notable--the entire season certainly deserves an article. Meelar (talk) 03:30, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because it's definately notable; comment: the naming convention is exceedingly odd. Why London Season (The Real World) instead of The Real World (London)? RasputinAXP talk * contribs 03:39, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The naming convention is odd, but it follows the convention used on The Real World article. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 03:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sure. The Real World's a popular show. Everyking 13:04, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. It needs a cleanup and I agree the naming convention should be changed to The Real World (London). If nobody cleans this up in a reasonable time period I'd say it should go for AfD again. On the merits of notability, I'd say it stays though.--Isotope23 15:43, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is notable and popular show. In fact, it is MTV's most popular television show series. See Wikipedia's Nielsen_Ratings article: "Top 15 Cable Series, July 4-10" subsection. Each season has a different settings and cast members. Yes, the article should be renamed "The Real World (London)" just like the other Wikipedia's Real World subarticles. --J. Nguyen 19:26, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just did the cleanup. The move of this article needs to wait until after the AfD. RasputinAXP talk * contribs 20:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, grudgingly. It's crap, but it's notable crap by Wikipedia's quite liberal standards (Not to complain, of course...). — Phil Welch 20:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if we can have an article on every single episode of nn shows, an article on a single season of a show is keepable. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If we an excess of TV-cruft, it's hardly reasonable to add more.
Keep. Mike H (Talking is hot) 22:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Grue 17:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No Way Jose

Non-notable. Google hits return an LA Punk bank. Delete Eddie.willers 01:03, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN, doesn't Google. I wish there were Punk banks around here, though. ;-) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:37, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Punk bank? Sounds hip. Flower party■ 03:55, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, would meet WP:MUSIC if they were the most notable exponent of Columbia's electronic music scene, but this article doesn't make that claim, merely trying to imply it. So, delete. Tuf-Kat 06:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. — Phil Welch 21:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Grue 17:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

McWiccans

Tagged for speedy. Whatever it is, it isn't a speedy. But I don't know what it means to be. I'm inclined to delete fanfic or something. History shows tagging anon thought it might be Wikisource. -Splash^talk 01:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete transient slang is not encyclopedic. PatGallacher 01:47, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although it made me laugh. Wikipedia is not a dictionary.--inks 04:26, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If there's an entry for Wicca why not? I think this goes beyond slang and describes a contemporary youth subculture. 05.55 16 September 2005. Andy Wolf.
- Contribution by User:172.200.72.63, the article creator. — Phil Welch 21:05, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is an original essay with a brief intro. See WP:NOT. Friday (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Alf ^melmac 08:36, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Copyright (c) Richard J Price 2005 All Rights Reserved." Good job Richard, you just GFDL'd your crappy "all rights reserved" dicdef. — Phil Welch 21:05, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Fluffbunny Ashibaka (tock) 03:04, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original essay/personal research. No evidence given that the term is in any significant real use. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable slang. / Peter ^Isotalo 00:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fluffy bunny --Icarus 02:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
McDelete The term is destined to enter the dictionaries at some point in the near future - but not encyclopedias!! --redstucco 09:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. This sentence acknowledges that the term is not in common use now, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Richard J. Price's opinion that the term will enter the dictionaries is not encyclopedic. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 21:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

░

This article's name makes me uncomfortable. It just... I'm not sure I can verbalize it properly, but it feels like an abuse of the namespace. You know? DS 01:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is about a character, thus the character is the article's title. To make it easier for people, I created Light shade and redirected it to ░. — ░ 01:34, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--Sorry, you're right. I was a bit confused when I first saw this. Citizen Premier 01:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete There are way too many Unicode characters to have an article about each one. What else can you possibly say about it? This should be in something like List of Unicode drawing characters or something like that. — brighterorange (talk) 02:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If this needs to be covered by an encyclopedia at all, it certainly shouldn't have its own article. Maybe it should be part of a list per brighterorange. —Cleared as filed. 02:36, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's nothing more to be said about the character than what is listed, and that's pretty short even for a stub. I agree that if this is even going to be tossed about that there should be a single article with the drawing characters. Just holdovers from ANSI for compatibility's sake, correct? RasputinAXP talk * contribs 03:53, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
░M░e░r░g░e░ with... um... somthing. -- BD2412 ^talk 04:17, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
How about redirect to Western Latin character sets (computing)? — ⅝ 04:21, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Belongs in a list. Sortan 04:47, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Receintly we have had articles with symbols in their namespace created by users of the same name (such as this one). For more, see ⅝ by user:⅝ and ۞ by user:۞. — Kjammer ⌂ 05:18, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or redirect if someone really wants to. Tuf-Kat 06:40, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per — ░. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 06:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ISNOT a list of Unicode character codes. Is the moon full or something? Between this and Ria Fulton... -- MCB 07:31, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to list of unicode characters. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:14, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Would be useless as a redirect: who would search for it? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RasputinAXP, and agree with AndrewLenahan. Nandesuka 11:36, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete (or let fade away) --bodnotbod 12:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete/mergeto a list. Characters only need an article if there is something to go in the article. JPD 12:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm pretty sure Wikisource has a list of these, but its search function is down at the moment so I can't check. android 79 14:40, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Perhaps we need articles about each character set, and matching articles listing the characters in those sets. Or something like that... Mindmatrix 15:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's nothing notable about it, and as far as I can tell, the only reason it's in Unicode is for compatibility with older character sets. sjorford #£@%&$?! 15:44, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't see how this can be expanded further than a sub-stub, and it's useless for anyone using Wikipedia's search engine. 23skidoo 15:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, useless. Gazpacho 17:54, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch. Are we going to have separate entries for every single box drawing character next? Delete, no one will search for this!
Delete. I am deeply in love with Unicode but this abuses the privilege. — Phil Welch 21:08, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to some list of unicode charaters. Oleg Alexandrov 21:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Oleg Alexandrov. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:39, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This really does not deserve an article. - Hahnchen 00:21, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Unicode Block Elements. Caerwine 04:29, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep please someone could search for this here Yuckfoo 07:11, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is this a unicode.wikipedia? --Vsion 07:51, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing can be said about this character --TimPope 11:06, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Listify. — Insta ntnood 18:57, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. / Peter ^Isotalo 00:26, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this way lies madness contributed by Chick Bowen 03:59, 18 September 2005 / signed by Peter ^Isotalo
- Boy is that embarrassing. Thanks, Peter. Chick Bowen 04:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with its redirect, Light shade. This article was created by a sock puppet of banned vandal User:JarlaxleArtemis for the purpose of disrupting Wikipedia. —Psychonaut 16:34, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because there is no such symbol on my keyboard. Grue 18:02, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Belongs in a list. Nabla 20:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
REDIRECT as per Oleg Alexandrov et al. —Phil | Talk 09:46, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does the character have any use? --Optichan 18:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED, just a direct copy of the George Washington article. — JIP | Talk 04:57, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jason zhu

nn, just over 600 google hits, no content, looks like it was copied straight from George Washington, was tempted to speedy it. -GregAsche (talk) 01:34, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

speedy whether or not there is someone actually named jason zhu, this isn't even about such a person. Derex 03:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's on the speedy list too and I won't have any complaints if that happens as the article doesn't make any claims of notability about Jason Zhu the supposed subject of the article. It does make a claim on behalf of George Washington but we already have an article on him. Capitalistroadster 04:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was 'Speedied by author request. android 79 21:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cherokee same sex in history

Problem: Not notable or encyclopedic. Also written by user lying on me, as some silly "revenge plt" Molotov (talk)

Keep seems legitimate although could be improved. PatGallacher 01:34, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- How is that. It is an absurd topic and if it is to be kept, it should be atleast merged with another article. The entire notion of a "same sex" article of a particular Indian tribe is ludicrous. If this is the case, we should have a Navajo same sex history article, and so forth. There is no need for this article on Wikipedia. Molotov (talk) 01:44, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

V. Molotov posted the following threat on Wikipedia in my message box. I consider his edits here to be retaliation. Based upon his statements, I do not believe he can be neutral regarding any article I write. Please **BLOCK** his access to my work. gadugi

FROM V. Molotov to user GADUGI:

Concerning Jeff Merkey

You have no right to post disgusting lies about me. I have never contacted you personally until now...but you need to know that your articles on Jeff Merkey and Cherokee_same_sex_in_history are not notable and you have caused a terrible Wiki Editor wars due to your selfishness. If you continue to lie I can only promise dire consequences And yes, I said your article was Bullcrap...only after YOU refused to give in to that article. DO NOT LIE ON ME AGAIN. I DON'T CARE ABOUT WHAT LITTE VENDETTA YOU HAVE AGAINST ME. STOP NOW OR I WILL REALLY GET ANGRY I WANT TO SEE WHATEVER DOCUMENT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT CONCERNING ME "CUSSING YOU OUT." I DON'T LIKE YOU. PRETTY SOON I WILL START HATING YOU IF YOU KEEP THIS CRAP UP. Molotov (talk) 01:36, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

This individual, V. Molotov, posted this threatenting email on my talk page. **DELETE** V. Molotov frm Wikipedia. Gadugi 07:14, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This editor is obivously incompotent to this encyclopedia, as he has created several editor wars since he has gotten here. If this idiot wins this argument, I will leave Wikipedia. I will not be threatened or provoked by this guy...I left him the above message, but it includes no threats. Also note that this boy has left lies about me here and here - so that is why he has the above message sent to his talk page. Note that if this article is kept, and this user vindicates over me - after I have contributed thousands of edits to this encyclopedia, and have spent countless hours trying to help newbies - I will leave this encyclopedia, and suggest others to do the same. RickK is right, there is a fatal flaw in this system. I have done my best to contribute here while a vandal/idiot like this has literally taken Wikipedia by its balls. Molotov (talk)

14:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least the article needs sources for its claims. It's currently obscure and completely unverifiable, and thus inappropriate for inclusion in wiki. KSevcik 02:46, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment could have potential for an article but would need reliable sources and to be cleaned up for POV. Unless sources are provided, I would vote delete. Capitalistroadster 04:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unverified, great hoax potential. --Fire Star 05:45, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If kept it could surely do with a rename to History of Cherokee same sex relationships or similar. Grutness...wha? 06:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an article on homosexuality among the Cherokee or whatever would be fine, but whatever that article should be called, this shouldn't redirect because it's a nonsensical title. Tuf-Kat 06:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced, unremarkable, unverified factoid. MCB 07:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing here - the same could be said for almost any ethnic group in the world--Doc (?) 08:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I removed most of the content for the article already. I feel that any article on homosexuality is very difficult to esspouse as NPOV and will always offend someone as controversial. I created the article and I also wish it to be deleted. Gadugi 16:19, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case it can be a speedy delete. The only edits to the article other than by Gadugi were VFD-related. — mendel ☎ 19:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Doc, i.a. Dottore So 20:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied as CSD A7. android 79 21:19, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pennie Grifin

A chef in Lexington, Va. Doesn't say where. Not sure if it's "Grifin" or "Griffin", pretty sure it's non-notable. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 01:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Just being a great chef doesn't establish notability. Borderline speedy under point A7. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:17, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN local business owner (Two Spoons Catering). -- MCB 07:53, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. "Exelent catering" is POV and the article is A7 vanity. Entirely unverifiable. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:17, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. Friday (talk) 14:20, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per MCB--Isotope23 16:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Molotov (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and tagged as such. — Phil Welch 21:15, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was del. mikka (t) 03:34, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Optimization tips

This page is a how-to (which Wikipedia is not), it is a blatant advertisement for a web site, and it's probably a copyvio but you'd have to register for the site to be sure. —Cleared as filed. 02:34, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete howto/original research. Gazpacho 02:47, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, how-to page that explains how to do something outside Wikipedia and is blatant advertising for the linked site. Wikipedia is NOT an FAQ. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:19, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. mikka (t) 18:25, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Advertising. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:56, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Grue 17:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jewban

Obscure slang term best suited for Wiktionary; also some of the claims should be verified. Style a bit folksy at times. Bleak future as anything but a stub. paul klenk 03:30, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although as written it's very stubby, I think there are directions to take this that are beyond mere dicdefs (I had no idea there were Cuban Jews. How did they get there? How many are there? What is their culture like?). If in a few months it's still just a stub I would reconsider my vote, but I can see this being usefully expanded. Nandesuka 11:43, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep again. This article just survived a VfD and has already seen improvement since the original stub. Pburka 13:52, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As it stands, this is nothing more than a dicdef. I could support a Transwiki for it in it's current form. I would be willing to change my vote if someone substantially expanded this article as suggested by Nandesuka. However, until that happens I stand by a Delete since this has not been significantly expanded since the original AfD.--Isotope23 16:32, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep. The article is way more than dicdef. Although I'd suggest to move the page to Jewish Cuban, according to the normal practice: African American, German Russian, etc. mikka (t) 18:34, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the grounds that previous VfD was only ten days ago, and its only two delete votes were prompted by the original poorly-chosen name and a grudge against the author. Ten days is not enough to see if an article will flourish, and ten days ago there was a consensus to keep the moved article. — mendel ☎ 19:24, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but possibly move--"Jewban" is borderline offensive. -- Phil Welch 21:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Offensiveness is not a reason to move (or delete); see, e.g., nigger. MCB 23:03, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It might be a stub, but it's not a dicdef --Icarus 22:39, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as for the move issue, the question is whether the article is properly about the term, or the Jewish-Cuban community itself. I'd like to know if it should be "Jewban" or "Juban", though. MCB 23:03, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. neologism. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:43, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jewish Cuban. --Revolución (talk) 05:12, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we don't delete articles that can be usefully expanded, unless it would be trival to recreate them. This does not seem to fit that category. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:54, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
keep this is not really a dictionary definition Yuckfoo 07:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Juban - every reference I've ever seen has been "Juban", and being a South Floridian, I've seen pretty much all there is to see. -- BD2412 ^talk 15:43, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable slang. We don't need separate articles for every imaginable combination of ethnic groups. / Peter ^Isotalo 01:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems verifiable. These culture/ethnic related articles are what we need most in wikipedia to appreciate the diversity of human. It's amazing that, according to the article, the impact of the tragic Spanish Inquisition went as far as Cuba. --Vsion 12:15, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Jewish Cuban and reconfigure to a broad article on the Jewish Cuban community. This particular joke ethnic nickname used in South Florida should only be a very small part of that article.--Pharos 05:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Splash. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 04:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Victorism

Relisting this AfD because the article was recreated. The references cited are all fake, too. Recommend a delete followed by a protect from recreation order. Ziggurat 01:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While it was recreated after consensus to delete, it is probably not speediable as the problem was that it was original research, and this appears to be a different version. Of course, as I don't have sysop powers, I can't check that for sure. Sonic Mew | talk to me 01:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it's pretty similar to the original (from memory), but this one is also very OR / unverifiable / advertisement of freesite. As I noted, none of the references actually exist, and were probably added to muddy the waters of the AfD discussion. Ziggurat 01:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I listed for speedy, as was jsut debated on and deleted yesterday. If cannot be speedy, then vote delete.—Gaff ^ταλκ 03:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You might be a month off there, it was September, not October 24th. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 04:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete (users with first edits discounted) --Doc (?) 22:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Victorism

No relevant search results, original research if I'm not mistaken Rx StrangeLove 03:35, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research, but their hearts are in the right place! Ziggurat 11:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original nutjobery. — Phil Welch 21:43, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- comment from User:128.117.68.53 [2]
not original there are 6 sources!, I could find a lot of info on it on the web very interesting makes a lot of sense -- comment from User:Chenlikang ([3])
Delete no redeaming knowledge content. Pete.Hurd 05:48, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep this awesome article! -- comment from User:128.117.68.53 [4]
Keep The best philosophy I read in years! -- comment from User:128.117.68.53 [5]
delete per nominator -- (☺drini♫|☎) 01:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously not a piece of original research--bibliography cites six sources. ChXu 01:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep An excellent and informative article on a highly influential philosophy that is reshaping the modern world. 71.208.85.84 04:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A fascinating in-depth description of Victorism, a highly developed political and social model that has merited a Wikipedia article for years, considering how widespread its influence, support, and recognition have become. PabloX 00:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The keep votes are all first-edits, for those of you keeping track. Delete. --fvw * 00:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI have read this article on the 22nd and I think this is a great well thought article on what could be the next world order.JohnRusteforid this is the users first edit Rx StrangeLove 23:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KeepI am a philosopher at Harvard and though I think it is not well written it deserves a spot on Wikipedia and if well-written, may have a chance in the real world* unsigned comment by user:KokonMan132, the users first edit. Rx StrangeLove 23:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC) [reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep (already redirected) --Doc (?) 22:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vermicula

Even though I'm a huge Star Trek fan, this article deals with an incredibly trivial substance that was (briefly) mentioned in one single episode. No scope for expansion and non-notable. Sortan 04:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this was a mistake, but I've redirected to the Star Trek episode in question, Manhunt (TNG episode), which already had its own article. Friday (talk) 05:34, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
After checking the redirected page's history... redirect works for me. :) — RJH 15:43, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Who put the Tribbles in the quadrotriticale? The redirect seems appropriate per WP:FICT. Barno 19:55, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:46, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Shameless cruft. / Peter ^Isotalo 00:07, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect. Woohookitty 04:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Federline

I contend it to be both not notable and presently inappropriate. ~~The kid has not even been given a name officially yet!~~ Neither Madonna's children nor Michael Jackson's children have articles, so I fail to see how this can be justified. So, delete Cyberjunkie | Talk 04:30, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck part of my comment. It appears the child has in fact been named. Nevertheless, I don't believe it is deserved of an article.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 05:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected to Britney Spears, altho that article claims an "unconfirmed report" of the child's name. I think this should be speedily deleted if the name turns out to be incorrect. Redirect was reverted, so consider this a "vote" in favor of a Redirect to Britney Spears. I don't see that it's likely an infant will do something notable, and we only know about him due to his famous mother. Friday (talk) 04:47, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your redirect. You should refrain from doing such whilst a deletion discussion is concurrent. The article does not qualify for speedy deletion, either.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 05:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'll wait to see what happnes with the article. This is not a speedy, since being Britney's baby is an obvious *claim* of notability. Also, it's against the rules to put a re-direct in the midst of an AFD. Finally msnb is reporting "The couple has chosen Sean Preston as the name for their new son". So, that's slightly more than speculation. This article is entitled to a proper 5 five day vote, based on this. --rob 04:56, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Sorry if I broke a rule, but I don't see that the notice says not to redirect. I've seen it done several times before with good results. What's wrong with a redirect here? Friday (talk) 05:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion notice states "do not remove whilst discussion is in progress". Your redirect did that. If you do this regularly - even if it might be the best outcome - I recommend you cease doing so. Thanks, --Cyberjunkie | Talk 05:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Britney Spears per precedent. Also, even if the kid was born, he wouldn't have done anything to warrant his own article. Generally, very young kids are bad article topics as there's nothing they've done to describe and fill the article with. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Could probably safely go into Britney's article, but if there was a little more info I think a separate article would be reasonable. Everyking 12:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Britney Spears. There is no reason a baby who has done nothing other than soil himself and suckle the teat needs his own Wiki article. --Isotope23 16:36, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Has his mother done anything much more productive than that? Redirect, disagreeing with Everyking and Pacian. What encyclopedic content could develop in the next five years? Redirect Kurt's kid's article, too. Barno 19:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: This happens every time a celebrity child is entered and the argument goes on and on. People keep referring to a precedent, but there is none. Frances Bean Cobain has accomplished nothing but her entry was maintained and as new information is available it grows. There's no reason to delete this article now because there is no doubt in my mind that eventually it will be put back up with content. Pacian 19:25, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Previous sins are no excuse for continued encyclopedic perdition. Per Barno, someone should nominate the Cobain for AfD. Dottore So 20:31, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That article was already put to a vote a year ago and the vote was OVERWHELMINGLY to keep the article. And so far thanks to your bullying need to make everyone see things your way, ALL of the votes for your current nomination to delete that article are also to KEEP. Pacian 03:11, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Infants aren't notable unless they're royalty or something like that. — Phil Welch 21:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect, but restore article if it grows. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
redirect, wikipedia is not 9last time I checked) a geneology database. And let me add. poor poor child. Sabine's Sunbird 04:53, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete being the son of a pop star is not criteria for inclusion. --Revolución (talk) 05:08, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Britney Spears. *drew 08:02, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Britney Spears. The baby's article doesn't currently have any content not already contained in his mother's, and it will be years before any news involving Sean could occur that wouldn't be more appropriately included in Britney's article. --DavidK93 19:46, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect until and unless the kid goes on to become notable in his own right. --Icarus 04:18, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect, same reason as above. -- PFHLai 07:44, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Scout Willis for precedent. {{subject}} is the child of {{famous person 1}} and {{famous person 2}}. Other than that, this person is not notable. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Kevin Federline also has accomplished nothing on his own and he has an article, Expand as new information is given. Google brings up 126,000 links, there seems to be enough intrest for an atricle.Mac Domhnaill 21:07, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete', nn. -Sean Curtin 00:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for not being notable. Tuf-Kat 05:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being born is not notable unless they're born unto a god and I haven't seen any headlines about Britney Spears smiting anyone. This would also be different if they were next in line for some royal throne but as it is, delete. Dismas|^(talk) 05:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Britney Spears smiting people! Gosh, you're going to give me nightmares! :)--Cyberjunkie | Talk 06:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Oops, I Smited Again" --Calton | Talk 06:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Baby, smite me one more time! Just one more! Tuf-Kat 07:32, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. It's Britney Spears's baby: what the hell else can be said of any importance? --Calton | Talk 06:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 21:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

5/8

Do we really need an article on a fraction?--Shanel 04:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No we don't. Delete — Kjammer ⌂ 04:37, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(Speedy)Delete please.--Jondel 04:44, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly stunned speechless strong delete. Perhaps we need a new speedy delete criteria: fractions with no assertion of notability. Bunchofgrapes 04:47, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment receintly we have had articles with symbols in their namespace created by users of the same name (such as this one). For more, see ? by user:? and ? by user:?. — Kjammer ⌂ 05:11, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That's because these articles were created by a sock puppet of banned vandal User:JarlaxleArtemis for the purpose of disrupting Wikipedia. ?Psychonaut 16:42, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Personally, I'd love to see this deleted, but according to WikiProject Numbers, any fraction which has a Unicode character is entitled to an article (if I am reading it correctly). Owen× ☎ 05:25, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: From what I've seen, a whole bunch of unremarkable-seeming numbers have articles. I'm not sure I see why, but I don't see why we need articles on schools either. Apparently there's precedent. Friday (talk) 05:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't any more notable than 3/7, or 8/11, or 4/9, etc.
- Sorry, forgot to sign... The previous vote is by me -- Laur 07:32, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. If we have articles for vaguely notable integers (which we do), then there is little wrong with keeping vaguely notable vulgar fractions. Grutness...wha? 06:35, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless there's something interesting to say about it. Tuf-Kat 06:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is also the name of a position in rugby also fly half. Capitalistroadster 06:44, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move to five-eigths or similar as the present page title causes severe technical difficulties. Alphax ^τεχ 06:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep please this fraction is important too Yuckfoo 07:13, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Are we going to try to list every fraction? Or every typographical character? This is getting preposterous. It's just a quantity; of no cultural, historical, or mathematical interest whatsoever. -- MCB 08:11, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A3 as an article that says nothing but a rephrasing of its title. - 131.211.210.10 09:30, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Forgot to sign. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:31, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What is written there is not from the Book. Pilatus 11:31, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not enough to write and actual article. This will never be more than a one-sentence stub. RasputinAXP talk * contribs 11:47, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete all eight 8ths of the article. --bodnotbod 12:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's nothing notable about it, and as far as I can tell, the only reason it's in Unicode is for compatibility with older character sets. sjorford #£@%&$?! 15:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is really no good reason for this. Wiki is not paper, yes, but seriously, this is ridiculous. Add it into a Unicode page? splintax ^(talk) 15:36, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can come up with a really good reason why wikipedia should catalogue fractions.--Isotope23 16:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unencyclopedic. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Which article are we voting on, the character or the fraction? As they stand, delete them both. Gazpacho 17:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one hundred percent. No encyclopedic content, and opens the door to an (infinite to the infinite power) number of useless articles. Let's change that Unicode "policy" in WikiProject Numbers, too. Barno 20:04, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's not. There are exactly 12 fractions in the Number Forms block in Unicode. Uncle G 15:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just like 3 (number), 4 (number), etc. ? Phil Welch 21:46, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't resist suggesting that we should be looking for the highest common denominator in our articles, rather than the lowest, and that over-8 is a pretty low denominator. -Splash^talk 22:12, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Phil, I hope you realize this article is a rephrasing of its title. If someone can include even a fraction (pardon the pun) of the info that's in the 3 (number) article, such a speedy deletion wouldn't even be in question. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:35, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That there are other articles almost as useless as this one is no reason for keeping this one. Rather, delete the other ones too. Oleg Alexandrov 21:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's a mathematicians version of a dicdef with zero expansion. -Splash^talk 22:12, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN, dicdef, not expandable, bad precedent. --A D Monroe III 00:38, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Paul August ☎ 01:56, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Gents and ladies, we are wasting our time here. linas 04:21, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Lete/de. Lets see, hummm, per Oleg Alexandrov sounds reasonable. Sabine's Sunbird 04:57, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are an infinite number of fractions. How is having individual articles on each reasonable? If there are interesting mathematical properties associated with certain numbers or fractions, yes, I can see a case being made for that. But this is really taking matters too far.?encephalon ????????? 07:28, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It said on the project number page "As a guideline, you ought to know at least three interesting properties of a number. (What constitutes interesting can be debated, but the point is that the careless creation of number article stubs is to be avoided.)" - There were not 3 interesting properties in this case. Astrokey44 11:48, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a worthy fraction. Made by the unicode vandal. - Hahnchen 14:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is nothing but a tautology -- Ketil Trout 16:25, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and redirect. — Insta ntnood 18:59, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I thought there was a speedy category for "articles that contain no information that is not contained in the title." I guess I was mistaken, or the definitions have changed, because the actual phrasing is "Any article whose contents consist only of ... a rephrasing of the title." So this article is not quite a speedy. But it sure is close. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:48, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. It's certainly close enough, Dpbsmith. And it's quite obvious numbercruft. / Peter ^Isotalo 00:29, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's nothing special, either claimed or that I know of, about this fraction. What's next? 12346/465123 ? Frankly I think this is a speedy, for no content other than rephrasing the title. Nabla 20:11, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep verifiable fraction. Member of the set of positive real numbers. Klonimus 19:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Shall we create articles for each of the other positive real numbers as well? And how about the negative real numbers? Imaginary numbers? Complex numbers? ?Psychonaut 19:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think pretty much all integers could be worthy of having an article, as could other interesting real/complex/imaginary numbers. Klonimus 06:48, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - While Wikipedia is not paper, neither is it transfinite. Septentrionalis 15:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - See User:Uncle G/Wikipedia is not infinite. Uncle G 15:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. non-notable member of the set of real numbers. --Vsion 07:46, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not a criterion for inclusion. Klonimus 19:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - As you understand the criteria for inclusion, Klonimus, are there any fractions that would not qualify for inclusion, and, if so, which fractions would they be? Dpbsmith (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think all the common fractions up to 1/12-11/12 As well as 1/16-15/16 (fractional inches) and 1/32-31/32 (Bond prices) are worthy of inclusion, and other fractions as needed. Basicly fractions that people are likely to encounter in daily life ought to be included. 5/8 is a pretty common fraction and so it merits inclusion. Klonimus 06:48, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wrong. Notability is a criterion for inclusion, especially so when it comes to numbers. Because Wikipedia is not infinite, we have notability and inclusion criteria for numbers. As mentioned above, per those very criteria, this number is notable. Uncle G 15:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Trovatore 04:53, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Delete ~~No assertion of notability.~~ If this dicdef were kept, it would have to be moved to five-eighth. Septentrionalis 15:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- five eighths is better. See Talk:one half. Uncle G 15:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, it is. Septentrionalis 17:08, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It is not inconceivable that some somewhat sexy facts about a particular number can be adduced; if that is done, the article could become worthwhile. Here's one: in one instance of his anticipation of integral calculus, Archimedes proved that the center of gravity of a solid hemisphere of uniform density is 5/8 of the way from the center of the sphere to the pole. Michael Hardy 00:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out by OwenX above, this number is notable as per the WikiProject Numbers notability and inclusion criteria. It is interesting to read RasputinAXP, Splash, A D Monroe III all asserting that this article is unexpandable beyond a one sentence stub, given that such expansion is exactly what has just happened. Modified article. ☺ MacGyverMagic, Dpbsmith, Karmosin, Ketiltrout, and Septentrionalis all are of the opinion that this article should be deleted because it did not contain anything beyond what is in its title. Since that is no longer true, I suggest that they reconsider their votes. Astrokey44 may care to note that there now are three interesting pieces of information listed on the page. The only problem with this article is its title, which most people cannot directly enter into the search box without gymnastics of various sorts. Per the WikiProject Numbers notability criteria and the discussion on article naming for fractions at Talk:one half, Keep and Rename to five eighths. Uncle G 15:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That's two only moderately interesting pieces of information: the spanner size stuff should go back there. But this is an assertion of notability, and I have changed my vote accordingly. Septentrionalis 17:08, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Back where? I didn't take it from another article. Moreover, you've changed your vote to delete, but struck through all of your rationale leaving only text that talks about keeping. Uncle G 20:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikiproject Numbers says "the careless creation of number article stubs is to be avoided." If this isn't a carelessly created number stub, I don't know what it is. The guideline is that before creating an article, "you ought to know at least three interesting properties of a number. (What constitutes interesting can be debated..." The current examples are strained. I don't believe for a minute anyone "knew" at three interesting properties of the number before the stub was created; they've been inventively added after the fact by another editor. If you had asked that editor a week ago to name an interesting fraction, I doubt that he or she would have said "Five-eighths." Now that they've been concocted, it's still very "debatable" whether these are "interesting properties."
- None of the examples given (approximately equal to kilometers/mile; Unicode code point; spanner size) is a property of the number at all. These are examples of use of the number, not properties of the number.
- The approximation of kilometers/mile is hardly interesting. It is not surprisingly close approximation in the way that 355/113 is a surprisingly ckise approximation for pi. If approximations to kilometers per mile are interesting, should also have articles for 31/50, 621/1000, 6133/10000, 61337/100000? The fact that it is a spanner size and that it has a Unicode code point are better documented in list form in the appropriate articles, if they are not already. No change in vote. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - On the contrary, the approximation of kilometers per mile is a "surprisingly close" approximation in exactly the same way that 355/113 is a surprisingly close approximation for pi. 355/113 is a continuant of the continued fraction expansion of pi, and as such, it is the best possible approximation without using a fraction with a larger denominator. In the U.S., one mile is defined by law to be exactly 15625/25146 kilometers, and 5/8 is indeed the fourth continuant of this number. Hope this helps! -- Dominus 20:34, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - I stand corrected, then: neither of them is surprising. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sorry, I was mistaken. There is an important sense in which 355/113 is a "surprisingly close" rational approximation to pi that is not shared by 5/8. The next term in the continued fraction expansion of pi is 292, which is unusually large; it's this that accounts for the fact that the next-most-accurate approximation for pi has a six-digit denominator. For 15625/25146, the next term is 1, which isn't unusually large, and so the next best approximation is 8/13. My apologies for overlooking this. -- Dominus 01:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Although I did add binary and hexadecimal fractions to the article -- there's no there there. -- Arthur Rubin 18:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Why do the numbers in Category:Integers merit inclusion, but 5/8 does not? -- Dominus 20:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable fraction. Optichan 18:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 21:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neon Vomit

This band does not seem to meet the WP:MUSIC criteria. — Kjammer ⌂ 04:56, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of notability. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 05:54, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, plus allmusic never heard of them either. Friday (talk) 06:08, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for non-notability Tuf-Kat 06:43, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN unless someone can prove otherwise.--Isotope23 17:18, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus. R e dwolf24 (talk) 01:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

HR 2601 Section 1115

Most of the article is cut-and-paste from the Bill before the Congress. Legislation isn't copyrighted, but the right place for this is Wikisource, if anything. Owen× ☎ 04:56, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- The author just moved it to Wikisource, as suggested, and I've cleaned it up a bit. Change to Weak keep. Owen× ☎ 13:11, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And you don't need AFD to transwiki clear source material to Wikisource. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at Human rights in Indonesia. Gazpacho 17:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Owen's cleaned-up version into an article on human rights in Indonesia, not as the sole content but as a section detailing a controversy that reached considerable significance in that country, although it was barely noticed in the USA. Not likely to be searched under this uninformative title. Barno 20:15, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or move. — Phil Welch 21:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We're not a congressional archive mirror last I checked. / Peter ^Isotalo 00:32, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 01:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy_James_Johnson

Article is news story posing as biography of a petty criminal BV 05:11, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It got media coverage apparently, but I see no reason to suspect this guy will be of any lasting importance. Friday (talk) 15:15, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. — Phil Welch 21:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Merge. R e dwolf24 (talk) 02:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CountOlaf.com

Of questionable interest or encyclopedic value; self-promotional and commercial. StanZegel 05:10, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.Changed vote. Not every website needs an article. This fits fine in the external links section of said book/movie article. Alexa rank: 651,225. Besides, it states the obvious and describes sections you can see for yourself if you just visit the site. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:43, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, interesting and of encylopedic value as unusual marketing for a major movie. Alexa would naturally go down after the film stops being promoted. Wikipedia isn't just for people with internet access. Kappa 14:13, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT a web directory. If there's useful content here, put it in the main article about the series. If it's not important enough to go there, I don't see that we need it. Friday (talk) 15:14, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If this page is deleted, the information is lost and cannot be placed anywhere else. Kappa 15:25, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - What information from the article needs to be retained anywhere in Wikipedia? It says it wasn't "as famous (or infamous) as other viral marketing attempts" and details some insignificant aspects of the site, without documenting any way that it had any lasting effect on its industry or on society. None of this would make it notable or WP-worthy if it were any other website, and being a lame and largely unsuccessful commercial promotion for a movie doesn't make it more keepworthy. Delete, no merge nor redirect. Barno 20:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Lemony Snicket's A Series Of Unfortunate Events. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Zoe. "Though not as famous (or infamous) as other viral marketing schemes, such as The Subservient Chicken, it was still a viral marketing attempt." I am appalled. — Phil Welch 21:52, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge one line mention and perhaps external link in Lemony Snicket's A Series Of Unfortunate Events. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:19, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, and Delete as per Philwelch, Mgm. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:59, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable marketing ploy. / Peter ^Isotalo 00:34, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 02:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Filth beast

No real information, possible vanity page. Google search yields no relevant results. BV 05:39, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:MUSIC pretty obviously. As garage band as it gets. It was speedy deleted, but I restored as the reason was "not notable" which is absolutly not a CSD. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:02, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete - notability not established. Samw 03:22, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 02:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nodog.jpg

This is not an Image, it is an article about an image of the same file name

Forumcruft, not-noteable. If Steam Steam LOL (See here and here) was deleted because of this, so should this article — Kjammer ⌂ 05:44, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete articles about individual files, now? Lovely. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:55, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if this image was really famous I think I'd get google image hits for it [6]. Kappa 14:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Never seen it. Never heard of it. abelson 16:12, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete[[7]] The image is so famous around Mixed Martial Arts circles that many times it need not even be posted, rather a mere 'nodog.jpg' text reply is all that is needed.DJ_FC
Delete. Subtrivial nn cruft. — Phil Welch 21:54, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn. --Optichan 18:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. R e dwolf24 (talk) 02:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cees Veerman

~~I'm not entirely sure what this person even does, nor can I decide if the article even asserts notability.~~ Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 05:43, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- Article re-written, notability established, consensus reached for keeping article. I rescind the nomination. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 01:58, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Veerman currently serves as the Minister of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality for the Netherlands." May need a little cleanup, but is an obvious keep. Uppland 07:36, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's got an important position. I've done a bit of wikifying and moved the relevant section with his accomplishments further up the article. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:37, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per earlier arguments Sam Vimes 16:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - a Dutch government minister is a pretty obviously assertion of notable. See the Dutch Wikipedia article. I propose closing this nom. Guettarda 02:04, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep MGM's rewrite. Meets WP:Bio as a politician holding a national office. Capitalistroadster 05:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 02:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Englirace

Non-notable, and somehat nonsensical, micronation article. Delete. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 06:04, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong speedy delete, blatant vanity of non-existing micronation. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, speedily if possible. No useful content. Friday (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but this doesn't fit any criteria for speedy deletion. — Phil Welch 21:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Not a speedy. "Speedy" does not mean "article that egregiously exceeds the regular deletion criteria." Such an article will hopefully get a nice near-unanimous string of half-a-dozen or so delete votes and not much argument, but it still gets the full five days in AfD. Please familiarize yourself with WP:CSD before flinging that word "speedy" around, and don't use it for articles that don't meet the very narrow CSD criteria. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:54, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 02:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

George Griswold Frelinghuysen

This seems like a potentially accurate (though uncited) article about an obscure historical figure whose main claim to notability is being a President of the P. Ballantine & Sons Company, whatever that is, and being the son of Frederick T. Frelinghuysen, a former New Jersey Senator and Secretary of State. However none of these things seem to me to be a strong assertion of notability. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 06:08, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- NN... Has an Arboretum in NJ named after him, but even that is not enough for notability in my opinion. --Isotope23 17:25, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. — Phil Welch 21:57, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ballantine was a large brewery; the guy is no less notable than lots of other minor figures in beer history, such as this one. Chick Bowen 04:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 02:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shijiazhuang Public Security Bureau

I move for a deletion, this is a poorly editted plea aiming to promote the plight of the Falun Gong. Wikipedia is NOT a forum for propaganda! If you notice the article is about a specific location of an PRC organization. Why is a specific police station on a specific street within the city of Shijiazhuang is beyond me. The author is trying way too hard to disguise this stub as a legitimate article. The article has no significance whatsoever, it tells nothing except for the names of two police stations! Again, this is tragic if this is verifiable but Wikipedia at this point should not be used as a forum for venting out propaganda. I did some checking, apparently the author, User_talk:Sarcelles has had a history of using publishing pro Falun Gong propaganda disguised as poorly editted stubs. Please refer to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chinese cities, where he was warned for putting up over 100 poorly editted on Chinese stubs which told nothing about the cities but rather about the plight of the Falun Gong. Topics like this can be discussed on the proper forums but NOT Wikipedia, for this same reason mentioned earlier, Wikipedia is NOT a means of publishing propaganda, that is NOT the purpose of Wikipedia. 129.2.237.44

This is a series of articles by the same user serving an identical purpose. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lu'an Public Security Bureau, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tangshan Public Security Bureau, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Changchun Public Security Bureau. --Mib orovsky 22:43, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article appears to be a vehicle for the last sentence pertaining to a press release by the Bureau against a group which may or may not be Falun Gong related. The link is also of the same nature. Ultimately this appears to be a propaganda piece nestled in an otherwise NN article. If someone can assert notability of the Shijiazhuang Public Security Bureau, I'd vote to keep this article minus the last sentence and link, otherwise it should go.--Isotope23 17:30, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. — Phil Welch 21:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Creator has previous soapbox tendencies. History of selectively including information to push an agenda. --Mib orovsky 22:43, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable article with the main purpose of being a propaganda piece created by a user with a long history of producing propaganda articles. Abstrakt 05:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 02:21, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lu'an Public Security Bureau

I move for a deletion, this is tragic if this is verifiable but Wikipedia at this point should not be used as a forum for venting out propaganda. Even the article's text is questionable: "...allegedly has persecuted Christians severely.", allegedly? Either it happened or it did not happened. Topics like this can be discussed on the proper forums but not Wikipedia, for this same reason mentioned earlier, Wikipedia is NOT a means of publishing propaganda, that is NOT the purpose of Wikipedia. 129.2.237.44

This is a series of articles by the same user serving an identical purpose. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shijiazhuang Public Security Bureau, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tangshan Public Security Bureau, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Changchun Public Security Bureau. --Mib orovsky 22:36, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete The second portion is POV unless there's an outside neutral source to verify(I don't think that church link counts), and without that second part, it's close to non-notable anyway. Karmafist 12:57, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I move for a deletion because the article seems non-notable. Abstrakt 14:24, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable ? The police etc. administration of many thousands is notable. Sarcelles 20:37, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

-Comment to Sarcelles: Why you are still trying to push your agenda is beyond me, in the past you have admitted to being banned on the Italian, French and German wikipedias for your own edits. You have admitted that you know little to nothing on the topics you edit and that you just copy your edits off of various websites. Abstrakt 17:18, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. — Phil Welch 21:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Creator has previous soapbox tendencies. History of selectively including information to push an agenda. --Mib orovsky 22:45, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 02:21, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen John Sutton

Seems to be only notable for being arrested in another country, not many Google hits, article was copyvio. Delete. I believe the same could be said about many other articles linked from List of Australians in international prisons. Laur 07:30, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. nonnotable. mikka (t) 18:40, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. I'm gonna mass AfD the others. — Phil Welch 22:03, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted --cesarb 03:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mads Brunse

Not notable. --Hooperbloob 22:59, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, but clean up, e.g. re-write to avoid 1st person, and mention that this regards skateboarding (as opposed to ice skating, roller skating, inline skating etc.). Knowing little about skateboarding, much less Danish skateboarding, I'm hesitant to judge the subject's notability. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:00, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Apparently this was never added to the AfD log for September 5. As all that day's votes are closed, I figured I should add this to the current date. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 06:25, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe because it would've been a VFD log back then? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:51, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable student. --DrTorstenHenning 11:05, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless he's shown to be a notable filmmaker in a verifiable way. I suspect vanity. Friday (talk) 15:18, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. The article never states he's a professional skateboarder and there's no assertion of notability. I've marked it as an A7 speedy (bio that does not assert notability). — Phil Welch 22:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 02:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tulang Church

The information on this particular church can not be verified nor can it be merged with any existing article here on Wikipedia. No information can be found on this particular church so I move to delete. 129.2.237.44

Weak delete I can verify it exists, but nothing more - so no info to say whether it is notable or not. --Doc (?) 08:40, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. — Phil Welch 22:03, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable article Abstrakt 17:00, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has been proposed for deletion a month and a half ago.

Sarcelles 08:22, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vanity page for a church that has little to no importance 205.188.117.13 16:01, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. R e dwolf24 (talk) 02:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kiran Kumar

The information here isn't verifable, Wikipedia is not a propaganda piece unfortunately. 129.2.237.44

Comment: Actually, it is easily verifiable. I've put in some links. If it is propaganda, then NPOV it don't delete. As to whether it is notable, I abstain. --Doc (?) 09:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being (supposedly) imprisoned doesn't make one notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:10, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can't see how this is non-notable. Imprisonment itself doesn't do it (obviously), but he was apparently the focus of some outrage from a segment of the population and has been named a "prisoner of the month" by an organization. Anything comparable in the West would definitely be judged notable. Everyking 12:44, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: in my view, he is notable for a very simple reason: he was declared prisoner of the month by the International Society for Human Rights. --Bhadani 14:01, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bhadani. — Phil Welch 22:05, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bhadani. Pete.Hurd 06:02, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bhadani =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bhadani - Guettarda 02:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. That his notability comes from others using him as an example rather than his own efforts does not make him nn. Chick Bowen 04:37, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Doc's rewrite. Seems to have notability as a publicised alleged victim of human rights abuses. Capitalistroadster 05:54, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. R e dwolf24 (talk) 02:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mennonite Church in India

There doesn't seems to be any more information to be added here for such a small denomination (relatively speaking). Unless more information can be added, I vote for delete. 129.2.237.44

Keep verifiable denomination - we expand stubs we don't delete them --Doc (?) 09:21, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, says 3,500 members, I guess that's good enough. Everyking 12:40, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable stub. — Phil Welch 22:05, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - definitely deserves article. Guettarda 02:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep CalJW 08:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. R e dwolf24 (talk) 02:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

North Bank Baptist Christian Association

Vote for delete, this is a non notable church, there doesn't seems that much more can be added to the article. 129.2.237.44

Comment: What qualifies any church or denomination to be "notable" or "non-notable"? {unsigned comment by User:216.62.168.234 — Phil Welch 22:08, 16 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Strong Keep, despite its name this is an Indian Christian denomination with 80,000 members - expand stubs --Doc (?) 09:26, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article can have a great deal added to it - origin, history, faith & practice, ministries, etc. - 216.62.168.234
Keep per Doc . — Phil Welch 22:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Doc. Guettarda 02:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There wouldn't be many articles about religion in the UK if 80,000 members wasn't enough and the standard shouldn't be higher for India. CalJW 08:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 02:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eternal Light Ministries

The move for Delete due to the fact that the article can not be verified and seems like a vanity page promoting that particular church. 129.2.237.44

Delete for the reasons stated by 129.2.237.44. Exir Kamalabadi^{Feel free to criticize me} 09:39, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it is verifiable (although it takes some digging - download this pdf and search for it [8]) - however, I can't yet find enough info to establish any notability --Doc (?) 09:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete verifiable per Doc, but ultimately not notable.--Isotope23 17:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. — Phil Welch 22:05, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons already stated, I mean Doc has been able to find information proving that this particular church does in fact exist however he did have to do a lot of digging through various sources. Due to this, I doubt that this particular church has any notability. The article does state that this particular church has done some missionary work in India but I could as well make an article about a small church (church, not demonination) with a localized congragation and put in a line or two about where my particular church has done missionary work but that wouldn't make my church notable. It would be quite a mess for Wikipedia if everyone put in stubs about the particular church they attend. Due to this I truly believe that the main point of this article was (as already stated by 129.2.237.44) a vanity page to promote a particular church. Abstrakt 17:11, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus. R e dwolf24 (talk) 02:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Benimaru

This article contains nothing but the author's opinion of a video game character's sexuality. BV 06:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sexy little fellow, not because of his apparent sexuality, but because he is just a character in a video game. Alf ^melmac 10:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, character in a popular video game. Wikipedia is not paper. Could be merged per WP:FICT Kappa 14:11, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteVideo character stub, isn't this already covered by the main article on King of Fighters? Abstrakt 14:39, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
merge per Kappa and WP:FICT. --Celestianpower ^hab 14:44, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is this the same character as "Benimaru Nikaido" of the Rival Team from the King of Fighters article? There is already sufficient info in that article, and nothing new or encyclopedic here worth merging. Delete, no redirect, per WP:FICT. Barno 20:31, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. The fact he can channel electricity is not mentioned in the main article on the game, which seems a major thing about the character. Merge and redirect and make sure the wikilink in the game article to this character (with last name) is removed as it'll only link back to itself. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:24, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ooooh, he can channel electricity to power the not-paper for his own redirect. Okay, I missed that if it was there at the time, and I'm changing my vote to merge and redirect per MGM. It's still just B-level gamecruft, though. Barno 04:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect. — Phil Welch 22:08, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus. R e dwolf24 (talk) 02:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

۞ (U+06DE)

Yet another article about a single Unicode character. Unless something else can be said about it, it should be deleted or merged into a larger article, list, or table. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/░ for a related AfD. --MarkSweep✍ 06:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Perfectly useful article on a Unicode character. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 06:46, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Then why not run a bot to create ~65,000 similar articles? --MarkSweep✍ 06:55, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move to whatever the name of the character is (in English) before proceeding. Alphax ^τεχ 06:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because there's nothing to say about it beyond what's there. Or if there is, someone can always write an article about it later. This substub will be of no help in that case. Tuf-Kat 07:17, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Unicode characters. Zach (Sound Off) 07:20, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is getting silly. RasputinAXP talk * contribs 11:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ludicrous. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:57, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rub El Hizb. The symbol has some Arabic uses under that name and I've added those I know of. I don't believe in keeping all Unicode characters, but in this particular case there is something useful to be said about it. Dlyons493 13:08, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Rub El Hizb or Delete. android 79 14:56, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
move and redirect to Rub El Hizb. In contrast to ░, for which I voted delete, this character has cultural significance and some information in the article. (note: a list of all unicode characters would be way too long on one page). — brighterorange (talk) 14:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep and possible rename - unlike ░ and ⅝, which aren't as notable. sjorford #£@%&$?! 15:51, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Also please note this article, which doesn't even link properly as it's a non-printing combining character. This definitely has to be moved, if it's worth keeping at all (I haven't AFD'd it yet, as that's not easy either!) sjorford #£@%&$?! 18:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move and redirect to Rub El Hizb, per above. -- BD2412 ^talk 16:31, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge/redirect, but please stop making unsearchable articles. Gazpacho 18:01, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Who is going to search for this? Pilatus 18:08, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to some list of unicode charaters. Oleg Alexandrov 21:47, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect, redundant article. — Phil Welch 22:10, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is unbelievable. And is it even searchable?—encephalon ὲγκέφαλον 00:01, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rub El Hizb. --Revolución (talk) 05:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. / Peter ^Isotalo 00:36, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I suspect this article was created by a sock puppet of banned vandal User:JarlaxleArtemis for the purpose of disrupting Wikipedia. —Psychonaut 16:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Grue 18:04, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, duplicate as per Dlyons493. If not than redirect. Nabla 20:21, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Unicode is just a particular coding of this symbol Rub El Hizb. --Vsion 07:43, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Suggest having a redirect from U+06DE to Rub El Hizb. I've added the information to the latter and there's no point in having an unsearchable title. Mind you, I don't see many people actually searching on U+06DE but at least they'd have the possibility (and that could be mentioned in the Unicode article). This would work generally, allowing creation of links to any Unicode glyphs that had something useful to be said about them. Dlyons493 13:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to recently created Rub El Hizb, don't delete. -- Curps 21:53, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
REDIRECT as per Vsion and Curps. —Phil | Talk 09:43, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. R e dwolf24 (talk) 02:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blitzkrieg (punk band)

~~Nn band, 1 Google hit for band name + members, POV article~~ -- Laur 06:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep after rewrite and establishment of notability. -- Laur 19:25, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No allmusic entry, fails WP:MUSIC. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Having seen the rewrite and the comments below, I change my vote to keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:08, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nn Band in an article badly written and unformatted. Karkrash 07:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite if this (scroll down a little) is correct: it states - Lest We Forget EP (#11 Indie Charts 1982) followed by a UK tour with Mayhem & Varukers. Animals In Lipstick (#30 Indie Chart 1983). LP 'Future Must Be Ours' on Retch recs. A retrospective split LP with Insane was rel on Capt Oi! recs in 1997. The article does need some work though. Alf ^melmac 08:54, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The re-write has now been done. Alf ^melmac 10:05, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- Alf seems to have found some notability here, an appearance on a chart, so I'll vote marginal keep. Everyking 12:37, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. National tour meets WP:music and chart placement indicates significance within genre. Thanks to Alf for the rewrite. Capitalistroadster 12:40, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unless I'm mistaken, Metallica covered a Blitzkrieg song on the Kill 'Em All album ("Blitzkrieg" was the song title as well). And there is an allmusic entry. Band still exists & has released at least five studio albums. I'm not saying they're famous, but I think they're notable even if only for the Metallica connection. | Keithlaw 13:53, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as they appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Friday (talk) 23:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Would it be more consistent with Wikipedia style to name this article "Blitzkrieg (band)" instead of "... (punk band)?" | Keithlaw 19:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well-known (though never big selling) cult punk band. --MacRusgail 20:24, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As someone says above, it would be best to retitle this to "Blitzkrieg (band)" --MacRusgail 15:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is now about eight days old. Can someone close it out? Thanks. | Keithlaw 02:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Neutrality^talk 01:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Michael's School (Cranford, New Jersey)

Useless school stub with no notability established for the school. Stop creating massive amounts of school stubs.67.170.236.180 07:30, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quod erat demonstrandum (If I cared - I'd propbably vote d nn, but I don't) so let's just say Keep (no consensus) and go do something useful.....but, oh no, here they come...--Doc (?) 10:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Expand to give phone number, principal's name and school's mascot. No, just delete this. Pilatus 11:40, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete, Good Lord what utter crap. Dunc|☺ 11:53, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I wonder why User:Gateman1997 is creating schools stubs which he would probably recommend for deletion. Kappa 13:54, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, probably to make a WP:POINT. Proto t c 14:15, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Man you folks are harsh. But my school line-in-the-sand is anything below High School level. So delete as lacking significant evidence of notability. — RJH 15:39, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Age alone seems to denote some level of notablity. I'd like to see this expanded however.Gateman1997 16:01, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable elementary school.--Isotope23 18:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn nn Dottore So 20:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence or even assertion of notability. Cmadler 21:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable grade school. Jonathunder 21:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. (actually a question) Elementary education is arguably more crucial to a child development compared to high school. Why then are elementary schools getting more delete votes? Does this constitutes a systemic bias against things associated to the young people in our society? --Vsion 22:47, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it has to do with the "unique" factor. Sure elementary schools are important to early development, but they are also a dime a dozen. Most elementary schools don't have anything that makes them special or worthy of an entry. High Schools are fewer and more likely to have something that makes them unique and/or notable.Gateman1997 22:53, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A one sentence 'article' on a nursery/elementary school, that I have no reason to believe can meet WP:V, WP:RS, WP:N.—encephalon εγκέφαλον 00:13, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep please we should not have a systemic bias against these schools that is not right Yuckfoo 06:54, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this notable institution of learning.--Nicodemus75 08:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:58, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another non-notable school. / Peter ^Isotalo 00:37, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please relax and stop nominating schools. CalJW 08:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and please stop nominating schools. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 11:17, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That an article about an institution founded in 1929 is even up for nomination is a sad indictment of some people's sense of perspective and, quite possibly, grasp on reality.Keep.--Gene_poole 13:37, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. School has a long history. --Vsion 15:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article presents no evidence of notability. WMMartin 17:15, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet Another Unencylcopedic school entry. --Calton | Talk 06:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very poor quality --redstucco 09:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons expressed at Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. If quality is a concern, please help raise its standards by editing this article. Silensor 19:46, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. --rob 09:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Neutrality^talk 01:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oceanview Elementary School, Albany, California

I've been to this school. This is a small school with no website, few students, NO notable events of alumni. It is not worthy of an entry. 67.170.236.180 07:20, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE TO CLOSER: Please read note about problem with AFD at bottom. --rob 02:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yellow Pages. Pilatus 11:19, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete primary schools aren't notable. Dunc|☺ 11:56, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, schoolcruft. Proto t c 14:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — anything below high school needs strong evidence of notability, I think. — RJH 15:25, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, If it lacks a website I consider that more reason to keep in this case. Students might actually be able to look something related to their school up now.Gateman1997 16:03, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If it hasn't got a website, we'll need another way to verify its contents. Lack of a website is all the more reason to delete this if no other way turns up to verify it. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:26, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, simply doesn't belong in wikipedia... Splette
Delete, doesn't indicate notability. Gazpacho 17:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable school.--Isotope23 18:34, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just put a table giving this information on the Clovis, California page? How much more can one usefully say about a primary school anyway? Average Earthman 18:39, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~, on the contrary, primary schools are notable. Bahn Mi 19:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Vote removed as this is a hoax article allegedly perpetrated by Gateman1997. Bahn Mi 10:36, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to its school district or to Clovis, California. I strongly disagree with "If it lacks a website I consider that more reason to keep in this case." While no true consensus exists, I stand with the majority-supported precedent that primary schools need to have some very unusual notability to have a separate article rather than a mention in their school district or community. Barno 20:37, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn Dottore So 20:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Barno Cmadler 21:04, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable grade school. Jonathunder 21:18, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have to laugh at the name of this school. Clovis is a long war from the ocean! User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:56, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article gives no evidence of notability. --Carnildo 23:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.WP:V, WP:RS, WP:N. Leaving aside the usual problems, this one does not have a single verified sentence even using a non-independent source (eg school website).--encephalon ὲγκέφαλον 00:23, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep please but only if this is really verifiable like macgyver says Yuckfoo 06:59, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable school.--Nicodemus75 08:13, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you explain what makes it notable when its very existence cannot be proven? User:Zoe|^(talk) 08:17, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
After a great deal of researching, I have come to the conclusion that this school does not exist, and the article is a hoax perpetrated by Gateman. The Clovis Unified School District page at http://www.clovisusd.k12.ca.us/site_index.html does not list it, and no searches find it with oceanview or "ocean view". Delete. User:Zoe|^(talk) 08:25, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- His mission is accomplished, if the school doesn't exist. Are we certain this isn't confused with a school of this name in Oxnard? I assume from reading the link that Clovis is somewhere in Northern California, whereas Oxnard is near Simi Valley. A quick google search shows this school in Oxnard. In any case hoax postings do not make elementary schools any less notable. The nominator claims to have visited the school in question (perhaps a sock/meat puppet of Gateman) but I am perpetually reminded to assume good faith.--Nicodemus75 08:54, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the school which does not exist. --rob 09:57, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Keep"-voters, get a grip. / Peter ^Isotalo 00:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is an Oceanview school in Eastern Passage, Nova Scotia [9], Norfolk, Virginia [10], Anchorage, Alaska [11], Albany, California [12], Arroyo Grande, California [13], and many, many other cities. According to several reliable databases, the one city which does not contain an Oceanview school is Clovis, California. Unfortunately, it can be said with certainty that this is in fact a hoax, and I sincerely hope that Gateman1997 is not the person behind such a dishonorable misdeed. Bahn Mi 07:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WMMartin 17:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, either because it doesn't exist, or, if does exist, isn't the least bit notable. --Calton | Talk 06:57, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete incredible anyone would think this a worthwhile article --redstucco 09:44, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE - This AFD was conducted for the fictional (HOAX) school titled Oceanview Elementary School, Clovis, California. There are numerous documented oceanviews (as said above), and this one was deleted because there is none in Clovis. This AFD does not in anyway apply to Oceanview Elementary School, Albany, California. Although, I see no great harm if it is deleted now, since a new stub can quickly be re-created, and will be. The creator of the hoax article changed the article title, to that of a real school, and edited the article, to put real info, just before the AFD closes, so that a real (not hoax) school is deleted. In any event, a proper article for the real school be made if this one is deleted. --rob 02:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- What are you talking about. This article was alwaya referring to Albany, I just was mistaken about the city.Gateman1997 02:57, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - You had a perfectly good chance earlier to claim that. Days ago, you were told there was proof the school didn't exist, and you didn't respond (while you were busy trying to delete other schools). It was obvious people were deleting, including me, because it wasn't real. Read the reasons for the last delete votes. Now, you suddenly come and claim it was a mistake only *after* I cited the hoax example in other AFDs. After AFDing countless elem schools, we're to beleive you suddenly voted to keep an unverified elmentary school. You even said "If it lacks a website I consider that more reason to keep in this case.", but suddenly, at the last minute, you find the web site for the school you meant. Others found the same web site, and rightly assumed it didn't apply. Plus, you changed more than just the title, you also changed other information at the same-time, to fit the real school. Anyway, everybody just needs look at the history of the article creation, information *originally* put in, edit comments, comments in AFD, and they can all make their own decision. It's pretty obvious. --rob 03:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Added: In the switch-over from "clovis" to "albany", other critical piecies of data were changed to match the official web site of the real schoolthis, like going from "K-8" to "K-5", changing the principal, and dropping the mascot. Above, you said only the city was a mistake. --rob 03:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Neutrality^talk 02:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Manila Waldorf School

Another frivolously created school stub. No notability established. No information that is useful to an encyclopedia in article. This isn't a phone book. 67.170.236.180 07:37, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless expanded. There is usually a story behind Rudolf Steiner schools yet this entry gives nothing beyond the contact details. I blame the current flood of school stubs, where a Yellow Pages type entry has actually become acceptable. A school doesn't have to have the history of the Jews' Free School to deserve its entry here, but why can't we aspire to the level of Naperville Central High School? I blame Schoolwatch. Pilatus 11:17, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess it's nice to have a scapegoat, but Schoolwatch is now basically defunct, owing to Tony's conviction that school articles are now being created and surviving the AfD process at such an incredible rate, that even mass deletions will not stop the organic growth of school articles (even primary schools). Frankly, the numbers show he is right - even deletionists will be forced to bend to inevitability. In any event, how can Schoolwatch possibly be to "blame"? Simply because Tony kept track of VfD and AfD for school articles? Schoolwatch isn't the only place that is done, and it isn't as though it is a serious challenge to simply read the daily AfD nominations in order to see which schools have been nominated today. Schoolwatch hardly constituted anything other than a summary of nominations - not some organized secret society to stop AfDs against schools.--Nicodemus75 08:08, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this article is harmless and should be allowed to develop naturally. Since it's the first of its type in the country a separate article is appropriate. Describing articles like this as being "frivolously created" is uncivil and bites the newbies. Kappa 11:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete more crap. Dunc|☺ 11:54, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Describing good-faith contributions as "crap" is also uncivil. Kappa 12:01, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - So is trolling. How about something a little more verbose then? A pointless unencyclopedic pile of kiddiecruft. Nah, crap is more succint. Dunc|☺ 14:55, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - I honestly don't think Kappa was trolling here.Gateman1997 22:43, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep give it time to grow, per Kappa, but lose the phone book format. Alf ^melmac 13:18, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, mention it at the currently non-existent List of Waldorf schools, or List of Waldorf schools in the Philippines if the first would be too long. Wikipedia is not a web directory. Proto t c 14:14, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, there is a list of Waldorf Schools and it is mentioned there. --Jojit fb 03:04, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Aww, that's cute. But non-notable. Delete, or at best a redirect to Waldorf school. — RJH
Keep, it's adult program seems to be unique. However if it's kept this needs MAJOR expansion if possible. Otherwise it should be AFD again.Gateman1997 16:04, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable; though I'd support a redirect per RJH.

Forgot to sign above--Isotope23 17:53, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another nn school. Dottore So 20:37, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or redirect per RJH. Cmadler 21:08, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable grade school. Jonathunder 21:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How many schools from the Philippines will you get in wikipedia? please help to counter systemic bias. --Vsion 22:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect without merge. There is a decent article on Waldorf schools. Nice npov. It has an extensive list of external refs, including distinct links to find all Waldorf schools in the world. Th article on AfD however has the usual problems and does not deserve an individual page, but can be a redirect to Waldorf which provides great context; information like tel #, address, zip code etc is not reason for a separate WP article, please. WP:NOT a telephone directory.—encephalon εγκέφαλον 00:39, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and remove the advertisement part. But if the consensus is to delete then merge list of Waldorf Schools in the Waldorf school article and there should be no internal links for all of the schools. --Jojit fb 03:04, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep and please can we be civil when talking about this we should not be calling names Yuckfoo 06:49, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes it is in the Philippines - but it is still a school. Systematic bias must be resisted as per Vsion.--Nicodemus75 08:00, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Waldorf School. I doubt that this thing will be expanded. --Noypi380 13:37, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, if the links in List of Waldorf Schools were to be completed. --Noypi380 13:49, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another non-notable school. / Peter ^Isotalo 00:41, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability stated in article. CalJW 08:51, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and please stop nominating schools. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 11:17, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia content is not and should not be determined based on the arbitrary application of such vague, relative concepts as "importance" or "notability". Keep.--Gene_poole 13:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Bilge. If that were true, literally anyone could have a biographical article. --Calton | Talk 07:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I strongly disagree with Gene's comments. Notability is precisely what we have encyclopedias for. Without some form of notability/significance test, encyclopedias degenerate into directories. I think of an encyclopedia as "all the stuff that a well-educated person would be familiar with, had he but the time to learn it". Put it another way: Wikipedia should supply you with all the information that a good and learned friend would. You don't expect your good and learned friend to know all the complex details of every subject - for that you go to a university professor - nor do you expect him to be familiar with every school in the world. But you do expect your friend to have heard of schools whose contribution is above average in some way. So Wikipedia should have articles on ( for example ) Groton, Columbine, Eton College in England, and so on, but not on schools ( however worthy ) that don't stand out. Wikipedia has articles on Einstein and Lincoln, but shouldn't list everyone in the world. Maybe when I have broken the world record for the most peanut butter and jelly sandwiches at one sitting I should have my own entry here, but until then I'm non-notable. And so, alas, is my school. WMMartin 17:34, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would you expect your friend to know about random journalist Cyrus Farivar or random Simpsons episode Hungry, Hungry Homer? Kappa 17:59, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Farivar: read the article; Homer: surely you remember that episode ? WMMartin 21:52, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've read the article, it was a waste of my time. You may want to read about every single episode of the Simpsons, but you are in a small minority. Kappa 22:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another nn school. Encyclopedic standards: who needs them? --Calton | Talk 07:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not worthwhile --redstucco 09:53, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons expressed at Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. These nominations do not appear to be productive based upon the data Tony Sidaway has been collecting. The time an energy vested in these roundabout discussions could be much better served removing vandalism or writing about other topics which capture your interest. The interest in these articles on Wikipedia appears to be long established. Silensor 19:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 02:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Colours Run

Unsigned band, fails WP:MUSIC -- Ferkelparade π 09:04, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Not in allmusic either. Friday (talk) 15:20, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. — Phil Welch 22:24, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. non-notable --Optichan 17:58, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keepo. R e dwolf24 (talk) 02:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adolfo León Gómez

Substub that does have an article in the Spanish Wikipedia, but that one's a substub too. Fails the google test. Punkmorten 09:34, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Probably too old (1857-1927) to get many Google hits. I found a few references in an online biographical database and added the one which seemed most promising under "Further reading". Weak keep. Uppland 10:44, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as per Uppland Dlyons493 16:45, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Keep Wikipedia is not paper, and a published poet is notable enough. Dottore So 20:40, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable enough. — Phil Welch 22:24, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep He's definitely notable, I checked Google, and he got alot of hits. I can't believe this is being nominated, probably out of some opportunistic desire to "get something deleted". Look, he's a substub because there's systemic bias on this Wikipedia. We can help to change that, but deleting substubs that are substubs because of this only worsens the problem. --Revolución (talk) 05:19, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Notable Spanish poet as per WP:Bio. Capitalistroadster 06:32, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 04:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Lubelski

Someone tagged it for cleanup-importance and added "235 unique google hits", so I thought I'd bring it up here. No vote yet. Punkmorten 09:34, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Quite well-known in art world. I've added a little background material. Dlyons493 16:55, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable. — Phil Welch 22:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Someone will have to explain that notability, because it's certainly not obvious by reading the article. NYArts is no help either. / Peter ^Isotalo 00:45, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Paul August ☎ 04:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Coney Hall

Not notable, not encyclopedic, not clear, not anything, really. TheMadBaron 09:37, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've cleaned it up to a sensible regional stub. Tearlach 11:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that the nonsense is gone. Punkmorten 21:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reasonable notability. — Phil Welch 22:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Despite the obvious need for expansion, one reason to keep it is that suburbia and suburbs are of great importance in social history Jezze 00:28, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is the site of a semi-famous event in British modern history, and certainly one of the interesting events in social development of the 20th century. The article may be bad, but it's a stub at the worst. Maury 17:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 05:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Hellyer

nn student. Punkmorten 10:15, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I speedied this the first time it popped up, but it was subsequently recreated. (Clearly I suspected that might happen, as I watchlisted the redlink.) Delete. Being the grandson of a notable person does not make one notable, being a student does not make one notable, hosting a local cable TV show for a year does not make one notable, and on and so forth... Bearcat 15:25, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But surely these few things that are by themselves not notable would add up to.. not notable. Delete. Friday (talk) 16:13, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. — Phil Welch 22:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Falls beneath the bar of Wikipedia not being an indiscriminate collection of information. And I've gone to silly lengths googling "Sabrevision", "Jesus TM", etc. to be completely confident. Delete; but perhaps the author would be so generous as to add any additional relevant information and maybe a photo or two from different stages of his life to the article on Joshua's clearly notable grandfather. Samaritan 12:11, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The ability to Google Jesus TM certainly does not indicate the relevance of a film, as my attempt to google it brought about 2 million hits back. It is obviously difficult to discern the importance or lack thereof of the lesser-known entries, but I think this article should be kept. In the outline for wiki articles, the criteria lists that artists who have sold 5000 cds or more are included, as are people who have written articles read by 5000 or more. Jesus TM, though difficult to google, is certainly a relatively well-known film, and has been seen by more than five thousand people. Likewise Sabrevision. Keep; . Muract 4:01, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
- You clearly have a vested interest in the article. "Jesus TM" brings up about 2,500 hits, not 2 million, and I was unable to find a single hit about a film with Joshua Hellyer in it -- everything I found was either an irrelevant book title in which Jesus was the final word before the trademark symbol, or a joking reference to corporate trademarking of religion. Likewise "SabreVision", which mainly brings up references to an airline reservation system; I could not find one single solitary hit for a television show hosted by Joshua Hellyer. Proof by "because I said so" is not valid; you need to provide sources to back up your claims. Also, I note that this was your first-ever edit to Wikipedia under this user name; you need to be aware that such votes are normally disregarded. Bearcat 22:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wasn't aware that making an informed comment on a topic on which I am knowledgeable is against Wikipedia policy. You may therefore disregard my vote if you would like. The two million number is searching for Jesus TM without quotes. The reason for this is because the actual title of the film has the trademark in superscript beside the Jesus, and therefore the film could appear under many variations of the name (the film is a satiric view of the media). I think we could agree that Jesus is a word that appears somewhat often on the world wide web. The ability to not find the correct Jesus TM in two million hits seems a poor excuse for deletion. I came across this site while googling Joshua Hellyer, whom I know. I have also seen Jesus TM. The indie film world, especially the short film world, is a world where "because I said so" is often as good as you can get. Short of providing pictures of the many screenings of the film, there's little way to back my claims, but this is the case with most short films that haven't won academy awards. I don't believe that because of this unfortunate reality successful short films, or the actors who appear in them, should be destined for obscurity. Muract 19:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, well, unfortunately, the bottom line on Wikipedia is verifiability of information, meaning that the inability to find an independent reference about the film is a reason for deletion. So far, this article has no verifiable details whatsoever. Googling Joshua Hellyer's name brings up a grand total of 13 hits: five that are either Wikipedia pages or mirrors of Wikipedia pages, two for an American university student, and five for a completely unrelated Joshua Hellyer who lived in Ohio over 200 years ago. I can find exactly one web page referring to this Joshua Hellyer appearing in a film, and that film isn't even Jesus TM. In a nutshell: the onus is on you to provide proof of his notability, not on anyone to provide proof of the obverse. Bearcat 23:58, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Here's what I came up with in a few minutes of searching: http://www.yorku.ca/web/about_yorku/yorku_magazine/YorkU_Dec03_FINAL.pdf , which is a magazine that has a page layout about the movie. http://www.yorku.ca/yfile/archive/index.asp?IssueDate=5/9/2003&section=York%20in%20the%20Media, which is a press page for York University. This press page also cites another newspaper article, which I haven't been able to find online. This is a page from a speech that the director, Jordan Hellyer, did, which mentions Jesus TM: http://www.rocknreelfestival.ca/indiefilmseminar.htm. I know that articles about the film appeared in a few other newspapers, which I haven't been able to locate online. Because something is difficult to locate in the digital arena doesn't mean it should be earmarked for deletion. The onus shouldn't be on me to provide proof of it's notability, because it's implicit in the article existing in the first place. Wikipedia isn't a talent contest, it's an encylopedia for things that people might be interested in knowing. Joshua might get deleted because his accomplishments are not famous, but I could randomly search for any combination of names on Wikipedia and find people that I've never heard of. I don't try and have those people deleted because I cannot verify their accomplishments. The hit that you mentioned for a new film that Joshua is in would re-enforce my argument. Regardless of the descision made about this article, I wanted the perspective of someone who is knowledgable about the topic to be heard. Muract 00:32, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity page. -- Corvus 20:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 05:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Talisman: Sacred Cities, Secret Faith

I am at a loss with what to do with these kind of articles. Nobody with an academic background in archaeology has read these books and so there are no peer-reviewed journal articles stating why this man is wrong. I have looked. This is because no archaeologists take the man seriously. NPOVing this necessitates having a deeper knowledge of the subject than any current wikipedian I have encountered. Please read this article and suggest what to do. adamsan 23:10, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as copyvio of the Official Website, perhaps? TheMadBaron 11:01, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Made a couple of changes to try to add some NPOV-ness. The book's a bestseller (sadly) and an entry on it should be preserved - keep. Vizjim 13:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but needs a bit more work - mostly layout, not me this time, though. Alf ^melmac 13:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable book. Vizjim, where did you get the info that this book is a bestseller? I cannot corroborate that. From what I see it is around 1,000,000th rank on Amazon (US) and 14,207 on Amazon (UK). I'd let poorly researched "non-fiction" like this stand though if someone can cite this book as a bestseller.--Isotope23 18:13, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Info's from memory. I've now researched it and (thank your space-faring deity of choice!) this particular book didn't top the charts in the way some of Hancock's earlier ones did. Must've confused one with t'other. However, non-notability is not necessarily a condition of deletion, and the author is undoubtedly significant.Vizjim 10:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep but work on it. — Phil Welch 22:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable archaeology book. / Peter ^Isotalo 00:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Paul August ☎ 05:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vic Edelbrock

The founder of Edelbrock bike parts. While the company looks deserving enough of an article to have an extra entry for the founder is vanity. Pilatus 11:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First off, the above information is wrong. Vic Edelbrock began his business by building automotive parts, the first of which was a manifold for a '32 Ford Roadster. Secondly, The main reason I created this entry is that there was a request for it on the Smokey Yunick page in the form of red hyptertext. I find it fascinating that there exists a Wikipedia article for Marey Carey, the porn actress who ran for governer of California, but one on a man who is partially credited for being the father of the automtive performance industry is considered vanity. MiracleMat 15:18, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Notable. mikka (t) 18:45, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. One of the most significant people in the creation and development of the automotive aftermarket performance parts industry. A major name among hot-rodders, sanctioned drag racing, and sanctioned oval-track racing. Barno 20:43, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unless this article is expanded to indicate notability, it would be better redirected to Edelbrock. Dottore So 20:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. No content. Split out again if biographical content on the individual emerges. — Phil Welch 23:00, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
definite keep A pioneer in the field of speed equipment. Some would say he invented the business. He was the first ever to use nitromethane fuel -Carl Redmond
Keep. Article has been improved since it was listed on AFD and the subject is notable. Quale 21:57, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The company is not exactly world-renowned, and that certainly doesn't make the president notable enough. And avoid sub-stubs when there's no content in the parent article. / Peter ^Isotalo 00:51, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- While I agree that a moderately sized company's president isn't notable just for that reason, I believe that my earlier comments are valid and sufficient grounds for keeping and expanding. Since the creator hasn't gotten to it yet, I'll expand it a bit now. Barno 04:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - EXPANDED to explain significance somewhat, applying "sofixit" to myself. Still needs fleshing out, but less stubby and much less no-assertion-of-notability than before. The company's article still needs fleshing out. For a good historical source, search Stock Car Racing Magazine back articles from the 1980s for this name. I remember at least one article that was part company description and part bio of Vic Sr. and Vic Jr. If that magazine's archives aren't online, a good knowledgable source would be Dr. Dick Berggren, who was editor-in-chief for SCR then and publishes Speedway Illustrated now. Barno 04:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Paul August ☎ 05:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vic Edelbrock, Jr.

The current head of Edelbrock bike parts. I have no problem with an entry on the company but an extra entry on the person who is running the enterprise at the moment is vanity. Hey, he isn't Carly Fiorina. Pilatus 11:04, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the above information is wrong. Vic Edelbrock, Jr. heads a company which primarily manufactures automotive parts. Vic is a little bit more than a man who is running the enterprise at the moment. He has been president of the company for over 40 years and is the son of the founder, Vic Edelbrock. I'm sorry more hasn't been written yet, but I thought I would start the article and be given a chance to write more before my article was speedy deleted. Also, there was a request for this article on the Smokey Yunick page. I corrected that article to read Vic Edelbrock, Jr. and created this article. Why put up a request for an ad and then delete it when it's created? MiracleMat 15:30, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keeep. Notable. mikka (t) 18:45, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but not as strongly as his father's article nominated above. Significant in the industry for decades, but not the pioneer that his father was. Barno 20:46, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Again no content. Split out again if biographic data in Edelbrock grows enough to warrant it. — Phil Welch 23:00, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep absolutely. A legend in the racing industry. -Carl Redmond
EXPANDED slightly to indicate notability, still substubby. For historical references, see the Stock Car Racing magazine article that I cited in the AfD for Vic Senior's article. I don't have handy access to my physical copies of issues from those years, but they might be online or another editor such as the Richie Evans editors may have them. Barno 05:01, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 05:25, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Top of the World

Note to closing admin: Anthony Appleyard replaced this article with a translation of the German Wikipedia entry. Votes made before his comment, may not refer to the new entry. Please take note in closing this debate. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:42, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Only vaguely intelligible substub that fails to say the most imprtant things - what and where is this? Googling on "Top of the World" is virtually impossible, giving you items on Mt. Everest, the World trade Center, and the Carpenters song. Grutness...wha? 11:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Geez, Grutness, what do you mean you don't know where it is?... it says right in the article that it's "firmly developed in the leisure country hostage wind". You just make a right at the spinning purple applesauce ducks. If you hit the bubble brine pirate feathers, you've gone too far. I highly recommend checking it out next time you're at the liesure country hostage wind. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:52, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ unless someone can pin it down properly. After reading the article and the above I feel like I've just taken a trip on the highest transportable ride of the world. At least you made me laugh, Andrew :) Alf ^melmac 13:35, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'll try a less confusing re-write after having found a picture of the thing. Alf ^melmac 01:15, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A search in http://www.altavista.com seems to show that "hostage wind" is a literal translation of German "Geiselwind", perhaps as a result of an auto-translator being asinine. Geisel is German for "hostage", but also is a common German surname. AltaVista found 47,700 results for "Geiselwind". For example, a truckstop in Germany: see http://www.trucktravic.de/images/navi-eng/autohof.eng.htm . Anthony Appleyard 18:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as babelfish nonsense... but man is that funny!--Isotope23 18:55, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but disambiguate the phrase, and possibly someone can write a new article from scratch if people feel the spinning restaurant is notable enough. Barno 20:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation sounds reasonable. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Kelete! — Phil Welch 23:01, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A Google search for "top of the world 95 meter gyro tower" led to the German Wikipedia article de:Fahrgeschäft which mentions Top of the World in the Rekorde section. Fg2 00:34, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Which in turn links to de:Top of the World, possibly the source of the English article. Fg2 00:41, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which in turn is linked to right from the English article... Why did I run to Google? Fg2 00:43, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep? I replaced its text by a new tidied translation, with links to the Geiselwind town and leisure park. Anthony Appleyard 06:41, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely unencyclopedic subject. Don't disambiguate the phrase, or it'll just wind up in yet another AfD. / Peter ^Isotalo 00:54, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(information): Geiselwind (misrendered hereinabove as "hostage wind") is a market town with 2323 inhabitants in Lower Franconia (Bavaria) in the district of Kitzingen in Germany. I made a page Geiselwind. Anthony Appleyard 16:08, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete · Katefan0^(scribble) 05:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Secret Power

Appears to be a copy of some novel, here is the Amazon entry. The text appears to be available at a number of other websites, and I'm not entirely sure of copyright status (please forgive me if I ought to have listed this one at WP:CP instead of here on AFD). At any rate, this is not an encyclopedia article, although I'm not sure if this is the kind of stuff suitable for Wikibooks if the copyright situation can be sorted out. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:35, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While it's public domain and thus Wikisourceable, it's an incomplete and unformatted text dump of the Gutenberg etext. (And ninety bucks for a paperback of a public-domain work? What is Amazon thinking?) —Cryptic (talk) 12:08, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cryptic.--Isotope23 18:15, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. looks like sandbox experiment in cut'n'paste. No encyclopedic content. mikka (t) 18:52, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. I will move to the proper capitalization at Daphne Barak · Katefan0^(scribble) 05:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Daphne barak

Delete: I don't believe that a negligible interviewer mertis an article. Who is she? Does she even exist? Dr.Genius 10:49, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Seems like a vanity page Dr.Genius 10:51, 15 September 2005 (UTC) (correction Dr.Genius 10:53, 15 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 11:54, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep definitely a borderline case, but I think she just barely squeaks by. Absolutely no question at all that she does exist. Her site has many photos, and her's an MSNBC story which mentions her: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4506978/ Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:05, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, she's interviewed Robert Mugabe and the queen of Jordan, so she's more notable than Cyrus Farivar. Kappa 13:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Her web site is a vanity site, but the article is not. She's had more than enough major interviews to qualify.. --rob 14:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is not a borderline case. This article serves as a shortcut to this person's webpage. Definitely a vanity page. We are editing an encyclopedia here, not "Cosmopolitan". ChristianPlato 15:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The issue is not whether her website is a vanity page, but whether this individual is notable enough to qualify for an article in the encyclopedia. I think she is. -- BD2412 ^talk 19:47, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep Kappa is exactly right, not to mention the other 2-bit hacks that published an article once in Macworld and yet have an entry. Dottore So 20:51, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kappa. This is an encyclopedia, it is very frustrating to try to find out something about someone and *not* find an entry, Queen of Jordon talked to her IMHO she's noteable enough. 24.73.237.226 01:25, 17 September 2005 (UTC) * eep that was me not logged in, sorry! KillerChihuahua 01:27, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Kappa, but obviously move to Daphne Barak. Guettarda 02:15, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ChristianPlato. The Macworld guys should not be here either. One mistake does not justify another. (oops 132.74.99.84 10:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Delete. This is a vanity page. The only thing on it is a link to a personal webpage. BTW: Ehud Barak is 63. This woman looks 50+. How could she be his daughter??? EhudBarak 10:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This was EhudBarak's first edit. —Cryptic (talk) 08:17, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per ChristianPlato. This is an encyclopedia, not a Google database. Not everything that can be found on Google should have an entry in a serious encyclopedia. Fot those who are afraid that they can't find this person on Wikipedia: You can't find millions of more prominent people in here. Professors, journalists, managers, military men, judges, etc. If you get this interviewer in you should get in the entire NY phone book as well. In addition, this does seem like a vanity page. Baby Face 11:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This was Baby Face's second and third edits. The first was to the article. —Cryptic (talk) 14:58, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dr. Genius is partly right. She does exist, but does not merit an entry. Mookey 23:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This was Mookey's first edit. —Cryptic (talk) 08:17, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Commment: Can I point out to anyone tempted to sign up just to vote on this article, that your vote is not likely to be counted by the admin who makes the decision. Kappa 23:11, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Kappa - are you trying to tilt the vote by threatening? You have already shown your interest above. Everyone is entitled to vote here. Mookey 23:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I just don't want people wasting their time. Kappa 23:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Makes me wonder who decides whose vote is more valuable. I guess if I am black or muslim or jewish, I won't be counted. Mookey 23:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC) And another thing, I have heard that commercial companies are paying "innocent" wikipedians to promote their products. See, e.g., Xbox. Maybe some wikipedians are also in the PR business? Mookey 23:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Legion Counter Strike: Source & Dark Legion Continuum

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. Delete gaming clans. —Cryptic (talk) 11:35, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and non-notable CS clan.--Isotope23 20:13, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all gaming clans. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:40, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mgm. — Phil Welch 23:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Added Dark Legion Continuum into this one, they're basically one in the same. Delete. Anything they need can be done on the main Dark Legion page... Sasquatcht|c 02:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Tales of Time and Space

Delete. Pretty obvious vanity piece, I'd have thought. Also forgets to mention that nomination for the Lancashire Children's Book award comes from the publisher. Who is also the author. John Self 17:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't all of these be combined into one discussion? - Taxman ^Talk 04:36, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
Delete yes and please combine all of them into one. DreamGuy 05:51, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as adspam ---CH (talk) 02:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This afd nomination was orphaned. If it was merged into another afd discussion as implied above, I can't find it. (Presumeably Taxman was referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crowswing Books.) Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 11:53, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 07:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Diamond (journalist)

I don't know who nominated this one, but I'll start the voting:

Delete I love linux, can verify that the book coauthored with LT exists, but why would this make DD notable? Contrast David Diamond (composer), who really is notable.---CH (talk) 02:36, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 11:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this co-author of a significant book. Non-notability isn't necessarily a reason for deletion. Expansion could be useful.
Keep per anon vote above. Kappa 13:44, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops. sorry, that was me... Vizjim 13:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Just For Fun. There is no information here that isn't covered in that article. -R. fiend 16:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per R. fiend... Just not enough notable about Mr. Diamond to justify his own article. The book is notable however and a redirect would do nicely, at least until Mr. Diamond does something more notable.--Isotope23 18:20, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The question is not so much whether he wrote something. The question is whether anyone has written something about him. That's what's required for encyclopediability; always remember WP:V, WP:RS, WP:N, WP:NOR. If you're going to write an article about someone, something, some school, some concept, some discipline, some subject, you need independent, reputable sources on it before you can write that article (unless you want to break WP:NOR). If there is no material on the subject, you cannot have the school, thing, person, in the encyclopedia. If there is material on the person's book, then write an article about the book, not the person.—encephalon ὲγκέφαλον 00:59, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The book is notable, David Diamond isn't. There's nothing about David Diamond that would lead to greater understanding of the book, so expansion is pointless, even if it is possible. Quale 22:05, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the author of a notable book strikes me as worthy of an article. Guettarda 02:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete · Katefan0^(scribble) 05:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Detail

I wasn't logged in at the time, but it was me that proposed the deletion. The article is just a dictionary definition and I believe it should be deleted. --CoderGnome 20:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 11:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would say Transwiki, but there is already a better def in wiktionary.--Isotope23 18:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dicdef. mikka (t) 18:52, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as dic def. I can't see this expanded in any way. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:37, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a definition, and it's not even fit, at present, to be considered an adequate definition.Brian1979 02:25, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete · Katefan0^(scribble) 05:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Detroit Focus Quarterly

50 Google results for "Detroit Focus Quarterly". Article doesn't seem likely to ever expand. Not notable enough. Paul 17:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 11:47, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - defunct magazine. I live in Detroit and I've never heard of it, so it seems pretty non-notable to me.--Isotope23 18:39, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. — Phil Welch 23:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As non-notable as it is dull. / Peter ^Isotalo 00:57, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Down With Majority

Band Vanity, no google hits Joelito 00:11, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Delete, no allmusic entry, their first album will be released "soon", and no claims of meeting other WP:MUSIC criteria. —Cryptic (talk) 11:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Friday (talk) 14:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. — Phil Welch 23:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete · Katefan0^(scribble) 05:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dustin Ballard

Contains no useful knowledge 129.120.86.179 20:50, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete quickly as vanity. Hall Monitor 20:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn vanity ---CH (talk) 09:15, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 11:45, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn borderline CSD A7. — Phil Welch 23:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aleessa Christine Fernandez

Tagged as an nn-bio, but there's just about enough in there that I wasn't completely comfortable speedying it. Still, delete non-notable. -Splash^talk 12:31, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Several days have been give to cite sources and clean-up article, and nothings happened. My main reason for deletion is there is no proof the person even exists. If some verification was given I would reconsider my vote, but even then, I supsect the person is not notable . --rob 14:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no clear claim to notability. --Metropolitan90 14:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing that counts as a claim of notability by my standards. Article basically says she's active at her church, was a good student, worked a couple of jobs, and wrote some articles for a magazine that doesn't clearly Google. At the very least, this article is unverifiable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above arguments. Punkmorten 21:08, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete borderline A7 CSD. — Phil Welch 23:46, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Nothing in the article even if true would indicate encyclopedic notability. Quale 22:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Neutrality^talk 02:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hurstpierpoint College

Tagged for speedy as "not worth cleanup", only that's nowhere close to a speedy criterion. Abstrain. -Splash^talk 12:34, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, established school. Kappa 13:12, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep long standing institution, which has a couple notables so far, and I suspect more will pop up, partly because of the age of the place.. --rob 13:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable alumni, valid stub. Alf ^melmac 13:40, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Schools for Deletion. Gateman1997 15:56, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. Dunc|☺ 16:12, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, indicates notability. Gazpacho 17:52, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a school--Nicodemus75 20:57, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep School. Klonimus 20:28, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a notable school. Cmadler 20:57, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Apparently it was worth cleanup. School has notable alumni and article contains an actual reference. Could someone expand the fair use rationale on the image? At the moment it's quite lacking. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the problem with the fair use rationale? The school uses the picture to describe/promote itself, wikipedia uses the picture to describe the school, aiding it in its purpose. It's the same as publicity photos. Kappa 00:24, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand, fair use rationales should also address why a free image couldn't be found among other things. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:43, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd keep. -- Phil Welch 23:47, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep please why are we now seeing universities even on here that really does not make sense at all Yuckfoo 07:16, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is a high school (aka secondary school), and not a university, and not what North Americans would call a "college". I don't think any Universities are on AFD, the last time I looked. But, it's still a solid keep. --rob 07:46, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Instituto de Empresa Business School, a university-level degree granting institution, was listed relatively recently for deletion here. Silensor 19:57, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's not a University, but I would still oppose it's deletion. --rob 21:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It has only slightly more Google hits than stud... I mean pupils, the alumni includes only very minor celebrities and otherwise it seems to be an upscale boarding school like any other. You're not seriously voting to keep this just because it's called "college", are you guys? :-) / Peter ^Isotalo 01:04, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- reply: Ronald Neame may not be a major celeb in the sense a supermodel is. But, what he helped make is notable, and what helped him to be able to make what he made, is notable. --rob 02:29, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - looks notable. Guettarda 02:17, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia content is not and should not be determined based on the arbitrary application of such vague, relative concepts as "importance" or "notability". Keep.--Gene_poole 13:34, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant English "public school" ( that is, in American terms, "private school" ). WMMartin 17:37, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons expressed at Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. The article already lists a significant number of notable alumni as well. Silensor 19:57, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was redirected to Jackson System Development by User:Friday on September 17, 2005. --Canderson7 14:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New JSD

I speedied this by virtue of believing the info in the then tag. However, a Google search appears to indicate that the Michael Jackson in question is not the singer and that this may thus be a real article. -Splash^talk 12:56, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It is a real article, but there is already a superior article on the subject at Jackson System Development.--Isotope23 19:17, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the proper article. I see no reason to carry on with AfD in such cases, but apparently there are those who disagree, so I guess I'll just "vote" instead of fixing the problem. Friday (talk) 19:51, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. — Phil Welch 23:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily redirected to existing and better Jackson System Development, per above. If anyone disagrees, feel free to revert the redirect. Friday (talk) 23:46, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 14:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pumpkin soup

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide! This clearly tells you how-to make it - 62.253.245.4 13:01, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to wikibooks' cookbook. Kappa 13:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per Kappa. --TM ^(talk) 22:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we already have a fine recipe for Spiced Pumpkin Soup. (Note: I didn't add the link to the article). - Mgm|^(talk) 22:46, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as already transwikiied. — Phil Welch 23:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Phil & Mgm—encephalon ὲγκέφαλον 01:01, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Icarus 04:58, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Optichan 18:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

H2O Studios

This page is used for self-advertising mibus 13:31, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete This article should have been speedied to begin with, it makes no assertion of notability, just advertisement for a local shop. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 13:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- CSD A7 is for people. This is not an article about a person.
Delete. Not notable, advertising. android 79 14:24, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advert. — Phil Welch 23:51, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mayra Machiya Computer Center

Delete. Non-notable computer store. android 79 14:14, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advert. Gazpacho 17:53, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The curate's egg 20:20, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 08:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Detroit grand pubahs

Delete. Band vanity. No assertion of meeting WP:MUSIC. android79 14:26, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Band now purports to meet WP:MUSIC, and with the allmusic.com bio, I'll change my vote to Keep (but needs massive cleanup). android 79 15:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Vanity The curate's egg 14:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - see below and above Kertrats 15:18, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all i have now put up the full text i was trying to when (i think) you first saw it as a very short piece. hopefully it's somewhat better now. This is the first article i've started here so if it still does not meet your requirements i would appreciate some feedback as to why. thanks --195.92.67.74 15:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your band doesnt meet the requirements for notability in WP:MUSIC, unless you can convince otherwise. Kertrats 15:18, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry made the last post before logging in --MJW 15:17, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. allmusic has a decent bio on them. Maybe the article was in bad shape, but the subject appears to be notable. Friday (talk) 15:31, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Kertrats - i think the band does meet the requirements for notability; they have toured, they have released 2 full length albums. 1 of these was released on Jive Electro and extremely well known (in electronic music circles) label that is also home to Groove Armada and has released records by Tribe Called Quest and Stone Roses. The electro scene is a small one - i don't think that the popularity of a genre should dictate if it can or can't be included on Wikipedia. - thanks --MJW 15:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC "2 full length albums" criteria that they must both be on a major label or a prominent indie label - Only 1 of their albums meet this criteria. However, If I'm not mistakent DGP did embark on a world tour and play extensively in Europe, which would satisfy WP:MUSIC. I'll try to find sources to post a little later (and will vote then). I'll go the extra mile to research a band from the D.--Isotope23 16:53, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the subject is notable then kelete as there is no salvageable content. — Phil Welch 23:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup--there is very much salvagable content. For example, we learn the names and release dates of the band's two albums, and the fact that they toured extensively, all from the article alone. Sure, the writing isn't up to snuff, but this is no reason to remove useful facts. Meelar (talk) 02:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ok I'll have one last try to convince you all. This is the first article i have written, yes it could do with being better written but i thought part the aim here was to write what you can when you can and then come back and expand on it later - I do think i have recorded some note worthy facts in the article. As regards how notable they are, i think it needs to be kept in mind that electro is not a large genre and that the importance of an act should not be based on how many records they sell. There are loads of entries on Wikipedia for british 70's punk bands that only ever released a handfull of singles and one album on small lables but they are still notable as is an electro act such as DGP who are well known within their genre. Down to specifics both their albums are on well known lables, Poker Flat is a well known european independent label run by Steve Bug, they have been going for over 7 years and have released over 70 odd records. regarding touring and mentions in the press you may like to look here Electroinc PM who are their booking agent in Europe, also of note on this page is the following line "Since then, he / they've been mentioned in URB's next 100, Rolling Stone's 'Top Ten To Watch In 2001,' scored a pop hit in a number of countries and an underground classic worldwide." - thats the end of the 3rd paragraph. Lastly thier big hit "Sandwiches" has been relased on loads of different compilations world wide some of these comps have been released on major labels such as BMG, EMI and Universal check here Discogs for details. Obviously i would like to add this new info to my article but i'll wait and see if it gets to stay first. Thanks for reading --MJW 11:29, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just found this article Village Voice i'm from the UK but I understand the Village Voice to be fairly well respected in the US. --MJW 13:35, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup as needing wikifying. This band meets WP:music with two albums and "Sandwiches" charting on the Billboard club charts. They toured extensively in 2001 in support of WP:music meeting the touring criteria. Capitalistroadster 07:04, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 08:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Ariss

I placed a speedy tag on this substub with 609 google hits, but someone removed it on the grounds that it is "not really a CSD, seems like a reasonably notable artist". Well, what do we learn from the article?

He was born.
He died.
He was an American artist.
He illustrated something in 1962.

Delete. Punkmorten 14:26, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Expand or delete It is not much of an effort at an article is it? The curate's egg 14:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after a little research, he appears to have been quite influential in Monterey, with streets and theatres and such named after him. In addition, he has numerous murals there, at least some of which were WPA projects in the 1930s. Also some illustration work in published books. Notable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:43, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep and expand per starblind. — brighterorange (talk) 16:54, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand as per User:Starblind Dlyons493 17:05, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
{{sofixit}}. I'd be more than happy to see this article be improved, but at present I don't think it's an acceptable article. Punkmorten 21:13, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup, seems reasonably famous in Monterey, but if I had run across this substub, I would have speedied it. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Subject is notable. NSR (talk) 09:47, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Rogers

I placed a speedy tag on this, but someone removed it on the grounds that "0 google hits does not a speedy make - notability is asserted in the article (aren't broadcasters notable?). This isn't blatant advertising, either. It does desperately need verification though.".

While I see the reasoning, the article looks like an attempt to get listeners to his show. Also the only important links in this article (the radio stations on which he has worked) are red, something which doesn't help him in this case. Are all broadcasters really notable? Delete. Punkmorten 14:32, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as nn-bio. Tagged as such. Friday (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Speedy and shudder at the thought of setting an "all broadcasters are notable" precedent. Just imagine: everyone who's ever done local radio or television, anywhere in the world, for any length of time, gets an article? Besides, if that's true, I should have an article by now. I think not. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:45, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but don't speedy. I undeleted this after it was speedied before, because it doesn't seem to me that it meets the criteria for speedy deleteion - it does, after all, assert the notability of its subject. Whether the subject is in fact notable is a topic which deserves discussion, and an AfD discussion is one way to do that. Speedying it sets a bad precedent in my opinion, as articles which do assert notability but one or two people feel aren't actually notable should not be deleted on sight. Lupin|talk|popups 16:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've read it again, I still see no assertion of notability. Statement of occupation is specifically not an assertion of notability. Friday (talk) 16:47, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm not voting on this one, but Lupin, I am very interested in why you think "it does, after all, assert the notability of its subject."—encephalon ὲγκέφαλον 01:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nn-bio JoJan 17:32, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. A listed occupation is no more a claim to notability than a listed place of residence. Everyone has an occupation. — mendel ☎ 19:55, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not strictly true. Imagine an article on X that said "X was a Prime Minister of Canada." No other info. Lets say you have no quick way of determining whether it is true or false (google not working). Will you put a speedy tag on it? Some professions are of sufficient importance and historical significance such that even the mere act of saying he was a member of the "prime-ministerial profession of Canada," if you will, is sufficient assertion of notability that A7 cannot apply. Likewise for, say, astronauts. But most professions do not have that characteristic. "X is an accountant", ...doctor, ...scientist, ...lawyer, ...porn actress — these all do not constitute assertions of notability. (It does not mean they can't have articles, but it does mean they must have done or become notable in some way that enough was written about them to satisfy WP:V, WP:N, WP:NOR, WP:RS). So the question is, where (and how) do you draw the line?—encephalonὲγκέφαλον 01:20, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree. Being the prime minister, president, etc isn't a profession, it's a position within the larger profession of politics . Though obviously, prime ministers are notable, the consensus is very strong that simply belonging to a profession isn't a claim of notability. Even the in classic notable profession, astronaut, this holds true: astronauts aren't notable just for putting on a space suit and being associated with a space program, they're notable for what they do: i.e. going into space. In other words, notability is not being part of a profession, but accomplishments within that profession. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:11, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Puff! The curate's egg 20:18, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Speaking as someone who is on the air via voicetracking every weeknight with the occasional live shift thrown in, I shudder to think of the precedent this would set by saying that every weekend jock in every small market is somehow worthy of an article. Let's nip this in the bud now, please. - Lucky 6.9 02:25, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication that he passes the average DJ test. Quale 22:10, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 14:25, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Romantic justice

I'm not sure about this one, but it looks like original research. The "coined by Matthew Finn of Oxford" (see also the repeated vandalism of this remark) and the small number of google hits; mostly irrelevant [14]. Orphan article. — brighterorange (talk) 14:44, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It gets even fewer hits when you exclude Wikipedia mirrors. Delete. Punkmorten 21:17, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR nn. — Phil Welch 23:53, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Grue 18:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of words censored at the Sports Interactive Messageboards

Nonsense Kertrats 15:12, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Possible BJAODN? RasputinAXP talk * contribs 15:17, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Non notable, non sense. — RJH 15:19, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Enochlau 15:24, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OzoneAsylum

NN community, custom board software or not. Google brings up 20 hits. Delete. RasputinAXP talk * contribs 15:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, delete, was going to nominate myself but was too slow — Timwi 16:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:43, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. — Phil Welch 23:54, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability shown. --TheParanoidOne 12:18, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 14:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Than Van Truong

delete information from a non neutral point of view site 205.188.117.71

Huh? Did you mean to vote keep?---CH (talk) 08:11, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not much information to build on. Abstrakt
Delete Unverifiable, and while tragic if true, Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine. Author should write good and Wikipedia:NPOV articles on political prisoners, religous prisoners, etc., and oganizations around the world which help them, etc., rather than incoherent pleas to help one person whose case is not even adequately or verifiably described. Only very rarely would a single prisoner deserve an individual article, I think. Someone like Nelson Mandela, yes. Aung San Suu Kyi, yes. But very few individual political/religious prisoners have real notability.---CH (talk) 08:11, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being a prisoner is not necessarily notable. 78 unique Google hits but most seem to be from non-mainstream religious blogs and such ("END-TIMES NEWS!!") all of which have plenty of outrage but very little actual info, and nothing from neutral or mainstream news sites as far as I can tell. I wouldn't consider this verifiable or notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Having been prisoner of the month of the International Society for Human Rights results in notability.

Sarcelles 21:11, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 14:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Erlack

Another incomprehensible call. It's been transwikied now, so A) it'll have its day on wikt:WS:RFD, and B) there won't be an excuse to keep this drivel here. —Cryptic (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. This is no article. Does anyone seriously want this to go thru AfD? Friday (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete... when your best source cite is urban dictionary, you are in trouble.--Isotope23 20:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The curate's egg 20:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unexpandable dic def with dubious source. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but not a CSD. — Phil Welch 23:55, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 14:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Useful unix command

Now that this has been transwikied, it should be deleted, just like everyone agreed to do last time. Thanks for the needless bureaucracy. —Cryptic (talk) 15:47, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. This is not an article. I see no reason at all to drag it through a slow AfD process. Friday (talk) 16:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete, of course. What bureaucracy forces us to list this again? I thought CSD A5 allows us to speedy articles that have been AfD'd and then successfully transwiki'd. — brighterorange (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- A5 only lets us speedy articles that have been afd'd with a result to transwiki. Despite every comment being to delete or transwiki, it was closed as no consensus. —Cryptic (talk) 18:32, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Gazpacho 18:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
rm (UNIX for "delete"). Not useful article. Barno 20:53, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:56, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. CSD-criteria should be interpreted far more liberally. / Peter ^Isotalo 01:07, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ~~Censure nominator for bad faith renomination of an article properly closed just two days ago with no consensus, and for falsely claiming that the previous result was unanimous for transwiki.~~ See apology below. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 01:13, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you look at the comments in the previous vfd, 100% of which clearly favored either a deletion or a transwiki as I stated, or just count which words they bolded? —Cryptic (talk) 09:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly I think I was far too harsh in assuming bad faith above, and I withdraw that imputation and apologise without reserve. However you said, or appeared to say, that all agreed to transwiki, now you say all favored either deletion or transwiki. Don't you see that deletion and transwiki are completely different operations? --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 11:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, and for purposes of whether the article exists in Wikipedia, the answer to Tony's question is "No. Of course not." Nandesuka 11:52, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Peter M Tinniswood

Not notable. schoolcruft. Dunc|☺ 16:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Was headmaster. He retired this past August. No other claim to fame. --Durin 18:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The curate's egg 20:15, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. — Phil Welch 23:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rockingtees.com

just another cafepress webshop --SoothingR 17:25, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, advertising. Mr Bound 17:30, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vanity or Speedy Delete as A7 JoJan 17:51, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:WEB in every respect. Doesn't even register on Alexa. --Durin 18:00, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as an advert. Friday (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blatant advertising. Nothing makes this shop any more interesting than the thousands of others they have. Since all shops are in the same domain, checking traffic to a specific cafepress shop may be a problem. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:48, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete obvious advertisement, and its orphaned! PRueda29 02:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sportsology

Delete: Fails WP:WEB. Doesn't register on alexa.com. Forum membership is below 1,000 (much less 5,000). Searching google returns no significant press outlets with news stories about this website. Of note: This article was previously placed for VfD. In the transition to AfD, a bot mangled the page moves and ended up deleting the original VfD without moving the content. That VfD was going heavily in favor of deleting. --Durin 17:53, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete nn website. — brighterorange (talk) 18:30, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The curate's egg 20:13, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. — Phil Welch 23:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable forum. Amren ^(talk) 00:55, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Googleitis

Original research/essay, possibly copyvio - but I'm not going to Google to find out. DS 17:52, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mr Bound 18:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.^ NN neologism. Words "googleitis", "googlitis", "searchitis" do circulate in small amounts in the internet, but it is still a rather nonnotable joke.mikka (t) 18:57, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN The curate's egg 20:12, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Reduced the entry to be purely original work - if we change the entry to googlitis would that mitigate the concern? (Or does this need to have some more generic term like searchitis?) --David Traynor 21:24, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear David, unfortunately wikipedia is not place for original work, see the policy about original research. Only well-established and existing things and notions described in reputable sources are allowed. The reason is simple: wikipedia does not have means for peer review to distingusih crap fromm solid info and relies only on data published in proven sources. Therefore I killed your searchitis. BTW it is inadmissible to create clones of articles. mikka (t) 21:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as gahoogle below. Jkelly 22:47, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another nn neologism. Amren ^(talk) 00:54, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not the place. Once author gets used to Wikipedia may be a valuable member downstream, however. Coll7 00:54, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not the place, valuable member - how insulting! How will wikipedia ever grow if all you do is regurgitate oldthink. What a waste of your intellect.

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Farrell

This seems to be a (very bad spelled) article about a random teacher :S at some high school --SoothingR 18:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete nn, perhaps attack? — brighterorange (talk) 18:30, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn, although he teaches film at Andover High School. Dlyons493 19:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Rick Farrell did direct a film High on Crack Street about the drug scene in Lowell, MA [15]. This film won a few minor awards, however the film and the awards are non-notable... and therefore so is the director. If this somehow surives AfD, would someone please add a cleanup?--Isotope23 19:46, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN The curate's egg 20:10, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verifiably award-winning film-maker per Isotope23. Just because it's not Hollywood doesn't make it deletable. Sdedeo 00:13, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not the fact that this is not a "Hollywood" movie that makes it decidedly not notable; it's the fact that the only information available about it on the web is from the website I've listed, where they are trying to market the film. The awards they cite are extremely minor and many are misnamed or were awarded to the broadcaster of this film (HBO) and not the film itself. Notability is purely a judgement call, but based on the research I've done into Mr. Farrell and his film, there is simply not enough to make qualify him as a person of note. Making a documentary that aired on HBO a few times in the mid 90's before fading into obscurity is not enough in my book to establish one's notability.--Isotope23 04:00, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Let's see here: non-notable teacher at a non-notable school makes non-notable film which wins a few non-notable awards. Nope, no encyclopedic value there. / Peter ^Isotalo 01:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:46, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article and High on Crack Street (daughter article). PRueda29 02:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy: no content. mikka (t) 19:03, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2007 in music

There is no content here, other than headers. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Thryduulf 18:25, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

speedily deleted: No meaningful content at all. This is evenb not about crystal ball. mikka (t) 19:01, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied as vandalism. I trust the judgment of the five editors below who expressed desire to have this speedily deleted as such. android 79 21:37, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:¹ articles: Strange cakes, Five-leaf haresbane, Battleaxe chronicles, Delloi, and Littel

User:¹ (contribs) has created several articles which all look very dubious to me: Strange cakes, Five-leaf haresbane, Battleaxe chronicles, Delloi, and Littel. I can't find any evidence for any of these on Google. The user's other edits, to five other articles (all in the last day) all look suspicious too, but I dont know enough about the subjects to say for sure. Finally, the user page ("I'm script1 and I'm super") screams danger, danger. I think all these edits are a sophisticated hoax that has wasted an hour of my day. sjorford #£@%&$?! 14:22, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: I've relisted this on today's page, as since the heading wasn't linked originally, it seems people may have missed in when scanning down the page. sjorford #£@%&$?! 19:04, 16 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]

I speedied delloi, no such thing. The rest is not my knowledge, but judging from lack of context, I vote delete for all for the reasons of non-verifiability. mikka (t) 19:11, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete All of the above pages should be speedied as vandalism. None of these subjects are remotely verifiable or real and are pretty obviously page creation vandalism.--Isotope23 19:35, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, per Isotope23. Creation of one obvious hoax puts the remaining unverifiable contributions in serious doubt. -- BD2412 ^talk 19:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete The curate's egg 20:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete although "hoax" technically isn't a speedy criteria (yet), one user creating a whole slew of fake articles is obviously a form of vandalism. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete The OED doesn't have littel or harebane although there are two Google hits for the latter which lend it some plausibility. However the other timewasting is far worse than obvious nonsense - so get rid of the lot unless a real botanist knows better. Dlyons493 21:08, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cybeer

NN Neologism - the picture may be suspect as well! The curate's egg 20:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There should be a way to speedy this, but alas. Friday (talk) 20:17, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Will the closing admin please list the image on IfD when this is closed? — Phil Welch 00:01, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Slang neologism. / Peter ^Isotalo 01:11, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete all. --Canderson7 14:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Millionaires

nn band - no hits on Google or Yahoo at all, also Cassinrōn Skeletots and Varve Jiggarvarv - Outlander 20:21, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you delete their songs Queen Vanilla, No lines by Arnold, A family in a car and album too Thinking About Thinking

Delete NN --Quasipalm 20:36, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Please. Punkmorten 21:13, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete them all. This is cruft of the worst kind. RasputinAXP talk * contribs 21:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Amren ^(talk) 00:53, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of the articles. -- Kjkolb 02:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE nn-bio. -Splash^talk 00:42, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel O'Donoghue

Looking at the history, the whole article is just a playground. Austrian 20:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete for a whole host of reasons and tagged as such. — Phil Welch 00:01, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as patent nonsnse by User:Starblind

Mike Gormly

Delete. Just wow. A pile of nonsense but asserts notability and therefore not A7 material. RasputinAXP talk * contribs 20:34, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for complete lack of useful content. Friday (talk) 20:57, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedied as patent nonsense. Sample line: "in 1974, he made the feat of being the first man to ever land on Idaho" Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 14:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cheese On Bread

nothing in allmusic. I don't see anything to suggest they meet WP:MUSIC guidelines. Friday (talk) 20:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --TM ^(talk) 22:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. — Phil Welch 00:08, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Zach (Sound Off) 22:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Baseball Revolution

Delete. Speculation on a game that doesn't exist yet for a console that hasn't been released yet. Almost speedied this under (fictional) CSD A8, "Common sense deletion of an article that will certainly receive unanimous support to delete at AfD," but decided against it. android 79 21:15, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Actually, lemme just double check....nope, wikipedia's still not a crystal ball. --InShaneee 21:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and urge android to be bold the next time he considers a speedy :-) Dlyons493 21:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. This isn't a case of crystal ball, this is a case of stupid. (suggestion: everyone who voted delete, vote speedy!) - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete It is funny that the upcoming Nintendo console system hasn't been officially named. The "Revolution" is currently a codename. This game is speculation. --J. Nguyen 00:47, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Speculation. Amren ^(talk) 00:53, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, or even a murky brown pond. It's an encyclopedia. Sabine's Sunbird 05:00, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Speculation. --Pagrashtak 16:57, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP as expanded by User:SG. — JIP | Talk 09:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quantic Dream

~~No content but an infobox. Thryduulf 21:08, 16 September 2005 (UTC)~~.[reply]

Content added, vote changed to keep. Thryduulf 12:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is there no speedy delete category for that? Jkelly 22:55, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless expanded. — Phil Welch 00:05, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Check out the games mentioned in the infobox. Google them up, especially Fahrenheit, the new one, this isn't Space Station 13, people. I know Fahrenheit has been covered in pretty much every UK games publication, and critically acclaimed. I actually saw this article about a week ago, when I noted down Omikron for merging, but I don't know enough about them to expand past the infobox, and do not have time to research it. - Hahnchen 00:31, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I said I couldn't expand beyond the infobox. But what if there was no infobox and it was all the information there is written in prose. It would contain more information than many stubs. - Hahnchen 00:35, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I agree with Hahnchen. There are many stubs with little or no content. That's no reason to pick on this, that's actually the point of the collaboration of the week. This studio deserves it's own article as much as Atari. — SG 00:57, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I just added content to the page; still a stub, but now that it has content, there's no grounds for deletion. I believe the notice can be removed now. — SG 01:59, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well done on the expansion. It is typical to let the debate run its course however. Thryduulf 12:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 14:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

War time recipies from bare necessities

Delete Poorly spelt article title, the ISBN number gives no hits, the book gives no hits on google except for WP mirrors, and the supposed author gives no hits on google except for WP mirrors. In short, suspected hoax, and probably unverifiable as it is. Oh, and violates Geogre's rule. (not sure if books can, but...) Sam Vimes 21:17, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The title is really Wartime Recipes from Bare Necessities, but it only gets three Google hits. See http://www.bookfinder4u.co.uk/book_search/Bare_Necessities.html for a mention of it. But there is no amazon listing with this name, either. Delete. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:17, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Good research! I found this as well thanks to that - which gives its Amazon sales rank as 1,471,051. Along with this, which says that the book was published by its author, I'm very much inclined to think it's a vanity page. Sam Vimes 22:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. — Phil Welch 00:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 14:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eastroad

Does not satisfy the applicable Music Guidelines, such as releasing only one six-song album without the label cited (even on the site), nor citing a local presence other than a band that gets gigs at bars. Might be advertising, but doubtful. Mr Bound 21:24, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn band vanity. --TM ^(talk) 22:43, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. — Phil Welch 00:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as patent nonsense. Thryduulf 09:27, 17 September 2005 (UTC) (deleted by user:Starblind)[reply]

Nat Shelness

Another hoax perpetrated by the high school kids of Winston-Salem, North Carolina. According to Google, Nat Shelness is a high school classmate of Ria Fulton. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:37, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied as patent nonsense/vandalism. Sample line: "In 1999, he published the classic work Pride and Prejudice under the pseudonym Jane Austen." Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 14:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Battered Vendor Syndrome

A joke AFAIK--Shanel 21:35, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research, charitably. Jkelly 22:32, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't tell if it's a joke or OR, but either way, delete. --Icarus 22:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR. — Phil Welch 00:12, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR. Amren ^(talk) 00:54, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 14:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Class Action Band

This page is not appropriate for Wikipedia, it is self-promoting and does not contain information of much consequence, nor does it follow Music Guidelines. Mikecap 21:45, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn band vanity. --TM ^(talk) 22:46, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Also note the photograph--that should go to IfD when this is deleted. — Phil Welch 00:11, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are you sure it's self promotion? Potomac 04:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was to keep the article. --Canderson7 14:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Frances Bean Cobain

Kurt Cobain's kid isn't notable. -- Phil Welch 21:40, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Certainly some of the information in the article doesn't appear to be notable, but it's clearly a recognizable name (with almost 100,000 results on Google, this page being the #2 link), and this article serves as a useful reference to anyone looking for actual information on her. See also the September 2004 VfD for this article. Sarge Baldy 21:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No, she hasnt found a cure for cancer or anything like that, but people do search for her and look for information about her. The fact that people want information about her makes her a noteworthy entry, in my view. Furthermore, as she is getting older in years she is getting more and more into the public eye and becoming more involved with the media - see that magazine article - there will be more to add in the future and she will become more noteworthy as time goes on. M A Mason 22:17, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable enough --Icarus 22:46, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Notable based on relationship *and* appearance in press. --rob 23:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC) This is a speedy keep, since it was a bad faith nomination, and the matter has already been settled (which I didn't realize at first). We can't have articles on permanent AFD notice. Also, we have to be free to cite precidents without fear that an article will be deleted in retaliation. The fact the nominator failed to mention their *actual* reasons for the nomination or the prior AFD decision makes the nomination invalid. --rob 04:08, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The ONLY reason this article has been re-nominated for deletion is because the article for Britney Spear's child was recently nominated, and I made a point in my vote there to reference the fact that this article is still here. The people from that discussion then came here and renominated this one to try and make a point. It has already been voted by the community at large that this page should be kept, and I think this VFD tag should be removed speedily to show users they can't go around bullying users into seeing things their way. Pacian 03:10, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. And, yes, it's possible that this nomination was a WP:POINT. Friday (talk) 03:17, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep please she is famous and notable and her parents are too Yuckfoo 07:21, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nominating a 13-year old and a baby for the same reason isn't quite right. Frances has received press attention from something she's done rather than being born. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:58, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, she's received press coverage and has celeb status in part for her own actions Reboot
Delete. Minimal press coverage which, according to the article, is based largely on the fame of her late father. Completely non-notable other than as a celebrity child. / Peter ^Isotalo 01:17, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is obvious interest in her and the issue over custody is noteworthy. Capitalistroadster 07:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I feel sorry for this poor kid getting the wrong kind of attention, but her role in Cobain & Love's life is important. She hasn't done anything notable yet, but neither have many monarchs! --MacRusgail 20:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She has established a degree of notability, and this nomination was based on the debate over keeping an article about Britney Spears' baby. ErikNY 16:39, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The page collects a variet of spurious sources and people do and will want to know about Frances in years to come as if I'm right, I'm guessing she's going to be quite famous. colderclimate

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

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

The result of the debate was Merge Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 16:21, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Didi Hill

Merge and redirect: It is necessary to merge and redirect. As a final note: Do not revert my previous comments please. Didi is a very minor character, one small paragraph isn't quite necessary to have a full page for that. (nomination by 68.47.26.123)

Keep: there's no reason not to have an article on Didi Hill, not when we have articles on every other main character on the show. The reason that I keep deleting the last sentence of the paragraph is that it is nothing but a rumor. Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for rumors. If you insist on inserting that sentence, then you must cite a valid source, not just "my brother worked at FOX".

Honestly, this is not the way to resolve content disputes on Wikipedia. If you feel strongly that your rumor should be in the article, then take it up on the article's Talk page. Abusing the AfD system this way does nothing to further your cause.

For reference, here is the disputed sentence:

It was rumored around the studio that Didi was once a prostitute.

— EagleOne 21:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki articles are editable and removing fringe rumours is perfectly fine. It's not denial of information, it's denial of baseless accusations. I could spread rumours about, say Britney Spears, but that wouldn't mean it needs to be included in her Wikipedia entry. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:04, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
When I said baseless accusations I was referring to the recently deleted sentence: "It is rumored that she was prostitute." Such rumours have no place in Wikipedia. Denying them is perfectly fine. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:04, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Cotton Hill. I don't watch the show, but my impression is that this is a very minor character. Is there any possiblity of this small paragraph being expanded into a proper article-length page? Func( t, c, @, ) 17:11, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per Func. Paul August ☎ 15:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete, it was deleted long time ago, but discussion for some reason was not closed. I am closing now. Renata 05:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spik

Advert for non-notable software. Note that the previous entry at Spik that was speedily deleted was unrelated to this. Thryduulf 21:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete advertisement. — brighterorange (talk) 23:26, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advert. — Phil Welch 00:20, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Quale 22:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 14:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

gahoogle

Long dictdef for neologism... 249 Google hits, many of which are to, or referencing, Gahoogle.com Jkelly 21:56, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Out of the 249 Google hits, only 2 are to Gahoogle.com and 2 refernce it. --KraigAllan 22:19, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was judging from the first page hits only, and it escaped my notice that 'gahoogle.bounceme.net' is not the same as gahoogle.com. Article's author may well be correct about remaining Google hits (not bothering to check), but this doesn't change my mind about the nomination. Jkelly 22:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism. — Phil Welch 00:17, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable Amren ^(talk) 00:52, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN The curate's egg 13:02, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 06:19, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Benedict Arnold (1683-1761)

Delete not notable. --Revolución (talk) 21:04, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. — Phil Welch 00:16, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Amren ^(talk) 00:52, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - only because it serves the purpose of explaining how General BA is V when his g-grandfather was the first. Detail like that would be distracting from General BA article. It also stops people from changing his father to IV, which has happened a couple of times --JimWae 02:23, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That information can be merged. No need to spawn a separate article on a non-notable man who happens to be Benedict Arnold's father. --Revolución (talk) 04:08, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I merged it. --Revolución (talk) 04:13, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course it can, but the BA article is already filled with too much detail. For me the issue is "Would merging improve the BA article?" not "Does wikipedia have too many articles?" --JimWae 04:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well what could you possibly add to the article? There is only "He was Benedict Arnold's father". --Revolución (talk) 04:41, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - your merge is not good--JimWae 04:17, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Interesting criticism. However, I would like to know what is wrong with it. I do not know much at all about Benedict Arnold, but I tried to make the information fit. If there's something wrong, why don't you fix it? Is there anything notable about the man in this article that you can think of? --Revolución (talk) 04:32, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - because I have other things to do than fix up everybody else's awkward sentences. Articles do not need to be long--JimWae 04:49, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh, please. We are not talking about much information here. --Revolución (talk) 05:00, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        If you think length is the only factor important to article quality, you have much to learn. If that is not your thought, your argument is a presumptive attempt to build a straw man. Btw, I have fixed your merge - and that will suffice until another self-appointed guardian of "purity" comes along and takes it out again with the claim that "years should be used instead of Roman numerals"--JimWae 05:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        When did I ever say that? I do not care about length, I care about the importance of the subject matter. --Revolución (talk) 05:28, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        You said it here, until you removed it just a few minutes ago [16] [17] --JimWae 06:02, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Jim, don't be obtuse. It's a one-sentence affair. Anything that short can be merged, and if it doesn't, we'll just have to live without that piece of information. / Peter ^Isotalo 01:23, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said, it can be merged (and has been, and I even fixed it up), but I find this article useful to retain info after the BA V article gets edited. I see no downside to keeping the article on his father - it is not a peacock page. The person who proposed the deletion has done some slick editing of this discussion --JimWae 02:27, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - The downside is that we keep an article that can't be expanded with useful, encyclopedic information. How is it helpful to keep a separate article just to note a one-sentence fact that is alreeady mentioned in a more appropriate article? It's just not convincing. / Peter ^Isotalo 15:21, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. / Peter ^Isotalo 01:23, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, bio with no reasonable claim to notability. Martg76 18:26, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as above. JYolkowski // talk 19:59, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as above. Ant ie talk 13:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete - see history for link to actual article Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} -----

۝

~~We can't even link to it properly so I've titled it as a numbered link.~~ Obnoxious stub ~~impossible to technically integrate into Wikipedia.~~ — Phil Welch 22:13, 16 September 2005 (UTC) (Fixed link. —Psychonaut 16:54, 18 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Delete Unicode character. Problematic page title. Eric119 22:26, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete for entries for Unicode characters, fractions, etc. MCB 22:55, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete. Thryduulf 22:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)~~[reply]
- As we can apparently link to it, redirect to Ayah. Thryduulf 22:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Er... Amren ^(talk) 00:52, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I bet we can improve it to featured article quality. ... naah. Delete Ashibaka (tock) 02:59, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am rather fain to say it, but this is one case...HoratioVitero 04:50, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I fail to see how this can be merged with anything either.... Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:44, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I suspect this article was created by a sock puppet of banned vandal User:JarlaxleArtemis for the purpose of disrupting Wikipedia. —Psychonaut 16:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've added the symbol into Ayah as it is an end of verse marker. Dlyons493 19:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, duplicate as per Dlyons493. If not than redirect. Nabla 20:22, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
REDIRECT to Ayah, assuming that this is the only meaning for this symbol? —Phil | Talk 09:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 15:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Austrian Airlines destinations

non-encyclopedic Icarus 22:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Phil Welch 00:19, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per policy (proposal?) of Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines#Structure that says if airline has more than 10 destinations, list them in a separate article. I think the information itself (the route structure of a major-ish airline) is useful and encyclopedic; the question is where to put it. -- MCB 01:51, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since we have such pages for 61 other airlines, I see no reason why we shouldn't for Austrian Airlines. - SimonP 02:46, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per SimonP...HoratioVitero 04:47, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ah. I didn't know about the other articles like this when I nominated this one for deletion. Guess I should have scrolled down to see the categories before I jumped to conclusions. Definitely a breach on my part. I still don't agree that an article that's just a huge list of where an airline flies to is encyclopedic, but if it's being accepted elsewhere then this airline shouldn't be treated any differently. Sorry for the hassle, all. Go ahead and close this early if you want to, administrators. Consider my nomination for deletion hereby retracted. --Icarus 04:53, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Could we at least mention it's a break out of the airway article due to size issues to avoid further miisunderstandings? - Mgm|^(talk) 11:08, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I wouldn't mind a mass-nomination of the other similar articles. Wikipedia is not a travelguide. / Peter ^Isotalo 01:25, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's my inclination, too. Anyone who needs to know because they're planning a trip should go to the airline's own website, or contact a travel agent. The only reason I can think of for keeping it is if it was a compromise to keep loooong lists like this off the main article page for each airline, and only then if it was done so larger airlines wouldn't be penalized, in effect, for serving too wide an area, whereas smaller ones could easily fit their handful of destinations in their main article without making it too long. --Icarus 21:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A standard break-out article. CalJW 08:52, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I dont know why they want to delete this article, it doesnt affects anybody, for people that likes knowing more about airlines, airplanes, etc., its interesting and why not, encyclopedic. - Jibco 21:57, 19 September, 2005(UTC)
Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, a directory, or a travel desk. Soltak | Talk 21:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 16:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Changchun Public Security Bureau

I'm starting the afd process for a string of edits by the same user with more or less the same purpose. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lu'an Public Security Bureau, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shijiazhuang Public Security Bureau and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tangshan Public Security Bureau. More information can be found on these pages. Mib orovsky 22:31, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Creator has previous soapbox tendencies. History of selectively including information to push an agenda. --Mib orovsky
Delete per others. — Phil Welch 00:22, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable article with the main purpose of being a propaganda piece. Abstrakt 05:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 16:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tangshan Public Security Bureau

I'm starting the afd process for a string of edits by the same user with more or less the same purpose. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lu'an Public Security Bureau, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shijiazhuang Public Security Bureau and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Changchun Public Security Bureau. More information can be found on these pages. Mib orovsky 22:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Creator has previous soapbox tendencies. History of selectively including information to push an agenda. --Mib orovsky 22:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. — Phil Welch 00:23, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable article with the main purpose of being a propaganda piece. Abstrakt 05:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is no propaganda piece. It obviously is notable as it is the Police authority of millions of people.

Sarcelles 08:08, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 15:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australians in international prisons

Being a prisoner in a foreign country is not inherently a claim to notability. The list is unnecessary and had a lot of redlinks that frankly scare me. The prisoners I trimmed it down to seem notable enough but now it's redundant with Category:Australian prisoners and detainees. — Phil Welch 22:53, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It scares me more that (1) Australians knowingly involve themselves in these situations when there is a real possibility of death if court convicts them & (2) Information about this is not freely available to those contemplating such risks. M.Dutton Cairns Australia
- Comment from User:58.104.210.126, anon's first edit. — Phil Welch 00:22, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you can note that this is this person's first edit, can I note on the public record that the vast majority of your contributions are in the form of votes for deletion rather than creating or adding to articles? (Not that there's anything wrong with the former so long as it's in moderation) Andjam 03:30, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ISNOT an indiscriminate collection of information. -- MCB 01:54, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As with all lists of people this list does not aim to be exhaustive. Like list of Australians, and every other list in Wikipedia, it only lists those notable enough for Wikipedia articles. - SimonP 02:43, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That's because I removed all the redlinks. The problem is it's now redundant with a category. — Phil Welch 18:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I acknowledge that there has been some vandalism to the page recently in the form of advertising certain web sites, and that should be dealt with. That being said, the majority of arrests mentioned here are noteworthy. They usually relate to drugs or terrorism activity, issues that are (and should be) vigorously debated in public.
Phil argues that many of the people are not noteworthy. I actually see that as a reason why this page should exist: the people are not noteworthy, but their arrests are. For example, Thomas McCosker isn't very noteworthy, but his former jail sentence for sodomy most definitely should be. If Phil's proposal were accepted, then we'd only be able to post an entry about Thomas McCosker, rather than writing an entry in this page about his arrest.
- How about Arrest of Thomas McCosker? You could even have an article Thomas McCosker that says who he is and discusses his arrest. That's perfectly acceptable. — Phil Welch 18:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is also useful in providing a summary, so you can see at a glance which countries have a lot of imprisoned Australians.
Finally, if a deletion does occur, should a subcategory be first created for Australians in overseas prisons? Andjam 03:30, 17 September 2005 (UTC) (same author for last four paragraphs)[reply]
- Sure, why not? — Phil Welch 18:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Arbitrary list and utterly useless to us. / Peter ^Isotalo 01:26, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The issue of Australians on overseas prisons is frequently and prominently in the news - how they are treated, what our governement is doing about repatriating them, why they were there. Not all are drug related, some are terrorism related - the two are quite distinct reasons for being imprisoned.--AYArktos 02:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Then I suggest you move the page or create a subsection of whatever article we have on people being imprisoned outside their native country. — Phil Welch 18:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in a form similar to what it was before 8 September. Arrest/conviction of citizens on foreign territory is notable as a group, but each individual person or case may not be. The same would apply for lists of foreigners imprisoned in a country. (same people divided into different lists). Looking at this list it appears that Australians lack self-control with respect to drugs overseas. I don't know if that's a valid interpretation, or a systemic bias in creating the list. I agree that external links to appeals should not be in the article. --Scott Davis ^Talk 03:56, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This list is more useful than the category. These cases received considerable media coverage. --Vsion 09:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Scott Davis ^Talk 04:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are a lot of remarks that the issue of Australians being imprisoned overseas is notable. Fair enough. Write an article about it. A list of prisoners is not that article. — Phil Welch 18:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added a note clarifying that sometimes it's the arrest that is noteworthy, not the person, and described some of the reasons an arrest can be noteworthy. Do you have suggestions as to what an article about the issue of overseas imprisonments should be like? Andjam 05:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 16:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Presentism (literary and historical analysis)

Redundant page (see "Historian's fallacy"), nothing links here (the "presentism" disambig now links to "Historian's fallacy"), Niku 22:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. There was no need to AfD this. — Phil Welch 00:23, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, do not redirect, page not redundant. Presentism and the Historian's fallacy] are very distinct things (despite plenty of apparently wikipedia-propagated information to the contrary.) Presentism: "Thomas Jefferson was evil because he kept slaves." Historian's fallacy: "JFK should not have visited Dallas because that's where he was killed." Sdedeo 00:24, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I divided presentism to create this page because a reader had confused presentism (literary and historical analysis) with presentism (philosophy of time) when they were mentioned on the same page. The original article was solely about presentism (philosophy of time) and someone introduced a short section on presentism (literary and historical analysis) for the purposes of disambiguation. A subsequent reader edited the discussion page asking why St Augustine was relevant to historical interpretation. (ie: both types of presentism are so complex that readers can fail to distinguish between them if they are mentioned together).This means that at least two readers have searched Wikipedia for presentism (literary and historical analysis) and felt sufficiently strongly to edit the text or pass comment. Given that people are looking for presentism (literary and historical analysis) on Wikipedia I would vote to keep. loxley 08:40, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 05:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Hyciker Brothers

hoax, no hits on Google WCFrancis 23:34, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The format looks familiar, like someone's making a bunch of similarly-formatted test articles. — Phil Welch 00:24, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as an attack. The article describes them as "gay", "moronic", "egotistical", etc. which should satisfy speedy criteria considering there are no google hits. --TM ^(talk) 00:30, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverifiable. Amren ^(talk) 00:53, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 16:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tullyhogue Fort

Unverifiable by google search, probable hoax. No google references. Even if it is real, it doesn't need it's own article. JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:03, 16 September 2005 (UTC) Note: Changed my vote to Keep, see below.

Delete unverifiable, probably nn. — Phil Welch 00:25, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~but rewrite~~. 8 out of the first 10 hits on a google search for Tullyhogue Fort return info that verifies that this is a real place and that it was a (possible) crowning point of the King's of Ulster (the link to the Wikipedia article is one of the two that don't). It is certainly notable enough for an article, although the article we've currently got is not the article we need. I will do my best to get at least a decent stub out of this in the next couple of days. Thryduulf 00:32, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep rewrite heavily and expand... specifically on the historical aspect HoratioVitero 03:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Thryduulf. Thanks; I don't know how I missed those 10 google results. Sorry about that. Can we delist this now? JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:18, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I've completely rewritten the article to be about this history of the site, but I've included a mention of the current concerns as well, but removed the unverifiable pagan stuff. Thryduulf 15:06, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Verifiability is an absolute minimum requirement, not a keep criteria. I just can't see how this is notable. The Kings of Ulster were probably locally important, but that some of them (there were at least a hundred of them) were crowned in this fort isn't terribly impressive. If someone is willing to show how this is unique or representative of culture, politics or architecture in north Ireland, I'm willing to change my vote. / Peter ^Isotalo 01:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- See History of Ireland, Hugh O'Neill, Flight of the Earls for some more background. The O'Neill family were one of the three most powerful in Ulster, Tullyhogue Fort was probably their most important site, making this one of the most important sites in the history of what is now Northern Ireland. Thryduulf 12:20, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - The site itself is probably interesting, but it doesn't set it apart from any number of old castle or fort sites that are scattered all over the world. If it's only notable because of the association with the O'Neills, why can't it be merged? / Peter ^Isotalo 16:00, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - I disagree with that, I considder all the old castles and forts to be notable enough for their own articles. Its primary notablity is through the O'Neill's, but it is a notable feature in the local area that there are several groups trying to push as more of a tourist destination (most of the current tourist literature I spotted when researching the article basically gave it a sentence or two). Thryduulf 16:58, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ok, I respect your argumentation, but I don't share the opinion about old forts being notable in of themselves. That goes for tourist attractions too, unfortunately. / Peter ^Isotalo 17:57, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. Thryduulf 18:26, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable place in northern Ireland. Thanks to Thyrduulf for the rewrite. Capitalistroadster 07:26, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Is a good article now. NSR (talk) 09:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A decent article on a notable topic. Thanks Thyrduulf.--Pharos 08:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notabale enough for me. Paul August ☎ 05:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Redirect Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 16:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Owen O'neill

Unverifable by google(PAGENAME and cookstown), no claim of notability, POV language with very little non-biased content. JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:35, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete, borderline A7 speedy. — Phil Welch 00:30, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Owen Roe O'Neill Grutness...wha? 02:03, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to unrelated more notable page as per Grutness.Chick Bowen 02:03, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as nn-bio and/or patent nonsense. Thryduulf 00:23, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mongoose McCloud

Either nonsense or a vanity page. Created by user with the same name. JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 06:22, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

North Carolina Research Campus

advertisemet. May be copyvio -- I haven't checked. In any case wikipedia is not a srystal ball, this is a set of images of how a proposed commercial development will look when and if it is built. Delete' DES ^(talk) 23:44, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Article Author User:Bradspry. This is not a scheduled or expected future event. This is a real event that happened on September 12, 2005. This is not extrapolation, speculation, and "future history". It is happening now. This is not crystal ball. Come to Kannapolis, North Carolina, and see for yourself.
Delete as per nominator. The images are assuredly copyvios, as well. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:47, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No vote. May very well be notable. Planned land developments can be notable, see Freedom Tower for one. — Phil Welch 00:27, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Article Author User:Bradspry. I am an employee of the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, and a citizen of Kannapolis, North Carolina. My university address book entry. I attended the launch event this past Monday September 12, 2005, and was provided a Media Kit. The license I stated was press release photos, which are believed to be fair use under wikipedia. This is an historical event for Kannapolis, the site of the greatest lay-off in North Carolina history, with over 4000 jobs lost in one day. This is documenting history, not an ad.
- Article Author User:Bradspry. Added "Future building" tag to match Freedom Tower legitimacy reasoning.
Keep. I think, given its size, this announced development is a legitimate subject for an article, and this article is not written like an ad for the project. I do think that the number of pictures are excessive, and would be excessive even if the project were up and running. However, that is an edit job, not a reason to delete. -- DS1953 18:55, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A "research campus" doesn't deserve a separate article even if it actually exists. / Peter ^Isotalo 01:41, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Article Author User:Bradspry. A research class campus is the highest order of campuses. Here are a few that you may have heard of: University of California, Berkeley, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. All three of these have separate articles on Wikipedia.
  - Huh? All the examples you've given are of separate universities that have been around for quite some time. This is just a rather large business complex that hasn't even been built yet and without any sign of being associated with any established university. From what I can tell from the article, it just looks like a rather ordinary office and retail development with some laboratory space for private research companies. Has construction even started? Do they have funding for it? Is there a date for when it's supposed to be completed? / Peter ^Isotalo 12:23, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - >>>without any sign of being associated with any established university. The very first reference in the article is * Stephen Moore. "UNC system and Dole to create Kannapolis jobs." The Daily Tar Heel. Accessed on 17 September 2005. This is not just a "rather large business complex". This is the University of North Carolina System, whose first participants in the project are the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, North Carolina State University, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, and more universities to come. Demolition of Cannon Mills, the site of the campus, is well underway. Construction will begin on the Core Lab / Biogenic Fermentation Lab / Dole Lab Building within 90 days. David H. Murdock has provided a billion dollars of funding, and the state legislature is providing millions of dollars of funding. They have stated an aggressive goal of five years for completion of the majority of the campus. Read the references. Brad Spry 23:51, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - "Read the references"? You're the one who wants it to be an article. Note these things in the article if you want to convince anyone. I don't do people's AfD-homework for them. Now here's the beef:
        It's not built. I would never vote to keep an article on a fairly non-notable construction project of a rather non-notable business complex that hasn't even been built. In this case, construction won't start 'til sometime near Christmas and won't be done for five years. There are thousands of these kinds of construction projects all over the world and I don't want to see all of them turned into articles.
        Non-notable is your opinion, from your obscured view through the ether. This is the largest event in the history of my city. If your life were here, and you were standing here, this would not be a question. Brad Spry 15:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Demolition is a construction phase. Demolition of the Cannon Mills buildings, where the campus will be located, has been underway for a year.
        
        That it's partnering with a few universities doesn't equal it to a university. This is very obviously not even to be considered a campus; they've just named it that way to make it seem more educational than it really is. It's still just a commercial project like many others and I don't know why you're trying to compare this to established universities. / Peter ^Isotalo 08:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        This project wouldn't be possible without the support of the University of North Carolina System. Just a commercial project? Proof of the shallow depth of your research. Brad Spry 15:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't single me out I expect the same treatment to be applied to the following articles:

Brad Spry 16:11, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Neutrality^talk 01:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

According To Taipan

nn website, according to Google only three (or maybe four) hits that actually refer to this site, and no alexa ranking. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:45, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. — Phil Welch 00:33, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Amren ^(talk) 00:50, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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