Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 November 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 29 December 1 >

Purge server cache

November 30

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

The result of the debate was Speedily kept - see talk page of nominating user for details. --HappyCamper 03:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

American Dad!

[edit]

Nonsense and crap. No Google results.Windemere Wally 03:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted - twice. User talk:Windemere Wally for details regarding this article. --HappyCamper 04:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alamance Alfred

[edit]

Not nonsense, but some idiot keeps insisting that it is, so I put it here.Windemere Wally 03:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under G3. Failing that, unverifyable per google in first several pages, user's only other history is vandalism to Family Guy. --Syrthiss 03:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment how could an article for a TV series be nonsense? Windemere Wally 03:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How is it an attack page? You guys are total crapass.Windemere Wally 03:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The content is from Unencyclopedia - [1]. The show itself seems to exist, but copying and pasting content from unencyclopedia to here is not a substitute for encyclopedic content. --HappyCamper 04:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete DES (talk) 04:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"indie smut"

[edit]

Neologism. Google search for "Indie Smut" brings up only 151 pages. --Shanel 03:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep (no consensus). Ral315 (talk) 05:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

30gigs

[edit]

Non-notable email provider. Nearly-speediable article originally contained a contact request. Delete (see below). -- SCZenz 08:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Merge. Ral315 (talk) 05:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blake & Dylan Tuomy-Wilhoit

[edit]

seems to be copy n pasted and is about relatively unknown child actors. --Phil 03:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Based on their lack of further acting, I support the merge as well. - Mgm|(talk) 09:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete per A1 --RoySmith 01:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mophie

[edit]

Delete. No shown notability. Paul Cyr 00:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 01:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kinslaughter

[edit]

Neologism and original research. — A.M. 00:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TAME

[edit]

I'd like AfD to take a look at this. The topic of the article sounds alright when you read it. But when you Google it, you find baically nothing, and Google news finds absolutely nothing. It presumably exists/ed, but the article is a (sub-)stub without apparent potential for expansion. It would be virtually impossible to verify any future addition to the article based on what's on Google. On the other hand, I could just be looking in the wrong places. -Splashtalk 00:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, seems to be defunct, and not notable even when it existed. This article refers to TAME as "was" in a couple of places, and that "... the activities of the organisation fell into abeyance". – Ezeu 03:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an Irish organization. This may account in part for its paucity of web hits. Nevertheless, I can't find information that it's active; I found one mention of it some newsletter, but that's from Spring 2000. They did have a newsletter called Media Edge, but can't get any info on that either. One Martin Kieran appears to have been involved. He's co-written a couple of books. But there is no mention of TAME in the brief bio here. If the organizaton was functioning you'd think that there would be. The only marker that the organization IS active is that an editor created this article. Why now, if it's been defunct for years? Herostratus 04:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Expand - The article is far too brief to be of use and needs to be expanded. The comment was made that the organization may be defunct and this would indeed account for fewer webhits. Deleting an entry because it refers to a dead organization is inappropriate, especially one that by its title would suggest it had at one time been of some significance in its area. If we delete it because it is (effectively) dead, then we need to also consider deleting entries for the Whig party, Greek Mythology, etc.--eleuthero 18:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • They are verifiable and expandable. How would you suggest expanding this article? I'd be pleased if you can, but it's too common for people to say "expand" on AfD and have no idea or intention how that might be done. That said, if people can find a means of expanding and verifying this, that's great. I dont see any justification for your claim that its title suggests that it may have been of significance: that is just speculation. -Splashtalk 18:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eleuthero, you are missreading the comments. No one is suggesting that this article be deleted merely because the organisation is defunct. Some effort has been made (with references and all) to determine if this indeed is/was a notable organisation. The "delete" votes (wouldnt you agree) are warranted – unless you can give some evidence to the contrary. / Ezeu 23:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eleuthero is wholly ignoring the requirement that everything in Wikipedia be verifiable. If the article cited sources, as its creator was asked to do when xe created the article, it would be verifiable. But, like so many articles, it cites no sources at all. Like other editors above, I've tried to find reliable sources. I haven't found any. I cannot even find a source to verify the second half of the first sentence of the article, where it describes what the purpose of this organization purportedly is. The only verifiable information about this organization is that some people say that they used to be members of it but that it doesn't exist now. There is nothing else documented about this organization that I have found. (In contrast, there are reams of published books about the Whig party and about Greek mythology.) Eleuthero, the only argument that you can make to counter this, and to change everyone else's mind (This is a discussion. Opinions are not set in stone.), is to demonstrate the existence of reliable sources that cover this subject. Arguing that we should keep stuff that we cannot verify, regardless, simply won't wash. Delete. Uncle G 17:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep per Kleuthero. Stifle 21:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep assuming this is an actual orginzation :), a stub is in order, for future expansion
    • That is poor reasoning. You should make sure the information in the article is verifiable before deciding to keep it based on an assumption that has no basis. We don't hold onto things that we cannot verify. -Splashtalk 01:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Uncle G and my original nomination concerns. Those who are arguing we should keep it in case it may be verifiable need to go and read WP:V. This requires us to remove any unverified to the talk page until it is verified. In this case, all but the first few words would have to go. Eleuthero has no grounds to suppose they may have been significant: that is speculation pure and simple. His/her comments about Greek mythology are complete redherrings. -Splashtalk 01:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable, lack of sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Velvetsmog (talk • contribs) 02:47, 5 December 2005
  • Delete - as per above - Hahnchen 05:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was ... let me count...1, 2, 3, 4, 5......Uh... (16 keep, 4 delete, 5 merge) no consensus, leaning to keep. - Mailer Diablo 20:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop of Llandaff Church in Wales High School

[edit]

Note:: Please vote based on the article itself, and not on the subject matter.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MacGyverMagic (talk • contribs) 13:25, 30 November 2005


I don't know if this will get an entry. Being a high school and all

  • Yes, just another high school like the rest. But why is this particular school less important than the others? – that is the essence of my comment. We need some consistency, not just haphazard preference of one article over the other. If I knew any, I too would evoke a political buzzword to support my point, but precedence is (probably) the only viable "afd" argument, given that one can use almost any claim to support ones position. That there are hundreds of other high schools on wikipedia is a viable argument to keep this one. / Ezeu 18:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    It's certainly less important than Eton College and Llandaff Cathedral School. I'm shocked that there's no article on the latter. Chris talk back 15:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really want to be stuck with a horrendous substub until that happens? I'm pretty sure anyone attending the school doesn't need the info from this "article" to write up something better. We don't keep nonsense pages on legitimate subjects either with the idea it can be cleaned up. - Mgm|(talk) 13:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Surely inviting (ex-)students to write about their own school because no-one else will violates WP:NOR and WP:V? NOR: "All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources." Relying on a school's own website for data is bad enough. Relying on someone coming here, claiming they're a student and letting them add information is much, much worse. We wouldn't let someone claiming to be an article's subject write about himself if he didn't back up his claims, or let someone claiming to be an ex-Scientologist write new claims about the "church". --Last Malthusian 13:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 09:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Brown

[edit]

There are 435 Representatives, why record every loser, and such a non-notable one at that. Simesa 00:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Political candidates are not generally notable for losing unless it is for a very prominent office. There are no other indications of notability. Keep and expand per Dialup. That information makes her notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 01:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's 297,700,000 people in the United States, and we only generate 435 losers every 2 years. Just getting the nomination of a major political party for one of those seats is a pretty significant event. There are far more trivial things and people chronicled in these pages. --RoySmith 01:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A bit more:From Society for Women's Health Researach Brown is evidently one of the authors of The Savvy Woman Patient (ISBN 193310208X )—"Melissa Brown, BSN, MSN, MD, is an adjunct assistant professor of Ophthalmology at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine and adjunct senior fellow at the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics at Penn. She is the director for the Center for Value-Based Medicine and co-chief Editor of Evidence-Based Eye Care. Dr. Brown has served as President of the Montgomery County (PA) Medical Society and serves on the Advisory Council for the National Institute for Aging. She has written over 120 publications on medical issues."
  • Borderline -- weak Delete. It says here that "Dr. Brown was recently appointed to serve on the Advisory Council for the National Institute for Aging by Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson." I don't know if that means much, but there it is. It looks like she's a go-getter and active public citizen, but there are lots of those. But not all of them get them come to attention of the national GOP. Here's the thing: if the editor had written a longer article, stressing her publications and involvement with the Center for Value-Based medicine, and topped it off with her political campaigns, maybe it would be a keeper. But she didn't, and is anyone really ever going to back and do that? Especially considering they would have to add this: "[A]n insurance company, the Pennsylvania Physician Healthcare Plan, [was] co-founded by Brown in 1995. The company failed four years later and was taken over by the state government. In 2000, the company was sued by the state for fraud, conspiracy and illegally conveying money to its directors. The suit was settled out of court, and the terms of the settlement were not disclosed." Yes she has published many technical articles and some books and served on boards, but does she pass the Professor Test? I think not quite. Herostratus 05:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if the info Dialup found is about the same person. - Mgm|(talk) 10:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided. If DialUp is right, and this is the same person, then that woudl probably qualify, just about, as long as the named institutions are genuine and significant (and let's not forget that every lobby group has its own tame "institute"). On the other hand, how come nobody actually bothered to put in enough information about the candidate while they were running? This is a classic example of exactly the point I made in Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates - information on a failed candidate is hard to verify and unlikely to be miantained because it was created not by a consitutency interested in the candidate, but by a constituency interested in the election; once the election is underway this constituency has no further interest in keeping the candidate's article up to date. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 10:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Note that a great deal of her public service is highly partisan (i.e. "not real organizations" or, more NPOV, "head of minor, probably non-functional organizations that serve to increase partisan political position without affecting actual public health"), but that is not grounds for this vote. The article only profiles her as a bit of trivia for losing in two elections to the House. 440 losers per four years is too high a number, but the real number is higher than that, as there is no indication that this woman was the nominee of one of the two parties, and we have many more losers in the primaries. If this were a biography/profile of a Republican Party operative, it might well be a keep, but the notability established by the article is solely that she lost twice. Everybody hurts some time. Geogre 11:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • She was the Republican nominee, not some minor party where you can get on the ballot by having 25 friends willing to sign a petition. FWIW, the Library of Congress thinks it's important to chronicle failed election bids [2] --RoySmith 14:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no problem with that, as they are archivists. I don't believe, however, that an encyclopedia article is necessary as a biography of each failed candidate. My delete vote, though, was not actually based upon her herself but on this article, which did not include any information on her except her losing status. By itself, I don't think that triggers biography. In this particular person's case, she is being kept politically alive by some of the most harsh right wing Republican organizations. (I have heard her discussed by left wing sites and radio, as she's a bit vicious and nasty from my POV.) Thus, I do think a biography is possible, but not this article. Obviously, I would reconsider if it were rewritten. Geogre 15:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was It looks like User:Bumm13 already deleted the page, I'm just closing out the discussion --RoySmith 15:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neuvelt's Treasure Chest

[edit]

Advertisement for a non notable webstore, it seems almost a speedy but I couldn't fit it in the criteria for speedy delete's. So here it is. Garion96 (talk) 00:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 09:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Goat (musician)

[edit]

Pretty marginal claim to fame. Expand or delete? Simesa 00:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 01:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The pillowcases

[edit]

Doesn't meet WP:NMG --WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 01:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 01:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Huntwood

[edit]

this is an advert, nn per WP:CORP

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 01:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sabel Music, L.L.C.

[edit]

doesn't meet WP:NMG --WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 01:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was 'Speedy delete' under CSD:A6/A7. Owen× ☎ 02:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vishal

[edit]

Vanity page. Mark K. Bilbo 01:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I (the author) am not the subject article, and while I do not have the time tonight to help improve the page any further, I rest assured that numerous people will edit this over the next few days. It's unreasonable to delete this until a fair chance has been given to see multiple users contributing and shaping the article. I feel a waiting period of a week is more suitable in this case. --64.80.220.123 01:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Skinhead websites

[edit]

Not an article, merely a collections of external links Ezeu 02:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Lists of websites should be speedy deleted – the policy on this issue is unequivocal. Keeping this list could set a bad precedent. --Ezeu 16:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I already moved the links back to skinhead, somebody delete this article already. It was created by a well meaning nube unaware of our more complicated policies. Sam Spade 15:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 01:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zep sandwich

[edit]

NN sandwich; http://www.google.com.au/search?q=%22zep+sandwich%22 produces nine hits.Josh Parris 02:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 01:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fayette County Productions

[edit]

NN. http://www.google.com.au/search?q=%22Fayette+County+Productions%22 produces zero hits. Josh Parris 02:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete - brenneman(t)(c) 07:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudo_Singer-songwriter

[edit]

Almost put this as speedy delete as an "attack" article but I hesitated. Seems more to fit WP:NOR. Maybe neologism a bit also. Mark K. Bilbo 02:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 01:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin H. Ticho, MD

[edit]

Delete WP:BIO average professor test is not passed. Caerwine 03:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete A7 --RoySmith 03:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Bridges

[edit]

Delete. Classic vanity page for a nn teenager. The book she supposed wrote got 0 hits on google. --03:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)דוד ♣ D Monack

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 01:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ABXZone

[edit]

Non notable internet forum. wikipedia is not a web directory.Geni 05:40, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting in hopes of attaining a more thorough consensus. Please place new discussion below this line. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 03:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was article redirected. Johnleemk | Talk 12:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

===Nimbus Terrafauxactually exist, by the article's own admission. Moreover, I'm not entirely sure this is even a real rumor; I believe it might be someone's fanfic character or some other minor fan speculation. I am Nimbus the magazine that showcases him is the images apparently are fake


While I'm resigned that Wikipedia covers all the Mortal Kombat characters that exist, I don't see any reason why it should cover the ones that don't. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:22, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting in hopes of reaching a more thorough consensus. Please place new discussion below this line. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 03:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Johnleemk | Talk 12:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Operation: R.O.B.B.E.R.S.

[edit]

Near-incoherent, nonsensical synopsis of an episode of an obscure cartoon. Delete, or at least merge with the main article. Neutralitytalk 03:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus, which defaults to a keep. - Mailer Diablo 20:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Gulas

[edit]

Real person, but I think notability is suspect (but not so obviously non-notable that I was comfortable speedy deleting it). Still, delete. --Nlu 08:14, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - as notable as most of the other people in professional wrestling that have Wikipedia articles. However, I strongly agree that it's in dire need of a rewrite. B.Wind 08:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I can vouch that the bio is essentially accurate (I don't know about "King B", though.) Whether that means he is notable depends on one's regard for wrestling notability. I am a guilty old fan, so I take a mild view. Xoloz 03:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting in hopes of prompting a more thorough consensus. Please place new discussion below this line. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 03:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and cleanup. This page appears to show notability see [9]. Capitalistroadster 05:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It needs more than cleaning. It needs a total rewrite. Because of that, it could be deleted (and wait for competent content) or be rewritten by a wrastlin' fan. As it is, though, it's all in one big gush. If sent to cleanup, send with a predisposition to return to AfD if not actually cleaned and significantly improved by the roll off point. Geogre 14:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - the name can be added to WP:RA if the guy passes WP:BIO. Of course, this becomes a keep if, by the time this AfD is closed, there are actual signs that the article is going to receive the attention it needs. — Haeleth Talk 22:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete awful article and if he's that notable somone that can actually make it into an encyclopedic article will recreate it.--MONGO 03:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was duh, it's BJAODN time! =D - Mailer Diablo 20:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scale of five

[edit]

Maybe BJAODN or just Delete, seems to be attempt at original humor Chris the speller 03:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was 1, 2, 3...Uhhh......(9 delete, 7 keep, 1 merge) no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 20:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Professional Hockey League

[edit]

League that never got out of the talking phase. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting in hopes of achieving some sort of consensus. Please place new discussion below this line. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 03:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears to be really happening, according to this website -- but I don't know enough about this to actually vote. Peachlette 04:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That website looks pretty out of date. It only talks about what is coming up, but not as if anything actually happened. Peyna 04:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The league has been saying they'll start really soon (next season, this season, in two months) ever since their inception, which was at least a year and a half ago, maybe more. In this time, absolutely no progress has seemingly been made towards starting. Lord Bob 16:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as that link is to a page written "a few months before [their] inaugural season," which was to occur in 2004!
  • Keep. So what if it may never come to be. Wikipedia is not paper, after all. Matt Yeager
  • Delete. If and when they put down deposits for the uniforms and arena rentals, bring it back; but until then, it's the sports equivalent of vaporware. --Calton | Talk 06:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It. Doesn't. Exist. --Squiddy 09:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There is no there there. When it exists, come along and devote some Not Paper to it. Until then, there is no historical relevance that requires a separate article, and there is no entity that could be described in a separate article. If someone must say something about this presumption, they may say it in the article that already exists on the NHL strike. Geogre 15:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the article on the lockout. The fact it has a website and was in the planning stages is notable. There are plenty of Wikiarticles on things that were planned but never realized. I agree it doesn't need its own article, but the fact a "shadow NHL" was planned during the strike is notable and worthy to be included somewhere. 23skidoo 17:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE & REWRITE to be that thing that Sam Vimes found. 132.205.45.148 18:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but change to the actual league from 1926. Put the proposed modern league as a sentence in the new page. Turnstep 20:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless there is more evidence of notability, either in the strike year or before. As it stands, this could be a sentence to the National Hockey League or 2004-05 NHL lockout articles. 21:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I've actually followed this league a bit since its non-announcement as a bit of a lark, and it is so dead it makes the new WHA look like a vibrant and thriving enterprise. I wouldn't be averse to restarting with the historical CPHL, but this article still needs a gassing. Lord Bob 22:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this non-starter. Denni ☯ 03:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but change as per Turnstep. Stifle 09:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & Rewrite per Turnstep. WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 17:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep May I remind my American friends that the wikipedia is an International project, not a solely USian project? Just because you never heard of a topic doesn't mean that topic isn't noteworthy in some other part of the world. Look at List of ice hockey leagues. It is comprehensive. Are you going to challenge the existence of every league on that list you have never heard of? The lockout was big news up here. Rumors that the lockout was soon going to end made the national news several times a month. And news of the progress, or lack thereof, on the CPHL also frequently made the national news. Yes, this article needs some improvement. I will make a few changes later today. I am going to repeat my invitation to our American friends to remember that the wikipedia is an International project, and not a purely USian project. -- Geo Swan 21:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    As a Canadian who has actively followed this league, I would like to assure my USian friends that you need not worry: seriously, this league is as notable as my Eastside Hockey Manager leagues. Actually, less, since my EHM leagues have had people in them. Lord Bob 23:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    What does being an American have to do with wanting to vote delete for a hoax league? Please explain why you think an article about a sports league that never existed, and never got out of the suggestion phase, deserves an article. And please stop making anti-American accusations. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does a request to be more sensitive to the fact that the wikipedia is an international effort make me "anti-American"?
  • How is my request an accusation?
  • I don't know what your definition of hoax is. But every definition of hoax I have ever heard has some element of subterfuge. There was no subterfuge in this instance. So it is not a hoax.
  • Did you go to List of ice hockey leagues? It lists many dozens of leagues. To be comprehensive shouldn't it list this one too, even if there hadn't been an earlier league of the same name?
  • There was an earlier league of the same name. -- Geo Swan 15:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And as I said above, I have no problem with turning this into an article about that league, which really existed. And where have I advocated deleting any of those leagues? Except for the ones, added by the same person who created this one, who keeps making up Plain States Hockey League, Michigan Hockey League and Pennsylvania Hockey League. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 09:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Prophets

[edit]

NN band vanity, no claim to notabilty, no Google hits except thier web site (of which the entire content is "Please visit this site later. It is currently under construction." In other words just like 10,000 other band vanity articles and could we PUH-LEEZE have a speedy delete tag for band vanity? Herostratus 03:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

you could always try to improve it. Peyna 15:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, except that I have no interest in it. I do wish that Keepsleeping had done it, since he or she had done the research. I am against having articles on all the pop acts in the world. I recognize that consensus is for them, so I vote accordingly, but I, of all people, am the wrong one to be bulking up things like this. In general, if I know something about a topic that's up for deletion, I will add to the article and try to improve it. (See, for example, the before and after of Film adaptation.) Geogre 15:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm just not sure about deleting articles that have potential. On the one hand, they provide little value in their current state, but so long as they are not nonsense or inaccurate, they are not harming anyone that stumbles upon them. This article has not existed for the month, nothing links to it yet, it was originally speedy-deleted then recreated as a stub and kept. I think in this case I'd like to give a benefit of the doubt Weak Keep. Peyna 16:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hope you've added that material to the article so I can change my vote, as I voted to delete based on its substub status. I meant "pop" as in not "serious music." In that sense, Sonic Youth and Throbbing Gristle are pop acts. I didn't mean "boy band" or Pdiddly. (And if we're going to have decent underground and independent hiphop, someone needs to fix Spearhead (band).) Geogre 03:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a legitimate entry. Google has about 99,600 results. Not 1 as was previously reported. The article's size isn't a cause for it to be deleted.


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 01:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Xophan

[edit]

advertising. Mark K. Bilbo 04:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was articles moved as per Mgm's suggestion; Cheetah (Car) and Super GT redirects deleted; Turismo redirected to Gran Turismo. Remaining article content merged with List of vehicles in Grand Theft Auto series. (Hope this makes sense.) Johnleemk | Talk 12:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cheetah (Car), Super GT, Turismo

[edit]

3 cars from GTA. The GTA series had a crapload of cars, and theres nothing special about any of them. Non notable fictional car cruft. - Hahnchen 04:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Move Cheetah (Car) to Cheetah (GTA car)
Move Super GT to Super GT (GTA car) to allow for an article on the sega game.
Move Turismo to Turismo (GTA car)

Then redirect the moved articles.

Delete Cheetah (Car) (note the capital letter)
Leave the Super GT redirect until the game article is written then interlink with dabs.
Turn the redirect on Turismo into a redirect to Gran Turismo and include a dab note pointing to the car.

I hope that makes sense. - Mgm|(talk) 10:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 09:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Discomfort

[edit]

nn local band, nothing particularly special about them. --Spring Rubber 04:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That happens all the time..Delete it regardless...--MONGO 03:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. I see that Ilyanep has made some trimming of the article so it should be OK right now. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

StarKingdoms

[edit]

There has been some doubt over whether this page is an advertisement or not, I feel it should be discussed whether or not this page deserves to remain on here or not, notablity of website is in question, at the very least needs a thorough re-write IndigoNights 05:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey, I used to play this, long long ago. Damn this article is FAQy (not really advertising, just a lot of instruction-manual type info). As for the notability of the website itself, well... Its Alexa rank is awful, and I don't think it's grown at all since I last saw it (maybe 3-4 years ago). Giving it a weak delete for now. Nifboy 07:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. It has a reasonably long and diverse edit history and from a Google search it doesn't look like a copy/paste job. --StuffOfInterest 13:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure looks like the introduction to the game and the rules, rather than an article about the game and its historical relevance. We get one very short paragraph that's like an encyclopedia article, and the rest is just how to play. Wikipedia is not GameFAQs nor a how-to guide. I recommend RFC for content and/or a collaboration to slice off the fat and build up the muscle, if the article is kept. Geogre 15:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - cos otherwise you'll have to delete Metal knights, which I created. Zordrac 01:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per StuffOfInterest. Stifle 22:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's pretty notable, however I am deleting all the copy and paste unwikified stuff from the manual to bring it back to the okay state it was in earlier. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 00:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 09:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ukwizz

[edit]

alexa 47,000 for a website business (well below WP:WEB 10,000 bar) ∴ here…♠ 05:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 12:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Raja-Lakshmi Foundation

[edit]

19 Google hits + copy and paste advertisement delete

Lotsofissues 05:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not linked, not cleaned up after three months, not supported. --StuffOfInterest 13:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: One of my actual jobs is grant writer. You can sooner number the stars than the foundations in the world. Nothing in the article sets this particular foundation apart from others, so, again, the question is, "In what way is this organization of note in its field of operation?" Nothing seems to set it apart, so delete. Geogre 15:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak delete which is subject to change. I don't think they are important enough. Tintin 00:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC) Not convinced enough to vote for keep, but I withdraw this vote. Tintin 17:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep and move to Raja-Lakshmi foundation (41 hits on google) or Raja-Lakshmi awards (166 hits on google for Raja-Lakshmi award).
  • Reasons as follows: - (a) Awards being given by a foundation for the past 26 years and accepted by many notable people - Of the 28 recipients, around 20 of them I can immediately say are notable by Wikipedia standards (I do not know about the remaining remaining and hence cannot comment), of which some of them have received civilian awards from Government of India - If it is a non-notable organisation, notable people from all walks of life in India would not have been accepting it - think about it.
(b) Among the earliest awards being given by private organisations in India and with a good purse right from inception (though I speak only from anecdotal hearing and cannot cite on-line references for these; hence would not like to stress on this point)
(c) As per Vyzasatya above
(d) I've undertaken a clean-up where apart from re-writing, categorising and re-organising, I deleted the lists of recipients of vaidika puraskaram (Vedic Scholars award) and recognise the teacher award as these recipients are not notable outside their work context. However, the general award and the literary award recipients are highly notable, the latter probably more in the context of Telugu and Andhra Pradesh. The latter list may be a borderline case for inclusion but not the entire article and the list of general (known blandly as Raja-Lakshmi) awards definitely merits inclusion.
  • The flip side: - (a) Organisation doesn't even seem to have its website though its activities and awards are widely covered by Indian media.
(b) The references for the article had to be obtained from TFAS, an association of Telugu people in USA, which gives another award to the recipients of the Raja-Lakshmi award - However, the later day awards can be corroborated by newspaper reports available on the net (e.g. The Hindu, Deccan Herald)


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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Harro5 05:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PorColombia

[edit]

A strange Q&A about a Columbian student group. Not a proper article by any means, unlikely to be notable, and unlikely to greatly improve. Harro5 05:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 12:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Culture_clash_pathologies

[edit]

Appears to violate WP:NOR and WP:V Mark K. Bilbo 05:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why pray tell? Culture_clash_pathologies are a biological reality, already accepted in scientific circles, and a matter presented by H. G. Wells in his science fiction novel "War of the Worlds" over a century ago. Please see citations. A very puzzled Jigüe 11/29/05
  • Strong Keep. This is a very valid and notable topic. This is certainly NOT original research. As for WP:V I see references scattered througout the article. I could not find a duplicate article with this info. I'm not sure if a Rename might not be in order, as I got no Google hits on "culture clash pathologies". But I don't know what else you would call it -- I'm not sure that there is a generally accepted name. HOWEVER, it needs major Cleanup as the tone is of a term paper, not an encylopedia entry. Herostratus
    • Comment WP:NOR because the author is proposing a concept and/or term that is apparently original with him or her. The historical events involved are significant (and very much so) but if the concept and/or term isn't in the literature (such asq, it's a topic Jared Diamond would takle) then we're violating "no original research." And I can't find a single reference for "culture clash pathologies" myself.

Mark K. Bilbo 13:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

      • If it's WP:NOR solely because of the name of the article, a Rename would be in order rather than a delete, I would think. I myself have an article, Battle of annihilation (I know, needs work) whose title is only weakly in the literature and is really only a description of the phenomena. If there is a better title, responders might propose one. (Mind you, agree the article body is a mess, but IMO that is better addressed by a call for cleanup or attention rather than a delete. Herostratus 14:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The topic seems worthy. However, a Google search for "Culture clash pathologies" gets no Google hits [11].

No Google book results either see [12] and nothing on Google scholar see [13]. This phrase is obviously a complete neologism and it would be original research to have an article of this name until it is verified by a reliable third party source. Delete.Capitalistroadster 08:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or Rename to something more searchable (and without the damn underscores). Seems to be an attempt to give a name to something vaguely recognized from history, but without any context or sourcing behind it. Needs work. rodii

Addressed revisions suggested here and elsewhere, and changed title to the more google active "Cultural collisions and mutual lethal contact " Please go ahead and delete the original Culture_clash_pathologies El Jigüe 11-30-05

  • Speedy delete since the author has requested it and there are no other significant editors of the article (I forget which criterion that is, but it's in there, right?). Probably not necessary to create a redirect since the neologistic nature of the title was the major objection to the present article. Were there any objections directly related to the content that would necessitate keeping the AfD open on the moved article? — Haeleth Talk 23:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well... yeah. "The neologistic nature of the title" is still an issue. With an encyclopedia, readers start with a known topic name and go looking for information on that topic. In this case, who is going to come to Wikipedia and search for "Cultural collisions and mutual lethal contact"? Rather than "contributing to an encyclopedia," this feels like "publishing an article". The question that we should be asking, given the basically worthy material, is what article it should be part of? I might suggest First contact (anthropology). (I'm not explaining this very well. Someone please help me. El Jigüe, no criticism of your work is intended. But the novelty of the name tends to make it look like original research rather than "information about X topic.") rodii 22:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes. Any discussion of the impact of the contact between the hemispheres would have to be in a recognized category just to be found. Personally, I still feel the author is attempting his own, personal synthesis of the material. Which would be fine in, say, an anthropology journal but does it belong here? Also, the hypothesis that syphilis came from this continent and was carried to Europe is still highly speculative. I think the jury is still out (and that's an opinion from reading the literature, until recently, I was working on a degree in anthropology). Seems to me the author should consider contributing to existing categories and articles rather than attempting something original. Mark K. Bilbo 22:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As another user has pointed out, the creator of this article writes term papers, not encyclopedia entries. He also creates duplicate articles with identical content under multiple titles (for instance, this one was duplicated as the now-speedily-deleted Cultural collisions and mutual lethal contact), and spams them with internal links from other articles (for example he added a link to a Fidel Castro Cuban espionage page from American Civil War spies). He rejects Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and does not accept that his contributions are released under the GFDL, and thus engages in endless edit wars to defend "his" articles. See further discussion: [14] and [15]. -- Curps 02:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete persistent POV original research that are aptly described by Curps as term-papers rather than encyclopedic articles. The internal link 'spamming' is also a good sign that the article cannot stand on its own two feet, so to speak. -Splashtalk 19:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 12:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tin Teardrop

[edit]

Vanity page, creator is a member of this band. Also fails WP:MUSIC, no allmusic.com entry. -- malo (talk)/(contribs) 05:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 12:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great Wall Auto

[edit]

Spam. —Etaoin (talk) 05:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 12:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Like Vice, Like Versa

[edit]


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 12:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Black Heart

[edit]

Non-notable, unsalvageable vanity littered with links. Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Roberts (related). — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 06:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was consensus to merge. I merged it with Characters of Lost, as the main article seemed inappropriate. Johnleemk | Talk 12:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Faith Harrington

[edit]

This is a character from a book related to Lost. The book bears little connection to the series' main arcs, and this character does not appear in the series. It's essentially non-notable fanon. Since the character is not shown on the series or connected to an official website, it does not merit inclusion (via merge and redirect) on Characters of Lost. I think a delete is in order. Baryonyx 06:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Just because they're not part of the television version of Lost, doesn't mean the character doesn't warrant inclusion. If the book is published by a known publisher and supported by the show's creators, it's just as real as the show. We didn't kill articles about characters who only appeared in the film version of Jurassic Park and not the book because it was not official canon either. - Mgm|(talk) 10:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in a section in the tv show's article "Lost in other media" per discussion below. - Mgm|(talk) 09:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: When Baronyx mentioned this to me, I didn't realize it was from a published book by the creators of the show. However, as it stands, I'm not sure if this is going to be fleshed out into a full article. Maybe this information should be moved to a more generic article about the book Lost: Endangered Species? --DDG 15:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Agree that Lost is more than just what appears on the TV show and such content may warrant a Wikipedia article. Between the book (with another planned), the announced short video vignettes for mobile phones, and the web sites, perhaps an article on "Lost in other other media" that would hold such content until separate articles are justified? Rillian 17:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Rillian. Merge this character article elsewhere for now. I don't know what the consensus is regarding book-only characters for Lost (as opposed to, say, Star Trek or Doctor Who or James Bond), but I think it may be premature for this character to have her own article unless it is known that the character is going to be recurring in the books and/or be added to the show. 23skidoo 17:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per WP:FICT, which states "Major characters in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction", and suggests that individual articles should be reserved for "cultural icons". Which this woman sure ain't. — Haeleth Talk 23:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Lost (TV series), perhaps in a section called Non-televised Lost, which would also discuss the book(s). 147.70.242.21 00:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if merge is the result of this vote, there's a section similar to that on the Characters of Lost page, which is where this material should end up (though, as noted in my nomination, I believe it should be deleted instead of merged there). This material wouldn't go on the Lost (TV series) page. Baryonyx 00:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was consensus to speedy delete copyvio. Johnleemk | Talk 12:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We're picking up something on our sensors...

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 consensus to delete all three. Johnleemk | Talk 12:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Game and Yop, ESCorp and ESFun

[edit]

These three articles appear to be a hoax by somebody playing around. No evidence of existance. Herostratus 06:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 20:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Colemans Food Centre

[edit]

According to article, company operates 11 stores. Now that may be good enough to keep for some of you but consider the small number of Google hits (under 200). There isn't enough info to verify for an article. delete Lotsofissues 06:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 20:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Soup maigre

[edit]

Already transwiki-ed, WP:NOT a cookbook, and not possible to expand into an encyclopedic article. I recomend Delete. brenneman(t)(c) 06:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Egg (food). → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 15:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Soft-boiled egg

[edit]

Already transwiki-ed, cannot be expanded into an encyclopedic article. brenneman(t)(c) 07:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 20:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shelton_Hull

[edit]

Vanity... or a joke --(Unsigned Comment left by User:Cuchullain)

  • Delete. Seems to be a real person, but non-notable and the article asks as many questions as it answers. Kevin 07:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • He seems to be somewhat published according to what Google can find. He seems to write almost entirely for Counterpunch.org, which, according to Alexa, is a moderately popular website. Perhaps we should let this article stay and just rework the everloving crap out of it. It needs lots of work to be sure. JHMM13 07:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This smells funny to me, like it's an attempt to create a reference for an invented persona. The absurdity and personal tone of the "facts" cited indicate either someone trying to create a "legend" or a satire. rodii 13:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I call BS on this. All record of his writings have been erased from the public record? Oh, come on! Vandal prank. Geogre 17:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - apparent joke page. If it isn't written as a joke, it most certainly has serious POV problems. 147.70.242.21 00:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it, but edit out the POV. Shelton Hull does in fact exist, and does in fact write for the Jacksonville, Florida, alternative magazine Folio Weekly. Whether or not he is worthy of being included in the Wiki is a fair concern, but I will say that this entry is riddled with POV issues. -- Jon Worth
  • Weak delete, not really encyclopedic. Stifle 22:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete NN Bio, salted with attack and a smoky hoaxy flavouring Pete.Hud 05:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • whoops! Turns out I exist, I didn't write the entry, and the entirety of its contents are true! The shark has been jumped with the anti-democratic changes to your site. Sorry. [sdh666@hotmail.com]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep and move to California Constitution Article XXXV. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 15:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposition 71

[edit]

This isn't the only Proposition 71 in the world, and I'm not sure it isn't a copyvio of some sort. Hard to check on Google for me, an idiot. JHMM13 07:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Surprisingly, perhaps, I am unable to find anything remotely looking like a copyvio on Google from this article. Peyna 15:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, perhaps the best thing to do is create my suggested article and have Proposition 71 redirect there until a disambig becomes appropriate. Peyna 16:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Articles titles ought to have "official" names; whereas a "common use" name can always redirect to the article. Peyna 22:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 20:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spring Ocean

[edit]

Hoax hoax hoax. Nothing listed on imdb or google except for Wiki mirrors. Something with these stars would be big news. And look at the date. 2009? Yeah. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was that there were doctored keep votes...so delete. - Mailer Diablo 20:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Gavin Johnson

[edit]
  • Keep This guy is real, except he looks kinda different from his picture, cos the real deal is kinda more nourished looking. He came to my school at the start of this year for seminars and droned on about baked dinner for fifty minutes, then gave out booklets with random statistics and food pyramids and radio transcripts available to buy to listen on cassette. I don't have one myself, but I know some people kept them to make fun of him and prank his office number. I'll see whether I can get the seminar photos or a scan of his booklet or something or whether my teachers can write in about this guy.J.Hamile-Rakow

Ridiculous picture accompanied by a possible hoax. I can't seem to find anything on google for a "Doctor Gavin Johnson." Delete. JHMM13 08:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I put up the photo but didnt write the article but I think its all true (he's actually a family friend) except I thought he was younger... I'll try get scan the pamphlet where I got the picture from Putnik Tula
  • Keep This guy was on SBS like a month ago, I know cause it's the only channel I get here in Kootamundra. And I dunno bout you, but if it aint baked dinna, I don't wanna know about it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.164.70.119 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep He came to my old high school last year as a speaker and was boring as all hell. He's real but not famous and as far as an author goes he did give out some booklets I think he wrote about food groups, etc. I'll get in touch with my school buds and ask if they have one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.191.21 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep I saw this guy on SBS. The documentary said he used to work for the CSIRO but has recently begun his own studies on nutrition. Part of that was a survey on what foods people eat. I also have to point out that because he isnt on GOOGLE doesnt mean he doesnt exist. - Jean-Pierre Martinez— Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.138.143.112 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment User:Putnik has only made edits to his userpage and pages related to Doctor Gavin Johnson, User:58.164.70.119 has only made edits related to Doctor Gavin Johnson, as has User:211.30.191.21 and User:Polarburr, and User:144.138.143.112 had made one edit unrelated to Doctor Gavin Johnson - vandalism to Causes of the French Revolution. Andjam 00:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. Five Google hits for "Gavin Johnson" CSIRO none of which are from a reliable source see [16]. Our Sunday roast contains very dodgy data claiming that 64% of Australians eating baked dinners three times or more a week citing Johnson as the alleged source. That data is unverifiable and nonsense on stilts - as an Australian I should know. No Google book results [17] and no Google scholar results completes the trifecta [18].

Possible speedy as silly vandalism or non-notable bio. Capitalistroadster 08:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 20:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy Rusty

[edit]

The band is not notable. No albums released, hence fails WP:MUSIC. After googling its name, I also can't locate its official site. Delete. --*drew 08:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was consensus to merge. Johnleemk | Talk 12:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pet Names for Genitalia

[edit]

Non-notable song by Tom Green. tregoweth 08:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Towel fetish

[edit]

Article itself states "towel fetish is an unheard of concept" so I will venture to say "non-notable, delete". — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 09:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Notability isn't an issue. The subject matter is, according to the article at any rate (it effectively stating outright that there are no sources on the subject), unverifiable. And, unless one counts the occasional critique of the Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy movie (such as this or this) or web sites about someone's dog as sources about towel fetishism, that does indeed appear to be the case. Delete. Uncle G 10:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V and WP:NOR. - Mgm|(talk) 11:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guys, I really am new to Wikipedia, so forgive me if this is the improper way/place to put forward my thoughts.

    Why is this article taken for deletion? The editor, by stating that "towel fetish is an unheard of concept" is being honest. The feelings may have been his/her own, or his own fetish. So what there's nothing to justify it?

    I doubt if the first article published on 'Erotic Bondage' had anyone to justify it also! And neither is this sexually explicit material he has written - at least not compared to the stuff we have on Wikipedia!! Come on. I'd ask you to give the guy a chance.

    -John.

    • If there's "nothing to justify it", it does not belong here. Everything here is required to be verifiable. We aren't in the business of taking Wikipedia editors solely at their words. We have no reason to believe that Crazyideas (talk · contribs) is "being honest", just as you have no reason to believe that I am being honest. This is why we cite sources, providing editors with the independent means to check the articles that we are writing. If there is no means for checking an article, because there are no sources to be cited (and this article pretty much says that there aren't), then the article is unacceptable here.

      Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance. If Crazyideas wants to announce to the world a new concept of towel fetishism, based upon firsthand personal testimony, then that is primary source material, which must be peer reviewed, fact checked, critiqued, and published elsewhere.

      If you or anyone else want to convince those of us who think that the article should be deleted that the article should be kept, you can easily change our minds by the simple expedient of citing some reliable sources for the subject matter of the article, demonstrating that it is verifiable and not original research. This is a discussion, and people's decisions are not set in stone. But that is the only way to satisfy the objections to the article that we have. Uncle G 15:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. In response to John, if there is something called a "towel fetish," that there is no internet activity surrounding this tells us that the practice is not widespread and is not particularly noteworthy. All sorts of conduct is the subject of one sexually fetish or another, but an article requires some minimal amount of practice or else it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. In this instance, unlike erotic bondage the article itself note that there are no websites that deal with the practice. And it doesn't take too large of an audience to support some web activity and this leads me to believe the practice is microscopic at best. Jtmichcock 13:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. ...but mark for cleanup and link from somewhere. As frightening as it may be, Google does turn up a few hits referring to people having a towel fetish. Might as well let the information collect somewhere. Regarding websites, there are many fetishes out there and not everyone has to have a dedicated site. --StuffOfInterest 14:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, and I gave three of them above. Not one of them is a source that can be used to create an article. Counting Google Web hits is not enough. It isn't research. Research requires that one actually read what Google turns up. If you found something using a Google Web search that can actually be used as a reliable source to construct a verifiable article, please tell us what it is. Otherwise, you have not shown that this article is verifiable. Uncle G 14:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. I have to agree with the above, Google hits alone are insufficient unless you find links for the specific topic of the article. Towel and fetish are likely to come up often on a search since, well, fetishes are almost always messy. Jtmichcock 16:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Original research. — RJH 16:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As RJHall says, it's original research. A paraphilia about the security blanket and infantile regression with a towel isn't altogether shocking, but the concept is not discussed in the literature. Since Wikipedia is a tertiary source of information, it is not appropriate to report upon a single person's findings here. Geogre 19:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research (while I fondle this wonderful soft terrycloth...) Durova 19:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per StuffOfInterest. The fact that we don't approve of something is irrelevant. Zordrac 01:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V. If User:StuffOfInterest rewrites the article using verifiable sources, then I will reconsider. But as the article stands it violates more than one of Wikipedia's most fundamental principles. Chick Bowen 04:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per StuffOfInterest. Stifle 22:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete NN paraphilia, sub-encyclopedic Pete.Hurd 05:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unless someone can verify that there is a towel fetish subculture, and that it's large enough to be notable among fetish circles, which I somehow doubt. Seriously, a towel fetish? - Hahnchen 05:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[talk] 22:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematical analysis v.2(apostol)

[edit]

Seems incomplete and poorly written - at best, this should be transwiki'ed, otherwise deleted.-- PeruvianLlama(spit) 09:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was consensus to redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 11:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wafwot

[edit]

Neologism, not widespread Punkmorten 16:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's good, we need more NPOV (neutral) material. Are you sure you didn't mean POV (biased) material? - Mgm|(talk) 09:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, duh. *blushes* Ahem. "Contains POV material." rodii 22:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[talk] 22:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Skashank redemption

[edit]

Apparent band vanity. Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 09:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Author admitted on his talkpage that this article was a hoax. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David M. Zimmerman Elementary School

[edit]

Schoolcruft. Can I say more? Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 09:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you can. Please be more descriptive in your nomination and explain why you think it's cruft. Cruft is often seen as a derogatory and misused term. Explaining helps to keep the good faith. - Mgm|(talk) 11:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
...and strongly believed to be a hoax. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 16:09, November 30, 2005
comment if Turnstep is correct, then someone should be ashamed of themselves. Pete.Hurd 23:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete as non notable bio - brenneman(t)(c) 15:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great man

[edit]

No meaningful content or history, text unsalvageably incoherent. It is patent nonsense. Simulcra 09:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as nonsense - brenneman(t)(c) 15:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Peanut balancing

[edit]

non-encyclopedic

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 20:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lonergan theory of time-alcohol relationship

[edit]

Original research OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 10:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 20:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GBU

[edit]

Looks like an inside joke to me. No assertion of notability. Google searches using "Gang Bang Unit" GBU and "Jason Stomel" "Sam Alavi" yielded no results. –Mysid 10:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Seems like a very interesting group or cult... If in fact these so called GBU ceremonies take place, I would love to witness one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.181.28.120 (talk • contribs) 11:23, November 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as prank/hoax. Ifnord 15:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete It's either a benign inside joke or an underhanded attack. Either way, kill it quickly. Also note that the only "support" comes from 2 anon IPs, one of which made the page, and whose only other contribution is vandalism. --Bachrach44 16:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as obvious hoax page. Jtmichcock 17:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Drunken kiddies attempting humor. Geogre 19:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • woman in the LA area, I would love to encounter a GB member. It would be an honor to be GBed, especially by the great looking men in the picture.
  • As a Chinese man in the LA area, I am thrilled that the GBU embraces affirmative action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.181.13.96 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete hoax, nonsense.--MONGO 03:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • First off I would like to say that for all of you out there mocking the GBU and underestimating the potential that these men hold are merely jealous. I have first hand experienced a GB and I have to say it was I-N-C-R-E-D-I-B-L-E. I had an encounter with these gentlemen in Las Vegas and am proud to say that what happens in Vegas does not need to stay there. I live in the LA area and am looking in partaking in many more. I can honestly say it was THE BEST night of my life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dph119 (talk • contribs) 06:58, December 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Mandatory to Wikipedia: Although these gentleman in the GBU are soulless people, there actions are noteworthy and should be on your website. This organization, although comprised of "drunk kiddies", has wristbands and t-shirts and are therefore noteworthy and should be allowed on Wikipedia. To ban this post of the GBU would be unconstitutional and morally bankrupt. Although you may feel that this is innaprorpriate, allow these men to express their constitutional rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.181.10.112 (talk • contribs)
  • Strong Delete This is definitely a hoax. The support here is unsigned and in the same format [i.e. none of them did the standard procedure of putting their vote in bold]. 207.181.6.238, 68.181.13.96, Dph119, and 68.181.10.112 have only edited this page. The only other comment in support of the article is its author -- 68.181.28.120 --, and his only unrelated edit is vandalism. peachlette 13:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this page! This is to private to have any interest to the users. There are many meanings of the acronym GBU that would warrant articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.15.135.3 (talk • contribs) 13:14, December 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP PAGE OPEN As stated before this is not a hoax at all. I have had personal encounters with the creators and well as the organization. They not only have merchandise which can be purchased through the organization but the members are all strong advocates to the group and proclaim themselves part of the organization by proadly wearing their GBU merchandise. This is no Hoax but a legitamate organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.181.216.105 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment This vfd is a perfect example of why we should restrict certain activities (like vfd) to registered users only. This page is an obvious hoax, and yet despite the obvious delete votes by several established wikipedians with thousands of edits, it looks like we're losing the vote to what is clerly a sock puppet. (Most keep votes are from the same subnet, and they're all done in the same style). Oh yes - for the record, T-shirts do not make one notable. --Bachrach44 14:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am extremely upset that anyone would consider shutting down a reference page for a group of extremely hard working gentlemen. We should all hope that we can one day achieve the status and power of the GBU, and have as much fun as these guys do in our daily lives. I know them personally and appluade their work in the Southern California area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.181.28.8 (talk • contribs) 09:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom -Nv8200p talk 15:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus; article redirected. Johnleemk | Talk 11:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Galwegians

[edit]

Dictdef with no potential for expansion, even if it were correctly renamed. Any relevant information belongs in the article on the county. Deco 04:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uberhubris

[edit]

Neologism Chuckhoffmann 10:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and not a this or a that, but Wikipedia is the first place I've seen any direct attempt to "define" this 'state' which I've heard persons referring to more and more frequently over the past ten years.

There's a couple of hundred entries in Google under uberhubris, and under the entry uber-hubris, several hundred more.

If not Wikipedia, then where?

I've previously heard "uberhubris" to refer to an internal state of being/mind, but have [I believe] seen it corrupted recently [probably as we turn to other languages to find our superlatives]. Jksamuels 00:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Urban Dictionary takes this kind of thing, but neither Wikipedia nor its dictionary counterpart Wiktionary do. Further, it's a really ugly portmonteau word, combining German with Greek. "Hubris" is already superlative: it is a pride so shocking that it outrages the gods in Greek tragedy. There was an Anglo-Saxon word along the same lines (maybe...depends on which side of a particular debate you take) in "ofermode," and other languages have their own versions. Thus, it's not really a needed word, either, except that there has been a debasement of "hubris" by people using it in a slipshod manner (which is normal). If that misuse continues for another decade or so, we may need a word to reestablish the original meaning, but not yet. Geogre 03:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, defining neologisms isn't what Wikipedia articles are for. Geogre is kindly asked to withdraw his scandalous allegation of ugliness, though. I like the kiddingly redundant superlative, the tongue-twistingness and unpronouncability, and especially the uber/ubr chime between two languages so widely differing as German and Greek. Good luck to the word, just not in its own wiki article. Bishonen | talk 23:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete I like the concept, but the word is not notable enough, and it is a bit clumsy in english, so I will be surprised if catches on. If it does catch on, it is probably still more appropriate for a dictonary. If enough people vote keep to make it close, contact me and I may switch to keep, since I am generally anti-deletionist, and I believe in making allowances for minority opinion, even if it is a mere 15 or 20% minority.--Silverback 06:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Page Open This is my first wikidrama -- in a trial for the survival of an entry, I'm the apologist. How exciting. If it is the case that the entry is merely the definition of a neologism, and it is the case that the Wikispaces are not the 'proper' place, but Urban Dictionary IS -- then the remaining issue: Is the entry qua entry merely the definition of a neologism? Do articles ever 'grow'? Should this be changed to a 'stub'? --jksamuels 16:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect to Brian P. Stack. - Mailer Diablo 20:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Stack (politican)

[edit]

There is already an article for this person under a different title, of which I was not initially aware. Nightscream 11:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where? –Mysid 11:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Brian P. Stack is the one Nightscream is refering to. -- JLaTondre 16:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, guess not. Unless Nightscream produces evidence this is indeed duplicated, I don't think deletion is the way to go. - Mgm|(talk) 12:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Google site specific searches are excellent for this sort of thing. A search on site:en.wikipedia.org Brian Stack returned the pre-existing article as the first hit. -- JLaTondre 00:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Healadin

[edit]

I don't think it quite fits CSD, but certainly no point in having a page dedicated to a particular segment of a subclass of a class in a RPG. Delete. --Nlu 06:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. - Mailer Diablo 20:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Orange Party

[edit]

Duplicate for Orange Party which is also a deletion candidate. Party is either brand new or doesn't exist other than on paper. Nothing of note yet. StuffOfInterest 11:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Minor Wheel of Time characters. Merge has already been done, and I now stride boldly forth to do all the redirecting. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 16:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adelorna Bastine, Aeldene Stonebridge, Rafela Cindal, Tsutama Rath, Yukiri, Andaya Forae, Kumira, Jesse Bilal, Llew, Kairen Stang, Salita Toranes, Narenwin Barda, Ferane Neheran, Elza Penfell, Sarene Nemdahl, Silviana Brehon

[edit]

These are all minor characters from the Wheel of Time fantasy series by Robert Jordan and are not sufficiently important to warrant an individual article. If these were real people they'd be {{db-bio}}'ed without a blink. Not the worst example of fancruft, but fancruft nonetheless. Delete. Zunaid 11:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've tried as far as possible to avoid nom'ing characters more central to the plot, so for example I've left Adeleas and Vandene out of this list even though their articles are equally short. Hopefully none of who's left in this list is plot-central. Please point out any errors, but please don't give away plot details ;). Zunaid 11:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merged as requested by everyone. Checking and changing redirects now. Once this is done these articles can safely be deleted (they are highly unlikely search strings anyway). Zunaid 09:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lanais Stoll

[edit]

Fails CSD:A7, but I can't see any expansion on this. I don't think being the first baby born in a year is notable enough for Wikipedia. Stifle 12:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undecided, surely there's hundreds if not thousands of kids born at the very same time? - Mgm|(talk) 13:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not expandable, as you say. It just isn't information that says anything useful about society, the universe, or anything. There's always going to be a first baby born every year. Trivia. And also non-verifiable; birth time is subjective, 00:00:00 may well be fudging by the hospital, quite probable not acutally first baby born in the whole world, besides which the date line moves. If kept, change to recorded as the first... If someone wants to make a list of the first baby born in each year, fine, then Listify. Herostratus 18:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, smacks of numerology, not encyclopedic. They were born at 00:00:00, which is significant, because that is also the number of Google hits for "Lanais+Stoll" Turnstep 20:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: If all those problems weren't enough, you have the first baby born in the US, first in Finland, first in Somalia, and you also have first in Virginia, first in Massachussetts, first in Delaware, first in Maryland, first in North Carolina, etc. Geogre 03:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with January 1, 2003. Informative notable info that people want to know. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As UTC is the earthly time and is not local time then the significance of UTC does indeed indicate that this person is likely to be the first person of the year 2003 and that certainly by the recorded time they can not be second. The information is also verifiable as hospitals by law have to record the time of birth, and if this alone is recognised in law then that time must be recognised as being accurate and not illegally "fudged". Given that there is likely to be just 1000 first persons in an entire millenium, whose passing may see billions of new people, then the significance is quite high given the importance of the calendar in general. That newspapers devote front page news to the phenomenon enforces that this is a definite seal of our society such that we attach national significance and importance to the event. Incidentally - if the odds were that just 100 people were born every second then we'd have over 3bn new people each year - so it is misguided to say that "surely" hundreds or even "thousands" of people qualify. It is more likely statistically that no other qualifies.--194.201.24.215 18:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not expandable and the only google hits are from Wikipedia. If someone really wants this information to be included, it would be lovely as part of a list of the first baby born in each year, as per Herostratus. peachlette 13:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 20:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Salt box cafe

[edit]

No context or location details, and non-notable. At the moment my vote is to delete but if someone adds location, then it is a candidate to be transwikied to Wikitravel. Stifle 12:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Even the with location it's most likely an advertisment for a non-notable eatery. Kevin 12:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as advertisement. Its POV issues can't be cleaned up. If we were to remove all the POV adverbs there'd be no article left. - Mgm|(talk) 13:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with Mgm, remove the current article's POV descriptions and the article becomes "Salt box cafe is a transport cafe that serves tea, chips and bacon" which is not notable. Sliggy 16:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 20:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrari's Restaurant

[edit]

This entry is a non-notable restaurant blatantly advertising itself. Kevin 12:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

That was my fault. They were blatant copyright violations with no licenses and in a few cases not even source info. Those can be deleted 7 days after being uploaded. - Mgm|(talk) 09:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 16:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pannage

[edit]

When I saw this I wasn't sure whether to {{nonsense}} it, laugh, or ignore it. I'm 99% sure it's a joke, but still am not certain enough to call for a speedy. Stifle 12:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no-hassle redirect to Moral objectivism. Redirects are cheap. :) - Mailer Diablo 20:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moral Objectivisim

[edit]

tag for speedy deletion was removed Melaen 12:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The technoillogical myopia

[edit]

non-notable band, makes you wish that there was 1% more support in the vote to add this to CSD Stifle 12:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I posted the article myself as saw a band listed that we know from the unsigned circuit. I am happy to delete it right now if necessary. independientix 13:48, 30 November 2005

I am the original author of the article and would like to delete it. independientix


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nicky Spesh

[edit]

Escapes speedy by a hair's-breadth, non-notable per WP:MUSIC. Stifle 12:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Surprised me. Actually is released on a label. Still, article desperately needs expanded on. {{stub}} it and get it linked somewhere. --StuffOfInterest 14:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NMG. PJM 14:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. (1) Musicians myst have TWO albums released. Or a gold record, charted hit, or big-leauge tour. UNLESS... they have a big media buzz or... are verifiably the MOST prominent representitive of a notable style in the local scene of a city. I'm not seeing that, although I could be missing it. (2) Poorly written article, to boot. (3) If he's notable, and I've missed it, sorry, but THE ARTICLE CREATOR HAS SOME RESPONSIBILITY to make the case for notability -- name tour venues, provide references, anything. Why should we do all the work? Annoying. Herostratus 19:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. He has released a record which has received some notice and is available. However, a search for Nicky Spesh only gets 95 results [20] although some verifiable references ie BBC, Tesco etc. Capitalistroadster 22:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 740 Results for Nicky Spesh at last search including BBC etc, saw him in leading article in DJ magazine. People are saying he is using hip hop to tell stories in a way that no British artist has done before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.19.57.162 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment The above unsigned keep vote is from the author of the article, who has also added Nicky Spesh to English hip hop and, strangely, Category:British_rappers. peachlette 13:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment "People are saying" doesn't wash on Wikipedia, see WP:NPOV, specifically the part about not using weasel words. Stifle 22:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    comment "What a load of rubbish, I've seen this dude on T.V and he's not called carlos sheltnaman or whatever that thing said. The article is not very well written I will change it."


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fc barcelona arab

[edit]

Barely coherent article about the FC Barcelona Arab Supporters Club, a web-based club for Saudi-Arabian Barcelona fans. Google shows no links in and the site is not in English (or even Latin script) so is unverifiable in the English Wikipedia. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 15:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If it's somehow decided to keep this, please rename to FC Barcelona Arab. - Mgm|(talk) 13:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Böhse Onkelz/Tracklist

[edit]

Delete - No more needed, since the albums have their own pages MikeAtari 21:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Emperor Yushi

[edit]

A lengthy, crufty series of non-notable characters for a non-notable convention. --Maru (talk) Contribs 04:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Siegfried Goodfellow

[edit]

Just doesn't meet guidelines for inclusion, 54 google hits. Punkmorten 17:03, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

However, Ziggy's theories are not found elsewhere and thus are deserving of mention. Far from being self-promotion, it is the promotion of important theories about Freyr which did not exist prior to his work. --- Carla O'Harris

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

The result of the debate was deleted as copyvio. Johnleemk | Talk 11:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Elegy for Kosovo

[edit]

Looks like its a copyvio, very POV & doesn't look like its appropriate for an encyclopedia entry. Delete AllanHainey 13:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Transology

[edit]

Rambling, pretentious article about a non-notable project to design urban cars. NB. Not a copyvio (see talk page), just an insult to Wikipedia to simply copy and paste. -- RHaworth 13:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)*[reply]

  • Delete per nom - style also scrapes WP:NOR. PJM 14:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not really sure why there is such an anxiety created by this link. Please do what you must, I apologize for making an attempt to introduce the subject here. Transology is an absolutely new discipline that vitally merges transportation planning, industrial design, and urban architecture, NOT some pretentious article. I am not personally offended and good luck in all of your future endeavors.-MJ
    • Brand new concepts generally need some time before they make suitable encyclopedic entries. I'm glad to see that you don't take this process personally and encourage you to continue contributing. PJM 17:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is actually quite interesting. Take a look at the website link provided in the article. Yes, this is apparently fairly new, but it is certainly verifiable. However—and this is a big one—the Wikipedia article is apparently a direct copy of the website. It must be verified that this is not a copyright violation. To the author: You must either provide verification that this is not a copyright violation or you must rewrite the article so that it is not a direct copy of the website. A picture or two to accompany the article would be good also. And finally the article needs to be wikified. •DanMS 02:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only people who have written about this concept are its creators. There's no evidence that this concept has been accepted by anyone else, and added to the corpus of human knowledge. There are no sources whatsoever that are independent of the creators, the existence of which would demonstrate that the concept had been accepted by other people. Interesting or not, this article is original research, that Wikipedia is not the place for. Delete. Uncle G 14:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well put; agreed. PJM 15:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete the article. We are publishing it on another respected academic press and it was an honest mistake to place it here. I did not understand the fundamental idea behind wikipedia and do so now. Yes, the work is an original contribution to the previous fields mentioned and as of yet has no larger audience. Again thank you for the critical commentary. I am sure in the future wikipedians will introduce the idea after it has been normalized. I do not mean any disrespect to the editorial culture here. Best --MJ

Thanks again for not resenting this process or taking offense to our comments. Cheers. PJM 19:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 02:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Tamchyna

[edit]

When I came across the article, somebody had typed "Please note: this article is fiction" at the bottom of it. It may or may not have been the original editor (not a logged-in user; similar IP to the original contributor). A Google search produces only a handful of hits for "Andrew Tamchyna" - all non-WP hits refer to a non-notable swimmer. It seems that the article is indeed fiction (you would think a professional hockey player would be mentioned somewhere other than Wikipedia). Delete. Joel7687 13:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 02:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sabakafest

[edit]

No assertion of notability. No hits on Google. The article is about a party held by some friends. Mysid 13:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Otisabi

[edit]

Delete: Non-notable comic. Article claims he is "known for his self invented mock-past careers and lives". Indeed; within the article it claims he lives in Manhattan and also in Los Angeles. Yet, his profiles ([22],[23]) say he lives in Turkey. Claims to be working in the motion picture industry yet IMDB has no entry under either Otisabi or Yilmaz Aslantürk. There are also claims to being a top male model, top water polo player (google for "Yilmaz Aslantürk" and "water polo" returns nothing), and rich playboy. I was strongly leaning towards speedy deleting this as nn-bio, but given there have been a few people who have contribute to the article I thought I'd give it half a chance by cleaning it up a bit and putting it here on AfD. --Durin 14:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yılmaz Aslantürk (illustrator) and Otisabi (the cyber persona) are NOT the same person. Yılmaz Aslantürk, who resides in Turkey, created the Otisabi character for his Comic Strips. Otisabi the cyber personality liked that character and took its name as his handle/nickname. Also the claims of being a top model and water polo players are evidently NOT real but intended to be comical as made obvious by the following statement that clearly says "self invented". You might cross check with Eksi Sozluk (http://sozluk.sourtimes.org) for further verification.Otisabi

  • Then please indicate some reason...any reason...why this person (you?) is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. As it is, the article clearly fails Articles (7) criteria and should be speedy deleted. If the article is just a joke, then it should be speedied immediately. --Durin 20:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this person, (being me, but the article itself is not initially written by me or anyone I know of) is notable mainly for being one of the few internet persona's in Turkey that emerged as a nickname, gained popularity then made himself a career as a writer and journalist under the same nickname, announced specifically on the cover of a magazine (http://www.vatangazetesi.com.tr/boxer/index.asp). It's like Durin (you?) emerging from wikipedia as an administrator and be invited to write for a mainstream magazine, acknowledged outside of wikipedia but still under the same LOTR nickname? Would you think of yourself notable enough? I just find it humiliating to prove and justify my existence.

Personally, I do not defend that otisabi should be included (or for that matter excluded) for any reason. I just saw the previous flawed article edited that out, I will edit in the "excuse" to justify otisabi's presence, however I would still like you to be provide a justification that corresponds to the article itself a little bit more coherent than "the article clearly fails Articles (7)". How clearly does it fail? If you will, please clarify that so that I can edit it accordingly. Otherwise you may proceed with your speed obsessed deletion. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.184.71.11 (talk • contribs)

  • If I were obsessed with speedy deleting articles, I would have deleted this article on sight. Instead, I took the time and effort to clean it up a bit and placed it for AfD where this discussion is now happening. Had I just speedied it, we would not even be having this conversation. Let's throw pillows, not knives, ok?
  • As for it qualifying speedy deletion under A7; the article makes no assertion of notability of the individual that can be independently verified. I attempted to verify, and made an association of a name to the person that you hav indicated is inaccurate. As noted, claims of being a water polo scoring champ and etc. are fake. There's nothing in the article that we can verify to support notability. The link you have provided shows the word "Otisabi" on the page twice. Not knowing Turkish, I've no way of understanding the relevance. A journalist and/or writer is not notable enough because they are a journalist and/or writer. Has the person won awards? Published frequently? When and in what medium? There are journalists and writers at my local newspaper. None of them are remarkable in any respect. What makes "Otisabi" something encyclopedic? Perhaps it would be more appropriate to create this article on the Turkish Wikipedia? --Durin 20:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum; I saw the edit summary saying the first paragraph shows why he's reputable. Sorry to disappoint, but I don't see why a person who spends time on the web and becomes a writer/journalist is therefore notable. --Durin 20:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


(editing in for the purposes of further clarification) Although I have mentioned the word "obsession" once in reference to your usage of the word "speedy", you kind of get a little too itchy about it (Maybe I should throw in a itching cream?). You, being the moderator with a topic under your name and "milestones of achievement" can and may by every right delete an article. It doesn't matter how fast you erase it. Giving a sense of urgency in a matter of quasi importance such as this one seems a bit sign of pointless self importance. Just so you know, this is just an article in question, it's not a "cut the red wire or the green wire in ten seconds" moment. Do we really need to throw in uncalled for adjectives? It's not important how fast it should be deleted but why it should be deleted. A little more coherence to the text itself would suffice. Next time let's throw meaningful references to the text rather than links to lengthy articles, mmmkay?

Now, as I said earlier I will not defend the necessity of the topic otisabi in wikipedia. It could have forever remained in its previous version (which somehow eluded your and other hall of fame moderators faster than bullet deletion skills. Maybe you should add these to your notable list of milestones as well.) I am not sure what would be the scope of notability and necessity in an ever growing English speaking world. Is it centered in English speaking world and their means of collecting information? If so wikipedia being one such medium would suffice to present what is notable in one country to the other. However, we're not really given anything specific, other than speed regarding a deletion. Oh and Thank you for editing the article, it wouldn't be what it was without you.

I must also point out some inconsistencies inherent to wikipedia's "notable person" criteria. You, Durin, for instance have a user article to your name. Even though you're just an editor who has just enough time (and perhaps, not enough life) to adorn your topic with milestones of quite puny achievements, you are somehow considered notable. However anyone with enough time can be a moderator in wikipedia, and have milestones of statistical achievements. Should any geek with a LOTR nickname be given space in an encyclopedia just because he/she has enough time to justify it? Of course you may say "but its a user page and everyone is entitled to one.". Sure, but it's not very easy to distinguish that at first glance. It is presented in the same format, and can easily serve as a vanity page if need be. Of course this is beside the main point.

The main point is what is the criteria for notability that is somewhat left undecided whether it relates to the culture, geography, language, etc. You say in your web page you want some verification of notability. Fair enough. But then again if you are unable to read the "verifications" due to your lack of language regarding the subject of verification which may be something other than English (and french) shouldn't you just leave the judgement to someone that might know Turkish? If you insist on verifications you first should be able to "see" them, right? Perhaps you should ask a comrade moderator who does rather than directing me to Turkish Wikipedia? Hmm? That didn't occur to you? No Turkish speaking mods in English wikipedia?

Other than that I do not see how you miss the point about the notability. Use your pace in thinking please, I will provide the pillows if you fall, do I not explicitly say that otisabi is notable because he started out as a cyber persona, gained fame, and eventually hired as a writer due to his fame. It's quite unlike the blokes in your local newspaper who probably gained fame in town gatherings, but then again how can you prove and distinguish one from the other?

Otisabi writes in a nation wide circulated magazine, and he did not apply for it, he is offered the place. If that is in par with guys being able to write in local newspapers, so be it. You might live in Times Square.

Has the person won awards? But Durin, doesn't that depend on the award itself? Suppose my friends decide to give me an award how would that qualify? Besides how would -you- know the difference given the fact that you are alien to Turkish and the cultural life in Turkey? Do every good writer in history won an award or another? What award did Kafka won? Was he published regularly when he was alive? No. However he was published after his death, but still it wasn't what made him notable. It was not through awards or being published regularly to fulfill a quantitative understanding that mattered, but his literature was studied. It was written about. Maybe that is something you should keep in your inventory of criteria.

Was otisabi considered worthy in that sense? Yes. I can provide you articles. But would you be able to tell anything from it? No, because you don't know Turkish. Oh but somehow you think you are -still- eligible.

Was he regularly published, article clearly says that he is being published, and he is a publisher as well (and again nationwide, unlike your local paper friends). But there's a thing called vanity press, and regular publishing does not make you notable. That is unless you think there's relation between money and notability other than the "note" in "banknote".

Maybe Durin, just maybe, you should have said: is he translated into English so that he is notable to be published in English Wikipedia, then I would understand. Then you would have a point, then I would rest my case. Then I could have asked the initial question where is the center of wikipedia? Does it exclude Internet because of its insignificance as a source of being notable? If it does doesn't it also make itself not so notable since it is Internet based?

However, that I did not see. And allow me to be honest when I say that I find you quite naive and Pavlovian after milestones of achievements. Other than applying ready made bio templates you should be more attentive to the articles you have power upon. You should ask the questions that refer to specific points in a copy paste friendly environment, you should be able to provide a rule that directly explains the situation, rather than giving out general guidelines.

So next time please do not offer faux apologies by saying " Sorry to disappoint, but I don't see why a person who spends time on the web and becomes a writer/journalist is therefore notable." I am not disappointed by not being able to make it in wikipedia. I am disappointed that even wikipedia is run by bureaucrats who throw in a little bit of obscurity can rule and survive.

So here's what you could have asked: "Is he notable because he one day decided to be a nationwide publicized writer journalist, or was he asked/urged to be one because of his fame in the internet?" But that requires a sharp knife that wasn't in the drawer in the first place doesn't it?

Sorry to provide you one by throwing to your direction. If that was too sharp for you, here, a pillow, rest your weary head after a day of accomplishment.






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

The result of the debate was delete. Friday (talk) 22:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bronx underground

[edit]

This was summarily deleted a few days ago as "Blatant, self-promotional ad spam/link spam". Discussion on deletion review raised a near unanimous opinion that the article should be discussed prior to deletion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well I'm satisfied that these chaps exist, they provide a performance venue in the Bronx area of Madhattoes, and they've produced a CD of some performances. I can't see why we should delete the article but perhaps we should consider redirecting to a more complete article. Any suggestions? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're asking. You want to know where to redirect? Unless there's an obvious target, why would this be a candidate for redirection at all? Are you hoping for a List of clubs in the Bronx article or something? As for why it should be deleted, the most compelling reason offered so far is that it's not verifiable. Other concerns are that it's an ad, and, (for those who believe in notability), it's not notable. Friday (talk) 02:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was consensus to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 11:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

YAFLA

[edit]

Quasi-neologism. Via google, appears not in common use (if one only searches in English, it appears to be a word in some other languages otherwise it's the name of a blog site}. Also, where do we stop: YASLA, YAELA, etc.? Perhaps merge and redirect to TLA. Ifnord 15:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete Rd232 talk 22:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Mazer

[edit]

hoax? Flapdragon 15:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DElete. Enochlau 02:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The dragon's den

[edit]

Non-notable website. Stifle 15:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Johnleemk | Talk 11:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Dolls

[edit]

These might not be big enough to warrant an article... --Wonderfool 17:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 02:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Detox Paintball

[edit]

Vanity article about a Canadian amateur paintball team. Suggest delete as non-notable. Rillian 19:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Energy quality

[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was that it is original research. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of a number of related deletion debates, you may wish to study all of them before forming a judgment. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 21:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There is a fellow called Odum wo appears to be an ecologist, and may have written about topics such as this. However, the thing described in this article appears to be original research having little or no bearing on Odum's work. linas 02:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Odum's papers are well-cited by other scientists in the field, and the quality of energy has been discussed by other s also. I agree that the current content is poorly written, but that is not a reason to delete a page on Wikipedia. Karol 16:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - H.T. Odum is a was a highly respected scientist and one of the founders of ecosystem ecology and ecological economics. This is real, published and significant. Guettarda 03:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The example under question of quantifying enegy quality was a clarification of Odum's example on p.251. This can be placed in the discussion section if that meets with approval, and a blockquote from Odum's text inserted instead (I don't think the example is as clear but if you want it please insert it - you are more than welcome). However energy quality is a fact of Odum's text. Linas is referred to p.251 of Ecological and General Systems to verify. Sholto Maud 03:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have articles about more obscure concepts that this well-cited one. Karol 06:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Lacy

[edit]

Delete. Stub vanity page. Although some journalists are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, they aren't all, and I can't see anything about Lisa Lacy which makes her suitable. A google search for "Lisa Lacy" returns the wikipedia page and nothing else related to her.

-- Ortcutt 00:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maximum empower

[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was that it is original research. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of a number of related deletion debates, you may wish to study all of them before forming a judgment. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 21:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment. Googling for empower eMergy (with an m) shows that various academics are talking about it, so its not quite OR. However, when one starts reading about it, its has this wacky flavour to it ... fringe science verging on pseudoscience. Its hard for me to beleive that economists don't already have better names and theories for these concepts. It doesn't help that this and the related WP articles are all a bit off-kilter... linas 23:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How right you are, Linas. But they aren't trying to come off that way to users like you or me, they just don't know any better. There are actually many challenging conceptual issues in ecology which have not been adequately addressed by talented applied mathematicians, only by mathematically challenged ecologists. This has been very harmful to that field. I should also add that not all ecologists have been mathematically challenged by any means, in fact you'd probably get a kick out of some classic papers by Robert May once you have enough dynamical systems and ecology background. ---CH 03:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article fails to define what Maximum empower is, or even what empower is, spending only three very short sentances on its definition. It then takes a decent paragraph to point out that there have been no scientific articles published on it, and that the physics and chemistry community reject the concept. As such, it seems to be both non-notable and original research by the article author into some uncertain concept originally advanced by H.T. Odum. linas 02:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - this is a central part of H.T. Odum's work; well established, solid science. Guettarda 03:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you should edit the article so that it explains the "principle" it refers to. Gazpacho 03:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Empower has been referred to in Odum's Environmental Accounting, and A Prosperous way down. The principle of maximum empower is notable because Odum identifies it as what policy should aim towards. The concept has historical and contemporary use, and should therefore be included in Wiki. Currently I try to fill Odum shoes for the world but cannot and need help. In the aim of having Odum's concepts freely available, the afd nominator should help find a good definition and append it to the article. Sholto Maud 03:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although this article has many features of a typical crank science article, it is in fact published research by a respected professor. Gazpacho 03:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Can you fix the article so that it actually says something, instead of floundering? We are not trying to delete a respected professor's research, we are trying to delete a nonsense article about that professors research. linas 20:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Do we really need quite so many articles to ocver this topic? Perhaps Sholto could enlist some help in merging the various articles into one or two really good ones? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 21:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Fair point. My original idea was separate entries, rather like the entries on the laws of thermodynamics, each detailing the math behind the concepts when time permitted me and others to contribute such. Each concept might rolled into one entry on the emergy nomenclature, with a separate entry under H.T.Odum and his work?? Maybe that would be a better way to structure things. Sholto Maud
Comment Anyone interesting in helping me merge some of these controversial articles into two (or three) really good ones that are free from my own personal bias and original research? I seem to find it hard to know where the line between orginal research and original clarity of presentation lies. :) Sholto Maud 07:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Linas, if you saw my comment in the other AfD with some suggestions for how you could study up to act as an ambassador from math/physics to ecology, it sounds like Sholto would be happy to work with you on this. I actuall y think this would be quite valuable to ecologists, but it might not get you many points in physics grad school, sigh...---CH 03:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree that all these pages are really poorly written, but that is no reason to have them deleted. The status of these conepts is just above OR (they are used in well cited articles in scientific journals), so the pages should stay and be improved. We cannot expect to have a nice chunk of text on a subject so obscure from the beggining. Karol 16:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moob

[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Occupation of Palestine/temp

[edit]

seems like a forgotten temporary page Melaen 14:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Hollas

[edit]

Spoof. Peter Hollas appears to be a non-notable mathematics student at Wadham College, Oxford. See Ampleforth College 2003 Oxbrdge entry results. Flapdragon 12:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

K4BB

[edit]

Looks like advertising to me. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah beng

[edit]

just a page full of opinion, insults, and slurs 65.96.170.119 17:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nominator --Neigel von Teighen 17:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as verifiable. While poorly written and filled with POV it is referenced. Ifnord 18:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Weak delete per Uncle G. PJM 18:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is wrong with this article is the same thing that is wrong with articles such as Westies (people), Bogan, and Chav: The article is a massive original research magnet. Contrary to what Ifnord says, the article isn't referenced very well, or even at all, really; and verifiability has not been demonstrated. It contains a few external hyperlinks to some web sites, none of which are exactly reliable sources (one of which even has a prominent "[This is] just for fun-lah! Words are taken from here, there, and everywhere." notice right at the top), and the content of the article is only weakly supported by the "sources" in any event. This may be a valid stereotype. But I'd like to see evidence that it is verifiable, i.e. that there are reliable sources available that editors can use for constructing a verifiable and neutral article on the subject. There have been attempts to make Chav more verifiable, and less a collection of mere original research added by random Wikipedia editors, and the article now sports a (scant) few reliable sources. It needs to be demonstrated that the same is at least possible for this article. That hasn't actually been done yet. Citing reliable sources, thereby demonstrating that they exist, will do it, though. Weak delete. Uncle G 15:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Uncle G. ESkog | Talk 18:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and consider merging discussion with Ah lian Vfd debate. Zordrac 01:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The term is very commonly used in Malaysia and Singapore. Not sure about the main content, but the intro does give a fairly accurate description of people who fall under 'Ah beng' category. Hayabusa future 08:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • How are readers supposed to verify that the article is accurate as you say, aside from taking the word of a Wikipedia editor that they have never met for it? Please demonstrate that this article is verifiable. Uncle G 18:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Uncle G. Izehar 15:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per UncleG (bsolute minimal references to establish verifyability would be coverage as cultural phenomenon in established print media of note) Pete.Hurd 03:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is this article being deleted for being "unverifable" alone, because that does seem to be the sole reasoning put up so far? Can the article not be improved on instead?--Huaiwei 13:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unverifiability is one of the reasons that we delete articles, yes. If there were reliable sources that could be used to improve the article, then it wouldn't be unverifiable. Conversely, if the article is unverifiable, then there aren't any reliable sources that can be used to improve the article and cleanup is impossible. As I said, it needs to be demonstrated that improving the article is at least possible, as it is for chav. Find reliable sources on the subject that can be used to create an article (Chav was the subject of newspaper articles and a television documentary.) and cite them, and you will change editors' minds. Uncle G 16:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A quick search with Google found this reference [25] (along with many others not dug into in depth) Stipulated that it is just a blog but the term seems to be a real one. Many people use this term and refer to it. Not sure how much more verifiable you want. Pete Hurd poses a rather high hurdle, is that actual Wikipedia policy or just Pete's feelings? This editor heard the term used more than once on a recent visit to Singapore, but of course that's not verifiable. If no verifiable sources exist but the preponderance of evidence suggests that the term exists and is used roughly as the article outlines shouldn't that be sufficient? I should point out that i'm inclusionist rather than deletionist, and want people to be able to find what they look for. ++Lar 21:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's actual Wikipedia policy. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. If "no sources exist" for the verification of an article, then we cannot have an article.

      The web log posting that you cite deals with the subject in depth, but given that it's the pseudonymous author's self-proclaimed "two-sen stereotypical opinion at its height", are you truly convinced that this is a reliable source, despite what Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Bulletin_boards_and_posts_to_Usenet says? Once again, I mention that chav was the subject of newspaper articles and a television documentary. Those are the sort of sources that you should be coming up with. If this stereotype is as widespread as you assert, there should be reliable sources on the subject. Please demonstrate that there are. Uncle G 02:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - see nomination below - Hahnchen 05:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per Ah Lian. Mandel 21:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Ah Beng is used daily in press and TV in Singapore, just that it is not easily verifyable does not mean we should delete the page, if all pages needed that we probably should delete 10-20% of wikipedia. Stefan 23:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • All pages do need verifiability. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. If "in depth" articles on the stereotype have indeed been published in the press, as you claim, then please cite them. We aren't asking for you to write the whole article, just to provide evidence that a verifiable article can be written. See Wikipedia:Common knowledge for why the "But it's common knowledge!" argument is unacceptable. Uncle G 02:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm just saying that most pages in wikipedia does not have references, that page on chav have one which is not much of a reference in my opinion, the external links for ah beng is of about as good quality as the onces for chav, i.e. neither are very good. I have seen Ah Beng mentioned many times in ST, I have heard it said many times on TV, but I can not tell you when and I can not give you reference, I did not say that any "in depth" articles have been published, I claimed that it is used in press and TV. If you really think this is a made up fake word then you can vote for delete, but the word is used, if you ask 100 people in Singapore what it means all will verify it, I can agree that the article(s) are badly written but the word is there! best use of it on the web from a reputable source Channel_News_Asia is this link, but it does not explain the meaning but maybe proves that the word is used?[26] Stefan 10:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah lian

[edit]

same as Ah beng: nothing but POV and insults 65.96.170.119 17:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Week keep I can't claim to know a lot about the subject, but it does seem that Google has recorded a lot of hits on this termm, and it does seem to be used. No question the page needs some cleanup and NPOV editing, but as far as I can tell, this does appear to be real. --Bachrach44 17:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as verifiable. While poorly written and filled with POV it is referenced. Ifnord 18:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Weak delete per Uncle G. PJM 15:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per Ah beng: What is wrong with this article is the same thing that is wrong with articles such as Westies (people), Bogan, and Chav: The article is a massive original research magnet. Contrary to what Ifnord says, the article isn't referenced very well, or even at all, really; and verifiability has not been demonstrated. It contains a few external hyperlinks to some web sites, none of which are exactly reliable sources (most are the same web sites that are listed for Ah beng), and the content of the article is only weakly supported by the "sources" in any event. This may be a valid stereotype. But I'd like to see evidence that it is verifiable, i.e. that there are reliable sources available that editors can use for constructing a verifiable and neutral article on the subject. There have been attempts to make Chav more verifiable, and less a collection of mere original research added by random Wikipedia editors, and the article now sports a (scant) few reliable sources. It needs to be demonstrated that the same is at least possible for this article. That hasn't actually been done yet. Citing reliable sources, thereby demonstrating that they exist, will do it, though. Weak delete. Uncle G 15:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • To retort Uncle G's comments, the "Ah beng and Ah Lian" phenomenon is well documented in Singapore, and there're plenty of cultural references to them in local newspapers and context. One can write a good article on it that's neither biased nor as inaccurate as what is presented here. It is documented here [27]. I have to vote keep and merge (Ah Beng with Ah Lian). Mandel 18:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Uncle G. ESkog | Talk 18:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Uncle G (who makes a good argument for keep, yet then votes delete!). Whether we think its insulting is irrelevant. Its a real term. Bogan etc exist. Just clean up with the POV elements. Zordrac 01:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The term is very commonly used in Malaysia and Singapore. Not sure about the main content, but the intro does give a fairly accurate description of people who fall under 'Ah lian' category. Hayabusa future 08:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • How are readers supposed to verify that the article is accurate as you say, aside from taking the word of a Wikipedia editor that they have never met for it? Please demonstrate that this article is verifiable. Uncle G 18:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article is inaccurate, but the term is certainly verifiable. See [29] from The Straits Times, which uses the term in context. Mandel 18:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • You are conflating attestation (which is what a dictionary would ask for) with verification. All that that link gives is an example of the phrase "Ah Beng" (which is not even the title of the article under discussion) being used in a sentence. It doesn't actually tell us what an Ah Beng is, let alone what an Ah Lian is.

          So I ask again: How are readers supposed to verify an encyclopaedia article that purports to tell them what an Ah Lian is? So far, all that we've had that actually attempts to describe the concept are dictionaries that are by their own admission humourous. Please cite a source, that doesn't say "This is just for fun-lah!" or "This is a Satirical Humour Website" right at the top of the page, telling us what an Ah Lian is. Uncle G 23:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

        • How about Lonely Planet Singapore? [30] Mandel 14:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Izehar 15:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:This article is so poorly written, that if voted keep, it ought to be completely rewritten. It's almost an embarassment that a Singaporean or Malaysian could write so badly. Mandel 18:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per UncleG (absolute minimal references to establish verifyability would be coverage as cultural phenomenon in established print media of note) Pete.Hurd 03:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've given it above. Lots more references in[31] Mandel 18:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Those are quotations, that a dictionary uses to show a word actually in use, not references. That's more like a reliable source. It professes to be a serious attampt at a Singlish dictionary. The fact that it is a dictionary, however, does mean that there's less than one sentence of information about Ah Lians there, because that's all that the dictionary entry gives us, and everything in the current article, all of the text that purports to describe fashion, jobs, music, and language, must be excised as having no reliable sources supporting it. Uncle G 23:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Isn't quotations that the word is in use from a reputable source proof enough that a) the term is verifiable, and also, b) these terms are defined: He says he doesn’t give a hoot if people call him an ah beng, a catch-all term for the uncouth, the uneducated, the unrefined, the unenlightened, who blindly define status by the brands they own. .. “I’m the king of bengs,” he laughs, “I have my own Prada bag, Prada shoes, Prada jacket, Gucci belt, clothes from Calvin Klein, Armani, Valentino..” (Cleo, May 1999)
        • If that's what you are asking for, a dictionary on Singlish terms published by OUP or Cambridge before you call something verifiable, then I'm afraid you won't be able to find any. Ditto with any dialect terms used in a third-world country. What is verifiable of course, is that such terms are in use (proven), and to me that's good enough to persuade anyone that such terms should stay in Wikipedia. Unless you think there's a universal hoax going on, I can tell you the description of this term is pretty accurate here, and unless you think a book publisher has more integrity than several Wikipedians here, and not one, you have to take someone's word for it.
        • Using your same argument, so, if an obscure movie is shown to exist in IMDB, we still shouldn't include it because none of us have watched it, and we can't take the word of those who have, right? Mandel 14:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It needs some work to make it NPOV but has the makings of an interesting article. Rhion 18:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It needs sources to demonstrate that it is verifiable. How do you propose that readers check what the article says about Ah Lians? From whence do you propose that editors obtain the information that enables them to make the article neutral, or even make an article at all? Uncle G 23:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Outright Delete - Totally POV, would it hurt if these rants were removed from wikipedia? No, it wouldn't. Or at best, replace them with stubs and have someone watch the thing. As much as I hate crap like aZn pRyD3 lol, this article is absolutely unencyclopedic. - Hahnchen 05:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As with ah beng, the term has been demonstrated to exist and be used in verifiable sources (Straits Times), and further has been shown to describe a subculture of some significant size. The criticism of the current quality level of the prose, and of the verifiability of the content may be valid, but that is an argument for cleanup, for placing NPOV tags, for refactoring... not deletion. To omit this term is to be, in my view, unencyclopedic. Note that a merge of these two articles (ah beng and this one) with proper redirects might be a good idea since they are similar. ++Lar 23:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Ah Lian is used daily in press and TV in Singapore, just that it is not easily verifyable does not mean we should delete the page, if all pages needed that we probably should delete 10-20% of wikipedia. Stefan 23:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Friday Harbor High School

[edit]

The page makes no claim of notability, nor can I find one on their website. --Bachrach44 17:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • General plea
    • To "keep" voters: please consider voting in accordance with the WP:SCH proposal (i.e. merge the article for now, or expand it before voting to keep). The proposal guarantees that verifiable schools will be kept on Wikipedia, so it effectively does what you want.
    • To "delete" voters: please consider voting in accordance with the WP:SCH proposal (i.e. merge the article because it's a substub). The proposal guarantees that substubs like this will no longer be kept on Wikipedia, so it effectively does what you want.
  • It's a good compromise for both sides. Let's take it and end this endless AfD bickering. — Haeleth Talk 23:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Permanent verifiable institution. --Gene_poole 00:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please if this school can be verifiable Yuckfoo 01:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This article was improperly deleted outside of process. As such, I have reverted the closure so that this may be discussed for the full period of five days. Silensor 23:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
article is missing it's AfD template Pete.Hurd 03:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mind telling me what the significance is? The reason I flagged the school is not because I'm against all schools in principle, it's because I found nothing on the page which indicated it was in any way significant. --Bachrach44 15:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Debra Beller

[edit]

Not particularly notable, googling shows several people by same name (a ferret rescuer seems more famous). Ifnord 18:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fwdsolution

[edit]

not notable. --Bachrach44 18:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Google search turns up mostly unrelated hits. Johnleemk | Talk 11:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GADGET (club)

[edit]

a club at one highschool is entirely non-notable. --Bachrach44 18:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Asexual cats

[edit]

This seems to be an editorial, but it is not very coherent. -- Beland 18:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joe McGee

[edit]

This was blanked in August by XD1. I cannot find any reference to the book or the author on Amazon.com, nor to the television show on Google. Either they're both completely unencyclopedic so he is too, or they are unverifiable. The subject's name appears on Google, but only one or two of the hits appear to actually be this Joe McGee, and Google News finds one relevant match that refers to him as a preacher. -Splashtalk 18:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

M00b

[edit]

I'm not a gamer, but this looks like patent neologism to me. StuffOfInterest 18:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3D Home Architect

[edit]

Refers to a non-notable peice of software developed individually by the author. Google turns up a much more popular peice of software by the same name, but I don't think even this would have enough content for an article.-- PeruvianLlama(spit) 18:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[talk] 22:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Divas of Borisland

[edit]

non-encyclopedic


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete (nn-bio). Enochlau 23:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Whelan

[edit]

This one sounds so much like an ad, that I'm not tempted to see if it's improvable, tho I conceed it might be. In any case, in its current form this article needs to be deleted. Caerwine 18:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

O. Richard Bundy

[edit]

This appears to be the biography for a non-notable university professor. Merovingian 18:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leave Posted - Bundy was placed on the list of notable Penn State people, and the article was placed on the Wikipedia because of the presence of his name on the noteable people list. He is the director of the single largest organization at the Pennsylvania State University and a nationally-renound marching band.
  • Delete per nom. Izehar 15:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am unclear why this article is up for deletion. As a newer user of Wiki, I am not familiar with your short hand of "per nomination." I was also unable to find it in the articles for deletion. However, I believe I found reasons to keep this page. Dr. Bundy is listed on the list famous Penn Staters which can be found here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pennsylvania_State_University_people

I do not understand how this can be deemed as not notable. I say this article stays posted on the following grounds:

• Widely recognized entertainment personalities and opinion makers

• Recording musicians who have sold more than 5,000 albums, CDs, or similar recordings (see WikiProject Music's Notability and Music Guidelines)

• Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions. Notability can be determined by:

o Multiple features in popular culture publications such as Vogue, GQ, Elle, FHM or national newspapers

o A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following o An independent biography

o Name recognition

o Commercial endorsements

• Dr. Bundy is the leader of the largest organization at Penn State, the Penn State Blue Band. This 300 member strong marching band is known not only to the 40,000 students enrolled at Penn State, but regularly play to over 100,000 different people per week during football season, and it is no secret that he is the director. Through his leadership, the band was featured at Marc Jacobs Fall 2005 Fashion show in New York City. http://www.style.com/fashionshows/collections/S2006RTW/review/MJACOBS • www.marcjacobs.com • • HIS band was also featured in an advertisement in the December issue Vogue Magazine along with Kiera Knightley • http://live.psu.edu/story/14756 • http://www.pennlive.com/news/patriotnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1133259840146320.xml&coll=1 • This year, the Sudler Trophy, the “Heisman Trophy for marching bands,” was awarded to the Blue Band, again under his direction. • The Blue Band has released numerous albums over Dr. Bundy’s tenure at Penn State. These albums have certainly sold more than 5000 copies, as a few of the older ones are out of print.


--128.118.51.111 19:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


--Chicken45 15:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedied by Ingoolemo as an attack. Ingoolemo talk 19:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky Mountain Pizza

[edit]

non-encyclopedic advertisement

Hello, it seems you are intent on deleting this article because:

1. It is nothing but an attack on the subject ( {db-attack} )
2. It is a 'non-encyclopedic advertisement'

I am left confused as to how it can be both. It is merely a profile of a very popular pub across the street from a very popular institute. As my colleague Dr. Fusia put it:

"Patented nonesense my ass. That's perfectly relevant, and if anybody uses wikipedia, it's the GT crowd.

Snobby wikipedia bastards."

Please reconsider your decision.

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky Mountain Pizza

[edit]

(Relisted following repost)
No, this is not speediable as it isn't an attack page; the PoV stuff about the "cold and lazy servers" only makes it look like one. It's not encyclopædic, though - this is a NN pizza restaurant with one branch according to its own website. It's an advert for a pizzza shop which doesn't meet WP:CORP. WP:ISNOT a "where-to-buy-pizza-in-Atlanta" guide Tonywalton  | Talk 19:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ISNOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_propaganda_machine 3 - Advertising, perhaps? Tonywalton  | Talk
Oh, I just noticed they've kindly supplied the phone number.As WP:ISNOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information 3- Travel Guides puts it: An article on Paris should mention landmarks such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of your favorite hotel. Is that enough NOTs? I wonder if they deliver. To London, England. Tonywalton  | Talk
  • Delete. Not notable. -- timc | Talk 19:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete. I think this has now progressed from nonsense to attack to advertisement to non-notable to acceptable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.236.221.6 (talk • contribs) who appears to have written the article originally. Please a) sign your comments with ~~~~ and b) state if you have a vested interest, as you appear to. Thanks. Tonywalton  | Talk
  • Comment After an incredible barrage of trigger-happy speedy deletes, the article seems to have stabilized. I think it is a poor reflection on us that the contributor's pleas for time to expand the article were ignored. I have attempted to bring the article up to standards. After researching the building's history, I have not found any great notability. This article is certainly not the least notable on Wikipedia, but its deletion wouldn't be a great loss either. If the result is keep, I'll add a photo. -SCEhardT 20:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, which is why I nominated it for AfD discussion. This doesn't mneet speedy criteria and never did. Unfortunately even following rework I can't see it meets inclusion criteria (and wouldn't as the pizza shop, whatever the building's history (though the building might have). Tonywalton  | Talk 20:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on all points. Upon further thought and research I vote Delete due to lack of notability. -SCEhardT 21:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, as I look at the history, it was deleted TWICE today. Perhaps it's time for some IP work by an admin. Harvestdancer 20:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It does not meet WP:CSD criteria, and replacement of a speedied article is not a criterion for speedy deletion (unlike reposting of an article deleted according to VfD consensus, which does). Tonywalton  | Talk 20:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment Well, this was an interesting second Wikipedia experiment. You might want to delete my original posting too, it is pretty non-notable:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osteria_Del_Figo

Anyways, I suggest you make an adjustment to your site policy. In 'Criteria for speedy deletion', it states :

"Note that some Wikipedians create articles in multiple saves. Avoid deleting a page too soon after its initial creation, as the author may be working on it."

Since it was obviously the speedy deletion chain of events, and not the non-notability that got this article deleted ( as evidenced by the existance of the Figo article ), perhaps you can further quantify your standards for speedy deletion. For example, replace "too soon" with "within 2 hours".

~~~~Original Poster

  • Comment Also, where can I find the policy on "Non-Notable". I didn't see it on WP:NOT.

~~~~Original Poster


  • Comment I don't know, I am starting to think I am in the right here. From WP:ISNOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_propaganda_machine

"Articles about companies and products are fine if they are written in an objective and unbiased style."

Also, the following sentence:

"Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" companies are not likely to be acceptable."

The thrird party in this case was the administrator who helped contributing information to the page.

~~~~Original Poster


  • CommentA speedy delete isn't appropriate in this case. Only repostings of AFD'd comment is eligible for speedy deletion. A reposted speedy deleted article is alright. Which is good because my article was deleted before it even started!

~~~~Original Poster

Comment that might merit a footnote in an Avery Chastain article, if one existed. The pizza place is not notable in itself, any more than Joe's Newsstand would be notable in itself just because it happened to be situated in Grand Central Station. Tonywalton  | Talk 15:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mysteries-Megasite

[edit]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Isnin.com

[edit]

Ad spam, created by anonymous and user "isnin.com". Fang Aili 19:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dora Romaniello

[edit]

The article appears to be a hoax; there is no Italian adult-movie star named Dora Romaniello 199.46.200.232 19:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 17:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Forgotten Freshness Volume 4

[edit]

Non-notable album by, er, a band, I assume. WP:MUSIC ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was sad delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Young

[edit]

Delete A tragic death to be sure, but hardly encyclopedic. Caerwine 19:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andrei Fëdorov

[edit]

Nom & vote Del on this bio of a 39-y.o. (nearly-)Average Joe Professor, who is unusual but not notable in having in his late 20s completed his education in his native Russia and apparently become a Costa Rican citizen.
--Jerzy•t 19:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: In case someone thinks that is unusual enough to be notable, we deserve more research before taking it into acct:
_ _ If his mother were Russian and his father a Latin-American, it would be significantly less unusual. And while anomie that provokes a "search for one's roots" does not preclude notability, it is usually a profound distraction from achieving things that constitute notability.
_ _ In that case and in light of the surname, evaluating the full picture might require knowing whether the parents were married to each other. However, i think i recall that Soviet-era women predominantly kept their surnames on marrying; i don't recall anything about the surnames of their children, except that Stalin's sons Yakov Dzhugashvili and Vasily Dzhugashvili by his two wives used his birth-surname, and his (disaffected) daughter Svetlana Alliluyeva used her mother's.
_ _ IMO the bio's surname could be
  1. a Russian father's surname,
  2. the Russianization of a Latin-American surname, or
  3. the masculine form of a feminine surname that i assume would be Fëdorova or Fedorova.
IMO #3 could possibly be the approach used in surnaming the male child of some absent fathers.
--Jerzy•t 19:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pebbles For People Foundation and Martha Kavonavich

[edit]

Because of the link to the Foundation's website (http://users.wpi.edu/~bcaff/pfpa) given in the article, I suspect that this is a joke. "pebbles for people foundation" returns no hits. If this is deleted, the article on its founder should be also. Ingoolemo talk 19:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's theoretically verifiable to some extent, though without even a phone number (they do solicit donations by phone) or address to verify them by, it's not even really technically verifiable. At this point, I really would like to physically verify this myself, even if it meant sending some money via credit card to confirm whose name actually shows up on it. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability:
"This is difficult to verify. Many spokespersons may have commented on the incident, and it's unreasonable to expect someone to check all these statements looking for the one that matches."
From an actual verifiability standpoint, there is absolutely zero internet presence of this organization outside of bcaff's page, and by all accounts, the name "Kavonavich" has never ever seen the Western world (I can't find the name in any nationwide white pages on the internet or even on sites like privateeye.com). And no, having a couple people show up and say they've heard of it doesn't count. Everyone should have the means to verify it themselves.
In terms of what the foundation donates, it's just as preposterous as it sounds [34]:
The Pebbles For People Foundation is a charity that donates the pebbles it collects to the needy children of Southeast Asia and Africa.
In terms of the logistical details of shipping rocks around the world, I mean, it's prerposterous to think that there's a shortage of rocks anywhere outside of the antarctic or on the surface of the ocean, it's preposterous to think that it's remotely economical to ship rocks any distance at all, and it's preposterous that a group would donate rocks instead of food or water. I can change my vote to BJAODN if need be, I can't possibly see how anyone can vote Keep on this with a straight face. --Interiot 03:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 23:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wilbur Street

[edit]

I saw this linked to from University of Delaware and became curious of what could be important about this street. I found nothing. UD has many streets with many "festivals" named after them. There's a row of houses called Skid Row with Skid Fest, Chapel Fest for Chapel Street... I'm sure there are others. The streets and the parties are notable. gren グレン 20:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Modbury Rovers

[edit]

Non-notable local football team, plus appeal for fans. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 20:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good point, Peyna. I always try to add a brief note to all authors whose articles I AfD, and many CSD ones too, giving instructions on how to undo the causes of an AfD and offering help and advice in future via my talk page. But the 'pedia is being unhelpful with this one - every visit to the talk page is getting me a Wikimedia Foundation error. Someone, somewhere doesn't want me to in this case (and it's frustrating!). Could somebody do this - maybe even as subst:welcome - for me? I'd be very grateful. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 22:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Worked for me; I attributed the welcome to you.
  • Delete. Reads more like a Geocities page than an encyclopedia article, and also for non-notability. Mo0[talk] 23:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article as it stands mainly comprises requests for people to come and support the team, and an unattributed non-neutral opinion that it needs a "decent captain". I tried to rewrite the article from sources, but came up empty handed when I looked for some sources. The only things that I found were a news report stating little more than that this is one in a list of football teams, and a directory entry on a web site where most of the fields were not filled in. If this were a company, it would fail the primary WP:CORP notability criterion by a huge margin. No-one independent of the team has written anything substantial at all about it. Indeed, if it weren't for the one minor and incidental mention in the news report, the team's actual existence wouldn't even be verifiable. Delete. Uncle G 17:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep it keep it keep it keep it keep it keep it KEEP IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.92.67.65 (talk • contribs) 13:49, December 1, 2005

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete; merging an inconsequential actor was out of the question, so redirect made. Johnleemk | Talk 11:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary Soza

[edit]

Appearing on a few Barney shows and UT does not establish sufficient notability to warrant an article. Ingoolemo talk 20:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was, but this is entirely different content. - Mgm|(talk) 10:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE, it doesn't assert that being a high-school DJ is notable. -Splashtalk 22:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Cunningham

[edit]

DJ at a highschool 100 watt radio station. Clearly nonnotable vanity. --The_stuart 15:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 17:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Xuqa.com

[edit]

Non-notable social networking site. Delete. Andrew_pmk | Talk 20:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 23:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shiloh hellman

[edit]

nn vanity, likely created by the subject Gator (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Branham

[edit]

This is an article about the owner of the world's largest rabbit. There are two possibilies here. Both mean that we should Delete. 1) It is a complete hoax (look at the picture). 2) The original article claimed that the rabbit was 26 pounds and 7 ounces. This is beaten by this one: [37]. In which case, it is an article about a man who used to own the world's largest rabbit, which doesn't seem very notable to me. Bucephalus 20:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SpeedaMay

[edit]

Neologism/hoax. No references provided, and Google search yields no results. -- PeruvianLlama(spit) 21:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Until this urban legend is listed on Snopes, there's no chance that this is more than a story someone concocted. If it hits Snopes, it might be worth an article. Mo0[talk] 23:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, I definitely see where you all are coming from, but don't be so hasty to delete. This may be an issue of "SpeedaMay" being misspelled (certainly seems like an odd word and I didn't get any Google results either). Also, Snopes doesn't exactly list everything, although they ARE a valuable resource (and I share it with my students in English). This may indeed be nonsense, but further research is needed, I think, before deletion is necessary. 172.173.36.198 01:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the contrary, further research (and references) will be needed in order for the article to be kept. Your argument puts the proverbial cart before the horse. Delete as hoax unless supporting references are added. B.Wind 03:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • You have a point, don't you? Let's see if the original author (or ANYONE) updates within the next 24 or 48 hours (depending on admins and policy). I maintain an open mind--infused with the intellectual responsibility and healthy skeptisism that makes Wikipedia work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.156.113.115 (talk • contribs) 2005-12-01 04:51:19 UTC
  • Delete as nom -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 04:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. --StuffOfInterest 13:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article cites no sources, and (like Peruvianllama) I can find no sources. The article also directly implies, by stating that there has been no media coverage and that Snopes hasn't documented this, that there are no sources to be found. The article is thus unverifiable, pretty much by its own admission. Delete. Uncle G 15:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if it's an obscure regional thing? Also, the way they capitalized the term is really weird...I wonder if there's a reason for that beyond the eccentric whims of the original author.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was FBI delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zak Bauvi

[edit]

Content is clearly either biased or fake, no references provided, Google search yields no results.-- PeruvianLlama(spit) 21:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

comment the city was added into the article on Memphis, Egypt (nb - this was added by the same author). It say that the modern name for the place is Mit-Rahineh, which is a real archaeological site. It's worth noting, though, that the editor's additions to that page are... well... not brilliant (see [38]), and no text I have found onliune referring to Mit-rahineh mentions this alternative name. What's more, Zak Bauvi looks too much like a Czech person's name for my liking as the name of a place in ancient Egypt. So, unless there's more verification from somewhere, delete. You might also want to look at the page creator's other achievements as some indication of this page's worth... Grutness...wha? 07:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 23:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Upsizethis.com

[edit]

Forum with 895 registered users, no evidence of significance, Alexa ranking is 2,294,754. Has already attracted a NPOV-tag. Note that the correct title should be Upsizethis.org. Punkmorten 21:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 23:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VK3CFI

[edit]

This is the ham radio code of a woman who chatted with MIR cosmonauts [39] Couldn't find any support to her alleged NASA affiliation User:Ejrrjs says What? 21:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 16:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mary mclaughlin

[edit]

nn vanity Gator (talk) 21:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[talk] 06:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

6 References

[edit]

Delete εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Analyze. User 160.39.129.27 -- with no previous edits -- created several large articles about one Alexander Turney Stewart in about 30 minutes. Some thoughts: (1) They are obviously copied from an existing document -- no one can type that fast -- which raises but does not prove copyvio. (2) What the person did was create several articles named: Alexander Turney Stewart, 1 Stewart's Early Years, 2 His Road To Success..., 4 Later Years, 5 Death And Influence, and 6 References. So we need to treat those as one issue. Some of those have been speedied, some VfD'd, and some just with merge or warning tags. I don't know what's going on here either. Our boy's a but rash, but this is not neccesarily vandalism or copyvio, and we might end up with a good article about Alexander Turney Stewart out of all this. Herostratus 23:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can type that fast. Watch me. So the idea that its necessarily copyvio is not true. There are people who do exist that can type that quickly. Follow how quickly I make edits on here, and how many big edits I've made in the past 2 weeks. I'm sure its comparable with the amount that this person made. Ergo, not necessarily copyvio. Zordrac 01:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Progress. Anon new editor is apparently breaking the old, existing Alexander Turney Stewart article into smaller seperate articles (the articles are inapropriately named, but he may be in draft phase, and will Move them later. I don't know why she's doing this and she hasn't responded to my message. Perhaps she is planning to expand the Alexander Turney Stewart such that it will be too long for a single article? Doesn't seem to be any species of vandalism. Suggest we wait 'til she's done and see what we have then. Herostratus 05:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now as good faith attempt at article. Zordrac 01:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Climax and Resolution User has not responded, has not appeared. Wierd. At first I thought he was just splitting the article, but now I think he created the text. Anyway, all is back in main article and I'm going to speedy all these seperate articles now. Herostratus 21:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 23:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A War For Australlia

[edit]

Self-professed episode idea for a popular television show. Delete as unencyclopaedic fancruft.-- PeruvianLlama(spit) 22:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 16:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable people who have commented on the LSD experience

[edit]
  • Reminds me of List of notable people who have been stung by jellyfish - in other words, nonsensical and of little enyclopedic value, difficult to verify --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 22:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for the reasons that the nominator posted. This article has little verifiability and is pretty weird. Mo0[talk] 22:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - reminds me of List of stutterers. How far is too far with these lists? 147.70.242.21 23:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd like to point out that list of stutterers has not been deleted. In addition, such lists can be quite useful- it isn't the least bit inconceivable that some 13 year old kid has to do a school project on stuttering, and list of stutterers provides him or her with an invaluable resource. ditto for this article. --Heah [[User_talk:Heah|(talk)]] 23:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. This was originally part of the too large LSD article, and was given its own entry to cut that article down. Given the social upheaval and cultural change that LSD is strongly associated with as well as its place in pop culture, having a list of notable people who have commented on the LSD experience is virtually nothing like a list of people who have gotten stung by jellyfish. For many of these people, LSD changed their lives; many of these people are notable persons who have had great influence on modern culture. I agree verifiability is a problem; rather than deleting the article, names should be removed to the talk page unless cited as is done in other similar situations, such as the Famous users section of the Mescaline article. (There is a project dealing with this sort of stuff, btw, and i'm about to go propose the system used on the mescaline page for all relevant situations.)--Heah [[User_talk:Heah|(talk)]] 23:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, so why are people without verifiable sources in there at all? Surely they should have been deleted long ago. If the list is as you state, surely the fundamentals of WP require that the collaborative project takes a firm grip on something with such obvious potential to go out of control? And why this list, rather than "people whose LSD experience has been widely discussed" or "people whose lives were heavily influenced by LSD" (which might have some merit, but still leaves the question of how heavily, and why).
This list was fairly recently split off from the LSD article. That's what the list was, a list of people who had commented on the lsd experience, and when it got too long it was given its own article. It wasn't done by me or anyone else i know. user:Kwertii moved it on June 13th. There's obviously lots of problems with lots of articles on wikipedia, and if you have problems, you should fix them. If you feel that many of the users should have been removed from the list, go ahead and do it. We all have things to do. --Heah (talk) 19:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Having a list of notable people who comment on the experience, but then having to put the names on the talk page due to lack of verifiability, makes absolutly no sense. I'm not certain what a celebrity could add to the description of an LSD trip that a person off the street could not state just as fluently. In other words, besides the fact that these people are celebrities, why should they be singled out for their descriptions? Jtmichcock 23:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup. Many of these people are living and to name them without citation is essentially accusing them of having broken the law. However, I see nothing wrong with the basic premise of the list. If these are verifiably people who have spoken about their own experience then the list could be a useful research tool. Durova 23:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Such a list (unlike a list of people who have taken, say, aspirin) is useful when on a controversial topic subject to much spin and disinformation, but indicate the source for each entry, otherwise it is just useless gossip or libel. Haiduc 01:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lists split from pages are usually much more valid than ones created whole cloth. This list appears verifiable, useful, and maintainable. Turnstep 03:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. There is a category Hallucinogen researchers, users, and proponents, population 31. It isn't an exact overlap with this list, but close, since it includes "users". I don't know if that has any bearing on the subject or not. Herostratus 03:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with the sentiment that a list of famous people who have commented on LSD experiences is of more interest than a list of famous people who have commented on being stung by a jellyfish. Generally speaking, people don't often mention being stung because it's merely a minor inconvenience, whereas LSD trips usually have more far-reaching, profound effects on one's life. If some of the assertions are false, let the subjects remove themselves from the page; otherwise, the topic was of enough interest to me to click on the link, and I'm sure many others would be interested to know Steve Jobs's opinion on the drug. Dontknockmysmock
  • Undecided the title sucks, the concept is flawed (the list is pretty pointless without the context of why they commented and what comment they made), false additions may be actionable so WP:V is crucial, but in the end there are some people (like Philip K Dick who are known for having experimented with, and talked about, LSD. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 17:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just followed up a sample; they vary from Bill Bailey, whose "comments" are mainly jokes (and pretty much universally thought not to be among his better ones), to Dick Feynman, who professed to be embarrassed about it. Apparently. (I don't remember that from his books) So without context this is appears to me to be a seriously pointless list. How would people feel about a list of people who tried smoking when they were at college, but didn't really take to it? The ones that made a big deal of it, like Timothy Leary (immortalised in song by the Moody Blues) are well enough known. I am struggling to see the point of this article. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 17:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it is. Here's why:
  1. For what value of "comment"? Would "I never had an LSD experience" count? Where on the scale from "none of your business" to Timothy Leary is the cutoff point? What did Syd Barrett comment about LSD? As far as I'm aware he is a recluse, and while he was not a recluse I don't recall him being coherent for long enough to make any comment, so what was the supposed comment in this case of this extensively-documented figure?
  2. For what value of "notable"? Are only people with blue links included? No. Nor is there any guarantee that normal WP standards of notability are being applied. If only WP:BIO candidates are included, why not a category so that authors on the person's article know they've been included and can verify the information?
  3. For what value of "experience"? As medication? As experiment? As life-changing influence? As "me-too" experimentation back in the 60s?
But most of all, whatever the level of verifiability and original research involved, that does this article actually tell us about either LSD or the people involved? In what way does it add to our understanding of Bill Gates to have him lumped in with Philip K. Dick? Does this finally explain Microsoft Bob? Not as such: all it tells us is that Gates is a baby boomer. It is every bit as relevant as list of people who admit to having worn flares (in fact, to a first approximation, it's the same list).
If this article told me about the LSD experience and how it defined the writing of PKD then it might be interesting, but that's not what it is. This list is indiscriminate and always will be. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 18:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It tells us much more about cultural connections between people and their culture. the 60s was a time of great upheaval, and a list such as this can help to show who changed, how things changed, and etc. LSD and what people think about it has ramifications far beyond cleaning my drier of lint.
Not really. No more than experimenting with smoking or E does, anyway. The list doesn't who changed, how things changed or anything like that: I'm pretty sure we already cover the 1960s in a much more encyclopaedic way. This is just picking one random attribute. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 21:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
and again, i agree the list needs a rewrite. but that doesn't mean it should be deleted.--Heah (talk) 19:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Whihc is what people said last time. Guess what? No rewrite, so back it came. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD?
Last time? nothing in the history of this page suggests it has ever been afd'd. --Heah (talk) 22:32, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note: all uncited persons have been removed to talk page. remaining population of list is 36. --Heah (talk) 00:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as hoax by known vandal - Lucky 6.9 00:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lazlos Christmas Mishap

[edit]

Professed by the author to be a video game idea [41]. Delete as unencyclopaedic fancruft.-- PeruvianLlama(spit) 22:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, non-notable one-fancruft original research. I think it's spelled incorrectly, to boot. That's not a deletion criteria, of course, but there it is regardless. Lord Bob 23:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't checked the contributing user's specs, but at first glance, this is by the same person(s) who filled the Camp Lazlo article with all kinds of theopretical crap 'designed' to promote the continuation of the series, asked for more 'episode ideas', and then complained when his stuff was cut out. Delete. Saberwyn 23:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This guy has been warned via several different IP's. Now he's blocked. This is going away as a hoax by a known vandal. - Lucky 6.9 00:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Keep as a bad faith nomination by an anonymous user. Capitalistroadster 01:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Berman

[edit]

nn Doesn't really seem encycliopeadic. 205.188.117.8 22:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This guy's right up there with Howard Cosell in the longevity and name-recognition department. I hardly follow sports at all and know who this guy is. Mo0[talk] 22:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete as per A7, but brought here first just to make sure. -Mysekurity 01:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Burns

[edit]

Non-notable pie-eating contest winner. 15 google results. I love pie eating as much as the next guy, but even I could eat 18 of them ;)-- Mysekurity 22:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 16:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Po$$e

[edit]

A group of guys who hang around and play games and occasionally enter tournaments. And they all go to the same school. Not notable. DJ Clayworth 23:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (I don't know if I have a vote, being the creator.) Well, it's a clan, not a person. We're trying to be remarkable. SK| started with three brothers, so I think that the logic of "since they all go to the same school" doesn't really apply. edit: what is it exactly we have to do before we're considered remarkable enough? Check the Four Kings clan wiki page if you think we lack content in any way. (Also, did you need to have bolded unremarkable? =P ) -saintboy 23:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    By the way, I'm not sure if this discussion is deleted if the article is, but if it is, can you please send me an email at nick at anthology dot cee oh em, and explain why, and what we can do in the future. Thank you. Now, it's off to Table Tennis so I can cause my toes to develop several bleeding sores. Huzzah! -saintboy 23:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC) edit: again, sorry. I'm now registered as Saintboy, so please contact me if you end up changing your minds.
  • Delete, gamers and gaming clans are not significant. Gazpacho 00:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that all gamers are unnotable, but browsing the articles above, quite quickly I find significant international success, breaking new ground, the first clan to.... There are exceptions. DJ Clayworth 21:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. I'm not sure if the other teams you mention above are notable enough to stay either, but as per your request, one way to improve the page would be to make a similar "Notable Achievements" section like they all have. Better still (and probably the only way to save the page at this point) would be a "References" section in which you provide links to outside sources about the group (e.g. newspaper articles). Wikipedia has a requirement that information be verifiable. Turnstep 03:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I have to admit no one has ever written about us earnestly in a publication that is credible (the school newspaper is so terrible, I can not, would not, shall not dare to post a page of it. An example is the fact that they refer to African-Americans as "coloureds"). Well, I suppose that's all then. If you delete our page, then please don't delete the other clans' articles. They are, at least- "remarkable". Saintboy 04:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since MMORPG clans do not express importance in Wikipedia. Also, no other clans of CounterStrike are created, so why this? It is nice that you wish to include your own teammates, but this is unacceptable. Please advertise your clan on another site. Sycthos 04:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Glad you joined in. I just said whoever deletes stuff can delete it. I'm glad you all can find time to join in. Firstly though, 1. we're not a MMORPG clan. 2. All the links I posted above are Cstrike clans that have wiki entries. Research please. Saintboy 05:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per-nom. --StuffOfInterest 12:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. School gaming clubs are not notable unless if they win the Grand High Championship of Counterstrike. Ashibaka (tock) 13:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not notable, and basically no claim of notability. Delete - come back when you win in a major gaming tournament, like the teams you have named. (A third place might be enough for me.) - Mike Rosoft 14:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per creator's own testimony. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 17:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, can I the article in my userpage? I assume so. Also, if it's in my user page, is it alright for me to catagorize it in the categories I'm in now? Thanks in advance. Saintboy 20:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a recommended use of a user page, but it is marginally about you so I think you can keep it. Ashibaka (tock) 23:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Userfy to User:Saintboy as suggested. Has admitted its about him. Zordrac 01:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[talk] 06:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Turney Stewart/road to success

[edit]

originally double posted at 2 His Road To Success... and 2 Road To Success

Problem not trying to insult author but: sorry, but the information here is so far out of encyclopedic format and verfiability, that it would be better off to start over. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 23:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Slow Down. There is a cluster of seven articles to consider here. See under 6 References on this page. Herostratus 23:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 16:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"children of our age"

[edit]

Perhaps this should be on wikimedia, and who knows if there's a copyvio going on? I'm no good at determining that sort of thing. It's also formatted poorly. Delete or Move to Wikimedia. JHMM13 23:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 16:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MIT Phototaxis

[edit]

This article is one long sales pitch. Even "MIT Phototaxis" gives 3 hits for german pages in google. feydey 23:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 16:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Demonic nosehairs

[edit]

Band vanity coupled with attempts at collecting donations. - Lucky 6.9 23:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 16:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Randy goat radio

[edit]

Non-notable radio station on live365. Live365 as a whole is notable, but one radio station that you have to search for on the website is not. Also reads like an advertisement. Mo0[talk] 23:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 16:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sixx John

[edit]

non notability Melaen 23:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 12:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bankable star

[edit]

The article's entire content right now is "A bankable star is an actor famous or charismatic enough to be "capable of guaranteeing box-office success simply by showing up in a movie"." This is a Wiktionary entry, or dictionary definition. It has been in existence since October 27, 2005. There is a commented-out suggestion that the article become a list of "bankable stars", with an opposing argument that this would be difficult to keep from being original research. I think that this is a perfectly good Wiktionary article, and so should be transwikied. I am, of course, open to arguments that this article could become something other than a dict-def and it simply hasn't yet done so in a month. Jkelly 23:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC) I now vote Keep. User:Uncle G has proven my nomination short-sighted. Jkelly 07:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But it relies on the idiomatic meaning of Bankable? I can't instantly think of anything else being described as bankable in quite the same way. Ben Aveling 08:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_30&oldid=1234127253"