Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 October 24

< October 23 October 25 >

Purge server cache

October 24

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

The result was speedy deleted by Vanished user 03. Logan Talk Contributions 11:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

non-notable, sourceless. --Hossmann 22:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 20:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

12:00 (disambiguation)

An orphaned page, there is no use. Puzzlet Chung 14:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was that I thoroughly hate it when deletion discussions get over twice as long as the article itself, and that I'm closing this as a keep now and ask everyone who posted extra information about the comic here to add that to the article. Radiant_>|< 15:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Able and Baker

I closed the original debate Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Able and Baker as a "delete", having erroneously overlooked a few valid keep sentiments and arguments due to a deluge of sockpuppeteering. A request for the article to be undeleted was made, and I have decided to correct my original wrong decision and relist here for a hopefully clean debate. I have not done much research into finding out how notable this webcomic is so I am not voting. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I've never heard of it either, but with hundreds of strips under their belt and a pretty decent sized fanart page it seems pretty notable to me.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  06:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely Keep - comic is on Dayfree Press, a notable webcomics syndicate of which almost every other strip has an article. As a result, [1] appears as a sponsored link from both Questionable Content and Daily Dinosaur Comics. Furthermore, the editor of Dayfree was named as one of the 25 notable webcomics people in Comixpedia for 2004, and used his interview there to mention Able and Baker as a hot strip. Since Dayfree membership is by application, its membership in the syndicate constittues a jdugment of quality and notability from a highly important source. I also ask whoever closes this debate to glance at User:Snowspinner/Webcomics - I believe I have qualifications that make me a particular expert on webcomics and their notability, which might be taken as relevent in determining consensus. Snowspinner 06:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question. Does sponsored link mean advertizement, or something else? -- SCZenz 11:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • In this case it means unpaid advertisement - the Dayfree strips all run an adbox that randomly serves up an ad for one of the other Dayfree strips. The adbox doesn't appear along with other ads on the site, but as part of the framing. It's probably best to go look at, say, [2] - the box that says Dayfree Press? Periodically advertises Able and Baker. (The other ad in that section is for QC merchandise - the point being that an ad in that section is a different thing from the top banner ads, which are generally for unrelated things) Snowspinner 15:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per above, though i dont think Snowspinners presented qualifications necessarily mean his vote opinion should weigh heavier. The Minister of War 09:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • And if this page were about votes, I would agree wholeheartedly, but I take the move away from calling it "votes" for deletion to mark a change in that. Snowspinner 10:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The wording change was made to recognize this is about consensus, not voting. I don't know of any reason to believe it was to give greater weight to one user than another; opinions here are intended to be grounded in Wikipedia policy rather than expertise or anything else. (Generally, FYI, any view either way is counted, whether grounded in a specific policy or not, with the exception of apparent sockpuppets.) -- SCZenz 10:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • "consensus" beats actual expertise? That statement is, on the face of it, ridiculous - David Gerard 12:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Expertise beats consensus? Does that make any more sense? Agreed, its not a vote. Still think self-proclaimed credentials have no place here, and shouldnt weigh in. The Minister of War 12:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Expertise surely should beat people who know nothing about a topic but weigh in anyway. This isn't a "vote" - David Gerard 12:48, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • This seems to me to be a very anti-Wikipedian notion, Mr. Gerard. All of us voting, I hope, have done our homework as best we can. I think the most important expertise to have is to be familiar with general Wikipedia standards for notability. Experts can provide information, but according to Wikipedia:No original research#The_role_of_expert_editors they must provide sources! Nobody gives me a free pass when I write physics articles; I have to find sources both in and out of academia if someone feels like questioning what I write—and I've done so before. The problem here is that Snowspinner's primary source, Dayfree Press, wouldn't normally qualify as a reputable source per Wikipedia policy. This not being a vote certainly does not mean it's a matter for experts only to decide! -- SCZenz 16:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • You're applying a policy to a realm it was never meant to apply to, first of all - yes, it would be original research for me to go and start adding to Wikipedia articles, "In the view of Philip Sandifer, this webcomic is particularly important." It would not, of course, be original research for someone else to do so based on anything I were to publish on a given webcomic. But all of this is beside the point, because deletion debates are not article writing. It is absolutely not original research to consult with a subject expert on the importance of a topic to decide whether to write about it - it's a perfectly intuitive and obvious thing to do. Indeed, we consult with experts on a number of non-article writing matters in Wikipedia - Jimbo has done so in a debate regarding the creation of a separate Cantonese Wikipedia, for instance, and we have Template:Expert for a reason. Second of all, you misunderstand what a reputable source is for - Dayfree's website is a perfectly reputable source for the matter of "What comics are in the Dayfree syndicate right now," and consulting it is not original research - primary sources are acceptable sources, although assembling them in "novel" ways is not. I do not find any novelty in asserting that Able and Baker is on a syndicate that it is on, however. Snowspinner 16:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • The point is, I am not sure that presence on Dayfree is an indicator of notability—and you are effectively using it as a "source" to assert exactly this. I think this is a point of legitimate difference of opinion, which is why we are seeing well-thought-out views on both sides—but I don't see how expertise makes one view count more. I claim that expertise in a field, in general, might give the expert a distorted sense of its importance, so that expertise is actually more relevant for article-writing than AfD's! This, combined with the explicit statement on consensus in WP:AfD, makes me pretty sure that "expert" views are not intended to count double. -- SCZenz 16:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                    • And them my question becomes, on what grounds of knowledge do you say that Dayfree isn't notable? I mean, to be honest, I have doubts about the quality of your view, since I remember explaining yesterday the nature of the Modern Tales syndicate. But no, expert views shouldn't count double, because this whole notion of "counting" misses the point. To use an extreme pair of examples, as a closing admin, if I find a nomination with five votes of "Delete nn" and one vote of "Actually, as a subject expert, this is a really important article in the field," I will keep the article, assuming the subject expert claim is decently backed up. On the other hand, if I find an article with five keep votes, the first of which is a subject expert claim and the next four of which are "Keep, agree with X," and then a lone delete vote demonstrating copyvio, as a closing admin, I will delete. Snowspinner 17:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Normally, again, you would cite some sort of external source to indicate Dayfree is notable; my concern is that most evidence you provide is somewhat circular, or confined within a set of webcomics that assert each others' notability. I shouldn't have to be an expert to understand evidence that something is notable; if it's that obscure, it doesn't seem such a good argument of notability to me. I believe that the action you propose for closing a debate would be inappropriate and inconsistent with Wikipedia precedent; admins (and everyone else) should assume good faith and not discount arguments of established users because they make a personal judgement about the "quality of [their] views." -- SCZenz 17:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                      • However, I propose this as a compromise: your expertise, and arguments, seem to be swaying peoples' opinions to your side. That is part of consensus, and if that's how it goes then this is an AfD I don't mind "losing." I say again we should move forward on getting WP:COMIC up to snuff: I propose a set of criteria based on a list of syndicates and hosting services, along with awards and other critical attention, with Alexa used only as a backup. Maybe you could put a list of appropriate syndicates and hosting services on the discussion page, along with a bit about them, so we can put a new proposal together? -- SCZenz 17:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Oh - so you're looking for a link like [3] where the founder of Dayfree is tagged as the 11th person in a list of 25 people in webcomics? Snowspinner 18:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Yes, that's the idea. And then we should discuss. My question is: does one person/host being notable mean that everyone associated with him is notable? It seems to be that, in general, a notable host may not make a notable webcomic—for example, KeenSpace is clearly notable, but only some comics there are. It's not obvious, so we have to figure out how to decide. I think I'm likely to agree with you pretty substantially, but we really have to get these arguments ouf of AfD's. Guidelines will help a lot with that. -- SCZenz 18:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                            • In this case, yes - Dayfree is editorially chosen, Keenspace is "anyone can join." So the notability is that the comic was specifically chosen by #11 on Comixpedia's 25 people in webcomics list for a syndicate. Snowspinner 18:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • Actually, you're flat-out dead wrong on this one: see what Jimbo says about actual expertise versus consensus. - David Gerard 22:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Jimbo said "reputation" and "credibility," not expertise. I see no evidence whatsoever he meant that established editors, who are acting in good faith and working actively to understand the issues, should be counted less than established editors who claim expertise. -- SCZenz 22:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • (resettin indent) Well, if our expert can cite a reliable, independent source that would be nice. - brenneman(t)(c) 22:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In the absence of a policy about syndicates, with reasons to consider or not consider membership in each one, I have to make judgements based on the webcomic itself—and I still haven't seen any convincing, verifiable assertions of notability for it. I'm happy to change my mind, so I'll look back here for arguments. For people new to Wikipedia, and/or relatively new to this debate, my views on this issue and explanation of relevant Wikipedia policies is on this page: User:SCZenz/Webcomics. -- SCZenz 11:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete. I am changing my view, somewhat. My arguments above are still valid, but I now think it is possible that the views put forth on why this comic is notable will count under a reasonable, consensus version of WP:COMIC. I keep a weak delete because those standards don't exist yet, and I don't know how they'll come out, so it seems difficult to use them. -- SCZenz 18:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Alexa of over one million for it's parent site, zero hits on Google news. Verifiable links that demonstrate notability might change my opinon. It is funny, though. - brenneman(t)(c) 11:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Snowspinner - David Gerard 12:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An Alexa rating over one million combined with no news coverage shows that there is a serious lack of reliable sources to verify that this is not just another website with limited readership and influence. --Allen3 talk 12:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • [5] demonstrates that it is not just another website with limited readership and interest. Snowspinner 15:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your reference's stated goal of promoting webcomics should lead to the question of possible bias. As a result I am not convinced that the they meet the guidelines to be considered a reliable source when it comes to questions of notability and influence. --Allen3 talk 17:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think you understand - they're an online syndicate of webcomics. One of the big ones, and one of the first ones. Their use as a source is that they clearly include Able and Baker. They are a primary source, not a secondary source. Snowspinner 22:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Just to clarify -- in other words, you are asserting that dayfreepress is rather like the allmusic of webcomics? (For Wikipedia's intents and purposes, anyway) Jacqui ★ 05:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • An Alexa ranking in the millions makes them one of the smaller collectives of webcomic artists. Having been founded about a year and a half ago makes them one of the newest collectives, not one of the first. Being nonprofessional (their mission states they have no businnes plan) makes your use of the term "syndicate" misleading. Dragonfiend 22:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Poor Alexa rank, no significant mainstream news coverage. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was undelted out of process, while discussion was underway at WP:DRV. Speedy delete as a recreation of previously deleted content under WP:CSD G4, and so tagged. If not speedy deleted for some reason, delete as per the previous delete discussion. DES (talk) 14:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per my original vote and Snowspinner's arguments. Alexa's ratings are of dubious value. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 15:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Snowspinner. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Snowspinner and Freshgavin. Alexa is a statistical tool based on sampling, not the be-all and end-all of internet notoriety. This is a well written article that we should not delete. Unfocused 16:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I don't find "membership with Dayfree" a particularly moving argument for notability; after all, Dayfree is in and of itself borrowing notability (from comics like Questionable Content and Dinosaur Comics). That said, I've been trying to talk to the people on the A&B forum to establish some other claim of notability, with some mixed success.
    For the record, deleting this article won't destroy it as a useful resource for webcomic fans or fans of the comic; this article is already on Comixpedia, and the fans of the webcomic already know about the Comixpedia entry. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 18:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The idea that the syndicate is drawing its notability from its member comics is strange, to say the least. It is not as though Dayfree is paying Dinosaur Comics and Questionable Content to be members and display the Dayfree logo - the comics and syndicate found the arrangement to be mutually beneficial. Snowspinner 19:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Virtually everything on Wikipedia is also available elsewhere on the internet. That it is also on Comixpedia is about as relevant as "I can find it with Google". The only relevant question is whether this is an article which deserves deletion or not. I say "not". Unfocused 19:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per A Man In Black...well written article, but ultimately not notable enough for me.--Isotope23 19:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of significance and verifiability. Friday (talk) 23:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my original vote and the above; the 'evidence' presented above has only convinced me more firmly in favor of deletion. A website whose only claim to fame is a twice-removed link to Comixpedia is not encyclopedic material. As an aside, it should be noted that almost half of the original Dayfree Press comics and exactly one-fourth of the other current ones do not currently have Wikipedia articles. --Aquillion 23:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I count 6 out of 17 that don't have articles, for a total of 2/3 that do. And its claim to fame is not, and never has been, a twice removed link to Comixpedia - stop making a straw man out of it. Its claim to fame is that the editors of Dayfree Press, one of the oldest webcomics syndicates, judged it to be a comic worth making part of their syndicate. The Comixpedia is further support of Dayfree's notability. Snowspinner 23:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • One of the reasons it should be deleted is that other Daypress comics don't have articles? That appears to be ridiculously circular reasoning - David Gerard 00:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plenty of people have brought up reasons on why Able and Baker is notable (which appears to be the main reason for getting rid of it). However I'm saying that notability shouldn't play a role as it is currently not Wikipedia policy (as shown by the header on Wikipedia:Importance). When I looked at the Wikipedia:Deletion policy I found no mention of non-notability on it, and while plenty of articles have been deleted for this reason, I think it should be stopped until an actual policy regarding this has been agreed upon and put into effect. When you take away the demand for notability, all of the verifiable sources become even more valid reasons for keeping it. While he shouldn't play an overly strong role in Wikipedian policy, the founder of Wikipedia (Jimbo Wales) disagree with notability being an important criteria. --John Lynch 00:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - 10,000 Google hits (but mostly from blogs or other Webcomic sites) suggest at least notability within its genre. I remain unconvinced, however, that simply being part of a so-called "syndicate" makes anything notable. A "Webcomic syndicate" is nothing more than a Web site linking to a bunch of Webcomics. It's nothing like an actual dead tree comic syndication company. FCYTravis 00:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should note that most of those hits are there because of other usages (military alphabet, NASA monkeys, etc...), if you limit the search by the artist's name you only get around 650 results. Nathan J. Yoder 08:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redelete, should not have been undeleted until the VfU time period had expired. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, wait. The VfU shouldn't have gone through because the AfD was valid, the second AfD shouldn't have gone through because the VfU was incomplete, and the fact that the undeletion was done by the deleting admin who realized he had messed it up counts for nothing? Snowspinner 02:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The abscence of "mainstream" sources preocuppies me, but then, I don't know how else this could be source. I'm going to retract my VFU reasoning and believe Snowspinner on this one. Titoxd(?!?) 02:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (and I'd do the same for any delete based on Alexa ratings, which are absolutely bunk.) My reasons are much the same as Snowspinner's, but I'd like to add this: we're building the sum total of human knowledge here. If you want to look something up, it should be here--not the Comixpedia wiki, though that's a fine place; not the cast page for the comic, be it ever so finely crafted; it should be here, because only here do we have the freedoms and the effort to provide excellent encyclopedic information for webcomics. It'd be sad if a proposed notability rule got in the way of that. (Able and Baker, at 400 strips, hits my internal gut-feel for "big enough." In writing this, I wanted to know more about the comic, and Wikipedia is where I found the best information.) Philip 04:48, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Snowspinner Nobody 06:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Snowspinner's remarks. Jtmichcock 10:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable, encyclopedic, and Snowspinner is right ➥the Epopt 16:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I do not agree with the fact that being a member of Dayfree Press equals instant notability. The dayfree press is a comic collective, motivated towards the promotion of its comics. Just because Able and Baker is linked from a notable webcomic, or webcomic portal, doesn't mean that it is instantly notable. What about saying that every signed band for the most minor of record labels should have an article? What about every book/pamflet/flyer printed by the same publisher as the Harry Potter publisher? The only argument for keeping this, is that it belongs to a comic promotion syndicate. It has not on its own done anything notable, there is no in depth coverage from either the mainstream press or even the webcomic press. In the previous deletion debate, the only assertion of notability were the fan's chimes of, "It was mentioned one in passing by the Dayfree Press founder on comixPedia", and so far, that's still the only thing I see. Whereas say, Little Gamers, also on the Dayfree Press, I think is notable, because it appears in a national magazine, PC GAMER. - Hahnchen 17:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you aware that your attitude (And I mean yours specifically - you're named in the article) is responsible for driving off, by my count, at least three Wikipedia contributors? Have a look at [6] - particularly the comments. It's truly horrifying. Snowspinner 18:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • From the third comment on that link: I have not seen evidence that user Hahnchen is anywhere near the bogeyman I've seen him painted as in some parts of the webcomics community. I recall from trawling through the materials on Friday or Saturday that he seemed fairly conscientious and willing to admit mistakes and let controversies die down.
        Horrifying indeed. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 05:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where in Wikipedia policy does it say it's okay to delete an entry based on notability? Wikipedia:Importance is only being worked on to be considered a policy, it isn't an actual policy. I don't mean to attack you, but it appears as if you have a crusade on deleting every webcomic (or at least putting it through an AFD). Also your point on the Harry Potter publisher, yes. Every book that has been published by that publisher should have an article. Being published is considered notable enough (not my interpretation, I've seen it used in plenty of places). --John Lynch 22:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG DELETE non-notable, as per brenneman and others. There is nothing in this article that would indicate notability -- the article explains only that this is a webcomic and it has characters. This webcomic is not award-winning, widely-read, critically-acclaimed, or in any other way notable enough for an encyclopedia entry. Alexa ranking of 1,116,269 is far too high for a web site to be considered notable. The artist's output (someone pointed to 400 comics) does not indicate notability when almost no one is reading those 400 comics. Further, not all members of notable comics groups are notable (just as there are non-notable actors in notable films, non-notable bands on notable record labels, etc.), and the notability of this comic syndicate is itself questionable, as per A Man In Black. Being almost-sorta mentioned in Comixpedia is not any indicator of notability; Comixpedia allows comics artists to post their own news and regularly writes about non-notable comics (See L33t Pixels, etc.) Dragonfiend 18:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Philip Sandifer (User:Snowspinner)'s expert opinion. --Tony SidawayTalk 18:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP I argued it a thousand ways in the original debate so I'm not going to type it all again. However, on the comment way up there saying Keenspot is a notable syndicate, I'd say NO NO NO! KeenSPOT maybe, but keenspace is a free hosting service pretty much like GEOCITIES! --Tedzsee 23:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The page appears to have sources indicating notability. On issues of verifiability, and objective notability, personal opinion cannot be expert without sources. Anyone holding themselves out as expert should produce sources upon polite request. Consensus matters much than expertise because expertise is an imprecise term open to too much varying interpretation (especially in areas of pop-culture where objective certification) and abuse (by people claiming expertise without warrant.) Given what I said, I hold the statement "Censensus beats expertise is ridiculous" to be itself worthy of some ridicule. Xoloz 06:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I used google (both as a search and with "backlinks"), alexa, searched various blog sites (myspace, livejournal and xanga) and got VERY few results for it, this comic is barely known by anyone. I also did the same for the dayfreepress, and it also is poorly known. This has been compared to a comic syndication medium, but really it appears just to be a glorified banner ad service from their mission statement. Snowspinner's "expertise" here is just him stating something that we should just accept as right without evidence, that these banner ads really have given them a significant following. Nathan J. Yoder 08:44, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak-to-middling keep. Snowspinner is doing his damnedest to give us what we need to know regarding webcomics, and I think he's doing a reasonably good job. Jacqui ★ 06:00, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a generic non-notable webcomic. I respect Snowspinner's opinion and work, but that doesn't mean I can't think he's wrong this time. Lord Bob 17:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a webcomic that appears quite reasonably notable to me, both based on my cursory perusal of the site itself (hundreds of strips over several years with quite a bit of readership evident) and on the arguments being made in this AfD. There's more than enough basis here. Bryan 04:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Credible Sources

A lot of this seems to center on what's a "reliable source". Websites about webcomics, unfortunately, don't meet the WP:Evaluating_sources suggestions about independance. The sources provided so far are dayfreepress and comixpedia. Sorry to be pedantic, but where are the sources that show these are reliable sources? Discussions of expertise aside, it's about verifiability, isn't it? Rather than this circular and incestous self-reference, do we have substantative external coverage in any print or other media per website guidlines?
brenneman(t)(c) 23:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*sputters helplessly*
WHAT?Snowspinner 23:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Er, could you run that one past us again? You appear to be asking for cites that the sky is blue - David Gerard 23:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WEB is irrelevant, since it's only proposed and overly-strict, as people have noted on its talk page. But Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Evaluating_sources is absolutely relevant here. Incidentally, if someone asked you to cite the blueness of the sky, it would be silly, but you could do it. -- SCZenz 23:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And which part of Dayfree or Comixpedia fails to meet those criteria? I certainly consider Dayfree a reliable source on the question of "what is in Dayfree" and "How are things chosen for Dayfree." Comixpedia is a site devoted to reporting on webcomics, so it seems to me a good place for news and views on webcomics. By the standard Aaron is proposing, we'd be in a situation whereby we couldn't trust Popular Science on science articles, because they're too biased towards science. Snowspinner 23:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But we'd be able to provide some sources that verified if it was or was not credible with regards to science. I wouldn't trust Popular Science to tell me that Popular Science was credible. - brenneman(t)(c) 23:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I find it ridiculous that websites about webcomics have been deemed invalid. Based on your guidelines then Otherspace should be removed from Wikipedia (which for anyone who is in the MUD community is a ridiculous suggestion) because there are no print guidelines and it has no Alexa rating. You've created a set up where tons of good encyclopediac articles should be disallowed. --John Lynch 23:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So you'd be looking a link like [7] where you can see T Campbell, Meaghan Quinn, and Wednesday White on the staff? Or what? Snowspinner 23:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's still self-referential. And please read my actual comments, I haven't said that "websites about webcomics have been deemed invalid". Are you saying that there is no reference for these related web entities outside their own circle? That would then fall under Wikipedia:Verifiability#Obscure_topics. Have none of these ever been mentioned in Wired or Salon for example? These are questions that go to the basic idea of encyclopedic. - brenneman(t)(c) 00:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Although I have no doubt that you are a highly intelligent person with nothing but the best interests of Wikipedia at heart, this appears to be the most brain-searingly and breathtakingly idiotic thing I have read in some time. Are you sincerely saying that notability within its own circle is not notability? If so, will you be commencing your violent purge of most academic articles? Snowspinner 00:23, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm, you have read our policies on Original Research, haven't you? What's so shocking about saying that if there only exist two sources that refer to each other for something that we shouldn't use them as reliable sources. If someone in Toronto somewhere is the next Issac Newton and publishes the new Theory of Everything we wouldn't include it until it had had a peer review, and preferably something external. And please, civility. I'm sure that you're not "brain-searingly and breathtakingly idiotic" either, so perhaps you could just put that back in it's box? - brenneman(t)(c) 00:35, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that all areas of human knowledge are equally notable? I would say that, for example, the monarchy of the UK is more notable than webcomics, which explains why we have articles about all of the former and not all of the latter. It does, as Brenneman says, go to the heart of what encyclopedaic means. -- SCZenz 00:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it self referential? Comixpedia is independant, the people in charge aren't members of Dayfree Press. Google News also includes Comixpedia in its searches. As for it being an Oscure topic webcomics have been mentioned in the news which makes it so it isn't an obscure topic. --John Lynch 00:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So the Quad City Times also isn't an acceptable source for things that go on in Quad City? Snowspinner 00:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • My apologies. How does reputability get established if all reputability is done by citations in other reputable sources? What is the root of all reputabiltiy then? Snowspinner 02:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please accept mine as well, that was far too snappy on my part. A valid question: From what aether does this magical stuff spring? For example, what makes The New York Times a reputable source? It is widely read, thus any mistakes are very public. It has history, in that if it had a long series of mistakes to its name, we'd know. It has a reputation based upon both of these things, and thus to some degree is bootstrapped by other reputable organisations. I really don't think that you're arguing that Comixpedia is to be regarded as being as reliable as the New York Times, are you? Even about itself. - brenneman(t)(c) 02:16, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Since we're talking about the NYT, why not move left?) On the other hand, between New York Times and Jayson Blair, we have around 3500 words on the mistakes and flaws of the New York Times. The Comixpedia article is a bit of a stub, but it doesn't even have a criticism section.

Which is mostly to say that verifiability isn't something that can be done by a robot - it takes the qualified judgment of subject experts, regular editors, and common sense. Snowspinner 02:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And, while I'm not disputing your expertise, "common sense" dictates that if (for example) you were claiming that expertise without any supporting evidence I'd be disinclined to believe it. Despite the flurry of "Keep per Snowspinner" opinions voiced above, we've yet to see a single source cited external to the webcomics world. It shouldn't matter if it's "Neanderthal theory of the autism spectrum" or "Diesel Sweeties", we should be able to find reputable sources. - brenneman(t)(c) 12:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If it were "Neanderthal theory of the autism spectrum", we'd expect to find that our sources were those which normally cover Neanderthals and/or autism. I don't know what "Diesel Sweeties" is. Webcomics as a whole are a form of web culture that hasn't attracted much mainstream media attention, so they are a much more difficult to find authorities on because traditionally reliables sources haven't chosen to cover them much. Some degree of self-referentialism is to be expected, just as Reuters, AP, CNN, et. al. all reference each other. Cite the best references available in the article, and allow the reader to decide the reputability of them. Tag the article to indicate your lack of faith in the sources if you need to. But since it is a webcomic, merely looking at the comic to verify its continued existence over a period of time, and seeing the public response to it satisfies some degree of verifiability. Inclusion in a known syndicate adds more. I think we have enough here primariliy because as long as they're working in an encyclopedic style, I prefer to offer other editors good faith in pursuit of their own interests, and see what develops. Snowspinner is clearly an editor working in good faith on encyclopedia articles that interest him. Unfocused 15:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that this would rule out a wealth of academic topics that are discussed only among academics? Snowspinner 15:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's not actually the case. Academics have a thing called "peer review" which consists not only of discussions amongst themselves, but publishing in reputable (if not widely known) locations. If there do exist topics so obscure that only a handful of people know about them and that do not have a peer-review methodology, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. I've said this above, but I'll say it again: that's what "no original research" says. - brenneman(t)(c) 09:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge and redir to ABS-CBN. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 04:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ABS-CBN Interactive

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. Weak redirect ABS-CBN. —Cryptic (talk) 01:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 20:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Dorsey

Pretty much a resume for a guy whose only really notable characteristic is being brothers with a famous quarterback. If this gets deleted, also remove his mention on the July 13 and 1978 articles. A Google for "Adam Dorsey" returns less than 400 results, and at least the first four refer to a filmmaker, not a social worker. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: According to the article, the subject is a social worker and a filmmaker. Punkmorten 20:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That may be, but if you look at the website that's the first link for "Adam Dorsey", it doesn't appear to be the same person. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 20:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Advercasting

Vanity page. I suspect that "e-marketing guru" Mr. Rubel is attempting to "e-market" his own e-marketing jargon [8]. -leigh (φθόγγος) 19:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Steve responds: Sure, I can see why you think that. Why don't we do this. Let's remove the link to my post and reference to my name and build out this definition if it even deserves to be at all. Let the people decide. - Steve Rubel

  • Delete as dicdef, neologism, vanity, crystal-balling. Sheesh! Eddie.willers 20:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Thousands of Google links, but they all seem to point to his blog, i.e. he is gaming Google. And on the page above [9] he mentions the Wikipedia article, pretends that it was posted by a third party, and invites people to "build out" the definition in much the same language as above. Why do these people always use deceit as a first resort? Is it part of their training? If he had waited a bit, let things grow, he might have had a case. Looking at the contribution histories it would appear that, using the IP address 24.131.194.221, he posted a request for an article on this term at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and Economics, and then created the article himself thirteen minutes later, which was clumsy. Should have waited a week or so and used a different IP address. -Ashley Pomeroy 21:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons already listed. --Idont Havaname 21:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ashley Pomeroy. (What's a "trailor", anyway? This e-podJarGon is getting beyond me.) — Haeleth Talk 23:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, ugly business. I think the people have decided. --Aquillion 00:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete, I can testify that Steve did not post this article. I did. I posted it because it needs to be defined. You may not like advertising, but advercasting will in fact become popular, if not in 2006 then definitely by 2007. This is not an ordinary advertising method. Advercasting has many advantages over traditional advertings, specifically the maven (see The Tipping Point) audience, thus it needs to be defined. Furthermore, there are a number of other links out there that discuss the term, such as lexblog.com and droxy.com. As mentioned above, I did in fact request the article then add it a few minutes later because I've never added a new article here before. It was not clear to me at first that I could simply create the article on my own. Like Steve said, if you think he created it to promote his site, then just remove the link and the reference to him.
    • Comment. The above statement was posted from the same IP as the IP original author of the article. No matter what defense they offer, the fact remains that this is a nelogism that has no place in Wikipedia. Eddie.willers 03:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Of course it was the same IP. I *said* I was the author to show you that Steve Rubel did not write it as a means of self-promotion. You act like I was trying to hide something. Sheesh...
        • Comment As Response. I would politely suggest that you read some of the foregoing comments. The issue with this article is not 'self-promotion' (as you appear to believe) but the fact that the descriptive term is a neologism and runs against Wiki policy. Additionally, and with the greatest respect, sir, you may *say* whatever you please. Nevertheless, you are *saying* it from an anonymous IP account rather than taking the trouble to register as a user. IMHO, and probably within that of many Wiki editors, this has the effect of reducing the value of what you have to say. Eddie.willers 04:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as part of the "War on Portmanteaux" --MacRusgail 20:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete, Portmanteaux don't have 52,000 entries in Google.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Titoxd(?!?) 00:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aéstari

NN conlang, looks like original research. Ilmari Karonen 19:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that this falls into the category of "original research" seeing as I made this conlang myself. I totally understand if you think this page should be deleted, but I do not see the harm in documenting model languages, especially those posted on www.langmaker.com . Thanks.

Delete Just go ahead and delete it. I shouldn't have posted it, and I'm sorry for wasting your time.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 20:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Albany poets

NN organization/web site. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 22:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this going to be deleted? I also do not understand the above statement about "local group that doesn't appear notable". If someone could please explain this to me before going ahead and deleting it, I would be grateful. -Thom Francis, President, Albany Poets

I understand that it may sound like an ad, but it was not meant to be written that way. I do not see much difference between this article and articles that are about 'ordinary people'. I also take offense to the assertion that this organization is not 'notable'. I do not think those types of comments are warranted at all. --Thom francis 16:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: No offense is meant by the use of the term "not notable". There are certain criteria that are applied to articles to ensure the subject matter is worthy of inclusion. For this article to be kept, you will first need to rewrite so that it conforms to the WP:NPOV policy. Second, provide verification from reputable third-party sources. If you can do this, we would all be willing to reconsider our votes. --howcheng [ talk &#149;

[Special:Contributions/Howcheng|contribs]] &#149; web ] 16:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


Would newspaper articles about this organization count for verification? --66.194.55.132 17:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Major newspapers, yes. Little newspapers like the kind you get for free at the supermarket, no. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 20:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then, I have the stories on our website from the Albany Times Union (which is the area's biggest newspaper). There are links to the Times Union website, but they do not seem to be working. Here are the links to the stories: http://albanypoets.com/news/read.asp?newsID=100 http://albanypoets.com/news/read.asp?newsID=38 Thanks. --Thom francis 13:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 20:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Allied Recon

Advertising for an NN company, although if "The information that they provide may not be the most reliable in the industry" I don't see why anyone would hire them. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 22:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Physchim62 (talk·RfA) 20:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amount of substance

This article's reason for existence appears to be to resolve the confusion created by defining the chemical term mole (unit) as the arbitrary "amount of substance" rather than a defined number of particles (Avogadro's number). I have clarified the explanation in the mole article and see no reason anymore for the existence of this one. However, if it is still deemed useful by others, the article title should be a redirect to Avogadro's number. Blainster 17:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Make that a very strong keep, once I find out that after all Blainster's blather above about how "I have clarified the explanation" I go to the Avogadro's number article and the phrase "amount of substance" is curiously completely absent from that page, nowhere to be found at all. To compound the problem even more, after Blainster's last edit to the mole (unit) page, the only mention of "amount of substance" in that article was in the quoted CGPM definition, plus the category link at the bottom of the page. Not a whole lot of discussion about it there, either, obviously. Note that the metrologists use substance as a mass noun in this context; Blainster's uses it with definite or indefinite articles, treating it differently linguistically. Gene Nygaard 19:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your gracious contribution, Gene. I have not touched the Avogadro's number article, which competently describes the subject by explaining that it is a quantity. Therefore it need not use the ambiguous term amount, although you are certainly free to add it if you wish. --Blainster 20:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 22:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anastassia Politi

This article is (as its contributor candidly admitted) a c.v. The page has been marked for cleanup and POV problems for several months, but no one seems interested enough in the subject to fix these problems or address the copyight question mentioned on the Talk page FRS 22:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 20:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anti creative

Incorrectly tagged as a speedy. Seems to be a non-notable "record publisher". Rob Church Talk | FAHD 20:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 20:29, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aromatic & Allied Chemicals

Another Indian private limited company that does not even have a website to begin with, but has one single webpage. Google results are mostly in director listings of related companies. Pamri • Talk 10:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Official policy at WP:NOT: Wikipedia isn't a slang guide -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 20:29, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Asspie

Wikipedia is not a porn slang dictionary. Content appears unsalvagable but could perhaps be merged somewhere. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by DragonflySixtyseven. Titoxd(?!?) 00:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Attfb

One of a collection of junk pages. Read below for more. Asparagus 04:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 20:33, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Avotone

Advertising. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 22:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good information about a new product line. If huge brands like Loreal get a page, so should smaller companies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timmyg (talk • contribs) 22:09, 25 October 2005, who blanked out above lines

Comment: L'Oreal is a huge company that has a large share of the cosmetics market; thus they are notable. Avotone is not, unless you have some verification to back your claims? --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 23:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But it is noticable for the people that buy Avotone Products. Although it is not as large as the other main brands, it still has a loyal base of customers.

  • Comment: WP:CORP has the guidelines for inclusion of articles on companies. Please enlighten us if Avotone meets those guidelines. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 16:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Thank you for pointing me in the right direction. I will do my best to meet the standards listed.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bag

Delete-Who cares about bags The Republican 18:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 00:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bell Buoy Restaurant & Supper House

non-notable, non-encyclopedic cohesion | talk 23:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

worth noting, the OP blanked this page, changed my user page, and removed the afd tag from the article - cohesion | talk 00:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Titoxd(?!?) 00:08, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bethel Church

Non-notable local church. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 00:09, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bjørnevik

A farm that seems to be non-notable. Only few farms are notable for an own article. Hapsiainen 21:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 00:09, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklines

The band is not notable per WP:MUSIC guidelines. Hapsiainen 21:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete, and it also is a hoax, since I'm from the region and I haven't heard anything about him. Titoxd(?!?) 00:11, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BlckBrd

Not a speedy candidate, but it looks like a hoax to me. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 20:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 00:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blue bell country club

Country club. Golf. Expensive. In a part of the world where "many people live there". Non-notable? -- The Anome 22:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete both. Titoxd(?!?) 00:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BoardTracker

Spam article. The associated redirect Boardtracker (which was a duplicate article until converted to a redirect) should be dealt with at the same time. TexasAndroid 18:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 04:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brahman-Atman Yoga

This article reads like poorly written advertising. It makes grandiose claims regarding identity with the key personages of yoga history. Unless it can be presented with useful external links it appears of little value - non-encyclopedic. Already has POV notice. Paul foord 13:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, this is verifiable... I've got at least a couple of book at home that reference it. I tend delete though because of the unheaded cleanup issue. I'll see if I can cobble together enough from the books I have to write a decent NPOV article... Can't make any promises though; I have not picked up these books since college.--Isotope23 20:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 00:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon T

Rapper vanity. Delete Wile E. Heresiarch 05:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 00:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Burkke

Appears to be a hoax. "James Howard Santiminreich" brings up not a google hit [13]. "Burkke tennis" does not bring up any relavent hits [14]. chowells 22:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Deleted as adspam. GarrettTalk 14:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Car accident secrets

Delete. Commercial for book for sale. A link to the external site has been repeatedly added by anon user(s) to car accident (see history) and repeatedly deleted by wikipedians for being commercial; this is apparently their new tactic. (Interestingly, Car Accident Secrets already deleted Jul 6 for copyvio even though user who created it holds copyright and said so and gave permission[15] (for his own work to be posted)). Elf | Talk 16:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by Denelson83 as recreation of previously deleted content. --GraemeL (talk) 23:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Car accident secrets

Previously deleted adspam, recreated post deletion The page is back. As far as I can tell it's the same content previously discussed, a non-notable self-published book with links to spin-off merchandise. - Just zis Guy, you know? 09:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 00:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Celestial elf

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. Delete unless someone can figure out the context, and maybe then, too. —Cryptic (talk) 01:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 00:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CenterCourt Hoops

NN, advertising cohesion | talk 23:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 20:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cinekinetic and Cinesaddle

Advertising for company and product. Also, the articles are (almost) identical and consist of multiple copyvios from different pages on the manufacturer's web site. Googling reveals only 368 results, most of which are e-commerce sites. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 22:16, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Seems like a speedy delete as it was all copied from the manufacturer's site. Mike young was also copied from the same site and posted by the same editor--JJay 00:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not a speedy, since they're selling overpriced, useless little camera pouches, not this text advertisement for them. On the other hand, there was no need to bring this to afd; sending it through the normal copyvio process has the twin benefits of being less effort and gives you a perfectly valid reason to blank the articles right away. —Cryptic (talk) 14:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cinekinetic is a major company and holds an important position in the market. It should not be deleted as people looking for film equipment may find it useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.211.30 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 00:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Claudio Zapata

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 04:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comic fiesta

Advertising for an NN convention in Malaysia. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 18:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to reply to this properly since I don't know where to go but could you re-consider the deletion of this article? I'll get it edited properly with the proper info and would see to it that it won't just advertise the event. At the moment I'm short on time to actually write it all out.
Thanks -- YCWeng
  • Delete. Sorry, YC, you'll have to pay comic shops, newspapers, and websites for advertising just like every other convention. Wikipedia's not free advertising space. -- Corvus 00:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I know that...I don't intend to advertise in Wikipedia. More like the write up articles on AX and Otakon, I just wanted to put up something like that about this event. I just need the time to fix it. Any advice on what I can put up temporarily to qualify a non-delete? I'm open to suggestions. Thanks. -- YCWeng

    • Create a user account and write the page as a subpage of your user page. When you're finished, post it back to where it's supposed to go. The article will reviewed again at that time. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 16:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 00:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy little thing called love (book)

NN book. There is a novel by this title for sale on Amazon UK, but by a different author. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 23:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is that book any more notable? Sonic Mew | talk to me 01:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. Amazon sales rank: None. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 16:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete just tried to verify this book's existance, without success. That's ten minutes out of my life I'll never get back! Brandon39 13:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 00:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crypto-communism

A substub that I don't see developing without POV problems. I considered a redirect to fellow traveller but I don't think that's appropriate.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Titoxd(?!?) 00:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Darin Scott Schmicking

feel for the guy, but zero google hits on full name and four related to little league baseball on "darin schmicking". Heah (talk) 04:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it it is the best it helped me w/ my report — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.93.234.143 (talk • contribs)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Vandalism was removed, so there's no valid reason for deletion left. - Mgm|(talk) 10:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Hayes

This page is openly homophobic and unfactual!! It offends me and I would, if I were Mr Hayes or his lawyers, see it to be slanderous. 80.42.21.79 20:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete under WP:CSD A7. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 20:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David-James Sadler

Non-notable someone or other. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 00:23, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Space 5

A passing mention of this space station is made in one line of dialogue in Star Trek: First Contact, and that's all. Extraordinary Machine 19:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by Wayward as nonsense. --GraemeL (talk) 23:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dennisists

More of the same collection. Author of page is also contributor here: [19] Asparagus 04:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 00:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Division 867 and C-Real

Band vanity. Delete Wile E. Heresiarch 05:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete Division 867 and C-Real: Lyrical Masters, Division 867 speedy deleted by Scimitar. Titoxd(?!?) 00:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Division 867 and C-Real: Lyrical Masters and Division 867

Details of an unreleased tape. Delete Wile E. Heresiarch 05:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by Geogre as A1, no context. --GraemeL (talk) 12:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DJ 942 - 1

Delete - empty and non-notable. --Oscarthecat 09:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 00:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

djrj

Non-notable vanity The clue is in the text: "If his music sounds different then most trance it is because he composes all my songs" (my emphasis) - no evidence of notability. - Just zis Guy, you know? 20:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 20:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doosh_O_Az_Masjid

delete - one song by an obscure artist, little information otherwise; no evidence it really is a folk song, likely created out of spite due to related events on the doosh article (the user that created the article and the article were both created shortly after the events. Peyna 22:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 20:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Hula III

Probable vanity page. This "scholar of some repute" is a student; the "Ed Hula" who gets a lot of Google hits seems to be another member of the family. [20] --rbrwr± 19:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Although he might be a student, his work in his respective fields has garnered him attention and accolades. This was not put up by Ed Hula III and this one reason is hardly sound, in my opinion, to remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.219.112.66 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 24 October 2005
    • Feel free to show us some accolades; give us something that we can verify, and we might actually have an article here. I'm happy to be proved wrong. As it is we just have a magnet for vandalism, presumably by his classmates. By the way, you deleted half my comment. I've restored it. --rbrwr± 20:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn bio. MCB 20:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, you want to delete something because a possible family member has a lot of google hits? I am sorry you are not succesful enough at something worthwile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.61.23.75 (talk • contribs)
  • This article is a clearly non-notable and likely autobiographical work by a student with an extensive vocabulary and ego. Traceroutes on the unsigned comment and the original page creator terminate in Atlanta (Georgia State). CommonerG (talk)
  • This Ed kid is a douche bag. He has not done anything reputable. He knows how to use a thesaurus and sends long stupid e-mails to the GT Rugby e-mail list that none of us read because he is a moron. For someone that supposedly lived and played rugby in Australia, 1. he knows surprisingly little about the game, 2. didn't even have the basic gear at the first several practices, and 3. isn't very good at what parts of the game he does know. Unless you would like to read the very candid opinions of the rugby team (and other large groups of people that Ed has annoyed) I would say delete this entry and forbid Ed from ever accessing this site again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.51.28 (talk • contribs)
  • I think he has done some reputable things deserving accolades and will get more. Even though he goes to state I still think he deserves an autobiographical entry up here. Is there another Ed Hula III that wants his information on instead of this one? Is Ed Hula III a contested definition? do ya'll spend your day looking for people's autobiographys to say they are pathetic delete them? I say delete ya'll, you don't do anything worthwhile at all but sit at a computer, geek (and this is coming from a georgia tech kid) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.68.29 (talk • contribs)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Titoxd(?!?) 00:29, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Elran

Autobiographical, 'Elran' doesn't exist Reisio 13:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by DragonflySixtyseven as nn-bio. --GraemeL (talk) 23:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Elrania

Autobiographical, 'Elran' doesn't exist Reisio 13:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 00:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Adnams

non-notable young man who works in cinematography and film editing. Google search turns up minimal to suggest notability (a film festival here and there). Nom&vote delete until he establishes some notability in the world. —Gaff ταλκ 04:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 20:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Family of 5

Illiterate article on flash series by non-notable "company", which is also up for AfD -> Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Round Square Productions MacRusgail 17:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete Titoxd(?!?) 00:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Forever Yesterday

Page was improperly nominated. I've created the AFD page now. No vote Optichan 16:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Page never had an AfD tag as far as I can tell... so I'm not sure how this even got nominated. Regardless, they don't appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Someone blanked the article, not sure if it was a vandal. I'm going to restore last good edit. No Vote until I sort this out.--Isotope23 21:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't meet Wp:MUSIC.--Isotope23 02:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. On Google, "'Forever Yesterday' pittsburgh emo" garners 62 Google hits, the majority of which are Wikipedia mirrors and many of the rest are out-of-context. Not notable. StarryEyes 21:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is just an attempt to advertise a little-known (and, as I can testify to, crappy) band that doesn't represent a major musical scene, and, as I far I know, has not commercially released any material. - Refugee621 23:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 00:33, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Franagle

neologism (anyway wd be didef) Flapdragon 00:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 20:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Freeman Towns

The page probably a hoax, since this guy never existed. No references are given. Panairjdde 17:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 00:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gatorpedia

NN Flapdragon 00:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 00:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Geeban

Not verifiable. Nothing on allmusic.com, nothing when Googled. Delete unless sources cited. brenneman(t)(c) 12:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 00:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Generational Compression

It cites no sources, it's not encyclopedic, it's ridiculously verbose, and it makes my head hurt. Delete as original research. TheMadBaron 15:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 00:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Giner

Can anyone verify this? I can't. Most google hits that are at all plant related seem to be typos for ginger. -R. fiend 21:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Until they can delete Molotov (talk) 21:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 20:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gino Frediani

Don't think it should stay in its status quo. V/ M
01:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 00:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Graves's law

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Titoxd(?!?) 00:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

HackHalo

THis is a hacker's forum with little impact outside its own membership (most of whom seem to be posting vanity entries in the article.) I could find no Alexa data on the site, and its link shows that it's not even up and running currently. Joyous (talk) 22:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


We actually are not hackers at all, this is a site where we make custom mods which are legal and endorsed by Bungie (the creator of the game), we also use it as a forum to discuss our projects and life as it is.

The "vanity entries" were put up so that new members could find information on who they are talking with on the forums.

The reason you did not find any Alexa data is because we were recently forced to change servers, as you would know had you actually read the article itself. We are starting off from square one.

The site is up and running at www.hackhalo.org.

However, if you read what the homepage says you will see that you must click on the forums button which leads you to www.hackhalo.org/forums.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Titoxd(?!?) 00:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Handeekap'd

No google hits, article appallingly spelt, apparently non-notable flash series. I blame South Park for encouraging such things! :) MacRusgail 16:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if only for the abysmal quality of the South Park ripoff drawings. - Just zis Guy, you know? 17:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to Head Cases. Physchim62 (talk·RfA) 21:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Head Cases Episode Guide

An episode guide for a comedy that didn't last more than two episodes. Just because the Simpsons has an episode guide on Wikipedia (inappropriately, IMO) doesn't mean that there needs to be an episode guide for every series. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 14:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. (the merge comment didn't state where) -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 03:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert Breslin

Article about Luciano Pavarotti's former manager. POV (can be fixed if kept). Google brings up a low 729 hits for "Herbert Breslin". There isn't much in this article can't be easily included in Luciano Pavarotti or Plácido Domingo (very little mention of the latter). Do we really want articles for every musician's manager? -Nameneko 03:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - certainly needs wikifying but the information is all verifiable, as is the subject of the article. Looking at the guidleines at Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies he would get over the bar as being an author (admittedly with apparently an acknowledged ghost writer)of a book about himself that almost certainly would have a circulation of more than 5,000 as it was written about in the popular press. Given the book I don't think appropriate to merge with the Pavorotti article. We don't want articles on every manager but this manager and the artists he managed could be said to be more notable than most.--User:AYArktos | Talk 00:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (keeping redir), taking the advice of an opera expert who says
As to the Breslin article looking like it was written by him or a friend, it's entirely possible. He was (or is) a shameless self-promoter. IMO, he doesn't deserve an entry except as part of an article about Pavarotti.
--Jerzy•t 19:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 10:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

House humping

Content does not appear in a reputable published source, thus does not meet guidelines in Wikipedia:Verifiability. Czyl 18:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 01:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, standards of verifiability should apply to sexual practices. Although, this one is mentioned on a few blogs, which makes it much more verifiable than "cleaning the spoon" and "bagging the bunny", which apparently had no source other than the writer. -- Kjkolb 05:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN, interesting but not encyclopedic. --TantalumTelluride 05:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If Bar hopping has the right to exist, than so does this. Fortunately, Bar hopping doesn't exist. Yet.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  05:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although the term may be unverifiable, the phenomenon certainly is well-known (at least, i had heard of it before). Thus, keep and maybe move later if an alternative term is found. And WTF is BJAODN? The Minister of War 09:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing on Google but some blogs and some Wikipedia mirrors. Andrew pmk | Talk 19:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The phenomenon is only well-known because it was an element of the storyline of one episode of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. Neither the article, the external links, nor a search reveals any evidence of the phenomenon existing in the real world outside of that story, or any secondary sources dealing with it (as either fiction or fact). Original research. Delete. Uncle G 11:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm the original poster (laptop just crashed, that's why I signed on as new today BTW), and yes, I'm new to Wiki (which is great, IMHO!) but I just posted several more links to references to house humping and related context. I'm a member of the Yahoo group, and yes, I know this is a true phenomenon (just ask my fiance). In England, maybe you have Cottaging for gay folks, but that's no stranger a fetish than house humping, which seems to be primarily hetero, but not exclusively. I understand that the term itself is new, but based on our user group messages and other correspondence, this has been going on since the beginning of the hot real estate market about 5 years ago. Someone in our group said there's a movie that had a scene about it, but they called it "sexy swiping" which I think involves sex and stealing, so that's slightly different. Frankly, the CSI reference was new to me, but that only proves the point. Not sure how else to prove it to you unless you have an open house and invite us over. --St germain23 13:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:V and WP:NOR seem relevant to me. -- SCZenz 02:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I originally nominated for deletion. I certainly believe that people may be doing this, but the requirements in WP:V and WP:NOR seem to apply. Without outside verification, we can't know if it's a thirty-person fad, or something destined to go the way of toothing. Perhaps the author could, as WP:NOR suggests, attempt to interest a media source in publishing a story on the topic before introducing this article? It's nicely written.Czyl 08:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. OK, points well taken and respected. Not sure if this counts as verifiability, but just last night, CNBC's evening news had a whole piece about that movie - I guess the name is Open House - and how one of the plot elements is people having sex in open houses. the reporter mentioned either house hunting, or house humping - it was hard to make out which. In any case, it verifies the phenomenon if not the terminology itself. I tracked down the film's page and they've got the clip up from CNBC. As the kids say, 'are we there yet?' --St germain23 13:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • St germain23, you should only vote once (bolding keep or delete is usually seen as a vote), but you can add a comment if you want to add information to the discussion. -- Kjkolb 14:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment Sorry about that - like I said, I'm new to the Wiki world, and it seemed like Czyl had indicated his deletion vote twice (nominating and posting), but maybe that's OK, I don't know. And what about this CNBC piece? Last I checked it was about as MSM as you can get. --St germain23 12:29, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete echoing above arguments for removal. Dottore So 11:56, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 00:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hythe Fields Gospel Hall and Hythe fields gospel hall

NN church in ... England? --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 22:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: second page added at a later time. Delete both. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 23:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to Innocence. Titoxd(?!?) 00:47, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Innosense

NN Flapdragon 00:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 04:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

InovaTech

Advertising and self-promotion. Despite being a tech company there are no external links to their website, so unverifiable as well. Ziggurat 23:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — WP:NOT advertising; article is written in PR-speak, and is primarily aimed at selling products and services. — RJH 17:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT DELETE —I found the article informative and containing useful information. It seems no more self promotional than others on Wikipedia and probably a good deal more factual
Comment in order to be considered factual, an article on Wikipedia needs to reference and demonstrate its facts in reliable third-party sources. These can be in the form of academic journals, (reputable) newspaper or magazine articles, books, and so forth - we call it verifiability. If we can't verify it, there's no proof that this actually exists, or that if it exists it is worth putting in an encyclopedia. There's often a strong reaction in Wikipedia to perceived advertising pages - that is, pages created solely to promote a company that is otherwise unexceptional - and I haven't seen anything to prove that this is otherwise. If you feel that other articles are the same (unverifiable advertising, that is), that is an argument to delete those articles also, not keep this one. Please indicate which articles you feel meet the same criteria! Ziggurat 23:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assuming the above doesn't happen, delete. -- SCZenz 03:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is an advertisement
  • Retain I notice this company seems to mentioned quite frequently in IEEE publications so I assume that much of capabilities are highly regarded, a number seem unique and newsworthy
  • Worth keeping saw lots of references to InovaTech in technical magazines and patent publications relating to innovative architectures for PLC, filters, power supplies and energy measurement (especially fraud detection using Wavelet theory)
Comment great, I'm glad to hear it. If you add properly cited references to the publications (IEEE / technical sound good - anyone can be granted a patent) to the article I'm sure that will carry a lot of weight in the deletion discussion. If they're newsworthy, where have news items about them been published? We cannot merely take anyone's word that they've seen citations - we need to have the reference itself so that other people can check up on it. It's also worth noting that putting up three votes from one person is also frowned upon in Wikipedia, as it could be perceived as trying to subvert the voting/discussion process (something we call 'sockpuppeting'). Ziggurat 00:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 03:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ioviphurn

Notability not established. Most, if not all, Google hits only refer to their website. 202.156.6.54 23:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • ???, shall we move the Ioviphurn info page to another website then, nei? --Kloy1334 03:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes it will be a good idea... Don't take it personal, please. But I am afraid it does not meet requirements to become an entry here, my friend. -202.156.6.54 03:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not personal, but what about all of the other constructed languages? (The ones that actually look like a complete copy of another language) --Kloy1334 03:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think it depends on the notability of the CL concerned. However there may be some people who will disagree with me, so let's wait for other comments here. -202.156.6.54 03:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I understand but methinks that if the other CLs are just in existant here on Wikipedia and there is a CL being worked on everyday that's not listed, then it isn't that fair to leave it out. (Just a thought) Anyone know of any free one page web hosts for my article? or could I subdomain it on my current site? --Kloy1334 03:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Indeed, until today I had never heard of this language, and the number of ghits makes me suspect that it is completely unknown even within the conlanger community. As for other conlangs: there are indeed a fair amount of them, but keep in mind that they all have to meet certain requirements of notability. The article doesn't make it clear that it meets any of them. Besides, it's generally not taken well when people write articles about themselves or their own creations. Please take a look at the discussion at Wikipedia:Conlangs to get an impression. Jeff, I strongly suggest that you move this page to the Conlang wiki and/or to your own userspace. You also might consider submitting it to Langmaker.com. --IJzeren Jan 09:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your respone, I shall move this article to langmaker and other such CL websites. Please note that upon recognition, This article will return to Wikipedia in a few weeks.
      • Just checked out langmaker and LangMakerWin, very amateur programs (the basic template doesn't include numbers or words such as "you" and "I."), any other sites?
        • Hang on, are you referring to the LangMaker software? But that's not what I mean! Langmaker is a conlang directory, by far the most extensive one on the Internet. Any conlang should have an entry there. See here. --IJzeren Jan 06:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 20:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Irlandesa


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Titoxd(?!?) 00:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie pryor

High school basketball player. Seems non-notable, but seems also to claim some notability, so probably doesn't meet CSD. ""Jackie Pryor" Illinois" produces 282 hits on Google, while ""Jackie Pryor" basketball" produces about 35 hits. Delete. Joel7687 17:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 00:51, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jagged_edges

This topic is probably discussed elsewhere in a computer graphics. Also it is extremely biased against Sony Playstation Nis81 17:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 20:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese salsa

Japanese salsa is not a distinct musical movement. The article mentions one group, "Orchesta de la Luz" (the group spells it "Orquesta de la Luz", actually, see http://laluz.jp ), noted for playing salsa just like Latinos, which to me signifies that it is not a distinct style, and does not merit its own article. Perhaps the group deserves inclusion, but this article is useless. Delete. Joel7687 01:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 00:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremias Jangad

google search yeilds zero hits. smells like a vanity article. Heah (talk) 04:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete, per discussion and CSD A6 and G4. Titoxd(?!?) 00:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jessearcher

Non-notable / Vanity Pete.Hurd 22:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note, two previous deletions - ought to be a userpage Pete.Hurd 22:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by RHaworth as nn-bio. --GraemeL (talk) 12:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Turton

Nonsense vanity page Shawn 07:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 00:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Tomo

NN; only a couple Google hits Fang Aili 23:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 03:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kartfestivalen.

Music festival. I'm not sure about the threshold for notability for such things, but if there is not more to say, it should go. -- Egil 23:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: willing to keep. Google turns up German hits and I'll be honest I don't know how to dig on this one. If it's a major music fest, it would get a keep and hopefully someone can prove or disprove that! Will watch... Marskell 23:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Isn't this a norwegian festival? At any rate I didn't see an article about this on the norwegian wikipedia, and the current content is close to trivial. So somebody can re-create it if it is at all notable. — RJH 18:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote. Have expanded a bit based on the official page. Kartfestivalen Gvarv gives 490 google hits, the official page cites 28 press notices. Don't know if that's notable or not, so I'll leave that up to other people... Sam Vimes 19:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Physchim62 (talk·RfA) 21:09, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kiwilyrics

Yet another non-notable Wiki - Just zis Guy, you know? 20:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 01:00, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lahgoon

Autobiographical, 'Elran' doesn't exist Reisio 13:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 01:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lamentations of a southern mistress

And finally, Samuel Augustus Hardy's contribution to literature. Asparagus 04:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Ok, so fur numerical purposes, the following are discounted:

  1. Eamon84
  2. Wikipedian2005
  3. Telestylo
  4. Simonrexfan
  5. Promisekeeper2005
  6. Thearticulator
  7. Shadow demon

Additionally, Shard and Robin Johnson each have around 10 Wikipedia: space edits and I'm usually minded to numerically remove them too. Angr's actual vote is a little unclear, but given the current state of the list and the apparent lack of persuasion among other deleters (i.e. not referenced adequately for them), it sounds more like a delete. In any case, excluding all the names I mentioned so far, I get 25d-11k. Including them all I get 28d-11k (or 27d if Angr's a delete). Further, Brazilfantoo's Wikipedia: space edits are almost exclusively to this AfD and so I could discount on that basis. Given the considerable energy invested here by that editor, however, for the numerics they are counted, and it would be hard to give the debate a sound reading without taking account of what they say. Whichever way, we're numerically over two-thirds and there is lots of participation. So is there a good reason to raise the deletion threshold? Well, from reading the debate, it is illuminating that the list of 'references' that is cited twice are actually just pictures and to reach a factual conclusion from them necessarily demands interpretation. That has been demonstrated quite clearly here to fall below the standards of NPOV and NOR in the opinion of significantly many participants. The references in the article clearly haven't satisfied many people either, and they don't appear to actually deal with the individuals in the article, with one possible exception. Lacking that kind of verification, the list is evidently below WP:V too. It is also apparent that the deleters are not in the least, in a single case, persuaded by the keepers and so I do not think there has been a change of perception during the debate as sometmies happens. It is often telling when the first response to the nomination is "invalid because I don't like the reason"; you have to counter the reason, not put your fingers in your ears. I also have no time at all for the parts of the debate centering on accusations of wanton censorship: it's just such a bald assumption of bad-faith that it doesn't fly; and I know enough of Shreshth91 that I genuinely don't think s/he'd nominate any article for that reason alone. Short answer: I don't find any successfully formulated and defended reason to consider that something in the region of 70% or more is not a reasonable threshold as oftentimes used in AfD closures, and so the deletes have it. -Splashtalk 01:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of men famous for being well endowed

This article is totally POV. Should be deleted as nonsense. It's unverifiable and is spreading unverifiable rumours. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 09:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Suggesting deletion on the grounds of either POV or nonsense are both spurious. Please give a proper reason why you think this article should be deleted. --DannyWilde 10:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think this article should be kept, for the reasons I stated on the discussion page. First, the very first paragraph of the page about penis size talks about the fact that penis size is important to men. Second, if there is going to be a page on Wikipedia about size queens, then why not a page about the kind of men that the size queens would like? Third, this is not POV because some of these men have been featured in videos and/or movies that demonstrate that they are indeed well endowed; and this page is not truly whether these specific men truly are well endowed, but that they have become famous for being well endowed (the fact that we don't have any pictures of Milton Berle nude never intereferred with the fact that he became famous for being well endowed). Go look at the page on Milton Berle; everyone who knows about him knows that he was famous for being well endowed, but no one felt they could mention that on the page about him because they didn't think it would be "proper." This page gives them a place to mention something about Milton Berle that he was very, very famous for! Why is it proper to have a page about nude celebrities on the internet, size queens, penis size, penis enlargement, and not a page on something that is often discussed in popular culture? If anyone can give me a good reason, then I'll vote for deletion. Until then, I say keep. (Did any of you see the Comedy Central roast of Pamela Anderson? Half of that special was made up of the comedians cracking jokes about Tommy Lee's endowment! And from what I have heard, that special was the highest rated program in Comedy Central history, therefore it is notable!) -- Brazilfantoo 10:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment again. This discussion should not even be taking place. No valid reason to delete this article has been given. The article obviously is not point-of-view, and it is obviously not nonsense. I would vote to keep the article if I thought this was a genuine discussion, but the AfD nomination itself has not been justified at all and should probably be regarded as vandalism. Further, the AfD nomination was not properly carried out according to the Wikipedia procedure, and this article still is not showing up properly on the above page. --DannyWilde 11:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to response. Thanks for clarifying. Interesting comments. I'm not too familiar with the whole deletion process. -- Brazilfantoo 11:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Keep; valid subject; the proper response to POV is to edit it out, and the proper response to "nonsense" (in this sense, at least) is to insist on proper citations. —Cryptic (talk) 01:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. Actually I was in a bit of hurry.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 06:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Besides being sophomoric, Wikiepdia should never be used to spread POV rumor and inuendo. Stu 02:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a valid concept for an article, whether or not the individual entries are valid. The entry I submitted, Jimi Hendrix, is well documented, and a plaster cast was made and at one point displayed at an art gallery. --DannyWilde 02:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. My initial reaction when I saw the article was afd (as I commented on the talk page). Then I thought about it long and hard. Changed my mind. --JJay 03:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this thing has no place on Wikipedia, is largely unverifiable, and inherrantly POV. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable —Wahoofive (talk) 05:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia, not to mention unverfiable. -- Kjkolb 05:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Verifiable in many cases, and a part of popular culture and world history. -- Emanon84 05:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I first found this page via the Tommy Lee page, and that page references his large endowment. So, I think this page has merit. You can't really say that this page spreads "rumors" or "innuendo" when everything said on this page is already said on other Wikipedia pages. -- Wikipedian2005 05:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV and non-notable! It has the whole cause and effect thing backwards anyways.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  05:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is POV nonsense. "Well-endowed" isn't an objective category and many of the entries are rumor-based, totally unfit in any encyclopedia. Telestylo 06:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An unusual page, to be sure. But some men are famous for this, so why not have a page about it? -- Simonrexfan 06:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: how about "List of women famous for having big breasts?" or "List of women famous for having tight vaginas?" -- Kjkolb 06:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We already have a page like that: size queen. This page is nothing but a list of women who like men with big penises. If this is notable, then why isn't a page on the flipside of this notable? You basically have a page here saying "These women are famous for liking well endowed men," so how is it not acceptable to have a page that says "these men are famous for being well endowed"? -- Brazilfantoo 06:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: those lists are inappropriate as well. -- Kjkolb 06:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. And what gives you the right to say that? Listen, you may not like it, but the issue here isn't your own moral tastes. Milton Berle was a Hollywood legend, and hardly anyone can ever refer to him without referencing the legend around his big penis. The same goes for Tommy Lee. The same goes for other men. The point here is that this is a part of our culture, whether you like it or not. -- Brazilfantoo 06:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: you misunderstand, I have no moral objection to this (or homosexuality, pornography, bestiality or necrophilia...). The problem is that it is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. It is for appropriate for tabloids, as others have pointed out. -- Kjkolb 07:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. By what criteria do you judge that it isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia? First of all, fame itself is encyclopedic. Penis is encyclopedic. Penis size is encyclopedic. Penis enlargement is encyclopedic. Lists of celebrities who fall into various categories is apparently an encyclopedic thing (because they're all over Wikipedia). So how is it "not encyclopedic" to combine all of the above into a list of men famous for being well endowed? This just boils down to your personal opinion. And while you're at it, please explain to me why a list of women who have had breast implants and who are size queens is not encyclopedic either. -- Brazilfantoo 07:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: For the same reason that a list of tall actors isn't encyclopedic. It's trivial and arbitrary. However, these lists are even worse because they are based on rumor and conjecture. An encyclopedia needs verifiability. It's hard for a celebrity to hide the fact that he's 4'10", but if he says he has a footlong penis, he gets put in an encyclopedia for it, which is essentially the evidence given in some of the names on the list (Bill Maher, for one). Even the ones for which there is visual evidence, you're just going on "it looks big." It should be quantifiable. Also, it seems that some of the men were flaccid. That's a problem because some men don't get much bigger when they have an erection. The implant list has the same problem. For some it is easy to tell because their breasts have big scars and look like plastic bags full of water. For others, it is just going by "they appear to be large, and if a woman isn't fat, they couldn't be that big" or "she developed too fast" kind of thing. For the size queens, it comes down to trivia as well. How about a list of celebrities who like bunnies or chocolate? (oh god, I hope we don't have one of these). As for this information being in the biographies, I would say only if it is an important part of the person's notability, like Tommy Lee or Pamela Anderson. -- Kjkolb 09:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep only if "well endowed" can be specifically defined in terms of inches and centimeters and if all entries are verifiable. In other words, no one can be listed just for being rumored to have a big dick. Also, the title must be adhered to: List of men famous for being well endowed. Milton Berle was famous, and he may have been well endowed, but he wasn't famous for being well endowed. Men who are famous for being well endowed are almost entirely porn stars like Kevin Dean[23] and Rick Donovan[24]. If these criteria can't be met, then delete. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 06:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Milton Berle didn't become famous for his size, but his size WAS famous. It was talked about all the time, and it is discussed on the talk page of his Wikipedia page. Maybe the name of the page needs to be changed to something like, "Famous Men Who Are Known for Being Well Endowed" or something like that. But disagreeing with the title of the page is hardly a reason to delete the page. Renaming the page sounds more logical. -- Brazilfantoo 07:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Several of the voters in this discussion have extremely short lists (in one case only two edits, in another only five) of "user contributions". Also, can someone explain why people keep saying the article is POV? I don't understand that comment. It doesn't seem any more "point of view" than a list of long bridges or deep tunnels to me. --DannyWilde 06:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply to comment. User contributions may not necessarily affect judgement (even though their lack of experience may be unsettling) but the fact remains that all valid votes are counted, irrespective of number of contributuions. ALso, this list is POV because who gets to decide which of these men are famous for large endowments. For example, Milton Berle was famous and he may have had a large endowment, but he was not necessarily famous for it. Same is the case for Tommy Lee. Also, there aren't any sources or pics proving these claims. Most of the links are to blog sites holding discussions about these claims and nowhere is even one source stated. Rumormongering is not a part of what Wikipedia is about--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 07:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • What you say about "equal votes for all" contradicts the official Wikipedia policy document on deletions. About POV, your opinion makes no sense; the same logic could be applied to any Wikipedia article at all. Who decides who is in the article is the editors of Wikipedia. As for verifiability, several of the claims, such as the ones about Tommy Lee, or Jimi Hendrix, in the document can be verified, and there are indeed pictures, so it is clearly not rumour mongering. --DannyWilde 07:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most of it is unverifiable. StarryEyes 08:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Good & fun article, indeed part of pop culture, so important too. And Tommy Lee certainly is verifiable sadly. The Minister of War 09:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep only the verifiable cases and purge the rest of the entries from the list. (BTW, comparing this to breasts is kind of a non-issue. Breasts are often easier to see, so it's easier to get an idea of their size. - Mgm|(talk) 10:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. This is another of those "difficult to maintain but potentially valid" lists that come up on AfD often. Keep because penis size is a verifiable and NPOV concept, and because page could potentially be updated (note it says "famous for being", not "men who are" well endowed). Keep, but if it comes up again without some improvement I may change to delete. Batmanand 12:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete uverifiable and pointless as many people on Wikipedia may be well endowed but are either dead or if alive will likely not be prepared to prove it. Arniep 12:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The topic of which man is well-endowed is quite common in my experience and obviously is a matter of interest to people. For example, Errol Flynn was reputed to be so, and is described as being so (euphemistically) in David Niven's book "Bring on the Empty Horses". True or not, the story is famous. Even if the man is not well endowed in reality, as is said above to be the case for Tommy Lee, surely the fact he is famous for being well-endowed but isn't really so is notable as well. I don't see the point of deleting entries because the man is proved not to be well endowed but is rumoured to be, or is rumoured to be. Very widespread rumours themselves are notable if referenced, whether true or not. --DannyWilde 14:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, POV title (contains slang), difficult to verify or maintain. Andrew pmk | Talk 19:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete listcruft and not WP:V. The only person on the list who is WP:V as far as I know is Lee, and that is a case of the myth being larger than life (no pun intended)... besides, the list is incomplete without an "Isotope23" entry.--Isotope23 19:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, listcruft, unverifiable, inherently POV as to inclusion criteria. MCB 20:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unverifiable. "His ex-girlfriend said so" is not verification. Let's have a List of people famous for having low IQs and then put Bush on it because everyone says he's dumb! Great idea! Who writes this? -R. fiend 22:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is a part of pop culture. Carson Daly's ex-girlfriend, Tara Reid (who is a famous woman by the way), said on the Howard Stern show (the most successful radio show in history), that he is well endowed. Later, Sarah Silverman made the comment on Carson Daly's 30th birthday, broadcast on Mtv and VH1, "Carson is known for having a big penis...." The issue at hand is not really whether these men do have big penises, but that they have a reputation for it. If you don't like the idea of having a page about reputations, then you have to delete and/or edit half of the pages on Wikipedia. -- Brazilfantoo 23:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yeah, it's an unusual article but it's still something people talk about. -- Promisekeeper2005 23:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable/terminally POV. --Carnildo 23:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I repeat: ** Ron Jeremy's penis is verifiably big [31]. Simon Rex's penis is verifiably big[32]. Warren Cuccurullo's penis is verifiably big[33]. Tommy Lee has a verifiably big penis [34]. Priapus' penis is verifiably big [35]. R. Kelly has a verifiably big penis [36]. -- Brazilfantoo 00:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Evidently you are quite passionate for this topic, and I am sure it will eventually come to a head, but I still think that this list needs to be eliminated as being useless listcruft. Why not simply place the verifiable "greatness" of these men in their articles on Wikipedia? Stu 00:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: You keep saying "verifiably big." What precise size constitutes "verifiably big"? Who determines this standard? You? The ISO? tregoweth 01:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. I keep saying "verifiably big" in response to others. If you want a definition of what "big" is, then read the page on penis size. The more direct answer to your question is: the public decided who is "verifiably big". VH1 has a special called "I Love the 90s." In that special, there was a man saying that Tommy Lee was huge and a lot of black guys (this guy was black) were saying, "Oh, he's like us." (Those were the words of this black sportscaster, not mine. If you don't like those words, take it up with him and VH1. I'm just reporting on what was said on the show.) This is actually a ridiculous question you ask. All of these questions are really just attempts to justify censorship. -- Brazilfantoo 07:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Listcruft made up of 1/3th rumor, 1/3rd fantasy and 1/3rd conjecture. It has no place on Wiki. I am unimpressed by arguments along the lines of "Wikipedia already has a list like this!" Err, no, Wikipedia shouldn't have those either if they're comprised of gossip column rumors. RGTraynor 11:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Del. Have watched this page since its inception to see if the editors might bring it in line with policy. It hasn't because it can't.
  1. WP:NPOV. This page is an inherently non-NPOV contruct. There is an attempt on the list to define neutral terms for inclusion: "having a penis bigger than what statistics reveal to be average." I'm not precisely sure of the exact figure, but I believe at least one clinical study has found the average length to be around 5" (in USA). This means that a man with a penis 5.2" long is eligible for inclusion. However, would the page's editors agree? Further consideration should also make apparent that the list's stated inclusion criterion is quite absurd: it means that as long as a man has a penis that is longer than the average, he is eligible for listing, ie. 50% of males. The addition of "famous for" in the title is unhelpful, both due to the vagueness of "famous" (should we include a man with a penis 5" long who is famous for it in his remote village in Obscureland where all the other guys have 4"?) and also because most of the men on the list are not famous for having large penises. A comment was made that the solution to POV problems is not to delete but to edit. This is perfectly true, except when the construct is such that it cannot be brought to NPOV. We routinely delete problematic categories for exactly this reason, for example. To state it another way, it's the same reason List of uncool countries is a red-link.
  2. WP:V, WP:NOR. This may be more obvious. How is the info being verified? Many of the Listees are "rumoured", "believed", or "said" to be "well-endowed", which is quite unacceptable for encyclopedic lists. There is a suggestion that videos are sufficient. They aren't, because A. most of the Listees have no video evidence, and if we delete them we'd have almost nothing, and B. it's untrue that videos would help, because of the WP:NPOV problems in 1. For example, the article claims that Tommy Lee is "famous for being well endowed [but] verifiably [isn't]". How do we make that decision neutrally? Was he acceptable per the alleged inclusion criterion of "bigger than average"? (ie. is he bigger than 5"?) If so, how was it decided that he would be labelled "verifiably not well-endowed"? Indeed, how was it decided what length defines "well-endowed"? If that length is X", would X-1" make the owner automatically "not well-endowed"?

    There are other WP:V concerns. Clinical studies always record the precise method measurement, and the state of the penis. How do we determine from the videos and images what the length actually is? Is it simply: "Oh... that's big. Ok, we can hereby claim that he's famous for being well-endowed?" That's not acceptable for an encyclopedia, IMHO. Regards encephalon 13:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some of those people clearly are in there because they made a lot of jokes about size, and there is no proof that they have any size at all. But, for example, if there was a page "comedians who make jokes about their oversized parts", what would be wrong with that in terms of bias? That is basically what is happening in that section. Also, some men actually are famous for having large penises. Errol Flynn & Jimi Hendrix are good examples here, who fully meet the Wikipedia verifiability criteria. Also, the mythology section is actually worthwhile in itself, in my opinion; it is clearly a common theme in many cultures, and gathering a collection of mythological figures of this type is a valid exercise. As I stated before, I believe the basic motive for the delete votes is censorship, more than anything, and I feel that this censorship is what is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. --DannyWilde 14:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello Danny, thanks for your response. I must disagree. Hendrix and Flynn were not famous for their penises: Hendrix was an iconic pop musician, Flynn an early Hollywood star. They were famous—ie. people had and have an abiding interest in them—principally for those roles. They were not famous on account of their penises; that some people appear to care about their penises cannot be taken to mean that they were famous for them. Kind regards encephalon 20:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a matter of fact, my name isn't Danny. Anyway, you are incorrect, Hendrix and Flynn were both famous for being well-endowed. That may or may not be their principal claim to fame; however, the statement "famous for being well endowed" about Hendrix and Flynn is a factually correct, neutral point of view, and verifiable, statement. --DannyWilde 00:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello. I used Danny as a contraction for the username DannyWilde, not because I imagined it was your real name. As to your contentions, I'm afraid they continue to remain unconvincing. I suppose in response to your latest I could write about why, simply because David Niven wrote in a book about Errol Flynn's penis, the factual accuracy of the claim "Errol Flynn was famous for being well-endowed" is not, thereby, supported. Or I could say something about why, since "well-endowment" is an entirely subjective point-of-view, placing names (while explicitly excluding others with objectively very similar "endowments") under the List's title cannot be in concordance with WP:NPOV. Or I could point out that the sole inclusion criterion—silly as it is—is simply being disregarded in favor of non-NPOV judgements such as Tommy Lee... became famous for his large endowment... However, in reality the videos and photos of Lee do not show a notably above average size, and Simon Rex... is famous for his above-average endowment... However, in reality the videos and photos of Rex do not show a notably above average size. But I suspect further discussion with you on this AFD is unlikely to be productive, DannyWilde. All the best encephalon 20:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. That's not what any of those men are famous for. Robin Johnson 14:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment How is relevant part of American pop culture not at least as notable as middle schools or Pokemon or characters in books? While wikipedia should not be used for rumor-mongering, these are relatively established. And yes, being an element of pop culture can be notable, and, alas, this is. This article is neutral, the notion of these men being well-equiped is notable, and all I need is evidence of the rumors being common-knowledge for there inclusion.Youngamerican 02:42, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Problem is the list is not neutral, arguably cannot be neutral in its present form, and has very, very serious problems with verifiability and the WP:NOR policy. A good argument could also be made that the list is unencyclopedic, ie. not deserving of a page in a good encyclopedia. I agree that the issue of penis size can be treated encyclopedically—indeed, you could write a book on it—but that is not what this list is. encephalon 20:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no particular problem with verifiability. The Wikipedia criteria for verification require that there is a published source for the information, from a reputable publisher. The entries which cannot be verified can be removed, but, as I have already stated, several of the entries meet and exceed the "verifiability" criterion. The "no original research" really is unrelated, yet another attempt to tag the article with a "boo boo" word; "Delete, because it's a camembert", without thinking about what "original research" means; in other words, more name-calling, attaching labels like POV, nonsense, etc. etc. in an effort to censor the article. As I stated at the beginning of this discussion, no genuine policy reason to delete this article has been presented. --DannyWilde 02:10, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As has been previously pointed out, there are profound problems with verifiability. WP:V and WP:RS demand that the claim being made be verified by reference to reputable, independent publications. Claiming that R.Kelly, for example, is "Famous for being well endowed" requires a reference attesting to precisely that claim. A grainy screen shot of a sex video, with his penis completely covered, simply does not do that. Of course, any kind of image wouldn't: we cannot verify "famous for being 'well-endowed'", whatever that really means, with reference to an image. Note too the injunction in policy: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If an editor wishes to claim that an icon like Hendrix is famous for being 'well-endowed', rather than being famous as an iconic pop musician who happens to obtain the usual adolesecent attentions of a coterie of penis enthusiasts, evidence that shows precisely that should be provided. WP:NOR and WP:V, which are closely related, do apply. What's happening here is a few editors are making claims on that page sans evidence; instead they reference images from unreputable websites, and then interpret the images according to a POV, and claim this as evidence (see what's been happening with the Tommy Lee claim, for example). Looking at an image purportedly of Mr. Lee's genitals—just the image—and then claiming in the article that "in reality the... photos of Lee do not show a notably above average size" is a misrepresentation of the source, and suggests a poor understanding of how to use references.

    To get from [image] → [POV interpretation, eg. "XYZ is famous for a large penis but in fact his penis is not very large"] is to

  1. contravene NPOV,
  2. contravene WP:V as the claim is unverified (read the claim and ask yourself how an image can substantiate it), and
  3. probably contravene WP:NOR, because for this determination to be made not from a study or report or textual reference but from an image suggests these editors are making their own measurements and interpretations when deciding whether to include an entry (and how to word it).

    Incidentally, I second the call to close this AFD soon, as it is well past the standard 5 days. I hope we won't have to spend much more time discussing this trivial topic. I have felt ridiculous writing about this here, but soldiered on out of regard and concern for Wikipedia and the profound need to maintain encyclopedic standards for our project. Finally, I would like to ask editors on this AFD to consider WP:FAITH and WP:CIVIL. Please do not suggest that your colleagues are acting as "censors," or resort to "name-calling," when they are politely pointing out problems with an article. Regards encephalon 23:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep we have lists/categories for people being left-handed, having been convicted of drunk driving, and other things that do not indicate why they are famous / worthy of encyclopedic note. it's clearly presented as a list of rumours that must stand up to continual challenges to their validity for being in the list. this list may see a lot of dispute and change, not to mention vandalisms but there is no reason not to have in some form. i prefer the name List of men rumored to be or have been well-endowed however, as it more clearly conveys that these people are not just famous for their dick size - Mayumashu 03:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - we're talking about what they are famous for, not the fact of their size. Trollderella 03:53, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Silly list, unencyclopedic, unverifiable, etc..., etc.... Dottore So 11:58, 29 October 20
    • "Silly list" has a grain of truth in it, but is that a valid criteria for deletion? For example List of famous bald people seems faintly silly to me; do you think it should be deleted? Or, since we have seen on this page an opinion that the word "famous" is a point of view word, should it be deleted for containing the word "famous"? Or, how about "bald"? Should we delete it because there is no standard definition of "bald", or should we insist on a verified maximum follicle count? The people saying the article is "unverifiable" or "point-of-view" or "nonsense" just don't know what the words they are using mean. The discussion on this page has not been much more convincing than "Delete it because it's an omelette". Once one type of "it's an omelette" name-calling has been dealt with, we move on to the next attempt to find any applicable tag to delete the article, "Delete it because it's a poached egg", etc. --DannyWilde 13:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I feel a little uncomfortable that many user who have voted keep have very few contribs (less than 10). Also, shouldn't this AFD be closed by now. The given lag time of an AFD in WP:DP is 5 days and it's been more than a week now.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 10:11, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 01:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of video game websites

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Physchim62 (talk·RfA) 21:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of webcomics

Why do you have to point out that you are assuming good faith? Couldn't you just do it? Gamaliel 04:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
He probably wasn't making the assumtion to have good faith, but rather was assuming a position of good faith.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  06:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I will also assume the position. :-P Keep. --Jacquelyn Marie 04:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Anon vote by 217.132.220.17, not Polymeron. αγδεε (ε τ c) 10:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Titoxd(?!?) 01:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Day

clearly nn and vanity. Did Google search and nothing really notable popped up. This is just vanity of a non-notable person. (anon user keeps deleting tag too and has been properly warned).Gator1 21:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 01:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Marfarfalarful

Clearly non-notable. Another example of why we need Uncontested Deletions or somesuch; it doesn't meet CSD as it isn't nonsense, but the odds on not being deleted must be long indeed. Rd232 talk 08:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Titoxd(?!?) 01:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Turnbull

This article originally underwent an AfD debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margaret Turnbull, which resulted in its deletion. An undelete-and-rerun was requested at Deletion review, principally on grounds that the first debate was very brief. That request was approved, so it's here for a more thorough consideration than before. -Splashtalk 17:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Note, that this has expanded from its original posting and likely wouldn't be nom'ed as it stands. Well-sourced, notablity established. To forestall the previous complaint "she's only a post-doc," the criticism only makes sense if her educational attainment were the basis for inclusion. Quite clearly that is not the case here. Either you feel creating the HabCat and subsequent shortlist and, generally, being the last word on "HabStars" is notable or you don't. Given general wiki standards I'd say "yes" is an easy call. Marskell 17:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Much of the information in this article ought to go into HabCat, the star catalogue that Margaret is compiling. I still find a postdoctoral fellow not notable, and it's Jill Tarter who is the PI for Project Phoenix, that her catalogue is a subproject of. Pilatus 18:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "I still find a postdoctoral fellow not notable"--this isn't the basis for inclusion. Would "I still find a non-PH.d not notable" be a valid criterion if Jim Wales was nominated? Would "I think people who enter but drop out of seminaries" make sense for Tom Cruise? No, obviously. Marskell 22:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • How about "I find the idea of whittling down the Hipparcos survey by metallicity, spectral class etcetera to have a manageable list of star systems that could possibly harbor extraterrestrial life a boring project that does not establish a track record of notable research yet." To put "extraterrestrial life" into perspective, please note that it is often invoked by NASA to sell their research to the general public. The latest example: the Mars rovers. Planetary geology is genuinely exciting on its own, yet we see NASA put on the hype of "life on Mars" to make the project more palatable to the taxpayer or make the taxpayer pressure his Senator who might choose to spend his budget on pork projects instead. I'll get off the soapbox now, thanks for listening. Pilatus 00:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • So you agree that the postdoctoral fellow bit is not in-itself a delete criterion? Because it isn't, very obviously. The article does not reference NASA, extraterrestrial life, the Mars Rovers or any other attempt to "sell" exo-bio searches. We can agree to disagree on the rest of it. Whittling down 118 000 stars does not establish a track record of notable research? Well, I disagree and if you follow the links in the article so, apparently, do others. Marskell 00:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • The interview cited in the article, which Tony mentions as well, plays heavily on extraterrestrial life. The purpose of the HabCat, that Margaret has compiled, is to find extraterrestrial life. The criteria for planetary habitability are well estabished; the article Wikipedia has a section around what stars one might expect planets that support higher lifeforms. The rest are database searches. Yes, it really is that prosaic. Pilatus 01:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • While admitting NASA is self-serving in who it touts, so what if the purpose of the HabCat is to find extraterrestrial life? She still gets first mention on the Sol Station habitability page and your basic Space daily, David Darling references etc. Also, having spent days on the page, I can tell you the criteria for planetary habitability are far from well-established. Marskell 08:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and then redirect to HabCat as suggested on the VfU. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to HabCat. I do not see a good reason to delete before recreating as a redirect, although I would not object to it. I would like to stress that this is not a vote to keep as is. Regards encephalon 20:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This eminently notable scholar.--Nicodemus75 21:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As I said on VFU: "She's a relatively junior academic, but not every junior academic has collaborated with the director of the SETI Institute to copublish a catalog of possibly habitable stars. The NASA website has a nice little section written by a journalist at Astrobiology Magazine who interviewed Turnbull and Tarter." If not kept, a redirect would be very much second best. --Tony SidawayTalk 23:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry Tony, unexciting research, see my comment above. We keep articles on genuine achievement, not because someone has collaborated with someone with a track record. Pilatus 00:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • WTF do you qualify as exciting? Feminism in Milton? The anatomy of herbivorous dinosaurs? The HabCat is as "exciting" as any research and this is not a grad student collecting info for the boss. The target selection paper references Turnbull first. Marskell 00:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Exciting" == "mold-breaking", as a first attempt as a definition. Margaret did the work, that's why she is first author, Jill as last author secured the funding. Pilatus 01:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • If "mold-breaking" were a necessary inclusion criterion we could scrap half the wiki. Marskell 08:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • I guess what I'm trying to say is that having a few papers published isn't sufficient to warrant an article on oneself, publishing papers being the purpose of your everyday academic and such. The question is: is Margaret sufficiently important to have an entry for herself. Pilatus 11:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • You think no, I think yes and this whole world just keeps on turning. Let's just be glad we had this time...er, excuse me. I've been commenting to much on this damn entry ;). Marskell 12:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to HabCat. Gateman1997 23:48, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable enough within her field. 23skidoo 01:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to HabCat. - brenneman(t)(c) 03:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and or redirect. Ambi 07:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Marskell. --rob 10:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep appears to be notable and verifiable. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 16:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ejrrjs | What? 01:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. This doesn't add much notable info beyond the contributions to HabCat, but as per above I don't think you can say she's non-notable. -- SCZenz 02:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She is well known in astronomical circles, and her ideas were presented on Spacedaily-one of the leading portals on space and science.--Molobo 14:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Also official policy at WP:NOT (WP is not a slang guide) and a similar entry was afd'd earlier (a newer one has been created at Meh) -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 20:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Meh (slang)

needs more info, KEEP tho not encyclopedic, not sourced cohesion | talk 23:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 01:10, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mercatornet

Vanity/advertising. If in any way notable, it still needs a complete rewrite. Uppland 08:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE (discounting sockpuppets). Robert T | @ | C 21:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Milano Crew

Non-notable Newgrounds group. Optichan 14:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 10:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Sapo

Patent nonsense: Mount Sapo is about a "fictional mountain" that figures in no work of fiction, but is being used to justify curious and problematic edits of the article about soap. FWIW sapo is just Latin for "soap." Smerdis of Tlön 18:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Sounds like it could be expanded and it's a possible search term. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 23:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update. A Google search reveals that references to the supposed "Mount Sapo" are starting to pop up in various allegedly factual histories of soap, such as this one.

    Mount Sapo is apparently a hoax of some sort, and it may be that the hoax may have originated on Wikipedia, and our article on soap is being used to propagate it in any case. Patrizia Gardena's history of soap is much more in accordance with the facts. FWIW, Roman burnt sacrifices contained not enough fat to make much soap with, since the Romans burnt only the bones and inedible entrails, and sensibly kept the meat from sacrifices for themselves.

    I am no longer sure what to do with this page, since the hoax appears to have spread to the outside world. I hope some kind of consensus can be reached, though. Smerdis of Tlön 13:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The Mount Sapo and the Soap article both state it's a legend. I can assure you that it's not a hoax that started on Wikipedia. --Brunnock 16:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • At minimum, the Mount Sapo article needs to be made clearer about this. The text "Mount Sapo is a fictional place, used to substantiate a mythologic rewriting of the history of soap, which is often claimed to explain the origins of the name" makes it sound like it's talking about the history of soap on Wikipedia. This was no doubt the mistaken impression I got from first learning about "Mount Sapo" here, but it's one that others may share. Smerdis of Tlön 19:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have substantially rewritten the article, to make it clearer that this is a circulating hoax, and explaining in more detail why it is implausible. I am going to leave the VfD up for now, just because I'm not 100% sure that everyone will want an article devoted to this sort of fakelore, but I am switching my vote somewhat reluctantly to keep now.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 20:51, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MyFleeceVest

NN web site. No Alexa rank --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 22:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 01:11, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NAM!

Some kids in Deerfield, IL. like to play Vietnam by throwing tennis balls at each other in the woods behind the church. They think that's notable. I disagree. --JJay 00:16, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 01:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neapolitan candycane

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Celestianpower háblame 22:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NeoPaint

Ad for non-notable sotware. Shareware version ranks 48th in number of downloads for Image Editors @ download.com --Anetode 08:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. (copyvio) -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 03:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the Crown of Charlemagne

Delete Reads like some sort of advertisement. Group has little presense on web [38]. Thoughts? PhilipO 21:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC). Link to this article has been removed in other articles. [39][reply]

Opposed to deletion I don't agree with the singular opinion above. This Order is well-known and has a website. There are at least 2000 members of the Order and approximately every 5 years a two volume set of hardcover books are produced settng out members' lineage. These are vital source books for genealogists world-wide.

Comment Can you please reference this fact? --PhilipO 13:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see that it is an advertisement. What it does do is explain how people become members from a genealogical perspective. No fees are mentioned etc. User:Christchurch User has less than 50 edits

Who on earth do you think you are, you pompous prat, Mr.PhilipO? It is difficult to believe that the proprietors of Wikipedia allow such arrogance. But for your information (why should any of us have to prove anything to you?) The books in question are on the shelves of the Society of Genealogists in London, and the Scottish Genealogy Society in Edinburgh. Christchurch

Comment Perhaps you could send us a digital picture as proof? ;-) My original point stands. --PhilipO 20:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - copyvio of [40]. Odd isn't it that Tracey Crocker, Registrar General, uses her personal domain for email communication from this website? She also heads up [41] NB NOT Magna carta. If the article is kept, it should be moved to: Order of the Crown of Charlemagne in the United States of America which is the full title of the organisation and gives more of an idea of the organisation's lineage. Apart from reworking the copyvio, if kept, this article needs rework:

  1. bold title
  2. no categories
  3. remove history of Charlemagne for which there is already an article and insert history of the organisation
  4. fix typos, etc. etc.

Ian Cairns 21:35, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless someone cares to rewrite it as a Wikipedia article rather than a copy of the group's website. -- SCZenz 02:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No delete Difficult to believe the hoo-ha here. Almost beyond belief. Seems like a few people with just a few hang-ups. (Tracey Crocker, I am told, is a man). The blurb is just a standard explanation of an established organisation, which, while based in the USA has members world-wide. It does not give "more of an idea of the organisation's lineage". What, exactly, is the problem here? I mean, do you people simply have nothing to do? 26th October 2005. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.122.95.171 (talk • contribs) 13:50, 26 October 2005

  • Err.. are you suggesting that not one single article in Wikipedia has been copied from another encyclopaedia or book or website? I note that "Wikipedia is not a democracy". That certainly seems to be the case as there are several dictatorial people on various pages whose remarks CANNOT be contradicted. I came across this debate by accident but it is illuminating when it relates to such an uncontentious page with very little on it other than general information about a particular Order. As it appears that a couple of thousand people are members, surely then it should be noted by Wikipedia? I have also noted that "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", but surely thats just what an encyclopaedia (say, 'Britannia') is. People go to an encyclopaedia because they want information, however brief, on something. Christchurch
  • My apologies. I am definitely nothing to do with the city in New Zealand! Its actually the name of my old college. I know a chap in Cambridgeshire who is a member of this Order. His Life membership number was over 2000. It is possible this figure may reflect the membership since day one rather than current levels. Its just seems to me that this is all a bit of a storm in a teacup. It is an existing organisation which people belong to, just like so many others. Now, if I had no knowledge of it and someone mentioned it to me I would look firstly at Wikipedia.

Christchurch 17:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 20:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pelican's Reef


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Planet killer. — JIP | Talk 10:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Planet-destroying weapon project

- - * Change my vote to Redirect, per LtNOWIS Bwithh 03:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 20:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Powers and abilities of Sabretooth (detailed) and Power and abilities of Wolverine (detailed)

Sections of Sabretooth (comics) and Wolverine (comics) that were shortened due to excessive length and detail. After some edit warring on Wolverine (comics), one party simply split the section in question out rather than allowing it to be scaled down by consensus. Delete both. -Sean Curtin 04:48, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leave them. Both of these articles have been debated and edited to such an extent that it's become a source of immature behavior, including name calling. Personally, I don't see the harm in them. Just an extention of the original articles in my view. I was under the impression that an encyclopedia should provide as much information as possible about every article. Fictional characters are highly debatable, of course, but I feel they have their uses just the same as every other article Wikipedia has to offer, which is to provide information to all interested parties.
  • Neutral. When I created these two articles, it was simply to end the edit wars that had been going on. I personally support the short versions, but I wanted people to have a place to place the details in if they so choose to.T-1000 02:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This edit war seems like an issue for WP:ArbCom --anetode ¹ ² ³ 14:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. While they read nicely (quite, actually), they really do seem excessive, and the fact they were created out of an edit war (and not to end it peacefully, might I add) make me all the more uncomfortable. Having read some of the debate on the relevant talk pages, I do agree that, barring the opinion of one troublesome user, this page can be chopped down sufficiently to fit back onto its parent page. --InShaneee 21:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) DES (talk) 05:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Sierra

What is this? a vanity/flame page?


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 20:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Project OPUS (Music)

Nonnotable web site. Delete Wile E. Heresiarch 05:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 03:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Project Responder

Vanity article about a pickup truck customized into a fire truck. Nothing particularly notable, innovative or out of ordinary about it. Delete --Pc13 17:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was overwhelming keep, even with some concerns about the Afd. It's not quite been the standards 5 days yet, but to me concensus is very clear. Friday (talk) 20:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prussian Blue (American duo)

Administrators: please note that some votes and edits on this page have been altered. For example, the initial nominators comments have been struck through and the vote removed. This appears to have been done by User:Burwellstark (See revision of 16:11, 24 October 2005). I do not know what other edits may have been carried out. It looks like this article will be kept, for various reasons, but I think that it is important that procedure be followed, even if it is regarding a neo-nazi band that some people have passionate feelings about.—Gaff ταλκ 22:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Non-notable duo. Nothing noteworthy besides having serious problems. Based purely on their merit as musicians, very non-notable. Virtually all references online are to their politics/racism, instead of to their music. One album, no substantial following, not on any major listing. Delete.
  • Keep The article is valid, because it gives information about a band, it would be against Wikipedia's NPOV stand to delete it because it supports Nazis. I also came here looking for information about them. Kietotheworld 16:20, 27/10/2005 (BST)
  • Keep I came looking for this article. Therefore it should be here. One datapoint, one vote :-) --Camipco 20:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That is what brought me to this page as well- I was looking for it. --burwellstark
  • Keep. The above is nothing more than one person's, or perhaps several people's, opinion. It is not an objective assessment. I believe that the girl's politics (politiks?) are detestable, and though they have been likely spoon fed this junk since birth, they are old enough to know better. However, there are other political bands, U2 and Green Day for example, with articles here, as well as political leaders who also espouse opinions that are similar, Louis Farrakhan. --burwellstark 12:09 EST 24 October 2005
  • Google test: "Lynx Gaede" 246, "Lamb Gaede" 327, and "Prussian blue" nazi 9,810. HOWEVER, there is a conspiracy theory/urban myth or the like that the chemical Prussian blue is a residue in Zyklon-B, and almost all of the google hits for this search phrase is referring to the chemical. And just for reference. "Miborovsky" gets 590 hits. If this doesn't go I'll start an article on myself! :D
    -- Миборовский U|T|C|E 02:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Delete for reason outlined above.
    -- Миборовский U|T|C|E 02:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)    [reply]
  • Comment: There is no rule that articles about bands need to be based on their "musical merits". Bands who are known almost exclusively due to non-musical aspects, such as t.A.T.u. being known for their fake lesbianism, still have articles. --Delirium 04:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: tATu's non-musical image has made them significant in the music scene. Not this band, whose only noteworthyness is racism, not the band.
    -- Миборовский U|T|C|E 04:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: That's still irrelevant. There is no requirement that bands' articles be on bands whose music is notable, merely that the band be notable, as in having received some media attention, which it is in this case. I came to Wikipedia to find out information about them after reading about them on DailyKos, and was pleased that Wikipedia as usual served my needs. It would be quite sad if censorship made Wikipedia a less useful resource. --Delirium 05:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Keep. Given the press that this is stirring up (ABC news, etc) it is more than just an article about a band. It may be that this is the kind of thing that happens and then goes away (we can hope). The ABC news story has quotes from head of the NAACP and metions that David Duke is exploiting the teens to publicize his political agenda. However, until they have sold some records (they are "planning to release their second"), or have developed more of a press sensation, they remain off the radar screen of notability.—Gaff ταλκ 04:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)—Gaff ταλκ 16:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. That sounds like a delete vote based on a political agenda. If this were not a racist band, would we be discussing deleting it after it got this amount of media attention? --Delirium 04:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Did you read what I wrote? Its not a delete based on politics. Its a delete vote based on the fact that they have not sold many records and have recorded one (on what label anyone?--they do not meet WP:music inclusion criteria for a band). Peddling inflammatory rhetoric can stir up the press a bit, granted. And obviously this article will be kept. But I would bet, based on the content of the article and the notability of this band right now, that a few years from now nobody will be reading this article or care about this band. If WP were a crystal ball, maybe we would know whether or not they are more than a news sensation in the Fall of 2005, soon to be forgotten. However WP is not a crystal ball. But the article will be kept anyway.—Gaff ταλκ 16:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The KKK's article is about an organisation, which supports racism. It's not about racism. This article should be about the band, not its racism.
    -- Миборовский U|T|C|E 04:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The band did tours of the US... Have you heard how shitty their music sounds?! Do you honestly think this band is nothing more than a cute and smily propaganda commodidity for the neo-nazis scum in America?
  • Keep They were not notable, but they are now. Lots of popular websites are discussing them and in case you missed it ABC NEWS had an entire segment for them. To say wikipedia shouldn't be entitled a page for this crisis in America is straight up censorship. Vote to delete the deletion page--Lamrock 05:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They got an article today on the most important italian newspaper, La Repubblica. Neopagan
  • Keep. We just went through an AFD for an article that covered both this group and a similarly named (non-racist) British band. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prussian Blue (band). That AFD closed with a KEEP on October 13. Even though the article in question was changed to a disambiguation page for the two bands, now covered on separate pages, I don't see how the racist group could have lost its notability in only 11 days. In fact, the ABC News story appeared since the last AFD closed. [42] --Metropolitan90 05:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't particularly like them, but my personal feelings are irrelevant. I think they're notable and therefore merit inclusion.--MikeJ9919 05:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable members of the American White nationalist movement. --Viriditas | Talk 06:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unfortunately, they are notable, and they have made the widestream press. --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 08:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree... they've gained a notable amount of attention by the press, and people are now quickly learning of them from various media sources. Since they are already appearing in various magazinse/papers, websites, and news, I think they should be able to have a place here. Delirium is right - as long as the band is notable for something, even outside of their music, they can still exist in Wikipedia. -- Shadowolf 08:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: with the amount of attention that they're getting, Wikipedia probably wouldn't be helping to establish their notability, participating in history instead of documenting it, and people can be famous for bad things as well as good. However, not every major news story should spawn an article, like the president and his bicycle accidents or the small child who drove a car to get Cheerios, which got a lot of attention, but hopefully don't have articles. Right now they're still too transient for me, too much of a news story than an encyclopedia article. They're on the road to becoming notable bigots, but they haven't arrived yet. -- Kjkolb 10:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Metropolitan90. --Apyule 12:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Subject does not qualify under WP:music. Simply being nazis is not enough qualification.--RicardoC 13:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep they seem to be getting a fair bit of media coverage.Geni 14:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Given the coverage of ABC Primtime and the ammount of discussion of Blogs - a lot of further information about them has been taken from Wikipedia. I currently host a MP3 file from an Interview on my web hosting and it's been getting over 1000 downloads in less then 24 hours. 80% of these hits came from this page and to think of deleting this is insane. KEEP! -- cousincreep 07:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because of their recent media attention, this is exactly the sort of thing one comes to WP to look up: "Who were those people?" --kernunrex 14:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, they've been around for years and they just became way notable (IMO as utterly exploited teens but that's another tale). I would have created the article today had I not found it. Wyss 15:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"DELETE" disgusting and offensive site using children to promote hatred, don't give them more attention than they already have."

  • Keep. The nominator lists plenty of verifiable reasons to include them in Wikipedia. — mendel ☎ 17:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just because you disagree with their politics does not mean that they should be excluded. --scaife 18:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep though it makes my skin crawl to say so. I originally was going to say delete per WP:MUSIC and indeed, they don't come close to that ( I don't consider their "tour" to meet the minimum requirements for an actually musical tour). Unfortunately though, they seem to have a minor level of notability based on the media reports surrounding them. On a personal note though, I hope their mother gets cancer.--Isotope23 19:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Note that a duplicate article was just created at Prussian Blue (musical group (sic). I've replaced it with a redirect. Ilmari Karonen 20:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:MUSIC is not policy. Some groups can be notable without meeting the WP:MUSIC criteria, and unfortunately this is one of them. Thatdog 20:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I came looking for it. They may not have released a lot of music, but they are important because people are interested. Articles like this about topics like this are good for Wikipedia, as people need and appriciate the NPOV doctrine.
  • Revulsion alone shouldn't be a reason for deletion, although I squirm with distaste on reading this article. I feel very sad for these girls. Alas, keep. -- The Anome 22:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I can't understand all these comments about WP:MUSIC, as though that established the only criteria upon which a band could be considered notable. That point of view is nonsensical. If President Bush, Tony Blair, and Pope Benedict XVI formed a band, that band would be notable, immediately, without reservation, regardless of how many tours it had done or how many records it had released. This group has been mentioned in international media: therefore it is notable, period. — Haeleth
  • Weak Keep. My suggestion is to pare it down to only the first paragraph and toss the rest as unnecessary. There is extraneous information regarding the television show which shows a direct attempt to change what was said()on the show.
 The transcript is such:
   "McFADDEN: And what's your opinion on Hitler?

   LAMB: I think that he had ... he wanted to preserve his base.

   McFADDEN: He had 6 million Jews executed.

   LAMB: I think that's an exaggeration.

   McFADDEN: You do.

   LAMB: Yes.

   LYNX: I hardly believe there are even that many Jews alive back then.

   McFADDEN: Is Hitler someone you admire or someone you don't admire? ... You think he was a great man?

   LYNX: Yeah, I think he did a lot -- he had a lot of good ideas."

From this, the scene was cut to Ted Shaw, president of the NAACP's Legal Defense Fund, who stated "It really breaks my heart to see those two young girls spewing out that kind of garbage,"

From this transcript, you can see that extra information which was not in the show has been added to the Wikipedia article, for whatever reason. By only keeping the original paragraph and locking the article, all those with strong ideals (on BOTH sides) will not be tempted to use this entry for their own political motives. 

--Neurotic_poet

Talk 23:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. But it might have to stay protected, because on the official forums they are claiming they will watch over it and edit it constantly so Wikipedia users have "honest information [...] about half the time". Honest information being information favorable to the duo. Eztli 01:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change vote to Abstain, despite this article turning into a nazi soapbox.
    -- Миборовский U|T|C|E 01:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Worthy for news item. --Homagetocatalonia 03:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Verifiable. WP:MUSIC is a red herring, since they are notable for opinions, not necessarily music. Sam Vimes 07:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable/notorious, wide coverage in news media in the US and possibly beyond. The existence of a Wikipedia article on a person does not constitute any kind of endorsement of that person's views, and the issue of assessing actual musical talent is not relevant. -- Curps 07:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep They merit inclusion in Wikipedia as famous people, their significance (or insignificance, as it were) as a band is irrelevant. David Hasselhoff is a musician too, but he's famous for other things, just like these kids are. The fact that they are Nazis or "bad people" is no basis for deleting information on them; otherwise we'd be removing articles on Hitler, Stalin and a zillion other figures. The purpose of an encyclopedia is not to catalogue just the people and ideologies that are nice, but to serve as an information resource on bad things as well. Incidentally, they also got an article on them in a Finnish newspaper as well. They're also very interesting from the perspectives of sociology and education theory, and the responsibilities of parents. They're excellent examples of extreme propaganda education. --Samy Merchi (Talk) 08:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Newsworthy enough for multiple widespread mainsteam press reports is a guaranteed notable enough for an article here. Many delete votes above seem to be trying to vote on the basis of these girls' beliefs instead of their noteworthiness. DreamGuy
  • Weak Keep - Although I despise Prussian Blue’s ideas and agree with the person above that stated “I hope their mother gets cancer.” I do not think that this duo should be deleted because of their deplorable ideas that have been brainwashed into them all their lives. Likewise I wouldn’t agree to delete articles about the Holocaust, Holocaust denial, Hitler and other Nazi ideas just because I didn’t agree to them. -- Levenbreech Vor 08:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Indeed, there is no point in keeping them up if Wikipedia's standing is in question because of them. This article will serve as nothing more than a warground for feuds, and I assure you the word about them is getting out. The top radio talk show in Atlanta discussed and played their music this morning, so the attention is definitely growing with an unfavorable fevor. --MonkeyMechX — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.141.60 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 25 October 2005
  • Keep - If you listen to their music... it's just horrible. Keep it up - their idiotic ideas will go unheard when people notice how horrible the music they play is.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.15.76 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 25 October 2005

  • Keep if it's been in the news alot it's notable enough. chowells 00:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep it because freedom of speach on the internet is important User:Xavier 00:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this is going to take a lot of time to maintain. Take a look at this [43]. chowells 00:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep — however distasteful the act, I'm convinced that it's noteworthy enough to deserve a Wikipedia article. If Wikipedia had been possible during the 1930's, would we have deleted articles on Mussolini or Franco? David 01:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The girls are stupid, the doctrine is idiotic, the people involved are worthless, but they sure are notable. The article just needs to be kept totally unbiased. Devotchka 01:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In addition to the arguments above, MSNBC just ran an entire discussion on them. It also looks like they're getting some serious backing from the National Vanguard, so that's notable. Beginning 02:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Wikipedia is supposed to be an unbiased record of life, culture, history etc. There are bad, stupid, evil things out there, and they should not be airbrushed out of this history, and hence not airbrushed out of the record of human events. After all, Hitler and his kronnies get a mention. They are the subject of international debate (head about them this morning on Australian Radio). They are noteworthy and note should be made of them.
  • Weak Keep. They have no musical merit whatsoever, but they're notable on the basis of the Primetime report. I also think the girls are being brainwashed by their mother, and don't actually know what they're doing. --Beau99 08:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete I don't think there should be more focus for these obviously brainwashed kids and their Svengali-like mother, who has taught them to hate any other race than white. Samples line from songs, "Aryan man awake, How much more will you take, Turn that fear to hate, Aryan man awake" and the real kicker, "Rudolph Hess, man of Peace. He wouldn't give up and he wouldn't cease, to give his loyalty to our Cause.

Remember him and give a pause." Hate mongers with no talent, trying to subvert their peers. Do you really want an upcoming generation of people like this? Maluka 09:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • KeepI hate racism, but I mean after all Wikipedia is here for presenting information and allowing others to discover things about life, the present and the past. I mean there are articles on a great deal of morally perverse things here, including serial killing and other such things. This [Prussian Blue article] although seen as morally reprehensible by many (myself included) should be kept - as it would be strange to only report the happy facts of life would it not?
  • Delete. It seems to me that the appropriate subject for an article is the girls' mother, April Gaede. She has a history in the "movement", she puts the girls onstage, she manages them, and it's safe to assume that she chooses the songs they perform. Also, while some hate music has some artistic merit -- I'd buy a Skrewdriver album if they weren't Nazis -- Prussian Blue is just terrible. It seems likely that they'll eventually fade away -- but their mother is here to stay. Therefore, I recommend that we write an article on Ms. gaede, and merge this in. Innocent76 12:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. Their mother being (hypoteticaly) notable is not a reason to delete this article. rbonvall 14:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think it makes a lot of sense. Everyone is making the mistake that there's an event here -- as though Prussian Blue has written an original song, or sold 5000 albums, or ever played before a crowd larger than a few hundred people, at a venue more prominent than the county fair. Well, that hasn't happened. All that has happened is, an ABC producer caught wind of Ms. gaede's underground promotional campaign, promising that Prussian Blue would someday (not now) be the icon of the white power movement, and pandemonium has ensued. Do you give put someone in an encyclopedia just because they appeared on TV once? Does it matter that the TV appearance was not for having accomplished anything, but just for being freakish? (No one's written an article on the Meat lady from the Jerry Springer Show, and she's been on TV more often, for more discrete events, than Lamb and Lynx.) That's the problem with the Prussian Blue article -- there's no there there.
Meanwhile, Ms. Gaede has managed to get her daughter's album -- a cover album might I add -- national exposure, due to a consistent promotional effort in her column on the National Vanguard website. She picks the songs, she arranges the gigs, she promises a future where the white young men of America are awakened to the destiny and responsibility of the Aryan people because Lamb and Lynx are hot. "Pretty white girls sing hate music" makes a good lead on TV, but to the extent that there's any story here, April Gaede is the story.
Hence, since Prussian Blue a) have no substantial following (they don't even have a record contract), b) have made no original contribution to music, the white power movement, or any other aspect of our culture, and c) don't even pick which songs they're going to cover, I recommend that the article be either deleted or reduced to a stub, and that the media circus of the last few days be documented in an article devoted to the ringmaster, Ms Gaede. Innocent76 19:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepI heard about these kids on Morning_Sedition and thought it was a joke. Since I was reading Wikipedia already I just typed it in and up it came. They are obviously sick twisted little puppies, but they are real, and have gained some notoriety. One other user said, "I was looking for info about them and up it came", and I concur. It also adds some insight into the mindset of Neo Nazis, Christian Identity, and Holocaust deniers, and would be good to link from those articles. --Wiki Tiki God 12:11, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I read about them in a Chilean newspaper, and I came to Wikipedia to read more about them (yes, I also thought it was a joke). If they can get media coverage in a country which is thousands of kilometers away, they are certainly article-worthy. rbonvall 14:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with the above views, and came to Wikipedia to read up on them after reading about them on Drudge report. They are definitely article-worthy.
  • Keep You have black rappers listed on Wikipedia that have 'songs' about killing cops, abusing women, drugs, and so forth. Fair is fair, politics have NOTHING to do with it. TruthCrusader
  • Keep This kind of thing is part of a socio-political development within society that people need to be aware of. Most of all, it needs to be on Wiki, because here, the reporting is neutral, so everybody looking at the information can make up their own mind on the subject.
  • Keep Personal repulsion of their parentally-programmed message by 99% of wikipedians (and soceity in general) does not equate to non-notability. Have received enough national media attention in the US to count in my book. Youngamerican 22:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I wonder how many hits this page has received in the last week.
  • Keep I came looking for this page, cause I wanted to read up on this group after seeing them on ABC news. They are hateful and racist, but that is no reason to pretend that they do not exist.
  • Keep Although many are not amused by the duo, it would be biased to delete the article. It's NPOV and to the point, so let it be.
  • Weak Keep They're probably borderline notable on WP:MUSIC, but they are notable on WP:RACIST, or at least they probably would be once those requirements were established, unless of course we try to get a less POV name than WP:RACIST. In that case, just substitute it in there, they seem notable enough in the racist community to warrant an article from the media coverage. Karmafist 23:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. They have a real record out, real music videos, big website, and I just recently heard about them on forums I frequent. They have been the subject of several news stories from well-established outlets. The controversy surrounding their act ensures that interest will continue to rise. They are notable. Cookiecaper 04:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I came for this article after reading a news article about the neonazi band "Prussian Blue" on a reliable German newspaper (Süddeutsche Zeitung). 13:31, 28 October 2005
  • Keep <insert knee-jerk comment about how much I hate the band here>. <insert further comment about how hateful the girls are and personal wishes of cancer on people here>. Generic comments from the UD terrorist 28th of Oct.
  • Keep Someone above has stated we should delete the article because the girls are gaining notoriety? Am I the only person who can't see the logic in this? We may as well VFD the entire wikipedia in that case!Pigeonshouse 19:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 01:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quick-Stop Clerks

A fantasy footballbaseball team? Non-notable. — ceejayoz talk 20:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 20:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow party (book)

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. From the page history:

  • 22:34, 23 October 2005 Ed Poor (haphazard attempts to copy-edit this nearly worthless article)
  • 22:36, 23 October 2005 Ed Poor (intended to "scare" young readers - USA Today quotes Simon & Schuster editor)
  • 22:42, 23 October 2005 Ed Poor (emphasizes titillation over education, overpowering any redeeming value the book might have)
  • 22:44, 23 October 2005 Ed Poor (→External links - MOMMY, WHAT'S A RAINBOW PARTY?)
  • 22:49, 23 October 2005 Ed Poor (Publishers Weekly says the book makes a "compelling argument" against abstinence-only sex education.)
  • 22:52, 23 October 2005 Ed Poor (this wholo article is schlock. it controdicts its sources -)
  • 22:52, 23 October 2005 Ed Poor (delete - hopelessly low quality)
  • No opinion myself. —Cryptic (talk) 02:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was nuke from orbit er, delete. Titoxd(?!?) 01:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rllmuk2

Delete; unencyclopedic nonsense about a nn forum; hard to tell the exact address of forum (several appear); 866 Google hits on "rllmuk", most are forum user pages. Link at top of page is to a porn site. I seem to remember this being deleted previously, but can't find the AfD. MCB 18:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, patent nonsense. Definition includes "[c]ontent that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to make sense of it." --Trovatore 19:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Take off, and nuke the entire site from orbit, or if your prefer, delete. While it's not patent nonsense by definition (the term's ridiculously misused here, I must add), it's rather obscure. FYI, I'm the "Alex W." described in the article. Sockatume 21:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and nuke from orbit as patent nonsense forumcruft. --Idont Havaname 21:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. From the entry: Note that poor grammar is often exhibited within posts on the forum as well as its wiki entry. Also note the irony in that last sentence, a comedic mechanism popular with the forum's weird denziens. Har har. Get rid of it. Devotchka 02:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy DELETE A7. -Doc (?) 00:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rolando Tapia

Does a minor architect who graduated this year count as notable? I'm not sure. Francs 23:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 01:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Round Square Productions

Founded July 2005, and apparently not notable. "Handeekap'd" is also up for AfD MacRusgail 16:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Just zis Guy, you know? 17:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 01:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RSRC

This is a term coined by the author of the article —Michael Z. 19:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Physchim62 (talk·RfA) 21:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Safety Integrity Level

Article is more an editorial than an encyclopedia article. TexasAndroid 19:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 01:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Saga of Shimizu

tagged as CSD, but doesn't really fit, but does need to go away. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 03:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 01:23, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Augustus Hardy

Said author is major contributor of this article, no google hits: [46] Asparagus 04:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Amusing hoax though. The Minister of War 10:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete hoax... the author of this series of articles should redirect their efforts into writing a short story or something. They get the award for most convincing hoax I've seen yet.--Isotope23 20:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chuckle Oui, 'tis a hoax! /evil laugh (and thanks for the compliments *blush*).--Sammyboy
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 21:00, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Saskatoon Engineering Students' Society

Vanity. Delete --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 02:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Pilatus 01:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) (9d-5k-1move/merge). Still, if we get an article on the park some time, it might be preferable to merge the information on the beach there. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seacrest cove 2

This is beachcruft. Only 50 distinct google hits. NatusRoma 00:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep, real beach. Kappa 01:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't make it notable. V/ M
    01:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; policy states that, on its own, the fact that something is 100% true "does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia." --Aquillion 02:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK so we can delete anything we like, any particular reason to delete this real beach? Kappa 02:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes. It lacks anything that would make it suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia, as is noted in the link above, is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and when people search for a topic within one, they are searching for encyclopedic things that fall within that topic. Someone who searches the Wikipedia database for beaches is looking for encyclopedic beaches, not a list of every beach that exists. --Aquillion 03:16, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • So before I look for a beach or a village in wikipedia, I have to first decide if it's encyclopedic or not? But how would I know? Kappa 10:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • If it was possible to have easy rules that could be applied without interpretation, we wouldn't need AFD; but a simple rule of thumb is that if you can't think of any reason why a given thing would be in an enyclopedia beyond the fact that it's real, then it probably doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Indeed, as noted above, policy specifically bars the use of realness, on its own, as a justification for inclusion. --Aquillion 14:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • The reason this beach should be in wikipedia is because people would want to be able to look it up. Wikipedia takes money for providing people with knowledge, not for depriving them of it. Kappa 16:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • No, Wikipedia takes money to provide people with encyclopedic knowledge. That's an important distinction. A website that collects any and all random trivia or geographical data, no matter how minor, is not an encyclopedia. I understand your urge to try and collect all human knowledge in a single place, and you're certainly free to start a website yourself (or, if you prefer, start an atlas) to collect all unencyclopedic knowledge and fill in the gaps. That is not, however, Wikipedia's goal. We are making an encyclopedia, not a factbook. --Aquillion 23:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Wikipedia takes money to provide people with the sum of human knowledge. If you want to remove knowledge that I want to look up, you should start your own project. Kappa 13:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                    • It does not. It takes money to provide people with an encyclopedia. Talk of the "sum of human knowledge" is purple prose, not policy. Our policy, in WP:NOT, states that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and that simple truth is not enough to warrent inclusion; there are true facts that do not belong here, and articles about real things that require deletion. If you want to challenge that fundimental policy and argue that all true facts belong in an encyclopedia, then you should do so on the approprate talk pages, not here. --Aquillion 21:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                      • So when wikipedia tells donors it's providing the sum of human knowledge, that means nothing? Kappa 00:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Correct. Our goal is to create an encyclopedia. That goal is written on every page, and is the message at the heart of every one of our fundraisers; the fact that our founder may occasionally wax poetic at such events does not change our central nature. Everything that has gone into Wikipedia up until this point been devoted to the creation of an encyclopedia, and our most sacred trust is therefore to maintain encyclopedic standards. --Aquillion 05:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                          • I see, the end justifies the means. But wikipedia relies on the assumption of good faith, if it doesn't act in good faith, how can it expect it from others? Kappa 05:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                            • I don't understand your point. Wikipedia's first and foremost promise to everyone who contributes to it--both to regular editors and to donors--is that creating an encyclopedia. This promise is repeated on every page and outlined in careful detail on policy pages such as WP:NOT; it is the central guideline that unites everyone involved in the project. If you're asking whether that commitment to encyclopedic standards takes precidence, policywise, over our fundraising slogans, then the answer is can only be yes. It would be a poor repayment to our supporters if we abandoned our central goal at this late date. --Aquillion 06:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                              • You'll implying to donors you'll give them a comprehensive encyclopedia, and at the same time throwing out information they would expect to find in it. That seems like a pretty poor repayment. Kappa 15:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                                • There! You admit, then, that that maintaining encyclopedic standards is an essential part of building an encyclopedia, and that we are duty-bound to keep content to what people would expect to find within such a work? In that case, we're almost done. All your earlier arguments are moot; they come down to the question you just begged over what our encyclopedia is and what we have decided people can expect from it. Luckily, we don't need to try and scry this from obscure statements by Jimbo or random fundraising slogans; we have a well-known, authorative, and near-universally accepted policy at WP:NOT. This policy states, quite clearly and without room for interpretation, that the fact that something is 100% true does not automatically make it encyclopedic. I understand your concerns that this conflicts with some of our fundraising slogans, but at the moment it is policy, and governs all of our decisions on encyclopedic worth. If you want to take issue with it, or with our fundraising, then the approprate place is on its talk page or the village pump, not here. --Aquillion 20:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                                  • It remains fact that you are denying people information they would hope to find in this encyclopedia, so your interpretation of WP:NOT conflicts with the morality of taking their money. Kappa 21:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                                    • When Wikipedia takes money from people, it does not promise to fufill their every hope. Indeed, if their hopes are absurd or unreasonable, then they are doomed to be disappointed; and as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, the only things that people can reasonably hope to find in it are encyclopedic things. Fufilling unreasonable hopes at the cost of disappointing the far larger number of people who have contributed to Wikipedia with the hope of creating an encyclopedic work is plainly not the right or moral thing to do. Therefore, if you want to argue that this page or that page belongs in Wikipedia, you can only do so on grounds of encyclopedic merit. If you wish, you could argue that all true things have encyclopedic merit, but since policy plainly states otherwise, you would have to start that debate by attempting to change policy. All of your other arguments are bunk; in the end, they come down to what belongs/should be/is expected in an encyclopedia, which is the one issue, in your endless circling, that you still have not addressed. --Aquillion 02:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK I'm confused, it seems like this would fit fine in an encyclopedia of West Seattle. I can reasonably expect to information on random colleges, cricket matches, Bible verses, Simpons episodes, pokemon characters, Slate journalists, and uninhabited villages in an encyclopedia, but not a beach used for diving. Please explain why the beach is absurd while these other things are not. Kappa 04:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • We know, both from policy and from the definition of an enyclopedia, that encyclopedic worth exists, and that it is ultimately the sole criteria for inclusion in an encyclopedia. We also know, from policy, that simple truth is not enough to establish it here. Therefore, each article must assert, in some form or another, the encyclopedic worth of its topic. Of course, for many topics it is beyond queston; almost everything you listed, for instance, affects people on a vast scale, one clear sign of encyclopedic worth by anyone's estimation. Bible verses, Simpson episodes, and yes, even Pokemon characters and Slate journalists each play a role in the lives of millions of people daily. I'm not so sure that every cricket match or uninhabited village is encyclopedic; but widely-broadcast or otherwise major matches affect people on a similarly wide scale, while uninhabited villages were once inhabited, and may have left a mark on many people while they existed. Of course, this is only one scale of encyclopedic worth, not the only scale; but presuming that they don't get it simply for existing, I can't think of any argument that would extend encyclopedic worth to beaches as a general class. Some beaches might be encyclopedic, to be sure, and some people below have argued that this specific one is among them; but the argument I think I am hearing from you simply claims that all true things are enyclopedic. That argument, if you mean it, should be directed towards changing Wikipedia policy as a whole, not towards individual AfDs. --Aquillion 08:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • You're telling me that the encylopedic worth of a random Slate journalist or village is beyond question, but to even claim it for a notable geographic feature like a beach is absurd and unreasonable. Seems rather arbitrary and ad hoc to me, but obviously I am an absurd an unreasonable person like anyone else who would hope to be able to look up this up, I wonder how many we are. Kappa 04:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, I'm telling you that claiming categorical encyclopedic worth for all beaches is unreasonable. Your typical river can have, along its length, hundreds or thousands of indistinguishable coves; a few miles of coastline can have countless more, with overlapping local names that come and go. Indeed, there are vast sections of coastline consisting of virtually nothing but such coves. Your average seaside tourist town will have dozens of major beaches and innumerable smaller ones, many known only to locals; any expensive beachfront home will naturally have its own private beach, often with its own name and a little wooden sign to distinguish it and keep out the neighbors. If you have an argument to make as to the encyclopedic worth of this individual beach, go ahead and make it; but comparing beaches such as the above to Slate journalists or once-inhabited villages is an insult to reputable journalists and departed villagers, respectively. --Aquillion 10:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Because of the easily reached deep areas Technical Divers also use Cove 2 for training." makes it notable in my opinion. A bit of a rewrite should turn this in a legitimate stub on a Washington diving spot. - Mgm|(talk) 10:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Is there any independent verification that this particular cove is used for training more than any other beach? I searched a few SCUBA and Technical Diving web pages and none mentioned the cove. -- Corvus 23:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kappa AndyJones 17:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There are restrooms in the pier building and a great little Fish and Chips bar within easy walking distance." Swell. Hundreds of sites are used for technical diving training by someone or another. If it can be documented that a particularly notable diving group uses this cove for training in some way more important than those hundreds of others, I'll vote to keep; until something like that is shown, I'm casting a provisional delete vote, generally in agreement with Aquillion. At most, this could be merged into an article on whatever Seattle-area diving club uses it. Barno 17:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mgm, but an encyclopedia is not an atlas, which is where arbitrary geographic information belongs. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 17:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Seacrest Park. Beach is apparently part of a larger park... to me it makes more sense to list it under Seacrest Park (and expand the article to include information about the park and other coves) and leave a redirect here to the Seacrest Park article. There is just more potential for a full article there.--Isotope23 20:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Aquillon's excellent arguments. Denni☯ 02:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Befuddled by this particular article becoming a focal point for an inclusionist-vs.-deletionist debate. I vote both sometimes, personally, but I gotta say there are some things that don't make much sense in an encyclopedia, and this is a rather good example. -- SCZenz 01:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. If people really think this is useful / notable / needed information, then I'm partial to Isotope23's idea about creating Seacrest Park and putting it there. --Qirex 12:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn beach --JAranda | watz sup 14:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Kappa. Also, can someone who wants this deleted please explain how this article is detrimental to Wikipedia? --Apyule 15:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The essential content of this article is that there exists a cove near Seattle that is used for various types of diving, and has certain local peculiarities related to depth, slope, permitted diving areas, restrooms, food, and parking. None of this information is encyclopedic. Moreover, the existing information about this location (see the Google results above) will not produce an encyclopedic article. Thus, we are left with a choice between an article that does not discriminate between its subject and any other cove in the Seattle area, or an article built on original research. Neither is what Wikipedia is. NatusRoma 19:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Keep. Withdrawn by nominator. --GraemeL (talk) 13:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Selim Bulut

Sounds like made-up nonsense to me - I cannot verify an author named Sir Arnold Fag (sounds like a joke name anyway, but you never know...), and the article's claims about the book do not exactly inspire confidence -- Ferkelparade π 09:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Physchim62 (talk·RfA) 21:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles are not Mere collections of external links bogdan | Talk 16:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 21:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Simply Insane

Non-notable, unverifiable, vaporware, and/or prank. Zero hits for "Simply Insane" "Rhys Williams". Also, WP is not a crystal ball. 24.17.48.241 02:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also seems likely to be self-promotion--both the IP for the WP contributor and the SI website both resolve to the same ISP in Amsterdam: RIPE Network Coordination Centre. Also only 3 hits for "Simply Insane" MekahDexa. 24.17.48.241 04:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks pretty verifiable to me. They managed to get an extensive article and darn good website designers. They got a lot of stuff going for them. I see nothing wrong with this article. Maybe make the title less ambiguous-- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 02:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • A bunch of kids are well connected and get somebody to make a website for them that looks good. One of them has a game "currently in development." And this game needs an encyclopedia article? I don't think so. Delete.—Gaff ταλκ 04:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedied as vandalism. Dmcdevit·t 23:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Soft drink dependence

Not verifiable. Google shows nothing. Delete unless credible sources cited. brenneman(t)(c) 12:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cleanup and Merge with Soft drinks page. I googled it and it is a real issue and with proper research and explanation, in my opinion, it can be a topic found on Wikipedia. After that, it doesn't warrant its own page and should be merged with Soft drinks. tv316 13:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC) Was unaware of the Soda Vandal and his previous actions. Delete and protect against recreation. tv316 17:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup and Merge per tv316. --MacRusgail 14:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Do not merge. This might be another contribution from the "soft drink vandal" who kept aggressively adding unsourced and POV-pushing articles about soft drink addiction, etc. some months ago. There's nothing to merge, as the article is basically content-free. "It is debatable whether soft drinks cause a chemical/physical addiction or whether the act of drinking soft drinks is habit forming" is simply an effort to insinuate a point of view without defending it. Note that this article can be used as a template for producing any number of equally useless articles, since any point of view can be stated as a definition and then said to be "debatable." See following example. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Post-it note dependence is a dependence on memo slips backed with weak and removable adhesive. It is debatable whether the use of such slips does or does not cause impotence, reduced gas mileage, and global warming.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 21:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sports and Gaming

Non-notable website; vanity Tempshill 22:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 01:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SpreeBB

It is about a non-notable web-forum that has an Alexa ranking of more than 900,000 AMorris (talk)●(contribs) 07:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 01:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Subramaniam

Looks like a resume Nv8200p (talk) 16:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 01:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Super-POP

Delete. More self-promotion from User:Mconnect (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mconnect,Inc., which has recently been recreated and re-deleted). Super-POP is a term in use by – you guessed it – MConnect. android79 14:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 21:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Teri-pets

I can't tell exactly what this is article is referring to. There is a site, http://teripets.com (note that they do not use a hyphen, so it might not even be the same thing); its Alexa ranking is 283,813, which in my opinion makes it non-notable. A Google search for "teri-pets" produces 163 results, some of which only exist because of this article, some of which are actually "Teri's pets", and other things like that. Delete. Joel7687 05:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 01:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The 10

Delete. Original research spin off on book called 100 most influential people or somesuch. This is just too witty for wiki. —Gaff ταλκ 03:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Note from article's creator

This article is not meant as a joke, save for the honorable mentions part. It is intended to be a serious list of the top ten people in history. In the original The 100 list, the founder of Jainism is listed as one of the most influencial people of all time. Does anyone serious believe that he's influenced the world more than Goatse, or George Lucas, or John Byrne, or me and my friends and enemies for that matter? --User:199.79.168.160 12:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Anonymous sock-puppetry

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 10:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The-amb

Non-notable message board with no Alexa ranking and 125 members. Fails WP:WEB tests. FCYTravis 03:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • "A website's impact can be demonstrated by meeting one or more of the following criteria:
  1. Having an Alexa ranking of 10,000 or better
  2. Having been the subject of national or international media attention within the last 2 years
  3. Having a forum with 5,000 or more apparently unique members"

Screenshot: http://www.beforewespark.com/ambvr20.jpg

    • That screenshot is not of the forum in question. Rather, it is of an official forum site later shut down. The messageboard in question is a fan-created site that does not meet inclusion criteria. Furthermore, the article itself admits that the old "AMB" messageboard had just a hundred or so more regular users than this fan board - which tends to suggest that the usercount number shown is massively inflated. Given that the screenshot itself displays "Most users ever online was 79 on Tue Mar 04, 2003 2:50 pm"... it is HIGHLY unlikely that there were actually 25,000 unique users. I frequent boards with around 2,300 unique users which have had 300+ users on simultaneously. FCYTravis 23:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now you guys are just being cocky. Bunch of nerds.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 21:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The desert highlife

I am not convinced that a local Virginia band is notable. V/ M
01:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't Delete, ok first off. StarryEyes.. his acne has nothing to do with the deletion of this article. Gazpacho, they are in the 10th grade and are already in the news paper and are popular all throughout Northern Virginia, such as of course King George, Fredericksburg, Westmoreland, Caroline, Spotsovania, and many other counties surrounding Fredericksburg. They have played at many different places such as The Big One V (won Player's Choice), The Loft, and Pickers Supply in downtown Fredericksburg. Holderca1, its pretty notable especially since 2 or 3 of those google hits are popular area Newspapers. The minister of war, he could creme you at bass anyday and how does that have to deal with deletion?? Not quite sure what nn means? not notable??. Come visit Fredericksburg and King George and ask any middle/highschool kid and most any young (20 - mid 30's) adults and they could name The Desert Highlife for you most likely. I didnt get to put much time into the article yet, considering the first attempt i made was cut off and placed with this stupid deletion thing. They also have a demo coming out in a few weeks/months. They have played with bands such as 816 and St. Diablo (who have few albums out already and played with The Desert Highlife). Most of these Delete posts are rubish (especially StarryEyes's post)Lucid 19:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Review the section of WP:Music on what makes a band notable. This band meets none of those requirments(If I am wrong on this, mention which one of the seven they have accomplished). Also, not sure what you searched for under Google. But none of the hits on my search were newspapers. --Holderca1 20:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Answered. Try searching google for "the desert highlife free lance star" its about the 2nd one down. from there you can find a link to the freelancestar.com site, or if you wish, you can look through the other pages of results. Possibly number 6. Thats the mood of Fredericksburg and surrounding cities. Its pretty much an opinon thing but since you dont live their you cant possibly have an opinion. also it says on the page "Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion.". So even if they dont classify they still dont need to be deleted. they are rising band with a good future. even a demo soon. why not give them a page?
      • Answer to comment answered: Because millions of bands claim to be rising bands with good futures and end up nowhere. I wish them all the best but until they make an actual record on an actual label they are not notable. I do apologize for the "Clearasil" remark, it wasn't meant as a personal attack, it was just good-natured jest. Also, Lucid, in the future, please note that new votes in AFD go at the bottom, not at the top. StarryEyes 21:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Searching for what you asked me to search for revealed 0 hits. [47]. As well as the results for just the band. [48] They can have their own page when they have an actual record. --Holderca1 22:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Answered, try searching without the quotes. it works. Lucid 14:44, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, but then it pulls up webpages from the Sahara desert to Miller Highlife. The only webpages that I have found that mention the band are their own webpage, some other not so notable band's webpage that mentions them, and an article written by a high school student. --Holderca1 17:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Whats wrong with a high school student? it was published by a newspaper. Obviously it was edited and reviewed by the Free Lance Star to see if it was suitable or just plain bogus. Plus the student is from Brooke Point High School, a high school that none of the band members have ever visited or seen. On the 816 website it even says The Desert Highlife, player's choice meaning that out of all the bands, they were voted for the award.Lucid 19:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, never signed. Gazpacho 01:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a whopping 5 google hits, not notable. --Holderca1 02:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A 15-year old bass veteran? The Minister of War 06:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. No disrespect intended Lucid, apologies if they sounded as such. They do have some nice gigs lined up, and agreed, the Ultra Super Zombie Lords is a great name. But I've played guitar and bass in a promising young band for some 13 years now, and I'm pretty sure my band doesnt deserve an article either (yet of course). The Minister of War 13:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. [extraneous nasty remarks removed with apologies from S.E. Best of luck to the group.] StarryEyes 08:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps you could remove (not just strikeout, but remove) the personal comment about them. Making the article was an honest good faith misunderstanding of wiki policies. --rob 20:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done StarryEyes 22:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Though I think "good faith" is a bit of a stretch. See some of the edits at Special:Contributions/Lucid.. Of particular interest is his second-from-bottom edit summary. Of course, best not to stoop to his level. StarryEyes
      • He deleted my post because he didnt agree with it. it wasnt under my name because i haddent gotten an account yet. just because i dis like someone doesnt mean my articles are bad.Lucid 19:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. --rob 08:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC criteria (as pointed out by Holderca1)).--Isotope23 20:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but gently. I admire their enthusiasm, and the fact that one of them was in the "Ultra Super Zombie Lords", which is a great name. Shame their website doesn't have any music on it. I have played the bass guitar, and I believe it is easily possible to be a 15-year-old veteran of the instrument. It only has four strings, after all. The article and the website remind me of Bryan Adams' "Summer of 69". the band will split up, they will get jobs, and eventually their instruments will end up in the attic or on eBay. Happens to everyone. -Ashley Pomeroy 21:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and lay off on the snark guys. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's not be nasty. Good luck to them, and when they're famous, we can have an article about them. For now, though, Delete. -- The Anome 22:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by DragonflySixtyseven as copyvio. --GraemeL (talk) 23:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The effect of hormones on metal and metal-ATP interactions with fat cell adenylate cyclase

Cut & paste abstract. Does this count as copyvio? Ilmari Karonen 19:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Physchim62 (talk·RfA) 21:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Lost Chapter of the Acts of the Apostles

This is a slim volume with an Amazon sales rank of 712757. It purports to be the translation of a manuscript supposedly containing the 29th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, detailing St Paul's journey to Britain, where he preached to a tribe of Israelites. (The Acts end rather abruptly with Paul kept under house arrest in chapter 28, which has led to various theory about the history of the text.)

The book was published in 1982 and serves to support Anglo-Israelism. The influence of the movement parallels the influence of the British Empire and the group that was once supported by distinguished figures is now nothing but a minor fringe group.

What I fail to find is any impact this book might have made; I haven't found any review, or anyone referring to it having any impact, neither is it mentioned on the website of the British-Israel-World Foundation. As a truly apocryph apocryphon it ought to be deleted. Pilatus 17:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC) [reply]

The nominator wishes to withdraw the nomination. The book exists in at least three editions; the fact that it is almost unknown now does not mean that had no influence ever. Pilatus 15:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The second most useless UNIX command

emacs Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
vi Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 03:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Shadwells

Probably a hoax. "The original singer Bart Day, was sadly killed in a wasp storm in Argentina" ??? There is a band in Surrey called the Shadwells, but their description doesn't sound anything like what's in the article. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 23:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting ... need more votes on this. Delete. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 19:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 03:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Voice and Spiritual Education

Not encyclopedic, out of context and belongs in the commons if not copyrighted MacRusgail 16:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 22:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tomasia

NN bio. -- 202.156.6.68 22:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Physchim62 (talk·RfA) 21:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Transportation in Richmond, Virginia

This doesn't include any special information at all...it just lists the major ways of transportation that are available in the whole world. If we were to do this for every city in the world, the number of articles on Wikipedia would skyrocket. -- SoothingR 15:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This info is already covered in greater detail in the Richmond, Virginia page. tv316 17:16, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Read the edit box comment "stub that Mark User:Vaoverland will add to per discussion on Talk:Richmond, Virginia." We had talked about this article on Talk:Richmond and there were no objections to it. It won't be a stub for long, since Vaoverland is a transportation subject matter expert who has contributed heavily to articles on the road and rail infrastructure in Virginia. Since wikipedia is not paper, and since Richmond is a bone fide metropolitan area (with over a million inhabitants) this topic is notable and the article will soon be very encyclopedic.
I still think that we don't need an article on all ways of transportation in every city in the world -- SoothingR 19:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Transportation in Podunk Arkansas is one thing. Richmond is a state capital and is in the top 50 most populous MSAs in the country. [50]. Chicago has separate articles on Streets and highways of Chicago, Mass transit in Chicago, Airports of Chicago, Taxis of Chicago, Chicago Pedway, Chicago City Railway, Bicycling in Chicago, Multilevel streets in Chicago, and Rail stations of Chicago. I don't think it's too much to ask for one article to cover ALL TRANSPORTATION in Richmond, Virginia. MPS 19:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MPS. Meelar (talk) 20:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MPS. GTBacchus 20:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Transportation in and around Richmond is more of a big deal than in many other cities. This is due to the location at the fall line on the James River, which both 1. makes the city a transport hub, and 2. presents extra complications, such as the many bridges over the river. If we lose the separate article, whatever we write will just stay in the larger base article. I see benefit and don't see the harm of having the sub-article. Mark in Historic Triangle Vaoverland 20:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MPS and Vaoverland. --Idont Havaname 23:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Transportation is a city or region wide thing and should be treated as such here. Articles on individual pieces of infrastructure, like roads, tend to ignore the purpose of why they exist (that is they focus on the experience of being on the road and things that are 50 meters on either side of it). Infrastructure was created and works as a system, not as a thousand unique pieces. This article is much better than dozens of articles, one for each road in Richmond. --maclean25 02:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Robert T | @ | C 21:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Discothéque

Non-notable disco night. No pages link here, and I haven't found any relevant matches on google. The article is only one sentence long and contains little useful information. David Edgar 17:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 21:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Pug

Nonnotable blog. Delete Wile E. Heresiarch 05:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 21:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Voof

Not verifiable. Google: voof+australia, voof+graffiti, although voof+Cats Maul yeilds, um, something. Delete unless sources cited. brenneman(t)(c) 11:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Alphax τεχ 02:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WDMA

  • Delete Unverifiable; the only source is to a SomethingAwful post that doesn't include any of what the article is about. Notability is also in question, there are lots of torrent sites that may or may not exist. Golbez 05:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Golbez has removed comments from Talk:WDMA regarding the new location of WDMA [51]. Comments on a talk page should NEVER be erased, especially by a Wikipedia Administrator. He has also reverted edits on the main article because he found the information displeasing. He didn't bother to ask for some verification of information being added, he just deleted it [52] [53]. Golbez had no problems with the article prior to this week, when WDMA came back. He would revert vandalism every now and then [54] [55]. He even contributed to the article [56] on August 12th. Hell, on August 9th he even reverted someone blanking the page with the summary of rv - give a reason for blanking. wdma is dead, no need to fear talking about it anymore[57]. But now, months after his first edit to the article the information has suddenly become unverifiable, and Golbez nominated the article for deletion. Geregd 21:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your detective work is marvelous. Let's say I had a change of heart. If I recall, I only reverted the talk page once, and it was a mistaken firing. Itchy trigger finger. Furthermore, the above is the user's first edit. --Golbez 23:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Thirded. I have been a member of Something Awful for years and I can personally confirm that there was never any such thing as WDMA, or for that matter, BTB. This entire article is unencyclopedic science fiction. Afed 06:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • :1. I agree that this is just too incredibly obscure to be worth mentioning (and I am a person who has pretty generous limits on what I consider to be incredibly obscure). The fact that a torrent tracker associated in some way with a semi-private web-based forum may have existed is far from sufficient to warrant entry in the Wikipedia. Just because something existed does not mean it's worth entering, in the same way that just because down the street on the corner there is a little ghetto-mart run by a Pakistani guy who sells beer and cigarettes does not mean that, defacto, he is a key and important part of my local neighborhood which is a subset of my community which is a subset of my part of town which is a subset of the city I live in, and should thus carefully be logged and documented. There are literally thousands of private trackers in existence right now, many with associated forums (and vice versa). Those that represent something more than just the fact that they exist are those which could be considered in an article related to the general phenomena.
2. Above is a comment or two from what I suspect are some SA forum members who are jokingly happy to see their tracker not mentioned or publicised. This brings up the points mentioned elsewhere that things of this nature can be notoriously difficult to verify. Knowing the SA memebrs, I would find it equally possible that they would get a kick out of creating a false history of the site for fun (I don't mean this insultingly: its the tendancy to do things like this that makes their site so much fun to read). So, all in all, its a vague thing compounded by vagueness on this count.
3. On the other hand, we need to be reasonable when it comes to documenting web-based communities and things that arise from them. Simply put, huge and widespread things can happen on the web for which, a year later, little concrete information remains. The very ephemeral nature of data these days (particularly on things which are invisible to google caches and such) on the web means we have to not allow ourselves to fall into the trap of saying, in essance, "because you can't clearly and easily show information about something with sixty thousand people experienced but didn't leave too much of a trail about, it means it didn't happen."
But, 2 out of 3: I vote to delete Dxco 08:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am a member of Something Awfu (spankspank) and I can tell you no such thing every existed, complete drivel.
  • ITs all lies. Damned lies and statistics. There was never any Something Awful File Sharing, just like there was never a moon landing.
It should be noted that the crusaders attempting to expose these diabolical activities are permabanned members of SA who were kicked out of WDMA because they couldn't maintain a ratio of 0.15 without using a hacked torrent client XD
  • The page shouldn't be deleted but changed into a redirect for the real multiplexing technology WDMA. This is however a hoax gone way out of proportion which doesn't have a place on an encyclopedia.
  • Delete Even if it did exist at some point, information about this site is hardly encyclopedic, and I doubt that the knowledge would benefit anyone. - Xgkkp 19:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it did exist, but am with you that it's unencyclopedic: private bittorrent trackers come and go with the wind. Noone has demonstrated that this particlar tracker was of any broadly representative interest on the topic of the early-2000's growth of bit torrent, or SA in particular. Another web forum had a tracker. woo. Dxco 19:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V.--Isotope23 19:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not verafiable or notable. -Greg Asche (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn, unverifiable. MCB 20:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. RFD: The only reason why people are voting for deletion is because none of the data has been verified. Ergo, all that needs to be proven is the existence of the site and the previous existence of File Forums on the Something Awful Forums. The data is verifiable in several different ways: one, the existence of the WDMA site and the drama that happened that brought it down; two, Something Awful owner Richard "Lowtax" Kyanka's public acknowledgement of the existence of the file forums' previous existence to an audience at the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana; three, screencaps of WDMA are readily available; and four, screencaps of the old Something Awful forums which used WDMA as a tracker are readily available.
Incorrect. I am voting for deletion for other reasons as well (see my comments above). I think the topic in general is worth a brief mention on the SA page if the author wishes, but do not believe it is worthy of it's own stand alone entry.Dxco 01:16, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a good idea. - Xgkkp 09:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of this article is only being considered because of a revert war currently occurring: there seems to be a cover-up attempt at hiding a particular URL that has been posted several times (look in the history for more details).

I find it especially disturbing that users are censoring the talk page (especially 70.84.105.116) --Hippolami 03:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion should not be a solution to revert wars. Octalc0de 00:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. However, it does bring the article to light - an article that I'm not convinced is worth having. Perhaps others will feel the same.Dxco 01:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Roughly 40% of the non-anonymous users who have posted here fail the 100 edit guideline (not that it really means much). The site certainly existed, a lot of the people here are frantic to get information regarding it removed now that it's back, but I don't particularly care whether the mention here is removed or not. -- uberpenguin 01:35, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep: WDMA most certainly existed, I was a member, along with thousands of other people. As mentioned previously, WDMA is notable due to its longevity (during a time when BT trackers exist for about 5 minutes before disappearing), huge userbase and exteme secrecy. Near the end of it's life, the whole thing started to break down, and i decided to save a page showing how hypocritical the members were. http://fa.gs/THEGOON.html
  • Comment: Golbez emailed me, presumably to ask about this AFD. WDMA existed, I was a member. That is no reason to keep the article, though. If the facts listed in another comment above really exist (Lowtax talking about WDMA at a presentation, etc.) then they can be used as reasons to keep the article. Not anecdotes. silsor 19:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Generally I guess the article should be deleted. Some things seem much less notable with time. I suspect a lot of articles about web sites, forums, etc. will go the same way. silsor 23:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP: its turning into a trollfest because the sa GOONS are trying to cover up the existence of WDMA. the rest of us, who are actually grounded in reality, are simply pointing out truths, which you take for "trolling"
    • Unsigned vote by anon IP 216.144.24.226 whose only contributions have been to this article. --Golbez 16:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • no kidding golbez, i guess that nullifies my point doesnt it
  • Delete: This article harms Wikipedia by bringing unnecessary drama to the table. It has a somewhat interesting history but isn't all that notable compared to other torrent sites. Gary 20:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The whole WDMA thing was a short lived hoax to fool stupid internet wannabe pirates that became desperate for their warez after Suprnova got closed down. And as is typical for goons, they can never stop beating a dead horse even months after it's decayed to dust. I guess we could expand this into an article about the hoax (because there were a few funny catches) but I really don't believe this is that pivotal to Internet history to deserve its own article. Lochness Monstah 00:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The "WDMA is a hoax/never existed" tinfoil bandwagon of anons (and some registered users) is some strange attempt to keep WDMA a "secret". Its existance was pretty tightly guarded (as well as one can do such things on the Internet) while it existed. As far as I know, it hasn't been resurrected, so I can only presume that the reason people are posting false information about it here is simply to troll wikipedians who are not familiar with the SA Forums / WDMA. I know I'm not the first to point this out, but I figure a signed comment from a registered user with an edit history will lend some credibility to the statement. As far as keep/delete, I'm ambivalent - WDMA was a big deal to the SA Forums, but precisely because of its secrecy it was never well-known or important to the Internet at large. I'd say its main claim to notability is keeping such a large-volume torrent site under the radar of the authorities for so long, but whether or not that's enough for Wikipedia is for others to decide. -- Tyler 08:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete nn, hoaxcruft. Dottore So 12:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ashibaka (tock) 19:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete.  Denelson83  02:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wheelchair Kid

Non-notable, unverifiable, and/or prank. Zero relevant hits for "Thaddeus Gulden" and I didn't see any thing searching for "Wheelchair Kid" that referred to this person/situation. Zero relevant hits for an image search for "Wheelchair Kid". Based on the contributor's username, appears to be self-promotion, as well. Judging by the history, it seems the topic has been deleted from a couple other language Wikipedias already. (previous afd posting was blanked out of process by article contributor[59]--I had added it the same time as Simply Insane--10/24). 24.17.48.241 02:03, 8 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 ambiguous. Vote count puts this at 4 delete/4 merge, although the merge votes are of the type "merge any useful content". Another said that "the info is too silly to merge". Whether or not there is something to merge, there is nobody who wants to keep the article as it is now, and the subject is already covered at White (people). I am going to use my discretion here and call this a redirect to White (people), even though nobody voted that way. I am leaving the history in tact, so that if anybody feels that something here was worth merging, they can access it through the history. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

White American

Unencyclopedic POV piece on what makes a White American, delete.--nixie 06:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 01:29, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WikiDOS

hoax. No relevant google hits, and ridiculous. — brighterorange (talk) 21:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Titoxd(?!?) 01:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Mail

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. From the page history:

I meant to put Windows mail. Having trouble finding something on Microsoft's website, but I did find this video from Microsoft talking about it. [60] --Holderca1 02:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge to vanishing twin. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 03:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wombtwin

Article itself ("since 2003") suggests neologism. Does not present any information that isn't or could not be presented at vanishing twin. Kyd 17:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Physchim62 (talk·RfA) 21:42, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Workers Party, USA

No evidence that such a party exists. Nonsense. -Nameneko 08:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Workers party exists.

http://www.workersparty.org/

68.55.145.124 10:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 01:33, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yonilizer

NN 73 uninspiring Googles Flapdragon 00:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know nicole panter helped start it. She is one of the first female punk ziners.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Physchim62 (talk·RfA) 21:45, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zi ran men

Apparently a type of Kung Fu, text is almost indecipherable and promotional, delete- however I would not object to a merge if someone can figure out where to merge it.--nixie 05:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FLog%2F2005_October_24