Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 October 19

< October 18 October 20 >

Purge server cache

October 19

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

The result of the debate was Speedy, nonsense. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 20:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

♥☻☺♠♣♦○◘•

Delete. Molotov (talk)
20:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Voice of All @|Esperanza|E M 00:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

4 Good Habits

Completely idiosyncratic non-topic Graydon Hoare 22:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted by Dpbsmith as blatant copyvio. --GraemeL (talk) 14:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

88 Minutes


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

The result of the debate was just speedy deleted by me. (CSD A7) Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron niemisto

nn bio. Molotov (talk)
04:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete all. android79 15:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Acid Philosophers, Dave Campos, Dave Reagan, Matt Mikels

NN band. Fails guidelines in WP:NMG. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 18:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: Combining virtually identical AfD's for three non-notable band members of non-notable band for efficiency.  BD2412 talk 18:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all, no indicia of encyclopedic notability. I correct myself - the article contains indicia of notability, but this does not stand up to probing - no page at allmusic.com, no relevant Google hits other than this article.  BD2412 talk 18:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Death, I mean, delete. Molotov (talk)
    18:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, do not meet criteria for inclusion. Punkmorten 18:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I saw these guys in concert no long ago. They are definitely real, and they rocked.


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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Everybody please take note that this is what we call a debate! Obviously, much has changed and been (dis-)agreed upon during the debate and the only reasonable outcome is no-action since we are not at all clear on what to do. I would make one comment however: I will not count 'votes' such as Klonimus's which explicitly says he has no feeling at all on the article and is merely (and literally) voting to force things in one direction. That seems inappropriate and very unnecessary to me. Admins can judge for themselves whether there is consensus or not: we do not need spurious 'votes' such as that to help us out. Also note that a poll on extending the debate has no useful precedent and is largely unnecessary anyway since the backlog in closing AfDs is usually at least several days beyond the 5 stipulated and much of this discussion doesn't really deal with deletion-or-not and could be carried to the Talk: page of the article. (I'm going to remove the headers here since they upset a bot that counts the open afds.)-Splashtalk 22:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actor model, mathematical logic, and quantum physics

This article is little more than the authors own independent views on Q.M. The only references cited are general treatments of Q.T. or computer science and the author’s own publications on the subject in non-refereed journals. This is a clear violation of the NOR policy at a minimum, as well as being blatantly self-promoting. DV8 2XL 01:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Votes

  1. It has the same problems that I alluded to in my dispute statement in the quantum indeterminacy article, particularly since all the quotes from that article were literally plunked into this one.
  2. Though thinking about logic, process calculi, quantum mechanics and everything else is an exciting activity (it is useful to brainstorm) I can't figure out the unifying theme, if any of this article.
  3. I think the article contains statements which are...bizarre: Consider the following statement
"Quantum indeterminacy carries over into the Actor model because of its use of arbitration for determining which message is next in the arrival ordering of an Actor that is sent multiple messages concurrently (e.g. by using arbiters in the implementation of Actor systems)."
As best I can determine this is wrong.
Having said that, I think Hewitt should have first the benefit of presenting a defense of the article; the article needs change no matter what happens. I will abstain (for now; my mind is changeable if I see reasons to do otherwise) and propose in any case an RfC See below.--CSTAR 02:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. I will only add that I cannot see where any of the cited literature deals with the putative subject of this article (namely a connection between quantum mechanics and the actor model arbitration scheme). Instead they deal with either QM or the actor model. That leaves the connection between them undocumented in the literature, and therefore a violation of NOR. --EMS | Talk 03:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree with everything CSTAR says. Furthermore, and pace frayed patience, I think that Carl Hewitt ought to have been consulted before this AfD was put together. --- Charles Stewart 03:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: You might try reading Computers without Clocks by Ivan Sutherland and Jo Ebergen to gain some intuition. Then ask the following question: In terms of quantum physics, how does an arbiter work? BTW, there is a huge literature on arbiters and the quantum physics of integrated circuits.
    The connection between the Actor model and quantum physics has been published many times, e.g., there is discussion in the following proceedings of a refereed conference:
    • Carl Hewitt and Gul Agha. Guarded Horn clause languages: are they deductive and Logical? International Conference on Fifth Generation Computer Systems, Ohmsha 1988. Tokyo.
    There are references to the phenomenon in papers published in refereed journals as well.
    Regards,--Carl Hewitt 04:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize for the extreme brevity of the above comments. Because I am away to a conference, I cannot respond fully. The questions, suggestions, and comments here are greatly appreciated and are deserving of a full response.--Carl Hewitt 07:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further Comment. Though this is not a judicial process, I ask Carl to rely on a more "progressive" dialogue strategy. Please try not to respond to questions with questions (it sounds Socratic, but in fact is a very "regressive" strategy--it does not advance the dialogue). To answer the questions implicit in this page, could you please say: "Such and such published papers discusses the relation between actors and quantum mechanics in the following way". Moreover, your rhetorical response
      Try reading ... Then ask the following question: "in terms of quantum mechanics, how does an arbiter work"?
    is not helpful, to me at least. I don't know how arbiters work in terms of quantum mechanics; am I supposed to figure this out? Please tell me. But the article in dispute sure does no such thing (nor does another article in which I disputed another quantum claim of yours. I can't remember it now). Instead the article in dispute provides quotes from Einstein, Thomas Kuhn, Hawking, Penrose. Also why do you insist on bringing Chris Fuchs into this?--CSTAR 05:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see any connection based on the Sutherland and Ebergen article. Their methods of handling asynchony and arbitration are based on deterministic circuits, while QM is nondeterministic. The conference proceeding that you reference I would need to look up, but as you are a co-author it fails to overcome the concerns of NOR and self-promotion. Beyond that, saying "There are references ..." is most unimpressive. Please list them (preferably in the talk page for the article) as CSTAR has requested. --EMS | Talk 05:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a fine line between "refactoring disputed content", and "POV fork", and this seems to cross it, I'm afraid. With the same underlying problems, as per nom. Delete Alai 05:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or possibly transwiki to WikiBooks if the author is interested. It makes an interesting essay, but I didn't find anything that would prevent classifying it at original research. I'd consider it to be a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's policies and if Carl Hewitt is interested, this may become a WikiBook on his take of the actor model. --Pjacobi 07:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reads like an odd mix of computer science and QM. Replicates a pile of stuff that the same author put into Quantum uncertaintly. Looks more like OR than a proper article. Also: CH says "The connection between the Actor model and quantum physics has been published many times, e.g., there is discussion in the following proceedings of a refereed conference: Carl Hewitt and Gul Agha. Guarded Horn clause languages: are they deductive and Logical?". Which makes me think (a) if this is even vaguely mainstream, he should be able to cite someone other than himself; and (b) something more recent than 1988; and (c) a proper paper not just a discussion from a conference proceeding. Nonetheless, as per C*, if CH can come up with some defence, I'll reconsider. William M. Connolley 08:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with CSTAR, except that I note that (at least I) have already had a long-running debate with Hewitt on these topics; see talk page on Metastability in electronics, now moved to Arbiter (electronics). My frustration with Hewitt is that he makes assertions and then persistently dodges questions and criticisms. This could be an interesting topic if Hewitt took the subject matter seriously, and actually gave it the attention he claims it deserves. linas 13:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move (without redirect) to The case for quantum mechanics being incomplete and bring article into line with core WP standards. What I see here is a consensus for delete, and i don't think it is a sound consensus. I'm afraid I will be away from WP until Monday, if by chance the AfD has not been closed by then I may amend this vote. --- Charles Stewart 11:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    If you look at The case for quantum mechanics being incomplete, you will find that the text relevant to that subject is now there. The result is a highly POV article, but there is no reason why it cannot be toned down. I advise working with Carl to get it properly link in the the relevant QM articles as well as trying to at least partially resolve the POV issue.
  • Keep: the article should be moved to a more appropriate name, but it is not now clear where the best home for the article is. One point in particular: is it best to treat the relationship of the actor model to logic and physics separately, when there is a tradition of considering the relationship of computation, logic and physics to each other that dates back to Turing, and passes through such distinguished thinkers as Robin Gandy, Dana Scott and Robin Milner? I'm inclined to think that the contributions of the actor model to this discussion are best placed within a section of a broader article. Until it is clear what the right fate for this material should be, I regard a delete outcome as premature. --- Charles Stewart 18:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A broader article would certainly be welcome as well. However, I am aware of no technical published work on the relationship of computation to physics by Robin Gandy, Dana Scott, or Robin Milner. Also when I spoke at length with Milner last summer he did not know of any published work on the relationship of process caluli to physics in contrast to biology where there are extensive connections.--Carl Hewitt 18:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Gandy article I had in mind was his 1980 ‘Church’s Thesis and Principles of Mechanisms’, in Barwise J., Keisler J.J. and Kunen K., eds., The Kleene Symposium, Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 123–145. It's on the limits of computation and the possibility of hypercomputation and has inspired a significant literature. Scott&Milner's work developing the classical automata-theoretic idea of transducer is what I had in mind: offhand I can't name references, but it is what leads into the work of Abramsky that CSTAR mentioned elsewhere. This work, while it takes physics seriously, is definitely computer science, but the IJMPC article I cited elsewhere is physics&agents. --- Charles Stewart 18:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename since the article no longer mentions "quantum" as it has been reorganized as per suggestions of editors on this page and objections to article above no longer apply. Also I suggest that the vote be postponed until Monday in order to give Charles Stewart a chance to participate further.--Carl Hewitt 15:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    What remains documents no connection to physics now, and indeed seems to lack a thesis at all. So I retain my vote to outright delete this article. Perhaps you can move the text into a core actor model article and have it be useful there, but overall I stand behind my admonition that you stop trying to impose the actor model on theoretical physics. --EMS | Talk 13:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I have clarified the article to make more clear the relationship to physics. More clarification is welcome.
    There is a great more published material on this subject that needs to be reported in the Wikipedia. Therefore the article should stand by itself since there will not be room to fold it into another article.
    Note that as I have said before: There is no attempt in this article (or others) to impose the Actor model on theoretical physics. Instead it seems that you cannot accept that the Actor model is dependent on physics.
    Regards,--Carl Hewitt 15:10, 21 October 2005(UTC)
    1. IMO, you have failed to document an actual dependency. Certainly the actor model can deal with pheonomena caused by quantum and relativistic effects, but to say that it is "dependent" on those effects is not appropriate.
    2. Even if said dependency exists, that would not justify the tight concpetual connections that you keep attempting to forge. You may as well say that walking is a major branch of physics since walking depends on physics.
    3. You have (most importantly) utterly failed to establish that these connections to theoretical physics are accepted as an inate attribute of the actor model in the field of computer science.
The connection betwenn the Actor model and physics is well accepted in computer science as demonstrated by many citations including the following which I dug up immedately in a Google search:
  • T. Frühwirth and A. Herold and V. Kuchenhoff and T. LeProvost and P. Lim and E. Monfroy and M. Wallace. Constraint Logic Programming in Logic Programming in Action. Springer-Verlag. 1992.
  • Mehmet Ali Orgun and Wanli Ma. An Overview of Temporal and Modal Logic Programming Proceedings of {ICTL}'94: The 1st International Conference on Temporal Logic. Springer-Verlag. 1994.
  • Mehmet A. Orgun and William W. Wadge. Extending Temporal Logic Programming with Choice Predicates Non-Determinism Journal of Logic and Computation. Vol 4. No. 6. 1994.
  • S. Abdennadher and T. Frǔhwirth and M. Marte and H. Meuss. A Confluence Test for Concurrent Constraint Programs
In addition a classic paper on the subject The Challenge of Open Systems has been reprinted in a standard reference work: The foundation of artificial intelligence---a sourcebook Cambridge University Press. 1990.
Regards,--Carl Hewitt 07:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, you are showing why it is a bad idea for a researcher to create articles on their own work here. IMO, a subject such as this becomes appropriate to Wikipedia when someone else independently decides that the subject is worthy of an article. That is the standard that I have chosen for the placement of my research into this venue. I strongly advise that you adopt the same standard. --EMS | Talk 17:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Due to my conversation with Montalvo below, I can now very succinctly state why I say that you are imposing the actor model on theoretical physics: Even if this purported connection was known in computer science, it still is not known in any branch of theoretical physics. You are trying to use Wikipedia to announce these supposed connections to the physics community. However, Wikipedia is not a billboard, and in the context of theoretical physics this connection is very much original research. This article exists in both the actor model and quantum mechanics realm. In the former realm, it is permissible (or at least worth the benefit of the doubt), but in the latter it is original research. For an article like this to be acceptable, it must be acceptable in all of its realms. For this article, that is not the case.
[see Relationship to physics does not original research make below. ---Montalvo 00:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)][reply]
The updated article is no longer in the category quantum mechanics rectifying an editing error in its creation. This makes the categorization compatible with the new article in that it does not refer to quantum mechanics.--Carl Hewitt 07:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
BTW - This also is why the article on the actor model and general relativity got killed too, along with all of your attempts to link the actor model to GR. --EMS | Talk 03:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment. A theory of walking certainly depends on physics. In fact the physics is quite intricate. I am willing to accept a claim that the Actor model purports to be a model of physical concurrent computation. You keep proposing a maximalist position contra Hewitt which should not be the intent of this VfD. --CSTAR 17:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, you have missed my point, which is that the linkage (if present) is having its significance totally overblown. I can accept the claim itself too, but as a claim and not as an established fact or speculation worthy of an independent article. Beyond that, I 100% agree with you about the intent of this VfD. If you can show that I am mistaken on my point #3 above, I will change my vote, and encourage others to do the same. --EMS | Talk 21:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:See also quantum indeterminacy in computation and its talk page for a third example in the same vein. linas 13:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah yes, that's the one (quantum indeterminacy in computation) that I couldn't remember in my comment above.--CSTAR 13:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Carl and his quantum stuff is also leaking into unbounded nondeterminism; see in particular the Special:Whatlinkshere/Actor model, mathematical logic, and quantum_physics for a list of the other articles into which this dispute is leaking. Again, an interesting topic; the problem is its poorly treated. linas 14:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further comment. The list of references of this article is puzzling. Samson Abramsky and a few others have recent work on quantum protocols, not just in connection with cryptography in the braoder context of information exchange. This is recent work on a clearly related topic. Glaring omission.--CSTAR 13:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      This article is not about quantum computing, even in Carl's viewpoint. So the lack of that reference is actually appropriate. Beyond that, this subthread belongs in the article's talk page. If you wish to continue it, please respond there. --EMS | Talk 20:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      The Abramnsky references are not all about quantum computing. Re your comment If you wish to continue it, please respond there. Why shouldn't I respond here? This is a discussion page.--CSTAR 21:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      Respond as you wish, but if this starts getting overly detailed I none-the-less submit the proposition that if may be benificial to offload this thread to that page. I have seen these pages get out of hand with all kinds of odd discussion, and seek to avoid that here. I see the focus of this page as the VfD, not the references per se.
      I will take your word for it that Abramsky is germane. However, unless you can make a case that his word justifies the contents of this article, I see no need to modify my vote because of it. --EMS | Talk 02:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further comment on references. In reply to comments above, the point of this further comment is two-fold. (a) That Hewitt's article omits these (and other references), and (b) that the concept of an article on Protocols, process calculi and quantum mechanics is entirely reasonable. That's why I would have preferred that a discussion in that page precede a VfD.
  • Samson Abramsky, Bob Coecke: A Categorical Semantics of Quantum Protocols. quant-ph/0402130
Quantum protocols are an important theoretical element in constructions of various measures of entanglement, see for instance
  • Dagmar Bruss, Characterizing Entanglement quant-ph/0110078 pp 6 7 where distillation protocols are discussed. This has nothing with quantum computing in the sense of circuit or other paradigms.
I believe User:Chalst has a point, not because we should wait till Hewitt returns from a conference (that should not be a consideration), but procedurally this seems wrong-headed. I would like to point out the proceedings of a previous VfD against a Hewitt created category; in that instance I felt was the VfD entirely unjustified and I voted and argued against the VfD. As Asher Peres has said, truth in physics cannot determined by a poll. That VfD process was, in my opinion, not very felicitous [2].
  • Keep It seems to be that this AfD is an ambush because there was no talk page before it got brought up for deletion. This does not seem to be the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. Most of this discussion should be moved to a talk page and the disputes resolved there. That said, here is why I think it should not be deleted.
  • The relation between the actor model (AM), mathematical logic (ML), and physics has not been stated clearly in the article. That does not mean that it doesn't exist, or that it's original work. Carl's ideas have been out there in the literature for decades. He's taught this idea for decades, so the idea is out there. He and other editors should be given time to state the connection more clearly before it gets nominated for deletion. Doing it without a talk discussion is unfair.
  • Here is how I understand the connection: the semantics of computation traditionally has rested on ML, but because of indeterminancy in arrival order of messages in concurrency it cannot rest on ML. It has to rest on physics. A semantics based on physics is crucial and fundamental to the AM.
  • The goal post keeps getting moved in this deletion discussion. First it was claimed that the idea was original. When Carl gave references, it was claimed that these were not refereed journals. I can plainly see that some of the references are in refereed journals. Then it was claimed that AM does not contain a physics result. When Carl said he's not claiming it does, that what he is claiming is that the model crucially depends on physics, it was claimed that no one in computer science (CS) accepts it, with no substatiation. If there is a controversy in CS, someone should come up with a story in the talk section with references and contribute the alternate point of view to the article. All the claims against the AM not being related to physics are orignial claims. The deleters should be held to the same standard of substatiation and non-originality that Carl is being held to.
  • And finally, no one holds other articles to the same standard of acceptance by the scientific community that this one is being held to. The result may be obscure and may have been ingnored by most of CS, but that doesn't make it original because the idea has been out there for decades. It doesn't make it non-notable just because people haven't taken enough note yet or haven't understood it's significance yet. Some people in CS have taken note, and making technical things understandable to more people is the job of the WP.
Yes, indeed many computer scientists have taken note of the published connection between the Actor model and physics citing it many times including the following that I dug up immediately with a Google search:
  • T. Frühwirth and A. Herold and V. Kuchenhoff and T. LeProvost and P. Lim and E. Monfroy and M. Wallace. Constraint Logic Programming in Logic Programming in Action. Springer-Verlag. 1992.
  • Mehmet Ali Orgun and Wanli Ma. An Overview of Temporal and Modal Logic Programming Proceedings of {ICTL}'94: The 1st International Conference on Temporal Logic. Springer-Verlag. 1994.
  • Mehmet A. Orgun and William W. Wadge. Extending Temporal Logic Programming with Choice Predicates Non-Determinism Journal of Logic and Computation. Vol 4. No. 6. 1994.
  • S. Abdennadher and T. Frǔhwirth and M. Marte and H. Meuss. A Confluence Test for Concurrent Constraint Programs
In addition a classic paper on the subject The Challenge of Open Systems has been reprinted in a standard reference work: The foundation of artificial intelligence---a sourcebook Cambridge University Press. 1990.
Regards,--Carl Hewitt 06:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not an anbush. The material was forked over from Quantum indeterminacy and was discused at length in Talk:Quantum indeterminacy
    • This discussion is not about the validity of this idea; it is about an aleged violation of WP policy.
    • If you have information that can address the problems in this article, I would suggest you help Carl by editing them into the page, not here
    • I asked for references from third sources published in refereed journals in the original charge.
    • This is not the place to discuss WP policy. If you have issues with that I suggest you place them at Wikipedia:No original research

DV8 2XL 03:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Montalvo wrote:
The result may be obscure and may have been ingnored by most of CS, but that doesn't make it original because the idea has been out there for decades.
In my book you have just made the NOR case instead of refuted it. As long as an idea is peculiar to a single author, it is original to that author, and I don't care if that idea 50 minutes old or 50 years old.
Reading the references to the article and the citations to them in literature shows that this is not an idea peculiar to a single author; instead it is an accepted view in Computer Science.--Carl Hewitt 07:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I will concede your point, but I will stand by mine (which is a general one instead of being specific to this case). Also kindly note that without Montalvo's list of articles, I would have no evidence that your statement is true. Just please remember that your assertions regarding the actor model and physics are OK in CS, but OR in physics. --EMS | Talk 19:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Kindly realize that yelling (i.e. using all caps) is rude, and is not going to impress me. I realize that we are getting under your skin, but that is fair in that your actions got under ours some time ago. --EMS | Talk 19:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, both the NPOV and No original research policies state that
If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.
Now if this was just an "ancillary article" associated with the actor model, I'm not sure that the AfD would have been initiated. However, Carl has been very persistent in assuming the because things like relativity and quantum mechanics are (in his estimation) relevant to the actor model, that the actor model in turn is relevant to relativity and quantum mechanics. In reality, nothing could be farther from the truth. In these fields, the actor model is completely unknown, and the purported connection is totally OR.
More to the point, Carl brought over here a bunch of text that was inappropriate to quantum indeterminacy, turning this article into a medium for maintaining a strong connection between the QM articles and the actor model articles. It was so out of line that myself and another editor felt obliged to initiate this AfD. The offending text is now off elsewhere (in a wholely QM context) where hopefully it can become the basis for an encyclopedic article. (That text describes the case for QM being incomplete and has some value in or as an article on that topic.)
What now remains is a category link to category:quantum information science, which as best I can tell is a restatement of the same OR connection to QM. Given that this title calls for that link, I say that the article should just be deleted, and this inappropriate connection severed.
There is no category link between this article and category:quantum information science.--Carl Hewitt 07:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In the meantime, given that it is germane to the actor model, Carl is free to mention the logical connection between the actor model and physical theory in the actor model article. However, if he wants to reference any physical theories, then he should do so only through links in the actor model article.
To summarize: In the context of physics, the actor model is unknown, and the mention of the actor model in any physics article or category is therefore a violation of NOR no matter how many respected and/or peer-reviewed CS journal articles that connection may have been mentioned in. Carl has by his actions turned this into a de-facto physics article, and so rendered it OR. I will therefore be happy to see it go.
--EMS | Talk 03:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Warning: Montalvo only has done only 8 edits so far. However, they do go back to July. I don't see him as a sock puppet because of the length of that history, but instead as a lurker. In any case, his lack of experience worth noting in this context. --EMS | Talk 03:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am mostly in agreement with Charles Stewart. The people arguing for deletion have valid concerns, which I share. Indeed, while it may well be true that the actor model is inspired by a (possibly misguided understanding of) relativity and quantum theory, I haven't seen any evidence that it uses these physical theories, and it certainly is not an interdisciplinary subject stradling computer science and physics. However, it is not yet obvious to me that the only way to resolve these concerns is to take the radical step of deleting the article instead of a discussion. In fact, I think the article has improved in that the questionable statement have been removed. Finally, I wish to note that I know some of the history of the conflict with Carl Hewitt, for instance the category on relativistic information science, that Carl is difficult to deal with in the context of Wikipedia, and that CSTAR, Linas, EMS, and others have reacted with a lot of patience. I hope that Carl also realizes this and that he will be cautious if he wants to continue contributing about his own work. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is now sufficiently different as various edits have made the point for the deletion unnecessary. Please note from the deletion guidelines Wikipedia:Guide to deletion:
You and others are welcome to continue editing the article during the discussion period. Indeed, if you can address the points raised during the discussion by improving the article, you are encouraged to edit a nominated article (noting in the discussion that you have done so if your edits are significant ones).
I would also like to point out that the deletion process is not a poll, again from the deletion guidelines:
The purpose of the discussion is to achieve consensus upon a course of action. Individuals will express strong opinions and may even "vote". To the extent that voting occurs (see meta:Polls are evil), the votes are merely a means to gauge the degree of consensus reached so far. Wikipedia is not a democracy and majority voting is not the determining factor in whether a nomination succeeds or not.
Admins should note that there is now not a clear consensus about deleting this article.--CSTAR 16:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree that there is no concensus to delete this article. The closing admin may count this vote as a keep vote for the purposes of closing this VfD and determining concensus. However I make no claims to having an opinion as to the encyclopeadic nature of the article in question at this time. Klonimus 09:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (if voting hasn't closed.) Without supporting documentation, which I haven't seen, and which I believe does not exist, there is no support for an article with that name, or having ever had that name. Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (if my vote still counts). Despite all the positive changes made in the past days, I am afraid I still view this text as original research, and therefore not material for an article in an online Encyclopedia. Karol 19:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Extend voting period
Since CH is away at a conference, we can't expect him to assemble a proper defence of the article at this point. I suggest that we delay the closing of votes until five days after CH returns from his conference. Otherwise, I will vote keep and in the event the article is not deleted, the AfD should be resubmitted at a more auspicious time. --- Charles Stewart 22:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: His duties at this conference have not stopped him from making nine edits to the page in question to-day. I would like to remind all that I nominated this for violating the NOR policy; to defend his position all he would have to do is append references linking the actor model to Q.T. from some other reputable source. As was said above: he should be able to cite someone other than himself. And he should know the rules of Wikipedia well enough by now to have done that in the first place. He has pushed this topic in other articles, if the lack of proper citations here was an oversight, he could dip into one of those for a link or a journal reference, but of course there none there either. DV8 2XL 23:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There's a good deal of reason to be unhappy with CH's behaviour as an editor, and I think the voting pattern on this page reflects exhausted patience. However, I'm not at all happy with the way things have been argued on this page. For NOR to be a reason for deletion, it is not enough to establish that the contents of the article qualify as original research (which has not conclusively been established), but one should also show that the topic does not support a good WP article. To paraphrase what CSTAR said, the intersection between computation, logic and physics is a fascinating one, and even if no case can be made that the actor model gives an interesting perspective of quantum physics, there may still be a worthy article here. Without intending to make personal criticism, I don't think this AfD was well put together (ie. the AfD was assembled without so much as a question being asked on either CH's talk page or that of the article's): giving CH a bit more time to put his case together (and allowing him access to his literature, etc.) can be seen as some sort of remedy for the AfD's defect. --- Charles Stewart 00:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"For NOR to be a reason for deletion, it is not enough to establish that the contents of the article qualify as original research ... but one should also show that the topic does not support a good WP article"

You have me at a disadvatage sir, as you seem to be reading from a different version of Wikipedia:No original research than I am. DV8 2XL 01:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Same text, but I take the application of NOR to AfD to mean that one should repair the article if possible, and delete it only if that cannot be done. Otherwise one has the absurd stipulation that if one adds a paragraph introducing a neologism (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents) to a perfectly good article, then one ought to delete the whole article. --- Charles Stewart 02:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Then you need to show that this is (or can be) a reasonable article.
For example: I have created a modification to general relativity (GR) which I refer to by the acronym FBGR, which is unpublished except in the proceedings of an unrefereed conference, and is in any case mostly unknown amongst physicists.
  • Case 1: If I create a article on FBGR, it would be totally NOR, and would be deleted.
  • Case 2: If I add a section on FBGR to the GR article, then what is OR is only that section, and the article can be repaired by reverting out my work.
I submit to you the proposition that the connection between QM and the actor model as claimed in the title of this article is wholely undocumented except in the writings of Carl Hewitt. That make the analogous situation re my OR like Case 1 instead of Case 2. --EMS | Talk 02:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Do note the following:
  1. I have told Carl that I would not mind seeing the part about the incompleteness of QM expoted to an article called something like "The case for quantum mechanics being incomplete". What he has is a start for the article, and in the context of its title the POV is almost bearable.
  2. Carl made a great effort to attached the Actor model to general relativity a month or two ago, which I was a part of beating back. He has no sense that "Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine". I see this as part of his propaganda, which is how is ends up being NOR. (OTOH as best I can tell the actor model article is legitimate and benefits from Carl's expertise in the model itself. It is these odd connections to areas that Carl obviously is not very experienced in that are the problem.)
--EMS | Talk 03:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my aim to defend the article, and I am aware of CH's inappropriate pushing of the actor model. I doubt that CH can furnish references establishing the connection you describe, since otherwise why would these references not have been seen in CH's other edits trying to make the connection? Rather, I think that a piece of courtesy that I think is normally due, namely to discuss the proposed deletion beforehand, was not made, and given CH does not have his usual access to his resources, I think we should give CH extra time to prepare his defence. I don't see what benefit accrues to making the defence a rush job. --- Charles Stewart 03:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We should remember that this content actually had a lengthy discussion here before it was forked by Carl from quantum indeterminacy. This is important, because it is not evident from the article at hand, but most editors that took part in that dispute are probably reluctant to repeat it for the nth time. Maybe it would be a good idea to copy that dispute to the talk page of Actor model, mathematical logic, and quantum physics, or at least leave a link to it? Karol 06:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
PS CH's work on actor theory is very much legitimate, well respected, and I think highly of it. I was initially excited when I saw that he was contributing to WP, and likewise disappointed when I saw his modus operandi. I hold out some hope that things will improve. --- Charles Stewart 03:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I oppose extending the voting period. CH has now made 10's of edits (too many to be easy to count). He clearly has enough time to participate if he wishes too. I also don't see anything to make me change my delete vote. William M. Connolley 11:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]
  • Oppose. I wasn't going to vote, because it seemed obvious that both Carl Hewitt and Charles Steward had time to react, but I felt I had to react to Klonimus' remark. I don't think that extending the voting period will lead to improvement of the article, quite the contrary, because rigorous action is not allowed while an article is being discussed at AfD. Besides, AfD is not for improving articles. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 19:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I read Wikipedia:Guide to deletion and saw that in fact pretty much everything is allowed, even moving the page (thanks CSTAR, your comment alerted me to reread the guide). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 20:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC) (via edit conflict)[reply]
  • I changed my vote about 4.5 hours after the 5*24 hours voting period a strict interpretation of policy would say had ended, but I guess that nearly all admins would count the modified vote, not the original vote, in a count. Apart from that, it looks to me that everybody who weighed in during the discussion period has cast a vote by yesterday, and so we can count the discussion finished. There's clearly no consensus to delete (my count: 8 deletes, 4 keeps and 1 redirect, excluding User:Montalvo's vote) --- Charles Stewart 20:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which is rather short of the 3 to 1 against or 4 to 1 against that admins usually look for when determining the existence of a consensus on an AfD, especially when there seems to be a well-founded case against deleting. You're an admin: you should know that... --- Charles Stewart 13:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm terribly sorry, I should have known better. The point I was making that the vote totals were indeed of interest to admins since it is likely the first thing they will take into account when determining whether there is a consensus. That there are other things they should take into account in this determination doesn't mean that the vote totals are unimportant. --- Charles Stewart 14:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A possible solution
Again I apologize for now being able to participate more fully. I had to stay up til 4:30AM yesterday to finish a conference paper which was due. Today I spent 7 hours driving. But I do want Wikipedia processes to work, so I stayed up late tonight even though the conference starts early tomorrow constructing a possible solution which is explained at Talk:Actor model, mathematical logic, and quantum physics.

I like the idea above of removing the Actor connection from Actor model, mathematical_logic, and quantum physics#Actor model and quantum physics and starting a new article "The case for quantum mechanics being incomplete" however it would be appropriate to balance the views already present with some other views on the subject. Since I do not have expertise in these other views, hopefully soneone else would supply them.

Eventually I will dig up the citaton for the indeterminacy of Arbiters being based on the indeterminacy of quantum mechanics, but for obvious reasons I can't do it now. I have some other pressing things on my plate so hopefully this possible solution can help calm things down in the meantine.

Please see what you think. Thanks--Carl Hewitt 10:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)io[reply]

Also please note that the citation that I most need to dig up is not just a citation to my own work. The citation nneded is the underlying citaton to a published paper that established the connection between the quantum structure of integraged circuits and the indeterminacy of Arbiters.--Carl Hewitt 15:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Please note that I cited an article in this discussion Talk:Quantum_indeterminacy_in_computation#Disputed statement which cast some doubt on your claims. That was on October 4. I have yet to see you cite any source anywhere on WIkipedia in support of any claim you made in that article on "the indeterminacy of Arbiters being based on the indeterminacy of quantum mechanics". None of the articles or books in the references section of Quantum_indeterminacy_in_computation come even remotely close to dealing with these issues. One of the books listed is [3]. It may be a useful book, but this is a book on QM for general audiences. The Fuchs reference is an article basically on foundations.
  2. Removing the Actor connection from the article currently in dispute, means reaming the article as well. However, please do not do that now.
--CSTAR 14:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and I apologize for not getting to this sooner.--Carl Hewitt 15:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I see you started a renamed article. The name you chose for it is unfortunate. See my comments on the talk page.--CSTAR 04:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
After our discussion on the talk page, I renamed it Incompleteness of quantum physics.--Carl Hewitt 08:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganization as per suggestions of Wikipedia editors
The article has now been reorganized as per suggestions of the Wikipedia editors above. Note that it no longer mentions "quantum."

Therefore I suggest that the article be renamed Actor model, mathematical logic, and physics--Carl Hewitt 04:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have a better idea: If this article is kept then call it Actor model and mathematical logic. Just plain leave physics out of the title. If there are ways that the actor model and related paradigms are analogous to physical theory, then you may describe them, given that they are documented in the area of computer science. However, you cannot treat the actor model as being a part of physics due to this association. I repeat what I wrote above: The actor model is unknown to phsysicists and Wikipedia is not the place to introduce it to the physiscists. Any attempt to do so goes against NOR. However, if indeed the connection is now known to computer science through your efforts then in that context it is encyclopedic.
Perhaps the case for not mentioning physics in this title is best made in the name of Newton's book introducing classical mechanics to the world: "Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica" (latin which in english means "mathematical principles of natural philosophy"). So both physics and the actor model are examples of mathematical modelling anyway, and the purposrted connection can be described or not (and currently I notice that it is not described in the article) as is appropriate.
I won't rescind my delete vote. I for one want to see this title gone, and not even be a redirect. Beyond that, your kindly keeping the actor model out of the hair of us physicists would be most appreciated. --EMS | Talk 20:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Re: I for one want to see this title gone. Aside from titles in very specific categories (obscenities, incitement to commit a crime, racial or ethnic slurs, personal attacks and so on ) I didn't know there was a general Wikipedia policy on article titles. What is it?--CSTAR 21:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Let me put it this way: When something gets under your skin enough, it may as well be an obscenity ;-).
I certainly am not invoking any Wikipedia policy. However, the title of this article does invoke a connection that I have stated above is OR. It seems to me that it is sensible that it should be removed given that, as either that connection ought to be documented (in which case NOR is invoked against it), or it is not in which case what is the use of it? In a case like this, I don't see that a policy is needed to say that it should be removed. --EMS | Talk 02:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have clarified the connection with physics in the article.--Carl Hewitt 17:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Physics or not?
The dependence of the Actor model on physics is accepted in Computer Science, e.g., see "The Challenge of Open Systems" in a standard reference The foundation of artificial intelligence---a sourcebook Cambridge University Press, 1990 and other references in the artice. The published work reported in this article crucially depends on physics.

On the other hand, the claim that the Actor model does not depend on physics is orginal research. There are no published references to back up the latter claim.--Carl Hewitt 17:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, these articles require substantive changes. Please see my comments on the talk page of that article. Please do not regard the outcome of this AfD as a "vindication" if it indeed does not get deleted. --CSTAR 17:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the article still requires improvement. Also your previous questions, comments, and suggestions have already resulted in substantial improvements. Thanks!
It is not the job of the Wikipedia to provide "vindication" as the Wikipedia does not adjudicate truth. It's job is more to report on published work.--Carl Hewitt 17:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is irrelevant to me. Look at it this way: You may know of President Bush, but that does not mean that President Bush knows of you. That the actor model knows of or utilizes physics does not mean that the actor model is known to physics.
I realize that it may seen wierd that something can be established in one venue and be OR in another. Perhaps this is a sign of how specialized the fields have become, but my own read is that the CS field has permitted itself to accept your claim without first demainding that it be validated in a physics context. However, done is done. I will respect the CS reality re the actor model is you will accept the physics reality for the same.
FYI - I do not see a true physics connection however. In the contested article, it is stated that
Instead of observing the internals of arbitration processes of Actor computations, we await outcomes.
So the physics of arbiters is not the issue, but instead the unpredictablitity of their results. If you are not concerned about the "internals" (and I don't see why you should be), then you are not concerned about the physics. This is not to say that you should not be curious about it, but rather that that physics is not fundamental to the actor model. Instead the resultant indeterminism of the outputs is. I encourage you to think about this. --EMS | Talk 15:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Physical indeterminacy in arbiters produces indeterminacy in Actors. The reason that we await outcomes is that we have no alternative because of indeterminacy.--Carl Hewitt 19:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. However, the actor model IMO is concerned with the outcome being indeterminate and not the physical cause itself. If you are challenged about the need to handle indeterminate outcomes, then you can cite QM, GR, and even chaos theory. I wish that I could get it through your thick skull that indeterminism forms the "junction" between physics and the actor model. Both exist at that junction, but only one or the other can exist away from that junction. --EMS | Talk 02:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey wait a minute, "getting through your thick skull" is not language we tolerate around here. --CSTAR 03:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that referees for computer science journals cannot be expected to validate claims made about physics, nor would I expect referees for physics journals to necessarily do a good job validating claims made about computer science. It's a question of the editors ability to select the right referees for the claims made in the paper, and these doubts go double if the claims are not featured in the abstract, but appear as remarks in the course of the main claims made in the paper (I'm not saying this is what happened with CH's paper, just noting a problem with WP's black-or-white policy that claims made in peer reviewed journals are accepted as sufficiently backed up). There are journals that somewhat straddle the divide between computer science and physics, eg. World Scientific's International Journal of Modern Physics C published this article about the simulation of physics by agents; see also their announcement message. But it's a thin crowd. I don't know what to recommend as a general line here, only to suggest that CH's case would be helped if he were to publish in a journal with credentials in physics, and that otherwise we are voyaging in not very well mapped territory. --- Charles Stewart 18:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It will be interesting to see what other physicists, e.g., Chris Fuchs, make of all this. However, it is unlikely that many practitioners in fields of science (e.g. Computer Science) whose results strongly depend on physics will themselves publish in physics journals.--Carl Hewitt 19:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship to physics does not original research make

EMS writes above:

Due to my conversation with Montalvo below, I can now very succinctly state why I say that you are imposing the actor model on theoretical physics: Even if this purported connection was known in computer science, it still is not known in any branch of theoretical physics. You are trying to use Wikipedia to announce these supposed connections to the physics community. However, Wikipedia is not a billboard, and in the context of theoretical physics this connection is very much original research. This article exists in both the actor model and quantum mechanics realm. In the former realm, it is permissible (or at least worth the benefit of the doubt), but in the latter it is original research. For an article like this to be acceptable, it must be acceptable in all of its realms. For this article, that is not the case.

I disagree. Which scientific community accepts a result is irrelevant to whether it's original or not. Carl is not claiming a physics result? Note something being a result in physics is not the same as having a relationship to physics. Depending on physics does not put it into the physics realm. Physicists are free to read the CS literature. They just haven't. Encyclopedias, like this one, can aid this process.

Here is the argument in a nutshell. This result is crucially dependent on physics. It's significant in the CS community that it does depend on physics and not logic. It should be indexed in physics terms in the WP so physicists can find it. That's what encyclopedias do. They make results accessible across disciplinary boundaries.

I notice a whole lot of other categories listed under other categories when they're not inside them, such as category:pseudoscience as a subcategory of category:science.

Montalvo 23:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC) (also see Montalvo Talk)[reply]

Carl Hewitt at one point explicitly placed the actor model into category:general relativity and category:quantum mechanics. It was a battle to shove it out of that realm. More recently, he took over the article on quantum indeterminacy and when his higly POV physics text got removed from there it ended up here! So I wholeheartedly agree with you that
Depending on physics does not put [the actor model] into the physics realm.
To achieve that placement, explicit action is needed, and Carl has been all too happy to do so. My point is that not only does a dependency on physics not place something into the physics realm, but it does not justify such a placement either. I repeat: The actor model is not known to physics. That is why it should not even be indexed there. Because it is unknown to physics, such a placement is novel to the physics realm, and therefore is a violation of WP:NOR.
I hope that I have made my point. --EMS | Talk 02:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To amplify what EMS said, no one is saying that it has been established that physicists cannot have anything to learn from the actor model, rather that the task of showing that the actor model is interesting to physicists is something that Wikipedia's core rules say explicitly that it is not to be used for, ie. that this what WP calls original research. If there is no consensus to delete CH's article, there is a consensus that CH has pushed some OR. --- Charles Stewart 13:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the question is more like "What is the purpose of categorization on the Wikipedia?" To me the purpose is to be of service to Wikipedia users in navigating the material. So my intention in putting in category links category:general relativity and category:quantum mechanics was to help users navigate between articles that report on published research in different categories. It was not to make any point, state any thesis, or impose any views.--Carl Hewitt 16:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Putting a link to actor model in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle page (or even worse a subsection! [4]) is hardly a help in navigating. --CSTAR 16:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Every time someone want to put their own (usually original) research where it does not belong, I see a grand redefinition of Wikipedia to suit themself. Carl's redefining categorization is no different. Categorization is a means of grouping related articles, so that people can explore a field with ease. It is not meant for trivially related or unrelated topics to use as a means of advertising. --EMS | Talk 06:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked the WP:NOR article and nowhere does it say that research which is published and known in one field is original when "discovered" by another. The article says nothing about cross field tranfers being "original". In fact it says:
research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research," it is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.
and
In some cases, there may be controversy or debate over what constitutes a legitimate or reputable authority or source. Where no agreement can be reached about this, the article should provide an account of the controversy and of the different authorities or sources. Such an account also helps ensure the article’s neutral point of view.
I take this to mean that if the origin of the source material, "not in physics", in this case, is disputed, then the controversy should be aired and explained not suppressed as being original.
Montalvo 17:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've discussed this point already: my opinion is that we are travelling in not-well-chartered territory, and it is likely that the rules should change in response to our experience. There is room for variance in interpreting the NOR rules, and some of the interpretations may be pathological. --- Charles Stewart 17:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I largely agree. Montalvo - You have been helpful in getting me to see why Carl has been driving people up a wall. However, you are twisting my words: The actor model is not known to physics, as opposed to "not in" physics. Feel free to document the controversy. Just realize that it must be done in an article on the actor model, and not an article on physics. --EMS | Talk 06:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fin

All of OR material has been removed from this article it is true, and if it is not deleted and its supporters wish to claim a pyrrhic victory for their efforts then I congratulate them. However this title of this article, in my opinion, remains an incubus for future mischief and it will remain on my watchlist indefinitely. DV8 2XL 20:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean that you are withdrawing your request to have the article deleted?--Carl Hewitt 21:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No. The title is now misleading, since I see nothing in the body of the article relating to physics, quantum or otherwise, and I still believe it should go for the reason I stated above. DV8 2XL 22:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is reporting in the article on how published work depends crucially on physical indeterminacy. It is true that there is now no mention of "quantum". So the proposal has been made to rename the article by removing "quantum" from the title.--Carl Hewitt 22:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to DV8 2XL: There is not a lot for me (or anybody else) to be happy about regarding the outcome of this AfD, even if, as it seems the case the article will be kept (under a different name) and in the end I voted to keep. The primary reason for my dissatisfaction is that an RfC would have been better suited to make specific proposals and suggestions to Hewitt on how to make this article and other articles better. Unless you are planning on banning Hewitt --bad idea, we are going to have to do this eventually. With an RfC Hewitt would be encouraged to be more willing to follow certain guidelines of cooperation. For example, one particularly infuriating characteristic about Hewitt's style is that he makes dozens of edits each one of which is miniscule -- it makes it very hard for other editors to see what he's done or where he's taking the article (I don't care about the strain on servers -- that at least gives Jimbo Wales something to do getting more resources). There are other observations I could make and in an appropriate context I would make them.--CSTAR 02:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am always open to suggestions how to make articles better and certainly a RfC is better suited for this than an AfD. Also I apologize for the trouble that my using small edits has caused you. Have you tried using the compare selected versions capability on the history page to coalesce edits?--Carl Hewitt 07:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think that our primary goals have been achieved no matter what happens. Beyond that, I am not certain of what to do with an editor who is obviously very much appreciated for his work in CS, but whose lack of knowledge and perspective in other areas makes him most unappreciated outside of CS. Maybe the RfC/RfA route is what is needed, and should be tried next time. As much as I hate to say it, I know that there will be a next time. Carl still seems to have no idea of what he is doing or why it infuriates people. --EMS | Talk 06:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Since I've participated extensively in past AfD's for articles authored by Carl Hewitt (confusingly, my initials are also CH!), however, I thought I'd take the time to add what I hope will be a helpful extended comment.
Carl, I think the basic issue with many of your Wikipedia articles is their lack of intellectual maturity. You have had a long career in a certain area of computer science, but it seems you want to branch out into physics in your retirement. Nothing wrong with that in principle, and your recent activity could be valuable as long as you are very careful to honestly and fairly judge the intellectual maturity of your speculations, and are thoughtful in which venues you chose to explain your ideas. Taking the time to try to familiarize yourself with the physics literature would also be wise. I think you also need to be more sensitive to possible "cultural differences" between theoretical physics and computer science regarding judgements of maturity. Remember that theoretical physics is a subject with a long and distinguished pedigree, while computer science is still comparatively young but appears to have developed significantly different time scales/criteria for publication.
I feel that your physics-related ideas are currently at a stage which are just barely sufficiently mature to perhaps be worth sharing in some form with others. They might merit discussion in speculative essays posted at your own website (perhaps you can set up also set up a blog there to make it easier for interested readers to comment). Wikipedia science articles should however focus on explaining well-established topics in science, such as time dilation, or much discussed speculations such as the cosmic censorship hypothesis. In all cases, articles should fairly and accurately describe the current status of the ideas under discussion. Sometimes this will be difficult or contentious (e.g. string theory evokes passionate debate), but in these cases the article can explain fairly and accurately the nature of an contemporary controversy within scientific circles.
More generally, I don't deny, of course, that speculations regarding connections between mathematical logic and fundamental physics have been much discussed for many decades in the physics literature and elsewhere. But what strikes me is the enormous breadth and variety of the ideas which are "out there"; it would be very difficult to find anyone who is sufficiently expert to provide a comprehensive review of this material, much less judge the relative merits of various speculations. So anyone attempting to discuss such issues should approach the task with humility and good judgement, and in particular, should avoid making strong claims unless one is really aware of (and ideally familiar with) all the relevant literature.
In this article, to judge from the title, you are nominally attempting to address a relatively tiny portion of this enormous literature. Your qualifications to discuss computer science aspects of your own actor model are not in dispute, but the rest of us might well wonder whether you are capable of doing so in an unbiased manner. This is particularly true because those of us with more physics/math backgrounds seem to agree that you don't seem to know very much about the relevant physics or math literature. I think the fact that so many users have been warning you that there is much you don't appear to know should induce you to pull back and move these speculations to your own website, where you should probably label them as preliminary. In any event, I urge you to voluntarily stop trying to use Wikipedia as some kind of venue for promoting highly speculative personal views, especially since some many here feel you that while you may know a great deal about some aspects of computer science, you don't yet know enough about physics to write usefully on such a vastly complex and subtle subject.
I hope you will take this to heart!---CH (talk) 16:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I do take it to heart! What we are concerned with in this article is a particular connection between the Actor model, mathematical logic, and physics; not trying to characterize all relationships between them! So the article could undoubtedly be better titled. Fortunately, the physics discussed in the article is relatively well defined, namely the physics of arbiters which have been extensively studied and for which there is a large published literature.--Carl Hewitt 22:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Before I wrote the above comments, I did look at the article and I did notice that you cited a lotta CS papers, mostly by yourself. It seems you are using these citations to support your contention that this article does not violate WP:NOR because it is allegedly based on a "large published literature". Do I really need to explain why I don't buy this argument? I note also (see "Physics or not?" above) that you are implicitly claiming to describe in this article a well-established interdisciplinary field involving ideas drawn from both physics and CS, but you cite only CS papers (as far as I can see). As far as I know, there is no discussion in the physics literature of your "actor model". Sometimes it seems like you are spending more time gaming the system here in the Wikipedia, than you are in working up your ideas to a more mature and better informed state.---CH (talk) 23:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Postscript: RfC

I entirely agree with what C.Hillman has written. I'd like to say that, assuming there is the is the likelihood of friction in the future, I think it is better to call the RfC now, when the air has somewhat cleared, than when a new incident has frayed tempers again. I think CSTAR is interested in this avenue (ie., an early RfC). I'd like to test the water here on this one: is there agreement that this is the best approach? --- Charles Stewart 16:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To reiterate: Yes I agree an RfCis desirable, although it's not yet clear to me what this RfC should be about.--CSTAR 17:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have a suggestion about that (I note again that my initials happen to be the same as Carl Hewitt's, so newcomers shouldn't confuse us). I propose an RFC on Carl as an example of how one user (who is surely sufficiently saavy to know what he is doing) is devoting great ingenuity and persistence to using Wikipedia in order to promote his own highly personal and speculative views, which most of us seem to agree do not appear to yet be sufficiently mature to warrant the amount of attention which he obviously thinks they deserve in this encyclopedia. Quite a few users with considerable expertise whose talents and knowledge should be devoted to higher callings, like writing new material on established technical topics of which they have expert knowledge, have (in my view) wasted quite a bit of time in discussions like this one. I think a fair summary of these discussions is that we have encouraged Carl to try to develop his ideas further, but we've also repeatedly asked him to voluntarily confine his proseletyzing for his speculations to a more appropriate venue, such as his own website or blog. This makes him, in my view---and I think of others here--- something of a problem user.---CH (talk) 00:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Let me just emphasize the problem as C. Hillman describes it in the area of physics. Carl seems to be appreciated in CS. I just wish that he would stay in CS and not use Wikipedia in promote is fairly unique views on physics. --EMS | Talk 03:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I will not proffer an opinion as to the wisdom or value of an RfC in this case, however I would ask those who wish to see this editor rehabilitated to note that each one of these incidences draws a wider number of people into the debate, and there will come a time when his antics will elicit a harsher response.
I also believe it is time to put this AfD out of its misery and for some admin to make a decision and let us all move on. DV8 2XL 18:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Would anybody object if I contacted Tony Sidaway as an admin who has had no part of this who I would trust to execute the closing of this debate quickly and properly. He won't conclude with a consensus to delete, but I can't think of an admin who would. --- Charles Stewart 18:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lot of ill-feeling going around CH's edits, and an RfC can hope to (i) clarify what other editors are upset about in CH's editing, and (ii) put together some rules of engagement that should avoid these conflicts. The RfC then is about avoiding similar conflicts in the future. Simply listing the pages where CH's edits have not observed core WP rules would be a good start, the RfC can then establish details by examining the most significant of these. --- Charles Stewart 18:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What should be the title of the article?

The question has arisen as to what the title of this article should be. The subject matter of the article is a particular relationship between the Actor model, mathematical logic, and physics: Indeterminacy in the physics of arbiters produces indeterminacy in Actor model computations such that they cannot be implemented using mathematical logic. Thanks,--Carl Hewitt 22:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are wasting a lot of people's time with endless discussions like this one. You are an academic with an established reputation (in CS) and with institutional backing, so I feel that you should recognize that you have both the oportunity and the responsibility to polish your interdisciplinary ideas to the point where you can begin to publish some of your speculations in reputable non-CS journals. For example, by showing that you can use ideas from the actor model to solve some open problem which has been discussed in the physcis literature. This alone would not, in my view, immediately promote your ideas to the status of deserving encyclopedia articles here, since solving open problems is the bread and butter of ordinary science, but it would at least put them in the marketplace of ideas. Instead, I feel you are trying to circumvent peer review by posting articles here which describe your ideas as if they have already led to an established interdisciplinary field, which as far as I can see is absolutely not the case. This demeans the efforts of users like EMS, who do not have the institutional backing which you enjoy, but who are attempting to pursue the traditional path of peer reviewed publication. This process can be time consuming and frustrating, but I think is still, in the long run, the best path for science and indeed for your own intellectual legacy.
I am also disturbed by what I see as your marked tendency to game the system here in order to "justify" persistent abuse of the Wikipedia. If you devoted the same degree of persistence and ingenuity to working out your ideas properly, you might actually contribute something of interdisciplinary value, but if you persist in proseletyzing immature ideas here, you will only alienate individuals who might otherwise assist you in developing your ideas in directions which might one day turn out to be useful.---CH (talk) 00:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The article reports on published work of long standing in Computer Science including the following:
  • Robert Kowalski Predicate Logic as Programming Language Memo 70, Department of Artificial Intelligence, Edinburgh University. 1973.
  • Carl Hewitt and Henry Baker Laws for Communicating Parallel Processes IFIP-77, August 1977.
  • Henry Baker. Actor Systems for Real-Time Computation MIT EECS Doctoral Dissertation. January 1978.
  • Will Clinger. Foundations of Actor Semantics MIT Mathematics Doctoral Dissertation. June 1981.
  • Carl Hewitt. The Challenge of Open Systems Byte Magazine. April 1985. Reprinted in The foundation of artificial intelligence---a sourcebook Cambridge University Press. 1990.
  • Robert Kowalski. The limitation of logic Proceedings of the 1986 ACM 14th Annual Conference on Computer science.
  • Gul Agha. Actors: A Model of Concurrent Computation in Distributed Systems Doctoral Dissertation. MIT Press. 1986.
  • Ehud Shapiro (Editor). Concurrent Prolog MIT Press. 1987.
  • Robert Kowalski. The Early Years of Logic Programming Communications of the ACM. January 1988.
  • Ehud Shapiro. The family of concurrent logic programming languages ACM Computing Surveys. September 1989.
  • Carl Hewitt and Gul Agha. Guarded Horn clause languages: are they deductive and Logical? International Conference on Fifth Generation Computer Systems, Ohmsha 1988. Tokyo. Also in Artificial Intelligence at MIT, Vol. 2. MIT Press 1991.
Regards,--Carl Hewitt 02:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is no relationship to physics in the article, except for three occurences of the word physical which are not otherwise supported by the article. However, although I'm not changing my vote, I think there is a place for this article if all "physical" references are removed. Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above comment appears to be original research. Do you have any references to back it up?--Carl Hewitt 02:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC) Of course by the previous statement, I meant that the above comment in bold face by Arthur Rubin is original research.--Carl Hewitt 03:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Original research I think refers to the content of articles, not to the content of talk or other auxiliary pages. In any case, it's quite clear that Arthur Rubin's statement is original to the extent that it involves counting. We are allowed to count, even in articles, I think.--CSTAR 03:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, my previous remark was too sarcastic. As I see it, it's Hewitt alone against everybody else in this AfD (including me, although I have tried at times to mediate). That's a difficult situation in which to expect anybody to maintain a level of clear-headedness. Perhaps Hewitt should get advocate? I know I'm going to get plastered for making that suggestion "that's the last thing we need". But I don't like lynch mobs either.--CSTAR 03:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I see no need for you to apologize. Carl is asking to be "lynched". Let me know if you are going to do an RfC or RfA. It is time. --EMS | Talk 04:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If Arthur Rubin wrote that opinion in the article space, it would be original research. In fact, the purpose on WP:NOR is to keep one man's otherwise undocumented opinions out af the article space. That in fact is how this AfD got started! However, in this context Authur's comment is a reasonable and on-topic part of this debate. --EMS | Talk 04:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Once again and from the article itself:
In concrete terms for Actor systems, typically we cannot observe the details by which the arrival order of messages for an Actor is determined. ... Instead of observing the internals of arbitration processes of Actor computations, we await outcomes.
If you are not concerned about the "internals", then you are not concerned about the physics! So I once again suggest Actor model and mathematical logic for a title, assuming that there is any good reason not to fold this material back into the actor model article itself at this point. --EMS | Talk 04:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the article states:
The Actor model makes use of arbitration for determining which message is next in the arrival ordering of an Actor that is sent multiple messages concurrently. For example Arbiters can be used in the implementation of the arrival ordering of an Actor which can give rise to physical indeterminacy in the arrival order. Therefore mathematical logic can not implement concurrent computation in open systems because of the impossibility of deducing arrival orderings since they are indeterminate. Note that although mathematical logic cannot implement general concurrency it can implement some special cases of current computation, e.g., sequential computation and some kinds of parallel computation including the lambda calculus.
In concrete terms for Actor systems, typically we cannot observe the details by which the arrival order of messages for an Actor is determined. Attempting to do so affects the results and can even push the indeterminacy elsewhere. e.g., see metastability in electronics and arbiters. Instead of observing the internals of arbitration processes of Actor computations, we await outcomes. Physical indeterminacy in arbiters produces indeterminacy in Actors. The reason that we await outcomes is that we have no alternative because of indeterminacy.
Regards,--Carl Hewitt 04:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
??? So what? IMO, what I quoted is the operative parts of the above. I agree that
[p]hysical indeterminacy in arbiters produces indeterminacy in Actors
but since the actor model is not concerned with the internals, this is just an incidental point. --EMS | Talk 04:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that this discussion need be conducted on AfD, since the move can be accomplished by the regular means. The article's talk page seems more appropriate. I think we should regard the AfD discussion period as over, and await for someone to close the discussion. --- Charles Stewart 14:38, 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 No Consensus--Default--KEEP.

Also, note that: "[The M16] has been the primary infantry rifle of the United States military since 1967, and is in use by 15 NATO countries, and has been the most produced firearm in its caliber." Also, the AK47 was widely used in the Iron Curtain and it was "produced in greater numbers than any other assault rifle in the 20th century". The widespread military use and the relations to the Cold War make this a noteworthy comparison. Comparing these two rifles is hardly a crime, as this is one of the most notable gun comparisons you can make; this is not imply a "random" gun comparison. However, the article has been moved to "Comparison of the AK-47 and M16" and proper tags have been added. The difficulties in merging having been well noted. Regardless of this explanation, KEEP was the default choice regardless.Voice of All @|Esperanza|E M 03:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AK-47 vs. M16

Original Research. The facts about the weapons may not be OR (although they are not sourced) but the comparisions and the chopice of what items to compare is OR unless a source can be cited that makes these comparisons. Delete First merging any useful info into AK-47 and M16 as the case may be. DES (talk) 04:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as OR, lest we be deluged with articles like Uncle Jessie vs. five tons of flax. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 04:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Please merge any useful content into AK-47 and M-16 ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 05:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. --Carnildo 06:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though the article would do well to add sources. If you want sources for the very idea of comparing the two items, consider as a first example the "Rifle Evaluation Study" published by the Army Combat Developments Command in 1962 (I believe at the behest of McNamara), which focused on the AR-15 and AK-47 (as well as the now largely bypassed M14). We don't need to worry about having totally absurd comparison articles because we include this notable comparison, any more than we need to worry about having totally absurd people articles because we include notable people. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • My point is that the objects being compared are arbitrary; it's not surprising that a study written in 1962 about a new assault rifle would compare it to the AK-47; it is then and now the most popular assault rifle in the world. Any article about any assault rifle, on Wikipedia or off, will not be unlikely to make reference to the AK-47, mentioning how it was influenced by the AK-47 (or why it wasn't) and/or comparing it to the AK-47 as a baseline.
      If you don't like my (admittedly silly) example, would you want to see FN FAL vs. AK-47 and Sig 550 vs. Heckler-Koch G41 and every possible comparison thereof? Of course not; stick general philosophy of design and tradeoffs involved therein in the assault rifle article, and compare each rifle to its contemporaries in the individual rifle articles. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 10:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. —Gaff ταλκ 07:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems to me that just about anything with "vs." in its title (yeah, yeah, except articles about works that include that in their names, obviously) tends to be inherently OR. If this article were to remain, it should be renamed to something like "Differences between the AK-47 and the M-16" or whatnot, and even then I think some rather extensive sourcing and very solid references to actual performance tests would be required, so that the article is something that illustrates well-documented differences between the two weapons rather than sets them against each other. -- Captain Disdain 07:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Christopher Parham. Kappa 09:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The development of the M16 was largely influenced by the AK47, this article chronicles a very valid instance of an arms race --Anetode 09:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wouldn't the M-16 article be the place to discuss the other weapons that involved its development? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 10:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It would, and I would also be in favor of merging the article. However that would call for a laborous process to properly integrate it and might involve the rewrites of several sections of the M16 article. On a different note: this article is not original research, it is a collaborative product of wikipedia and has been corrected by numerous editors (although it could use a few sources and references). --Anetode 13:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll note my support for this position; certainly with work this content could be made more useful, better organized, etc. That sort of careful refinement, however, isn't produced by putting articles on AFD; it occurs through discussion on talk pages, perhaps with the involvement of RFC. It certainly doesn't happen when you delete the article entirely. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Christopher said it well. Comment by User:Gene Nygaard. Christopher Parham (talk) 13:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC) ratified by me--Gene Nygaard 22:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is a form of guncruft, while moving interesting data or facts to either the M16 or AK47 page would be worthwhile, the comparison does not warrant its own page. Usrnme h8er 11:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to M16 per Anetode. Remember that once deleted, you cannot use any material from this page, because attribution needs to be retained in the edit history. - Mgm|(talk) 12:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's simply not true. There is a laborious but straightforward procedure for doing a "history merge" which provides a GFDL-compliant merge-and-delete. And it's easy to improvide GFDL-compliant merge-and-delete since the GFDL does not require any specific form for the attribution so long as it is done. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it is. See Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. - Mgm|(talk) 07:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also, merging edit histories tends to destroy the usefulness of the diffs for the period both articles existed. If it's merged redirecting is the easiest and least laborious way to retain attribution. - Mgm|(talk) 07:47, 20 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, target has all the info and more. Rx StrangeLove 05:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All_Indian_Anna_Dravida_Munnetra_Kazhagam

Incorrect spelling, correct article exists at All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam Bnitin 21:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Voice of All @|Esperanza|E M 02:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anamnesis (film)

A film made by students. Google search with "Anamnesis"+"Kurt Garwood" gives 5 results, two of them giving error and one giving a blank page. --BorgQueen 20:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Voice of All @|Esperanza|E M 03:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Animatec

The first part of the page is not in English, and the translation at the bottom seems to be spam. Reyk 08:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Reyk 08:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; advertisment and/or vanity WP:VAIN. I would say userfy, but the author of this article has also written Paulo Ramos, which I am going to nominate. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 14:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment; I think this article is a candidate for speedy deletion under CSD8, blatant copyright infringement, since it contains a copyright notice at the bottom. I am notifying the author about the copyright problem.-Walter Siegmund 18:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (a copy is also in the discussion for Paulo Ramos): I am not sure that CSD8 applies here. A copyright violation is when someone who is not the copyright owner tries to use a document outside of what is permitted by its copyright owner. In this case, the author of the article has implicitely authorized the Wikipedia to use the article (by placing it here). The problem is that the Wikipedia does not allow authors to retain all rights (articles must be released under the GNU doc license). I am not sure what happens in this case. I think that the first step is what Walter did, that is, warning the author. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 23:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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(?!?) 05:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Antichristmas

Um. Dubious about this one. A pretty obvious portmanteau, yes, but one with +1500 Google hits. So I'm not quite certain about its status as a neologism. Thoughts? DS 14:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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(?!?) 05:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arion Systems Pvt. Ltd

This article is a promotion for the company taken from its website, apparently by an employee. It could be a copyvio, but they'd probably give permission to post it. The company doesn't seem to be notable, as the article makes no notability or size claims and "Arion Systems" only gets 119 unique search results. -- Kjkolb 02:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED. — JIP | Talk 07:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Asiasoft online

Blatant advertising. Content is a link.  freshgavinTALK   05:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under criteria A3 (articles consisting only of external links.) --Aquillion 06:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So there it was -   -;;. Withdrawl nomination in favour of speedy delete.  freshgavinTALK   06:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 05:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Association des étudiants de l'école de technologie supérieure

Seems to be a non-notable local student group.. --Mysidia (talk) 01:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 23:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Association of independent competitive eaters

Seems to be a non-notable website with fewer than 200 google hits. --Mysidia (talk) 01:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 23:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Attack of the Alliance

The article is about either someone's custom-made map for a video game, or some custom map included with the game (i'm not quite sure). In either case, WP:NOT a strategy guide. --Mysidia (talk) 01:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as re-creation of the deleted AttentionTrust --Carnildo 21:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Attentiontrust

WP:NOT an advertising vehicle -- re: AttentionTrust is a recently launched nonprofit with a three-part mission: ... --Mysidia (talk) 01:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 23:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

August Technologies

WP:NOT an advertising vehicle. --Mysidia (talk) 01:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Consensus, non-notable and low traffic count.Voice of All @|Esperanza|E M 03:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ausphreak

Non notable phreaking forum chowells 22:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non notable? It's only the largest dark-side telecommunications enthusiast community in Australia. That forum is a forum, but the people under there are a real community. I'm not even from there, and I know that. Beleive it or not, there are telecommunications outside of the United States. Just because you don't know about something doesn't make it non-notable. Being from Canada, myself, I've actually had contact with those folks on quite a few occasions.

- tim

Considering I don't come from the US, I am quite aware that there are telecoms outside of that country, thank you. chowells 09:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

tim makes an extremely valid point, just because you dont know about it doesn't make it non-noteable, If you had any clue then you'd know the differences (or moreso advances between australia and america's telephone companies) these advances making phreaking 'harder' and the fact that Ausphreak is bringing in a large group of people is a more then enough reason to have it mentioned, its that even through the difficulty people manage to find a way showing to people that where there is a will theres a way, this ausphreak article is somewhat inspiring and it would be a great loss seeing it go.

- Phate


People are constantly seeking the history of our boards, and there is no where else, to my knowledge, that is it documented, So what better place than Wikipedia? The place where most people go to find the information of which they seek? Just because the acts detailed and the information contained within ausphreak's community is albeit "shady" does that mean the people should not be able to access informaion about who they are, what they have done etc?

- 0xF050


With 1420 current members, and almost 10,000 hits a month its more then a website it's a community. We have meets and people traveled from all over australia at the start of this month to attend the annual Ruxcon conference (including myself) in Sydney. The diveresity of the group is huge. We're are not just phreakers, or hackers we're people from all walks of life with a common interest. To learn.

- Nemesis


  • Comment Well let's look at Wikpedia's guideline for the inclusion of web sites on Wikipedia:Websites. Having an Alexa ranking of 10,000 or better". Hmm, Ausphreak has an Alexa rating of 1 480 365 [5] -- you don't meet that one.

->Whilst true, our other domain, networkpunk.com, has a rank considerably lower. It's more than just a web address, if that wasn't clear within the article itself. Furthermore, websites/communities such as Phone Losers of America do not meet this magical 10,000 number, yet are left relatively alone.

"Having been the subject of national or international media attention within the last 2 years". I don't know about that one.

->Google GmailHack - I'm sure you'll see it gained international media attention nonetheless.

"Having a forum with 5,000 or more apparently unique members". According to someone else in this AfD you only have 1420 members which is quite some way off 5000. chowells 09:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

->Just because we choose to cull off inactive (yet still unique) members, does not mean we have not had over 5000. Nonetheless, Ausphreak should not be judged solely as a website as it is more a reference to Australian hacking and phreaking in general. IdleFire 12:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. It's a well enough written article, but it's WP:NOT what Wikipedia is for. Host it on geocities if you think it needs a place on the web. (I see the Ausphreak website seems very proud of its Wikipedia entry, even bold linking it. Someone commented above that the history of the boards is not documented elsewhere -- well, why not document it on your own website?) Lastly, non-notable. Underground is an actual book that covers Australian phreakers & hackers from the late 80s-early 90s in Australia. None of the topics in that book have Wikipedia articles and they're actually somewhat notable (appeared in the media at the time, set some legal precedents). pfctdayelise 12:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

->One of our community members is Electron, who has stressed that the book is not something to be taken as gospel - we offer a non-biased perspective on issues related to the Australian hacking and phreaking scene that can not be seen in any other forms of the media. It was simply felt that people could gain from such information posted here on wikipedia, and was never meant to serve as an advertisement for ausphreak.com itself. The link was only to allow members to add things that I may have missed when writing the article initially.


  • Your Parent Wikimedia, on its main page, hold the saying "Imagine a world in which every single person is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing."

I have read your policies into your website inclusion policy, and yes i agree with it, TO AN EXTENT.

Google is, disputably, the largest search engine of its kind in the world, and it is noticeable. Ausphreak is the largest community of its kind in Australia, so why is it not like noticeable? It may not be the world, but it sure as hell is noticeable for the 1000s of Australian members who use it everyday. The website hits are not the whole picture here, you seem to be looking towards Ausphreak as a website, but it is a community of entusiasts behind the screen of the domain and forum who everyday submit and share new information.

-- 0xF050

I wouldn't trust the Alexa stats on ausphreak, as we are mostly computer savy and don't like spyware on our computers.

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus---KEEP. Even split between Delete, Merge, and Redircect. Not only is the Status Quo therefore the default, but we don't need all of Britney's tours cluttering up her page(there are already several subpages), so I see that as the best of the three choices anyway.Voice of All @|Esperanza|E M 03:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...Baby One More Time Tour

We don't need articles on every concert tour by Britney Spears or anyone else. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 01:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NB. Notability is not part of deletion criteria. Trollderella 23:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was for the page to be replaced with the stub suggested by PANONIAN.  Denelson83  19:35, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Banatski Sokolac

Can't tell if it's notable or not because I can't read it.  freshgavinTALK   06:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is a copyvio, but I do not think that article should be deleted. It should be replaced with following stub:

Banatski Sokolac (Банатски Соколац) is a village located in the Plandište municipality, in the South Banat District of Serbia, in the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina.

User:PANONIAN

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

The result of the debate was Redirected

Barabajagal

Possible speedy Molotov (talk)
04:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. The information is trivail, per nom., and it cannot be verified. Voice of All @|Esperanza|E M 05:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BHITAWA

I personally don't believe a phrase coined by a teacher and in use at a single high school is deserving of its own article. I'd merge it into Blessed Trinity Catholic High School, but what little information is in this articles seems pointless and trivial, unless you're a student. Saberwyn 00:05, 20 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. android79 15:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blownapart Bastards

Non-notable band. You can call me Al 12:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Marskell 23:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bluevale Collegiate Institute

However if a highschool is nondistinguished, it doesn't deserve its own page. That said the article has been updated to show notability. Paul Cyr 21:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The article which you linked to is not a Wikipedia Policy. In that same article the arguements for deletion include my reason for the nomination. However the article has been updated to show notability so I've retracted my nomination for deletion Paul Cyr 21:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If a highschool is nondistinguished it doesn't deserve its own article. That said, the article has been updated to show notability. Paul Cyr 21:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How is this nomination a waste of time? No one is required to be here. Since you feel it's a foregone conclusion this article will be kept, you needn't bother voting. Denni☯ 03:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If a highschool is nondistinguished it doesn't deserve its own article. That said, the article has been updated to show notability. Paul Cyr 21:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes it takes more than 7 hours (time before nomination) for an article to be improved to "show notability". Also on you're user page you indicate you're from Cameron Heights Collegiate Institute (also in Waterloo Region District), which you chose to enhance, rather than nominate. Please don't assume a school is non-notable, just because it's not yours. As things stand now, this one seems quite a bit more notable (though that could easily change). --rob 22:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As usual, it seems necessary to point out that there is nothing in the deletion criteria about notability. Trollderella 23:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There's a speedy criterion for people who's article doesn't assert why they're notable. It's only logical to extend this to buildings and organizations. We're already deleting unremarkable bands. While a bad article may be improved, it's a fact that a lot of school articles remain hideous stubs with a complete lack of encyclopedic information (Wikipedia articles are not placeholders). The best way to avoid these discussions is to write articles which assert notability to those who don't think high schools are inherently notable. Listing notable alumni and well-known school sports teams is a good way to start on this. - Mgm|(talk) 07:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is really no need to do this. If you feel the school article is a very small stub, and somehow that irritates you, then simply merge them up into the next level of school district etc until you have an article that satisfies your aesthetic. No deletion required. Trollderella 17:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. High schools are notable. Andrew pmk | Talk 01:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep because of its sports faculty and alumni list. Otherwise this article shows the same dismal lack of information as most school articles. Denni☯ 03:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Feel free to point to some school articles you've made or substantially improved, so we can all learn from your experience on making good school articles. --rob 03:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is not my responsibility to improve articles that others have started and then dropped. It is my contention that if a school is important enough to write about, then bloody well include some important information. If it's not, then don't waste useful CPU cycles and server space. We ask this of all other articles; why are you so perversely opposed to maintaining the same standard for schools? Denni☯ 01:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Even though this debate looks headed for a clear "keep" result, please don't remove the AFD tag until the debate has closed. As long as the debate is ongoing, let the tag stay. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think it's not so much a matter of the debate leaning to keep, it's that it was the nominator themselves who retracted it. If I or others "keepers" removed it, that would be bad, but if the nominator does it, I think that's widely accepted. But, if there's objection to removal (as there is now), then it should now stay. --rob 07:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nominating schools is a waste of our time. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Then don't visit the AfD page. Paul Cyr 19:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If we didn't visit the AFD page, this article would have been deleted, and something of value would be lost. So visiting here, made a difference, as it often does. However, nominations for deletion accomplish nothing. Notice how this one-line sub-stub was turned into a useful stub without an AFD. That is what we should be doing with school articles, improving them, not nominating them. --rob 23:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If we didn't visit the AFD page, this article would have been deleted, and something of value would be lost. However that is a double-edged sword; the same could be said for any article with the possibility of improvement.
Because at the time of nomination the school showed no notability. Paul Cyr 19:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
ok but school articles are never erased here so why not try to make the article better instead Yuckfoo 21:26, 20 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. Voice of All @|Esperanza|E M 05:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bombshellzine

If this is Australia's premiere webzine for alt.rock, they need some pepping up down under. Alexa ranking of 1,843,201. Delete NN —Wahoofive (talk) 16:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. android79 15:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bouncebackability

dicdef Just zis Guy, you know? 10:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete If "bouncebackability" can make it into the dictionary, it deserves a place in an encyclopedia. In the UK, where I live, it has become accepted terminology in the vast footballing community. --88.109.55.244 22:36, 20 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedied. – Rich Farmbrough 23:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Carolina Leal, Moises Kababie, Laura Monroy, Perro-Palero

These were written by the same person, and are likely vanity or a hoax. Moises got me 1 google. Leal got me quit a few, but I can't tell which are her. Laura, combined with just about any other thing mentioned in the article, didn't get any hits either. Either way, the claims of notability are pretty meager. It's very easy to call you work "important" or "groundbreaking", but I can't verify the claims made. For a "well-known economic theorist" Leal didn't have any books at amazon. Perro-Palero (0 googles) is basically nonsense. -R. fiend 20:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 05:16, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Carrigan

Does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Joyous (talk) 01:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Rx StrangeLove 05:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CeDigest

nn band vanity, fails WP:MUSIC -- Ferkelparade π 12:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non notable band, I think this is much more interesting CeDigest
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. android79 15:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cheap Ass Gamer

It's spam Antibubbles 16:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--GraemeL (talk) 17:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is no different than any other entry describing internet culture (for example, Fark)[9] b0bx13
  • Comment I am 99% sure this is a re-creation of material previously voted for deletion. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC) Yes, here it is: [[10]], 9 votes for deletion, none for keeping. Deleted 26 September 2005. However, the exact text of the new article is sufficiently different from this one that I don't think it can be validly speedied. It's much better written, but the reasons for deletion have not been addressed.[reply]
  • Delete, per previous AfD, particularly per Barno, who commented that "Cheapass Games is notable in its field. This unrelated gamers' forum (whose spelling switches between "Cheap Ass Gamer" and "Cheapass Gamer") is not notable in its field." Dpbsmith (talk) 23:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Alexa 13k and falling, [11]. Unrelated to Cheapass Games. Otherwise nn. ∴ here…♠ 18:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per previous AfD. Don't redirect to unrelated Cheapass Games. Barno 19:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Addressing the deletes: Those older entries were likely created by individual users of the message board and should not be taken seriously. This article is now under construction and will be brought up to speed quickly. "Cheap Ass Gamer" is the site's actual name as indicated on the site itself. The management has never used the name "Cheapass Gamer" in any context. A 13,000 Alexa rank could just as easily be 5,000 (and it has) as we all know Alexa is not accurate in these ranges. As a comparison, the above mentioned "Cheapass Games" has an Alexa rank close to 350,000. Thanks, -CD
  • Delete Seems like blatant advertising to me. But I'm new around here so not sure what the policy is with things like this.--Petros471 19:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Better after edits, but does not present an adequate case for notability. -Colin Kimbrell 14:38, 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. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 23:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chepstow School

Unadulterated rubbish. -- Necrothesp 00:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because school names are quite common, their title should always include the city they are in which makes "School X is a school in Y" a rewording of its title and a speedy candidate. "Arnold Schwarzenegger is an actor" isn't a stub either. But I guess that's where some people differ in opinion. - Mgm|(talk) 11:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Dear Dr. Freud..." Trollderella 16:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all pods schools of Wales. Grutness...wha? 00:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete yet another pointless school article that doesn't say much more than you can find on the school letterhead. The fact that the bulk of this "article" is taken up by the school's dress code is further proof that someone can't be bothered to create more than a stub. My bet: a year from now, this article will not have changed by a single word. Denni☯ 02:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletenon encyclopedic.--Dakota 04:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all school noms are wastes of our time. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep even though non-notable. per Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Votes_for_deletion_archive precedent. schools, feel like, and by precedent are, an exception. Especially since this article has been Made Better(tm). ∴ here…♠ 17:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many of those articles have a majority of non-keep votes. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Irrelevant. AfD policy and guidelines are clear that when there is no concensus to delete an article, it isn't deleted. That is the standard, the policy and the precedent. The important aspect of all this, is that as a matter of precedent derived from the practical application of the AfD policies, is that almost all school articles are not deleted.
  • keep please even though this school might not be popular it is still very notable Yuckfoo 17:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yuckfoo, I challenge you to pull one statement, one statement from this article which demonstrates that this school is notable, never mind "very notable". Come on, just one. Denni☯ 00:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Rogerd 00:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep See my argument at this page. Xoloz 03:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, why do people keep nominating schools for deletion which no final decision has been reached on whether all schools can be classed as notable. It is surely better to leave all until a decision has been amde as deleting after a decision is easier than re-creating an article where potential information could be lost. Evil Eye 16:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aha. Somebody else who's rushed in on their high horse to make a comment without bothering to investigate the reasons for nomination thoroughly. Well done! This article was a heap of drivel that hadn't even been given the correct title. I too disagree with deleting schools. However, I will nominate rubbish. -- Necrothesp 18:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • From the article in it's current stae, I can see no reason as to why it has bee nominated, nor why anyone can now deem it suitable for deletion. Maybe in a previous formate the article wasn't what some people thought acceptable, but surely rather than nominating for deletion it would have been no more or less work to have edited the article of the 'offensive' sentences or to have done minimal research to have made the article suitable for inclusion. Evil Eye 01:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. -- DS1953 talk 14:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: What makes this school so special? How many schools are in Wales? Is this one of a very small set? Is this school remarkable for its age, alumni, or academic program? How is this schools different to any other? Alphax τεχ 18:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is an excellent illustration of the reasons why encyclopedic overviews of interchangable sets are more valuable than overly-specific individual articles about the members of those sets. An overview can answer these questions, typical of the expectations of an encyclopedia reader, whereas individual articles formed largely of demographic data cannot. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 18:33, 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, transwikied already. Titoxd(?!?) 21:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken Riggies

Personal recipes ARE NOT NOTABLE, and should be considered original research. Molotov (talk)
16:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should also delete the recipe for Tomato Pie from the Utica NY entry as well, then. I only added this because of the presence of that recipe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.58.173.141 (talk • contribs) author of the article in question


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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(?!?) 05:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Todland

Irrelevent person. Person who created page couldn't even spell his name. Vanity? Ifnord 01:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Rx StrangeLove 05:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Clint Saulsberry

Not noteworthy, perhaps vanity. Ifnord 20:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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(?!?) 05:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Berke

Vanity orginal reseach fails to establish notibilty Geni 19:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article is amazing and i see no reason to delete it this kids been threw alot i mean his mom died for crying out loud after three heart transplants give the kid a break and let him have a friggin article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.201.132.3 (talk • contribs) who was the author of this
Comment 146.201.132.3 blanked Geni's afd nomination in adding the unsigned comment above. I've reverted the blanking and re-added the comment. Tonywalton  | Talk 20:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing here that would satisfy the Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies - perhaps he can get space at FSU syslib

Please delete this trash from your reputable website. -A Student of FSU who thinks this article makes his school (and fraternity) look bad.

we are working on it.Geni 20:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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(?!?) 22:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Fischer


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Rx StrangeLove 05:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Die Vögel

Smells like hoax. Created by a problem user and no relevant Google hits.  Grue  17:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Rx StrangeLove 05:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dog Traders

non-notable not-even-a-band cruft, verging on patent nonsense. Certainly doesn't meet WP:MUSIC criteria Tonywalton  | Talk.

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. The page was delteed by another admin, i am just closign the AfD debate. DES (talk) 23:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Wood

Obviously copyrighted but notable. Molotov (talk)
22:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Dippin' Dots. – Alphax τεχ 03:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dotwich

Non-notable variety of Dippin' Dots ice cream; at most, this could perhaps be merged into the main article, but something that "can be seen on the homepage of the Dippin Dots ice cream at varies times of log-in" doesn't exactly strike me as noteworthy. Almost feels like an advertisement, though I'd be surprised if this was written by a representative of the company, for reasons that I believe to be kinda obvious... -- Captain Disdain 06:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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(?!?) 05:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DynaCal

Article has two lines on a seemingly non-notable website/product and 1 giant screenshot. Looks like advertising to me JJay 18:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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(?!?) 05:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ebizmark

Obvious ad. Ifnord 16:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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(?!?) 05:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Elitist Board

This is another vanity post for an obscure message board "devoted to the conservation and dissemination of elitist thinking". No link was provided but I found it here[[12]]. It seems to have 192 members mainly concerned with rap music. JJay 02:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rap music? Where did you get that from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.140.4.22 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, nn forum; impossible to get Alexa ranking since it does not have its own domain, it is hosted on a well-known forum host (Invisionfree) but appears to have very few members of its own. MCB 01:00, 20 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 United Arab Emirates. I don't see how this 'information' can be merged without being highly self-redundant so I will simply redirect. Someone can always recover the two sentences from the history if they want to merge them. -Splashtalk 23:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Emarati

Read for yourself 203.161.68.183 15:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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(?!?) 05:23, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FAFII

Non-notable. Delete. utcursch | talk 04:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 REDIRECTED, and would people who speedy redirect articles per the AfD discussion please also take the trouble to close the discussion? — JIP | Talk 19:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Famous sketches from Late Night with Conan O'Brien

Since it has been moved, I guess we can delete it? I didn't want to mark it for speedy because we may want to make it a redirect. -rayluT 04:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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(?!?) 05:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Famous theologians

Personal essay, original research, not an article -- Ferkelparade π 12:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Pegasus. Who would want a flying horse, anyway? Myself, I had enough trouble staying on the back of a walking horse. — JIP | Talk 19:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flying horses

Get out of here, if this one survives all articles can. Molotov (talk)
23:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to make a horse fly. They buzz around stables in the summer. It's a pity to delete an article containing the immortal phrase adding wings to mammols [sic] is just the tip of the iceberg as I feel that, having seen that phrase, my life is somehow enriched, but despite that, Delete. Tonywalton |Talk 23:03, 20 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. No verification having been forthcoming by this point, I'm going to take the last two comments as deletes. -Splashtalk 23:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fran

Dicdef of a "teenage slang". Not quite sure even if this entry merits transwiki. 202.156.6.62 20:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I heard someone use the word "fran" a couple months ago but I did not know what it meant. And this past week I have heard the word used on several occasions, so I decided to look it up to see what it meant. Of course, it was not in the dictionary, but I decided to do a Wiki search and I was overjoyed to find the entry. I now understand what people are talking about when they say "fran". (Also, I have heard "fran" used in different contexts and the definitions provided in the Wiki article seem very accurate.)



I knew this was a word!!!! i used to hear it on this TV show i watched when i was a little kid, but none of my friends had ever heard it! they didn't believe me either! i was relieved that i found it, and know i am going to print off several copies of this page and paste them all over my school and give them to my friends and family so everyone will know i wasn't crazy!! Thank You Wiki for believing in the small hidden words that the dictionary doesn't acknowledge.....you are wonderful.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 commend the authors/maintainers etc. for their remarkably good-natured comments. -Splashtalk 23:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glitchseekers

Vanity +/- nn. Ifnord 15:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

god_gs 6:56, 19 October 2005 (CST)

im not sure on this talking, but i am the one who submitted this article. I am currently going through my knowledge of the site and adding more as i go along. I am a staff member of the site (GOD) and have the neccesary authority to mention the site. I am sure that once more members of the GS forum realize this is on wikipedia, they will add their own knowledge. thank you. 

                                                                        - god_gs


  • yea, but it is a good site, and it is growing.

god_gs 02:22, 20 October 2005 (CST)

  • Hello, I'm the main admin/owner of GlitchSeekers and I'm currently adding the History of the site. The site isn't very small, just not many registered users, as we don't know require a user to be registered to use any service or feature on the site. I do request you keep this document up, but I do understand if you want to delete it. I had orginally planned to link from my site to here for information on Glitch Seekers, but its up to you guys.

urmomma 02:55, 20 October 2005 (CST)

  • I am co-admin of the site,andi do not understand how you can possibly have any reasonto delete this. Although it may be a small site, as of now, it growing at a rapid rate and will making many advances. I read through the article about reasons for speedy deletion, and I could not find a single reasonon it that correlates with our submission. I ask you to please reconsider the deletion of thissubmission. Thank you. Bloodysaint — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.138.113.184 (talk • contribs) UTC 20:07, 20 October 2005
    • You're entirely correct that it doesn't qualify for a speedy deletion, as a speedy deletion is something that is carried out instantly, without debate. It is, however, a valid candidate for deletion, because it's not a notable site. I hasten to add that that "notable" and "good" are not the same thing; your site may be very good indeed, but to be included in Wikipedia, it must make a significant impression on the world at large (or, more properly in this instance, the gaming community)... and frankly, 70 registered members and 250 unique hits a day is a clear indication that it does not have such an impact. If you guys think that's a lot, I'm sorry, but it really isn't. Also, the article is blatantly unencyclopedic and reads more like an advertisement of your site, which doesn't help things any (though you should not infer from this that if you rewrite it, it will not be deleted). -- Captain Disdain 21:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with you, that 70 registered and 250 unique isn't a lot at all, and why I understand if this is deleted, I would understand. I still think its neat having this article up here, but I would understand if it were to be deleted. I'm a little new to Wikipedia, and I'm wondering, would it be ok, if this were to be deleted, if I posted this in my profile as it seems users here have their own little article/profile area. I don't want to break a rule though, that is why I'm asking. Thanks for your time. -urmomma 21:06, 20 October 2005
  • Keep it is sufficiently notable, with over 250 unigue hits per day. thats a lot. god_gs 03:39, 20 October 2005 (CST)


  • How can we determine what will become significant and what will not. We do not mean to advertise our site. It just comes out that way because all we do is talk about our site. If we talked about the many drawbacks we had and bad things about the site, would that make it seem less like an advertisement. Also, on the note of it not being sufficiently notable, who determines whether something is notable or not. To me, this sight is more than extremely notable because i have contributed the better part of the past 8 months helping to build this site to what it presently is. Many sites do not even come close to making it this far. Isn't that some indication that one day our website will be notable. Bloodysaint
    • How can we determine what will become significant and what will not? Now you're getting it -- we can't. And that's why we don't. In fact, there is an official policy about that: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If the site becomes notable, well, at that point someone who is not actually involved with its administration will probably write the article. If the site is not notable, then no article is required. (As for who determines whether or not a site is notable, editors like you and me do. And yes, that often involves quite a bit of debate, but in this instance, when you guys quote as usage statistics of 70 registered users and 250 unique hits per day, and even you yourself admit that the website is not yet notable, it's really pretty easily determined... and in any case, notable gaming sites likes Gamespy, IGN and Adrenaline Vault have Alexa rankings of 1,360, 211 and 19,084, respectively, Glitchseekers gets 5,141,707. My personal blog, which is pretty damn far from notable, is ranked at 2,181,859. I'm sure you can tell the difference. Guys, really -- let it go. If you believe in your site, keep working at it; if it makes it big, trust me, there'll be an article on it. Right now, it's not yet notable. The sooner you accept that and the more realistic a view of where you are now at is, the better your chances of making an impact are.) -- Captain Disdain 00:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm going to agree with you on this one. Thanks for clarifying. We will be back in the future, just you wait! lol Have a good one till then. --urmomma 00:33, 22 Oct. 2005
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete Titoxd(?!?) 05:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Global peace flag

Non-notable subject matter, bordering on vanity/advertising link. I wish the creators of this project much luck in the promotion of their flag. If you succeed in making it widely used/infulencial please feel welcome then to create a wikipedia page on it. JK the unwise 09:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note from the author: In all honesty this is more of a promotional link. I thought I'd see if Wikipedia accepted that sort information - but I can understand why it is up for deletion. Thank you for the good wishes. I will post it later (or perhaps someone else will) when it is widely known and recognized.) Thank you.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Voice of All @|Esperanza|E M 05:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great American Bathroom Book

Not notable +/- vanity. I don't think a book that's out of print is necessarily not notable - but it should have had some note when it was in print. Ifnord 20:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Great Mazinger. I'm going to basically do a copy-paste with a little merge on the introductory section. -Splashtalk 23:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great Mazinger (robot)

Duplicated. See Great Mazinger. 202.156.6.54 22:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 19:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grey Dawn

Substub on a nn South Park episode. User:Purplefeltangel/sig 19:51, 19 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 Merge into Red Dwarf. Owen× ☎ 19:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Groovy Funky Channel 27

Non-encyclopedic, semi-linkspammy (the website linked is under construction and was added to two other pages). Merge into Red Dwarf if valid or Delete-- Syrthiss 12:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was snip snip. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 23:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Haircut jokes

snip, snip WP:NOT something or other....--Doc (?) 13:35, 7 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(?!?) 05:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hakapoo

This page is entirely a dicdef, however googling this term returns 52 results and most of them are dead or wikipedia and its mirrors. So I don't think it qualifies to be moved to Wiktionary due to the fact that it is relatively unheard of and nonexistant in its Onelook search of Hakapoo -- Malo 08:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Harro5 03:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hamtoucher

hamtoucher was nominated for deletion on 2005-10-19. The result of the discussion was "delete". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamtoucher/2005-10-19.

In the prior deletion discussion, it was mentioned that there was an on-line "dictionary of profanity" that listed this word with a wholly different definition to the one being deleted. This is that definition. Since this isn't re-creation of deleted content, here we are again. The on-line dictionary (linked to by the article) is currently lacking in content. This article is a dictionary article about a word, that has been placed in the wrong project. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It was marked for transwikification, but Wiktionary almost certainly doesn't want it, because it is not attested that this is in fact a word at all. An encyclopaedia article by this title would be about hamtouchers, whatever they would be. But since there's no such word, there's no such thing as a hamtoucher for an encyclopaedia article to be about. Uncle G 15:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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(?!?) 05:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hedgediving

Non notable, not encyclopedic. Molotov (talk)
15:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not sure if it qualifies as even "slightly" amusing.--SarekOfVulcan 18:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. —RaD Man (talk) 06:44, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hillfield Strathallan College

I think this college is non-notable; anyway, text is close to patent nonsense. Delete or send to BJAODN: the description of the major “barely resorting to academic dishonesty” will be perfectly in context there. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 14:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC) The article now establishes the notability of the school and nonsense has been removed. I change my vote to Keep. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 20:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article (before the very good edits by rob) was nominated because it didn't establish the notability of the school and was mostly nonsense. I don't think that schools should be extempted from the policies about notability and nonsense, as the last two comments seem to suggest. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 20:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with half of that. The nonsense warranted deletion, and effectively that's what I did, since I simply deleted all the old text, and wrote something new in it's place. If I had admin powers I would have speedied it, closed the AFD (consensus speedy delete), and then created the new article. Perhaps a kind admin could now delete the older history, and close this AFD early (keeping the new version obviously). This would respect the votes of every participant. --rob 23:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Careful wqhat you wish for. Frankly, I am not interested in admins doing the sort of thing you suggest, because it will inevitably lead to admins only doing half of what you recommend.--Nicodemus75 03:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The main issue here was the nonsense. I admit I was wrong in raising the issue of notability (which has never been my primary concern anyway). If the page were simply a one-line description of the school, I wouldn't have nominated it for deletion. What I don't like of some of the comments above is the idea that articles about schools should never be nominated for deletion even if they violate other policies beside notability. As Mgm suggested, keep in mind that the version that was nominated was mostly nonsense. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 11:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
User:Paolo Liberatore deserves thanks for dealing with vandalism (which is what an article with pure nonsense and a semi-attack is). With a minor edit to the article name, not a single thing of the original article article is left. The only difference between my changes, and a speedy delete/replace, is the extreme lack of speed. --rob 12:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, improved or not, fails to establish why it deserves an article on Wikipedia. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 20:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the article is obviously very incomplete. But, there is ample sources of the history (and the school in general). I'm sure when someone has a chance to wade through the 200 newspaper articles mentioning the school's name, the 278 unique sites in google hits, 668 total Google hits, and the history on the school's own web site, that it will be better explained. We shouldn't expect articles to be made instantly perfect from the start. The potential for expansion/improvement has been clearly shown here. --rob 22:46, 21 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. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 23:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrocarbons on other planets

The article is extremely short, and is merely speculation about a possible far future technology. It was marked 10 months ago for improvement, with no substantive change made.

.Delete. Dalbury 22:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*delete. There may be Dairy Queen's on other planets as well, but its not getting mentioned in this encyclopedia.—Gaff ταλκ 01:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. WP:NOT a crystal ball. --Aquillion 06:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC) Merge with the respective planetary articles, then delete. It has good information now, but without the speculation it doesn't really provide a reason why this information should be gathered into one article (where it's unlikely to be seen) rather than placed in the articles on the respective planets. --Aquillion 19:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's not a stunning FA article yet, but at least it's no longer speculation. - Mgm|(talk) 07:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like that it has been rewritten and is now an informative article. I still wonder if the title is useful as it seems rather too specific. It seems a topic of importance, don't get me wrong. But I wonder if it would not have a more useful place either as a section under the respective planets that you cover, or in the article on hydrocarbons, or as somebody above suggested exogeology. Thanks for filling WP with information, btw.—Gaff ταλκ 03:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you want to just go ahead and do it yourself, I suggest further discussion of how to handle this article go to its Talk page. - Dalbury 01:11, 21 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted by RHaworth as G1-patent nonsense. --GraemeL (talk) 12:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IAS 8: Net Profit or Loss for the Period, Fundamental Errors and Changes in Accounting practices


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted by Lucky 6.9. --GraemeL (talk) 12:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IRA Sausage Fest

Possible BJAODN. Molotov (talk)
04:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 05:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jack callahan

  • Delete Non-notable musician. Only claim to fame is brief appearance as a child on short-lived little-known TV series. In addition, this is a vanity bio and the user has removed previous deletion requests Bwithh 20:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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(?!?) 05:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jagism

Tagged as nonsense, but IMO does nopt qualify for speedy deletion. However seems non-notabel if not a neologism or a hoax. 8 googel hits, none of which seem to be this useage of "Jagism". Delete unless verifiable sources citesd with evidence of notability. DES (talk) 05:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet Comments

  • I see the page for Jagism is down for deletion, nay 'speedy deletion'

Why? Why is Jagism less relevant than Buddhism, Communism or any other 'ism'? This is nothing more than an ismist reaction and hopefully it shall be reversed. Long live Jagism. DO NOT DELETE! Hendo! 11:56 19 October 2005 CET User has 6 edits, 5 on this page. Karmafist 18:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC) psst, new guys have to start somewhere, grass. Hendo![reply]

  • I'm sorry you think this is nonsense, but it's something I am very serious about.What is wrong in trying to change your life ?

I am putting Jagism into practise everyday and have several interested parties willing to try Jagism.It ain't a religous thing, just a simple philosophy where you make your own decisions. I am currently in the process of trying to write a pamphlet about Jagism and the positive benefits it can have on your life.Cheers.

Why is it less notable than Buddhism? Maybe because Buddhism has millions of adherents worldwide whereas a google on Jagism yields 12 hits including one speculating on a particular foible of his Jaguar being a "jagism" :-) That and it sounds like a vanity name for something which people already did anyway. So, either demonstrate notability (e.g. list of notable adherents) or delete. (later) checked some more: I really can't find any credible evidence that this exists outside of a very limited circle - Just zis Guy, you know? 12:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Everything starts from a small beginning - even Christianity started with just 12 disciples. Perhaps if this Wiki was available to the Roman Empire, they could dismiss any articles from Christians as having no "credible evidence that this exists outside of a small circle" or has any "notable adherents." Does the endorsement of someone 'notable' give credibility to an idea?

Maybe, but not here: see WP:NOT - Just zis Guy, you know? 15:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't "jagism" a legitimate offshoot of the Marxist / Trotskyist dialectical method of apprehending nature, which regards the phenomena of nature as being in constant movement and undergoing constant change, though applied to personal choice, i.e. more akin to the discarded Hegelian idealistic shell? DizietSma 14:21 19 October 2005

  • Why DizietSma, you may be correct. Hendo!

User has 7 edits, 4 on this page. Likely meatpuppet of "Hendo!". Karmafist 18:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I take great exception to that - I am my own person and have actually tried to point out legitimate references, using one cite below from JC Maxwell and to Dialectics, uisng both the Marxist and Hegelian models. I am neither the OP nor am I any other poster supporting or defending the subject. Please retract your offensive assertion, which has no basis in fact. DizietSma 22:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the basis in fact, supported by the fact that you and Hendo are the only two users to vote to keep this spam. Update, the edit count is now up to 5 out of 8. I'll send over the newip talk template message just in case he isn't a Hendo meatpuppet under the spirit of WP:BITE. Karmafist 21:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete! Jagism has a following in roughly three European countries and possibly also in the South Atlantic. Although a minority group, it is nevertheless a minority group that crosses international borders, and looks set to grow. Hendo!
    • ITYM roughly three personailites, all in the same head :-)

Tsk! When Jagism takes off, the naysayers on Wikipedia will be kicking themselves for missing a trick! Hendo! 07:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If Jagism takes off, it might become notable. But thanks for the clarification: your statement implies that this is indeed a soapbox, as per WP:NOT, making the case for deletion unassailable. - Just zis Guy, you know? 09:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Further info: Google search for Jagism & "Jag Betty" yields zero hits. The article content is therefore likely incorrect, quite apart from being non-notable.

You will never change your life until you change something that you do daily.
This is a huge concept to grasp. People always tell me, “I’m going to make some major changes.” My response to that is simple: Certain aspects of your life might need a significant overhaul, but I don’t need to know about those big changes. I’m more interested in the minor change you plan to make today. Personal improvement starts when you change something you do daily—a routine, a habit, a way of working, or interacting with other people."
Dr. John C. Maxwell [17]
  • Notability again - everything starts somewhere, the longest journey with a single step, etc. If Google does not have a hit for it, it therefore does not exist? Isn't this the very nature of Wiki., to establish information not held by Google-esque ranking of information? DizietSma 15:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Every day some billions of people walk a few steps. Some hundreds of millions walk a few miles. One might finish walking round the world, and that would be worth putting on Wikipedia.
Comment: Now, isn't that insightful?! -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 19:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support guys. There will be a web-site up shortly dealing with Jagism in more depth.

  • Comment The purpoose of wikipedia is to be a compedium of verifiable, encyclopedic articles. Something need not be noted on google (many of our historical topics are not) but there must be some verifiable evidenece of the existance of the subject, and some reson to belive that it is significant, i.e. notable. if this can't be found on google, where can it be found. Have any books been published about Jagism? Have any newspapers or other media reported on it? are there large numbers of people devoted to it? It may be an admirable and valuable concept. We don't oppose it. Neither do we foster it. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, it is not the place where new ideas get promoted. Go out into the world and convice people of the importance or value of Jagism. Get them talking and writing about it, in one medium or another. Then come back here and we will report on what they say. (If people are already doing this, tell us here. Give us citations.) DES (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys why don't try Jagism for yourselves? Go on, change something.

Sure - we'll change Wikipedia by removing this unverifiable cruft :-) - Just zis Guy, you know? 10:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Message from Jag; Fellow disciples of Jagism, do not despair.Let the greedhead non forward thinking have their way. We know Jagism works and will continue to work it's way into a society that is, thanks to folk who refuse to try and change, gonna end up disappearing up its own ass.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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(?!?) 05:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jan-Bouke Jeeninga

Vanity. Ifnord 14:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Contrary to what some people say, the Mischief Masters, Jordy and Jan-bouke do exist and therefor deserve a spot in the Wikipedia. The Mischief Masters haven't reached national fame yet, but they're working very hard to do so by producing products like their movie A New Master. People who don't believe it should check their IMDB page. For further proof they could look at the biggest Dutch DVD site DVD-home since they devoted a artikel to the Masters. Doubters will see for themselves that there IS a movie made. The page is written in Dutch, but does contain screenshots. I do agree that there isn't a Mischeif Masters series since there is only one movie made with a second production coming. The url to the article mentioned: http://www.dvd-home.nl/nieuws/oud2004.htm#8 The Masters are displayed just above the "Augustus" (August) banner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unstoppableforce (talk • contribs) User has 4 contributions, 3 for these AFDs
    • “...Jordy and Jan-bouke do exist and therefore deserve a spot in the Wikipedia.” Hmmm... I exist too, so I suppose that means that I “deserve” a spot in the Wikipedia. Would someone please write an article about me? Out of modesty, I won’t write it myself. ♠DanMS 16:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; the IMDb entry is for one self-produced apparently unreleased short of the sort likely filmed on a mass-market camcorder. Also, existence is not an assertion of notability. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 15:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tonywalton  | Talk 16:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. To repeat what I said in the AfD for the article on his colleague: I'm sure the movie exists, I just don't think it's particularly significant in the grand scale of things. Neither, by extension, is the guy who made it. Just because it's verifiably out there, doesn't mean it matters to a significant portion of the world at large. That's not an insult, that's just a simple fact. -- Captain Disdain 20:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Lomn. I'm sure they exist and all, but self-producing a film is not something that warrants an article. They should spend efforts on getting it released and making a national name for themselves before returning to Wikipedia for an article. - Mgm|(talk) 08:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable person and film Bwithh 08:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:12, 22 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedied. --Golbez 19:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

JESUS WAS BLACK!!!!

Utter nonsense. KHM03 18:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep -Greg Asche (talk) 22:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Science

Should this be deleted? Can't really see the notability, and the article is 'rather' short, but would like to have other opinions as to weather or not this should be kept. Bjelleklang - talk 09:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It now has enough information to warrant stub status. --Anetode 11:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it is wikified from Christian Science, an important subject and a Jewish element makes it important. Placed Attention notice to seek help for expanding this article.207.47.122.10 09:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. Owen× ☎ 19:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Nelson (convert)

I simply don't see this going anywhere, and I can't find any solid information. Just because he was mentioned in a book doesn't mean he's all that important. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 00:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: fair enough, I very much doubt there's any more information about him anywhere either. I thought it would be informative to see this John Nelson on the list of John Nelsons on the disambiguation page. Kevin Hinde
Comment: it's not clear from the Thomas Sanders report in Hakluyt, but the reference is quoting a 1998 source (Matar) which makes the claim. Kevin Hinde
Comment: I don't wish to belabor the point but I checked Matar, (Islam in Britain, 1558-1685, Cambridge University Press, 1998) through amazon. Nelson gets one line on pg. 34 without any further research and the source is The voyage made to Tripolis. --JJay 12:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I checked that reference too. The voyage made to Tripolis is the source for the quote about John Nelson. The source for the assertion that the quote about John Nelson in The voyage made to Tripolis is the first time a convert to Islam is named in an English source, is the Matar book. Matar is making that claim as a result of his own research and you can see, in Matar's bibliography, the original sources he has studied in order to be able to make it. Kevin Hinde 22:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Those sites are hardly verification. They just repeat the info from the original post. Look at the book The voyage made to Tripolis through Guttenberg, which for some reason is not discussed on the Hakluyt page. Why not merge the info there? --JJay 05:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A merge would be fine with me, although I would prefer List of converts to Islam over Hakluyt. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 15:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I disagree strongly with a merge to List of converts to Islam, since the list consists almost exclusively of 20th century figures, all of whom are notable, verifiable and have pages on the wiki. Merging as trivia to the Hakluyt page, the source of the information, would seem a better solution. --JJay 12:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But the interest in John Nelson is not that he was written about by Hakluyt. The interest is that he is the first recorded instance of an English convert to Islam. Hence, he is more naturally merged to the List. The fact that the list primarily contains 20th century figures is a problem of the list. If it was supposed to be restircted it should be List of 20th century converts to Islam. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 15:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To me the interest is verifiability. --JJay 18:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any reason to doubt the source? It was of sufficient verifiability for the BBC. Even so, Nelson could be referred to as being considered to be the first such convert. --Anetode 21:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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(?!?) 05:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jordy Baar

Vanity. Ifnord 14:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Contrary to what some people say, the Mischief Masters do exist and therefor deserve a spot in the Wikipedia. The Mischief Masters haven't reached national fame yet, but they're working very hard to do so by producing products like their movie A New Master. People who don't believe it should check their IMDB page. For further proof they could look at the biggest Dutch DVD site DVD-home since they devoted a artikel to the Masters. Doubters will see for themselves that there IS a movie made. The page is written in Dutch, but does contain screenshots. I do agree that there isn't a Mischeif Masters series since there is only one movie made with a second production coming.

    The url to the article mentioned: http://www.dvd-home.nl/nieuws/oud2004.htm#8 The Masters are displayed just above the "Augustus" (August) banner.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Unstoppableforce (talk • contribs) 2005-10-19 14:16:56 UTV

It is a common misconception that Wikipedia is simply a collection of everything that exists. Not everything that exists deserves a spot on here. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Aecis 17:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC) (Ook een Nederlander)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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(?!?) 05:35, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joris wolters

Not speediable because of the assertion that he has made significant contributions to world peace. It's a shame these "significant contributions" are neither enumerated nor sources cited. There is a "Joris Wolters" who seems (per my limited Flemish!) to be a notable Belgian yachtsman; I'd have expected this to get a brief mention in this article, if this is the same person.. I can't glean enough from the Google hits on the yachtsman to turn this into article about him. Tonywalton  | Talk 17:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense or patent vanity. Aecis 17:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm afraid "patent nonsense" as referred to in the speedy criterion is stuff like "adfjaf;pwehf". If it makes sense (even if it's clearly not true) then it's not nonsense. Haeleth
  • Pages has been altered and shows a more complete summary of Joris Wolters, and it will be updated as his life passes by... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.82.147.58 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete although not speedable, methinks. Vanity and no serious claim of notability. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 19:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone can provide verifiable proof of notability. If he's a significant sailor, it should be easy to find references in the Belgian press, right? Haeleth 20:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's easy enough to find him, but not in English; it would need a Flemish/Dutch speaker. For all I know the googles I have found say things like "this bloke came seventeenth out of eighteen in the local yachting round the park duckpond competition in Liège". He's verifiable, but not necessarily notable. There's no entry on him on the nl Wikipedia under that name, by the way. Tonywalton  | Talk 22:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as non-notable bio. --Carnildo 22:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • To set the record straight, I, Joris Wolters came in first at a national belgian sailing regatta in Liège last year. And in the the Delta Lloyd Open Dutch Olympic Sailing regatta is was the third Belgian in Laser Radial class. In the europeans i did only made it in the bronze fleet cus of bad luck with materials. So dont degrade me to a local yacht guy. Joris Wolters
  • Sam van Rijn a well-known advocate of peace was inspired by Joris "Bork" Wolters.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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(?!?) 05:36, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

J.R. Hunter

My hoax sense is tingling, but only weakly. There are eleven million hits for the string "JR Hunter", but it looks like most of those are references to "junior". Google turns up nothing for the names of some of her alleged works, and nothing for the names of the others when they're combined with the string "hunter". (Except for "the first syllable", which is too damn common to be feasibly searched for.) Anyone? DS 18:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 19:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom and intrinsically unverifiable. She is obscure, not much is known about her, Most of what is known is popular theory rather than fact (which makes it pretty much OR as far as I can see), she is believed to be... If this were re-written as a fictional character (with some evidence that the character actually was published in some verifiable medium) I might change my vote. Tonywalton  | Talk 19:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tonywalton. I'm going to add that I think this might be a notable artist, but I was also unable to get any worthwhile Google hits here and can't see any way to verify the information herein -- I'm not even sure she exists. This might as well be a hoax for all we know. If someone can come up with solid references for this thing, I'm all for keeping it, but unless that happens, I think it should go. -- Captain Disdain 20:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I'd be quite willing to accept this this is not a hoax, but as the link I mentioned above says, 'The WP policy is: Wikipedia should only publish material that is verifiable and is not original research.. Tonywalton  | Talk


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

The result of the debate was userfy. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 23:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kerfissíða:Contributions/Dabbidj

Delete. This appears to be a user page mistakenly made into an article. However, there does not seem to be a user Kerfissíða. Moreover, it is written in a foreign language. Appears to be Icelandic, but maybe something else. ♠DanMS 00:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I took a peek at the Icelandic Wikipedia. It would appear that the term Kerfissíða is the Icelandic equivalent of the English word Special. For example, see the Allpages page. Therefore, "Kerfissíða:Contributions/Dabbidj" would translate to "Special:Contributions/Dabbidj", meaning that Dabbidj is the user in question and not Kerfissíða. Is there a Dabbidj registered on the English Wikipedia? --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 02:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was created by User:Dabbidj. My vote to userfy stands. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 02:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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(?!?) 05:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kunstderfuge

advert for non-notable website. —Gaff ταλκ 07:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 List of California State Routes. — JIP | Talk 19:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Interstate Highways in California

Per discussion on Talk:List of California State Routes, this page is considered redundant and needs to be deleted. Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 or no consensus. Take your pick. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of running gags

And what do you suppose should be in such articles? The gag itself can be described in one line and that's pretty much it... - Mgm|(talk) 08:30, 20 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(?!?) 05:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs who's genre is used ahead of time

Is inherently POV and unverifiable. Who defines the genre? Who says it's "ahead of its time"? You can call me Al 23:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 List of California State Routes. Please remember that redundant pages are usually turned into redirects; this does not require listing the page on AfD. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. Highways in California

Per discussion on Talk:List of California State Routes, this page is considered redundant and needs to be deleted. Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 as rewritten by User:JLaTondre. — JIP | Talk 05:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lucent Public License

This article is just a copy and paste of a license template. -- Kjkolb 03:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as copyvio. - Sensor 04:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: it's not from a commercial content provider. -- Kjkolb 05:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's irrelevant; a copyright violation is a copyright violation, regardless of who the copyright is owned by. However, as it happens, I don't think this is a copyright violation, since the article is copied from opensource.org, and they state that the contents of their website are licensed under Academic Free License v. 2.1, a quote of which is as follows: "1) Grant of Copyright License. Licensor hereby grants You a world-wide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, sublicenseable license to do the following: A. to reproduce the Original Work in copies; B. to prepare derivative works ("Derivative Works") based upon the Original Work; C. to distribute copies of the Original Work and Derivative Works to the public; D. to perform the Original Work publicly; and F. to display the Original Work publicly." So I think that's actually quite acceptable to display that... (Well, as it were, not quite, because the article didn't include proper attribution and whatnot, but I just added the missing copyright notice just to keep things simple.) Anyway, I don't think there's any way an article like this is going to be rewritten into a non-copyrighted form, so I think it should just be deleted. This is pretty damn far from encyclopedic material and should be deleted, but a copyvio it isn't, as far as I can tell. -- Captain Disdain 07:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • (Grgh... I must've been real tired when I wrote that; it's barely comprehensible.) Ahem. I'm changing my vote to keep per JLaTondre's excellent rewrite -- it's not a hugely notable subject, but it's notable enough, and seems pretty solid now (particularly as the license obviously has some controversial features). Wish I was wrong like this more often. -- Captain Disdain 09:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, but the speedy delete criteria is for commercial content providers and that is what was voted. -- Kjkolb 09:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is copy/vio-Dakota 06:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Voice of All Talk|@|Esperanza 18:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Major Glory

Delete as NN minor character. See also Major Man and Officer Mike Brikowski. - Sensor 01:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 into The Powerpuff Girls. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Major Man

Delete as NN. See similar contributions concerning NN characters: Officer Mike Brikowski and Major Glory. - Sensor 01:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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(?!?) 05:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Hennessy

Non-notable / vanity / both. Aecis 17:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I'll give a short narratized translation of the article.
"Marie Hennessy is the parliamentary assistant of French member of parliament Olivier Dassault."
What then follows is her resumé. Aecis 17:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus. Owen× ☎ 20:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

McNugget number

Trivial example of a mathematical observation based on McDonald's products. No mathematical significance or practical applications. Delete. flowersofnight 15:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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(?!?) 05:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Message of the Morning Star

Advertisment for a religious movement. Title gets 43 unique search results (81 for the association), the article's reference is a book that hasn't yet been published. Kjkolb 05:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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(?!?) 05:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MLeandroK

Seems insignificant. 219 google hits is unimpressive for software, in my opinion. My Internet alias, joel7687, produces 232, about 99% of which are actually relevant to me. If this bot can have an article, I should have one as well, and I don't think I'm quite that notable yet. Delete. Joel7687 07:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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(?!?) 05:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Hinton's Computer Class

A class. Unverifiable (and unencyclopedic) information, from the same IP that created the Mecke article (also on AFD)-- JoanneB 17:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep this!!!!

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

The result of the debate was Gibberish, speedy deleted.

MYX

Obviously. Molotov (talk)
16:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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(?!?) 05:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neskk

Fiction, hoax, possibly attempted self-promotion of an internet alias Usrnme h8er 11:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 00:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NIck_Vose

I checked Google and nothing came up with this name, also this article is poorly written and could also be placed in the attention category, but since it looked like a fake article i put it in here.

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted by Rich Farmbrough as nn-bio. --GraemeL (talk) 12:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nigam

Vanity page! Nycmstar 18:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to anti-humor (technically there was a split between redirect and delete, but I took the liberty of redirecting it anyway.) Robert 00:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non-joke

Not encyclopedic. Its mostly jokes in that page. Merge whatever useful info Joke and Delete --JAranda | watz sup 03:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 15:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Officer Mike Brikowski

Non-notable. "...he only appeared in one episode" --Daniel Lawrence 16:18, 7 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(?!?) 05:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Openness to experience

Doesn't seem encyclopedic. -- Kjkolb 09:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep as bad-faith nomination. --Carnildo 23:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Nimbus Spar

AfD because I don't like it. --69.204.183.132 19:32, 14 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Orlando Direct Action

Non-notable "anarchist educational and activist collective." It gets 70 unique Google results (90% are duplicates), makes no mention of how many members there are or its budget, lists its activities but there's no successes or accomplishments. -- Kjkolb 10:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 05:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pain Clinic

Not enough discussion, relisting. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Self-promotion (note the user is a new user named "Cashman44" and one of the hosts is called "the Cashman" in the article) for a non-notable local radio talk show. I'm living in Rochester NY, and I've never even heard of the show. — ceejayoz ★ 18:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We have been on the air for 7+ years. It's not my fault if you don't know us. If you want to add something you have to have an account. Wikipedia covers alot of wrestling and you casn search us on any search tool and find stuff about us. We have a great history that I was in the midst of adding when you posted your deletion request! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.24.63.77 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 7 October 2005

You may continue editing the page, and those edits will certainly remain if the vote for deletion fails. However, I believe your page remains a candidate for deletion as it is non-notable and self-promotional. As a side note, please sign your posts in this page with ~~~~, and I encourage you to login when posting. — ceejayoz ★ 18:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Verifiable... but obviously vanity.--Isotope23 19:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. I don't live in Rochester, yet I have heard of this show. Yes, this article as originally posted is self-promotion, but as a talk radio aficionado, I immediately associated "Pain Clinic" in the "Recent Changes" with this radio show. (I am quite against the homogenization of broadcast radio and am fond of using the Internet to listen to locally produced programs, especially those on unconventional topics, such as this show.) I am going to attempt to remove the self-promotion aspects of this article -- I believe it has a place. — psu256 18:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment': in [[21]] user 24.24.63.77 (presumably 'the Cashman Richie Rich' himself) removed the word 'Cashman' in what seems to me to be a clumsy attempt at hiding the reference mentioned in initial referral above. (Clumsy, b/c incomplete; it now reads: 'the Richie Rich'.) On the other hand, maybe I'm just failing to be a nice guy. Mr Cashman's obvious desire to promote himself doesn't automatically prevent his article from being notable (if cleaned up). Eaglizard 15:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete User:Purplefeltangel/sig 01:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. Seven years is quite a good span. If we were talking seven months, I'd reconsider. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 01:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Borderline keep . Rochester isn't a huge media market, but it isn't insignificant either. Seven years is a pretty long time for a wrestling show to go on. Article also needs to be cleaned up to remove vanity POV. Also needs to be disambiguated. At first I thought this was an article about physical medicine and rehabilitation. - Sensor 01:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • First off, lets avoid hazing the newbies, even if they are here trying to get a somewhat self promotional article published. Not every one is familiar with wiki-ettiquette. My first experience on wikipedia was so negative that I nearly left altogether. If this radion show is in fact notable, then it should be kept regardless of who initially posted it. It is now part of WP and can be freely edited by anyone. I'm not voting on this, as I have not read enough of the article.—Gaff ταλκ 02:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right now I'll abstain, but if anyone can prove it has been running for 7 years froma reliable 3rd party source, I'd be happy to vote keep.- Mgm|(talk) 12:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Show's website is here. Alexa ranking of 1,678,769, but the article is on the show, not the site. There can't be all that many sports-talk shows on wrestling, can there? Anyway, I hereby change my vote from weak keep to keep but disambiguate.
  • Weak keep, but definitely disambiguate. I thought of a medical article as well, as I know several 'real' pain clinics. --JoanneB 17:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above. Trollderella 20:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Rogerd 00:40, 21 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 05:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paper Computer Game

Appears to be a hoax. I can find no record anywhere of any of the titles or companies mentioned in the article. Haeleth 16:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Haeleth
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 18:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is... bizarre, really. I'm going to have to call this a hoax; it just doesn't make any sense to me, and I think it's fair to say that I'm rather well-informed on the games front, both in digital and pen and paper formats. Even if this thing really exists, which I very much doubt, I don't think it's notable (though I'd be very interested in learning more about it!). -- Captain Disdain 20:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think this should be verifyd before the votes are counted. It doesn't sound like turd and it may be notable.  freshgavinTALK   02:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do think this is a hoax. First of all, the article refers to the "now obsolete 'Graphical Adventure' genre of computer games"; that genre is not obsolete by any means, and anyone interested enough in games to write an article about this and knowledgeable enough to mention various adventure games by name would most likely be aware of this. Secondly, I can't find any meaningful Google hits for "Chris DeLuca", "XaQ", "BronzeCo", "Elven Publishing Inc." "Till Time Do Us Part" or any other terms mentioned on the article that aren't Wikipedia mirrors. If this was a notable game, it'd be just about guaranteed that someone would talk about it on the net; even if it wasn't, I should be able to get at least one hit that would refer to one of these companies or people. Thirdly, there is absolutely no reference to how these games are supposedly played. Are they like pen and paper RPGs? Do they have rules? Are they like "choose your own adventure" books? The plotlines and whatnot seem extremely convoluted and complex, yet we are given absolutely no information on how these games supposedly work. I find this significant because there's no way it would work without a very elaborate and thought-out setup, and that in itself would have to be such an inherent part of the game that not referring to it at all in any way makes me suspicious. Fourthly... seriously, man, just read the article -- most of the stuff is just nonsensical. And finally, looking at the article's history, I see that when the article was first created, someone from the same IP address added typos on purpose to another article just a few hours later. It's possible that the IP was acquired by another Wikipedia editor in that time, but still it's something to think about. -- Captain Disdain 22:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it were more carefully written, I'd say it should be moved to Uncyclopedia or to Bad Jokes And Other Deleted Nonsense, because it has a lot of charm and humor. If it had a user associated with it, I'd say move it to user space. Too bad... TECannon 07:58, 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. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Passion Pit

People from another website message board are using Wikipedia to validate their arguments. They feel if they post their side of an argument on Wikipedia, it becomes factual, and they win the argument. The people who created the "passion pit" article are all involved in slandering each other 24/7 on this website:

http://imdb.com/title/tt0335345/board/threads/

People will continuouly edit the article as part of their never-ending battles on http://imdb.com/title/tt0335345/board/threads/

The article has already been intermittently edited with discriminatory comments (homophobic slander and theological slander) intended to hurt people.

(the above nomination by User:65.33.8.89)

The "Passion Pit" Wikipedia article should be deleted as it currently reads for the following reasons:

1.) It amounts to nothing more than shameless promotion for the people specificly named in the article.

2.) It contains unverified assertions.

3.) It contains material that is clearly opnion.

These are not qualties of an encyclopedia article.

(the above comment by User:68.252.171.233
  • While the above are all reasons for editing rather than deleting, it also remains that this is an article about a discussion forum. If it really is 'one of the highest traffic boards on the internet' then this might be notable. Otherwise not. No vote yet. DJ Clayworth 16:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This - 'one of the highest traffic boards on the internet' - is an opinion with no substantiation. People from that forum will edit the message with vulgarities and obscenities on a 24 hour basis to degrade other people. That is the sole point of the article. No academia, only petty wars. User:65.33.8.89 I was responsible for one of the early (18:55, 12 October 2005) edits of the Passion Pit article. That said, I now think it's a strong candidate for deletion. This article has been edited over fifty times in the past 24 hours. I believe it is extremely unlikely to ever serve any purpose other than that of a venue for an ongoing malicious edit war. Delete Cactus Wren 17:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If the forum is notable we can make a neutral version of the article and protect it. If vandalism were a criterion for deletion then George W. Bush would have been deleted long ago. DJ Clayworth 17:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The forum itself is only notable for its contention and vitriol. This contention has now been exported to Wikipedia. This is clearly a vanity article by the definitions of Wikipedia and should be deleted.

This board should not be deleted. It should be locked.

The user <<MrWotUp>> deleted someone else's contribution to this debate. User:65.33.8.89


My suggestion

As DJ Clayworth mentions, vandalism alone is no reason for deletion. Anyway, had a look around, and it appears that IMDB has approx. 4 million users[22], which I would say is enought to make it a notable bbs, although I don't know the specifics about this particular board. One option might be to create an article for the IMDB bbs, if it doesn't already exist, and then merge this into that article, or to create a Category:imdb-forums, and list any other (if they exist) notable IMDB forums. Although this won't help regarding the vandalism, the article would be placed in a better context. Any comments to this?

BTW: please remember to sign the posts, even if you are an anon user. bjelleklang 19:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I support keeping the page as a valid reference (The Passion of the Christ message board is one of the largest and most frequented on the IMDB), but support locking it to prevent contentious changes. -JK 11:02 PM EST, Oct. 14 2005

Though it is heavily trafficked by a limited number of users, it is not one of the largest on the IMDB. In fact, the IMDB administrators have limited its size. The board was certainly a phenomenon in the year leading up to and during the time of the movie's release, and that might make an interesting subject for an encyclopedia entry. But to give it an entry such as is currently composed is again, simply an sop to the vanity of a number of people who continue to post there.


At the moment, people on that forum are affraid to edit the article, because a user there posted on the Passion forum the IP Addresses of all the people debating here on this Wikipedia page. IMDb took action and removed the thread (IMDb protects privacy), but obviously it proves the people on that forum will do ANYTHING to hurt other people, including invading their privacy. User:65.33.8.89

Lastly, there are at least 75 forums that not only have heavier traffic than the Passion forum, but also have at least 5x the messages. The Passion forum has an average of 100 threads daily, whereas at least 75 other forums have 500 daily threads. The Main Boards (general topics) of IMDb alone eclipse the Passion forum in traffic rate and number of messages, not including the boards for newly released films and soon-to-be-released films. User:65.33.8.89

According to an IMDb Adminstrator, it is not possible to deduce the busiest boards: http://imdb.com/board/bd0000041/inline/27990906?d=28128858#28128858 http://imdb.com/board/bd0000041/inline/27990906?d=28145662#28145662

If this "article" is merged, all of these IMDb forums (to name a few) must be named in the merging, because if you skim them, you'll find they have 10x the amount of traffic than the Passion forum: The Soapbox The Sandbox I Need To Know Film General Music Books Horror Sport Best And Worst Games Video Games Jennifer Lopez Johnny Depp Tom Cruise Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith Batman Begins Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005) George W. Bush

You'll also have to edit the information on a daily basis, to reflect accuracy.User:65.33.8.89

  • Delete. This is just a single (albeit popular) message board on another web site which has hundreds of thousands of message boards. A Google search doesn't seem to provide evidence that this message board is commonly known as the "Passion Pit" anyway. --Metropolitan90 03:44, 21 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 Great Chicago Fire. Owen× ☎ 20:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick O'Leary

Merge. with Catherine O'Leary - Mrdie 06:42, 11 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 06:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paulo Ramos

WP:VAIN Delete or Userfy. The latter only if the author of this page, Pramos2003, makes at least one (1) useful contribution by the end of this discussion. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 15:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete vanity page --Leo
  • Comment: I am not sure that CSD8 applies here. A copyright violation is when someone who is not the copyright owner tries to use a document outside of what is permitted by its copyright owner. In this case, the author of the article has implicitely authorized the Wikipedia to use the article (by placing it here). The problem is that the Wikipedia does not allow authors to retain all rights (articles must be released under the GNU doc license). I am not sure what happens in this case. I think that the first step is what Walter did, that is, warning the author. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 23:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - at least the non-English text, the rest looks like vanity. --MacRusgail 19:22, 20 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 06:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pendragon series

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. Keep and cleanup; the series and the books in it are real and don't appear to be published by the author. —Cryptic (talk) 18:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, the article and those linked to it are in desperate need of cleanup, so much so that I mistook them for hoaxes first. An Amazon search does confirm the books' existence, though. --Agamemnon2 21:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge There does not need to be six articles on this series especially if they are going to written this poorly.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Move to "Personification". Voice of All @|Esperanza|E M 05:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Personifcation

Dic def and mispelled. Molotov (talk)
18:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It needs more explanation.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 06:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pharmacy (restaurant)

Delete Non-notable [23] restaurant PhilipO 23:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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(?!?) 05:44, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pimp Squad Click


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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(?!?) 05:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pinches Cuerpos

Originial research and vulgarity (something bad in Spanish - again). Molotov (talk)
18:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this is sort of a relisting. The page was created by User:205.238.137.106, then afd-tagged by Molotov within a minute.. A minute later User:Jimfbleak deleted it. Four hours or so later 205.238.137.106 created it again. Since it's already on AfD I'm re-adding the AfD tag to keep things clean. Tonywalton  | Talk
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Pine pylon

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

The result of the debate was Merge and Redirect to Electricity pylon. Johntex\talk 01:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC) Delete as unverifiable term with no source quoted. Google search on "pine pylon" returns only Wiki mirrors. Larousse Dictionary of Science & Technology has no entry, nor does Oxford English Dictionary. In event of verification then move to Wiktionary. Eddie.willers 02:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 07:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon theme music

Relisting. Unexpandable, has not been expanded since last nomination.User:Purplefeltangel/sig 01:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

The last nomination that only ended today? Surely, this is grounds for a speedy keep? Sonic Mew | talk to me 12:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No. As much as people think otherwise, there is no such time limit on renomination. --Apostrophe 18:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The last nomination that started in September. User:Purplefeltangel/sig 19:32, 19 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(?!?) 05:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PPD Computing

Advertisment. No notability established. --S.K. 07:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 into Thirteen Colonies. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 00:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proprietary colonies

This article borders on the nonsensical, def. a delete, maybe even a speedy./ --Isolani 14:53, 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 nomination withdrawn. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 00:23, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ramesh Gelli

Non-notable Indian banker.

  • Delete ot Merge - Global Trust Bank was real (it was taken over by Oriental Bank of Commerce in 2004 I think. It was in serious crisis in 2004, with a negative net worth of US$237m, triggering a government investagation. There might be an article worth writing on Global Trust Bank, in which Ramesh Gelli might be mentioned. (Correction, did more research and GTB did have a billion dollar plus worth at its peak - it was a major banking scandal in India. Suggest Ramesh Gelli be merged into an article about this scandal. Bwithh 14:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Closing my article for deletion nomination - changing to Merge/NPPOV


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

The result of the debate was move to List of weapons in Resident Evil 4. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 00:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Red 9

Now that I've looked at where I 'wanted' it to go, I see the fallacy of my suggestion, and have changed it Saberwyn 08:20, 20 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(?!?) 05:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Requirements Document

The article appears to be a features requirement for a program being developed. -- Kjkolb 08:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Robert 00:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rob "Coach" Fulton

Game show contestans = notable? Didn't think so. Tried to speedy, but an admin told me to take it to AfD, so I am. User:Purplefeltangel/sig 19:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Add ALL the questions he answered. Sure the big questions that helped him win a million is good, but i'm sure that everyone wants to see all the questions. Also, i heard that it took him 2 shows to win it so put that in as well.

Put in some info from that show after he won the money. Add in there some comments from the physcic and his family (if nessecary ask for permission first).

And lastly, if possible, add a few comments about his early life. So lets pick up the pace and add a few more things in this article!

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Robert 00:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Hall (economist)

Not noteworth +/- vanity. Ifnord 17:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fiddling the books? Keep, by the way. Tonywalton  | Talk 22:38, 20 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. —RaD Man (talk) 06:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rollings Middle School

This article looks POV and , anyhow, does not meet minimum requirements for an article, I`m all for school articles (look at my vote record) but this doesn`t add much. (imho) therefore delete--Isolani 00:39, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Keep schools; regardless of their individual merits, trying to delete them isn't worth the acrimony. This one's verifiable, in any case. —Cryptic (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, good stub, and per wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. I nonetheless note that there is no consensus that all schools should be kept or deleted. Kappa 19:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Truly not noteworthy. Ifnord 20:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As to keeping all schools, thus begins the slippery slope of keeping anything that exists. What about every business? What about every church? I'm not a deletionist, I simply believe that only if something is noteworthy do they belong here.
      • When AfD is revised such that keeping anything that exists is the norm, I promise to donate enough money to cover all of the extra disk-space, processing power and bandwidth that having a couple thousand stubs that are rarely accessed without any dynamic content will take up, as long as all of the wasted disk space, processing power and bandwidth of AfD (accessed all the time, with a massive amount of dynamic content) is sent to a charity of my choice. I have made my check out to the Wikipedia Foundation in the amount of $100, covering the cost of those stubs for ever. You can write your $5,000,000 check to the ACLU, please. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Already a 85%-90% year long precedent to keep all schools. I am sure some deletionist will now come along and point out "oh, but there was no concensus". It doesn't change the fact that there is an overwhelming precedent within the structures of WP policy and VfD/AfD. It is time to accept the existence of school articles and move on to focusing deletionism against Pokemons or something.--Nicodemus75 21:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per schools argument keep. chowells 21:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep useful school article. As for the usual fear that keeping schools leads to keeping "useless" trivial articles, that's false. If you're worried about useless articles, ask those making them[24] to please stop. But don't blame school supporters, who are also opposed to useless articles. --rob 22:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um last time I checked rob I'm not the one creating useless school articles, just articles on other subjects such as grocery stores that by the school "keep" crowds reasoning also have as much right to exist as school articles.Gateman1997 23:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Um, did you forget about your pre-school or the fake Clovis Oceanview (which seemed rather useless to me). Also, I was specifically referring to the comment "What about every business?" which applies to the grocery store. --rob 23:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I made the preschool to prove a point and to set some form of reasonable preceedent. And lo and behold I succeeded. We now delete preschool articles as an unwritten rule. Until my WP:POINT even those were on the verge of all being kept because they "existed". As for Clovis, well I admit that was a fake, but I did it just to annoy the school keep crowd. Dumb I know, but I got a good laugh out of it.Gateman1997 00:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Deliberately putting misinformation into an article is a form of vandalim, It is against policy. It is a blockable offense. --rob 00:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm aware of that. Gateman1997 01:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • So, why did you create the Clovis Oceanview article entirely with misinformation. Then, when you switched it to a real school in Albany, you kept misinformation about the school's construction. That's vandalism. --rob 01:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • Yep, and it also made you obsessed with me for weeks. Mission accomplished I aquired a fan who highlighted the obsessive elements of the school debate. See you around.Gateman1997 01:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Well, now that you've decided to confess to being a vandal, will you also admit you used sockpuppets with the pre-school and Clovis Oceanview hoax (for nominations). I actually find checking into hoaxes interesting. I took a similiar (but smaler) task with Talk:Katherine Beck. It's quite interesting. Also, I enjoyed creating two valid articles about real "Ocean Vew Elementary Schools" (editing the Albany one to be correct, and another one in Virginia). Nobody gets paid, so we all do this because we enjoy it. Some enjoy making contributions. While others enjoy vandalism. --rob 01:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Actually I never got around to VFDing the article. Someone else beat me to it. And like you I enjoy contributing as I have all but that one article... I've just gotten tired of this endless debate on schools. It's never going to have a resolution.Gateman1997 01:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, at the properly capitalized name of course. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. All real and verifiable schools are notable enough for a truly great encyclopaedia. Silensor 23:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per ranking/rating. School articles must be considered on an individual basis. Denni☯ 03:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great idea, let's abandon NPOV and build in systemic bias instead. Kappa 04:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sure, Kappa, sounds good to me. And while we're at it, why don't we create stubs for every grocery store, streetcar, daycare, and garage band in the world, and then decree them all inherently notable so we never need to vote on anything ever again, no matter how patently ridiculous. Denni☯ 00:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keeping them all without any sort of editorial control is bias too. But reasonable guidelines like the ones at WP:MUSIC, while possibly biased against non-released bands and albums, are providing perfectly valid deletions. - Mgm|(talk) 08:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • How is keeping all established schools biased? In the case of a band, its imporantance is directly dependent on its popularity, this is not at all the case with a school. Kappa 15:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "It has been ranked the top five creative schools in the United States and has been rated "excellent" every year by the South Carolina Department of Education." is enough of an notability assertion for me. Stubby, but perfectly valid. I'd like to ask anyone who knows about the school to start expanding as soon as possible. - Mgm|(talk) 08:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nominating schools is a waste of our time. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you mean "our". It may be a waste of your time, but you make a big assumption in speaking for others. I do not consider it a waste of time at all. Denni☯ 00:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, you seem to enjoy punishing us for trying to do the right thing. Kappa 00:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • An interesting statement. I do not nominate schools, so how could I be "punishing" you? I, like you, merely come here to vote. And "right thing" is a matter of perspective. I do not feel it is right at all for school afficionados to keep foisting these essentially empty articles on nameless, faceless schools onto Wikipedia. Would you care to rephrase your statement? Denni☯ 23:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • You encourage nominations, and vote to delete when you know there is no consensus to do so. Nominating schools doesn't get them deleted, and takes us further away from any chance of consensus. All it does it force us to come back and repeat the same old arguments for the nth time. Kappa 23:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • I encourage nomination of any article which does not meet certain minimum standards of notability and craftsmanship. I do not restrict my attention to school articles. As I have already said, I have not nominated school articles in the past, but the situation is getting quite out of hand. Please see your talk page. Denni☯ 03:21, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please kappa is right it is possible for a school to not be popular but still be notable that actually makes sense Yuckfoo 17:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain show notabliy but barely not enough to keep or delete. --JAranda | watz sup 00:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marginal keep, article gives some indication of "notability" (shudder) and is hence verifiable; however, it needs cleanup and references. Alphax τεχ 18:39, 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 REDIRECT per User:Plutor but the other way around, per comment by User:MacGyverMagic. — JIP | Talk 07:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Run Like Hell

Allmusic.com lists no such band. Does not appear to meet the requirements of WP:MUSIC. -- Malo 14:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well from all your votes, it seems obvious that this should be a redirect. My question is whether I should just let an admin finish this, or should I just withdraw the nomination and redirect it myself? -- Malo 22:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless there's some other "Run To Hell" it makes sense to move the song article here. Don't use disambiguation qualifiers unless they're actually needed. - Mgm|(talk) 08:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a fairly recent video game named "Run Like Hell," as well. I'm not sure how notable it is; it wasn't very popular or successful, but it was one of the first games to integrate advertising into the gameplay. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 09:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Myself along with countless others are big fans of this NYC based band. I just saw them play at a huge festival in Amsterdam at the "Melkweig". It was a two day festival which included some of the most famous punk bands to ever exist. This band is definitely up and coming. To delete them would be an injustice

Just because they're not on ALLmusic.com just means that their record company has forgotten to send a copy of their latest album. Check out their website for confirmation www.RunLikeHell.us — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.205.161.177 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 23 October 2005

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 15:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sassweb.ca

Is this website really widely known?  Denelson83  03:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 23:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scotsman guide

Ad. --fvw* 00:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 15:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

S'FEAR DISK

This game was apparently created two days ago. That should say it all. Delete. — JIP | Talk 07:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well i actually followed the rules and played with a bunch of my buddies and this game is amazing. Why dont you give it a try before you knock it. All great games start out somewhere. This one needs a chance to grow, let it fly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.249.65 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Glad to hear it's a fun game. However, Wikipedia is not the place to spread it. If it becomes popular to the extent that there are verifiable references to it out there, then we will gladly give it an article. While it's unknown and unverifiable, it's not an appropriate subject. Haeleth 19:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How can something be more verifiable then by the creators themselves? Everything has to begin somewhere. - Dr. Resnick M.D.

If something is first published here, it's considered original research, which is not allowed as per WP:NOR. As mentioned above, if the game gets popular enough, and other sources can be cited, then Wikipedia can have an article about it. Bjelleklang - talk 20:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stop living in the past Agamemnon, embrace the future. S'FEAR DISK

DO NOT DELETE Stop being sticklers about one rule of credibility and allow innovative ideas to prosper. Do you enjoy electricity? Well it would have never been invented with anti-progressive people as yourselves.

It's not about being anti-progressive, it's just that if you allow any recently-invented game to have it's own article, wp would be overflowed by them. WP is not an advertising board, if you want to promote the game, set up your own site for that purpose, and create an article when you can cite sources who claim that the game is a success that has caught on by the general public! Bjelleklang - talk 08:41, 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 KEEP (nomination withdrawn). Robert 00:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shanda

Delete. Blatant advertising. Content is a link.  freshgavinTALK   06:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So there it was -   -;;. Withdrawl nomination in favour of speedy delete.  freshgavinTALK   06:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 15:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

She Put

Obvious hoax/joke --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 22:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • DON'T DELETE She-Put is most definitely not a hoax. It is a group of law students committed to radically reforming legal pedagogy as we know it. Why wouldn't Wikipedia want to be on the forefront of such a movement? KEEP THIS ENTRY -- DO NOT DELETE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.124.165.68 (talk • contribs) 03:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DON'T DELETE She-Put is not a hoax. It doesn't even bear the hallmarks of a hoax: Hoaxes don't work by celebrating and embracing absurdity but, rather, by holding out the absurd as mundane. She Put as a hoax is about as effective as a parody of "Airplane!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.60.121 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DON'T DELETE As for the allegedly "non-encyclopedic" nature of She-Put, query, what is the entire point of having a resource like Wikipedia? Wikipedia taps the collective knowledge of anybody who cares to participate, in order to assemble a comprehensive information source not subject to the limitations of traditional information markets. All law students currently involved in She-Put are augmenting the information base about the movement. The society running it is semi-secret, but it's activites are already public amongst law students. That publicity is currently local, but growing. What good reason is there for deleting this entry? Again, this cannot be a hoax - that just doesn't make sense - and what harm inheres in providing more information at virtually no cost? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.60.121 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • DON'T DELETE She-Put is categorically NOT a hoax. Rather, it is a very real organization of law students dedicated to its tenets and determined to ensure its success throughout future generations of law school students in search of an organization designed to provide meaning and substance to an otherwise banal law school career. As to its verifiability - members of She-Put have a First Amendment right to expressive association and the mere existence of the organization renders it inherently verifiable. The organization likewise has a First Amendment right to the freedom of speech, and the informative article currently under consideration for deletion on Wikipedia harmlessly describes this critically important organization using no offensive, untrue, or unencyclopedic descriptors. An encyclopedia serves to provide information about a wide range of topics, and this article merely provides information about this burgeoning and exciting law school movement. DO NOT DELETE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.124.163.77 (talk • contribs) 05:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DON'T DELETE The group currently has a board of directors, including a president, a marketing campaign director, and two community outreach chairs. The organization is legitimate, and the presence of this article is certainly not causing anyone harm. Pleae don't delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.124.166.70 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 19 October 2005
  • Comment. Whether or not being "not harmful," on its own, is insufficient reason to let the article stand, it doesn't "prove" that the article isn't sufficient for the "'pedia." It simply needs other justification. All you've done is argue against one justification, not all of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.124.163.10 (talk • contribs) 06:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay, it's not a hoax. But delete as non-noatable vanity. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib)
    • Comment for anonymous users: Thank you for posting your views. Unfortunitly, your votes cannot be counted. This is not anything against you personally, it is just a policy we have to prevent ballot stuffing. Also, see the Meatpuppet policy.
    • Comment for User:24.148.60.121: Please not not edit comments posted by other IPs. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 11:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any basis here for suggesting that users are "meatpuppeting." That seems unnecessarily antagonistic.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.124.162.102 (talk • contribs)

Sorry, I wasn't suggesting anyone was meatpuppeting. I was just pointing it out in case anyone thought that if they signed up for an account their vote would be worth more than if it were posted anonymously. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 12:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, when there are seven separate votes from the same IP block at Northwestern University, that's pretty much classic meatpuppetry. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 16:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like my warning was ignored. Now there is definate meatpuppetry. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 17:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Can multiple people meatpuppet? It's the same BLOCK, Fish. It doesn't mean it's the same person. We're law students. We are at the school all the time, sharing a BLOCK. Capiche?
Have you read the Meatpuppet policy? - Dalbury 21:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I have. If there's confusion, they're treated as one user. What's the confusion, Samurai? TheBradSeed 03:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You asked, "Can multiple people meatpuppet?" That's the definition of "meatpuppet", i.e., when several people are posting in a way that looks like a sockpuppet. I can't tell whether there's one of you or several of you, so there is confusion. And please be careful how you address others in this forum. "Samurai" could be taken to be pejorative. Wikipedia:Civility - Dalbury 04:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That this might suggest meatpuppetry proves nothing. In fact, it makes sense given the local emergence of She-Put. TheBradSeed 17:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As befitting future lawyers, that is a very legalistic comment. :) --
Go NU Law!TheBradSeed 21:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
N-law! Viva She-Put! I must say, Alice, we have stumbled upon a dimension even stranger than law school. Would it help if we presented She-Put at DragonCon? ( ;) j/k) --24.148.60.121 22:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 20:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It employs a viral marketing campaign strategy within very specific confines--law schools. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.37.186.62 (talk • contribs) 12:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Yes, the viral marketing campaign is aimed at spreading popularity of the organization to other law schools, and the Wikipedia entry is simply not a part of that. Compare my prior comments on the necessity of this not being a hoax: any information source that mentions a viral marketing campaign is, by definition, not a part of any viral marketing campaign. Note finally that - if Wikipedians deleted everything that has been promoted at one point or another by a viral marketing campaign - this would require deletion of articles on many consumer products, e.g. likely everything made in the last 10 or 15 years by an apparel company with brand recognition, for starters. This would also include soft drinks and the like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.60.121 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the proof that is viral marketing campain is notable? --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 14:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That you haven't succeed in proving to yourself that it's verified does not make it unverifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.37.235.251 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy says it does. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 17:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. First, re claims that the no "no harm" argument is a desperater, it is not. It just highlights the fact that the article bears no substantial risk of providing "bad" information to Wiki readers. Moreover, its inclusion amongst several better arguments precludes desperater status; it's just thrown in there to make an additional, albeit weaker, point. Additionally, it just doesn't follow from the presence of even a terrible argument that no good argument exists. Weak arguments are often used to support strong conclusions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.60.121 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Second, as to verifiability: When numerous people claim to have organized for a particular purpose, that they have is inescapable, unless of course they are lying. In this context, the only real reason that we would have to lie is to perpetrate a hoax and, as noted above, that just doesn't make sense, here. Thus, for the purposes of this article, our claims are self-verifying. We do admit, however, that there is a distinction between the goals of an organization and its actual effects; thus, if it would make other Wikipedians more comfortable as to the quality and accuracy of the article, we have no problem with removal of the segment on viral marketing specifically. That we intended to use such a campaign is one thing, whether or not it is substantial is another, and so we concede verifiability problems, there. Finally, we aren't trying to abuse Wikipedia but to add information to it. That something like She Put could be documented here is a testament to the advantages of this particular sort of information source. Let's not overstate Wikipedia's policies: much of the information included herein is not verifiable in the traditional sense, but references obscure phenomena, such as trends in the tastes of comic book aficionados etc. If the policies were as stringent as those used by traditional information sources, the benefits Wikipedia would be very attenuated. Rather, these policies aim at preventing the spread of "bad" information - certainly a worthy goal - but the content in the She Put article really doesn't pose a risk of spreading "bad" information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.60.121 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
See WP:V for Wikipedia's official policy on verifiability. If you can't meet the guidelines set here, you have no argument as to why this article should be kept. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 16:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We have met the requisite criteria. It sounds like you are strictly interpreting the policy that "One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher"; if that is truly the case, then about half of the material on here should be nixed. This may have been official policy at the inception, but is clearly not adhered to, at all. See, e.g., Doom for the wholly unsupported and unverifiable proposition that "The development of Doom was surrounded by much anticipation. The large number of posts in Internet newsgroups about Doom led to the SPISPOPD joke, to which a nod was given in the game in the form of a cheat code. In addition to news, rumors, and screenshots, unauthorized leaked alpha versions also circulated online. (Many years later these alpha versions were sanctioned by id Software because of historical interest; they reveal how the game progressed from its early design stages.)" This is only the first example that came to mind. It is a canon of construction that, if one interpretation of a rule leads to absurd results, that interpretation cannot be used. Likewise, if one possible meaning is systematically ignored for a long period of time, that also suggests that the interpretation is unworkable and not worthy of adopting. For instance, it is well accepted that - strictly speaking - it is unconstitutional for the federal government to print paper money. Because of the history of this practice, and the absurd results that would inhere in reverting to a strict interpretation, no commentators today seriosuly suggest that the practice is actually unconstitutional. Similarly, you are asserting a strict interpretation of the policy that is clearly not followed at all, and that nobody really takes seriously, here. --J-Bizzle 16:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know that it's "truly unsupported and unverifiable"? Have you looked through all the references cited in article? Wikipedia does not contain academic articles where every claim needs to be cited, but all statements made in the articles should be verifiable somehow. The verifiability policy is enforced through edit corrections in the case of existing articles, or the AFD process for new ones. Additionally, just because a policy isn't always strictly enforced doesn't mean it should be ignored. For example, eBay prohibits the sale of counterfeit goods, but there are a large number of auctions for fake purses or bootleg DVDs. eBay relies on its users to police its auctions, just as Wikipedia relies on its users to police its articles. There are upwards of 800,000 articles on the site; editing/deleting the ones that violate policies takes time and effort, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't be doing it. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 17:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Do Not Delete The group's philanthropic and sociopolitical efforts negate arguments that this amounts merely to vanity. The group is notable and its notariety is increasing. The direction of the change argues for inclusion. See Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002). TheBradSeed 16:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC) User's first and only edit. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 16:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response: Does that really matter? Unlike traditional information sources, which focus on the qualifications of their editors - looking to traditional resume type indicia - Wikipedia is a place where an idea should stand on its own.--J-Bizzle 17:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does, because it reflects your knowledge of Wikipedia policies. If your only edits are in regards to this AFD nomination, it shows you know little about how things work here and why some articles are kept and others are deleted. Thus, your vote carries a lot less weight than say, an administrator, or someone who has thousands of edits and has weighed in on many AFD nominations. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 17:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I understand the need to police Wikipedia, but given the strength, seriousness, and sheer volume of the arguments below, query whether these voices are really worth silencing. Pages for deletion are typically jokes, vanity references to people's names, or a mess of sheer incoherence: nobody bothers to defend. We are vigorously defending She Put, not for vanity but to have good information about it available. As for verifiability, please see my comments below [now located above --hc] regarding the absurdity of an overly strict interpretation of Wikipedia policy.--J-Bizzle 17:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Strength" is in the eye of the beholder here. In terms of criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia, the arguments your group members have made are not particularly strong, as evidenced by all the delete votes from experienced Wikipedia editors. "Volume" is also a non-issue, as Wikipedia is not a democracy and meatpuppets' votes are essentially ignored. Also, you seem to misunderstand "vanity" as used here; please see Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines for what we mean by that term. Nobody here is arguing that your group is vain or unworthy of existence, only that it does not merit inclusion in the encyclopedia. If She Put becomes at one point a big enough movement that it transcends multiple law schools and has an influence on a large number of students, then it deserves an article. Also, please place your comments at the end, or directly below other items you're commenting on, not above the nomination itself. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 17:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete! She-put is not a hoax, only those who fear what they don't understand would make such an uninformed accusation. Open your minds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joysky (talk • contribs) 21:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC), user's first and only edit[reply]

Comment. As pointed out by User:Howcheng, a number of anonymous votes were entered from an IP block at Northwestern University. - Dalbury 10:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I missed that. Nevertheless, I still haven't been able to find any independent proof of this group's existence at Northwestern (I don't think anonymous comments are "independent proof"), and student organizations that exist at only one school are generally non-notable anyway. --Metropolitan90 05:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A number of anonymous IP addresses at one school could also be the work of one student with access to public computer clusters and too much free time. I don't see that it constitutes proof. -Colin Kimbrell 15:09, 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. Robert 00:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Simon keller's giant tortoise

I cannot find any information about this on the web. The links provided are not related. Written by two anons as their first edits. Karol 09:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I imagine that this page is part serious part joke. The serious part is that that Simon Keller has probally used the example of beleiving that there is a giant tortorise that is the world/is god in orrder to show, reductio ad absurdum stylely, what he beleives to be the sillyness of Relativism. The silly part is presenting the article as if he really beleives it/ment it to be taken seriously. The article could be improved to take out the silly part and leave only the serious, however Simon Kellers use of silly examples to refute relativism is not exactly orriginal or notable as a particular example and none or his reasurch papersappear to be about it.--JK the unwise 09:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not Delete Tortism is a serious example used by Keller on several occasions. Applying the Giant Tortoise to different aspects of philosophy is a practical way of illustrating that philosophy, as its principles also cover the desire and objective list theories, as well as Utilitarianism. It can be adapted to nearly any philosophical theory.--JetpackrocketbabyII 04:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
An understandable sentiment, considering that created the page. Dxco 10:50, 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. --Celestianpower háblame 15:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Slawesome


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 15:16, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Smash my ipod

Non-notable, advertisement 136.150.200.99 17:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 15:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Smug

dicdef plus POV foolishness GTBacchus 10:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (feel free to merge). -Doc (?) 23:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Snowboard Kids 2

Not notable and very short. Drue 21:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 15:16, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Soffront CRM

Advertisment. No notability established. --S.K. 07:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Nanostub/incomplete sentence redirected to Police Quest

Sonny Bonds

N-n, if kept it should be merged Molotov (talk)
04:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not much to merge, but it'll make a good redirect if there aren't any objections. - Lucky 6.9 04:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. Molotov (talk)
04:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -Doc (?) 23:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sony Arianto Kurniawan

Founder of Sony AK Knowledge Center, which has twice had consensus to delete (1, 2). No other assertion of notability. —Cryptic (talk) 22:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 15:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spaderman

This comic book claims to be a "cult success in South Florida and Orlando". Few details are given and I can't find anything on google. Can anyone vouch for it? JJay 01:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -Doc (?) 23:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Steak sauce

Do we honestly need an article about steak sauce? I am sure the Heinz 57 or A1 is already here, thus, all info already covered here on the Wiki. Molotov (talk)
16:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grue is the name of a high protein oatmeal-based concoction used in Arkansan prisons for punishment rations- edible and nourishing, but revolting.

Grue was also at the center of a 1970s Supreme Court case -- prisoners claimed the food was unconstitutionally bad, and the court agreed that the grue-serving prison was violating the 8th amendment, inflicting cruel and unusual punishment. It is mentioned in an NPR article on a currently suspect prison dish "the loaf." [1]  Grue  17:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Barclay, Eliza. "Loaf Article". NPR. Retrieved 6 January 2014.
  • Keep with a minor cleanup as notable sauce in wide use. Capitalistroadster 18:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There were already 48 articles in Category:Sauces. This is number 49. Ground Zero | t 19:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all y'all. Really, in most cases, I find a generic name for a type of product far more significant than the names of particular brands of said product (ie. "home computer" is a far more important topic than "Dell home computer"). The article definitely needs work, but the topic is easily notable enough. -- Captain Disdain 20:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Keep. Do not assume everyone in the world knows what "steak sauce" is just because it is common in North America and the UK. There are places in the world where it is virtually unknown, even though steak is common. This is an encyclopedia, after all. (And as I once told the waiter when he gave me a dirty look at The Plaza in NYC, "I've asked for A1 steak sauce in classier joints than this.")--Nicodemus75 21:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience it's pretty much unknown as "steak sauce" in the UK, in fact. US "steak sauce" is pretty much exactly what we Brits call "brown sauce" (it being sauce and, er, brown...). I feel a redirect from [[Brown sauce]] coming on, except that's already a redirect to HP sauce. Tonywalton  | Talk
That is a bad redirect because HP is not the only brown sauce in the UK. I have been served Lea & Perrins brown sauce (not the Worcestershire sauce) with steaks at some pubs.--Nicodemus75 01:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, and when it's not daft o'clock in the morning I'll put together a Brown Sauce article. Too many other things to do right now. Tonywalton  | Talk 22:26, 20 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 15:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Steps To Take In Designing An Interior Space For A Client

Delete — a how-to mingled with original research, neither of which is what Wikipedia is. -Splashtalk 01:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -Doc (?) 23:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sumner Stone

This article is completely un-encyclopedic in formulation and content and is worse than no article on Sumner Stone. 134.96.234.33 12:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -Doc (?) 23:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Superstitial

Appears to be simply an ad for a spam company. Ifnord 21:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete does not assert notabilty --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 22:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the subject itself is very very very vaguely notable (as far as "pisses of thousands of people every day and they once had an article about them in Slashdot, which lead to Flamage, how unusual") but there's not much more to be said. Whatever's said here can easily be assimilated into some other article about Web advertising. Well, if someone bothers, or something. Not otherwise. --Wwwwolf 22:39, 20 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 NO CONSENSUS. -Doc (?) 22:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish cocktail

Delete. I've changed outlook on Wikipedia since I added it, and even if it's most likely true, it's still excecution trivia. Perhaps it could be mentioned in Thirty Years' War, but I don't really don't see how, since trivia isn't supposed to be included. Peter Isotalo 23:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article is notable and is appropriate for a torture stub. Most articles under that category are similar to this article in terms of size and notability anyway. Solarusdude 01:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • How is it notable? It's a very minor detail of a very big war that's been mentioned once by one author as far as I can tell. Please note that verifiability (a somewhat weak one in this case) isn't the same thing as notability. Most things can be proven to have occured or existed, but that doesn't make them notable. That we have articles on equally obscure topics doesn't prove anything except that we've haven't deleted them yet. / Peter Isotalo 09:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with a page on torture methods. Fred-Chess, 13:21, 20 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. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 23:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Burning of the School

Article is more based on original research then anything else especially in the summary paragraph and the lyrics added on, does not seem worthy of its own article to me. Cloveious 03:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - This parody of the Battle Hymn is actually documented - I heard Sarah Vowell refer to it in a very well-researched talk recently. (The talk itself is linked from her page!) The lyrics shown on the page are variations that have been around for decades - perhaps sources are needed? GTBacchus 05:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is indeed an actual parody. We used to sing it back in the fifth or sixth grade. We made it up, actually. Even so, I would not have then, nor would I now, expect that it would warrant an entire article in an encyclopedia. Consider merging with Battle Hymn of the Republic. Barring that, delete.—Gaff ταλκ 07:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change of heart...keep.—Gaff ταλκ 07:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Needs improvement. Cultural universal. Valid U.S. folklore. Probably as universal as playing Elgar's Pomp and Circumstance March #1 at graduation. Present article weak but can be researched and improved. In a suburb of New York circa 1960 lyrics were ".../We have slaughtered all the teachers/We have broken every rule/We made pies of Mandy/And they came in very handy/Our class goes marching on/Glory, glory, Hallelujah/Mandy hit me with a ruler/So I bopped her on the bean/With a rotten tangerine/Our class goes marching on!" "Mandy" being one particular teacher, of course... In a suburb of Boston circa 1980 I have it on good authority that the lines were "/Glory, glory, Hallelujah/Teacha hit me with a ruler/So I hid behind the door/With a loaded .44/Now our teacha don't teach no more." Now, how about Never laugh when a hearse goes by/For you may be the next to die/They rap you up in a big white sheet/And drop you down about fifty feet? etc. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless verifiable sources provided. —Wahoofive (talk) 15:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Valid folklore, and a wiki is an ideal medium for collecting variations. Perhaps it could be part of a larger article about childhood song parodies. Perodicticus 15:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wahoofive. Molotov (talk)
    16:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)    [reply]
Changed to keep Molotov (talk)
21:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Verifiable and well known song with references added by User Periodictus. The book Greasy Grimy Gopher Guts as cited by Periodictus refers to it see [26]

Capitalistroadster 18:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 23:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Next World (band)

Nn band User:Purplefeltangel/sig 00:11, 19 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 KEEP. -Doc (?) 22:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Templar Revelation

If this book is pseudohistory, would it not be a good idea to include some sort of scholastic refutation or discussion of the book, instead of just making grandiose claims about it? 24.250.156.178 15:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

comment Personally I think it's a bad faith nom, and should be speedy kept, the nom itself wasn't completed in correct manner. Thanks for fixing the pages, couldn't quite see what was going on there. Alf melmac 16:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 23:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TrossmanPrinciple

A cursory Google will reveal that this does not exist, and the page itself implies that the writer took it upon him/herself to name an idiosyncratic observation after themselves. Jogloran 12:50, 7 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 15:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tsurikichi Doumei

A content-free article for a non-notable Doujin circle Squibix 23:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 15:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Underground Sound System

neologism. Dictdef. delete. DES (talk) 06:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -Doc (?) 22:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unplugged (Alicia Keys album)

Too short, formatting gone wrong. Could be recreated at a later date if effort is put into it.  Thorpe talk 19:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -Doc (?) 22:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Urine tax

Strange new page, possible hoax, almost speedied but then I saw it had references. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain, don't know if this is real or not, let this AfD decide :) Redwolf24 (talk) 23:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*'Delete Looks like a hoax Urine Tax???? --JAranda | watz sup 23:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 15:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vicious Viper

Delete as advertising. Eddie.willers 02:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 15:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vuja De

joke definition, no possibilty for expansion, BJAODN's too good for it. GTBacchus 05:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. All "keep" votes are obviously by sock puppets. — JIP | Talk 09:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whoo-ride

Neologism. Google shows that the word is occasionally used, but I've failed to confirm that the meaning is what is stated in the article (or, indeed, that the phrase has any specific meaning). Ashenai (talk) 17:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The word is used, and the context is clear by the usage. You should be able to confirm the definition solely by the usage. I'm not sure if you follow football or not...it's fairly well-known. Frank Longo (talk) 18:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User "Frank Longo" does not exist. Comments by this person are really from 152.3.80.63. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 23:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I do exist. Thanks for trying though. Frank Longo 02:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
User did not exist at the beginning of this vote (the history is quite clear); however, it's reasonable to assume that comments signed by him are his. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 13:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant is that there was no user account "Frank Longo," not that Frank Longo as a person doesn't exist. I see that you have since created an account. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 16:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I could certainly be wrong. Could you please provide a specific, independent source? --Ashenai (talk) 18:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also, what the heck happened to your comment timestamp there? If you edited it, well, please don't do that. If the Wiki added it, um, we have a bug? --Ashenai (talk) 18:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I've never had to discuss anything here before so I wasn't sure of the format. In terms of specific independent sources, I could try to find the specific episodes/games where Stuart Scott and John Madden have said it...there hasn't been like an article in the NY Times about the whoo-ride phenomenon as of yet, if that's what you mean...all the people I know who watch American football know its definition, and since it's been on primetime broadcasts on network TV and cable, I guess I assumed everyone knew what it meant. *shrug* --Frank Longo (talk) 18:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I have edited Longo's original entry. I have improved the quality, removed the incorrect information, and formatted correctly. Please forgive Frank, he means well but he got in over his head. Please see the revisions and approve for inclusion. cereffusion
  • keep I don't understand the grievance here. Meaning and usage are very clear. Better articulation of the disagreement would be helpful. zenothegreat
    • Note: Likely sockpuppet of Cereffusion. This is the Zenothegreat's first edit. Note that both posts are extremely similar in format (examples: ''' keep'''; [[(username)]]; double spaces between sentences). --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 23:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also note that if it is zenothegreat's first edit, he probably doesn't know the proper formatting, much like I didn't know it when I first joined and I still learn new things about today. We can't all be computer nerds. Frank Longo 02:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Assuming the accounts are two separate people, you would be correct, but the formatting similarities between the two make me think it's the same person. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 16:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Dawg, they are two different people I have seen them on the sports boards I frequent son. --Randy_Jackson
  • keep The last two comments are valid. I misunderstood a bit of the details, but knew the gist. Cereffusion helped clarify and formulate. I hope everyone now sees the term's merit for inclusion. Frank Longo
  • Delete as neologism. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 23:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • I'm sorry, but labeling all terms you've not heard as "neologism" seems to rule out what one would think Wikipedia is. Sure, it's not urbandictionary, yet the wiki editors have failed to slay "bling bling" as "neologism" and are worried about a term now circulating in the broadcast booths of ABC and Fox? Come on now. And the attempted witch-hunting of those that have found this term by random and wish to validate it is a bit out of touch. -benine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.211.31 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 20 October 2005:
    • Exactly the point for why it should stay. Well put. Frank Longo 02:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • explain then, howcheng, how "bling-bling" is either stable or undiffused in current cultural use and how it became an entry in wikipedia. Porous editing on the wikimasters part and inconsistent use of the "neologism" application. I think you should re-examine your standards.-benine (post work IP here::) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.148.248.63 (talk • contribs) 12:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Bling Bling can be regarded as a stable neologism because it has widespread acceptance and recognition among much of the American population. Ask people if they've heard of the term and most people will say yes. If you look through the history of that page, you'll see it was sent to VfD shortly after its creation, but it survived the process, so it had enough consensus among Wikipedia editors that it was worth keeping (unfortunately, that was before we archived the discussions). Note who's voting "delete" here -- all but one are experienced Wikipedia editors, which should demonstrate that those who are familiar with the standards of what gets kept in the encyclopedia don't think "whoo-ride" worth an entry yet. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 15:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • From my significant amount of personal experience, if someone and their pals fixes the vote by voting non-explanation-supported, any old crap can be kept, including articles on each character from the movie Glitter and seperate articles about Mah-ri-yah Carey's version of "Santa Claus Is Comin' to Town". As such, AfD isn't the best example of Wikipedia rules at work. These guys are actually providing some explanations. I therefore abstain from voting. vote a strong keep. --FuriousFreddy 07:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP -I've heard Whoo-ride for a long time now, and never knew what it meant. You know why you think you never heard it? It's because YOU never knew what it meant, therefore never thought twice about it. See how many times you hear it in the next few months. -IronF — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.220.89 (talk • contribs)
  • KEEP- You mean there are people who DON'T want to educate others on "Whoo-ride"? It's one of the most misused phrases I've ever heard.-I Heart Sex Boats User's first and only edit — Lomn | Talk / RfC 13:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. I'm not sure about this John Madden claim. And even if it is true, a lot of nonsense comes out of that man's mouth that doesn't necessarily deserve it's own entry. But "whoo-ride" is pretty widespread among internet sports discussion, and an entry explaining it seems logical and useful. Colonelk 09:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC) User's first and only edit — Lomn | Talk / RfC 13:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Dawg, many internet dorks like myself have used this and continue to use this word. Just because some of you may have never heard of it does not mean it should not be included on Wik, I'm just being honest dawg. Dude, it is a term that started at one message board and has spread to others because most people correspond on more than on message board. Dawg, this is my first entry to Wik and it will not be my last. Randy_Jackson October 22, 2005
  • Comment We've got an entire category of internet slang terms here, many of which I have never heard before in my entire life. If and when those are deleted, you can make off with this one as well. --FuriousFreddy 18:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: If the entry about "the endless november" Usenet phenomenon gets to stay, then I'll be damned if I'm not going to vote a hearty KEEP for "whoo-ride". There exist many subjects on wikipedia that are esoteric, arcane, or seemingly silly. Having them in a collected place is valuable. Anyway, "whoo-ride" apparently isn't just a slang term, but a phenomenon similar to a Clutch Underdog Victory, and such and such. Jeff Reardon comes to mind, and that kicker for the new england Patriots. They both showed the "right stuff" at the right place at the right time when everyone dismissed them as having the "wrong stuff" at the wrong place at the wrong time. I rest my case. KEEP. (But I don't condone the name-fraud or whatever's been going on here.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.119.232.167 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 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. --Celestianpower háblame 15:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki index

not an encyclopediac page as it stands; smells like OR. Tagged as a speedy, but IMO does not qualify. DES (talk) 22:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 15:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWisdom

Non-notable wiki. Its main page has been accessed less than 5000 times. Alexa has no data on it. We can't have an article on every wiki on the Internet. Joel7687 12:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:ISNOT a web directory. 179 unique Google hits after you remove the home domain, and most of those look to be some sort of commercial dot-com chain, not an actual Wiki. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 15:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 15:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wpas

Delete as useless information. If this was the call sign of a current station then why not have an article concerning 'Station WZHR' and refer to its old call letters therein? Eddie.willers 02:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FLog%2F2005_October_19