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

The result of the debate was Delete (18/6).--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 01:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a small, local (Dublin, Ireland) message board. They claim only about 500 members. Alexa shows no traffic data. Joyous | Talk 00:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Mere vanity... 9cds 00:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Ahem, but did you check out the actual web site? Here it is if you haven't bothered: http://s7.invisionfree.com/Whopper_Buzzes/index.php? You've got sections with 700 topics and 20,000 replies and you are saying that it's not notable? If you add up all the replies total, you are up to 91,606 posts. Now, if you were to compare this with, say, Encyclopaedia Dramatica, the comparisons would be favourable. It also has a second claim to notoriety besides mere popularity. Its also a word to mean a heightened state of bliss. I don't think we have any choice here. Zordrac 01:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Why, yes. As a matter of fact, I did visit the site. Whatever made you think I wouldn't go look for myself? Yes, they do have lots of conversations and replies, but they only have about 500 registered members, which seems small for forum to rate inclusion here. As for the second "claim to notoriety," why would the name they chose have any effect on the importance of the forum? What source says it means "a heightened state of bliss"? Joyous | Talk 02:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Message boards on the Web are a dime a dozen; this one needs some reason for notability beyond a narrow community to keep. (And "Whopperbuzz" sounds like it ought to be the feeling you get when you eat a Burger King Whopper!) *Dan T.* 02:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Whopper Buzz is a slang word in common useage in Dublin Ireland. Not only as its described on this page i.e. that was a whopper Buzz, meaning that was a good time, but also just as an exclamation of pleasure (for example... Jim: Here's the keys to my new Porsche Bob: WhopperBuzz!) I hear it all the time I dont think you can delete it its a real thing. As for the forum definition I'd make it a secondary meaning. What can I say... its a Dublin thing essentially. I never knew its origin so this page has done exactly what wikipedia's supposed to do. Share the knowledge! Llogic 03:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; but add to Wiktionary if it's really in common usage. Peyna 04:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable... that is all. (Notorious4life 05:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete lacks notability.MONGO 07:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete not even close to WP:WEB. ∴ here…♠ 07:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

wiktionary indeed if common slang.. ∴ here…♠ 07:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

changing to vanity / neologism, the article is not about the message board (anymore). Apparently, the message board exists to promote the term, though this is mentioned nowhere at the site. ∴ here…♠ 19:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete forum entry based on WP:WEB. Include dic def in wiktionary if it can be sourced. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is one of a small number of slang words where the first instance of use can be traced to a specific time and place. It would be a shame if this information was not recorded. Blue jumper 12:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Mgm as ever. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 12:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Zordrac. Stifle 14:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: It's really of no consequence that the board is active or not, at least to me. What's at the heart of the matter is whether this site is discussed by outsiders, such as regular newspapers and magazines (in print). Some things, like Match.com, get press because they become the example of online dating, but, other than sites that either cause mass effects or get outside notice, Wikipedia ought not be covering them, as it is not a web guide. Geogre 15:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Zordrac. --Aleron235 20:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Zordrac. Trollderella 21:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:WEB and common sense. No notability at all.  RasputinAXP  _{talk contribs} 21:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Notability is not part of deletion policy. Trollderella 21:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment: From WP:GD "* Non-notable, nn or vanity mean that the user thinks the subject fails to meet Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines either due to its obscurity or lack of differentiation from others of its type." --hydnjo talk 22:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • I know what they mean by it, it's just not part of deletion policy. Trollderella 22:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I know that you know, but it's better than saying "This article is a piece of crap."  RasputinAXP  _{talk contribs} 00:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, and that isn't a reason to delete either. Improve it if you don't like it. Trollderella 01:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • It can be improved by nuking it from orbit. --Calton | Talk 01:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Actually, fun as it seems to be for deletionists to try to remove their least favourite articles, it is an abuse. Improve articles, don't destroy things. Trollderella 01:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • There's more point to improving articles that have at least an outside chance of becoming relevant. Even though I say I'm a deletionist I don't vote delete every time. I'd have thought you'd be immune to trolling. :P  RasputinAXP  _{talk contribs} 03:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Well said, I suppose I should be immune! ;) Trollderella 06:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:WEB is a proposed policy, please mention this when using it as grounds for a vote. Peyna 22:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. nn - vanity. --hydnjo talk 21:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There's already a perfectly good article for the college at Ardscoil Rís, surely that's the place to mention this if anywhere. Flowerparty■ 23:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Surely that is not a viable argument. Just because the students that claim have begun the use of this expression were from a certain school does not mean this subject should be mentioned on that school's page. Surely, by that logic, everything on wikipedia should be on the school page of whatever person/people is/are involved.Blue jumper 11:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable. And before the aptly named Trollderella speaks up with the claim that "Notability is not part of deletion policy", it's called Deductive reasoning:
  • notable says that articles are obscure, unverifiable, or lack differentiation from others of its type should not be included.
  • This article's subject is obscure, unverifiable, and lacks differentiation from others of its type.
  • Therefore it should not be included; i.e, deleted.

--Calton | Talk 01:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Erm? My claim that notability is not part of deletion policy is based on the fact that notability is not part of deletion policy. It's just not. You know it's not. You link to Wikipedia:Importance, piping it to make it look like 'notability', when, in fact, 'importance' is proposed policy (it's first paragraph says that it may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption.) Not, in fact, policy at all. Not even a guideline, and not, frankly, likely to become one. Your comments are abusive and deceptive. Trollderella 01:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your claim is based on the false assumption that there is an exhaustive list of valid grounds for deletion. Radiant_>|< 18:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • And yours on the false assumption that you can delete anything you like anytime you like for any reason, even one that the community has specifically asked you not to. Trollderella 19:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Very well. Delete, neologism, WP:NOT a publisher of original thought with direct reference to neologisms, as per WP:GD. oh, and non-notable too.  RasputinAXP  _{talk contribs} 03:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, neither the neologism nor the message board warrants a Wikipedia entry. --Metropolitan90 05:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unless the lack of credible sources is remedied, this appears to violate Wikipedia:Verifiability --redstucco 10:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn. WP:WEB. Radiant_>|< 18:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice link to a proposal to make it look like it's polciy! ;) Trollderella 19:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to a proposal does not mean "I am sneakily trying to claim that this is policy", it means "the reason I think this should be deleted is that it does not meet these proposed guidelines for inclusion, which I support". The fact that WP:WEB is not policy is amply obvious to anyone who reads the disclaimer at the top of it. Here's another page that isn't policy, but may be relevant: WP:FAITH. — Haeleth Talk 12:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The message board has no Alexa taffic rank. *drew 08:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You would do well to note that the message board is not the subject of the article. Blue jumper 13:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Early versions of the article did focus on the message board, but it has been changed since. As an article on the term itself, it probably belongs on Wiktionary, if it's in large enough usage not to be a neologism, but should only be on Wikipedia if there's enough cultural history and background behind it to deserve a full encyclopedia article. *Dan T.* 01:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as follows:
  1. The section on the slang term fails the policy WP:V. It does not really belong here anyway, since WP:NOT a dictionary; if the word can be verified and citations provided, it should be transwiki'd to Wiktionary.
  2. This leaves a very short stub about a web forum. Since there is a consensus that WP:NOT a web directory, a precedent exists for deleting web forums of dubious notability. The proposed inclusion criteria, at WP:WEB, suggest that a forum should have "5,000 or more apparently unique members" before it is considered for an article: that is, they should be a full order of magnitude larger than this one. While this is not policy, there is a precedent for using this guideline as a rule of thumb when considering articles on websites. — Haeleth Talk 12:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 23:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neologism. I get about 5 unique pages googling for "htmleet" and 2 for "html337". None of the pages use it in text, just filenames or the like. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- Wikipedia is not a lexicon of leetspeak. Reyk 00:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I've never seen it used in my life.. looks to me like a concept a group of friends thought up, and think is cool. 9cds 00:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: As I suspected, its correct name is different. It should be Html Leet: Google returns 450,000 matches for Html Leet. Some of the links: Used in a fellow named Adam's diaryland entry, Some message board post, "HTML Leet and other sense of stump have, this language is probably the hirnrissigste form of elite:d.". However, in saying that, of the 450,000, unless google is acting up and not displaying things properly, it seems like the majority of them are just ending in .html with leet the next word. But those two references that I did find seemed to back up the article. So perhaps move to Html Leet. But then again, I can imagine leet speakers using this term more, so maybe keep it here. I am not sure at this stage. Zordrac 02:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first link you have there ([1]) says "(and this also provides a welcome opportunity to try out my newfound html leet skills)" -- in other words, his newfound elite html skills. He's not referring to "html leet" as an entity in of itself. Your second reference [2] is a machine translation of a German message; it's just garbled gook. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Seems to be a non-notable neologism. <comment class="historical">The use of bogus pseudo-HTML, often sarcastically, in messages is about as old as HTML itself, anyway.</comment> *Dan T.* 02:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and put whatever is salvageable into Leet_speak. Peyna 04:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - thanks, Zorrdrac and Bunchofgrapes, good spadework. If this is a notable neologism, this is not the right spelling, and if it is notable it should be in Leet speak not here. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 13:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Enochlau 01:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

vanity / not noteable

• Delete - vanity. 9cds 00:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - if nothing else, the place has its own wikicity just for it. Look no further. CD Freaks Wikicity. As far as I know, that's an automatic keep. (mind you, it only seems to have about 10 articles). Zordrac 02:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "automatic keep due to wikicity entry" is new to me. HackJandy 03:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not a Wikicity. That's just a MediaWiki wiki that they set up themselves. Absolutely anyone can set up a MediaWiki wiki: it means absolutely nothing, and certainly does not make this an automatic keep. — Haeleth Talk 12:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The site appears to be well-established and well-trafficked. Its Alexa ranking is 7,342, well within the suggested guidelines at WP:WEB. Joyous | Talk 02:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The Wikicity and Alexa rank together seem sufficient. Superm401 | Talk 04:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that Zordrac is mistaken - there is no Wikicity. Your argument falls back on the Alexa ranking alone. — Haeleth Talk 12:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. per nom. (Notorious4life 05:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• keep, obvious by alexa 7k. ∴ here…♠ 07:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep has sufficient traffic. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Google for link -site gets only about 650 hits, which is small for a supposedly notable site. Alexa ranking is up and down around the magic 10,000, and Wikipedia seems to be a major source of inbound traffic (mainly from DVD, where there is this link: How to identify the real manufacturer of your recordable DVD by DVD Identifier) - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 13:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not a huge fan of inclusion in cases like this, but.. if we use traffic as a guideline, this site passes with flying colors. The forum alone has 1mil posts, 100k threads and 10k users. 2 year alexa graph shows fairly reliable traffic over the long haul with 3 month averages easily above 10k. That link at DVD sounds like spam and should be removed. Keep, even if horribly boring and commercial. ∴ here…♠ 22:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I have to agree with Zat Guy that the site's main business is one-off usage (like, for example, the top listed site for temperature conversions from C to F would be), rather than its main business of freaking out over compact disks. I should also point out that the article is mistitled. Further, the article is now written like advertising, so clean-up is a must if it's kept (which I suspect it will be). Geogre 15:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No valid reason for deletion given, plus, see above. Trollderella 21:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. nn & vanity. hydnjo talk 22:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. From WP:GD: "* Non-notable, nn or vanity mean that the user thinks the subject fails to meet Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines either due to its obscurity or lack of differentiation from others of its type." hydnjo talk 22:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • , Importance is proposed policy, vanity a guideline. Neither are part of deletion policy. Trollderella 23:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• keep please it has a really good alexa rating so erasing this does not make any sense at all Yuckfoo 01:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, passes the inclusion criteria of the WP:WEB guidelines with flying colors. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unless the lack of credible sources is remedied, this appears to violate Wikipedia:Verifiability

--redstucco 11:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This site has very detailed information for a very specific subject area. It is well known for what it does. SchmuckyTheCat 00:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Removing the link from DVD appears to have caused a not insignificant drop in Alexa traffic rank. What do we do about sites which are included partly because of traffic generated by their inclusion? - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 09:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Delete them? Seems like the site took about a 2k hit on alexa ranking, daily down to 9k+. Hard to say if this was primarily due to DVD link removal. Good question though, perhaps take it up at WP:WEB. I'm going to stick on keep here based on the forum stats in addition to the traffic stats. (1mil posts, 100k threads, 10k users.) I think this is a good example of a page which may be borderline improperly included based on WP:WEB, but I'll go keep on borderline. ∴ here…♠ 18:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Borderline keep, since it does currently seem to meet the proposal at WP:WEB. Cleanup is needed, though; if it doesn't get cleaned up, and its Alexa rank continues to fall, bring it back and we can reconsider. — Haeleth Talk 12:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Owen× ☎ 23:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hopelessly POV kenasuta 00:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I think the article could be of use, but needs to be cleaned up to be less POV. 9cds 00:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Talk:List_of_ethnic_conflicts_involving_the_Dutch_Colonialists to Ethnic Conflicts involving Dutch Colonies. Seems to be notable enough to keep.Zordrac 02:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep just because it will be a contentious page that might end up full of POV doesn't make it worthy of deletion. Peyna 03:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename/de-listify. Having a prose article would be much more helpful. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, rename, prose-ify per Zordrac and Mgm. Youngamerican 13:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, rename, prose-ify as stated above. This is better treated in article, not list, format. KillerChihuahua 14:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as above. Trollderella 21:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep this as above please Yuckfoo 01:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Slap an NPOV notice on it if you think it's a problem. Should be prose-ified prosaicized prosidized rewritten as prose. Now, everyone please dig out your old Kingston Trio LP and drop the needle on "A Merry Minuet:" "The whole world is festering with unhappy souls/The French hate the Germans, the Germans hate the Poles/Italians hate Yugoslavs, South Africans hate the Dutch/And I don't like anybody very much." Dpbsmith (talk) 13:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unless the lack of credible sources is remedied, this appears to violate Wikipedia:Verifiability --redstucco 11:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • In cases like this where it's likely that credible sources will exist for many of the claims in the article, the appropriate remedy is an {{unreferenced}} tag, not deletion. — Haeleth Talk 13:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep The Dutch were important in many countries. I know that all you out there will think that England discovered everything, as this is an English Encyclopedia, but they didn't. (sorry) Wallie 15:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, I'll have you know that we English are perfectly aware that the Dutch were also a colonial power: how could we have won the Anglo-Dutch wars and the Boer Wars if there'd been nobody to fight?  :) — Haeleth Talk 13:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I respect the rich, important Dutch tradition. Why, where would we be without "Dutch treat," "to Dutch uncle," and "Dutch courage?" Plus all the little burgs in New York with names Fishkill, Catskill, Roadkill, etc. Now, personally I can do without salty licorice, that that's an entirely 'nother matter. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, an important aspect of history, though some cleanup may be needed - I'm not sure the ethnic conflicts in New York have much to do with the fact that it was once a Dutch colony. Also convert to prose and rename per Zordrac, Mgm, etc. — Haeleth Talk 13:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete (as nonsense -- well, it's nonsense in English anyway) --Nlu 00:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity article in Korean:

• delete - it's somebody's personal love story. --Reuben 00:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - It's Korean. 9cds 00:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 23:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a youth hockey team or youth hockey league (not sure which—the article does not make it clear) in Monroe, Michigan (Detroit area). I got 817 Google hits on Monroe "Ice Hawks" -dallas (apparently there is also an Ice Hawks team in Dallas). I am not sure about this so I will abstain. I don’t know what are the Wikipedia guidelines on articles about amateur/youth sports teams. Let’s hear from some editors more knowledgeable in this area than I am. I added the external link to the team/league’s web page. •DanMS 00:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment : I'm not sure either, as the whole deletion process seems to be in a mess, especially with regards to deletionists pushing through far too many delete votes. My question to you is why put it up for Vfd if you weren't sure? I suggest you should remove the Vfd until someone with some knowledge about it can make a more informed decision, especially given that most Vfds end with articles being deleted. Zordrac 02:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to DanMS and Zordrac. I spend a substantial amount of time on Vfd, and I can tell you that this article is definitely worth its nomination. I live in Monroe, and it's nice to know that someone's trying to get our city out there, but this article fails to accomplish anything and it offers no information in itself. (Notorious4life 05:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Nominating something on AFD and admitting you don't know should attract experts. Anyway, if you're not sure and Googling doesn't help, the creator didn't do their job in starting the article properly with definition and useful sources. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoa, I think you're jumping to conclusions there. The fact that most AfDs result in deletions does not automatically mean that the deletion process is broken! It might, on the contrary, mean that most articles that are nominated for deletion do actually fail to meet official policies. — Haeleth Talk 13:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I live in Monroe; in fact, I live a mile from the complex mentioned in the article. If I don't care about it, what are the chances someone who doesn't even know where Monroe is will care about it? The way the article is written in first-person makes it sound like a self-promotion. (Notorious4life 05:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete. It tells a bit about the Monroe Hockey Association, but only lists trainers for the actual team. Not an article. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: 1) It's not an article, per MGM. 2) It's a purely local matter of purely local concern and therefore below the radar of an encyclopedia. 3) It's a bit of trivia and could conceivably be mentioned (in prose, discursively) in Monroe, Michigan. Thus, if it were an article, it could be merged and redirected. However, it isn't. Geogre 15:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This article is far from encyclopedic. --Metropolitan90 05:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Mgm. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 11:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge with Luke 3. —Cleared as filed. 22:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable person, and a dicdef - CloudedIce 03:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Luke 3. Ice, please put more effort into your nominations: this is nothing more than a vote. A good nomination is an argument for why the article should be deleted; a bad nomination is a vote: "delete, non-notable". Good nominations are preferred. Help make AfD work better! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Jesus genealogy page Sethie 06:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RELISTED NOVEMBER 28, 2005, PLEASE ADD NEW VOTES BELOW THIS NOTICE' Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 00:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

comment relisted due to having only 3 votes at time of close. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 00:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. --Nlu 00:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I think I have a suggestion for why there's been so few votes. The whole thing is confusing! All I got out of it was that Addi was someone's son and someone's father. I think he is probably a part of that whole section where they talk about people begatting each other. But I don't understand it enough to know whether to keep it outright or merge it. Zordrac 02:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Luke 3, as suggested in earlier voting. Joyous | Talk 02:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per all the above. At least the resulting redirect will provide anyone searching for this person with context. Biblical people with only one mention, don't deserve their own article. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Am I the only one to think that this really doesn't provide any information, whether put with another article or not? It's a Who's Who in the Bible entry, and any Bible one reads with any apparatus at all will identify the proper nouns. What on earth is someone doing looking for this little information in an encyclopedia? Geogre 15:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 00:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be non-notable, but want to get others' opinions on this. Speedy delete if people agree that it is speedy deletable. --Nlu 00:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete, because I'm not sure what the current thinking is on being the headmaster of a school. None of the drama entries suggest notability within that field, so headmastering is the only thing that might set him apart from others. Joyous | Talk 02:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It has a photo of him: Image:ColinBlack.jpg (oops, didn't mean to put a photo in the Vfd), has 7 named contributors, and google returns 14,500 google hits. Whilst I struggled to find the bits that refer to the right Colin Black (after all, the Colin Black from http://www.colinblack.com/ is not this one, yet seems to be more notable than this one), the suggestion that he directed Andrew Denton in and of itself asserts notoriety. What we need now is some references to back it up. I am sorry, but I am too tired to wade through 14,500 links to find which one refers to this guy. Does look to be notable though. Zordrac 02:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Googling for "Colin Black" "Andrew Denton" returns precisely 6 hits: the only one which actually appears to relate to this claim of notability is, guess what, the Wikipedia article! So I'm afraid it fails WP:V. — Haeleth Talk 13:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Doesn't qualify for speedy delete, Keep. per Zordac (Notorious4life 05:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. Capitalistroadster 06:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Any claims to notability in this article are completely unverified. Ambi 06:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So why don't we ask them to verify it? If you can wade through the 14,500 google hits then you might be able to do it yourself. If it is true, then its notable. Zordrac 07:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ask whom to verify it? And the AfD notice should be sufficient call for verification of notability. --Nlu 07:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The authors, of course. Zordrac 08:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted, the AfD notice should be sufficient. --Nlu 08:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: He's just a person doing his job. There are tens of thousands of headmasters. They all are esteemed by their student bodies and boards of trustees, but being a headmaster by itself does not give one a platform or profile above the school's own community. Therefore, again and again, the person is not referred to in a context other than his own job and therefore does not need explication in an encyclopedia. (We're not judging the person. We're judging whether the information needs to be present to help explain the world.) Geogre 15:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No valid reason for deletion given. Verifiable. Trollderella 21:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, while I began opposing this deletion because no valid reason for deletion was given, it is, in fact, a really valuable article. I would urge folks to taka another look at it. Trollderella 23:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, does not meet biography criteria.--nixie 23:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which, after all, are guidelines, not part of deletion criteria. Trollderella 02:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia:Verifiability is also relvant--nixie 02:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can't see why we need to include headmasters on wikipedia. --Roisterer 02:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't see why we need to include chemistry, but, somehow, I live with it. Trollderella 02:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep,He's more than just a headmaster!! He is a "prominent educator" that influenced the statewide policies on prevention of bullying and also notable for his dramatic nature!!
• Delete on the basis that someone called him a "prominent educator". (Petty, yes, but oddly reliable.) Deltabeignet 04:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete CSD:A7 is policy. Denni ☯ 04:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But this isn't speedy deletion... Trollderella 06:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say, if an article should be speedy deleted, then that is also good ground to garden-variety delete it. --Nlu 07:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unless the lack of credible sources is remedied, this appears to violate Wikipedia:Verifiability--redstucco 11:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. I read the article, and followed up the links (yes, Trollderella, I generally do unless the article itself makes a clear case either way). The subject is clearly as stated (no major problem with verifiability), but I can't for the life of me see which criteria he meets in WP:BIO. I have performed in three cathedrals, two concert halls and King's College Chapel, and worked with people like Humphrey Lyttleton, Richard Stilgoe, Yehudi Menuhin, Timothy West and Evelyn Glennie. I've been featured in the Times Educational Supplement and interviewed on BBC Radio 4 as well, but I would laugh out loud if anybody suggested I should have an article on WP. I know I set the bar higher than many others, but for me this chap falls below it. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 11:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the bar is actually set by policy, not individual whimsey. As far as I can see, you agree that there is no policy reason to delete this, but feel like it anyway. Trollderella 17:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true. I cannot see which parts of WP:BIO he meets. Which criteria do you think he meets? From my personal perspective I measure his claims to notoriety against my own (as a person I know particularly well, and feel falls well short of inclusion), but in the end I take WP:BIO as a guide. Why is that wrong? - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 19:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, WP:BIO is a guideline. It is not part of deletion policy. Claiming that something should be deleted because of it in the face of people who want to keep it is irresponsible. Trollderella 21:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative view: voting to keep content which clearly does not meet the guidelines, which are backed by strong consensus, is iresponsible.

Alternative alternative view: we vote according to our interpretation of guidelines and policy, and sometimes differ. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 21:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not notable. Replace by an article on the guy from colinblack.com. Radiant_>|< 23:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I happen to know the Colin Black that this article refers to. In all honesty though, his "story" is not dissimilar to many other headmasters etc that exist and would probably be of little benefit to anyone.

Careful with this guy's comment, he is the guy continuously vandalizing the Colin Black and Camberwell Grammar School articles. See 138.217.27.205 (talk • contribs). I wouldn't really trust any of his comments at the moment... --DWZ 09:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nothing special.  Grue  16:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, precedent and consensus say that articles like this one that fail the WP:BIO guideline should be deleted. The one claim for notability is non-verifiable. — Haeleth Talk 13:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 14:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. This is about a possible album/DVD by the band Kamelot, based on something they said in an interview apparently. I can't verify (checked their official site and AMG page) that this album is even for real... no mention of it in any of those places. --W.marsh 23:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Please read Wikipedia:Guide to deletion and note that "merge and delete" are not compatible. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge then delete into Kamelot -- SGBailey 23:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RELISTED NOVEMBER 28, 2005, PLEASE ADD NEW VOTES BELOW THIS NOTICE' Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 00:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

comment relisted due to having only 1 vote at time of close. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 00:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. --Nlu 00:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as crystal ball. Saberwyn 01:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge then delete per SGBailey. Peyna 03:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Avalon (Kamelot album) (to distinguish it from Avalon (album) and then merge so the redirect can remain per GFDL requirement mentioned in the Guide to deletion I mentioned above. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Too much to ask, IMO, to try to salvage this tiny amount of information. When the album is out, we can and should have the information in the Kamelot article. At present, though, we're talking about rumors and plans. Plans are wonderful. I plan to lose 50 lbs. and run a marathon tomorrow. Geogre 15:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, add the one statement about confirmation of the DVD's existence to the Kamelot article. --Aleron235 20:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Geogre. The fifty pounds will be down the back of the sofa. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 11:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and create Geogre's record-breaking weight loss and marathon too... I mean Delete per Geogre. — Haeleth Talk 13:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. —Cleared as filed. 14:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity article for a Buddhist Centre in London. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 18:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete Can't really see a claim to notability, and while it does seem to be a vanity page I'm not sure if it might have some local significance (which I wouldn't know not being from london.) Fallsend 19:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with New_Kadampa_Tradition. Bikeable 19:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RELISTED NOVEMBER 28, 2005, PLEASE ADD NEW VOTES BELOW THIS NOTICE' Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 00:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

comment relisted due to having only 2 votes at time of close. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 00:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. --Nlu 00:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep or merge per Bikeable. Peyna 03:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with New_Kadampa_Tradition HackJandy 06:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Provides a coverage of Buddhism within the London category. CalJW 10:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I just cleaned the article up a little bit (fixing the Wikilinks and the like). The NKT movement is quite notable among Western Buddhists. This particular center seems to be fairly popular (their website claims that they have ~20 resident students, which is fairly high for organizations of this sort), is located in a major urban area, has been around for 15 years, serves a number of locations throughout London, a number of travel sites have profiled them as a destination for visitors to London interested in Buddhism or meditation, etc. --Clay Collier 12:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with New_Kadampa_Tradition. A popular centre may indeed merit a mention and even a section; this one is not significant enough to carry its own article. KillerChihuahua 14:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please it is a good article now Yuckfoo 01:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a verifiable and apparently significant religious centre. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 11:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak merge - only just over 500 Google hits, suggesting that this centre isn't actually all that significant outside its local area. But I wouldn't object to a keep, or to expanding this into a broader article on "Buddhism in London", or anything of that sort; to avoid bias, the bar for inclusion should naturally be set a bit lower for minority religions like Buddhism. — Haeleth Talk 13:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete (should have been deleted as non-notable bio but for the original author's vandalistic actions). --Nlu 01:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When newly created, was a CV/vanity page. I speedied it but the speedy was removed by the original author, so I am AfDing it. The article reads a bit better now though -- SGBailey 23:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Abstain, I don't know enough about this to vote meaningfully. However the fact that the author removed the speedy without due process weighs slightly in favour of delete IMO. -- SGBailey 23:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Here's his website award [3]. FRS 03:53, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but note that the page author has only edited this page and one other and has a use name starting jmax wghich seems close to john maxwell, and the original text for this page has now parked itself on his user page - so I conclude it is a self-edit. The award appears genuine - is it notable? -- SGBailey 09:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RELISTED NOVEMBER 28, 2005, PLEASE ADD NEW VOTES BELOW THIS NOTICE' Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 00:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

comment relisted due to having no votes at time of close. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 00:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete by unambiguous and unanimous community decision. -- Psy guy ^Talk 00:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable band that doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 01:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nn band vanity. Allmusic only returns results for a 70s prog rock band which also doesn't meet WP:MUSIC by the looks of it. --TheMidnighters 03:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per above. Superm401 | Talk 04:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Croat Canuck 04:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.  RasputinAXP  _{talk contribs} 21:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and TheMidnighters Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 11:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete by community decision. -- Psy guy ^Talk 00:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising StoatBringer 01:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. --Nlu 01:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Definitely biased advertising, One of many merciless attacks of the IP. Croat Canuck 04:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, advertising. I wonder if they're related to Shane McKeever who did some line dancing on Steps to the Stars in the UK a few years back. -- Mgm|^(talk) 10:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Article does not indicate any claim to notability. --Metropolitan90 18:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above.  RasputinAXP  _{talk contribs} 21:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete spam. Note: I have not checked to see if this is a genuinely notable place, no such claim is made and as far as I can see the article as written is an advert, and if anyone cares they will come along and create a proper article, in which case we can judge that on its merits. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 11:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree, untill there is more notable information about the place it should be removed. Perhaps some historical significance and a well thought out entry would be fit to stay.--Ognit Ice 04:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Please calm down. The restaurant exists and is verifiable. Last time I checked, there are no "restaurant inclusion guidelines" in Wikipedia. The text needs POV-cleanup, stubbing and categorising. If you don't want to do it, then just put {{advertisement}}{{importance}} tags and move on. -- Perfecto 01:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete advertising. Yes, Perfecto, there are no "restaurant inclusion guidelines", but Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages, and while notability is not a criterion for inclusion, there is nonetheless a consensus of sorts that institutions of extremely local interest, such as single restaurants serving only a tiny district, are not actually encyclopedic. There are also no "limb inclusion guidelines", but that doesn't mean that I could write an article on my left elbow (it's verifiable, and it has appeared on television and in newspapers on numerous occasions!) — Haeleth Talk 13:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why can't you, if it's verifiable and received mention in reliable sources? Haeleth, a "consensus of sorts" is not a guideline or policy. The above shows that none of you are familiar with the topic to say the restaurant is unimportant — that's what the {{importance}} tag asks for. I've put the tags in. I hope someone with more sense can expand the topic before the AfD deadline. -- Perfecto 14:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • How many verifiable restaurants do you propose that Wikipedia includes, Perfecto? --Nlu 18:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't feel that Wikipedia needs to put every single verifiable restaurant in the world in, but I guess thats not up to me.Ognit Ice 18:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of them, until a WikiProject Restaurant comes together to put a "restaurant inclusion guidelines" in place. The only established limit I see today is "Wikipedia is not a travel guide". -- Perfecto 18:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn restarant and a ad --Aranda ⁵⁶) 23:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Speedy delete as G4 (Recreation of deleted material) --RoySmith 01:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article was soundly deleted a few months ago as vanity/not notable. Since it was recently re-created by its founder and apparently sole member, I thought putting it up again on AfD made sense, since it doesn't seem to have gotten any more notable. Non-notable parody religion whose membership seems to be a single person. Has some web presence but mostly through blogs and open directories. On top of that, is currently a vanity article, and one which was re-created by the same user who previously created the version which was pretty soundly deleted. --Fastfission 01:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE by unambiguous and unanimous community decision. -- Psy guy ^Talk 00:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable blog StoatBringer 01:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Peyna 03:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-noteable blog. HackJandy 04:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Advertising for what amounts to an attempted wiki in blog format. The password is samsonite. Geogre 16:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Mark K. Bilbo 17:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above.  RasputinAXP  _{talk contribs} 21:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE by unambiguous and unanimous community decision. -- Psy guy ^Talk 00:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant advertisement for some shopping site... even if rewritten, the site/business in question has no Alexa rank, little google coverage, etc. and would fail WP:WEB and WP:CORP. --W.marsh 01:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as advertising, and for failing the proposed guidelies of WP:WEB and WP:CORP. Saberwyn 01:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Obvious spam. Superm401 | Talk 04:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Spam HackJandy 06:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per above. B.Wind 10:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as advertising. Since it focuses on Asian stuff, I would expect it to fail based on Alexa rankings, but I can't find anyone linking to it on Google either. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Mark K. Bilbo 17:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete advertising with pointy sticks.  RasputinAXP  _{talk contribs} 21:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Advertising. *drew 08:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article qualifies for speedy, but the author keeps removing tags so I have to bring here. --202.156.6.54 01:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete- I've put the tag back. Reyk 01:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Keep as even the nominator wanted it kept and cleaned up and all the subsequent votes were to keep. Capitalistroadster 09:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit of a strange one for AfD, but who knows where else to put it? This article starts off well enough, but then turns into a list of the episodes of this show, with each one on its way to being created. So, is that a good idea? But worse follows with a section on "Episode ideas", again with each one in the process of being created. This is Not Good. I guess I'm saying Keep the main article but Delete the listcruft and fancruft surrounding it. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 01:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment An example from the article... Episode Ideas For All Guys Who Wants To Keep Camp Lazlo Alive For Many Years. If You Agree With Me Send More Episode Ideas/Synopsis! Note: There has been several deletions on this page, and please DO NOT DELETE THIS PAGE. This only a page for episode ideas. Moral:"You Can Smash Machines, But You Can't Smash Ideas." By Frederick Douglass. Movie Midnight / The Electric Blight Orchestra... and so on. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 01:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep well known animated show, I don't personally watch it, but it is in the main lineup on CArtoon Network. If it needs cleanup, then either add the tag or do it. As for the episodes, I was gonna suggest tagging them for merging, similar to the Ed, Edd n Eddy episodes lists. «»Who?¿?^meta 01:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. AfD is not the place to suggest a cleanup or improvement of an article, there are various templates for that. The animated series itself is listed in IMDB and is certainly notable enough. -- Curps 01:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Real animated series. The crap the nominator was complaining about has since been removed. Saberwyn 01:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Speedy Keep per new, shiny Wikipedia:Speedy keep guideline, second bullet point, as nominator had no intention of completely deleting the article Saberwyn 05:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article should have been listed on cleanup with the nomination appearing on the article's talk page. Thanks to whoever removed the original research. Capitalistroadster 01:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Any need for article cleanup is irrelevant to the notability of the subject itself. *Dan T.* 02:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, if you think the main article should be kept you shouldn't have nominated it for deletion, just edited it or started a discussion on the talk page. --TheMidnighters 03:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, obviously notable animated series. Carioca 03:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all that is needed is a bit of cleaning up. --JB Adder | [[User talk:Jb-adder|Talk]] 04:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: You may wish to open an RfC on the content of the article, as that would be an appropriate way of establishing consensus for and against certain directions that the authors want to go. Geogre 16:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 00:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User 69.181.82.102 put the AfD tag on this page, but did not enter text here, so I am doing so. Herostratus 01:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Do we really need a breakdown of the opening sequence for any television shows? Saberwyn 02:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete immaterial, even by wikipedia's standards. - DavidWBrooks 02:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fancruft; perhaps some small summary belongs on the main article for the show, but not in such excruciating detail; leave that for fansites, not a general encyclopedia. *Dan T.* 02:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge at an absolute minimum, but I am happy with a delete. Zordrac 04:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Utterly worthless unencyclopedic rubbish. Kill it. Now. Reyk 04:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Trivia. Gamaliel 04:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There have been 16 years of America's Funniest Home Videos? Can the Apocolypse be far off? -- Nunh-huh 04:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I know I am discrediting myself by saying this, but it was a funny show with Bob Saget at the helm. I also get the Red, White and Blue song stuck in my head on occasion, but the opening credits definitely do not warrant a Wikipedia article. If we accept this, then articles on Napoleon's measuring tape will have to be allowed. Croat Canuck 04:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unencyclopedic. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per MacGyverMagic, Dtobias, et al. KillerChihuahua 14:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Trivial to the extreme. 23skidoo 15:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Hit this article in the gonads with a basketball while Bob Saget makes a dumb comment or delete. per above. Youngamerican 16:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if not beat page repeatedly with ballpeen hammer. Mark K. Bilbo 17:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- though I did enjoy the clip of Eric Cartman talking to dolls. No, wait, that wasn't really AFHV??? Never mind. --Christofurio 20:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge some of this with America's Funniest Home Videos. Crypticfirefly 04:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• LOL. You know, for some sick reason, I greatly cleaned up this article before I posted it here (someone had put the AfD tag on the page but not followed through -- maybe his head exploded). You should see the original article -- imagine the current article, but all run together in one paragraph and very much less grammatical. I say Keep the original version of the article somewhere as an example of what drugs can do to a person's brain. Herostratus 09:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do have a place for those kinds of things. Peyna 17:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP by community decision. -- Psy guy ^Talk 00:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable railway station StoatBringer 01:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, important to citizens of the city. Kappa 02:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • So is the supermarket. --Last Malthusian 09:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which supermarket? and so what? Kappa 00:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, there's room to expand; give it a chance to live. Peyna 03:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Week Delete. Offers no real information. It does have potential to be a useful article, but simply having potential to be a good article shouldn't be enough reason to have it stay. (Notorious4life 05:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete, no encyclopaedic information. Wikipedia is not a yellow pages or a transport planner. --Last Malthusian 09:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is a long established policy that railway stations are kept. This is the station in the second largest city in Northern Ireland. There are many articles about less significant stations in England and elsewhere, so deleting it would be inconsistent. CalJW 09:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Main railway stations in cities are notable. And as it stands there are zillions of station articles less notable than this one. - Randwicked 10:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the article gives a alternative name, says which company runs it and says where its services run to. It's a valid stub. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable railway station in significant city.Capitalistroadster 15:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as above. Trollderella 21:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep railroad stations. Wikipedia even has an entire Category:Disused London Underground stations. In other words, London deleted the stations, but Wikipedia has articles on them. Of course we should keep articles on presently operating railroad stations. (forgot to sign! Fg2 11:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete Unless the lack of credible sources is remedied, this appears to violate Wikipedia:Verifiability --redstucco 11:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not violate that policy. That policy requires that it be verifiable, not that it be verified. Wikipedia does not require editors to cite sources. (It does say that they "should" but does not require it.) The existence of a source, whether cited in the article or not, is enough to meet the verifiability requirement. Fg2 12:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Articles in Wikipedia should refer to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have been published by a reputable or credible publisher. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."

What is the credible publisher that has certified the facts in this article? If there is one, I am happy for this article to exist, if there is not, it should be removed as original research. --redstucco 10:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems more notable than most railway stations already on Wikipedia. Should expand. JPD 11:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, railway stations are notable. Stifle 21:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus, with keep or merge tendencies. Roll 2d20, and the article makes its saving throw vs. a Magical Merge spell. Keep. --RoySmith 01:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nonsense or possibly merge with appropriate article. It sounds like a monster from Dungeons And Dragons (or similar RPG) StoatBringer 01:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unless somebody edits it to give some relevant information, like just what game this is from. *Dan T.* 02:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC) -- (later addition): OK, keep or merge, depending on just how notable it is, now that the game it's in has been identified. *Dan T.* 04:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I believe it's from a game called Shadowrun. There's a mention of it in our article under the "races" heading. Joyous | Talk 03:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I found it here:[4]. PJM 03:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge. If its already part of Shadowrun (confirmed) and also in the wikicity dumpshock, the only question should be whether it is notable enough for its own article. It shouldn't be deleted. Zordrac 04:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge. per nom. (Notorious4life 05:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• Weak keep. The Shadowrun article is a bit long. If the numbers can be cleaned up it should be fine. Looks like a common enemy. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as above. Trollderella 21:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 00:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Short bio of a band gives no evidence they pass WP:MUSIC. Nothing on AMG, not much on Google to try to find information. --W.marsh 01:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. PJM 03:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --TheMidnighters 03:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 183 hits on Google and even that is being generous. HackJandy 06:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.  RasputinAXP  _{talk contribs} 21:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Makes no claim of notability -LtNOWIS 00:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 00:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An article created for the sake of showing both sides of the argument. Wikipedia is not for people to place just anything on it. A Link to the Past (talk) 02:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete perfect example of fancruft. --TheMidnighters 03:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It is a non-encyclopedic article. Carioca 03:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - its a stub, and has been stubbed, on two areas. Why delete it? Its assertions for notoriety seem legitimate. It just needs to be expanded, and verified. If this can't be done, then delete it. Zordrac 04:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as I didn't know what it was sorry. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can kill anything with the Master Chief, I can't with Samus, what's to argue? But I do agree, save it for the forums and keep it away from Wikipedia. Croat Canuck 04:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Absolutely 100% delete: this is an article about articles on GameFAQs! Give me a break and don't make me accuse folks of sniffing glue again. If this is a monumental meme on GameFAQs, then give unto GameFAQs that which belongs to GameFAQs, and give unto Wikipedia that which belongs to Wikipedia. Geogre 16:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: You can condense the whole idea of the article to a couple of sentences, and the weight of those sentences definitely won't bring down Samus Aran and Master Chef articles. Individual "character battles" sure aren't notable enough to have their own articles! --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• For the love of Mario, delete this.  RasputinAXP  _{talk contribs} 21:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all Delete votes above. --Metropolitan90 05:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 00:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this outdated account of some high school students' hobby - DavidWBrooks 02:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Its already in 2 encyclopedias already: FreeDictionary and Nationmaster. Doesn't seem to have any other assertions to notoriety though, other than the fact that it exists. Google returns only 40 hits. More research needed before a decision. And nominator is wrong, its not outdated - founded 2004, last production September 2005. Also not high school students. DOB 1985 makes them 20. Could very well be legit. Zordrac 04:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both of those encyclopedias are Wikimirrors echoing our content so it is not surprising that this article is listed there nor does it act as verifiability for our purposes. Capitalistroadster 09:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. I didn't know that. Anyway I am not voting at this stage, until I know more. Always good to learn more though. Zordrac 17:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. per nom. (Notorious4life 05:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete - seems like advertising to me, but is there an independent source discussing the enterprise? They need to build up some notoriety first before meriting such an article. B.Wind 10:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Vanity/fantasy/hobby testimonial. I had a couple of middle school students proclaim that they had formed a corporation, too. Unverified, otiose, and non-encyclopedic, and our mirrors are no doubt spreading it thick over the e-world. Geogre 16:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that their previous efforts have been reverted (their supposed garage band). Geogre 16:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you link to this please? Zordrac 17:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Actually, I was wrong: all the authors of Rabbit Film Company have only contributed to that article, with no other contributions whatsoever. I had thought that they had attempted to make Visions of Cody refer to their garage band. They hadn't. Geogre 18:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this too. I haven't found anything independently mentioning anything notable.  RasputinAXP  _{talk contribs} 21:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It seems to me that the article's only problem is a Point of View issue, because of some of the writing in the main body paragraph being a bit too 'positively' biased. This however, according to Wiki rules, is not a problem that requires deletion. Moreover, if the group was advertising with wiki then we would find many links through search engines pointing to the wiki page; however we do not, and as stated previously the page has only had 40 hits. This to me does not represent an active attempt on the part of the film persons, (or whomever created the Rabbit Film Company article), to actively advertise the wiki article. Additionally, I also believe wikipedia in particular is supposed to be encompassing enough for even potential 'upstart' companies. Also, if the company truly had notieriety, then we wouldn't need Wikipedia to inform persons about that which they already know. Those are just my thoughts on the matter. So, in summary, this is all why I believe that the page, not breaking any of the cardinal rules, should stand relatively as is, except with a comment or a message somehow to fix the main paragraph bias.--Millermz 02:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is very much a suprise to me that Wikipedia is supposed to be "encompassing enough for even potential 'upstart' companies". My understanding is that this is compendium of notable subjects, not a listing of two-guys-and-dog companies... and then, "Also, if the company truly had notieriety, then we wouldn't need Wikipedia to inform persons about that which they already know." I THINK you're saying that Wikipedia should NOT have articles on, say, IBM, because people already know about IBM? I don't think most users will agree... Herostratus 06:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Forty Google hits says this company is not notable. Denni ☯ 04:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity. Their website is on MySpace, for $DEITY's sake. — Haeleth Talk 13:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Excellent article, well organized, well written, illustrated. Not notable. I hope the editors turn their skills to some other subjects. Herostratus 06:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 00:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

non-notable --Bachrach44 02:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Bachrach44 02:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. PJM 03:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the history has 3 unique contributors, suggesting it is a good faith article. Its notability is not established though. It is a bit confusing to me what the hell it is. Google gives 309 hits, which isn't too bad. Their official website should have been included in the article. It says on the website, though, that it was written by Raven Ryan, the same guy who first contributed to the article. That, combined with the huge number of duplicates on google (309 hits but only 8 displayed) suggests that this is advertising. Zordrac 05:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. HackJandy 06:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 00:18, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A search of the archives of 1500+ newspapers using the Newsbank database finds one mention for this party. The article was on obscure third parties and expended no more effort than quoting from party websites--should be noted that this party no longer even has a website. The "party" probably has one member and is not involved in any visible political activity. By its own admission: "has had virtually no success since its 1995 founding. It has no local chapters anywhere, no candidates for office, and no prospect of running a presidential candidate. . . . There is little to no prospect that we [sic] will be able to hold a convention anytime soon. . . . Only some sort of economic or other catastrophe will produce conditions favorable to the emergence of a new party." delete Lotsofissues 02:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• According to the summary, this Party has had one candidate its founder Frank Creel who ran for Congress in Virginia in 2002 see [5]. Apparently, his campaign had so much impact that the Washington Post thought his opponent had run unopposed see [6]. No evidence that it has many other members outside Creel's family. Delete unless there is some evidence that it has influence outside Creel's family. Capitalistroadster 02:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Vanity +/- delusions of grandeur. Ifnord 03:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vanity. PJM 03:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral for now. The statesman's website [7] indicates that he received endorsement of several other third parties with some significance, if only historical interest, including the Independent American Party (a Western offshoot of George Wallace's third party) and the Constitution Party (United States), founded by Howard Phillips, chairman of the Conservative Coalition. These might speak more to the notability of the candidate than his chosen vehicle. Not convinced, at least, that this is vanity. Is there somewhere it could be merged? Smerdis of Tlön 05:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm not sure of the qualifications for deletion for this kind of thing. If these were well established, then this would be an easy vote. If it says, for example, that every legitimate political party should be included, then this is an automatic keep. However, if it says that there is a certain membership requirement, then this would be an automatic delete. This kind of thing makes me think of Wikipedia: Deletion reform and perhaps we should clean up how we do this. In my mind, personally, all political parties are legitimate, so long as they have ever stood for office, which this party has. But that doesn't mean it meets wikipedia requirements. Zordrac 05:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the only policy that really applies in such cases is that Wikipedia is not paper. AFAIK there are no criteria for noteworthiness of minor political parties like there are for minor bands. A political party that actually fields a candidate has met the basic good-faith test. Any political party, however quixotic, is inherently worthier than a garage band. (And if popular appeal measured by sales and chart success are the criteria, would Milton Babbitt make the cut?) Smerdis of Tlön 05:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep if that's the criteria, its pretty clear. Zordrac 07:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I've nothing against obscure political parties (even Jesus-worriers), but we delete bands that haven't had a certain amount of success because they're a form of vanity-by-proxy for their members. Same for books published on vanity presses. Self-confessedly tiny political parties shouldn't be treated differently. And no, political parties aren't 'worthier' than bands. Quite apart from the POV issues which that value judgement implies, a few guys (if it's more than one) that rant about Jesus clearly aren't worthier than a few students abusing a guitar and singing about how cheerleaders won't go out with them. --Last Malthusian 09:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Good points there. But there is a thing that in Australia we have 2 very obscure parties, both with basically 1 member each, that are probably the 2 most well known parties in Australia - because everyone hates them. One is the Fred Nile party and the other is One Nation, which is basically just a dummy spit for Pauline Hanson. Nobody ever votes for either of them. Fred Nile is a jesus warrior who says some of the most ridiculous things ever heard of, while Pauline Hanson is a racist who thinks that aborigines should be "sent home" (they are the natives of Australia). So I don't think that we can absolutely say that 1 member parties are not relevant. Oh, and that's not to mention our little 1-person greenie, Bob Brown, who is seen as probably the most ethical politician in Australia. However, Bob Brown, unlike the other 2, actually got elected (and keeps getting elected). I know, this is probably different (slightly) but I don't know if we can say such things absolutely. Zordrac 10:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Um, Zordrac, we're talking about one member (as in regular party member), not one elected parliamentarian. That's a completely different kettle of fish. Ambi 11:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rule of thumb: if a political party has been covered by the major media, it's noteworthy, even if it has only one member. If Australia Today gives you the nod, you're in. Denni ☯ 04:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Ambi 11:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. This party is listed on the Guide to American Political Parties at Politics1.com. However, what the guide says about the party doesn't lead me to think that the party is viable: "CAP founder Frank Creel wrote Politics1 in January 1999 that the CAP 'has had virtually no success since its 1995 founding. It has no local chapters anywhere, no candidates for office and no prospect of running a presidential candidate in 2000. There is little to no prospect that we will be able to hold a convention anytime soon. ... Only some sort of economic or other catastrophe will produce conditions favorable to the emergence of a new party.'" That's the party founder's own assessment of his own party, albeit some years out of date. --Metropolitan90 18:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Virtually no success, virtually no candidates, virtually no article.  RasputinAXP  _{talk contribs} 21:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can't Decide. I do think that tiny political parties should get a lot more slack than tiny bands. I hate to delete any political party article written in good faith. This party is so tiny, though... maybe it should go. But then maybe some researcher sometime somewhere might find info on this party useful... Herostratus 08:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 00:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non notable band. εγκυκλοπαίδεια * (talk) 02:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nnbv. --TheMidnighters 03:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - if this is the same band, then its hardly non-notable. Not if they made a movie about them. If its a different band, well, fine, but they've got the same name. So do we make the article about something different then? Needs a bit of verification and expansion. Vfds are just the wrong tag for this kind of thing. Zordrac 05:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The link above is a MOVIE (with Steve Buscemi playing "Dead Pimp", no less[8]), not a band, and was made 16 years before the band article claims the band formed. No allmusic listing (for ANY band named "No picnic"), no claim of albums or substantial tours in article--doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. From article "...practiced/played a few shows, bought an 8-track, spent some time in a basement and now we share the results here..." seems clearly unencyclopedic. Only relevant hit for "No picnic" matt andy gina dan looks like a myspace.com vanity-press type page. 24.17.48.241 07:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete indeed. per nom, does not meet WP:MUSIC. ∴ here…♠ 08:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - changing vote. Sorry, got lazy. Zordrac 08:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, doesn't meet WP:MUSIC.  RasputinAXP  _{talk contribs} 21:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per TheMidnighters. Stifle 16:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 00:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Band vanity stub that appears to significantly fail the WP:MUSIC policy on all counts. No 'All Music Guide' entry. No indication of any charting songs or tours, although their MySpace page says they'll be playing at a local festival in early 2006. Saberwyn 03:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I do with all non notable band articles. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 03:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. PJM 03:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - says in own article that it's not notable. Download for free or add to myspace. lol. Zordrac 05:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Hydrolize (delete). Bands that share their songs for free are usually not notable. (Don't forget to delete the image along with the article). - Mgm|^(talk) 11:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.  RasputinAXP  _{talk contribs} 21:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Owen× ☎ 00:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Name misspelled as mentioned below and the subject's factuality is questionable. PJM 02:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable; I thought it was a hoax too, but it turns out it's just a misspelling. [9] Peyna 04:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting; thanks for the link. PJM 04:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Rename to Jacqueline Priestman - its very interesting. Here are the links: [10], [11], [12], [13]. Of course, we could alternatively rename it to High Voltage Syndrome (I would have suggested a merge, but there is no such article). It is an interesting article. Expand a fair bit though, and consider the rename. Zordrac 05:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename. per Zordac. (Notorious4life 05:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep and rename -- (Blue520 20:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep and rename. Trollderella 21:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence that any Oxford professor had anything to say about her (though I'm sure some did and I'm sure it wasn't comlimentary). This is tinfoil hattery at its finest. Moreover, only seven Google hits for "Jacqueline Priestman" electricity, which says that even among those who have seen Elvis, she is not well-known. Denni ☯ 05:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unverifiable (I can find no evidence that supports the actual claims in the actual article, like the "oxford professor" stuff). An article on High Voltage Syndrome would be interesting, and I encourage someone to create it - but I don't think this is very useful as a starting point, as about 80% of it needs to be deleted anyway, which would leave the new article with one dubious sentence and a redirect from a misspelt name. — Haeleth Talk 13:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: note that we have only one source, since all Zordrac's links are copies of the exact same text. This source is a column in a single newspaper that is exclusively dedicated to repeating remarkable and unverifiable claims. I do not believe this is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the verifiablity policy, so without other actual soruces, I'm not convinced that our official policies permit us to keep this material. — Haeleth Talk 13:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 00:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not worthy of a sub stub in my opinion. Could easily be merged as well. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 03:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Created by a vandal, all of whose edits were creation of vandalism and personal attack articles (now mostly deleted). -- Curps 03:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All? I can count only 1 previous article, 3 edits total on 2 articles. Hardly qualifies as a vandal. Oh, and considering the other one was a user talk, its really an incorrect assertion. Just the same, it's already in wiktionary, so delete. Zordrac 05:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and Curps. PJM 03:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Up Yours, Vandal! Croat Canuck 04:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Definition belongs on Wiktionary and is indeed already there. --TantalumTelluride 05:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Mine's already full up there. Duplicate material and a dictdef. Geogre 17:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, though I would really like to know what "other uses" it has. Denni ☯ 05:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Propulsion method. Owen× ☎ 00:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't know about Wiktionary. Please delete. User:Jaculis

We already have an entry in Wiktionary. Delete dictdef. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 03:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. PJM 03:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Propulsion method. Kappa 04:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment a good example of where the new deletion policy to allow blanking of pages could be used. Speedy delete it as author has blanked page. Zordrac 05:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "New deletion policy?" What new deletion policy? User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Experimental_deletion - its funny that you wrote that in my talk page right below the comment which links to it. Look before you leap! Zordrac 05:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • That's silly. Author-blanked pages have been speedy delete candidates for ages and ages. It's not part of the experimental deletion procedure at all. I'll do the speedy delete. Geogre 17:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 00:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn vanity/hoax. A poet who returns 6 unique google hits, none of which mention any sort of publishing or public readings to support claims made in the article. TheMidnighters 03:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete. I know her-- she is published in Chapbooks,and reads locally in Olympia, Wa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:130.63.100.118 (talk • contribs)

• Can you prove that she's been published? --TheMidnighters 03:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless there is proof of substantial publication or something else to establish more notability. Peyna 04:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this seems to be her web page, and its off a university web site and asserts no suggestions that anything has been published. In spite of Google returning 111 hits, only 6 non-duplicates were displayed, and the above link was the only one that led to anything. Zordrac 05:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and this says she only graduated in 2003. Not really enough time to get terribly notable. Even if she was recently published, and did read to a couple of famous people, is that in and of itself enough to warrant notoriety? Zordrac 05:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Chapbooks are not publications in the classic sense. Good luck to all poets -- may some of them even find readers -- but doing local readings and having limited edition chaps is not notable for an author. Geogre 17:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity. Mark K. Bilbo 17:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I'd say keep, if the article actually provided details of all of these medals and trophies she'd won, not to mention the circumstances in which she read some of this poetry to her esteemed audiences, but as it stands now it's just unsubstantiated vanity. Skeezix1000 18:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Owen× ☎ 00:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neologism. Okay, it may be a neologism created by a scientiest, but it's still a neologism. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I appreciate that most neologisms aren't suitable for wikipedia. But this is a term that has been formally proposed and may well be implemented by the IAU due to the current debate and controversy over the definition of planet, an important ongoing event in the world of astronomy. 130.126.76.27 08:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Neologism and dicdef; if adopted it might be worthy of an article if it can get beyond a dicdef; maybe merge with Planet or Definition of Planet Peyna 04:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, could someone explain what a "dicdef" is?

That means "dictionary definition". In other words its useful for a dictionary rather than an encyclopaedia, and belongs in wiktionary rather than wikipedia. Sorry if shorthand confused you. Zordrac 10:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- in the same boat as mesoplanet, which is definitely OK. Reyk 04:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete. Until a name is formally adopted its a speculative dic def at best. Probably should also include its partner in the effort, Fusor (astronomy). 24.17.48.241 06:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, needs to be explained. Kappa 06:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this is describing the planets that are not really planets! Highly topical scientific debate right now! [14]. Hasn't anyone here heard about the so-called 10th planet and the possible re-classification of Pluto? That's not really just for scientists. Also, google gives 1,300 hits, but I think for such a topical area the area itself is important to note. It's about as relevant as talking about the different theories of what a black hole is. Zordrac 07:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just for the record, there is no possible reclassification of Pluto in the works. While armchair astronomers like to go on about it, there is no move by the IAU or any other sanctioning body to reconsider Pluto's designation as a planet. And until this term is approved by the IAU, it is nothing more than speculation, so I vote delete for now, and recreate the article at such time as approval is granted. Denni ☯ 05:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I'm afraid you're incorrect. After the TNOs started turning up in the 90s, the IAU set up a working group headed by Alan Stern in 1999 to come up with a definition of a planet but so far it hasnt reached a conclusion. When it does there is certainly a chance Pluto could be reclassified. 130.126.76.27 21:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have no interest in the subject but I've heard about this issue. CalJW 10:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete in its present form and include the information (which is not to say merge) in Planet. We can cover the debate and the proposed terminology, but "Planemo" isn't widespread enough to, without acceptance, be sought. Geogre 17:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge into definition of planet if Mesoplanet goes with it - Planemo gets 719 google hits vs 194 for mesoplanet. Josh Parris 01:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 00:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not encyclopedic or notable enough to be on Wikipedia. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 03:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per reason above. --Spring Rubber 03:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 03:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't have to put yourself in twice. It's not a vote, so unless your nomination is ambiguous in the extreme, a reasonable admin will count that as a "delete" recomendation.
    brenneman^(t)(c) 06:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NMG. PJM 03:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - looking this one up in google is hard, because of course the phrase is very common. Even adding band still gave 371,000 hits, which somehow I don't think is realistic. Their band page says quite clearly that they are not notable, "this 4 part band has been around since january of 2005. and thats about it with them.". If they don't think they are notable, why should we? Zordrac 07:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep --Aranda ⁵⁶) 03:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not written in encyclopedic form. Should be rewritten at the least, and given a cleanup if this town really exists. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 03:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and cleanup. Real place near Wilsons Promontory in Victoria. A Google search for "Sandy Point" Victoria gets 181,000 results see [15] Protected for its natural values and also used as a naval training area as HMAS Cerberus is nearby. Capitalistroadster 03:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If you haven't bothered to see if the place exists, you shouldn't be putting it on AfD. Additionally, cleanup does not belong on AfD. Peyna 04:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup as per Capitalistroadster abakharev 04:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. "if this town really exists" - I'm not sure why you even doubt it. I agree with Peyna. Cnwb 04:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Capitalistroadster. Sarah Ewart 04:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Capitalistroadster. Don't forget to add an {{unreferenced}} tag; this article has no cited sources. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Real place, apparently... no need for deletion, but a mass-clean up will need to be done. (Notorious4life 05:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• Speedy Keep - we've established that it exists. Close Vfd. It should have tags to cleanup and perhaps verify, but that shouldn't be a reason for deletion. Zordrac 07:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. For reasons above, plus the article is really quite good now. --kingboyk 10:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Article cleaned up, expanded and referenced. No change of vote from keep. Capitalistroadster 09:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is actually much more encyclopedic than those uncountable articles on U.S. hamlets that are nothing but lists of demographic minutiae. - Randwicked 10:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Unresearched nomination. Afd is not cleanup. CalJW 10:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Emphatic keep - it didn't/doesn't deserve deletion, just a good cleanup (which it got, thanks to Capitalistroadster). Does this qualify as consensus? B.Wind 10:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well damn! I am sorry, I made a mistake, gee....εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 19:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BY THE WAY: I underlined where I said cleanup I really didn't research this to see if it existed or not, and for that I am really sorry...however, I did suggest a cleanup, which it needed at the time. Thanks Capitalist Roadster, for cleaning the article up. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 20:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think anyone meant any of their comments to be directed perosnally towards you, but just at the nomination in general. I apologize if my comment came off as any kind of personal attack, the tone was perhaps a little negative. Peyna 20:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Dude, I know you weren't attacking me. If anything, I feel bad for posting this. :) Smile! εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 22:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please maybe this can be closed now we all agree right Yuckfoo 01:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 00:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a Rammstein fan myself, but the title is completely ambiguous and the information is of a completely speculatory nature.--Aleron235 03:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Rammstein if it is more than speculation. Peyna 04:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I merged the information already. Only one statement in that article is a definite. --Aleron235 04:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is one item of fact already in the band's article. The rest is unverifiable at the moment. Capitalistroadster 04:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Pointless speculation. Wait for the release. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - at a bare minimum, it would be called Untitled Live DVD (Rammstein) or Rammstein Untitled Live DVD, but having an article just because we don't know the name of it yet is silly. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball after all, and this article demonstrates it. Zordrac 07:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" is not part of the criteria for speedy deletion. -- Kjkolb 12:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. A close call numerically, but I don't see anything to make me think this is anything but bandcruft. --RoySmith 02:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Self described non-notable band, does not meet WP:MUSIC. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A band that has been around for 5 years and continues to thrive is notable in itself. They claim to have 4 releases, and are currently working on a new one. WP:MUSIC is not policy and should not be treated as such. However, the article does need heavy cleanup to remove what seems to be mostly self-promotion. I'll volunteer to do this. --Aleron235 03:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While it's not policy, WP:NMG is a sensible way to determine if a band is worthy of inclusion. This band is not. PJM 04:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, 4 albums + 1 greatest hits. Kappa 04:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Please note that these albums are self-made: [16]. The band is apparently unsigned.PJM 04:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment below. Shackrock has produced other bands as well. [17]

Zordrac 07:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info, but I'm not convinced that Shackrock is a notable enough label. PJM 12:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Self-produced recordings don't meet WP:MUSIC--apparently unsigned and very local. 24.17.48.241 05:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Borderline WP:NMG due to the albums. However, the lack of an Allmusic.com article and less than 600 Google results [18]indicate that they are just on the wrong side of the notability divide for mine. Capitalistroadster 05:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Add to the evidence against, the lack of Amazon presence, which includes some rather obscure bands and albums. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment can we settle on one shortcut to use in this discussion between WP:MUSIC and WP:NMG. I didn't know until a second ago that they were the same thing!!!--Alhutch 06:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines page offers both shortcuts, people will tend to use their freedom of choice. PJM 12:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - 5 albums, signed artist through ShackRock [19], 595 google hits. That seems enough to assert notoriety to me. Zordrac 07:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Wikipedia is not AMG, is not Ultimate Band List, and this act is generally unsigned. The single release on a small indie is insufficient for what is, essentially, a gigging band. Nothing against them, but fan-generated and vanity band articles are all but worthless: establish that this is a band that is referred to that it is a topic that needs explication, and forget niggling over X copies or Y "records" (there are CD presses in most for-hire recording studios now, folks: you can go in and have a CD made of your jam session). Geogre 17:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as per Geogre. Pete.Hurd 21:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:MUSIC --Aranda ⁵⁶) 03:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 14:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not deserving of an article. We are not a DVD repository. --Apostrophe 03:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. PJM 04:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I dunno, maybe we can get the creator of the show to GPL it and then upload it? Voyager640 06:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - 13 unique contributors to article, well written article, lots of pictures. Spongebob Squarepants is a very notable show. Whilst we perhaps can't justify individual episodes, I don't see what's wrong with having 1 article for a whole season. Zordrac 07:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is not an article for the first season of SpongBob SquarePants. It is an article about a DVD set that contains the first season of SpongeBob SquarePants. I certainly wouldn't be opposed to season articles; they're better than the countless junk articles on SpongeBob episodes we have now. --Apostrophe 17:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Merge with spongebob squarepants after seeing 10+ other articles on other seasons. Someone is trying to flood us with articles that should be merged. Zordrac 07:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. SpongeBob SquarePants and episode articles are quite sufficient. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and pre-empt "special bonus disk" and "Japanese rare vinyl release" and "director's cut" and "unrated." Geogre 17:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge with Spongebob Squarepants: Don't Delete: A real DVD, a product of the Show, with special features that can't be put in the episode articles on the Spongebob article.Lima bean of the north
  • DVD special features are hardly worthy of inclusion to Wikipedia. --Apostrophe 04:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: WP is not a catalogue for DVDs or any other type of recording. --Ryano 15:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 09:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not deserving of an article. We are not a DVD repository. --Apostrophe 03:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. PJM 04:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. SpongeBob SquarePants and episode articles are quite sufficient. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: As above, a packaging, not an artifact. Geogre 17:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge with Spongebob Squarepants: A real DVD, a product of the Show, with special features that can't be put in the episode articles on the Spongebob article. Not all articles in Wikipedia have to be artifacts.Lima bean of the north

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 09:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not deserving of an article. We are not a DVD repository. --Apostrophe 03:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. PJM 04:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. SpongeBob SquarePants and episode articles are quite sufficient. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: A packaging option, not a show. Geogre 17:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Delete: A real DVD, a product of the Show, with special features that can't be put in the episode articles on the Spongebob article.Lima bean of the north

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 05:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. Doesn't exist.
2. Little more than a list already found at SpongeBob SquarePants.
3. We are not a DVD repository.
--Apostrophe 03:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, and also delete the ridiculous [[Category:SpongeBob SquarePants DVDs‬]]. Firebug 03:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. PJM 04:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. SpongeBob SquarePants and episode articles are quite sufficient. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Possibly a speedy delete as vandalism, since this is an effort to chalk up an article where none can exist. Geogre 17:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE: It's just vandalism. caldorwards4 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: It didnt' come out yet and half the episodes didn't come out yet and might be fake. Lima bean of the north

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 05:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. Doesn't exist.
2. Little more than a list already found at SpongeBob SquarePants.
3. We are not a DVD repository.
--Apostrophe 03:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. PJM 03:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. SpongeBob SquarePants and episode articles are quite sufficient. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fifth season didn't even start and these are most likely all fake. Lima bean of the north

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 00:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not deserving of an article. --Apostrophe 03:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Firebug 03:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - superfluous. PJM 03:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We already have a main article and episode articles for this show, which pushes the limit of Wikipedia's mood of inclusion. We hardly need an encyclopedia entry on individual DVDs that provide nothing more than links to the episodes and that is rife with needless (and hopefully fair-use!) images. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This is a portion of a packaging option. We don't want an article on the first page of the included booklet, on the second page of the included booklet, and on the back cover of the jewel case, etc., either. Geogre 17:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete all. Enochlau 05:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All hopeless garbage. Burn with God's holy wrath. --Apostrophe 03:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. SpongeBob SquarePants and episode articles are quite sufficient. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete the lot of them. I am amazed that someone loves Spongebob that much to do all of that, but you know they are not really giving us new information. Consider my vote to be delete for all of them. Zordrac 07:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: These are, of course, DVD releases and not episodes or movies. As such, this can serve only for page rank boosting. Geogre 17:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This is all covered by SpongeBob_SquarePants#Episodes. I fail to see what is new here. Move the dvd covers to that article.--Ewok Slayer 23:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)Oh and sponge-bob is retarded.[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted. Enochlau 05:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable. By the birthday, this son is 12 years old, and so it's unlikely he's a well-known hockey player. I could find no trace of information regarding him on the web. A notable father does not, by itself, make a person notable. Deco 04:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as non-notable biography. 12 year old hockey goalie and son of a photographer Dad who doesn't have an article himself. Capitalistroadster 04:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete nn bio D-Rock 05:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Sleepy delete lol. And to think I went to all the trouble of researching this with a google search. At least we know the name is fairly common, with 1,010 articles. But it doesn't even assert any notoriety, let alone references. I dare say it was probably written by Peter Faint. Out of interest, the creator's contributions suggest just 1 other article edit: Jordin_Tootoo, where his was far from the only other editor. Also a pro-hockey player. The edit to the talk page was vandalism [20], and so were both of the edits to the main page [21] and [22]. Ergo, that user probably needs someone to go over and have a "chat" to them as well. Zordrac 07:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete no discernible claim to significance, so WP:CSD A7 applies. I put a {{db-bio}} on the article. Sliggy 18:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete nn-bio, as above.  RasputinAXP  _{talk contribs} 22:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 00:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity, not noteable. Does not meet any of the suggestions of WP:WEB -- as even noted in the text. Alexa not even in top 50,000 ([url]) —preceding unsigned comment by HackJandy (talk • contribs)

• Delete per nom. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - 4,000 members [23] in the forum meets WP:WEB. It is verified, so there should be no issue. Also if they were mentioned in Slashdot as claimed, then they are notable. Remember, Alexa is the last resort to justify notability. It is not the only way to be considered notable. Zordrac 07:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I beg to differ, but 4,000 members, even if verified, does not meet WP:WEB's criterion #2 of 5,000. This is a low threshhold, since one expects most notable websites to have far more participation. And the first resort is criterion #1, "having been the subject of national or international media attention within the last 2 years", with "particular weight given to off-line sources of news". Slashdot, as its WP article points out, is a dubious source of accurate information, although it does have credibility in Madshrimps' domain. It would help establish this article's notability if other sources (especially print sources) were cited. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment WP:WEB is still a proposal, and satisfying the criteron only assures an automatic keep; the inverse is not implied. However, I did nominate this and I still agree that the website is note noteable enough for an entry. HackJandy 06:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: First, what does a forum have to do with anything? The article concerns the site, which is a hardware site. They tell you how to overclock (woo-hoo! I have a molten pile of silicone, but I got an extra 2 hz!) and just do the regular advice thing. The site has a poor Alexa rank, and, again, Wikipedia is still not a web guide. This isn't about good websites and bad websites: it's about whether a site is so astoundingly famous that it's mentioned outside of the web, as things like Slashdot are. Geogre 17:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable. My own forums have almost 1000 users and over 58,000 posts and we don't belong on Wiki either.  RasputinAXP  _{talk contribs} 22:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this is an article the same as that one available for HardOCP and Anandtech. Alexa rating should NEVER be used to measure sites popularity as it can easily be cheated, the rating is based on users who use the Alexa banner, and visit your site. If you load up Alexa banner on ~12 PC's and keep a site open & refreshed every 5 minutes then their Alexa rating will BOOM from 60.000 -> 12.000 within a few weeks time. The article is about the WEBSITE, not necessarily the forums; they are but a part of the equation. It's not about size, but about quality and content. This IS the web, and not a webguide but an information collection, WIKI. Still have to see the first PC which became a (molten pile of silicone) just from overclocking, the guides are there to PREVENT you from doing damage, and to do it in a safe and controlled manner. For that alone the Overclocking guide on A64 is worth a spot in the wiki as being the most complete and step by step explanation on the subject. 14:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC) 204.124.198.28 13:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)Gamer[reply]

• Comment Several things.... First of all I noticed you are a major contributor to the wiki page (Special:Contributions/204.124.198.28), but the fact that the majority of the work you've done is add the Madshrimps URL to other articles raises some red flags to me. Furthermore, their Alexa rating will BOOM from 60.000 -> 12.000 within a few weeks time. -- that is why the suggested recommended guideline is 10,000 ranking, not 12,000. Finally, are you sure you meant Silicone and not Silicon? I still fail to see why this is noteable even with your arguments. HackJandy 17:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the Alexa example I gave can be found here and it was just that, an example of how easy it is to "cheat" Alexa ranking, take 20 persons who can get 100-150 PC's visiting your site every day and your ranking will be above 10.000, sadly, it's as easy as that, and with more people becoming SPYWARE/MALWARE aware, the Alexa banner is only installed by PC novists. The website discussed here is one where the average reader uses Firefox or a spyware free Internet explorer, in the eyes of Alexa those people don't count. While in fact, they do. 204.124.198.28 11:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)Gamer[reply]