Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 October 29

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< October 28 October 30 >

Purge server cache

October 29

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

The result of the debate was keep. --Psy guy (talk) 05:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Donahue

edit

Some occultist crank with a weekly internet broadcast and a minor role in a B-movie. Pilatus 03:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep I guess. The movie role is IMDB-verified, but apparently quite minor (he's almost at the bottom of the cast list). However, if the media appearances are correct, then he's probably worth an article. Will consider change of vote if the article's claims are untrue. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's some ungrammatical sentences in the article, and it definitely needs a copyedit, but he appears to play a major part on In Search Of. The fact it ran over 20 years ago is irrelevant. Also, he was credited as Remote Viewer in Suspect Zero according to IMDB, so it wouldn't be a stretch to think they chose him to play the part because they knew about his work in remote viewing. - Mgm|(talk) 18:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. aaron c. donahue has proven his worth as a remote viewer, the many predictions he has made are accurate. but thats not what this is about. aaron played a minor role in a movie, in the search off and on tv asahi in japan, he was on coast to coast a few times see coast to coast tv asahi and in search off and on a internet based radio show called ghostly talk.(you have to scroll down a bit) he has his own online radio show. which broadcasts continously, featuring his shows and music. there are over 30 recordings of his shows, and he is know among people on the internet. the luciferian movement has there own luciferian yahoo group, who have over 230 members. they have there own dating site, which is not very good (my opinion of course). and a news site, forum, chat and numerous spinoff sites like luciferian rvg. if any one is interresting i could post more links but i am not advertising, the fact is that many people know aaron and are familiar with luciferianism. there is a luciferian community, aaron is resposible for its creation, and he has made enough public apearences both on tv and radio to justify a article about him. if the size about the article is the probleme i could do something about that, but mind you i am not a native english speaker. i am dutch and i do not control the english language to such a degree, that i am able to make a lot of good wikipedia articles.


Keep! There is an entire community started by him. All of the above is true, and the media files to prove it are available for download at http://ummo.cc/ or http://www.radioaaron.com/


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

The result of the debate was delete.  Denelson83  07:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Presley

edit

Vanity, barely notable. Aaron Presley doesn't seem to be wholly unnotable, but in my view the article hugely exaggerates his notability. Aecis 18:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You mean that he won second place in the "novice division of parliamentary debate" at the "Texas Intercollegiate Forensic Association Spring Tournament"? (the only thing I've found on him) Aecis 21:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly! He's a master debater, among other things. Sonicreducers 21:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep by unambiguous and unanimous community decision. -- Psy guy (talk) 05:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Lindsay

edit

It seems like a vanity page to me. 69.81.252.232 21:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Allison Rizzuto

edit

Article created by vandal 68.224.161.219 (talk · contribs). Fails google test. All google hits return Wikipedia mirror sites as a source. Viriditas | Talk 23:01, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT Marskell 12:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Crossing 2

edit

This game hasn't been announced. There are no facts whatsoever in this article, just speculation. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 22:34, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep as nomination is withdrawn. - Mailer Diablo 14:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary

edit

dictdef KeepKappa's edit Dlyons493 Talk 13:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP and CLEAN UP. — JIP | Talk 14:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At Your Service

edit
  • Delete. This page contains indirect advertisement/campaign/propaganda/promotion of the TV program by using direct assault to a defunct show of GMA_Network's archrival ABS-CBN, Hoy Gising. This should deleted immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.23.174.29 (talk • contribs) 10:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 13:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, program on a major network. Kappa 17:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: removed the dig at Hoy! Gising. No opinion - it looks as if it might be notable but I'll leave that to those in its catchment area. - Just zis Guy, you know? 22:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup, as notable broadcast program. I suggest nominator clean it up, since he/she seems to know what this is all about, whereas the article as it is is nearly incomprehensible out of context, and is presently a copyvio of [3].
  • Keep and cleanup: I don't think there is something wrong with the show. It may look like an indirect advertisement but I think that the show really does the things that are in the article. But then, it needs cleanup.- User: Reviewgirlerika
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Atgeflu

edit

Article describes Pope Atgeflü, a 17-year old founding father of the Church of the Exploding Sheep. This appears to be a way of entertaining classmates during A-level English lessons. Sliggy 14:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nominators cant vote Prashanthns 18:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC) Sorry for the strike-off in error. AfD Nominators can vote Prashanthns 18:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to the relevant guideline please? Also, if no-nominator-voting is true, someone needs to update the guidance text at the foot of WP:AFD/Today, which I was following. Sliggy 18:42, 29 October 2005 (UTC) Sliggy 23:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is truly a amazing article whatever about the content it really shows the skill level among students that they are able to come up with a story like this. So what if it is for "entertaining classmates during A-level English lessons" we all can remember that time and i'm sure we would have liked somethink like this. GO ATGEFLU!!! kinsailor 16:06, 29 October 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete and BJAODN Even though I think that basic arithmetic should be the minimum criteria for people wanting to delete articles (2005 - 1978 = 17 / I'm sorry Sliggy go back to your seat - no icecream for you today). Besides, if you read the article it clearly states that the cult has been founded through a series of e-mails and I don't know about you but in my school they didn't have computers for A-level English (only good old-fashioned pen and paper). Besides it's the "Cult of the Exploding Sheep" not the Church. 129.31.73.9 15:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC) Page creator. Votes here only other edits. -- Sliggy 23:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Kirill Lokshin 03:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aurora Cable Internet

edit

A small ISP doesn't need an encyclopedia article. -- Kjkolb 06:14, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was merge into Alternative hip hop - Mailer Diablo 14:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Backpacker Hip-Hop

edit

Delete and redirect to hip-hop. Less than notable sub-genre that could be adequately covered on main article. As it stands, is unverifiable —Gaff ταλκ 01:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was unanimous delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Baltimore Bloods

edit

Non-notable gang. -- Kjkolb 06:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was unanimous delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Baw jawz

edit

Poker slang dictionary definition -- Kjkolb 11:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was unanimous delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bogey's

edit

non-notable bar delete Peyna 23:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was unanimous delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brady lowe

edit
Public school boy vanity (TSSSC=The Southport School Sailing Club). Delete. Natgoo 23:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is now 5 days old - please move to correct area.

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

The result of the debate was unanimous delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bu247.com

edit

Non-notable website, possibly copy-vio (though I suspect they posted it). BrianSmithson 05:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was merge into Diddy Kong Racing. - Mailer Diablo 15:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bumper (Diddy Kong Racing)

edit

NN character from single game. Its a racing game. Characters are barely fleshed out enough to warrant a few lines, let alone individual pages. DooMDrat 02:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was 1, 2, 3....uhhhh, no consensus. (6d 54%, 1k, 3m, 1r) - Mailer Diablo 15:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

California Drivers Handbook

edit

Delete, becuase seems irrelevant as its own article. There is a page for Department of Motor Vehicles. Could merge there?? There is no page for California Department of Motor Vehicles (which might be a good place to merge this). But that raises the question Do we need articles on the DMV of every US state?—Gaff ταλκ 02:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was unanimous delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CareerLauncher

edit

appears to be advertising. orphaned & dead-end Gsd97jks 14:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 03:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Caschera

edit

This article was nominated for deletion about a month ago; the previous debate is here.

The same arguments hold true. Sources can be found only for "Caschera" being a surname, and we don't generally keep surnames. Despite repeated requests, the anonymous editor who asserts that the Caschera were a "group of legandary figures" "accredited with the founding of Brocco" has failed to come up with credible sources. Please see the talk page for the discussion. Keep The Murgatroyd reference is real. I have a copy right in front of me. Page 98 talks about the characters. How do you assume a hoax when there is evidence and references made about them throughout classical history; please see suetonius and plutarch. Pliatas has his heart on killing the story, for some reason we can not figure out. Most other sources are in Italian. They are mentioned heavily thorughout the history of Sora. Given that this is not considered a major city today, you wont find many of these books, nor will they be in English. The locations are real, and the history is also real. There is a monument in the town attested to the Cascheras. Also, lets not forget that this is more likely a legend rather than historical fact. If it is history, it was most likely written several years after the fact. Similar to the stories of Romulus and Remus, which can actually vary according to Author. A set of twins who were raised by a she wolf is very unlikely. Italians, especially ancient Romans and other mediterraneans love to come up with aetiological stories. What other cedible sources would you like? Go to the area ask a native, they will tell you. I find it a bit hilarious that wikipedia can be so ignorant and stubborn about this story. By not allowing this story, we are limiting our users' knowledge of ancient and possibly even mythological history. So per WP:V this ought to go. Pilatus 14:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete my previous Keep vote was predicated on the claimed Murgatroyd reference being validated. That now appears to have been a hoax. Don't generally like renominations so soon but like keeping hoaxes even less. Dlyons493 Talk 14:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Old text unverifiable, new text unencyclopedic. — Haeleth Talk 23:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Murgatroyd reference is real. I have a copy right in front of me. Page 98 talks about the characters. How do you assume a hoax when there is evidence and references made about them throughout classical history; please see suetonius and plutarch. Pliatas has his heart on killing the story, for some reason we can not figure out. Most other sources are in Italian. They are mentioned heavily thorughout the history of Sora. Given that this is not considered a major city today, you wont find many of these books, nor will they be in English. The locations are real, and the history is also real. There is a monument in the town attested to the Cascheras. Also, lets not forget that this is more likely a legend rather than historical fact. If it is history, it was most likely written several years after the fact. Similar to the stories of Romulus and Remus, which can actually vary according to Author. A set of twins who were raised by a she wolf is very unlikely. Italians, especially ancient Romans and other mediterraneans love to come up with aetiological stories. What other cedible sources would you like? Go to the area ask a native, they will tell you. I find it a bit hilarious that wikipedia can be so ignorant and stubborn about this story. By not allowing this story, we are limiting our users' knowledge of ancient and possibly even mythological history.141.161.92.168 18:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was unanimous delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Caterwaul

edit

Delete non-notable band vanity. - Just zis Guy, you know? 22:41, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the article as problems with WP:V and no evidence that they meet WP:NMG. On the other hand, Allmusic.com confirms that the band referred to by Allen3 released four albums including two on IRS Records a notable label. They had a song "The Sheep's a Wolf" make the modern rock charts in 1989. As such, I would vote to keep an article about the notable Caterwaul. Capitalistroadster 23:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 04:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic street slang

edit

All Google hits for "catholic street slang" turn up Wikipedia mirrors. This is unverifiable original research. sɪzlæk [ t, c, m, e ] 12:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't reason to delete this lot and mention any expanded use of the term in Mea culpa? - Mgm|(talk) 22:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BJAODN. Sahasrahla 05:37, 1 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 unanimous delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chaos comix clan and Soda-sama

edit

Non-notable comics forum. Soda-sama being the non-notable webmaster. Delete both. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both
  • forum stats: Our members have made a total of 289 posts // We have 17 registered members.
  • Website news "almost have everything fixed, everything will definitally get fixed after i get home tommorow...".
∴ here…♠ 08:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Titoxd(?!?) 21:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chibi Wars

edit

This appears to be related to Star Wars somehow, but I can't really tell. "chibi wars" gets about 10k googles, but if you add in the name of any of the characters in the article to the search string, it drops down to one page, which appears to be a Bionicle forum. The page as constructed doesn't have any real info, and it certainly doesn't look or feel encyclopedic. -Colin Kimbrell 19:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 04:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chloe Bianco

edit

Delete as non-notable, unverifiable. The claimed "indie rock legend Kevin Newman" has already been removed as NN from the Kevin Newman disambiguation page. Tearlach 12:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Kirill Lokshin 04:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Knight (publisher)

edit

vanity article; not significant person

Being the Christopher M. Knight that is the person in question, I disagree with the delete entry nomination. How can a user "Carax" nominate me for deletion if Carax is not a valid Wikipedia User? Carax posted only 35 minutes before DakotaKahn... Doesn't that look a little coincidental?

  • Keep: The case for why this entry should not be deleted: I've been on the net for more than a decade and my thousands of articles and permission-based email newsletters impact more than 1 million unique humans on a monthly basis. While it appears I am not significant to DakotaKahn, I am significant to the 82,000 people who visited just one of my websites today. Please do not delete this entry. Thank you, Christopher M. Knight of Wisconsin. 06:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: User:Carax is a registered Wikipedia user; the fact that his name is in red just means that he hasn't created a user page (there's no requirement to do so). If he were a non-registered user, he would only be identifiable by IP address. Also, I see nothing unusual about somebody responding to an AfD nomination within 37 minutes; at any time of day, various Wikipedians are reading the Articles for Deletion page. --Metropolitan90 16:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 13:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. non-notable. Bwithh 14:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Mr. Knight, nobody is suggesting deleting *you*--only an article about you. Was it you who originally wrote it? I don't think it is proper for you to either write an article about yourself here or vote against it's deletion. There's a reason for calling such actions "vanity." Having said that, the subject of the article is somewhat notable. I think the article should stay and be expanded, but it wouldn't hurt my feelings if it were deleted.
  • Delete although I don't really think the article looks like vanity Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Chris is a successful entrepreneur who has played a key role in the development of internet marketing and publishing. Thousands of people submit to an use the content he manages at http://www.ezinearticles.com. In a way, his service is like WikiPedia. Seems pretty significant to me. Drumdance 19:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC) 19:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, based on ezinearticles.com alexa rank of 798 (nice'n'high, and rising), [5]. Otherwise, would try delete based on content that reads like a myspace profile (samy, you are my hero). Nonetheless, seems infulential enough, for now. ∴ here…♠ 09:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - what do we have to lose by keeping it? The more information, the better. TDS (talk • contribs) 20:29, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 22:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chronicles of Mateusz

edit

While this is a marginally entertaining story, I don't see much encyclopedic content. User:SSJeskimobob in fact appears to be quite prolific with new pages and vandalism (see also: Mateusz Pitrus and Ivica Pecic). Gsd97jks 15:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 15:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Church of Euthanasia and Chris Korda

edit

vanity religion? article does not establish its notability, and leader of said religion whose page seems to be band vanity.  ALKIVAR™  13:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. -  ALKIVAR™  13:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote yet - I will have to check, but I believe that the first entry has achieved some notoriety (the second would merge into the first if the first were kept).  BD2412 talk 14:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)`
  • Don't delete I've heard of this "church" before, they're pretty notorious for trolling on forums and stuff, and they've offended quite a few people. Don't know if they're a real church or just a bunch of internet freaks, though. user:XYaAsehShalomX
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 22:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clearwater retirement community

edit

This page is largely a mirror of the website, but with "we" replaced with "they". Even if not a blatant copyvio (it has been edited somewhat), it still needs to be rewritten from scratch to merit a place on Wikipedia. Magnus Holmgren 13:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 22:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee Amici

edit

Delete At first was pure advertisement, now expanded to a stub, but still NN. PJM 03:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 22:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CPR summary

edit

This article is a howto, which the pedia is not. Article aleady transwikied to wikibooks:First_Aid/CPR_summary, so the article here should be deleted. -- Egil 23:01, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Robert Rezac, Dan Rezac, Daniel R Rezac and Daniel Rezac

edit

Duplicate of User:Drezac's user page. I'm also unsure of the notability of write-in candidates, and the author's username raises some vanity concerns. Still, I'm hesitant to speedy this. --Alan Au 09:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC) (Nomination moved back to top of page. Please do not post comments or votes above the nomination; it makes it hard for people to see the original reason for nomination for deletion. Put all discussion and votes at the end of this page, or else underneath comments you are directly responding to. MCB)[reply]

  • Addition. Hey guys, sorry about the appearance of "vanity"; the apparent obscurity; and the apparency of a deliberate "Point-of-View (POV?)". The story is legit and the candidates were registered in virtually every state with the Secretary of State's offices (those states which allow "write-in candidates") as can be seen at:

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/G04/CO.phtml http://www.thegreenpapers.com/G04/MN.phtml http://www.beaver.state.ut.us/FINAL04.HTM http://www.elections.state.md.us/current_election/cand/cand-list.php?input=001 http://www.elections.state.md.us/current_election/cand/cand-list-print.php http://www.mdarchives.state.md.us/msa/mdmanual/42electg/html/2004/04usp.html http://www.carboncountyutah.com/elections/nov2004/indexnov2004.htm http://www.co.summit.co.us/Elections/2004/2004_Official_Results.htm http://elections.utah.gov/2004candidates.htm http://www1.co.weber.ut.us/Clerk_Auditor/Election/results/2004general.php http://www1.co.weber.ut.us/Clerk_Auditor/Election/results/election04.php http://www.co.fort-bend.tx.us/County_Services/elections/Candidates_Gen04.pdf http://loganco.gov/clerk/November22004GenElectionResults.htm http://www.sos.state.mn.us/docs/electors.pdf http://www.co.juab.ut.us/County/ETNETCUM.HTM http://newslinkindiana.com/election2004/00000004029.html http://newslinkindiana.com/election2004/00000003993.html

The above are just a few of the 8,600 references on the 'net which prove the legitimacy of the publication. For a "non-biased" group, you guys are pretty quick to declare something a hoax or a fraud and do a poor job of research given that the candidates are registered on dozens of government websites as given above, which is all the more reason why the article should be in the wikipedia.

However, maybe this article should be represented on the wikipedia under another topic and refined as more of a research article. We would be open to suggestions. Our campaign staff is still learning the "wikipedia" forum and would like to have this article posted similar to "Patrick Fitzgerald", which is the format we followed. The original user's page (drezac) was created as a means to access the wiki and publish the "profile" of this Vp candidate. The "source watch" issue is because we are still learning your system and followed the Patrick Fitzgerald format.

John Joseph Kennedy was the candidate who ran for President, is a direct descendant of Francis Michael Kennedy (first Kennedy in U.S. politics who served as a Congressman in South Carolina House of Reps in 1882-1886), is related to the Kennedys of Boston, and is running for 2008 (see www.johnjosephkennedy.com), so we know this will become even more newsworthy as time goes by. We have a national campaign staff of hundreds of members (required in order to have electors and register in all of the states). If you want us to prove it, give me your phone number and we can have over 100 people call you in a matter of minutes since we do weekly conference calls with all of the staff.

We published it under different article names (Daniel Robert Rezac, Dan Rezac, Daniel R Rezac, and Daniel Rezac) because your search engine does not pull it up unless it is an "identical" match and we don't care to have it under the login name of "Drezac", which is why it is identical to the user homepage. We apologize if we have fumbled it up. We are still learning your system. We can clean it up and put it under one article name (preferably "Daniel Robert Rezac" and redirect the others to this one) if you give us the chance to make the correction and still allow it to be posted on the wiki. Drezac


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 14:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Darragh Connaughton

edit

Delete as hoax. Google gives barely any hits on "Darragh Connaughton Athleague", plus it's unlikely that someone could be successful in so many sports. See also Enda Mc Elduff, created by the same IP. Sam Vimes 17:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedied by Starblind. --Celestianpower háblame 22:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Daytimesowhat

edit

NN. A username from a website Holderca1 16:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete.  Denelson83  07:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

edit

Personal essay, original research

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 for the reasons Rob gave. -Doc (?) 15:14, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Difficulty of Letting Go

edit

Was listed on WP:CP, but determined that it was uploaded by the original author. Regardless, this page is a short story, not an encyclopaedia article. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 14:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 05:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dimension 3.05 Theory

edit

Seems to be a theory propagated on a forum, but not a widely-held scientific theory. This falls under original research, in my opinion. Not notable. —Brim 09:19, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep.  Denelson83  07:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dirth

edit

If the band just formed this summer, I don't see how it could meet WP:MUSIC. Joyous (talk) 01:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. – Alphax τεχ 08:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Distinctive Fabric

edit

Apparent advertising page for small online fabric store. CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:41, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Article was speedy deleted after nomination, suggest this be closed.


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

The result of the debate was delete.  Denelson83  07:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DistinctiveFabric.com, Inc.

edit

Non-notable online fabric store. 26 hits on Google. Kwekubo 02:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 22:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Web, Ltd.

edit

Delete. For the same reason as Dr.Web Antivirus and Dr.Web®; and also because it's a duplicate(!) Fourohfour 17:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Dr.Web Antivirus, Dr.Web®, and Doctor Web, Ltd. are all associated and posted by the same person. Fourohfour 17:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Kirill Lokshin 05:06, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Drumstick (Diddy Kong Racing)

edit

NN character from single game. Its a racing game. Characters are barely fleshed out enough to warrant a few lines, let alone individual pages. DooMDrat 02:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keepvery helpful

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 14:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Drunk dialing

edit

Basically, a dictionary entry, also possibly a neologism. This article seems to have little potential to become a good encyclopedia article, and therefore I suggest deletion. DannyWilde 14:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Famous instances from popular culture could work, and so could a comparison with prank calling or a discussion of the changes in brain mechanics resulting from alcohol use that enable the behavior, or a comparison of drunk dialing behaviors in different cultures, or references to the increase in the behavior with the increased popularity of cellphones. In a few more years, maybe a description of a behavioral psychology study. I'm sure there are other things in a similar vein. -Colin Kimbrell 02:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thought of a few more: References to sexual harassment, subsections on the drunken transmittal of text messages or pictures, and a discussion of phone conversations in general and how they relate to the concept of thin slicing, as discussed in Malcolm Gladwell's newest book Blink. There's really quite a lot of material here, if you think about it. -Colin Kimbrell 03:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
These seem to be possibilities for original research, rather than notable existing topics. Unless you have some evidence the term is currently notable, I still suggest deletion. --DannyWilde 08:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll agree with roodog2 and vote Keep or transwiki to wiktionary. This is a WIDLEY used term in high school or college and in my opinion certainly deserves its own entry, though admittedly there may be little more to it than a dicdef.jfg284
  • Trans-Wiktionary this monstrosity  ALKIVAR™  23:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What is your reason? -Colin Kimbrell 03:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 05:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.Web®

edit

commercial advertising ERcheck 16:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 05:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.Web Antivirus

edit

Advertisement for non-notable anti-virus software. - Squibix 16:53, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 05:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ectroverse

edit

Two Googles. We've had a similar case recently with Tick (FE) Dlyons493 Talk 20:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 05:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Elsie Weyburn

edit

Not a notable person yet, but may be one day. I have been unable to find any references or justification for notability except perhaps acting as "Unpaid Spectator" in the Surviving Gilligan's Island: The Incredibly True Story of the Longest Three Hour Tour in History [9] TV show. Please see WP:BIO for guidelines on inclusion of biographies. BenjaminTsai 08:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per WP:BIO. Indeed, the article could almost be an A7 speedy delete although claims of being a self made millionaire is an assertion of notability. The article would be better if it spent more time trying to establish notability and less talking about her dog. Capitalistroadster 09:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per nomination. I've heard of her. Then again, I'm from the area and she's local talk! This page will come in handy for us locals when I tell everyone it's here! Southpaws03 09:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Per nomination"? You think she should be kept because she's "not a notable person"? :P — Haeleth Talk
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 22:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Enda Mc Elduff

edit

Delete as hoax. Google gives no hits on this name, nor many of its permutations. [10] Created by a similar IP as Darragh Connaughton, see related AfD Sam Vimes 17:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 15:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Vaughan

edit

Actually two bios in the same article. The first is a non notable researcher. The Univeristy of Sussex lists Vaughan as a Graduate assistant and research student. The second is the owner of this website, neither he nor the website seem notable either. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak keep, although delete the second truly non-notable Eric Vaughan (college senior). It appears that a lot of the people in this field have Wikipedia articles, including several people who appear to have far less notability than this guy. Not that that entitles this guy to necessarily have a page, but... Gsd97jks 20:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom; as a student researcher, does not even rise to the level of notability of the "professor test". (I edited the article to excise the irrelevant second person, to make things less confusing.) MCB 00:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep by unambiguous and unanimous community decision. -- Psy guy (talk) 05:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Europeanisation

edit

This was originally listed at Deletion Review. Instead of being undeleted (the original was AfD'd here) a new article was written, which is fine. Howver, the original article faced (serious) charges of being original research, and the new incarnation cites no sources whatever — it sounds to me a little like a construction of a term based on some possible examples. Whether it passes WP:NOR and WP:V should probably be discussed here again. -Splashtalk 02:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 05:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exeter College Novice B Boat

edit

Not notable 163.1.239.242 16:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what the problem is with having a page on a Novice B boat: much infomation is useless to most people but it isn't getting in the way of anything

  • Please imagine what wikipedia would look like if it allowed pages on anything just because "they don't get in the way". Kappa 03:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The page could in years to come be a comprehensive list of novice crews for the college. If others added the crews of other colleges, this would be properly encyclopaedic. Do not forget that novice crews only exist for a term and often memebrs from the B Boat or even C Boat end up in the 1st VIII, and even in the University Blues team. In five years, some of these crew members could be rowing in the Varsity Boat Race and the history of their rowing roots could be traced back to here. EachyJ 17:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for utter triviality.Staffelde 01:13, 3 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. — JIP | Talk 14:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First Hill (NCSSM), formerly at First Hill

edit

Article is poorly titled, may refer to any number of "First Hill" locations. --Alan Au 00:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then rename it to a better one, and Keep! Trollderella 00:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteA hall at a university-vanityDakota

Merging would probably be a good idea, but I'm interested in why you think it is 'interesting but not encyclopedic'. Trollderella 01:19, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: There are a tons of century-old buildings around the United States and they don't all deserve their own encyclopedia entry. In a lot of older, more-established countries, a century-old building barely registers on the radar because there are so many. We can't put every single old building in the world on the site (uh, at least they can't get all their own entries). For the record, I'm not hugely opposed to keeping this entry, I just don't think it's necessary unless they can prove that there's more to it than "the oldest building on campus, once a hospital and now a dorm". That's not much for notability. Devotchka 01:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm interested in why you think we can't. Trollderella 01:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A non-notable hall of residence. (As to old buildings: there are several million buildings at least 100 years old in the UK. So IMHO age alone cannot be a sufficient criteria for listing a building). Marcus22 08:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The First Hill page has been up for mere minutes and it already has several dedicated members of the hall (myself included) adding everything we know and love about 1HL's present and past. The article will be visited by many more members of the hall and of the school soon and more pertinent info delving into NCSSM's history will surface. I think this page will ultimately be very interesting and encyclopedic when historical information is brought in. The page will be about the hall and its people, not only the old building we live in. Snowmanmelting 01:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The people who live in the dorm are not notable. Just because something exists doesn't mean that it warrants entry into Wikipedia. If, however, if you have more information on the building itself, (perhaps famous alumni), go ahead and add it. Devotchka 01:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm curious then, why pages like Sapulpa, Oklahoma and Devils Lake, North Dakota are allowed to sit around. Though the statistics on those pages (and those on the hundreds practically identical to them) are absolutely mesmerizing, I don't think they would "warrant entry into Wikipedia" as they are solely about existence. Pages about small towns are trivial; a 1HL page would discuss the people and events that tie the hall together making the page infinitely more interesting than some of the tidbits that user:Rambot (the bot that creates many of those geography pages) adds. Snowmanmelting 02:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Postpone Merge to determine interesting, unique content.

As the "SLI" on first hill (and a wikipedia lover), I'll weigh in some. First, take a look at the deletion guidelines, especially, "What wikipedia is not."

  1. 1 What Wikipedia is not
   * 1.1 Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia
   * 1.2 Wikipedia is not a dictionary
   * 1.3 Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought
   * 1.4 Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine
   * 1.5 Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files
   * 1.6 Wikipedia is not a free host or webspace provider
   * 1.7 Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information
   * 1.8 Wikipedia is not a crystal ball
   * 1.9 Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors
  1. 2 What the Wikipedia community is not
   * 2.1 Wikipedia is not a battleground
   * 2.2 Wikipedia is not an anarchy
   * 2.3 Wikipedia is not a democracy
   * 2.4 Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy

Nothing in there except Potentially "indicrimitate collection of information" fits the bill as reason for deletion. Here's that list. 

  1. Lists of Frequently Asked Questions. 
  2. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms or persons.
  3. Travel guides. 
  4. Memorials. 
  5. News reports. 
  6. Genealogical entries, or phonebook entries. 
  7. Directories, directory entries, or a resource for conducting business. 
  8. Instruction manuals

In a positive sense, here's reasons to include it. As a random collection of dorm-related information... no, I don't think think that's wikipedia worthy. That would be more a blog or other vanity page.

However, 1st Hill definitely has an unique character that has not yet come across in articles. From our soap-making success/fiasco (1st Hill Fight Club Soap at party) to the assasins spoon game, there's a lot of quirky stuff happening. Is everything quirky worthy of a webpage...maybe. Is everything quirky worthy of a wikipedia entry? Probably not.

But my case would be, given enough interest in writing articles related to first hill, its inclusion would benefit those folks interested in applying to the school of science and math who are interested in its personality and fit as a school. School web pages are not an option... and merging into the greater NCSSM wikipedia is too much of a scope shift - 1st hill has its own flavor, most definitely, and it would be like deleting an entry on chocolate (complete with bean information and histories of creation) to include that material under the general ice cream category. information which may be useful to more people than just chocolate growers would be lost in the subsuming.

There's my weighing in. merge if it becomes poorly added to.Aspiringbodhisattva 04:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was to keep the article after a significant reference of notability was found and the nominator changed his/her mind regarding potential deletion of this article.  Denelson83  07:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fisker

edit

New automobile company that hasn't launched any products yet. I found a press release announcing the company's formation, but nothing else. Not notable yet. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 00:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Howcheng has changed his mind after the article was rewritten and more precisely after a NYT article reference was added. For more, see below. --Edcolins 08:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 05:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Framework for Integrated Tests

edit

Delete. Nothing more than product promotion/advertisement. DanMS 20:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Robert T | @ | C 00:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Frankie LaRocka

edit

A dead musician - that's too little content even for a stub. Robert Weemeyer 11:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was merge. Kirill Lokshin 05:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Carter (basketball)

edit

Redundant with Fred Carter. Aecis 09:19, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Kirill Lokshin 05:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Froylan Ledezma

edit

Since I am not a big football (soccer) fan, this could be an inappropriate nomination but here's my reasoning: 1) article is 1 line bio 2) google for "Froylan Ledezma" -856 hits "Froylán Ledezma" -2,450 hits vs "Alkivar" (me!) turns up 11,800. So if he's actually notable de-list this... WITHDRAWN  ALKIVAR™  13:41, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 05:22, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gaanaargaan

edit

Tagged as copyvio, but I don't see it and this one sentence stub is all over the web. A cursory look around (and I was only cursory) suggests this is just an ad for a MP3 portal -Splashtalk 22:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was moot. Has been merged into Saturday Night Live characters appearing on Weekend Update. - Mailer Diablo 15:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gay Hitler

edit

I fail to see the relevance of this. I vote to delete. PersonDude 01:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have been working at the SNL link above though I did not create it, and I see the merit in this line of thinking. Audience McGee is a red link at that page. You can see how important he is here! I'm thinking that, while we have a category for sketches and none for characters, it's the charatcers who would be better organized in category form, while I think an annotated list is still necessary for sketches. Perhaps we should take this conversation off the AfD page and to User:Leadpipevigilante, who "owns" the SNL list we've been referencing. If you're interested, please hit up my talk page as well. Jacqui ★ 15:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge either into the SNL article - this isn't a stand alone charecter like the Coneheads or "Pat" (both of which had movies built around them) or even Mr. Bill, which developed its own cult following. Stu 14:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my mind. I change my vote to merge. 68.161.13.188 22:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, by the way. I'm 68.161.13.188. PersonDude 23:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 22:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen's Shaving Club

edit

As far as I can tell, the club is a group of friends with a name. Joyous (talk) 21:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The orgainisation did indeed begin simply as a group of friends with a name, however, in the last year, the group has moved into the field of politics and is now rallying support and funds to run for the 2008 local elections in the Bromsgrove District. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.212.223 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I thought i'd add my support for the retention of this article. Here at Oxford, we recognise that gentlemen's clubs are an eccentric yet delightful feature of the nation's social history, but not one that should be hermetically sealed in a museum display case. Nor indeed should it forever be associated with the upper classes. Since the inclusion of this article would represent both a recognition of a fine and very much living tradition, and also a strong endorsement of honourable friendship even amongst those without good breeding, such a move surely deserves approbation. I can submit that many of my fellow scholars feel much the same way. Coll. Magd. Oxon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.43.240 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - and moreover, the Gentlemen's Shaving Club is not only notable for being a feature of the nation's social history, but for in itself being a profound socio-political experiment. In very few such groups in the UK are social classes and opinions so mixed. Nor, in fact, do they permeate so widely outside their original area of influence. As a social, cultural and political entity of renown, I promote retention. Coll. Sanc. Ioh. Bapt. Oxon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.62.115 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in then, but this day will remain forever in history as the day when Wikipedia deleted an entry about a future Prime Minister — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.212.223 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Which will be recreated for all the right reasons when he becomes the Prime Minister. Saberwyn
Well done for saying "when" and not "if" - chuckle chuckle. I'm oooooonly playing

And you appear to have a limited sense of humour. However I still love you, in the same way I love all of humanity.

I'm almost tempted to write an article about the comedy club at my old university - they called themselves the Pig Fondlers' Guild. - Just zis Guy, you know? 17:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete/speedy. --Celestianpower háblame 22:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

George Still

edit

Total nonsense bio. Google gives an address and phone number of "George J Still, (650) 566-****, *** Camino Al Lago, Atherton, CA 94027" but confirms nothing else. Suggest all readers phone him and make voice complaint. -- RHaworth 01:01, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Robert T | @ | C 00:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Key

edit

This article is highly misleading. It purports to describe the use of gold bars and artifacts as "keys" to Swiss bank accounts. Nothing of the sort is true. The article also seems to deliberately confuse works of fiction (particularly The Da Vinci Code) with reality. One of the authors has also created a misleading image asserting that an ordinary serial-numbered gold bar is a "gold key", and also inserted similar misleading information in our article Swiss banking. --FOo 04:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and cleanup. If the concept is purely fictional, that's okay as long as the article makes that clear... example: President of Earth. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and remove the inaccurate material so people can learn that it's not real. Gazpacho 04:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Fictional items definitely belong in encyclopedias, e.g. Golden fleece, robin hood, alice in wonderland, mickey mouse etc. etc. I see the firstl line statrts off "In fiction, a gold key is...." Therefore, I am not sure what cleaning up would be required. It would be a shame to remove the nice photos, but reference could be made to the fact that they are representations of what a gold key may be. Watercolour 06:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup with more emphasis on the fictional nature. Gringotts Wizarding Bank in Diagon Alley in the Harry Potter series has a similar arrangement. Capitalistroadster 08:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The first line of the article makes it obvious that a gold key is only in fiction.
  • Keep and Cleanup Sure, the first line makes it clear that it's fiction, but other parts of the article (particularly captions) seem to forget that fact. I agree with Lenahan: stress the fiction aspect a little more and this article's in business.Keep The cleanup part seems to have been done. Reads now like a legitimate encyclopeia article on a fictional object. Good work MCB.jfg284
  • Redirect to Gold Key Comics. The current article is useless and describes something that does not, in fact, exist. flowersofnight 20:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up. This isn't just an object in Da Vinci Code; it's a somewhat common concept in conspiracy theories and conspiracy writing. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 22:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above. 23skidoo 06:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia also has entries for Wonka Bars (fictional chocolate bars), Misty Mountains and Krypton, (fictional places), Pussy Galore and The Mad Hatter (fictional people), R2-D2 and C-3PO (fictional robots), Gnommish (the "fairy language" used in the Artemis Fowl books), Bandersnatch (a fictional creature), and Batmobile (a fictional car). Revised Edition 18:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. This is almost so misleading and confusing that it might be better to delete it than try to fix it, but I'm going to go whack at it with an axe, and we'll see. I would not be terribly disappointed it it were deleted, though. MCB 23:10, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I did some major surgery to address the fact/fiction issues, removed some excessive images and misleading captions, got rid of the excessive DaVincicruft & spoilage, added Harry Potter reference per Capitalistroadster, and other minor stuff. MCB 23:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Kirill Lokshin 05:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great Serpent of Sumeria

edit

I added an {{unreferenced}} tag to this oneliner in July and it has neither been supplied with references nor been improved in any other way. Unless the existence of this particular mythical serpent (apparently a relative of the Midgard Serpent) can be verified somewhere, I suggest deletion of the article. Uppland 16:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was redirect. Kirill Lokshin 05:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gruniad

edit

Reason why the page should be deleted I mis-spelled Grauniad as "Gruniad". How ironic! 147.188.192.41 13:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy del: author's request. mikka (t) 00:45, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

High School Debating Forums

edit

As author of this article, I will go ahead and support it's deletion if it is not notable enough yet. It's fine by me. Can you please clairfy the 'come back next year' comment, mikka? (drop me a line on my talk page, rather then here) (Purplefeltangel, it's fine. The effort was kind of learning how to use Wikipedia, and I have a number of other articles I'm working on anyways.) TDS (talk • contribs) 04:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above. Mikka probably meant it might have gained enough in popularity to be worth an article in that time. By the way, I commend you on taking this deletion nomination so well. There's too many people who explode when their work is nominated for deletion. If you want to test your skills, you could also use the Wikipedia:Sandbox or a user subpage like User:TDS/Sandbox. Happy editing! - Mgm|(talk) 18:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Might even say speedy delete as the author supports the deletion.jfg284
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Swinging. - Mailer Diablo 15:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hot wife

edit

This appears to be little more than a dicdef. I recommend delete unless notability can be established. --Alan Au 01:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • I thought the purpose of Wikipedia was to let people who are experts in particular areas contribute articles. To most people swinging might be just dancing but you can't ignore millions of people who are looking for specific sexual terms like "hot wife" and "slut wife". If anything, a person that knows the subject should be the judge and not a person who specializes in other areas or whose knowledge of the matter is slim --Swinger1
      • You're more than welcome to write more on the "hot wife" article if there's more to it than a simple definition. Definitions don't get their own entries here; they go to the Wiktionary. You could consider putting it in as a section on the swinging page, specialized "swinging" terms and whatnot. Devotchka 01:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • In that case, please accept my sincerest apology for assuming that you were trolling. That was the basis of my comment. Changing vote to abstain. - Lucky 6.9 01:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have no problem if you would like to roll this content into a larger article about Swinging or Swingers. However, I'm not sure that this particular term is worthy of a separate article. --Alan Au 01:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- one person's dicdef 66.25.38.14 01:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect would be good. Devotchka 01:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll add my last comments on the matter. Ask yourself this question. If you were in charge of a public library, would you ban books that you think might not interest people? probably not. Swinging is a sizable subculture, to throw it all in one single page would be unfair to the whole concept of Wikipedia in the first place. This should be the perfect place to share specialized information not selective information --Swinger1
      • I'd very quickly ban a book if the only thing in it was a paragraph-long definition for one term. Nobody is trying to ban your subculture. We're all aware that it's huge. These rules on definitions and everything apply to every subject and not just particularly controversial ones. Devotchka 01:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • How and why would you ban a book that has not been even written? the article is up for deletion because some people think the term is not worthy of an article or public interest. The problem, with that is that the ones judging don't know enough about the matter in the first place. It would be like me giving opinions on articles about rocket science or gardening. People are proposing to lump everything in swinging which in itself is a whole article. How are people going to find out what is what with policies like these? Wikipedia should be place to expand specialized knowledge.

--Swinger1

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Initialize

edit

Dicdef... in what appears to be Farsi. — Haeleth Talk 21:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was merge with Ithaca, New York. - Mailer Diablo 15:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ithaca, City of Evil

edit

Non notable political slur. Google pulls 83 hits. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's worth merging with the main article.

Merge and redirect to Ithaca, New York.*Exeunt* Ganymead Dialogue? 04:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect and Merge to Ithaca, New York, as I've seen this in a few books on New York history.--Sean Black | Talk 04:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete attack page - CSD A6 --anetode¹² ³ 05:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)Redirect --anetode¹ ² ³ 11:47, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no sources lead me to believe that this is original resource contrary to WP:NOR. No merge as it would not improve the Ithaca article to have these unsourced claims added and no redirect because I doubt that many people would search for Ithaca, City of Evil rather than Ithaca. Merge and redirect given we know have more sources. Capitalistroadster 05:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by author. As a resident of Ithaca and creator of the subject entry: Ithaca's nickname "City of Evil" dates back to its earlier name of "Sodom" and a road to Ithaca by that name still exists; the usage is neither new nor original with me, but has a long-standing history. Ithaca's reputation for liberal politics is huge, with both left and right acknowledging it as a nexus of liberal political activity. If you spell "Ithaca" correctly, the Google hits on the topic go way up (first commenter misspelled it): 644 hits. The "City of Evil" nickname is in common use locally and nationally, with both detractors and supporters of the city using it (the latter with cheerful ironic pride), so while it may originally have been intended as a slur, it has been reclaimed in the same sense that Wiccans have reclaimed "witch". This important transition and usage is sociologically notable, and hence (IMO) worthy of addition to the store of information about Ithaca. Respectfully submitted, --Dayglored 07:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as POV fork, no merge as Ithaca, New York already covers topic. --JJay 08:14, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If there are verifiable sources, they should be added to the article. At the moment, all we have is a Cafepress link. Capitalistroadster 08:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by author. Good points, so I have added verifiable sources for the historical name, also corrected some context about the resurgent modern usage, and clarified the point of the entry, namely the dual usage of the same nickname by both detractors and supporters. The main article on Ithaca, New York originally had much unsuitable provocative POV material (if you think mine is POV, you should see how the earlier posts started) which I edited down extensively, and then decided to make a separate detail page for this particular aspect. However, the argument for a merge is compelling, and I would be pleased to merge the separate page under discussion here into the corresponding section of the main Ithaca article. Does that address the concern that landed this article in the "to be deleted" section? If so I'll do the merge. --Dayglored 09:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep or maybe merge. I don't know, seems interesting, could be a section of main Ithaca article, though. Needs to be cleaned up.--Kewp (t) 09:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect. Ifnord 18:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I find the current version both interesting and well-balanced. I had no idea the city used be known this way!

  • Comment by author. Thanks for the continuing excellent input; I'm learning a lot about how Wiki pages need to be done... BTW, I added a Yahoo-maps link to the remnant of an old road into the city, which still retains the old name "Sodom Rd." I presume that an interactive search link to Yahoo Maps is not considered a copyvio, although a snap of the resulting image might be; opinion/precedent? Thanks. --Dayglored 19:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by author. Couple of minor edits for clarity and more balanced phrasing. Added a link for "City of Sin" to a page with a copy of an article/essay by Cornell Univ. Sr. lecturer and historian Carol Kammen (the original source page has gone 404). I plan to drive out and get a photo of the "Sodom Rd." road sign this week, to complement the Yahoo map link. -- Dayglored 02:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by author. Added picture of Sodom Road sign (taken today). Contacted Carol Kammen (see comment above) by email to obtain additional sources and references; trip to library req'd, since most are not linkable on web at this time. -- Dayglored 23:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 05:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jameson Williams

edit

Multiple reasons. 1) Vanity entry, only one edit and that by User:Jhwilliams (his only edit). 2) Not notable. No Allmusic entry for him, 368 googles for '"Jameson Williams" music' (many of which aren't about him), and the "Music" section on the article's one link includes no information except a picture of him "rocking the fuck out". I wish the guy luck, but Wikipedia isn't around to provide free ad space. -Colin Kimbrell 19:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 22:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Janky

edit

Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and this is a neologism at best. There is, at present, no chance that this can be expanded into an encyclopedia article. Revealingly, Urban Dictionary has an entry [17], which means we should almost certainly delete it. -Splashtalk 07:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 05:31, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese nationalist ideas in the feudal period

edit

The lemma is wrong / the text is illegible / the content is not NPOV Mkill 23:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen some of the crap User:Reader72 dumped in Wikipedia by now. Yes, some of his works can be kept, cleaned up, wikified, checked for misread historical facts and checked for right-wing propaganda (quote: Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy served as a good example for the Empire of Japan). But: This article can't.

  1. The lemma is wrong: There is no nationalist thinking in Edo Japan. Nationalist thinking came to Japan during the Meiji Restoration. Don't confuse the Kokugaku school with nationalism.
  2. We already have a lot of useful, (more or less) scientifically useful articles on the Edo period. We don't need this one. All work that goes into it is wasted. Yes, I say this as the person who just tried to make a useful article out of Edo period. -- Mkill 23:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 22:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese nationalist thinking during Yamato Empire

edit

This is another contribution of User:Reader72. I cleaned up, wikified and improved some of his articles now. This one is hopeless. There is no nationalist thinking in Yamato Japan. There will never be. The whole article is some right-wing myth copied from some Japanese webpage. If we don't want all serious students of Japanese history out there to laugh (or cry) about Wikipedia delete this crap. Did I mention the English is worse than a machine translation? Mkill 23:14, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus (4d, 5r, 1m), defaults to keep. - Mailer Diablo 15:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

King of the Hill Episode Descriptions

edit

Information in article is an inferior duplication of the information at List of King of the Hill Episodes Wikipedianinthehouse 23:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 05:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KM06Group1

edit

This article fails to explain why these people are notable in any way, seems like a mistaken attempt at a user subpage.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 22:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of jokes in The Big Lebowski

edit

Delete - Do we really need a list of jokes for every film? Thelb4 21:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 05:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Luciferians

edit

One-person list. ♥♥purplefeltangel♥♥ 03:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. The definition of Luciferian here doesn't quite agree with the definition that the list uses. The Aaron Donahue there is some occultist crank, not a schismatic. Pilatus 03:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 22:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of references in Inkpool

edit

Webcomic cruft, not to mention Glenn Kessler from the same comic was deleted for non-notability. Rampart 03:49, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was moot. It has been redirected to O.C. Episodes. - Mailer Diablo 16:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of The O.C. episodes

edit

There is an already duplicate article which is up-to date and with pictures. Sfufan2005 17:56, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was dealt with by copyvio. - Mailer Diablo 15:56, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Master of Arts In Christian Education

edit

Individual degree programme at some unidentified institution. Uppland 09:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Materium (Warhammer 40,000)

edit

Warhammer 40,000 fancruft. Nominating under WP:FICT guideline, per second point. I do not recommend a redirect, as there is (at least in my view) no valid target. I assume the article was created as a match for the Immaterium (Warhammer 40,000) article, but the former has no real potential for expanding to the size of the latter, let alone purpose on Wikipedia. Saberwyn 12:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. If the consensus is to keep, I can certainly write an article under this title, which would contain a description of the breakdown of the Milky Way Galaxy in the 40K universe (placement of various races, 'notable' planets and sectors, empires, etc), but feel that this kind and level of information has no place on Wikipedia. Saberwyn 12:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. If someone is really enthusaistic about giving WH40K the same sort of detailed coverage that, say, Star Wars and Pokemon and Gundam have, they're free to do so, but I don't think this is a good title for a description of the WH40K galaxy. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 22:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was not delete. --Celestianpower háblame 22:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mobiola

edit


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

The result of the debate was DELETE'. — JIP | Talk 11:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MoroccoSecurityRulz

edit

tagged for speedy delete, but IMO does not qualify. There are over 60 google hits on this phrase, which does seem to be the alias of a hacker of some sort. However, I doubt whether this is notable enough to have an article -- if this is kept, it should be cleaned up. Weak delete -- unless notability is established, this should go. DES (talk) 22:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 05:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mother Earthism

edit

A recent (October 2005) neologism designed purely to disparage those concerned with global warming does not warrant a Wikipedia article. Two minor Oct 2005 asides and a reprint of [20] in the "Geelong Advertiser" completes LexisNexis hits. The originator is not notable enough to have his own page (yet), otherwise this could be redirected there. Rd232 talk 09:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not yet notable. Most of the Google hits are coming from copies of articles "Mother-earthism infects climate change debate" or "All the signs of full-blown Mother Earthism". pfctdayelise 00:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 22:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Movement And Action for Social Services

edit

This seems to be an NGO that is only newly registered in New Delhi, India. As yet they don't seem to have done anything of note, and the page is a mess. Delete. Natgoo 18:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Kirill Lokshin 05:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Narn Bat Squad

edit

nn internet meme with a whopping 155 unique Google hits. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • 155? Try 753 online and more than 3500 on USENET. The actual number is considerably higher due to non-archived message systems such as GEnie and CompuServe where usage was heavy. Additionally, nowadays "NBS" is used as frequently as the full name, however google doesn't assist much because of the rather common nature of the initials. Finally, most references to the NBS in fandom don't explicitly say "NBS" or "Narn Bat Squad" - but contain the elements of the NBS, namely a virtual beating, looking over the shoulder, etc., written after a bad joke. It is a significant element of Babylon 5 fandom, and has made in-roads to all aspects of sci-fi fandom over the last 11 years. Strong Keep --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I almost never use the dreaded term "fancruft" but I certainly think it applies here. Def of a joke term made up by online fans of a sci-fi show. Apparently never even used on the show itself. This is sub-sub-sub-trivial. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:56, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
More accurately created by the creator of the show. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't what the article seems to say. Direct quote: "Fans immediately latched on to the concept, and combining it with past posts by Straczynski, dubbed group of Narns the Narn Bat Squad, or NBS." Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the way the NBS operates, as a form of punishment for bad jokes, is a result of Straczynski's post. The NBS name was something assigned by the fans (and immediately wholehearedly accepted and used online by Straczynski); the NBS itself is Straczynski's. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 13:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's fancruft, but it's the notable kind because it was coined by the show's creator, and because it's seeped out of the fanbase into unrelated communities online, and that makes it the sort of thing that someone might look up the origins of. — mendel ☎ 04:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per mendel. If someone who knows where this crops up, in any major way outside the B5 fan community, and adds a paragraph or section on it, it would probably help the article's chances. Saberwyn 05:42, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you follow the google groups link above you see an immediate diversity of groups and languages where the reference is currently used (which, once again, does not include the wide use of the NBS acronym [or many, many instances where the NBS is referenced in practice but not in name]). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This statement makes no sense. From the article: "Beginning on the Babylon 5 newsgroups and spreading to other science fiction newsgroups and internet forums..." And as clearly I pointed out above, just follow the google groups link to see the diversity of groups (and languages) that the NBS appear in, in name (with even more in practice). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 05:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nefertiti piercing

edit

Delete copyvio from BME encyclopaedia (link). --Qirex 15:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I didn't know. I'd seen people use copyvio at AfD as a reason before so I just assumed. Thankyou for pointing this out. --Qirex 16:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, that sort of thing usually happens when someone nominates an article on the usual grounds and then later someone else notices that it's a copyvio anyhow. — mendel ☎ 17:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep by unambiguous and unanimous community decision. -- Psy guy (talk) 05:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nerur

edit

Not notable. Tiny village in unspecified country. Dr Gangrene 11:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 05:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Falkowski

edit

NN radio host. Google search for "Paul Falkowski" KCRO gives an astounding 8 hits. Please note that this article and afd is not about the professor. Punkmorten 14:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was SPEEDIED by Jpgordon. Robert T | @ | C 00:45, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pflug

edit

There is no such thing as "Pflugs." There is also no such language as "Pfluger." I know the person who created the article, and he admitted it was just a joke. See [22]. Whimemsz 19:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 05:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phi Pi Rho

edit

plus redirect at Phipirho.

Fraternity founded three months ago with three chapters so far. I have not seen any notability criteria for frats so please advise. But killing a grizzly with bare teeth sounds like nonsense to me. -- RHaworth 02:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I'd say, but I don't know enough about fraternities...what are the rules on them here? Only big ones? If this is to be kept, the fake stuff needs to be taken out. Devotchka 03:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of social fraternities and sororities --anetode¹ ² ³ 04:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC) Delete per Metropolitan90's assertion of unverifiability --anetode¹ ² ³ 04:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support articles about national fraternities ... but according to this fraternity's web site, they have only three members and one pledge. [23] The fathers of the fraternity described in the article (Father Phi, Father Pi, and Father Rho) are just the three members wearing fake beards. [24] The web site doesn't even state what college the fraternity is associated with, although their address implies it's the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology (with no reference to the supposed two other chapters), but SDSMT does not have Phi Pi Rho on its list of student organizations. [25] Delete as non-notable attempt at humor. --Metropolitan90 04:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn, unverifiable, maybe hoax.--Kewp (t) 09:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Metropolitan90, unless demonstrated to be verifiable and well-known at least in Rapid City. (Newspaper articles?) Also, their contact address is a gmail account, not confidence-inspiring. "1619 Kellogg Place," even without a city, gets zero Google hits, although both Google Maps and Yahoo Maps do seem to be able to find it. Re verification: if I had a phone number for the fraternity, I could do a reverse lookup with Anywho and see what name and address it turns up. There is no (nonprofit) corporation named Phi Pi Rho chartered in Indiana. If I knew the state in which it is chartered and the name it is chartered under, that too would be easy to verify. It is easy to verify that Alpha Chi Sigma, another fraternity listed on the SDSMT website, is in fact chartered as a nonprofit corporation, once one knows that it is in the State of Indiana. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 00:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pi_eating_contest

edit

Vanity and not notable. Could not find on Google.com. Kushboy 05:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was userfy, but since it's already on User:Pikmin2000's user page, I went ahead and deleted it. Robert T | @ | C 00:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pikmin2000

edit

It's extremely non-notable, probably a vanity page. Also, it's very spammy. Modular 17:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 05:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Poe's law

edit

This seems too esoteric. I don't really see how it could be expanded to a suitable length. Dante 04:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, neologism, vanity/fancruft. Cookiecaper 05:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 05:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Porn mosaic

edit

This article is just a dictionary definition Vonspringer 21:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pray for the Soul of Betty (album)

edit

Distributed by Koch Entertainment which claims to be the biggest indie label in the US according to its own article. External links to MTV and E!. Was incorrectly labeled as speedy. Bringing it here instead. Abstain. - Mgm|(talk) 21:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Band belongs to a guy who was on American Idol some time ago. I have no idea whether that makes it more notable or not. Devotchka 23:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. User:Lehla 02:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 05:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum-Touch

edit

advertising for an alleged treatment that does get Googles. Dlyons493 Talk 21:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 00:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Residence of College Park

edit

Advertisement for not yet completed condominium

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 00:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Revenue Generating Sites

edit

Consists mostly of non-notable information and external links to dubious sites. This AfD is related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Website Producer

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 05:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rise Once More

edit

Fails WP:MUSIC --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 00:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep by unambiguous and unanimous community decision. -- Psy guy (talk) 05:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Sze

edit


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

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 05:55, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sarmazian

edit

Article appears to be a vanity article, that aside, importance of the company (they appear to have 2 storefronts) is doubtful X1cygnus 15:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, leaning towards merge. - Mailer Diablo 16:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sight transposition

edit

dictdef, and very bare one at that. Tagged as a speedy, but IMO does not qualify. Delete unl;ess expanded to a decent stub at least. DES (talk) 01:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Kirill Lokshin 06:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Skull Snaps - S/T

edit

No useful context, not encyclopedia material NHSavage 18:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

* Speedy Delete album info. Vague format. Non-notable Prashanthns 18:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)Weak keep after re-work by Squell Prashanthns 11:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 00:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Snurgle

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Kirill Lokshin 06:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

St Mary Magdalene Church

edit

This is in fact a list of churches dedicated to Mary Magdalene. Even though she is the saint I worship most I can't see the point of having a list of churches dedicated to her. Pilatus 03:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 06:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stetcon

edit

Neologism. Word invented 7 months ago, on a blog.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 00:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stig Olai Kapskarmo

edit

This article was kept back in January due to no consensus, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Stig Olai Kapskarmo, however this needs revisiting. Some points about the over 400 municipal councils in Norway, the various councils are very big by international standards. Bærum has 51 members in the council [28], and being a councillor is not a full time job. Furthermore, none of the various positions he holds confer any notability, they are local interest organizations. Kapskarmo is probably a fine politician, but he is not encyclopedically notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:56, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 00:56, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Superfraclistic

edit

According to the article, this word has been "written down 21 times excluding this article." That surely makes it non verifiable. See WP:V. Chick Bowen 16:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by MacGyverMagic. Kirill Lokshin 06:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Swick

edit

Wikipedia is not a place for madeupwords. feydey 19:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 06:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Techie Gospel

edit

While this makes sense as a sort of joke, Wikipedia ain't for jokes. Perhaps a move to BJAODN would be appropriate, but more likely, this page just needs to be deleted or userfyed to one of the people who ostensibly created it. FreelanceWizard 09:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let's let this one go... Com'on guys — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.189.194.157 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 06:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Boloney Ponies

edit

Non notable band CambridgeBayWeather 07:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep by unambiguous and unanimous community decision. -- Psy guy (talk) 05:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Invisible Japanese Gentlemen

edit

non-notable anecdote DannyWilde 16:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 00:55, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Triskabiblios

edit

Non-notable fiction. Ashibaka (tock) 18:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was a mixture of votes....no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 16:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

T.T.

edit

NN character from single game. Its a racing game. Characters are barely fleshed out enough to warrant a few lines, let alone individual pages. DooMDrat 02:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 06:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TuRtLe (Counter-Strike clan)

edit

The article looks like gaming clan website vanity. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The clan category thing could be useful if other clans were added, though. --CoastTOcoast533 17:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 06:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VC Eberstadt

edit

Volleyball club with 80 members, but more importantly: It was deleted at the German Wikipedia in June. That discussion can be found here. Punkmorten 14:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Soll auf Deutsch zuerst irgendwas machen. Though, if I had 80 friends, I'd probably make a bio article. (hohoho) ∴ here…♠ 09:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 06:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Website Producer

edit

Page reads like a job offering (i.e. advertising) for a non-notable company. This AfD is related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Revenue Generating Sites

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 06:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ween-O-Rama

edit

I don't know how notable this is, but Google doesn't bring up much apart from Wikipedia mirrors. --Daniel Lawrence 21:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was MOOT. The page has already been merged and redirected. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 12:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yakov Liebermann

edit

This stub article serves no purpose when all of the information in it (and more) is already in the main The Boys from Brazil article. Indium 02:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Err. Sorry. I wasn't sure if that was permissable without voting on it first. Though now that I did this, should I wait five days, remove the AFD tags, or merge it now and just ignore this page? Indium 02:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't really matter, I don't think anyone is going to vote differently, but you might as well leave it. Trollderella 02:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that was unclear! I think you should go aheard and merge and redirect, but leave this discussion here 'till someone closes it! Trollderella 03:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 16:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yemane Gebre Loul

edit

Now this one is a bit tricky. The article states that he was ISHR Prisoner of the Month in June 2005, but there are no sources to support it. The press section of ISHR says nothing about him. A google search for "Yemane Gebre Loul" ISHR gives 1 - one - hit when excluding Wikipedia mirrors. Punkmorten 10:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_October_29&oldid=1234127338"