Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 September 17

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< September 16 September 18 >

Purge server cache

September 17

edit

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

St. Kevin's Reality TV and St. Kevin's

edit

A video made by students and shown to their dorm - oh, and the dorm in question. This is about as nn as you get. --Doc (?) 00:43, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How does the existence of some articles make the rest of Wikipedia become useless? Paul August ☎ 16:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a second everybody. These articles may not interest you. That doesn't mean that they are entirely uninteresting in any objective sense. I am beginning to sense a hint of elitism and privileged snobbery in some of these postings. Christendom may be a small college in the South, but for those who attended it, and those who are interested in it, St. Kevin's is a notable phenomenon. FYI, the videos were shown to the whole college and many alumni and residents of Front Royal.

Agree wholeheartedly with the judgment of that last post. An accredited institution of higher learning merits a post on this encyclopedia, so why can't its dormitories as well? There are those nationwide who have attended this college and lived in this particular dormitory. They are entitled to chronicle the histories of the years in which this dormitory was operational, since there are those who will have interest. Most especially, those who are prospective students or alumni. You all sound extremely supercilious, to say the least.

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Halts It's Bottomless Pitfall

edit

This really ought to be shot on sight - it's a sports report! --Doc (?) 01:00, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No there shouldn't. Sometimes we get perfectly valid articles under bad titles. They need moving rather than speedying. - Mgm|(talk) 13:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Joolz 19:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

America: responsible for Middle Eastern women's oppression?

edit

Hoplessly POV. It's an essay -- and a bad one at that. --Quasipalm 01:20, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Of the "keep" voters, only two have contributed to anything else than this AfD, and even one of them has only contributed to other AfD's. A clear case of sockpuppets. — JIP | Talk 15:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Elektrophile

edit

Neologism. A Google search brings up lots of German pages; electrophile is a chemistry-related. Delete--Shanel 01:29, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete vanity protologism / website promotion. — brighterorange (talk) 03:39, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. When (and if) the word gets "out there in the public" then it might be worthy of an article (and in Wikitionary for that matter), but for the moment it is a nn-neologism. --Daveb 06:33, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not merely nn-neologism, but also vanity for author's The Elektrofile blog. -- MCB 07:54, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn-neologism as listed above by others. Also, Wikipedia is not the place to promote the use of a word made up by the owner of the blog listed in the article. In addition, urbandictionary.com allows ANYONE to add words and meanings, so it's not as if that's a definitive source to back your ideas up with. Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought Nezu Chiza 07:59, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'd always thought Electronite more apt, I accidently stuck my fingers in a live socket once, I'm certainly no electrophile, with or without a K. Alf melmac 08:46, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP I don't understand how aggressive this community has gotten, true there are aspects of this particular post that need to be edited as even admitted by the author. But to banish it from the Wikipedia is absolutely ridiculous, as a high school teacher of language for over 15 years it is just makes me mad how language development is effectively inhibited by an ignorant public. Seattle, Washington (preceding unsigned comment by 165.228.128.11 (talk · contribs) )
  • KEEP A neologism? Doesn't that refer to words that schizophrenic people make up...haha You've got to be kidding me. Perhaps you should excommunicate the author of the word like they excommunicated Galileo. 09:12, 17 September 2005 (UTC) (preceding unsigned comment by 144.140.53.41 (talk · contribs) )
  • KEEP I speak German and I don't recognize the word Elektrophile, I do know that there is a chemical aspect to the word when spelled with a c. In terms of the meaning of the word I think it's actually a great way to describe people that don't like to refer to themselves as geeks, the English language has audiophile I don't think it hurts anyone to add elektrophile. P.S. Isn't Wiki technically a neologism too...I don't think anyone I know has heard of a wiki except me. Perhaps I know about emerging technology because I'm indeed an Elektrophile :) (preceding unsigned comment by 213.225.62.90 (talk · contribs) )
  • Delete Even the blog its promoting only has about 7 posts. I suspect the last four comments here were by the same person. Astrokey44 09:29, 17 September 2005 (UTC) (Restored by Nezu Chiza due to deletion by 209.17.141.220. Please don't delete other peoples votes to try and sway the vote your way)[reply]
  • KEEP The blog is pretty new, but the word makes sense. In fact everyone in her typing and actively participating is an Elektrophile. How about that huh? I've erased the author's links from the article (he was okay with it so why not?) but otherwise the word is fine with me 209.17.141.220 09:44, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A non-notable, essentially meaningless neologism, unused by anyone but its creator ➥the Epopt 12:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism. Urban Dictionary is an extremely unreliable source. Anyone can edit it, but unline Wiki projects, there don't seem to be any principles on content (just on website legal self-protection). And if the supporting editors keep violating our principles trying to rig this vote, they should be blocked. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:42, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn neo. This word makes no sense, and using "k" in place of a "c" kould hardly be called klever. I kan't understand what kould kause sukh konfusion over kases like these.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 18:16, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. -- DS1953 19:43, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete shameless self-promotion. Velvetsmog 19:51, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect. brenneman(t)(c) 11:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glavin

edit

This does not appear encyclopedic or particularly notable. According to the article, "Glavin" is a surname, and catch-phrase of a TV character. Joyous (talk) 00:23, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 17:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barnyard (2006 film)

edit

A list of names, cast, or credits of a speculated future event does not make an encyclopedia article, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Mysidia (talk) 01:47, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. According to IMDB this project is still filming and its status there was last updated nearly a year ago. There's a trailer, but there's no certainty when exactly it'll come out (if it even does). Not only is this 'article' in a bad state; Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball either. - Mgm|(talk) 13:20, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia policy is clear on this sort of thing. Chick Bowen 04:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The policy you refer to is a description of what deletionists want to happen, not what does happen, and I am trying to have it changed to reflect reality. I estimate there may be over a thousand articles about future events. Keep as one of 75 2006 films with articles. CalJW 08:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep. If a trailer exists for the film and it's either in production or completed then it doesn't qualify under crystal ball, IMO. But the article needs to be expanded. 23skidoo 05:32, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete easily recreatable if and when it comes out and becomes a classic. JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:48, 20 September 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. I've ignored the only "keep" vote because of irrelevant insults towards another Wikipedian. — JIP | Talk 15:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Schmitt

edit

High school teacher, and winner of the The Greenwood and Trjitzinsky Prize for an undergraduate paper. Is that notable enough? I would think any research university faculty would be a better mathematician, but this guy is in a different category, so I am not sure. However,

Note that this anonimous user has been vandalizing user pages. Oleg Alexandrov 15:55, 18 September 2005
Note that Oleg cannot spell anonymous... Get a life loser(UTC)
  • Delete - vanity, not notable. — ciphergoth 15:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I've attempted to make the article a little more encyclopaedic based on other Google matches. His award was for an undergraduate school paper given by his own math department (apparently with very few paper submissions, since some years have only 1 winner and ties are frequent and 3rd place is rarely given). WeBWorK is an indeed an open-source package, and as Chick Bowen pointed out above, Mark was probably just one of many contributors to it (if he did anything beyond simply installing and promoting use of it at his high-school). -- Bovineone 07:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: created by sockpuppet or through open proxy - David Gerard 16:35, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. brenneman(t)(c) 11:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OrganicPoetry

edit

To start with, there's the neologistic title. Then the page goes off into what appear to be random fragments of other people's web sites. Then it wanders into some long quotations that don't immediately seem to me to be apropos of its title. A salvage job just might be possible here, but I suspect that even that should be under a different title. Jmabel | Talk 02:08, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 19:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chrysler Aspen

edit

I did a google test, and the name revealed under 1000 google hits.

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:21, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Plainfield north high school band

edit

Nominated for Votes for Deletion due to apparent non-notability of the subject. --Mysidia (talk) 02:27, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 15:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Hyland

edit

There's no evidence that he's notable. Having an endowed chair doesn't equal notability. Bcrowell 02:28, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

" are legitimate subjects of articles. Given that one of his books has had several reprints. Hyland would appear to meet this criteria. Capitalistroadster 07:42, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Joolz 20:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Razm Avar

edit

Article claims it's a new system of martial art based on kicking. Google indicates (once you eliminate the wikimirrors) that it's a non-notable martial arts magazine, from Iran. DS 03:01, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Joolz 20:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Coggeshell III

edit

Glenn does not fit the profile of a person whose biography belongs on the Wikipedia. Minor candidate that did not win his 2004 primary does not belong on the Wikipedia. Velvetsmog 02:58, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as nn-bio. So tagged. Friday (talk) 03:23, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I removed the speedy tag. The criteria, (CSD A7) says "An article about a real person that does not assert that person's importance or significance. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead. For details, see Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles." Unless you can point to a place where it says that being a political candidate is specifically not to be considered an "assertion of that person's importance or significance", the article does make such a claim, and therefore cannot be speedied under A7. Nevertheless, I agree that it is nn, and should be deleted. Just not speedied, at least AFAIK. JesseW, the juggling janitor 09:08, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Statement of one's job is specifically mentioned as not being an assertion of notability. Obviously, some jobs (head of state of a country, for example) are exceptions. Trying and failing to get a job can't in my book be considered an assertion of notability either then. However, since the speedy tag was removed, there's obviously disgreement, so it looks like it'll be dragged through Afd. I personally still see no reason not to speedy this, but Afd is for when there's disagreement, so here we are. I noticed there's been some backlog in Afd lately so I'm looking for ways to reduce the number of articles that have to go thru it. Thanks for your response. Friday (talk) 17:01, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, he lost the primary and thus did not get his party's nomination. Holding a sufficiently high office may lend one notability, but around here we elect very minor things like sheriffs and coroners. Even winning an elected office doesn't always make one notable, so I don't see how failing to win could automatically lend notability. Friday (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A candidate to be a candidate for office is not notable. What led up to this election may make him notable, but I doubt it would cross my personal lines. I suspect it may cross AfD's, though. --Prosfilaes 02:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Joolz 20:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The SpriteRemixMastr Revolution

edit

not quite nonsense, non-encyclopedic, non-notable, no context. WCFrancis 03:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. brenneman(t)(c) 11:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Lillig

edit

I'm not even sure how to describe this. "A reference," says the talk page. A joke/attack page on a teacher or professor would be my call. Unencyclopedic in the extreme. Joyous (talk) 03:22, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's a reference as how to act in Mr. Lillig's class. It it to help newer students.

A waste of space? This is just as much a waste of space as user profiles, yet you all have them. I couldn't understand Mr. Lillig when I first entered his class, now after reading this I can understand him and his quiz format. This is useful for all St. Ignatius students.

Speedied as per consensus only keep vote was by IP who created page. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 19:41, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Joolz 20:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brite poker and Britepoker

edit

Appears to be little more than an ad --Mysidia (talk) 03:43, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 19:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dermottfest

edit

Not an article that should be found on wikipedia. Rentastrawberry 04:01, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Joolz 21:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel De Cériz

edit

Non-notable vanity page. 10 matches on Google search. CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:18, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 19:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Baulko

edit

A disambig for a slang term for a suburb of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. Disambig lists includes the suburb itself, a school in the suburb, and a minor Australian football club in the suburb, each of which are actually known by other names. No pages link here. Hardly encyclopaedic stuff. Daveb 04:24, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete hoax and redirect to guy, which hopefully satisfies everyone. -- Joolz 20:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guys

edit

Hoax. No such movie in 1919, no such actors, no such sequels. Bunchofgrapes 04:26, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas & Friends Go Wild!

edit

67.160.58.132 (aka RyanCahn, a self-proclaimed creator of fake articles) claims this is a TV show featuring Seth Green, but no such show is registered in IMDb, either under the title or under Green's credits. Jeff Q (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP and Merge. Paul August ☎ 20:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regina Sakamoto

edit

She's a nobody. And dead. Tokek 05:35, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge Death changed laws in Hawaii.

--Masssiveego 06:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 00:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Skull Kid (Twilight Princess)

edit

Unencyclopedic article about a probably small, completely unconfirmed part of a video game which has not even been released. In addition, most of the information is speculative or erroneous. WikidSmaht (talk) 06:26, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also want to add a comment which I thought might be too POV to put in the official reason: It's not worth a merge and redirect because the info is bad and no one is going to randomly type this title into the address bar. WikidSmaht (talk) 06:26, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 20:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lakewood Boulevard

edit

nn street. There is absolutely nothing on this street that requires that it have a wikipedia article. User:Zoe|(talk) 06:39, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. Its linked to by "Major freeways/highways intersecting Interstate 405 (northwest to southeast)" from the Interstate 405 (California) article, and most of those have separate articles too. Astrokey44 10:40, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedied by author request. android79 02:44, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aidan Coughlan

edit

The reason for deleting this page is due to the lack of noteablity as well as sketching information provided. I'm not sure if this qualifies as a vanity page or not. It seems to be insignificant. Davidpdx 9/17/05 7:00 (UTC).

  • Agreed Hi, this is Aidan Coughlan, just agreeing with ya there. I didn't put up the page myself, it was probably one of the shallower of my friends (who was fairly overawed by the fact that I was in the paper, she thought this qualified me as some sort of celeb! Go figure!) so it's definitely not a vanity thing - although i had no objections to it being up, despite it being a tad odd, once it started getting vandalised I realised it's better off coming down. Aidan
  • Delete. I'd personally call it a nn-bio speedy, but I imagine such a tag could be controversial. Friday (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is well written, though short. There is quite a lot of Wikipedia content which is less notable. -- Reinyday, 22:54, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete does not meet notability standards as journalist or author. Every single columnist is not encyclopedic. --TM (talk) 00:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per subject's request below. --TM (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy right, that info is all on my user page now, so the page itself can be done away with whenever someone gets the chance. sorry for the hassle. AidanCoughlan 03:05, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. IceKarmaॐ 23:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

EGadgetMag

edit

nn website, no alexa ranking, 6 unique Google hits. User:Zoe|(talk) 07:29, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect. brenneman(t)(c) 11:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fredheads

edit

Submitted to AfD as a coutesy to User:Jondel, as I undeleted this article he deleted as an invalid speedy deletion. His reason was: "not notable" JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:35, 17 September 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 20:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perturabo

edit

Submitted to AfD as a courtesy to User:Jondel, as I undeleted this article he deleted as an invalid speedy deletion. His reason was: "not notable" JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:40, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment - seems to be related to Warhammer, possibly. Probably non-notable... JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:40, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn gamecruft, fancruft, or whatever. -- MCB 08:12, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Other founders of Warhammer 40k Space Marine legions have articles, no reason to delete this one unless we delete all the others. Since Perturabo founded one of the Traiter Legions as a Primarch, he's very much not gamecruft or fancruft. Should be treated no differently than character articles for other popular subjects.Nezu Chiza 08:17, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Any articles about individual characters relevant only to games that are played by a tiny minority of the population is pure fancruft. This is only here because this tiny minority is heavily over-represented among Wikipedians and Internet-users. And before anyone tries it; no, I would not vote to keep cruft relevant only to under-represented minorities. / Peter Isotalo 11:36, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nezu Chiza and wikipedia is not paper. Kappa 16:38, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, apparently to Iron Warriors. Someone who knows about this would have to determine the best redirect. This article's content isn't very good, and putting this character in the proper context seems helpful. Friday (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merege and redirect this wherever those in the know see best. No need for a breakout into its own article. Wikipedia is not paper, but atomisation of knowledge isn't helpful. Lumping this with related stuff adds context for those that find the following statement bewildering Since Perturabo founded one of the Traiter Legions as a Primarch, he's very much not gamecruft or fancruft. and makes for better articles. Oh, and this is not a vote for keep with no merege. Sabine's Sunbird 22:48, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We should really encourage children to write more about their schools and less on games (especially wargames). May be merged into Warhammer articles. --Vsion 12:03, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Almost certainly just delete, or at best merge nothing coherent from here and redirect to Warhammer 40K per WP:FICT and being contextless gamecruft of secondary importance within its not-tremendously-notable system. Maybe someone could listify this and all the cited group to a List of founders of Warhammer 40k Space Marine legions. For my tastes, though, it's still too fine-grained for Wikipedia, which is WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Barno 05:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in some form all but the least notable official canon fictional characters (WP:FICT). I recommend that we don't merge with the Warhammer 40K article since it is quite long already. This article needs serious cleanup however. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm slowly chewing through some of the Warhammer 40K articles and tidying them up (See Space Wolves and Ultramarines for examples of what I'm doing). Everything of relevance here is already in the mess that is the Iron Warriors article; I'll tidy that one up once a decision regarding this article is made. The material is canon, but as said by Sabine's Sunbird, there's better places for this material than an article on its own. Saberwyn 10:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge ··gracefool |☺ 17:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter's Got Woods second nomination, episodes from Season 4b et. al.

edit

Uncited, original research, breaks policy. See my comment to the first speedkeep. Also up for deletion under the same reasons:

-- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 21:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • no brainer: keep this is precisely what is depicted in cartoon wars and cartoon wars II: of south park, just cause you dont like it doesnt mean you have to ruin it for everybody else
  • Comment I purposely put my comments above the others, because when I put them below the others (probably due to including the entire previous discussion), they didn't show up. With that said...
  • Comment The two of you have made this AfD debate INSANELY messy. If nothing else, the original debate should only be linked to, not recreated in the midst of this discussion. Now, with that out of the way...
  • Strong speedy keep Are you kidding me? Seriously, is this a damn joke? They're episode summaries of an incredibly popular, cult-favorite, multiple-Emmy-Award-winning television show! Why not delete every article on every episode of every television program ever? I absolutely think that some of these articles need to be cleaned up, but to deleted them would be completely, utterly, absolutely, 100% ludicrous. -- Kicking222 22:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment so its fame allows us to ignore WP:CITE? -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 22:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Whether or not its fame allows us to, WP:IGNORE certainly does. I'm trying to maintain the quality of WP by defending viable articles from someone who wants to eliminate them for no particular reason. I'm in no way intending to make this a personal attack, but what do you so severely hate about "Family Guy"? Why not nominate every single "Simpsons" episode, every single "Futurama" episode, List of I Love Lucy episodes, the section of The Office (UK TV series) dealing with episode summaries... need I go on? If we deleted these articles, we would literally have to delete thousands of articles. And there's no reason for that just because you have some vendetta. You make the point that you would never find episode guides in an Encyclopedia Britannica, but you know what? That's why the first thing listed in WP:NOT is that WP is not paper. -- Kicking222 23:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't hate Family Guy. I just thought these articles were uncited and original research. I actually like Family guy. I hadn't checked other TV show summaries, so I couldn't know if they were bad or not yet. 'WITHDRAWN'. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 00:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Someone seems to have a grudge against Family Guy ;-) Seriously, they are episode pages like those of any other series. There is no original research in them. As for "cite", the episode which is summerised is a valid source. The person who made these accusations should back them up, as they seem pretty random and unfounded to me. And while he's at it, he should justify why he's going after Family Guy episodes only. Is it more researched or sourced to describe an episode of another series? Or is he planning to mass-delete all episode pages of all series? Until we get some kind of explaination on why these episodes in particular should be deleted, I'm strongly for keeping them. -- Ritchy 21:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, judging from the archived discussion below, it seems this debate has already taken place, and the overwhelming opinion is for "keep". Is there a reason why the debate is being reopened? -- Ritchy 21:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "debate" was when the page was porrly written, not when it was uncited. It is original research; the authors are getting their info from their knowledge of the episode. If they got the info from a summary then wheres the citation? And I do intend on proding all uncited summaries. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 21:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So by your judgement, any movie/book/tv show page that has a summary of the work is "uncited original research"? That's nonesense. It is cited, and the source is the movie/book/tv show being summarised. And if that's "original research", then every page where something's expressed in the writer's words instead of being copy-pasted from a book or encyclopedia - which is to say, every single page in wikipedia - is guilty of original research. And since we cannot copy-paste articles from encyclopedias (you know, with those pesky copyright laws and all), then we might as well shut down wikipedia right now and save you the trouble of listing every last page. -- Ritchy 22:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Wikipedia is a ternary source, so it shoud get information from secondary sources. The user's interpretation of the show via watching it once is original research since they are only using the subject as a source. It's the reason interviews can't be added directly to Wikipedia. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 22:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not an interpretation, it is a summary. It is a factual description of what happens in the episode. "Peter gets trapped on a desert island. He comes back after several months, and finds Brian has married Lois. He wins Lois over again." There is no original research in there. If the text were to read, say, "In a very unoriginal plot twist, Peter gets trapped on a desert island. But the Robinson story was better. Lois married Brian -- ewww gross, bestiality is wrong! But Peter wins Lois over again, yay Peter! He's so great, I love him so much!" then that would be a fan interpretation of the show, and you'd have a case. But there is nothing in wikipedia policy against putting factual information in - in fact, that's what wikipedia in for.
And another thing, did you actually read the No Original Research page? I'd like you to find me a part of it that can says, or even that can be loosely interpreted as saying, that a factual NPOV movie/book/tv show summary constitutes original research. That's kinda important for your case, since you're aiming to delete most of wikipedia based on that argument. -- Ritchy 22:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ccool2ax says:

Well, Wikipedia is a ternary source, so it shoud get information from secondary sources. The user's [summary] of the show via watching it once is original research since they are only using the subject as a source.

Wikipedia policy says:

However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.

I think that pretty much settles the debate. -- Ritchy 22:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"their personal analysis or interpretation of published material" under purpose makes sense... how about "or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data" under "defininton"? I've already stated my opinion, now let's gather others.-- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 22:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice, except for the fact that no one is analysing or interpreting the episode, so your argument doesn't hold up. A factual, NPOV summary of an episode is neither an interpretation nor an analysis. I thought I already explained the distinction between the two in an earlier post above. -- Ritchy 22:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Shoudn't they at least include a References section? -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 22:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The episode is the reference! -- Ritchy 22:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some issues of Bob's Poetry Magazine can be used as reference. See March 2005, May 2005, August 2005 and January 2006. Cromulent Kwyjibo 22:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Family Guy is a vital part of American mythology and its episodes are as worthy of Wikipedia articles as all the minor Homeric odes. Cromulent Kwyjibo 22:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Ok? -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 13:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm all for compromise, but I'm not sure I follow your logic here in asserting that the articles are uncited. It seems to me that if an article is about a TV show, the show is the citation... the citation is implied and should be obvious. Same goes if I am writing an article for a film; the plot summary, cast, etc are technically "uncited" in that I have not made a citation, but the film is the citation. Now if I write something about the critical reception, that requires a citation. So, what exactly are you suggesting? Are you saying that one can't write an article about a television show unless a secondary source has summarized its plot, therefore providing one with a citation? Aguerriero (talk) 23:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the compromise would be to find secondary sources for TV summaries... every tv summary preferably. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 01:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with this compromise. I disagree with the statement that the film, plot summary, cast etc are uncited as that may be how some film articles are but not how they should be as they can be sourced from IMDb and elsewhere. I was going to be putting uncited tags of some kind on these articles once they passed this AfD. MLA 08:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Surely there's an argument for deleting these articles, and those summarising particular episodes without particular cultural importance of any television programme, simply on the grounds of insignificance, or perhaps simply moving them to a different Wiki dedicated to such summaries, for the same reason that articles about undistinguished private persons are not included in Wikipedia? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; the information it is supposed to meet the requirements of relevance and significance as well as accuracy. -- DDCohen

STRONG STRONG STRONG KEEP If we can't keep this article, then we should go through and delete articles on individual episodes of TV shows....but since that would be extremely time consuming, and would result in a lot of good entries being deleted....there's just no sense.--Stdjsb25 16:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Episodes of the Family Guy. I know this battle is lost, but I still don't think we need episode summaries for every episode of popular TV shows. -- GWO
    • Doesn't Family Guy have a Wikia or something? Shouldn't they put their encyclpoedia-quality detailed articles on anything related to it there? -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 01:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes it does, but the problem with it is that Family Guy is so symbiotically connected into American pop culture that Wikipedia is better able to put it all into context. In this way it is very different from another TV show that has its own Wiki, Star Trek. In some ways, the Star Trek universe is highly self-contained, it could exist in the absence of 20th Century American pop culture. Cromulent Kwyjibo 20:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Wikipedia is not paper CoolKatt number 99999 22:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If this goes, then every other article on episodes of television series goes, too. Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 01:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep As with all other Family Guy episode summaries. Family Guy is closely linked to American popular culture, and the summaries at the Wikipedia offer and excellent reference for viewers who aren't too familliar with the said pop culture. Giving people more insight in different cultures is certainly something we want to achieve with the Wikipedia. --GSchjetne 20:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What is the point of deleting the article if there is original and uncited research? There's templates to use in place to help cleanup those unverified statements. Deleting does nothing in this situation since we're dealing with TV episodes. Douglasr007 07:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I have found these guides to be incredibly useful, especially when attempting to decipher the many vague (I was born in '90) cultural references made on Family Guy. The guides are really just factually summaries; the WP policy isn't holy writ, and I believe that quite reasonably, we can bend the rules a bit. And yes, if you did delete this extensive amount of work, you would have to do so for just about every uncited TV show entry out there and minor article stub. If you must, put that uncited banner above the article. Don't destroy this much work. Aristotle1990 01:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I certainly wish we could bend the rules here (seriously), but with editors treating even short essays as concrete, unbreakable rules (notability), I don't expect to see rule-bending here. It's either accept the rules or, when a deletionist is losing a battle, flat-out ignore them. At this point, I am not trying to delete all this work. I realize that they are great articles as far as quality of writing is. I just wish that the rules would stop being bent for TV shows and someone could introduce citations. If an article is uncited, it's original research, which is no-exceptions banned on Wikipedia. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 03:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep It would be absurd to delete virtually every TV show and movie page on Wikipedia, but almost all were written by a viewer based on what they saw rather than by citing a third party summary. At worst, use the Primarysources tag. IMHO, that's overkill for a popular culture item. As someone noted above, critical reaction or other news connected to the episode should be cited. Alanhwiki 02:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "but almost all were written by a viewer based on what they saw rather than by citing a third party summary"


Isn't that my point exactly? Wikipedia is not the place for original research. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 03:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is getting nonsensical in my opinion. Research on any topic is at some point original. Can a shared experience i.e watching a tv programme be considered research? Research suggests pursuing something to an end no-one has reached before. There is nothing on any of the Family Guy pages that anyone couldn't find out through seeing the relevent shows. It's a matter of knowledge rather than research. As a British person watching Family Guy I don't get all of the cultural references. It's nice to see them here laid out so I can understand them. Mallanox 21:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.



This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. Andy Janata 07:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Peter's Got Woods

edit

Submitted to AfD as a coutesy to User:Jondel, as I undeleted this article he deleted as an invalid speedy deletion. His reason was: "nonsense" JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:39, 17 September 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 20:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Norwich,Ct ghosts

edit

Submitted to AfD as a coutesy to User:Jondel, as I undeleted this article he deleted as an invalid speedy deletion. His reason was: "nonsense" JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:42, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Jondel was right. Delete. Even if we were to accept that ghosts may exist this would be a meaningless non-article. Given that possibility is somewhat dubious as well, this becomes just wikijunk. ot to mention the title being pretty awful. Grutness...wha? 08:46, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN/Delete --TimPope 11:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, speedy if possible. This article is not usable. Deletion is the obvious result, why drag it through Afd? Friday (talk) 17:24, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Patent nonsense, a BJAODN candidate. Delete - candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 20:19, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment is this really Wikipedia:Patent nonsense, i.e. "so completely and irredeemably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to make sense of it"? It seems more like "Partisan screed, or opinion masquerading as fact", "Religious excogitations", or "Incompetent and/or immature material", all of which are specifically mentioned as not being patent nonsense. If it is not speedable as patent nonsense, under which criteria is it speedyable? I'd really like to know, because I don't want to list any more pages on AfD than necessary. JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Nevertheless, Delete. It is a non-article, clearly. JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • delete', I regret having speedied but , AAAAAggh, I see patent nonsense everywhere, they (the contributers)don't know they are patent nonsense. *and the horror sinks in*--Jondel 02:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. IceKarmaॐ 23:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ceriz

edit

Hoax. OR. See also Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Emmanuel De Cériz. User:Zoe|(talk) 07:52, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. Paul August ☎ 20:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don Daynard

edit

It seems every radio announcer in Toronto in the last 10 years has been given a stub. Not all radio announcers are notable enough for an international project like wikipaedia Delete--Porturology 08:04, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep. four articles link to it, and wikipedia has no shortage of space for text I believe Astrokey44 09:16, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Joolz 21:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

East Jesus

edit

Completely idiosyncratic non-topic, obscure, POV — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeilN (talk • contribs) 20:04, 31 August 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Joolz 21:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Wright and Elastic Press

edit
  • Delete I am nominating this page for deletion as it nothing more than a vanity piece, created by the subject, and contains promotional material, dubious claims, and more nostalgia than neutrality. Connor Wolf 15:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless something from a reputable source can verify he is worth having an article on. Article is mostly gibberish. - Taxman Talk 04:33, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Taxman, after doing a bit of research into the guy I've found out that he is forever destined to be a smalltime self-publisher (about 2,500 copies in a printrun) with literary delusions. Constantly comparing himself to Michael Moorcock, Clive Barker, Stephen King, and JK Rowling, when it's obvious that a two year old's scribblings make more sense. He also writes reviews of his own books on the Amazon sites and spams book forums under numerous guises. His writing needs work, by the way. And bandages. Connor Wolf 11:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hang on a minute! This is a joke. This guy Connor Wolf started the Sean Wright Wikipedia page. Check out the history. He started it with all kinds of crap about Sean Wright. He continiues to hound Mr Wright, paw over his every word on his website. The guys an internet stalker. Amazingly, his buddy John Self (so called reviewer) not only continue to hound unprovoke Mr Wright, but they've started a hate campaign via http://www.jessejameson.blogspot.com and http://www.crapauthors.com. This call for a deletion from two unstable characters such as Connor Wolf (Dave Briggs of Ely) and John Self (John Simpson from Belfast)who also run another hate-filled and prejudice site is highly questionable at best and just simply wrong at worst. Again, the facts are clear. Look at the history on wikipedia regarding this so-called deletion. Connor Wolf bagan this. Look at the other crap he has spouted about any reputable author connected with Sean Wright and Crowswing Books. This guys (John and Connor) are duping you. They spread shit wherever they can. Check them out!

    If this article is deleted (along with all the others that Connor Wolf is attempting delete in connection to Sean Wright and Crowswing) then the admin guys and girls are condoning a prejudice, dirty tricks campaign that began on Palimpsest.org.uk 21 months ago! These two guys need deleting from Wikipedia, not Sean Wright and Crowswing Books, or any other legitimate author connected with Crowswing. For God sake check out the facts!!! Wikipedia's reputation depends on it. The following authors are involved with Crowswing Books (who are NOT a vanity publisher, far from it). Many of these authors have long and notable publishing careers. Allen Ashley, Andrew Hook, Michael Mirolla, Gary Moeser, Lisa DuMond, Gary McMahon, Che Ballard, Jeff Gardiner, Sam Mills, P. Grey, Sian Orthello, Graham Joyce, Joel Lane, John L. Probert, Michelle Ponto, Paul Finch, James Cooper, Gary Fry, Ramsey Campbell, David A Sutton, Stephen Jones, Jeff Gardiner, Ken Alden, Peter Tennant, Geoff Maloney and Sean Wright. If you take the time to check out these authors you WILL find that many have been nominated or won the World Fantasy Award, British Fantasy Award, or International Horror Guild Award. These are legitimate, reputable, verifiable awards. Do a bit of research - in the name of sanity and fair play.
  • Unsigned user above: If you were to look at the history of this page you will see that I did not create it at all. You are accusing me of being someone else, which is fine, but you should stick to the discussion at hand. This article is a vanity piece created from an unregistered user and all the other articles related to it also since they are promotional and not informative. I've taken a look into the authors you mention and the only one of any note was Ramsey Campbell, whom you have not published. Having explored the BFS site it appears to be nothing more than a hive for backslapping on ill-conceived fiction. Connor Wolf 22:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Considering YOU - Connor Wolf - began the Sean Wright page on Wikipedia, I find your argument rather hollow and confused. As can be seen from the list of edits and discussions, this article has developed in the spirit of neutrality. Check out the ealiest history to see that it was so. Connor Wolf lies through his canine teeth. Here's Connor's first attempted, referring EVERY review of Sean Wright's books over to one site - his site!!! at Palimpsest.org.uk [[6]
    Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Sean_Wright"
  • Unsigned user above: (who is, most likely, [Sean Wright]]) I don't have a site and I did not create this page; only edited it. So, for the last time, I am not the person you think I am. Believe me, I've read those reviews and - having only had experience of Jaarfindor - I can wholeheartedly agree with the people who wrote them. Try to understand, however, that although that site may have a campaign against you, Connor Wolf is not a member of it. Believe me, your writing is that bad that it's not unlikely other people will begin to question why you bother, like I did. Connor Wolf 08:17, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. There's certainly vanity writing in the articles, but there's something odd going on with the pressure to remove all references to a small press publisher which appears to meet the notability standards. Monicasdude 23:25, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I agree with Monicasdude. Needs revising though to take out the vanity stuff. User:jamlover 22.44 20 September 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. IceKarmaॐ 23:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New Wave of Speculative Fiction: The What If Factor

edit

Delete. A promotional page created by Sean Wright under user ID 81.152.130.179. Checking this user ID shows that the only pages created or edited are those relating to Sean Wright and his publications and associates. John Self 17:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was WP:CSD G7 JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:49, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

El Presidente (cocktail)

edit

I created the article, but since am of the opinion that there probably will never be enough content for Wikipedia. &#151; Eoghanacht talk 12:37, 2005 August 31 (UTC)

  • Delete and remove link from El Presidente (a disambiguation page), but keep it listed without the link. I have already transwikied the recipe to wikibooks bartending, and placed a link on the disambiguation page. &#151; Eoghanacht talk 12:37, 2005 August 31 (UTC)
  • Keep no more or less significant than many other cocktails listed in wikipedia.
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Delete as unencyclopedic, or speedy by author request. —Cryptic (talk) 08:13, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have Speedied the article, by criteria General 7, author request. Since the information is now at Wikibooks, if someone really cares, they are welcome to recreate it, as this AfD was not closed due to the content of the article. JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:49, 17 September 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 21:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ultranationalism

edit

Hopelessly POV article title; nothing here that isn't already covered in Nationalism Demiurge 08:17, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Demiurge 08:17, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Joolz 21:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Jameson and the Bogie Beast etc

edit
as well as Jesse Jameson and the Curse of Caldazar, Jesse Jameson and the Vampire Vault, The Twisted Root of Jaarfindor, Wicked or What?

I think the VfD templates are messed up or someone messed something up or something, but since the VfD notice links here...

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP and merge. IceKarmaॐ 23:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

House of Dereon

edit

Submitted to AfD as a coutesy to User:Jondel, as I undeleted this article he deleted as an invalid speedy deletion. JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:28, 17 September 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. IceKarmaॐ 23:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mutek

edit

Submitted to AfD as a coutesy to User:Jondel, as I undeleted this article he deleted as an invalid speedy deletion. JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:28, 17 September 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delted - patent nonsense. Dunc|☺ 11:29, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ants in the Pants (game)

edit

Submitted to AfD as a coutesy to User:Jondel, as I undeleted this article he deleted as an invalid speedy deletion. JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:30, 17 September 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep -- Joolz 21:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Island Trees School District v. Pico

edit

Submitted to AfD as a coutesy to User:Jondel, as I undeleted this article he deleted as an invalid speedy deletion. JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:31, 17 September 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No Consensus Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 00:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


AEG Turbine Factory

edit

Submitted to AfD as a coutesy to User:Jondel, as I undeleted this article he deleted as an invalid speedy deletion. JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:31, 17 September 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETED as COPYVIO. -Splashtalk 00:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Serena hotel

edit

Submitted to AfD as a coutesy to User:Jondel, as I undeleted this article he deleted as an invalid speedy deletion. JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:32, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Its linked from the Islamabad article. I added the picture from there to this article and the countries the hotels are located in. However, the original text here had been copied straight from the hotel's site [8] Astrokey44 10:22, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. Paul August ☎ 21:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Blake

edit

Submitted to AfD as a coutesy to User:Jondel, as I undeleted this article he deleted as an invalid speedy deletion. JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:36, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, verifiable. [9] [10] —Cryptic (talk) 08:46, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cryptic Sam Vimes 17:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The story as told at IMDb makes a valid point for keeping him; this article does not make the point very well. -- DS1953 19:01, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - long and significant legal battles ensued in Australia - connected to the amount of damages he received from the Govt personal injury insurer after the accident (which was judged to not have been his fault). Witnesses in court included Hollywood pundits who testified Blake was destined to be a star of Mel Gibson proportions, so should receive much more damages for loss of future earnings. Another legal battle I believe concerned the capping of the amount for damages - which differed in the state where the accident occured (South Australia) and the state where Blake resided (New South Wales)... should he get the lower South Australian amount or the higher NSW figure I believe was one argument I don't have the details at hand but this is a big and notable story. MinorEdit 02:29, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ··gracefool |☺ 17:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete patent nonsense. Dunc|☺ 11:33, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adalie

edit

Submitted to AfD as a coutesy to User:Jondel, as I undeleted this article he deleted as an invalid speedy deletion. JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:36, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete - nonsense Astrokey44 10:25, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was

Mainul hosein

edit

Submitted to AfD as a coutesy to User:Jondel, as I undeleted this article he deleted as an invalid speedy deletion. JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:36, 17 September 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. I think the original speedy was fine. -Splashtalk 00:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chicka reeves

edit

Submitted to AfD as a coutesy to User:Jondel, as I undeleted this article he deleted as an invalid speedy deletion. JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:37, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Weak keep. Found a reference here [11] It says he was killed by a "bullet probably delivered by a Sydney contract killer. His underworld murder remains unsolved" Astrokey44 10:29, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete there are loads of underworld murders, this one is not special. Dunc|☺ 15:59, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subject appears to be real and of questionable notability, but current content is sufficiently terrible as to be useless. Article title also appears to be incorrect. Rather than bothering to move it, if there's a way to speedily redelete this as easily as it was undeleted, I'd recommend doing so. Friday (talk) 21:22, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirected to The Detroit Cobras. sjorford #£@%&$?! 12:35, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Detroit Cobras

edit

Submitted to AfD as a coutesy to User:Jondel, as I undeleted this article he deleted as an invalid speedy deletion. JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:36, 17 September 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. IceKarmaॐ 23:25, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Timescapes, Time-technology, Social importance and data clock

edit

Too many buzz-words without much content. Refers to alleged societal clocks but without links to any examples thereof. Given that these are the ideas of Bala Subramanian and the originator of these articles is User:Bala2252, unless evidence is shown that other academics have adopted these ideas, then these articles should be deleted as original research. -- RHaworth 08:48, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Data clock added. -- RHaworth 02:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Joolz 21:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Banks Wilson

edit

Non-notable. --TheParanoidOne 09:05, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. I'm not going to action the move suggestions since the present content of the article would be pretty weird-looking under that title by itself. Anyone else can move it if they want to, of course. -Splashtalk 00:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bimonthly

edit

This is a dicionary definition. A previous entry, very similar to this one, was delted after being transwikied to wiktionary. This isn't a speedy though because afaict there has never been a deletion discussion about it, the transwiki happened after it was marked with the {{move to wiktionary}} tag. Thryduulf 09:48, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. IceKarmaॐ 23:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Wendell Haney

edit

Haney was a politician in the Illinois chapter of DeMolay, which appears to be the junior freemasons. I don't think this effectively establishes his notability. -- Kjkolb 12:49, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. IceKarmaॐ 23:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sims99

edit

Was listed for speedy deletion but speedy delete tag was removed. Current version doesn't fit under CSD criteria anyway, so I'm listing it here. This is about a Sims 2 fan website that doesn't seem that much notable. Weak delete. — JIP | Talk 05:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. IceKarmaॐ 23:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eomer

edit

Not notable, only claims to notability are distant relationships to other people. May even be a hoax because I doubt it's possible to prove who a person's 44th great-grandfather is.--Carabinieri 14:39, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splashtalk 00:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Everett Smith

edit

Not notable, only claim to notability is that he may have coined a word. No real biography in the article either, only a summary of pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis--Carabinieri 14:38, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It needs expansion, but coining a word does make him notable. Logophile 17:46, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's not when there's already a perfectly fine word for the disease which is in common use. This isn't used. I'll quote from the article on the word.
that the word was a neologism invented in 1935 by Everett M. Smith, president of the National Puzzlers' League, as an example of a theoretical word that might one day enter use if trends in medical word coinage were to continue. Research into the body of medical literature prior to his usage in 1935 have never successfully shown that the word existed prior to his coinage.

The actual name of the disease is pneumoconiosis. The article is listed as a hoax as well. That's 4 reasons not to have this stay around. - Mgm|(talk) 18:44, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • merge and redirect to pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis unless there is more biographical information to include. This word is pretty famous, so this meets my notability standards. — brighterorange (talk) 19:26, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if anything biograhical can be found, else merge and redirect - Very famous word (and my personal favourite).
  • Keep even though I'm annoyed that he added the "microscopic" part, otherwise it could have been siung to Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious Grutness...wha? 01:02, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow. Normally a person who "may have coined a word" would be quite nn. But the act of its coining was itself what made the word notable, and this fellow's position was significant (presumably) to its acquiring widespread-among-word-geeks notability. The AP guy (or UPI or a broadcast network or whoever) wouldn't have picked it up if it had been just some guy in his den writing a letter to a write-a-funky-word contest or something. Weak keep; this is just on the edge of Importance policy but several editors above are saying "famous", so hopefully they'll find more verifiable details to accomplish "sofixit". Barno 06:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definite keep - notable both for neologism and for being president of the puzzlers' league at a time when puzzles were far more of a popular pasttime than they are today. Could add a request for expansion. Vizjim 13:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splashtalk 00:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon Junior

edit

Besides the amazing amount of factual inaccuracy, what the article would be when accurate is adequately covered in Pokémon (anime). Sonic Mew | talk to me 15:27, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. My understanding is that wikt:protologisms are not acceptable to Wiktionary, so the transwiki suggestion is not useful here. -Splashtalk 00:12, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Googabout

edit

It's not a good sign when the article includes a link to neologism - and, indeed, that's what it is. DS 15:27, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zero-to-nothing

edit

Band vanity. DS 16:30, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete - Joolz 21:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New blogger syndrome

edit

This article seems to be orginal research because there are no citations or proof that this is a phrase used by the blogger community (or a medical condition for that matter). -Solarusdude 16:38, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. Quit with the bad-faith nominations. Next time you decide to do so, please put it on a separate AfD page. But gracefool: there is no policy prohibiting renominations in any timespan, it's just frowned upon. -Splashtalk 00:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

American Government Simulation

edit

This site is already covered in some detail at Government Simulator. It is not notable enough for its own page as it certainly has less than 500 players. This borders on advertising and vanity. There is no purpose to this page other than advertising since they currently maintain their own Wiki for recording their in-game events. NavalWar1800 17:41, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment This is a bad faith VfD. User NavalWar1800 has contributed a large section about a different simulation, USGS, in the Government Simulation article. link to NavalWar1800's revision. NavalWar1800 also disobeyed the page's instructions to keep the links alphabetized and moved the USGS external link to the top of the list link. The last VfD motion was made by USGS members who (wrongly) believed AGS members were trying to delete their page in Wikipedia. Additionally, more than half of NavalWar1800's contributions to Wikipedia have been directed toward deleting this entry. NavalWar1800's decision to add nearly a page of USGS information to the Government Simulation entry, coupled with his move to delete this page immediately after another USGS-sponsored VfD failed, calls his credibility into question. Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Bcarlson33 17:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep this has recenlty been through deletion process ending on 11th September. (The result was no consensus) Alf melmac 20:27, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Alf. Kappa 00:05, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Alf. Stop beating a dead horse already. Bcarlson33 00:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That some other agency is keeping track of it with a Wiki or any other means shouldn't have any bearing on whether Wikipedia has an article or not. On second thought, as it might add to the verifyability of the info, it could actually subtract form the arguments in favor of article deletion, if verifiability had been under question, which in this case it hadn't. Borderline article in my opinion, and I don't feel strongly enough on this one to take the time to decide which side of the borderline I'd rather be on. Caerwine 04:05, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is simply no reason to maintain this page. It is pure advertising. It is not notable in any way and it is covered (and has a paragraph's worth of writing) on the Government Simulator page. Absolutely no reason to keep unless we intend to start allowing advertising for every internet game that pops up. I might also add that their having a Wiki does not add to its legitimacy. They track their in-game events so they can remember who their President etc. was. It is irrelevant to the purpose of an encyclopedia that tracks factual events in the real world. NavalWar1800 03:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Certainly a previous AfD whose result was "no consensus" does not constitute a sufficient reason to keep. I was going to vote "delete" because the article doesn't indicate any distinction beyond lots of these other exercises. Some make a voting member of anyone who registers. But a Google search gives lots of hits (9950 using the three words in quotes, which are pretty generic even in that sequence). Many high hits are WP (we're #2) or mirrors. Some high hits are other games or face-to-face simulations, and I'm not sure how much this one stands out from its field. I noticed that the only "innovations" cited in the article are different features than this simulation's predecessor. Nothing indicates it meets WP:I if there are just a few surveys of what's out there in this category without any real indication of pioneering or changing its field or garnering attention of many thousands of people. Weak delete per NavalWar1800 unless someone can demonstrate more significance. Barno 06:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this VfD was created in violation of policy (already VfD 6 days before) ··gracefool |☺ 17:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Totseism

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete, but I will follow the suggestions of those who wanted this merged with Son Of Dork. I will see what is worth merging, and leave the history in tact so that people can check if I'm doing the merge correctly. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Son of Dork

edit

fails music notability, yet to release first albulm Jkelly 19:02, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splashtalk 00:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PHWComics

edit

Appears to be non-notable advertising for a website. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 19:49, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. PHWComics is a non-profit team that makes comics basically just for the fun of it and entertainment to show others. They are not in it for making money and this article does not exist for "free advertising". It is merely here to tell people who PHWComics is, what they do, and maybe even teach people a few tricks and techniques for making comics along the way. Go and check out the site and take a look if you don't believe me. -- Zeus (PHWComics fan)


Note from a member of PHWComics-- As a member of the mentioned site, we are not looking for free advertising, we are non-profit. We are part of a larger community that uses something called Garry's Mod for Half-Life to to make comics, contraptions and more. The mod is basically a free physics sandbox for the game Half-Life 2 from VAVLe Software, and it a little bit of an Internet phenomena that we felt should be documented. We feel that it is no more of a advertisement than the page for Homestar Runner page also featured here. -- BrashFink (PHWComics)


Note from a member of PHWComics-- Well, one of the comics, namely mine, "Apostasy" was notable enough to be in 3 major British Magazines; PC Gamer UK, PC Zone and FHM UK Edition. Some of the other sites that have featured it are 1up.com, BoingBoing.net, GameSpot.com and SlashDot. It was also featured on G4TV's "Attack of the Show" Go do a google search for "Apostasy Comic", there are tons of links, even in other languages. If it is voted out, that is perfectly fine. I just wanted to note that we were not "looking for something" by posting this, we were just trying to add to the greater "net consciousness" about something. -- BrashFink (PHWComics)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was MERGE to Emergency stop. Unable to find any coherent material to merge, I shall simply redirect. Anyone else can retrieve the material from this history if they like. -Splashtalk 00:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Panic stop

edit

Submitted to AfD as a coutesy to User:Jondel, as I undeleted this article he deleted as an invalid speedy deletion. JesseW, the juggling janitor 19:51, 17 September 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splashtalk 00:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Twins days

edit

Submitted to AfD as a coutesy to User:Jondel, as I undeleted this article he deleted as an invalid speedy deletion. JesseW, the juggling janitor 19:52, 17 September 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Going to ground

edit

Submitted to AfD as a coutesy to User:Jondel, as I undeleted this article he deleted as an invalid speedy deletion. JesseW, the juggling janitor 19:57, 17 September 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Joolz 21:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One Country

edit

Submitted to AfD as a coutesy to User:Jondel, as I undeleted this article he deleted as an invalid speedy deletion. JesseW, the juggling janitor 19:57, 17 September 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. IceKarmaॐ 00:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony G. Collins

edit

Submitted to AfD as a coutesy to User:Jondel, as I undeleted this article he deleted as an invalid speedy deletion. JesseW, the juggling janitor 19:57, 17 September 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. IceKarmaॐ 00:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Old Apps

edit

Submitted to AfD as a coutesy to User:Jondel, as I undeleted this article he deleted as an invalid speedy deletion. JesseW, the juggling janitor 19:59, 17 September 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete (already performed) -- Joolz 21:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rowan Burns

edit

Submitted to AfD as a coutesy to User:Jondel, as I undeleted this article he deleted as an invalid speedy deletion. JesseW, the juggling janitor 19:58, 17 September 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete, but the "keep"-type vote was to merge with Devil May Cry 3: Dante's Awakening, so that is what I'll do. After reviewing both this article, and the target article, I don't know if anything else than the first two lines can be feasably merged. Now, I am leaving the history in tact, so if anyone thinks that I should have merged more of this article, they may do so. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, I think the whole thing can be merged. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agni&Rudra

edit

Submitted to AfD as a coutesy to User:Jondel, as I undeleted this article he deleted as an invalid speedy deletion. JesseW, the juggling janitor 19:58, 17 September 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 00:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal bibliography

edit

Not a complete article and doesn't refer to anything that would be. Unless there is a missing piece, delete. Paul 05:45, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I made the page originally, but I agree in changing it to Contributions to liberal theory Electionworld 18:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Needs more discussion. Relisting 17 Sep. --Tony SidawayTalk 20:37, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. IceKarmaॐ 00:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

EFilm

edit

Advertisement. If this company is indeed notable, the page may be rewritten as neutral.Chick Bowen 20:53, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 16:28, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck the South

edit

Non-notable website promotion. Tysto 21:03, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dispute that it's relatively well known for the moment, but so are lots of Internet e-mail forwards and novelty websites, very few of which deserve any mention in an encyclopedia. What is this article going to say six months or a year from now, when the interest in this bile has died down and the website is defunct? "Briefly controversial rant against Southerners copied by many weblogs, some approving, some disapproving"? IMO, this kind of thing makes Wikipedia into an compedium of stuff-I-just-heard-about instead of a proper encyclopedia. --Tysto 02:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability not established. --Randy 23:18, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain at this time, because I am too disturbed by the website itself. I am from the South. The website that the article refers to is a hate-filled misinformed rant directed against a small percentage of southerners, the ones Hollywood uses as cliché villains. Yes, there are Bubbas who own assault rifles and fly the Confederate battle flag (and might not recognize any of the real Confederate flags). They are a minority. This is the Bible Belt so there are people who think they are Christians preaching hate against homosexuals. Those two groups alone do not make a majority, but voting with other conservatives and some moderates get a slight majority. Nationally, in the 2004 presidential race Bush received 50.7% and Kerry received 48.7% of the of the popular vote. To assume that everyone in the South thinks the same way based on which party wins elections is just wrong. The web site just is another divisive factor in the United States, based on regionalism instead of some other prejudice. Ask yourself as you think about this AfD - is notoriety the same thing as notability? I will vote later, after I have had some time to think and to review the Wikipedia article for NPOV and to review policies. -WCFrancis 23:58, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, posting a rant on the interweb doesn't make it notable. Gazpacho 00:29, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. -- BD2412 talk 01:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - seems notable, I have heard a lot about it after the election. Guettarda 01:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete one controversial website is hardly encyclopedic, also swearwords on Wikipedia should not be encouraged, I am fairly broadminded myself but some people could be offended. PatGallacher 02:05, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete based on lack of notability alone; uninterested in content of web site or perceived offensiveness. -- MCB 08:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's offensive and surprisingly poorly written, but this site is notable. The article doesn't seem to be vanity. Keep Vizjim 15:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taco Deposit did a good job on keeping the article here NPOV. Rant itself is quite stale; that is it was posted a couple of days after the election and there appears to be no new material since. Why someone is so filled with hate as to pay to keep it up is a mystery. However, I feel that documentation of divisive elements in the US itself is notable. Weak Merge with Election Controversy section of US Presidential Election 2004 article would be something I would prefer to keeping it as separate article. -WCFrancis 04:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. IceKarmaॐ 00:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of gay icons

edit

This is a stray VfD from a while ago, so I'm listing it now. No opinion yet, but I will note that there is this and Category:Gay_icons, which seems to duplicate a lot Ryan Norton T | @ | C 21:08, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This either needs to be pared down or deleted. According to this list, nearly every celebrity in America and parts of Europe is a gay icon. Just because gay people like a certain celebrity doesn't make that person some kind of idol to the homosexual community; the vast majority of the people on this list hold the same status with gays as they do with blacks, whites, men, women, and yes, heterosexuals. I realize that gay icons exist-- Cher, to be sure-- but 99% of the people on this list do not have some kind of special affinity directed at them by gays, nor do they possess some kind of high standing in the gay community. They just so happen to be heavily lusted after in gay pop culture (Bruce Willis, for example)-- the same way they are lusted after by straights.70.242.12.23 04:56, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vociferously seconded. Cher, ABBA, Judy Garland, the Village People et cetera, all undeniably gay icons. Jennifer Aniston? Not so much. Besides, methinks a distinction must be made between gay icons and celebrities who simply happen to be gay or bisexual themselves, no matter how famously, infamously, or flamingly.
  • This item should be deleted. The category 'gay icon' is meaningless. So-called gay icons are also admired by all sorts of people. How about a left-handed'peoples' icons list or a color-blind peoples' icon list? The other problems is who gets to decide who is a gay icon? The decisions have to be totally subjective and, thus, invalid. Also, the implication is that whoever is a gay icon, is gay themselves. In the vast majority of cases that, of course, is not true. Get rid of the aritcle. ArielS
  • Definite delete. Although it has given me the idea for a screenplay in which Angela Lansbury plays a member of the Indigo Girls who travels back in time and is mistaken for Queen Christina of Sweden. Could be the gay cinema hit of the century. Peeper 22:26, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable list —Wahoofive (talk) 23:08, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unverifiable and inherently POV. 23skidoo 05:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vague criteria, unmaintainable list, hopelessly POV. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 05:45, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only purpose of this list is to raise the profile of homosexuality. Blatantly pov even without the obvious accuracy issue. CalJW 08:59, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think it's in dispute that there's a significant gay community, and that certain celebrities are considered icons in that community. While this lists' problems are legion, I don't think advertising homosexuality is really one of them. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 09:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree, it has nothing to do with raising the profile of the gay community. On the one hand, the choices are verifiable, by having discussions about why or why not certain people should or should not be listed...with members of the gay community, of which I am one. On the other hand, it is repetitive (the article Gay icons) and as long as there is one, there's not much need for the other. Brian1979 12:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hopelessly unverifiable lots of issues | leave me a message 09:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, overblown list with everyone from A to Z Timmybiscool 17:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-verifiable original research. Why is the climate here so different than that of WP:CFD? Are subjective categories more acceptable than articles? Category:Gay icons has been nominated for deletion at least three times since I've been here. Hall Monitor 18:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I thought this had been dealt with ages ago, with entries being added to Category:Gay icons to be dealt with individually. —Phil | Talk 14:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant delete. Gay icons do exist, but I don't see any assertions of how or why someone makes it on this list, or any suggestion as to how we could come up wiht a consensus. Also, not very well written, but that could change. paul klenk talk 11:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete category already exists and is better. Plus this is non-verifiable original research. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 12:01, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (redirect to category) ··gracefool |☺ 17:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 00:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Invective

edit

Dictionary definition, a better one already exists at [14] BadSeed 17:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more discussion. Relisting. --Tony SidawayTalk 21:10, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. IceKarmaॐ 00:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mora mirror

edit

High school newspaper, no evidence of notability. High school articles are one thing, and if there was one in this case I'd suggest merging there, but here there isn't, so it seems very cart-before-the-horse. Alai 21:14, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. IceKarmaॐ 00:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Omnomnom

edit

Dictdef neologism, 47 Google hits Jkelly 21:24, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy keep with unanimous consent, including nominator who suggested speedying. Friday (talk) 23:53, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pekin Duck

edit

At first I thought it was an amusing and obvious hoax, however I'm not so sure that an article isn't valid, maybe not this one - ferret-white with canary tinge? Alf melmac 21:29, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • My intention wasn't to misuse the AfD, I posted a question about retracting this AfD nomination at the help desk. I was led astray by a link from the fictional ducks section of the ducks article and the article I saw with "ferret-white", "canary tinge", "Donald Duck" and "Chinese Cuisine use these Pekin duck only. They won't use other duck type since it doesn't "taste the same"" sounded hoaxey. My original nomination was just as amusing and obvious hoax, but changed it after I had second thoughts. Alf melmac 22:11, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a Speedy keep helps correct my mistaken nomination here and close the AfD, I'd be grateful, I took a wrong turn and apologise for wasting your time. Alf melmac 22:34, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. IceKarmaॐ 23:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CANALBOTAFOGO

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as nn vanity

Jon_Weaver

edit

Vanity bio, claims notability as "coolest kid in the world" Jkelly 21:46, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP. IceKarmaॐ 00:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

edit

Parent company for a non-notable search engine (alexa rank 130,000 ). Looks like promotion. — brighterorange (talk) 22:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. IceKarmaॐ 23:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Psychiatric crime

edit

Random factoids are slapped together under a title that implies that there is a meaning to slapping them together, labelling them as "psychiatric crime" rather than what is actually documented, which is crime committed by psychiatrists. Can we accumulate a laundry list of crimes committed by plumbers and call it "plumbing crime"? Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:21, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. IceKarmaॐ 23:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs whose title is more than 10 characters long

edit

Unmaintainable, essentially incomplete, unencyclopedic, pointless list. a "random collection of information". Strong delete. DES (talk) 22:51, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 16:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of parody songs credited as ones done by Bill Clinton

edit

Pointless list. Credited by whom? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:57, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. IceKarmaॐ 23:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Squub

edit
  • KEEP.I think that to dismiss it out of hand as being flippant or somehow peurile is unwise. This entry presents something of a second rate paradox, but nevertheless it is saying that it is what it is. So I believe that for Wikipedians to act responsibly in this matter they surely must accept that a Squub is what it says it is. Its all very well dismissing this entry as a protologism, but where do you draw the line? to whit; at what point did "protologism" cease to be a protologism and enter the lexicon? I ask because the English language predates whatever point in time the word protologism was cobbled together, and it was only cobbled together to apply a label to a thing. So a body of guardians preserving our glorious language at that point in history in the same way that those crying for deletion are doing now would have succesfully prevented the establishment of the term "protologism" which would effectively render this call for deletion irrelevent, unintelligible and illogical. A Squub is a thing, and Wikipedians calling for a deletion ought to take measure of their pulse and perhaps re-read the democratic manifesto of Wikipedia before consigning this neologism to the incinerator.MarkM 14:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone is "consigning this neologism to the incinerator". No-one is preventing the further use of the word, and if and when it does become more widely used it may become worthy of an encyclopaedia entry; at present it is not. --Daveb 13:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May I therefore ask a couple of question that may appear to be facetious but in fact in neither case do I intend to be:

1. At what point would you consider the term sufficiently used to qualify for inclusion? 2. In general, is the acceptance of a neologism on a scale grander than 'X' one of the prime requirements for qualification?

In respect of question one, I would suggest that for Wikipedia to establish a quantity-quantifier system would lead to a similar situation as now faces the Kansas board of Education. A recent declaration that for a religious movement to qualify for the curriculum required 'X' amount of followers immediately prompted worldwide adoption of the religion of the Flying Spaghetti Monster in numbers that swamped the Kansas Board's own "Tipping Point"... I use a neologism there with my tongue in my cheek you understand.

In respect of question number two, Could I ask that you consider that whatever figure you decide 'X' might be, it would require individuals of greater than that number by at least one significant other to conceive of and declare new words ABSOLUTELY SIMULTANEOUSLY for any evolution of vocabulary to take place. So even if you say 'X equals 1' then no new words can ever be brought into existence unless two people simultaneously conceive and declare that word.

I look forward to your response. MarkM 14:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedied. android79 23:27, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John D. Stone

edit

Wikipedia is not a personal weblog, it's an encyclopedia. Users should not be making paragraph long articles on themselves. There is ample area for discussion and socialization on this site, however, creating articles for this purpose is not beneficial to the community. 153.104.16.114 23:03, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. IceKarmaॐ 23:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yanaboo

edit

Appears to be an ad. Text is straight from http://www2.yanaboo.com:881/about.html Stezton 23:13, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

please reconsider...this is not self-promotion yet merely an article on what Yanaboo do. the About page was Derived from the wikipedia entry by a client of Yanaboo. this surely a mistake. I, as another client of Yanaboo, will be glad to alter this article any way you see fit. Thank You

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. IceKarmaॐ 23:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PulverRadio

edit

Appears to be an advertisement. Note: this appears to be a recreation of an article deleted by VfD and as such may qualify for speedy deletion. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:27, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No Consensus, default keep Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 16:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Death shriek

edit

Scream used in rock music. Dicdef, possible neologism, certainly uninteresting. —Wahoofive (talk) 23:41, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_September_17&oldid=1234127400"