Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 November 20

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< November 19 November 21 >

Purge server cache

November 20

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete WP:CSD A7 . -Doc ask? 00:29, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ismayil Tahmazov

edit

Not notable enough Delete (nom by User:Alex Bakharev)

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --JoanneB 18:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Medievalscape

edit

Article for a game that might be called minor at best. The number of related Google results (0) gives a reasonable indication of notability. Soo 00:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was move to Mel Stitzel. --timc&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[User_talk:Timc|Talk]] 20:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Stizel

edit

Delete WIth its unsourced claim to greatness, it just barely avoids my sendng it to speedyland. Even if he does deserve an article, there's nothing here to build it from. Caerwine 00:55, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --JoanneB 18:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

World (of Humans)

edit

Smells like original research. - Sikon 16:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would appreciate some time to provide background and justification on the concept. The article is barely in its beginnings. - eli1


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

The result of the debate was No consensus; either merge or delete. In accordance with the standard AfD principle "if in doubt don't delete", and my own personal "don't choose an option nobody wants just for the sake of being able to say no consensus", I've merged to WMAY-AM. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Molson and Lee Show

edit

Non-notable radio show Delete --JAranda | watz sup 23:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --JoanneB 18:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Van Bever

edit

Nn 24.54.208.177


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --JoanneB 18:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael S. Pinkert

edit

Nn 24.54.208.177 23:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep after rewrite. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Erling

edit

Dicdef. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 23:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 22:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DescoGUI

edit

NN software. I realize that finite state machine software might be rare, but there's only 9 Google hits for this, as opposed to over 600 for FSA Utilities, a competing product. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 23:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --JoanneB 18:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vladmir Magellan

edit

Hoax Delete abakharev 00:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brothaman and the Dionsaurs

edit

Band does not show signs of meeting the requirements at WP:NMG. The closest they come is having releases on an indie label, "strange notes records", but that label itself, rather than being "one of the more important indie labels" as required, only gets 53 Google hits. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --JoanneB 19:07, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tajmahal.wav

edit

I don't believe an entry for a WAV from an obscure HL mod is relevant

Delete per nom. Akamad 02:03, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of transmitters in the FM Broadcasting band

edit

Exhaustive list of FM transmitters in Germany. Delete per WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information --BadSeed 01:33, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --JoanneB 18:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Henry

edit

Probably not a real person, googling "Emily Mariah Henry" yields no results. If she is real, I don't think she is notable enough for Wikipedia. - Akamad 01:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Okay, bear with me on this one. I count: 8 moves, 4 deletes, 3 keeps, with two of the moves being "well, maybe keep" or "well, maybe delete". I personally find the arguments for moving to List of North American cities by founding year to be the more persuasive, but I'm not prepared to go on' move just based on that, given the wide variety of opinions expressed here. The plain fact of the matter is, there's no consensus to delete. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of North American cities founded in chronological order

edit

inherently long, unwieldy, and impossible to maintain. It will never be complete or accurate. In short, unreasonable. WAvegetarian 02:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps move to List of Earliest North American settlements. Specify, say, nothing after 1650 or 1700. A list of this sort could be useful for research. Marskell 04:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Beyond hope of repair. Fails to define Major North American cities. Presumably that could be anywhere since Jamestown, Virginia no longer has any residents! Fails to mention nearby Hampton founded 1610 and a moderate sized city. There's too little effort here to be worth rescuing. Durova 07:07, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another problem with this list is that it's inherently biased. North America wasn't empty of people in 1491. Yet because only the Mayans had a written language and many of the others were nomadic, it will be impossible to date their settlements. Durova 16:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful start on a topic of wide interest. I have categorised it. CalJW 10:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per WAvegetarian. --Vizcarra 12:22, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move and limit by date per Marskell. Squiddy 12:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move and limit by date per Marskell. Please note that an a list's ability to be completed is not a criterion for deletion under current policy. See Template:Dynamic list. If that were a valid deletion criteria, the dynamic list template would be deleted, or perhaps redirected to an AfD tag. Jacqui★ 14:48, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment According to User:Jeffq on the talk page for that template, "This template was created specifically to address the problem of robust lists that could not, by their nature, be considered complete." This hardly qualifies as a robust list. I find it highly unlikely that this list will ever reach a robustness that would qualify it a NPOV due to the ungodly large number of settlements before any written historical accounts. Unless we expect to gather data from the Inuit and other earlier settlers than Europeans, the entire premise of the article as named currently, or as suggested, is flawed.WAvegetarian 16:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to List of North American cities by founding year. Grammatically, the current title says they were founded in chronological order (hardly surprising). - Mgm|(talk) 15:09, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete , per Durova and others. Inherently biased, not to say Eurocentrically bigoted. POV. If kept and limited by date, rename to reflect the Euro-bias. "Post Columbian" would satisfy the need for clarity. KillerChihuahua
    • That still doesn't resolve the bias problem. Native peoples had massive migrations in the centuries following Columbus. How would a list treat Seminole settlement of Florida? What about the Trail of Tears? Would it ignore Mexico City altogether as a renamed version of previously settled Tenochtitlan? An NPOV article on this subject would have to be an essay. Durova 00:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, Mexico City isn't just comprised of former Tenocjtitlan; it also takes in the former lakeshore cities - Chapultepec, Tlatlelolco, Texcocp, Xochimilco and another one or two (seven in total I believe); and Tenochtitlan was actually the youngest of the lot, and considered an upstart by the others...and all still relatively young compared to Tzintzuntzan, Monte Alban-Mitla-etc in Oaxaca and even things nearer Mexico City like Xochicalco (in Morelos). I agree there's a bias problem; the idea that something is "earliest" is inherently "Colombiano" in ethic. In BC, BTW, there was this place Dimlahamid (Temlahan in Barbeau) which was destroyed by some natural/supernatural catastrophe, possibly older than Tenochtitlan; but I suppose legendary existence doesn't qualify either; of course somewhere like Cahokia does.
      • A further issue that struck me when I first saw this discussion is when is a city founded vs when did it appear as a settlement. New Westminster brags that it's the oldest city on the mainland of BC; by which I guess they mean their date of incorporation, although I suspect that a now-abandoned town somewhere might be slightly older (not sure which); and there are older settlements - Lillooet, Yale, and Lytton, as well as vanished Port Douglas - that did not become incorporated until the mid-20th Century, even though they were created BEFORE the Crown Colony of British Columbia came into existence (except Douglas); and on an aboriginal timeline, they were founded/named thousands of years before (Lillooet and Lytton are considered two of the oldest-inhabited sites of settlement in North America. So is "founded" only in reference, or to incorporation? Vancouver's founding date is June something 1885, but Capt Stamp's Mill was there in 1867, with Gassy Jack opening his bar in the summer of that year (the opening of his bar is considered to be the founding of the city).Skookum1 05:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Another good example of that problem has just been added to the article in the entry "1896: Miami, Florida, from early Spanish settlements dating back to 1566". The date 1896 is correct in that Miami was incorporated that year. There had been a Tequesta town there for perhaps 2,000 years when the Spanish came. There are records of a Spanish mission there off and on, but that doesn't qualify as "early Spanish settlements" in my book. In any case, any remaining Tequestas were removed to Cuba when the Spanish gave up Florida. The area was then uninhabited until the Seminole Wars pushed the Seminoles into the Everglades, and the Army built a fort on the Miami River. The fort was abandoned after the Seminole Wars, and the few remaining Seminoles stayed deep in the Everglades. The area wasn't resettled until the 1870s. My point in all this is that it is already very difficult to verify and maintain this list, as it is quickly becoming a junk pile of civic boosterism and unverified, and probably unverifiable, 'facts'. Add the POV problems, and it is a mess. - Dalbury(Talk) 10:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. and per Durova. - Dalbury(Talk) 01:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to List of North American cities by founding year as per Mgm. This could be a useful list. It is currently pretty heavy on US east coast cities but that can be fixed. A number of Canadian cities are missing: notably Tadoussac, Quebec (1600), Port Royal/Annapolis Royal, Nova Scotia (1604), Trois-Rivières, Quebec (1634), and Montreal (1635). But the most glaring omissions are the Mexican cities (e.g. Mexico City/Tenochtitlan), both those that date back to before the conquest and those founded by Spaniards, including the US cities in former Alta California. It could be limited by date (e.g. 1800) or only cities with 1 million plus people for later founding dates. Luigizanasi 05:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I think that some sort of list like this could be useful, but how do we limit it? Founded by Europeans? Make that clear. Still in existence today? Then throw out Jamestown and the Roanoke colony. Otherwise, include L'Anse-aux-Meadows, the Popham colony, and the French colonies in Florida. By minimum size today? To keep St. Augustine in the list the minimum population would have to be no higher than 10,000. What does North America mean? Does it mean just the U.S. and Canada? The article includes "towns or former colonies of major historical note". I can see arguments over what is "major". The list as it stands is strongly biased to places founded or taken over early on by the English, and therefore prominent in U.S. history texts. Ah, I've said enough already. - Dalbury(Talk) 12:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a useful listing of cities. The NPOV issues need to be fixed, sure, but deleting the article would be the first way to make sure that didn't happen. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Unless you can suggest a way to remove all NPOV issues, which I believe is impossible given the nature of the currently proposed list, I don't understand your vote. Voting to keep something in violation of policy because it may at some point in the future be made to comply with policy is ridiculous IMHO. --WAvegetarian 02:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to List of North American cities by founding year; failed settlements, plantations, abandoned forts, etc. can be moved to List of European settlements in North America before 1689 -Acjelen 00:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or alternatively Move. What lack of completeness it has should not be cause to delete this article. The concept is a good one and it should be kept and improved upon. NoSeptember 13:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
    • The objection is not to "lack of completeness," but to the flawed assumptions inherent in presenting information this way.
1. Settlement constitutes habitation: this is true for agricultural societies, but not for nomadic peoples. However, most nomadic peoples return to the same locations on an annual circuit. By definition this list excludes all such people on a technicality.
2. Settlement by date: many of the earliest North American settlements are questions for archaeologists. It would be difficult to cover them adequately in a list by geographic region. A list by date, consciously or not, inherently excludes most of these questions by rendering them impossible to resolve.
3. Inherent bias: the first two factors favor Europeans, who had settled agriculture and written language. This fosters the illusion that previous habitation was insignificant. We can't correct for these problems and still have a list. We could correct for these problems in essay format. But then this wouldn't be the same article. Durova 08:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep and editorialise. Jerzy, User:Geogre is merely taking an m:Eventualist viewpoint, and that's not at all a Bad Thing. Now, for the, ahem, "votes": we have ERcheck, who wants it kept and indeed did some excellent work expanding the article; Jerzy, who nominated the article but argued that Geogre's opinion should be discounted by "a responsible admin" (as, I hope, a responsible admin, I must disagree); and Geogre, who wouldn't keep unless it was expanded ... which has now happened. Gentlemen, I call that consensus. You are, of course, free to disagree ... that's why I have a talkpage. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Hamilton (lawyer)

edit

Nom & vote Del on this niche lawyer with "547 of about 904" Google hits for

"Neil Hamilton" lawyer farm

If he were notable, his article would have drawn added content in its 35-month history, on top of the two editing sessions by the same editor, User:Vera Cruz whose user page redirects, presumably on the basis of sockhood, to (the banned) User:Lir.
--Jerzy•[[User talk:Jerzy|t]] 02:33, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep ... Google search reveals additional bio information. The article should be expanded. ERcheck 18:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That there is add'l bio info merely strengthens the case against retention: it could easily have been expanded in the last 3 years if that were worth doing. We start from the presumption of n-n here, and verifiable notability is what it takes to retain a nom'd article. The above is not an arguement for Kp, until evidence of notablility -- perhaps from that further info -- is presented.
      --Jerzy•[[User talk:Jerzy|t]] 18:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I did some simple searches (Neil Hamiton, law, agriculture and got 562,000 hits) and found info to expand the article. Hamilton has a lot of references from law schools around the US. I don't know that lack of expansion over time should be a measure of notability. I don't think "agriculture" would be considered a niche in the midwest. The American Association of Law Schools (of which Harvard Law School is a founding member[2]) has an Agricultural Law section, of which Hamilton is still a part. ERcheck 18:55, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No vote yet, but comment: A lot of notable topics haven't been touched in the past three years. I've worked on major composers, african american artists, and other biographic articles that were stubs or just didn't exist. The fact that they didn't have an article didn't say anything about their notability compared to the number of texts that stress their importance. The "three years" argument adds nothing to the vfd either way, imho --Sketchee 19:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if not expanded: The figure may be notable, but, as I suppose everyone knows by now, I believe in voting on the article, rather than the topic. There is little room in a biographical article for the CV styled listing of credentials, and the article does nothing whatever to explain the effects he has had on law or agriculture. All we get is that he has a job and wrote some. That's incomplete to the point of not establishing the notability. Indeed, we do have huge gaps in Wikipedia coverage, but there are times with a feeble something is worse than nothing. This is an article that justifies CV postings and Random J. Professor. Certainly, I would leave it for the closer to look at a diff between nomination date and closing date and look for expansion. If there isn't any, I recommend deletion and waiting for an encyclopedic article. Geogre 20:07, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I've expanded the article. Hamilton seems to be a lot more than Joe Professor.ERcheck 04:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have recently argued for "failure to expand" as a sign of the impossibility of a good article on the topic. On the other hand, there is a very strong consensus that AfD is not about the content of the article, except (as with "saves") as evidence about the encyclopedicity of the topic. IMO, a responsible admin would discount any "Delete if not expanded ... bcz AfD should not be about topics" vote -- or even count it as vote for Keep, since the voter has demonstrated regarding the topic as encyclopedic, by saying expansion could save the article.
      --Jerzy•t 15:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --JoanneB 19:01, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Come Lately

edit

Despite the impressive level of detail this article goes into, the television show it is describing does not exist. Purportedly the show has been running on TBS (TV network) since 2002, but it's not listed in the Internet Movie Database nor on the TBS web site. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Henry. Delete as hoax. Metropolitan90 02:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect, and about time I found an easy one on this datepage. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comi-Con

edit

Partially nonsense, partially something non-notable, partially just very strange. Even revert to first edit doesn't really help. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 03:05, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. I found [[User:BD2412]'s withdrawal of his nomination particularly persuasive, also User:wikipediatrix's excellent rewrite. Wikipediatrix's "WP:MUSIC is not a valid reason for deletion" argument, however, got tossed out the window in short order ... I do hope she doesn't mind. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P*U*S

edit

Delete. NN band vanity; fails WP:MUSIC. BD2412 T 03:07, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Vote changed to keep, based on evidence of album releases, touring, presence in a significant compilation album. BD2412 T 20:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. By WP:MUSIC's criteria, many well-known punk rock bands would not rate inclusion in Wikipedia. I think P*U*S is certainly just as notable as Amebix, The Screamers, The Bags, AFI, Strapping Young Lad, Limp Wrist, The Quick, The Locust, Pig Destroyer, Exhumed, Big Boys, The Gerogerigegege, Antioch Arrow, Crumbsuckers, Nasum, Discordance Axis, Kommunity FK, Venus and the Razorblades, Los Crudos, The County Medical Examiners, Bleeding Through, Disclose, Earth Crisis, Melt-Banana, Agathocles, Dezerter, Missbrukarna, GG Allin, Robokyke, Scissor Shock, Basket of Death, Dashboard Confessional, Impetigo, Super Heroines, The Dillinger Escape Plan, Anal Cunt, Jet Jaguar KR-3 Kill Spree, Gronibard, Narcosis, Youth Brigade, Deep Turtle, Impaled Northern Moonforest, Assück, Breakdancing Ronald Reagan, Destined to Fester, Bayi, Kindergarten Hazing Ritual, The Jabbers, Amoebic Dysentery, Mukilteo Fairies, Anti-Cimex, Dinah Cancer, Ratos de Porão, Agoraphobic Nosebleed, Necrocannibalistic vomitorium, Vaginal Creme Davis, Hirax, Cro-Mags, Paracoccidioidomicosisproctitissarcomucosis and The Dicks. Also observe that WP:MUSIC states "Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted". wikipediatrix 04:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that many of those bands are not punk bands. Punkmorten 09:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't release any music?? Obviously you didn't read the article! wikipediatrix 14:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was confused with the date typo having them only existing for a year and I thought that the albums were self-released or demos or albums by other bands the members were in as the old version of the article only talks about demos and jam tapes existing. A band only has to release two albums to meet WP:MUSIC, so I'm surprised you didn't give that as a reason to keep. -- Kjkolb 08:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected typo. Band existed from 1988 to 1999. Darren Bowles
Was any of their music released by an official label instead of being self-produced? - Mgm|(talk) 15:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we had two main record labels, Know Records and Bomb Factory Records. User:Darren.bowles
I'm inclined to change my vote if further evidence is provided to support the various claims of notability (e.g. airtime, touring history). I'm curious about the "Anti Fascist Benefit LP" - was that a band LP, or a compilation? The references I've found online refer to an Anti Fascist Benefit event, rather than an album - is the album related to the event? BD2412 T 23:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
The title of the LP was Smash Fascism, on Gnome / Grinding Madness Records in Belgium. It was a compilation LP. User:Darren.bowles 86.140.240.119
Um...I'm saying these bands ARE notable! wikipediatrix
  • Delete as vanity. To be sure, it was created by User:Darren.bowles, whom this article identifies as the band's vocalist via a articlespace-to-userspace redirect, which should be speedy deleted as such. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the record, I speedy userfied User:Darren.bowles, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darren Bowles, hence the existence of the redirect link - which I believe should remain until the subject has a reasonable chance to discover that his errantly created self-promoting article written in the first person has been userfied. Cheers! BD2412 T 15:12, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: As for the bands listed by Wikipediatrix above, I would not condemn him for nominating any of them, yet I would vote keep on (at least) Anal Cunt and GG Allin (whom I have actually heard of outside wikipedia, despite having no interest in the relevant genres of music)... and speedy keep for Dashboard. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • "I've never heard of them outside Wikipedia" is not a valid reason for deletion. For the record, I *have* heard of them. wikipediatrix 14:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Trix, If you look closely, you'll see you're putting words in my mouth. I named three I would surely vote keep on, because they are so notable, even I have heard of them, which indicates a higher level of fame than simply passing WP:MUSIC, I assure you. Notice that I did not say "I plan to vote delete on all the others because I haven't heard of them"... Also notice I said to delete P*U*S simply because the lead singer wrote it, and that is a valid reason. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 15:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • My apologies for assuming an implied corollary.... however, I should point out that the lead singer didn't write the current version of the article: I rewrote it extensively to remove first-person NNPOV and so it wouldn't be a carbon copy of their own website. I have heard of P*U*S and have read about them in the magazine MAXIMUM ROCK N ROLL, which unfortunately is not an online reference. wikipediatrix 17:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Some of them, certainly not all, should be nominated. Among those listed, AFI is the "most notable" I reckon. Punkmorten 09:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • AFI and Dashboard Confessional have both charted. While these guys were active, they don't appear to meet our music notability guide so Delete Changed my vote to keep as it appears that they meet WP:NMG by appearing on tours and releasing a number of records. Capitalistroadster 18:08, 20 November 2005 (UTC) Capitalistroadster 10:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wish everyone would stop invoking WP:MUSIC like it's official policy. From the music notability guide: These are guidelines "which many editors agree with in principle. However, it is not policy." And also, I repeat: "Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted". For the most part, I think if the user's expertise does not fall within a given genre, they should probably recuse themselves from getting involved in articles on that genre. I certainly wouldn't presume to know who is notable and who is not in the world of, say, Fusion Jazz or Christian Rock. wikipediatrix 14:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've found the webpage of the bands' label, Know Records,[3], and apparently a few of the nominated bands' recordings can be bought there, [4], [5]. Still not quite enough for me to say that this is a band that belongs in an encyclopedia, tho. BD2412 T 15:12, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
        • It seems unfathomable to me that a band that has released records over the span of a decade and has been seen live by thousands of people has to be tested by such rigorous standards, especially when Wikipedia is neck-deep in articles that mean absolutely nothing to almost anyone. I know, I know, you probably think those articles should all be deleted TOO. *smile* wikipediatrix 17:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Let's be extremely clear, eh? Delete P*U*S, because it isn't as good as, say, The Dicks. By being unreleased, undistributed, they fail the criteria. The rest of those articles mentioned aren't up for consideration, so let's not confuse the issue. No one wants to delete Pylon, and being thwapped with a red herring isn't going to change the subject. Geogre 20:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • How could you have possibly read the article and come away with the misconception that their music is "unreleased and undistributed"??! Slow down, focus, and try again. The largest section of the page is the discography. It is full of records. Real records. Vinyl records. Records on labels. Records with distribution. Records I have read reviews of in magazines. There's even pictures of them for people who don't like to read. wikipediatrix 04:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]



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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Juli Martinez

edit

According to this article, Juliana "Juli" Martinez is a character on the television show Emily Come Lately, and according to Emily Come Lately, the character is played by an actress also named Juliana Martinez. Unfortunately, there is no such television series, so this article is a description of a character in a fictional work that does not exist. If there is a real Juliana Martinez, she isn't a television actress according to the Internet Movie Database. Delete as hoax. --Metropolitan90 03:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by Zoe as nn-bio. --GraemeL (talk) 12:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Swede

edit

This looks like a personal vanity page. Non-notable DanielCD 03:15, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. Despite the vague claim of "local" significance, it does not explain why and therefore doesn't assert any -nn-bio. PJM

Speedy deleted, nn-bio. User:Zoe|(talk) 07:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was tardy speedy keep. AfD is not the place to go if you want to nominate an article for merging; particularly if you couldn't be bothered writing a nomination instead of a vote. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Composite club

edit

Merge into club (weapon) Rogerd 03:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --JoanneB 19:08, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish lawyers

edit

Effort to evade existing AfD and cleanup at List of Jewish jurists. Exact duplicate of content at existing page.


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

The result of the debate was keep post-rewrite. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DDRUK

edit

Advertising for a non-notable forum. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 03:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tisn't non-notable and also isn't advertising. Just putting infomation about it here and allowing people to view it if they need more info about the site. 03:29, 20 November 2005

  • Keep and rewrite. At the time of the VfD it could easily be argued that the article in its current state is merely advertising. However, I believe that as one of the largest UK-specific music game communities DDRUK is notable and visible both to those in and out of the "DDR community". It is for this reason that I will be completely rewriting the article to conform to much higher standards of article quality. Lavareef 13:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa: To DDR players, very noticible. To other people, not sure about that.

It's alright to talk about the problem of the site but the outline of the article is a terror. Having a title "Leech" is an huge mistake.

J's (I love DDR)

I have completely rewritten the article, and I no longer believe that it qualifies for deletion in its current state. In addition to being the largest UK-specific website dedicated to the subject matter, the DDR:UK organisation holds public events and tournaments at arcades and expositions and currently maintains a customised arcade game unique to the community. DDR:UK members may be seen displaying the community's t-shirts in many of the UK's arcades, and it is not uncommon for arcade goes to discuss community matters with other patrons. The website owner is frequently furthering knowledge of the game, having appeared on BBC Radio 5 and been featured in The Times newspaper. I believe that DDR:UK as an organisation is notable outside of the Dance Dance Revolution community and is notable for more than merely being "a popular website". Lavareef 15:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, All I can say is this new re-written article is full, up to date and factual information as of 15:50 GMT the 20th November. DDRUK might not be very notable to people outside of the UK, but to any players of DDR in the UK it is very notable, it is far more than just a website, it is a community, it was the first and only dedicated community the UK had on this subject, it actively takes part in real life events, it has been on BBC radio, BBC3 TV, Satellite TV, The Guardian newspaper, (Very respected) taken part in promotions of fitness for children events, held tournaments and all attracting people from all over the world. I know this keep argument obviously looks like I am just advertising the site but it is the only way I can put forward the reason why to people in the UK it could and IS very notable community.Phayze


  • Comment Ignoring the rain of poor sockpuppetry that descends upon these AfDs when dealing with an encyclopedia entry about any website (it always hardens my heart towards a delete), the rewrite by Lavareef has turned the article away from advertising into something that might be genuinely useful for some readers. However, I think the notability issue is still in question - we're talking about a single web forum and not the whole subject of Dance Dance Revolution. Web forums, by definition, are rarely notable other than to their members. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 21:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: One more time, with feeling: it isn't about whether DDR is good or bad, whether the forum is good or bad, whether we twitch or thump when we play games: the question is whether a specific forum on a website (i.e. divide the website by the number of forums) is so overwhelming to the competition, so outstanding, so controversial or famous, that it passes over the prohibition on web guide entries and the prohibition on advertising. I'm sure it's a fine forum, but it's a forum, and Wikipedia is not a web guide. Geogre 00:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep DDRUK is one of the biggest DDR sites in the world, so calling it "non-notable" is very silly. Been in the newspaper, featured on TV, gaming publications and more. Havok (T/C) 09:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --JoanneB 19:12, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Mumm

edit

Was marked as a speedy nn-bio, but since then it has been edited to add a claim of notability. I don't think the subject is notable enough for an article, but the article is no longer a speedy candidate. Thryduulf 03:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obscured by Species. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --JoanneB 19:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous males with a ponytail

edit
A valid point you have. PJM 07:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --JoanneB 19:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Armando Gutierrez Jr

edit

Notable enough to avoid speedy, but otherwise seems to be an up-and-coming young Republican in FL....no real notability yet. Jasmol 03:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --JoanneB 19:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anal pope

edit

Tagged as a vanity article, with the implication of nn-bio. But it's a band, and we're too scared to speedy them. So here we are. -Splashtalk 04:05, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Raiderz Clan

edit

Is about an abstract group that does not yet exist, ergo it's not about a real person. Edit summary for speedy reads "delete as non-notabel history of an X-Box team", which doesn't fit. -Splashtalk 04:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Van Orsdel

edit

Tagged nn-bio. However, "3 time World Cross Country champ and set the national record in the mile for a sophomore with a time of 4:09" is an assertion of notability. I would draw all editors' eyes to WP:V before making comments. -Splashtalk 04:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to mention that the author has several other questionable edits. Joyous | Talk 04:38, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --JoanneB 19:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Air Artworks

edit

An upstart business, one of many around the world using the name. Google reports only one webpage linking to their website, see [7]. Zocky 04:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note that User:68.225.248.40, a contributor of this article, attempted to remove all votes with this edit. --A D Monroe III 20:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 22:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andre_Bowser

edit

Vanity page from unpublished author. The only links to his work are on his own web page. Pmetzger 05:12, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bnv

edit

Page is pretty much pointless and irrelevant for Wikipedia. Splintercellguy 05:24, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. I'm putting an end to this nonsense. --Ryan Delaney talk 20:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NUGGET

edit

neolagism Geni 05:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do not delete I believe that "nuggeting" should stay on this site as its information proves useful to my thesis which i have recently coompleted at university. I find that Nuggeting is much more interesting then the studies of Newton's Law and his good mate Kepler. DO NOT DELETE for the sake of science — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.215.116.19 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete i nuggeting is happening in every where i work for a builder and ive seen nuggeting going round on building sites this page should not be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.106.20 (talk • contribs) 12:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete to the idiots who call it Un-encyclopedic. this very website defines an encyclopedia as: An encyclopedia (alternatively encyclopaedia/encyclopædia) is a written compendium of knowledge. A compendium of knowledge, basically, a compile of knowledge. Without this article, people will be left in the dark to the act of NUGGETING, just because it was done by a group of school students doesn't stop it from being educational, not matter how obscure the content. This must stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.129.11 (talk • contribs) 10:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete This is an excellent article and should not be deleted because this is really happening in schools today. Just because it isnt effecting you doesnt mean it isnt an important issue to the youth of today. They also deserve the right to publish their definitions so please do not delete this excellent article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.130.83.157 (talk • contribs) 07:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete Nuggets are an aspect of every day life for a school student. This needs to stay.
  • Delete, nonsense. Zocky 05:45, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agreed. --Intimidatedtalk 05:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is real (it's happened to me, in fact), but it is not encyclopedic. NatusRoma 05:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. PJM 06:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-encyclopedic... --VileRage (Talk|Cont) 07:45, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Zocky. Blackcap (talk) 10:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete As i posted under discussion, this article is what wikipedia is all about. Nugget is a serious and common term in adolescent society. If users wanted and encyclopaedia which was restricted to terms and events found in britannica, they would go to britannica.com sparks_333 09:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete This is a legitimate article, nuggetting exists and i've encountered it. It is a truthful and good article, deleting this is unreasonable and wrong P.duffy 9:56, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Do not delete I totally disagree with the non-encyclopedic and nonsense comments, do not judge articles so harshly. Just because you are not aware of something does not mean it is a false article. It is factual in my opinion and informative. It deserves to stay lynchical 10:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT DELETE just because you people are unaware doesnt mean it shouldnt be there, if u dont like its unencyclopaedianess then dont read it
  • Delete and hush the sockpuppets. If this article had any legitimacy it would come with links and citations. Durova 11:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC) Strong delete for persistent sockpuppetry. Durova 19:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsense --pgk(talk) 11:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete This is an extremely common occurence in highschools throughout Australia (and quite possibly even the world). This site is all about informing individuals who are curious enough to find the definition of things they dont know. "nuggeting" is real, and hence deserves a proper defenition! User:Matt.Booth 10:45, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-encyclopaedic. Both this page and the article talk page are getting sock-puppeted and vandalised. --BillC 12:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nonsense. - Randwicked 12:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete - Everything needs a definition even if it’s the strangest term more the reason for it to be defined, therefore it is encyclopaedic and seeing that its popularity is increasing people should be made more aware of what it is.
  • Do not Delete Im sorry but the only sock puppeting and vandalising occurring is coming from those of you who wish to delete the article simply becuase you do not understand/know of the concept. Please do not act like children, the article is not nonsense but an actual term.
  • Do not Delete Only the people who don't want this page to be deleted have any valid reason. The claim that it is nonsense might just as well be said about God, but there's an article on Him. Herodotus never referenced anything and he's called the Father of History. This is a work based on living memory and does not therefore require references. Those who want to delete this page are contributing to the destruction of the memory of a cultural phenomenon. It's the ugly side of globalistion. Comparable to the loss of a little-spoken African language. What richness it may hold for historians of the future! Do not delete this page, vikings!
  • Do not Delete This is obviously a new slang term developing in 'adolescent society'. The secondary definition for nugget according to www.dictionary.com is: A small compact portion or unit. It is clear that an inverted case fits this description quite well. As the creator points out, wikipedia is not just your average conventional encyclopedia; Wikipedia is a site made by the people, for the people, which is perhaps the best system for an up-to-date reference. It is for these reasons that i feel the term should stand. I am also puzzled as to how the creator would go about collecting citations? picture evidence has been given, what other sources would be available?
User has 1 edit. - Randwicked 13:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The rash of sock puppets defending this article only highlights its dubiousness. --Roisterer 04:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN pfctdayelise 05:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT DELETE if Graffiti has a large article and is not deleted then why can't NUGGET's have a article on wikipedia [nitrodavid] 05:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.116.154 (talk • contribs) 06:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT DELETE "Nuggeting" is a term which dates back to the late 18th century. The imperial powers who colonised this nation used the term "Nuggeting" when they referred to the action of inversing somebodys sack. Nuggeting is genuine, informative and factual. It is an important aspect of Australian venacular. Moreover it is a common practice in Australian society. These reasons alone make the term "Nuggeting" encyclopedic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.107.19 (talk • contribs) 06:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT DELETE its a freaking work of art — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.129.11 (talk • contribs) 06:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT DELETE How many inside out objects must we show you people that it is a real term? Why delete it, the person who wrote this has put a lot of effort into it, although I agree is should have some things removed. --Bmw lurker 06:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • They don't want to see nuggeted bags, they want newspaper articles, preferably from the Hearld or Telegraph, saying something along the lines of "Nuggeting Menace - John Howard Declares War On Nuggeting". They want speeches by well-known shrinks about nuggeting. They want to be able to confidently say "Hey, someone other than students from St Pats, someone a lot more important than these students, they're talking about nuggeting". It's one of Wikipedia's core principles - Wikipedia:Verifiability. Saberwyn 07:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT DELETE you guys are calling it sockpuppeting but infact you just can't face the fact that more people want this page not deleted then deleted [nitrodavid] 5:59 , 21 November 2005 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.116.154 (talk • contribs) 06:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem here is the suspicion that most of these people are just drummed up to ramraid this article into Wikipedia. It's a justifiable position to hold, considering people contributing here come from all over this rock. I could write up a load of complete shit, and then get ten mates together and tell them to furiously defend my shit when it comes up for deletion. These people are not interested in Wikipedia, they're just doing me a favour, for the wrong reasons. Because people try to pull stuff like this, it is a general guideline to discount the opinions of those with a minimum of edits to Wikipedia, especially when the come in screaming complete bullshit like some here are. Saberwyn 07:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely unencyclopedic. And a comment: would people please stop SHOUTING their votes, and however emotional you may feel, keep your arguments (for or against) coherent. Oh yes, I know its too late now, but the conventional term is "Keep", not "Do not delete". It would have made reading so much easier. Zunaid 09:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with all delete votes so far. I'm a schoolboy in Perth and I have never, ever come across the term. Ever. Ever. It is not sweeping the nation, let alone the world. Sockpuppets, silly arguments (age bias? ignorance = delete? What?) and so on don't help it. None of the 'do not delete' votes justify themselves through policy or even sense. Ultimately unverifiable and pointless; it amounts to either a definition or original research. If it is kept (God help us all) then it needs a huge rewrite, but I hope that won't happen. I assume those sock puppets will be discounted? Tolo 11:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is required by our verifiability policy that editors provide sources so that readers from outside of those areas can verify that what is asserted from firsthand experience is in fact the case and has been documented as being so. It is required by our no original research policy that editors provide sources so that it is demonstrable that the concept being described has already been through a process of fact checking and peer review and been accepted into the corpus of human knowledge by people other than its creator(s). Wikipedia isn't for documenting new things. It isn't a publisher of first instance for human knowledge that has never been recorded before. Wikipedia is not a soapbox.

    If the editors who do not want this article deleted can cite sources demonstrating that multiple people who independent of the creator(s) of the concept have published works of their own about it, in the same manner as was done for the Walk of shame (AfD discussion), then that would be excellent.

    However, all that readers have right now is UrbanDictionary, which is in no way a reliable source (and, indeed, specifically espouses its purpose of being a repository for made up stuff), the unsupported word of a pseudonymous Wikipedia editor, and the words of a load of drive-by editors who appear not to understand our policies or what it is to be an encyclopaedist. That is simply not enough.

    I've started you off. Weak keep. Uncle G 14:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Appears to be vaugley verifiable, but does not appear to be noteworthy. Meat/SockPuppet supported. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 15:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Hordes of sockpuppets and meatpuppets don't make it better. --Pmetzger 15:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete Now then... I must say, being a Year 11 student in the start of his HSC year, that I have been in school long enough to see hundreds of NUGGETS... Also, what is with the constant claiming that everyone that says "Do not Delete" is a 'sock puppet'? I know for a fact that they're all individual people who I know and interact with on a daily basis. I can recognise each of them with ease. (As people can do when they've known other people for six years...) Why all the hating on the NUGGET? I think it's because you're all a bunch of malicious conservative fools who feel as if anything you have never heard of must be destroyed... I must say, Wikipedia is a place of knowledge, and this article is to inform people of "NUGGETS" and that's exactly what it does.

M.A. Sato

    • "all individual people who you know and interact with" equals meatpuppets. Just because you've managed to convince lots of your friends in your high school to go and vote on Wikipedia doesn't mean the rest of us are going to regard all of them as independent votes.--Pmetzger 20:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The thing is, Wikipedia is a community that works on consensus. Consensus is made up from the opinions of the people who actually contribute to Wikipedia. If just any random guy pops in here and writes "Do not delete! Nuggeting is awesome d00dz!" as his only edit, and then leaves forever, it's not contributing to Wikipedia, and it's not from a member of our community. It's just a random, off-the-wall comment. On the other hand, if someone who has been here for a few days or weeks, preferably months, and has made valid edits to many articles, writes "Delete. This is a neologism that is not widespread enough." then it's a much more valued opinion. If we just counted all votes and didn't pay attention to who they are by, we'd be no better than some poor webpage's guestbook with 200 pages full of "HOT 18-YEAR-OLD TEENS LIVE!!!" written over and over again.
    • About the terminology: A sock puppet is an account used by a person who already has an account, to create the impression that he's two people. A meat puppet is an account used by a different person, but only because someone asked him to get an account and vote in a deletion debate. — JIP | Talk 21:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its widespread in Sydney, but I personally have no way to prove it that doesn't blow WP:NOR to all hells. Thanks for your efforts Uncle G, but I'm actually starting to think that the best thing to do would be to perform a mercy delete and page protect, and recreate the article in the future when we have the documentation to prove this. All we have at the moment is the word of one ex-Normo boy and a whole bunch of St Pats kids with nothing better to do until term ends, and that just isn't enough. Saberwyn 20:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources, non encyclopedic Agnte 23:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete its bullshit. Fahrenheit Royale 23:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is not bullshit. What is bullshit is the childish behaviour and aggression coming from wikipedia users who maintain their autocratic sense of self superiority under the delusion of their own false intellect! Grow up! Your responses have been more hostile, aggrivated and issue causing than any of the supporting posts. Take a long hard look at yourselves and how you spend your time. -- Unsigned comment by 210.215.116.19 2005-11-22 03:34:55
  • Delete as it is a neologism. This phenomena is not encyclopedic; it has not established any notability in high school culture. As other fads before it, it too shall pass. --mdd4696 05:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll admit that I have never edited a single article here on Wikipedia... (Although I probably could fix up a few of the sub par ones which are in my areas of interest...) But I'm not just some "Random Person" who was "recruited to save NUGGETS". I love this site dearly and visit it often and there has been no recruiting what-so-ever. All of our comments are our own separate opinion. I believe that this article belongs here as it contains factual information on a current occurence. I know there are people who want this article deleted and that's ok... But you can't go claiming something "Bullshit" when there are actual occurences. "NUGGETING" is similar to "Kancho" in that it is an activity that occurs in the schoolyard... However NUGGETTING isn't quite as... gross... as Kancho. I'm not trying to cause any trouble here, I am simply telling the truth. If you people can't accept that, then I don't care... Flame me all you want, but it does not change your maturity (or lack thereof). Also, if what we were saying was indeed "Do not delete! Nuggeting is awesome d00dz!" I would see why you would want it delete it. As anyone who uses a "0" in place of an "o" or a "z" in place of a "s" is automatically able to be considered a complete and utter idiot. My vote of "Do not Delete" stands.

M.A. Sato

Comment Well, there's a difference between Kancho and Nuggeting. Kancho is a widely known aspect of young Japanese kids' culture. It has been well documented by a number of sources, a quick Google search can show you that. However, this Nuggeting phenomena has yet to be picked up by any larger publications (the reference cited is just one school district). Therefore, if for that reason alone, this article should be deleted. --mdd4696 16:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete As a student at a Sydney school, NUGGETING is part and parcel of daily life. Whether or not the Wikipedia literati deem this article 'non-encyclopaedic' is irrelevant. It is a reference to today's changing social scene, and is the essence of what Wikipedia stands for. If we want a free, web-based encyclopedia which deals with the real issues, then NUGGETING surely must be included. -- Unsigned vote by 138.130.60.157 2005-11-22 09:57:03
  • Do not delete As to the reasons why John Howards would declare a war against NUGGETING, I'm yet to be convinced. The lack of a national study does not detract from the credence of the NUGGETING process. There is only one way to determine the staying power of this article, and indeed the concept of the NUGGET. Let the article enter the common lexicon through its inclusion into the Wikipedia collection. Deleting at such a premature stage sets a precedent which jeopardises the relevance of Wikipedia to today's youth culture. -- A second unsigned vote by 138.130.60.157 2005-11-22 09:57:03
    • This is almost funny. Things don't become notable because they are on wikipedia. They must first become noteworthy before they can be included here. So, Let the article enter the common lexicon through its inclusion into the Wikipedia is wayyyyy off. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 12:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree. This can be summed up by: Things aren't notable because they're on Wikipedia. Things are on Wikipedia because they're notable. (Reminds me of something I read in a Finnish magazine: In the old days, people were on TV because they were members of the parliament. Now people are members of the parliament because they are on TV.) — JIP | Talk 13:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with extreme prejudice, echoing the reasons cited by those above me who have also voted to delete, and also because if it were notable, it wouldn't need sockpuppets to defend it. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 15:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and BJAODN. Hilarious. - Marcika 15:35, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Insufficient evidence of notability as a widespread phenomenon. -Colin Kimbrell 19:22, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete Unfortunately due to the extrmely large amount of OLD FARTS who use wikipedia, it is neccessary to get other people who know the term to support it. I believe a post on here was even made by a school teacher who has had to deal with the issue. Just because the majority of admins and users are 47 year old virgins with nothing better to do doesnt mean we deserve to be slandered and titled as ridiculous "sock-puppets" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.215.116.19 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S many references on the wikipedia article on internet sock puppeting come from blogs and internet slang definitions

DONT DELETEWhy are all of you ignorant people making such knee-jerk comments. The fact is that Nuggeting is a legitimate term which derives from ancient roots. It is a term which is very apt in our society. Your arguments are creating a host of paradox's. You all claim to be such highly intellectual Wikipedia nerds, yet all you do is display an array of contradictions and a low level of common sense. Nuggeting will remain and will grow in understanding with the fullness of time. And at the appropriate juncture you will all claim to have first cited the meaning of the word. Nuggeting is encyclopedic! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.107.19 (talk • contribs) 09:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC) This users only edits have been to this discussion and it's talk page.[reply]

DONT DELETE as for us all being sockpuppets this website states "Suspicion of such sock puppets is often harder to verify though, as there are often people who naturally behave in such a manner with the same effects." is it too hard to believe that there are more than one person who agree with the same argument, or should we accuse all the "delete" arguments as being sock puppetry as well???

also, of course the method section is all original research, the only websites you would accept as a source are just as conservative as yourself. maybe if you would accept this article then others would see it as acceptible too. please someone help me out here, tell me how that anecdote isn't written from NPOV

if you're going to delete this article for it being a neologism may i direct you to delete also the terms "wikipedia", "Wiktionary", "Wikibooks", and "Wikinews". These terms make even less sense, have no origin and no sources that could be deemed verifiable by your standards!

BTW you have suggested we look at "testosterone poisoning" as an example. here is a quote from that page: "The earliest printed reference appears to be the 1985 book A Feminist Dictionary. It is unclear whether this refers to existing slang or is the editors' humorous neologism." need i point out that the origin of this is also shady AND it is a neologism - you've said it yourself!

im sick and tired of people saying its unencyclopedic, at least our arguments have substance! we are saying why it should stay and we are giving damn good reasons too. "unencyclopedic" is not an argument without some sort of elaboration and sockpuppetry is an opinion NO FACT whatsoever.

you know what, you all seem to know so much that we know longer need "wikipedia - an encyclopedia by the people for the peple" i think "wikipedia - by conservative autocratic fools who know everything to tell everyone else what is and what isnt."

ill finish (for now) by saying this. you're all rather misinformed. the term you're looking for is not "sockpuppet" its "minority group" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.127.4 (talk • contribs) 11:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC) This users only edits have been to this discussion.[reply]

DO NOT DELETE Delete, unverifiable was a comment left by one of the disgruntled users of wikipedia. If we were to define "contradiction" there would be this caption next to it, how about you VERIFY your opinion with evidence, you accuse them of using unverified information and then you dont even verify your arguements. Furthermore, if your going to leave a comment make sure it is a COMMENT and not "reasons given above". If thats all you have to contribute to this debate keep your uninformed opinions to yourself you unoriginal fool. At least write a valid reason as to why you should think it should be deleted instead of "dido".

I totally agree with the previous comment, sockpuppetry is an excuse thrown around to destroy this credible article and if that is the strongst arguement you have then your in trouble. Sockpuppetry is an arguement against a small number of the supporters not the article itself, it is irrelevant to the legitmacy of the article and therefore an arguement which mentions it should be disregarded.

Wikipeida - A website of close-minded, conservative, narrow-minded, rigid and discrimminatory users (hopefully just the minority i have been exposed to) who enjoy attacking articles in a subjective and personalised way and in doing so contradicting themselves in their criticisms of other supporters — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.168.18.208 (talk • contribs) 09:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What good would that do? Don't make it personal... -Colin Kimbrell 18:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --JoanneB 19:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

University of Miami College Republicans

edit

Individual chapters of college clubs are usually not suitable for individual articles and thus are usually deleted. This is also vanity as it was created by this chapter's founder. Gamaliel 05:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Yes, I discounted the sockpuppet attempt. How'd you guess? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bean Hunt

edit

Non-notable novel event, likely invented by the author. Zocky 05:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete and request for disciplinary action 155.33.68.140 removed my vote. Durova 09:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on Wikipedia -- though not an enormous event, it was popular among the participants and many more plan to participate in future years. It has also inspired a spin-off called the "Husky Hunt" which will be a scavenger hunt all over Northeastern University. It is legitimate and should be kept on Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.33.68.170 (talk • contribs) 2005-11-20 17:15:32 (UTC)
  • Leave it It seems like a truely fun event and I would love to start such an event on my own college campus. It would be great to have a record of all the different events to give people ideas on how to start their own hunt. Some of these ideas are brilliant and I would hate to lose such a great resource. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.33.68.142 (talk • contribs) 2005-11-21 05:27:55 (UTC)
But it's on your own college campus. Unless there's some other reason why you're posting from an IP address registered to Northeastern University? — Haeleth Talk 21:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to lose the information, you can create a website with a free host like geocities. The problem is that this isn't verifiable and has no sources to check. - Mgm|(talk) 09:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 17:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evening of The Reanimated Corpses (first wiki movie)

edit

Sorry folks, this wiki is for building encyclopedia articles, not for building wiki movies. You might find one of the WP:Alternatives more useful. WP:NOT a free web host. Kappa 05:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since page has been vandalized several times since placement of AFD notice by supports of this article Deletedpage may be needed if this AFD ends in a consensus to delete. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fwump

edit

WP:NOT a dictionary. I can't really tell if this is attested, which would make it suitable for wiktionary. Kappa 06:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was well ... umm ... maybe delete, probably redirect. If we're wrong, I can always be reverted ... you don't need admins to undo redirects. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Carmi Gillion

edit

This article appears to be about a non-existent person and should therefore be deleted. A google search fails to return any hits about this person except mirrors of wikipedia and apparent misspellings of Carmi Gillon. LamilLerran 06:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was worl, it's roughly split between merge and delete. User:MacGyverMagic suggested that a link in Atari is enough to satisfy a merge, and after looking at the Atari article (where there is nary a space for merging), I'm inclined to agree with him. The link already exists, so I'll redirect to that article. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Atari Forums

edit

This is a very simple article about an internet forum. There is nothing special or notable about the place, and no claims of such in the article. It's just another forum, like the millions of others out there. I vote delete, this article is unnecessary. Foofy 06:48, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cw digital visuals

edit

Corporate entry for a non-notable company - appears to be used for advertising purposes only. Wikipedia is not a webhost. --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 07:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Accidentally deleted by Zocky, closed by Locke Cole, restored and reopened by Zocky 16:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Burns

edit

An nn "actor", all of whose appearances have been in video games, according to the imdb entry at http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0122870/. And he isn't listed on the cast list for Double Dragonmovie, nor in the Double Dragon TV series. User:Zoe|(talk) 07:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bay Area Shiite-Muslims Association

edit

This was an interesting case. The article is terrible POV but it also brings up another issue (in my mind at least). Are Muslim organizations in cities notable? There is no information in the article that says how big the organization is and I didn't see any information on the website. I'm also not particularly deletionist but I thought we need to address the implications of keeping an article like this. What is the threshold for keeping an article about any locally based religious organization? There are no real outside sources (that I could find) other than the organizations itself which created problems in my mind. Organizations like ISNA have national media discussing them but I don't think this organization really has anything. I am also thinking of putting Al-Hajj Samer Mohamad Bazzi up for deletion for the same basic reasons since his notoriety is derrived from this organization. I don't have strong feelings on this issue exactly (besides NPOVing the article) but I do want to see discussion. gren グレン 07:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Borderline KeepDelete. Based on further research by Durova and other editors, changed vote. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete although my vote doesn't answer the larger question about Muslim organizations in general. This group is less than a year old and gets virtually no Google hits other than Wikipedia and its own website. Claims no affiliation with a larger Muslim organization with which it might be merged (I'd vote for that if I could). We can't lower the notability bar this far for anyone. Durova 11:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Digging in the history and contribs logs, this article has only been edited (apart from VfD and POV tags) by User:Sambazzi, who is also the only author on Al-Hajj Samer Mohamad Bazzi, where he tells us that he is the founder of this Association. His other contributions include much linkspam, [9], [10], [11] and the creation of Category:Shiite Organisations, sole member, the Bay Area Shiite-Muslims Association, and Category:Religious activists, sole member, himself. The author appears to be using WP for self-promotion, and I suspect he and his organisation are non-notable. Local religious organisations would have to be well-known, with (verifiable) memberships in the thousands or tens of thousands, and a significant media presence, IMO. --Squiddy 13:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with the above points. Nn as it stands per Durova, with vanity/self-promo thrown in per Squid. And to that last point, please nominate Al-Hajj Samer Mohamad Bazzi as well. Eusebeus 14:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN. --JJay 02:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless the lack of credible sources is remedied, this appears to violate Wikipedia:Verifiability --redstucco 09:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert T | @ | C 23:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Ivory Tree

edit

Vanity article about blog with no Alexa ranking. Creator's only contributions are links to this blog in other articles. Lucent 08:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article received only one comment after original listing on 20/11/05. I'm relisting now. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is an adventure club

edit

Typical bandvanity. Band was formed in 2005.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Bootstrap" Bill Turner

edit

I like this movie as much as the next wannabe Pirate, but this is pushing it. I could see having anything relevant merged back into the Will Turner article, but keeping this doesn't make a lot of sense to me. --Locke Cole (talk) (e-mail) 08:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interpersonal love

edit

I suppose the best established reason for deletion is that it's a dictionary definition. -- Kjkolb 08:22, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's not necessarily a dictionary definition; its a stub. I could imagine a proper article with that title. But THIS article is useless borderline gibberish.(Previous unsigned comment by Herostratus 12:15, 20 November 2005)
Delete nonsense. Karol 11:15, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge with HSV-7. --Phroziac . o º O (mmmmm chocolate!) 14:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Channel 7 Melbourne

edit

Redundant article since Seven Network seems to cover the same information - Akamad 08:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jarred Willoughby

edit

Doesn't google, no sources given. Unverifiable per WP:V. Kappa 08:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Already speedied. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CAMPAIGN for MEMORIAL IN BELFAST TO JAMES MAGENNIS VC

edit

Looks unencyclopedic, almost like an AD.. WP:NOT WP is NOT free webspace... Also seems to have bits, if not it's entirity ripped from: Here, Here, Here and here... Delete --VileRage (Talk|Cont) 08:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like someone already deleted this article.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vilerage (talk • contribs) 19:44, 20 November 2005


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as recreation of previously-deleted article. -- Curps 09:09, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer Fontaine

edit

Hoax. See also Ryan Lapshinoff, a related hoax article. Google on "Assistant to the President on Foreign Affairs and Speechwriting" gives no hits other than this page itself, and there is no record of the supposed Victoria incident ever happening. Note also an earlier, different article with this same title was the subject of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spencer Fontaine. Delete and protect to prevent recreation. -- Curps 08:55, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this should be a speedy delete. The previously deleted version also cited "Ryan Lapshinoff" and was very similar in most respects, so this should be speedy-deleted as a recreation of a previously deleted article.


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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 22:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Lapshinoff

edit

Outright hoax. For the staff of Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin, see [12] or other sources. Note also Spencer Fontaine, which seems to be a related hoax. No non-Wikipedia-clone Google hits, no record of the supposed Victoria incident ever happening. Delete and protect to prevent recreation. -- Curps 08:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On closer examination, Spencer Fontaine was a recreation of an article deleted earlier with minor variation (Luxembourg instead of Belgian, etc) and was thus speedily-deleted on those grounds. The earlier version of Spencer Fontaine also cited "Ryan Lapshinoff". The Ryan Lapshinoff article is simply an extension of the Spencer Fontaine hoax and could be speedily deleted too. -- Curps 09:14, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. The only keep vote is by a user with a total of three contributions. — JIP | Talk 15:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bomber san

edit

Utterly non-notable, but doesn't seem to quite fit into any speedy delete category. Speedy delete if possible, otherwise ordinary delete as soon possible. --Nlu 09:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Happy Harry" Vagabondo

edit

This article has verification problems. No articles link to it, and Google search for "Happy Harry" Vagabondo gives 1 hit whereas a search for Geraldo Vagabondo gives 0 hits. The article claims that he was convicted of the 1983 murder of Anthony Senter, but Senter lives today. Delete, hoax. Punkmorten 09:24, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --JoanneB 19:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Duckie - Release your Inner Duckie

edit

non-notable local theater production Delete —Brim 09:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RuttoCola

edit

This article has been deleted on :fr, it seems to be a joke. I checked on Google, no trace of this cola in Italy, all links point to Wikimedia projects. Dake 10:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus keep. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Endogenous preferences

edit

Practically a dictionary definition. May be original research. Few Google hits. Unless this can be expanded into an encyclopedic entry, I recommend deletion. —Brim 10:14, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 23:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Radioacive Substance

edit

Vanity; does not meet WP:Music guidelines. --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 10:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also misspelled. --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 10:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination received no attention when it was first listed on 20 November. I'm relisting now. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 22:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dj denims

edit

The page appears to be non notable bio. I was very tempted to speedy it but just in case I'm wrong about the non notable bit, this. (Someone has at least bothered to vandalise it, so there is at least one person out there who cares... :-) Ben Aveling 10:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --JoanneB 19:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jet Jaguar KR-3 Kill Spree

edit

Does this musical project meet WP:MUSIC?. Quote: Releases include a split 10" with noise/speedcore band Fast Forward, a split 7" with fellow grinders NEE (both released on UK label Lo-Fi or Die Records), and many songs scattered across various compilations. Little else is known about this mysterious project. Judge for yourselves. Punkmorten 10:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. WP:MUSIC is not the end-all be-all yardstick by which all music entries must pass. From the music notability guide: These are simply guidelines "which many editors agree with in principle. However, it is not policy." And most importantly, it clearly states: "Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted". It would be nice if someone could expand the article, though, and research just what these "various compilations" are. wikipediatrix 17:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What? because WP:MUSIC is a heuristic, not a rule you're saying it means *all* non-notable bands belong in wikipedia!? Pete.Hurd 03:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 23:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bayi

edit

No AllMusic, no evidence of substantial following. 392 Google hits for Bayi grind. They play the occasional show in a back yard, a basement, a small club and the like. Punkmorten 10:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Agreed....if they don't record (I can find no proof that their "4 EPs and a full length" exist) and don't tour, they can barely even be said to be a band. wikipediatrix 18:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree as well. How Bayi came to be listed here is beyond me but as a member of the band I would like to see the page deleted. Since most of our fans have communicated to us via email so it's hard to show that we have a respectable following for a band of our size, however if any real research had been done the existence of our recorded material would have been easy to find as it is fetured on our website and others. I would also like to note that it's almost impossible for egrind bands to tour and the slightest bit of real research would have made this fact very obvious. As it is the ability to tour does not fall under the prerequisites for forming a band. Anonymous 14:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 23:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Destined to Fester

edit

No assertion of meeting WP:MUSIC. Punkmorten 10:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 16:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kindergarten Hazing Ritual

edit

This musical project has some releases, but I have a feeling they don't meet WP:MUSIC guidelines. 160 google hits indicate no substantial following. Punkmorten 10:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 16:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Basket of Death

edit

Deeply obscure band, no real assertion of meeting WP:MUSIC. Punkmorten 10:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep Punkmorten, for once I have to agree with you! Normally I prefer Wikipedia be more inclusive than exclusive, but there's way too much "supposedly" and "maybe" and "some people say" vague talk here. I may try to do some more research on them to try to fix up the article (even though their website is totally gross) but as it stands today, it might as well not exist. Having said that, though, you know I have to point out, as usual, that WP:MUSIC is not the end-all be-all yardstick by which all music entries must pass. From the music notability guide: These are simply guidelines "which many editors agree with in principle. However, it is not policy." And most importantly, it clearly states: "Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted". wikipediatrix 18:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:MUSIC represents the views of a substantial proportion of Wikipedians-who-care-about-music. Failing the notability guidelines therein doesn't mean that an article must be deleted, but it is a powerful argument in favour of doing so. What, in your view, is the reason why we have gone to the trouble of thrashing out music notability guidelines, if they cannot be applied in deletion discussions? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 18:29, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • *smile*....It's getting to be a bit like quoting the Bible now... if you can invoke phrases in the guidelines to point out why you think the article should be deleted, I can also invoke phrases in those same guidelines that point out why the article doesn't necessarily HAVE to be deleted. What was once a mere guideline for some has now seemingly petrified into an unbreakable rule for all. I believe WP:MUSIC does NOT represent the views of as many Wikipedians as you think. It certainly doesn't represent mine. I think most people simply go along with it in a hive-mind mentality because it's already there, and don't bother to challenge it. I'm not sure I'm going to challenge it much either, because I'm still internally debating Wikipedia's usefulness for myself anyway. wikipediatrix 19:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:MUSIC may not represent your views and failing it may not neccesarily mean an article should be deleted, but only if someone can provide an argument it should be kept. - Mgm|(talk) 21:05, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Bwithh 00:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 03:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Punk. When even wikipediatrix goes to a weak keep, it's time to play whack-a-mole. ;)  RasputinAXP  talk contribs 13:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Doc ask? 17:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Missbrukarna

edit

Band. Quote from this article: ...they received little recognition due to few performances and very limited recordings. They appeared on a tape and a shared a single record together with another local band, "Panik". Consider the >300 Google hits (when excluding Wikipedia mirrors). Delete unless proven to be important for hardcore punk in Sweden. Punkmorten 10:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AAARGH! You were doing so well, with so many nominations. The above, though, looks like a very well-structured, well-informed vote ... but it's still just a vote. Nominations and the arguments they put forth are important as distinct entities from votes. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --JoanneB 19:33, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetical list of omes and omics

edit

Not one but a whole list of biological neologisms / protologisms. Has no ome in the Wikiome. -- RHaworth 10:56, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, perhaps we should start a project. I concur on enuff is enuff on List of... next it will be List of types of fiber in my navel this morning. KillerChihuahua 22:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You owe me a keyboard, my friend! - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 23:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 23:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stray Theories - Ambient Music

edit

Appears to be a non-notable musical endeavor; unable to find any information meeting a WP:Music guideline on website or through Google. --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 11:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. (Thought I'd write "delete", didn't you?) — JIP | Talk 16:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabet Synthesis Machine

edit

I'm not sure this is encyclopedic enough for Wikipedia. So I'm putting it up for the AfD test. Karol 11:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Legitimately notable. Covered by PBS and appears to have attracted legitimate attention among typography periodicals. Over 12,000 Google hits. The first hundred looked quite serious. Durova 11:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't know it, but it sure looks good. Nazgjunk - - Signing is for Whimps 14:24, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A work in nascence. Could be interesting; come back when analysis is complete. Denni ☯ 03:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you sure you checked this out? It doesn't aim to analyze anything. It's an interactive work of art that creates generates fictional alphabet scripts. Runs quite well, which is why PBS covers it. Durova 09:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only reason it was covered by PBS is that it was commissioned by PBS - it says so right at the top of the website, "An interactive online artwork created for Art21 and PBS". So I really don't think we can use the PBS references as evidence of media attention. I can't find any others, though - could you identify these typography periodicals you think have given it legitimate attention, please, Durova?

    As for Google - most of the mentions on Google appear to be passing comments on blogs... — Haeleth Talk 21:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE (although recreate as redirect if anyone wants). -Doc ask? 17:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Skull Kid (LoZ)

edit

Article is non-notable, misnamed, and redundant as it's just information (poorly) copied and pasted from The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask characters. WikidSmaht (talk) 11:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Decent nomination there, mate, although it'd be nice to see evidence presented when one says "non-notable". fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merge. I've merged it into Klingon language, after a fashion. Per User:Cryptic, I've discounting the "transwiki" votes (I found the arguments against Cryptic's comment unconvincing); many of them referred to redirecting or merging after transwikiing, in any case. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Qapla'

edit

Dicdef of a fictional language. Perhaps transwiki to Wiktionary? --202.156.6.54 11:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --JoanneB 19:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tha Future

edit

NN band. Googling with "Tha Future" + "Runnin My Game" gives only one irrelevant result. 202.156.6.54 12:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phrenology (disambiguation)

edit

Not sure if this is exactly where to post it, but a disambig page for a word with only two articles; unnecessary and orphaned.Deletejfg284 you were saying? 12:25, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the disambig page already is removed. If it wasn't, I would have voted Delete indeed, by nom. Nazgjunk - - Signing is for Whimps 14:05, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I removed the link to the disambiguation page from the main Phrenology page, but the disambiguation page is still there, with nothing linking to it (other than pages involved with this AfD discussion)jfg284 you were saying? 14:15, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was well, bugger. Okay. Deep breaths. Before we begin, if User:Just zis Guy, you know? and User:CyclePat are labouring under the misapprehension that I (or any other admin, I should think) give a damn about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of Motorized bicycle history/Summary of discussion, they should quickly disabuse themselves of the notion.

Although there is a strong contingent of people arguing for deletion, there is no consensus to do so. Also, in all the arguing for deletion, there aren't really that many persuasive points towards deleting the content – it's all about deleting the page, because we don't like what the creator's about. Okay. My personal sympathies, after reading around a bit, lie towards merging into Motorized bicycle and leaving a redirect at Timeline of Motorized bicycle history. But there doesn't seem to be a consensus to do that, based on this AfD, and you don't need the help of AfD or admins to do it. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 18:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Motorized bicycle history

edit

Summary of discussion (NPOV)

edit

Redundant article which apparently exists primarily to support one user's excessive focus on a single trivial event in the development of the motorized bicycle (see also Talk:Motorized bicycle. As an active author on the Motorized bicycle page I know that we are talking about adding a history section, and there is plenty of space for it in the main article. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 12:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I'm going to agree that this article has huge prospect for expansion, and should be a very useful article in its own right with just a little more info. There is a wealth of info available on the subject, and there's NO REASON this timeline should not contain 20+ events, keep it and watch. EDIT I must add that this page...
  • Does not contain original research, everything here has sources, or is common knowledge, if does not have a link to an outside source, you can google it and you will find the information to back up these points.
  • Is not a vanity page
  • Is not a hoax page
  • Is not inappropriate
  • Does not infringe on copyrights
  • Is not vandalism/nonsense

What then would be the reason for deleting it?

User:K-111

Above user has two edits -- both to this AFD. Not surprising, since it appears that CyclePat is seeding enthusiast forums with pleas for support for his position [14] · Katefan0(scribble) 05:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Katefan0 is attacking the user K-111 because of his alleged minimal amount of edits, this comment is innapropriate, and does not really put into question the competence of the user. Actually, the fact that user K-111 is from moped army only support the idea that he has expert knowlege on the subject. --CyclePat 18:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am not "attacking" anyone. It is common on Wikipedia to point out information such as this, to help the closing administrator, who must decide which votes will be considered valid and which won't for the purposes of evaluating a deletion vote. Please stop trying to turn this into "me versus you," it's just not the case. · Katefan0(scribble) 19:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So a vote from anybody who's opinion on the subject differs from your own is considered invalid? Or?... Taking the page for what it is, it's pretty obvious the consideration for deletion has little if anything to do with the page itself. Not to take sides with anyone - but this is just plain silly.User:K-111
Your comment above is unseemly and insulting. I never made any such suggestions. Generally, a user with less than 100 edits under its belt doesn't get counted as part of an AFD, because of the potential for gaming the system. As I said before, it is common practice to point out when a very new editor is voting in an AFD, since the closing administrator must make a call as to what votes get counted. Note that I said the closing administrator -- which will not be me. So your comment above is not only insulting, it's just plain wrong. · Katefan0(scribble) 03:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if my comment seemed directed at you, I was commenting on the whole deletion process for the motorized bicycle timeline in general, regardless of your opinion on whether or not it should be kept, you can surely see that at this point the discussion of deletion is wholly silly. As for discounting of one's opinion on such, your initial response to my vote seemed to have no other purpose than to attempt and write me off as some sort of lackey for cyclepat - whereas you could have simply pointed out that I was a newly registered member. I'm sorry if my pointing this out has offended you, but maybe a more careful choice of words on your part could have prevented me from taking it in that light. No hard feelings.User:K-111
I only registered so I could comment in here without being a stranger. I've been writing for this site for a long time, I wrote the original stub for the Subaru 360 amongst other things primarily automotive in nature. I will reiterate that this article should not be deleted. If that means it has to be merged with another article, fine, but it will grow and and eventually will just clutter up whatever article it is attached to. Keep it.User:K-111
To answer your question, K-111, the reason for deleting it is that it was created by CyclePat against consensus. It is one of three articles he's created, each one apparently attempting to get his WP:POINT across.
Now, do you mean keep this article, a timeline of the motorized bicycle, defined as a bicycle which has a motor but is rideable without use of the motor, or do you mean keep a timeline for the powered two-wheeler, including motorised bikes, autocycles, mopeds, scooters and motorcycles (which this is not)? Or do you mean keep a timeline of transportation technology, which will also include these milestones? Or do you mean keep an article on the motorized bicycle and its history - from your comments it seems that CyclePat forgot to tell you that this already exists, and that most of the delete voters here are actively engaged in expanding that article and adding history, something with which your help would be most welcome (and in the related moped and motorcycle articles, I'm guessing). - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 11:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of the motorized bicycle page, and I have already done work on the moped page in the past. While this timeline could be merged with the motorized bicycle page, I feel that eventually it will become too bulky as more events are added. Perhaps it could be merged now, and then moved back to a seperate page when that happens? Either way I don't see any good reason to delete it. I don't see any need for a war against two pages that complement each other very nicely.User:K-111
I've been asked by an anon (although the user page for the IP seems to indicate that it was User:CyclePat: if so, please try and remember to log in and to sign with four tildes) to comment further. Since registering my vote, the timeline page seems to have moved on somewhat, so a review is appropriate. Here goes ...
The page title is incorrectly capitalized. There are many Wikipedia formatting errors and there are also spelling and punctuation errors. There are insufficient wikilinks, and those that are included haven't been checked, because two of them need disambiguating. There is a reliance on in-line external links, which are generally frowned on, but aren't actually against policy.
The items in the timeline are generally trivial, and not the sort of significant events that are usually recorded in timelines. Of itself, this isn't necessarily of concern because there are no hard and fast rules.
The general style of the timeline is out of keeping with (some/most) other timelines (that I've seen) in that it builds sentences for the items, rather than providing wikilinks to articles that expand on the event in question.
I've reviewed the discussions here and elsewhere – please note: discussions would be better off on the talk page so that the admin who decides doesn't have a hard time untangling the voting – and my conclusion is that this information would be far better off as prose style in the motorized bicycle article. I don't have the background (or, sadly, the inclination) to tidy up the errors. My vote remains Delete. User:Noisy | Talk 20:06, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. No grounds for deletion. As an active author on Motorized bicycle I think AfD? wants to do a merger/delete. This article is a stub. Wiki policy state that a stub should be expanded. Someone once said "the wise man recognizes that he doesn't necessarily have knowledge about everything." This article does have "prospect for expansion." I hope you may understand that this article was created for that reason. Some users, such as AfD?, comes in and immediately censors everything (both here and in the article) (*definitely* relevant to the dispute), and the existing conflict is much broader. For example, the history of this article has been in dispute ever since its merger from electric bicycle. But back to the main issue at hand, some want to have the article completed before its even started. ("Don't put the horses before the buggy") This article is new. Please allow some time for other users to include their knowledge, facts and sources. The article is a branch of the transportation time-line. It appears that "time-lines", in general on wikipedia, unavoidably repeat most of its information in their sister related articles, hence, a merge/delete is totally inappropriate. Also, as suggested, adding all the information pertinent only to "motorized bicycles" (that will eventually be in the time-line) would drastically bog down the main transportation time-line and is much more inappropriate. --CyclePat 01:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, then. Note that the above is the author. I think it's generally bad form for authors and nominators to vote, but to balance the author vote I add one delete. The article as it stands is negligble, and much of what needs to go in there has yet to be sourced. What there is is small and will easily fit in the main article. This article as it stands contains three events, none of which has any demonstrated significance in the history of the motorised bicycle. Your assertion that I am "censoring" the article is ludicrous. All you have to do is provide some independently verifiable evidence that the events you keep banging on about are significant tot he global development of the motorised bicycle, and in they go. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 11:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for other AfD watchers: the timeline currently has exactly three items: invention of the wheel (3500 BC), speculation re the first ever (unmotorized) bicycle in 1816, and the author's pet firm, a small Canadian manufacturer of no discernible wider importance, adding a commercial aftermarket motor to a delivery bike in the 1940s (or 1930s, the author doesn't seem too clear on that). If the article stays:
  • invention of the wheel gets removed, as pointless and irrelevant to the development of the motorised bicycle
  • speculation re the first unmotorised bicycle gets deleted as irrelevant to the history of the motorised bicycle
  • addition of a motor to a delivery bike made by a small Canadian manufacturer gets deleted as unverified since despite numerous requests the person who added it has failed to cite any authority to show that this event had any influence beyond the company itself (in whose article it can undoubtedly be covered), precisely the reason it was removed from the parent article in the first place.
  • other events have yet to be referenced, since neither the author of the timeline article nor any of the authors of the main article have yet succeeded in getting authoritative documentation on this - it is a sideline to the bicycle and the motorcycle, so has not been studied in any great detail.
That leaves an empty article. Which would be a speedy candidate. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 12:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Merge, and Comment: I would, for now, merge this into motorized bicycle, and CyclePat (and others) could work on it on a temp page until it has, say, 8 events or more. At that point I would say it is well worthy of its own article, and even now it is borderline. zellin t / c 13:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is plenty of room for history of the motorized bicycle's development to be included in motorized bicycle. The only reason this "timeline" was created is for CyclePat to defy consensus on the main motorized bicycle article. This is nothing more than an attempt at a fork to elude consensusbuilding. (I'd also note that this is the second time he's done something similar with this article).) · Katefan0(scribble) 16:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: (Due to the personal attacks and attempt to slander the creator of the article I must interject) In fact, I have added references and sources to practically all the information I included throughout the article; In Bibliography, Footnote, Direct URL link, etc. (Yes! Even for the CMM bicycle information from "The Museum of Science and Technology of Canada") I even went to user Just zis Guy and left this information on his/her user talk page. This is either a lack of understand or total ignorance on behalf of AfD?. If this is an attempt to argue the credibility of the sources, bringing the article for deletion is not the place. (I think the next step will have to be mediation because this type of discussion is becoming inappropriate for the article deletion.) People will see what the article truly is, by going to Timeline of Motorized bicycle history. (Important: you will understand that a timeline, unavoidably repeats a lot of information but in a chronological and graphical method)(This article is to help people understand the important dates, and is to help in developing the history of motorized bicycle)(Please help develop this stub and you will be helping the development of motorized bicycle --CyclePat 01:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Also, Please see the discussion at http://www.mopedarmy.com/forums/discuss/1/231648/231620/
Comment: Anyone who wants to see the history should look at talk:Motorized bicycle. I'm sorry Pat apparently feels that my failure to reply in the small hours of the morning in my time zone is an issue, but several of us who are active on the motorized bicycle article feel Pat has a vested interest and is trying to make a point. I followed the link to the forum, the start of the thread rather than the first reply as linked by Pat:

for those of you who don’t know http://www.wikipedia.org it is an online collaborative encyclopedia that everyone may contribute to. I have been doing some recent edits and was wondering if everyone here, if we could get together and add some content. This is important because currently, I decided to add a sub-article called Timeline of Motorized bicycle history. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Motorized_bicycle_history) However it is being nominated for deletion. I need your help to fill in the content or place your honest vote before the time is up. Thank you. (Verified User: cyclepat)

Now, I'm all for soliciting help from the wider community, but I really think that the above is a bit naughty, especially asking them for "honest" votes, which casts aspersions on those of us who have voted in this AfD. There is an existing article which needs work, motorized bicycle, that is where the effort should go unless and until the history section becomes unmanageable. That appears to be the consensus (woth Pat the sole dissenter). Given that much of the text entered related to mopeds and scooters (the discussion board is a moped entusiasts board), it should more logically go in the existing timeline of transportation technology anyway, where the blurred boundaries between motorised bikes, mopeds and motorcycles will not be an issue. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 10:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
comment:Irrelevant. (and another character labeling) Your hours of work and fatigue are not really important to the discussion (asside: you should get your nights sleep). Everyone is the master of their own destiny. This is a cry for sympathy and is irrelevant to the dicussion. I do not have any points to make except for, maybe now that we've started these arguments, how tricky, coniving and a be bunch a meanies you can be. I ask that you strike the afformentioned comment. It doesn't have its place because I have no points to make. I simply want to have a nice timeline article. Again, I am being labeled by "jus zis guy". He's attempting to colour my character as if it was all my fault, because I start an article. "Rock the boat." Really, I think he has jumped the gun on this one. As soon as the article was started he decided it needed deleting. It now appears that for Katefan, Woohookity, and jus zis guy, every article edit or creation I try to do, related to motorized bicycle, is grounds for deletion just because its me. Eventually it is then put back in anyway, sometimes right away, sometimes 2 months later (and by them). Crazy arguments like this for every single subject edit! This is turning into harrasement. (But, I guess that normal practice according to these editors and I've not seem the the rest of it (in the context of people wanting to destroy recent edits and articles, according to the way I do it)) I think we're lacking a little faith here. Can you imagine working like that. (and yes this has it's place because, it demonstrates the attacks) --CyclePat 05:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We don't have enough for a separate article. Timelines are only useful for big topics. This isn't a big topic. Not even the bicycle or automobile articles have timelines. Or motorcycles. Or mopeds. Or most articles. We tend to prefer histories on here, not timelines. But Pat wouldn't know that because he refuses to learn our formatting, which is how we're voting on yet another article he created on afd. I think this is #3 now. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 10:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
comment: timelines has a wide selection of timelines. This article really isn't part of the motorized bicycle anymore then it is part of the timeline. Again, please refrain from attacking. Your tone and generalizing about my alleged methodes or learning and knowlege are trully innapropriate for the subject mater... the deletion of this article. --CyclePat 05:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
comment: If there is not a timeline for automobiles or motorcycles, then that is more of an argument for making timelines for those subjects, rather than for deleting this timeline. As for the idea that timelines are only good for broad subjects - we have a quite a comprehensive timeline devoted to electromagnetism and another one devoted to artificial satellites, both of those subjects are highly specialized, but that does not mean that they are not useful in their own right. Also, I don't care about cyclepat, his past history here, or any of that garbage. It has nothing to do with the usefulness of this article - take the article as it is, for what it is, not because of who initiated it.User:K-111
  • Keep - Just because every other article ever possible has not yet been written isn't a reason to delete this one. I neither own a motorized bicycle nor participate in any online forums devoted to the topic. An article has to start somewhere. dml 13:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge - from what I can see, there is no reason for this to have a seperate article. This information would be far better in the history section of the motorized bicycle article. Having said that, some of the comments on this page seem to be little more than attacks against the creator of the article - the article should be kept or deleted based on its subject and content, not people's opinions of the author or his actions. We should Assume good faith and show a little more Wikilove.
(somone might recognize this from his/her user page)(I think it's actually a good mediation) A timeline is defined as: a) "chronology"... but it may also be b) "representation or exhibit of key events within a particular historical period, often consisting of illustrative visual material accompanied by written commentary, arranged chronologically."[15] I think that's where we where differing in opinion. If we take your interpretation of the definition, then you would are possibly correct in saying CCM bicycle doesn't deserve a spot. However, what is a key event? (I think you said the answer to that somewhere else, already) I've indicated elsewhere, that it feels almost like original research or (bias selections) being able to pick and chose. (devils advocat here!) What make you able to discern what information is worthy of notation. As you have said you don't have enough information on the subject. (I don't either, which is why I didn't want to try and speculate if that information was worthy of inclusion). I put the information in as per the a) definition. (and good faith, assuming this information must have some type of influence on the motorized bicycle since it is from a notable source such as the Museum of science and tech of Canada). Chronology could have 3 meaning according to this dictionary. The 3rd one says: "A chronological list or table." (Which make me think... perhaps the name should be Chronological list of motorized bicycles ?) And we know what chronological means right?[16] So please don't consider this me trying to prove a point, I was trully trying to get some usuful information into an appropriat article. Now, what to do? Who's definition is better? (it sadens me to see my information disapear because of some difference of interpratation)

(end of quote)

Comparison: What makes, Timeline of microscope technology an article that is worth keeping vs. this one? I think there are going to be unavoidably some short timelines.--CyclePat 04:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Logical fallacy: two wrongs make a right. The merits of this article rest solely with the content of this article. Also, this is not the place for a philosophocal discussion about timeline articles. I am having a hard time keeping up with four separate discussions about your vision of the motorized bicycle, let's keep that to the talk pages of the articles in question.
To answer the substantive question, the microscope timeline runs ofver some hundreds of years and pulls together articles on the major figures in the history and the pivotal innovations. Notice how only the pivotal moments are listed? Each entry refers to the invention of a new class of microscope. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 12:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I must disagree with your judgement of "trivial milestone" - each thing in the timeline is worth noting and was chosen to give a well rounded representation of bike motor technology over the decades. Both historical significance and technological innovation were considered. The mechanical design as well was significant in the selection of machines listed here, as I tried to include motors that featured roller drive, belt drive, or were sold as complete motor wheels, giving good representation of all the most important motors that have ever been produced. If we wanted to include "trivial milestones" we could easily have over 100 of them listed on this timeline. But as creating as large a list as possible is not the point, the list is tidy and trim. User:K-111
  • Comment: User:K-111 has made some constructive suggestions and additions - as well as making me feel very foolish for not following up Andrew Pattle, who I know from elsewhere and is something of an expert on light motorcycles. I believe it is likely that this "timeline" article will be moved to a new title and focus, and widened to include a cross-linked history of the development of at least motorised bicycles, mopeds and scooters, and probably motorcycles as well since the distinction is in many cases arbitrary. I therefore change my vote to neutral, since I think the new concept has some merit even if we are as yet unable to agree on quite what it should be called or what the scope should be, and deserves a chance. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 17:58, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I've stated on the article's talk page, I agree that it should be kept if its scope is widened to include other powered two-wheel vehicles and the article is moved accordingly. - Hitchhiker89
    • This sounds like a promising course of action. Broadening the scope of this could probably allow for a lot of growth, and I could see such a timeline being incredibly useful to anyone studying the history/development of motor-driven cycles. --Charleschuck 04:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was already speedy deleted. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 06:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TaxiWebDublin.Com

edit

(no nomination)

Speedy delete just created to advertise a website from Dublin and Dublin Airport. Djegan 14:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Report as a copyright violation. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

James Lavelle

edit

Copyright infringement. It's just a copy and paste of another site.

Thanks for pointing this out. The appropriate way to deal with copyright infringements is to:
a) find the exact URL of the webpage infringed
b) blank the content, and replace it with the text: {{copyvio|url=Whatever the URL was}}
c) list it on Wikipedia:Copyright problems
Copyright infringement is a serious issue on Wikipedia, and I thank you from the bottom of my heart for bringing this to everyone's attention. (A copy of this reply has been left on your talkpage). Excellent work. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 16:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

$hank

edit

Non-notable "gang". --218.212.97.196 16:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 23:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandre Carrera

edit

Bio consists solely of unverifiable claims. A search of Google and of cycling newsgroups reveals 0 confirmations of claims and few hits in general. If he's won 3 champsionships (article doesn't say what kind of competitions), you'd think he'd be discussed somewhere. Author's other contributions seem to be vandalism. --W.marsh 16:25, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was slowly speedy delete. Note that there's only one vote here, so if there were an actual claim of notability, I'd be relisting. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 18:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maia Dart

edit

Unfortunately with no relevant google hits [17] and no sources cited, the claim to being well-known is unverifiable. Seems very unlikely to pass WP:BIO in any event. Kappa 16:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was closer's choice. Okay, not really ;-)

There is clearly no consensus to delete the content. However, those who did want it kept outright often displayed a preference to have the article moved the hell out of the main article namespace, either to Wikipedia: or Talk:. There was also a strong contingent indicating a wish to merge it with the Wikipedia article.

So, what I'm going to do is move it to a subpage of Talk:George W. Bush, then delete the redirect. Anyone planning a merge will still be able to access the content from its new location. It may be necessary to leave a note at Talk:Wikipedia explaining where the merged content comes from, for GFDL purposes; IANAL. The article can now be found at Talk:George W. Bush/Wikipedia. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 18:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's article on George W. Bush

edit

I have a feeling this may be a controversial debate, but it shouldn't be. The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Avoid self-references, which states that "self-references are entirely acceptable on talk pages or in the Wikipedia namespace, but they are inappropriate in articles." This is clear, and it's right. This article is about internal matters, not Wikipedia's role in the outside world, and thus is not comparable to articles like Wikipedia or Larry Sanger. Chick Bowen 17:08, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 16:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Gilmartin

edit

Vanity article, written by the subject's boyfriend. She is an artist, an anime fan, forum moderator, interested in animal rights... but really nothing that meets WP:BIO. Probably a great person, but that has nothing to do with having a WP article. --W.marsh 17:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 23:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Daffodil Kingpin of Montana

edit

Hoax. One in a series of vandalisms/hoaxes by anon IP address, all related to Gambino crime family. Vandalism: Joseph Testa, Salvatore Vitale, and Phil Leonetti; hoax: "Happy Harry" Vagabondo - currently an AFD.ERcheck 17:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Further, the claims that daffodils are the same as heroin is obvious nonsense. Capitalistroadster 18:48, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 23:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Familia Torres , descendientes de Don Juan Alejandro Torres y Angela Rebeca Halegua

edit

non-notable family, or at least the article does not assess notabilty. Delete Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 17:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 23:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcer

edit

French dictionary definition, possibly slang or neologism; I didn't research it. Full text of page is "Sarcer is a French verb which means having an sexual intercourse. It comes from the noum "sarce" which means penis." —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination Durova 19:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable neologism. The article states: "It has certainly been created by a group of young people based on a private joke. This verb is actually not so popular and seems to be only used by rare group of people."

Difficult to verify and not notable even if it was. Capitalistroadster 19:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. I have not given new users or IPs nearly as much weight as the longer-term contributors. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 18:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Schmidthead

edit

New users please read: You are welcome to comment but please add your comments to the bottom of the page (not the top) and sign them by adding four tildes (~~~~) which will automatically add your username or IP address and the time and date. Please do not alter the comments or votes of others; this is considered vandalism and grounds for blocking. Please do not comment or vote multiple times pretending you are different people; such comments and votes will be deleted or ignored. Read this for more information. Thank you.

Stupid prank entry by DU. See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5411505

Dr Debug 18:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • While I am in sympathy with the content expressed in the article, I vote to Delete. It is not a commonly used term at this time, although if Schmidt keeps opening that nasty unAmerican pie hole of hers, she'll make that term stick. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 19:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A prank from an extremely partisan website and unlike the sexual term "Santorum", Schmidthead has not been used by anyone other than one single poster at DU.

WCC2005

  • If the sexual use of the term "Santorum" can be on Wikipedia, so can this term. I say it should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.150.34 (talk • contribs)
  • Leave it alone. It's the most sensible addition of a word to the English language I've heard in years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.7.94 (talk • contribs)
  • Leave it! It is going to stick around as a euphemism for decades. It's a word to express one's opinion of another person without the vulgarity and reference to poop.
  • KEEP It's just as valid term as 'ChickenHawk', and contrary to the above comment, I heard it being used on Air America the past coupla of days, as well as on Bernie Ward. Used several times this morning on The Stephanie Miller show in the 'generic' term and not a direct releation to the person in question. It's becoming just a valid term as "Swiftboating" or "Chicken Hawk". Note: Sorry for the double entry, I meant to just add to my previous comment and added a second on by mistake, apologies... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.120.227.153 (talk • contribs)

KEEP


I say it works! Most reasonable people who watched Schmitt spew her venom would agree.


  • Keep neologism. I've heard it on AirAmerica too and I fully intend to start using it myself. It is a legitimate and worthy addition to the English language and will stand along side other politically driven neologisms like "Gerrymander," "Boycott" or "Bowdlerize". That the word bears a strong resemblance to "you-know-whathead" makes it uniquely efficacious for denoting the especially execrable brand of reckless, ignorant, and nasty character assassination of honorable people for which her recent speech stands as the species type exhibit.

MaskedMarauder 18:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. If we can have Slick Willie, we can have Schmidthead. -- Atlant 13:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 148,000 googles for "slick willie", 369 for "schmidthead". It's not a term in widespread usage, and as such, doesn't belong here. If things change, we can always add it back in the future. -Colin Kimbrell 19:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete First of all, it's rather early to claim "it will stand along side other politically-driven" neologisms: Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball. Secondly, it's a personal attack on a single freshman representative--in fact, the most junior member of congress, for a gaffe that will likely be soon forgotten. Next, it's ridiculously POV. Calling a member of congress "shithead" by implication and claiming she " lacks any sense of decency, perspective or irony." in a main article is entirely POV--all opinion, no fact. Next, it is hardly in common use. "schmidthead" as a google search receives 387 results--and on the first page, only one result is political. Searching 'schmidthead jean' without the quotes (so as to get articles with both) gives only 22 results. 22 results in the entire Internet is not a common term. For comparison to other political hackjob neologisms, "klintoon" recieves 13000 and "bushitler" recieves 69000--both obviously not worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, and yet both in much wider use. I doubt this even belongs in the List of pejorative political puns, though that would be a much better choice. Finally, from the "Wikipedia:Deletion policy page, under Problems that may require deletion: "Original research (including the coining of neologisms)"128.135.199.165 19:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above post. 24.163.172.102 08:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 23:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Study Abroad

edit

Blatant ad. Delete. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Robert T | @ | C 23:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Godplayer (novel)

edit

no useful information Melaen 18:24, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 23:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowsurf

edit

No Alexa rank, WP:NOT a web directory. --Alan Au 19:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 23:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

American Smokeless, The Ubie

edit

Delete as advertising - and bad faith at that. The product claims to be for the consumption of tobacco but there is 'hidden' text relating to marijuana & THC on the linked site's front page as well as the coolest crack pipe ('The Ubie') that I have ever seen. Eddie.willers 19:07, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Ubie should be added to this nomination. Pilatus 19:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The American Smokeless article can surely be deleted, as it really is nothing but advertising, but I think the article on The Ubie should be kept, and possibly expanded, so as to appear less of an advertisement and more of a description of the invention and it's function. Tobacco links to The Ubie article, and it does seem to describe an alternative to traditional smoking. Judgements about the company's choices of marketing, however unfortunate those choices might be to our point of view, don't detract from the existence of the item itself. I think it deserves an entry. Also, I don't think the idea of waiting ten years to see if the technology is widely adopted to be realistic, otherwise we'd have to delete articles on the Itanium and the XBox 360, for example. The article may have started as a blatant ad, but we can make it into something better, rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater. (I haven't yet done so, since there's no point in expending effort to improve the article until the VfD is resolved, but if the article stays, I will step up.) SleepyHappyDoc 19:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As another poster noted, it's really an already existing device (most often used for crack these days) that's simply being sold for tobacco - probably in part to appear legit in the face of possible criticism, in part to try and create a new marketing application. The question is really whether it deserves a separate article, and it's difficult to see that it does. It could warrant a mention in an expanded crackpipe article, and be linked from the articles on tobacco smoking that way, or it could be treated as a subset of vaporisers. Consider also that if it is successful as a nicotine delivery device, competitors will apply the same rather trivial technology and sell their own versions, which won't be called The Ubie. - toh 02:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was 'Speedy delete' . -Owen× ☎ 19:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AmeriTitle

edit

Reads like a cut-and-paste from this company's marketing brochure. Doesn't even say what they do... Delete. Owen× ☎ 19:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Found to also be a copyvio. Speedied. Owen× ☎ 19:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. I note that User:Andrew Levine provides excellent reasoning for the article's creation, User:JJay changed his vote (to strong keep, more besides), the comments seemed generally sympathetic to the article, and User:Durova, while advocating deletion, conceded that if the content could be better-restricted, the article would be worth keeping. As such, it would not be a good idea for me to delete. Any content issues can be solved by discussing the article on its talkpage. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 18:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Muslims in business

edit

The faith of none of these people had any bearing on their lives as prominent businessmen. This is just silly. Pilatus 19:33, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus (I count 13-7), and I really wish people would take the time to explain their votes! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 18:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish Recipients of National Medal of Science

edit

We don't have other lists of Recipients of the National Medal of Science with ($ETHNIC|$NATIONAL) affiliation. Wikipedia isn't a vehicle to boost one's pride in one's ancestry. Pilatus 19:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As people are on a cleaning spree possibly you can just add religious or ethnic affiliation on the main List of National Medal of Science winners--T. Anthony 12:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As the author of this list (i.e., its true author, not the individual who copied it without permission from my website, JINFO.ORG), I must agree with Pilatus that such a list does not belong in Wikipedia. The stated purpose of the JINFO.ORG website (and its only purpose) is to provide a counterweight to the hundreds of anti-Semitic websites now polluting the Internet with every manner of outlandish allegation concerning the Jewish impact on the world. What JINFO.ORG is attempting to do is to provide a quantitative analysis of just what that impact has been, focusing particularly on modern science, which has been largely responsible for most of the material advancement of the human race over the last several millennia. The only reason for JINFO.ORG's publication of its lists of names is to back up that analysis. None of this appears to be Wikipedia's purpose (with its "List of Jewish Criminals," etc.), nor should it be.
But outside of such a context, Wikipedia's Jewish lists certainly give every appearance of being nothing but a gratuitous display ethnic chauvinism, with the potential of creating even more anti-Semitism. It seems to me that while it would not be be unreasonable to attach to the article on the Jews a list of several hundred of the most prominent Jews in history and perhaps a complete list of Jewish Nobel Prize winners, the listing of thousands of names of scientists who are completely unknown to the general public makes utterly no sense. Even the Wikipedia article on the "National Medal of Science" lists only a few of the most prominent recipients, together with a link to the National Science Foundation database for the rest.
I would also like to point out that the eleven JINFO.ORG webpages that were copied without permission to create the Wikipedia "List of Jewish Scientists and Philosophers" are all copyrighted. JINFO.ORG is demanding the removal of this page; it represents both wholesale copyright infringement and plagiarism (putting a one-line "Reference" at the end of a list of ~1500 names is plagiarism). Wikipedia's predatory behavior toward both JEWHOO.COM and JINFO.ORG has effectively terminated operations at both websites - the only two websites that had been producing credible research on Jewish biography. Not only has massive amounts of copyrighted content been expropriated, but it has been then declared to be "free documentation." Many thousands of hours of highly specialized research were involved in compiling the JINFO.ORG lists; do you have any idea what it's like to become the victim of this sort of outrageous activity? Wikipedia warns its contributors: "DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION!" and "by submitting your work you promise you wrote it yourself, or copied it from public domain resources — this does not include most web pages." That seems pretty clear to me. Jinfo 03:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I can't see a list of National medal of science recipients on your website. Arniep 19:48, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Try clicking on the "Reference" link on the Wikipedia webpage or go to http://www.jinfo.org/Medal_of_Science.html. Jinfo 20:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have not looked at any alleged copyvio on the article. A list seems like borderline for copyright protection; though if the descriptions of the individuals listed are all copied (not just the facts), it's possible. However, it's certainly true that copyvio is a whole different category of concern than AfD is. Whether the article deserves to exist in a non-infringing way is entirely unrelated to whether the current article infringes; neither decision should be based on the other. If Jinfo believes this article is a copyright violation s/he should look at Wikipedia:Copyright problems, and follow the appropriate mechanisms for removal of copyrighted material.
Speaking only for Australia, a list is certainly copyrightable, even if all the information in it is in the public domain, if effort is involved in compiling the list. This certainly seems to be such a case. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete and editorialise. The article is orphaned, and was written by the subject's creator. It was never going to pass AfD. However, I find the idea of adding a second vote "just to establish consensus" exceedingly distasteful. WP:NOT a democracy, and consensus is not about raw numbers in any form. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 19:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alex & Timmy

edit

Vanity website article (apparently written by site's owner [20]. No Alexa rank, forum has 22 members and under 100 total posts, very few links to the site [21]. Vanity article, wikipedia isn't self promotion. --W.marsh 19:55, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 23:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mortal Kombat Rumors

edit

It's not entirely clear to me what function this page serves, but my interpretation is that it's a collection of "Rumors" on the game. The majority of them are "rumored characters" with links to other articles; it seems to me that it's either a.)an unecessary list/collection of wikilinks, b.) a nonverifiable collection of "rumours" related to a video game (i.e. gamecruft), c.) a confusingly laid out, short, unclear page, or d.) all of the above. in any case, Deletejfg284 you were saying? 20:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus keep. Okay, this is about as clear no consensus as you could get. Nobody agrees with anybody else! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 19:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Marv

edit

Do we really need a page for this character? Isn't the write-up at Sin City more than sufficient on this subject? Brown Shoes22, stop overdoing everything!! Dyslexic agnostic 20:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --JoanneB 19:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wrenching feeling

edit

This is a joke, right? Obviously there are many situations in which all kinds of people feel extreme distress; being left by your girlfriend is not really a suitable topic for wikipedia, I think. --Austrian 20:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 19:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anorrectal Protuberance

edit

This was tagged for speedy as a copyvio, but the text does not currently appear on the listed source site, and in any case that site is not a commercial content provider, However it is not at all clear to me that this band passes the WP:MUSIC tests. Weak delete, if kept, needs cleanup badly. DES (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Although I share many of the concerns raised by User:Thivierr, that's VfU's problem. This is a valid AfD, with an overwhelming delete contingent, so out she goes. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 19:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Melody Pomeroy

edit

Second listing. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melody Pomeroy for the first discussion, which ended with no consensus. This actress is not notable. She has not appeared on Broadway, but only in a small role in a touring production of Oklahoma!, and an unstated role in a German production of 42nd Street. There is nothing in this article to indicate that this actress deserves an article in Wikipedia. If she has a starring or featured role on a Broadway production, or if she has some meaningful publicity, then I would reconsider and would not oppose recreation of an article which discussed that notability. Note that she does not have an entry in the Internet Broadway Database.User:Zoe|(talk) 20:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for the same reason as last time, as I feel she just barely qualifies. If we can't have an article for her, I request the content be merged/redirected into her high school, where's she's mentioned as a notable alumni. That way, there's no loss of info, it boosts an existing article, and if she get more press, we can undo the redir. If somebody types her name (currently no duplicates), they'll be redirected to where info on her exists. I'ld rather redir to the production company, but it doesn't have an article, and Worthington Christian High School (Ohio) does. --Rob 21:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. She's a minor off-Broadway theatre actress. She hasn't even starred in any productions. As such, she fails WP:BIO miserably. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO. Thivierr - why not write an article for the production company? - brenneman(t)(c) 22:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If AFDs are going to be re-opened till there's a deletion, there's no point in participation. The only valid delete vote in the old one, was based on her being only a junior miss. Anybody could have voted in the last one, if they wished. If we're going to re-AFD till things till they are deleted, than my prior decision to stop bothering with AFDs was probably correct, and I should of stuck with it. I will not validate this AFD by participation. --Rob 22:56, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your comments. I listed it on WP:VFU, and was told there was nothing wrong with listing it again. Why should only deletions be available for rediscussion, and not lack of deletion? User:Zoe|(talk) 23:09, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree both are subject to re-review *if* new the process failed or substantial new information comes to light. Generally, it happens, that new information coming to light favors inclusion. Only ocassionally does new information favor deletion, but when it does that's a valid reason to. For instance, if you feel my first "keep" vote was based on unverified information that was removed later from the article, that would be excellent grounds for re-opening. Also, lets say Pomeroy had done nothing since the Junior Miss (which the other delete voter based their vote on) then I wouldn't have voted, and one single delete vote would be entirely sufficient to delete the article, and there would be no grounds for re-opening it (without new information). I think its absurd everybody feels that its necessary to pile-on in every AFD with ten people all saying the same thing. One voter is fine in some cases (as others were free to review it for five days). I think imperfect processes should be lived with, and attempts to make things perfect, just bog things down, and make things even worse. There is sufficient verifiable information to sustain an article here. I don't criticize anybody for wishing to vote delete, as I thought about voting delete the first time. Its a matter of process, and we have to think about how wasteful of resources we are, on some articles, while totally ignoring others. This article got a do-over, yet most don't get a once-over. Finally, I'm not saying you broke the rules, you didn't; what you did was entirely within the rules. But I still hold to my objection. --Rob 03:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • It can be argued that a three-participant AFD is an example of the process failing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, first I would argue it was two one-particpant processes, and one can be enough (depending). The one-line stub was voted delete (properly) and the full-stub (not full article) was voted keep, properly. I think if its safe for an admin to do a speedy delete with *no* non-admin review than its safe for a non-admin to be the sole voter, when its open to review by everybody for five days (admins and non-admins). Now, if I said "keep all actors and screw wp:bio" then a review/relist would be appropriate. But I gave a valid reason, on which reasonable people can differ. At some point people have to look at the vast growth of new articles, and AFD listings, and figure out that what once worked doesn't work anymore. It's a failure. I see huge numbers of articles with *no* sources, and *no* verification being ignored while attention is paid to articles like this, which have some encyclopedic potential. It seems the only solution ever proposed for handling AFD backlog is widening speedy-delete criteria (officially and unofficially). I note, if any of the admins here, had speedy deleted the original one-line stub (which may have qualified) you'ld expect us non-admins to trust you, even though we have no way of reviewing it (e.g. we can't see the content). You had five days to review this. That's plenty. We should have left this, and moved on. In any event, your desire for more AFDs with more participants is a hopeless cause. It won't work. It can't keep up. It will fail. We just havn't hit the failure point yet. We will. --Rob 03:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Admins have (ideally) strict rules on what articles they can speedy, whereas AFD has a broad scope limited only by community consensus. (Personally, I would have relisted that AFD for further content, given the rewrite that barely alleged notability and the limited participation.) While AFD may have major problems, in the meantime, AFD muddles along as best it can, and no AFD variation or replacement would protect a clearly marginal article from consideration just because a previous discussion had demonstrated little interest and no consensus. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If an article's subject is encyclopedic and/or notable, than no amount of re-nominating for deletion will get it removed. *cough* GNAA *coughcough* If something is borderline, or was not sufficiently discussed in previous nomination, re-opening debate is proper. brenneman(t)(c) 23:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Minor up-and-coming actress. --Calton | Talk 00:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hardly notable.  Grue  13:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Personally, I think it would be cool if every one of the six billion people alive today had his own wikipedia page. But as long as wikipedia is only for notable topics, she doesn't belong, because she isn't notable. At all. No, not even a little. Rast 02:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above. Very minor actress. Nothing about the job of "actor" makes one automatically significant. Friday (talk) 23:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable. That might change in a few years, but Wikipedia deals with the here and now, not the future. B.Wind 08:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 17:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

African Beatz

edit

Wikipedia is not a blog Blightsoot 20:09, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 17:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Kuranda

edit

Seems like CV-cruft. Google results are poor, 211 hits. One of the hits are his IMDb page, which says he has appeared in five works, one of which as uncredited. This is not enough. Punkmorten 21:33, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 17:48, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Max kubiak

edit

Although there exists such an artist as Max Kubiak in Montreal, this article is mostly vanity nonsense, and the last paragraph verges on a joke. The whole thing is thoroughly unverifiable, and arguably NN. I didn't want to speedy it, but Delete. Melchoir 22:03, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nomination. This is a poorly written article that is borderline vanity, unverifiable (only 6 Google returns on the string mentioned above), and concerns a non-notable theatrical personage. Eddie.willers 04:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Max Kubiak is a prominet feature in the Montreal theatre landscape, and though the entry has been written with a heavy dose of sensationalism, the fact remains that he is pioneering a new theatre form. His public theatre interventions, or 'tactical ambushes' address issues like gentrification, corruption with Big Canola, and careless usage of public water works in montreal parks. His work has been the subject of multiple ethnography studies, and he has been recognized by such television networks as CBC and MTV. The reference to the Bah Hai's approval is actually quite true, as he cooks dinner for Bah Hai's every tuesday night, in exchange for discounts at a local video store, and ofcourse for friendship. Perhaps, heavy editing would be a preferable route to outright deletion?
    • Hello, 67.68.155.31! Please consider signing in. It sounds like you have a lot to add to the article; by all means, please do it yourself, and I'll change my vote! One of my concerns about the article is that it makes ridiculous claims and cites no sources. If you're right about "multiple ethnography studies" and "CBC and MTV" then go ahead and add some references. Melchoir 04:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 17:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I actually went to each edit on the diff story to verify what was going on. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 17:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Da Pupz and Da pupz (duplicate articles)

edit

Probably a hoax (only three Google hits for "Da pupz", and only one seems to be them -- a link to their myspace page). But even if not, their website is a myspace page, and they fail WP:MUSIC. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:35, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Warning: some anonymous editors have been changing the votes of registered users. (example)
  • KEEPThis article, while not about a grammy winning, multi-platinum group, is not a hoax. Da Pupz do actually have a large following but they are as of right now a very regional cultish kind of group. Like many groups before they become huge successes, their following is based mostly on bootlegs of a very superb demo cd and fans who await their studio album in progress. I think it would be a shame to drop this article because it is informative about a group that is notoriously difficult to obtain information about. Da Pupz are expanding their fan base daily and I believe that one day this group will truly be at the top of the charts. Even if not, don't you think it is nice to find out about things you didn't know about before? The music scene of Albuquerque is not exactly the talk of the town right now, so aside from a few mentions of it here and there (this article being one of the more prominent), how would people ever find out about it if they were interested? I beg you to keep this article up, I think it is important that the curious be able to find out about this awesome group, even if they havent sold millions of records yet. Also I garauntee this is not a hoax, as somebody said, I have actually seen the group live and they were incredible!
  • Delete for failure to meet any WP:MUSIC criteria. This is not to claim they are a hoax -- they may be exactly what the article says they are -- just that they have not achieved sufficient public attention to warrant an article on Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 08:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Eusebeus 12:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Zoe, note that my Delete vote was changed by a self-interested vandal (thanks to FoN for pointing it out to me) to keep which i have slashed out now. Can you take the appropriate action. I think this should be speedied if possible based on the vandalism. tx Eusebeus 08:27, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sheesh, I certainly don't want to provoke wanton keep votes. Surely my suggestion counts less than the merits of the article under review. Eusebeus 23:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 17:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The days of "Bud Oracle"

edit

Close to an nn-bio, but not quite, I guess... appears to be referring to posts on a message board somewhere. Needs userfication or deletion. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 06:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pickup artist

edit

more appropriate for wiktionary. --Bachrach44 18:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 17:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

G3 Microsystems

edit

Tiny (one man?) computer distributer in Singapore. Zero Google hits. Delete Owen× ☎ 22:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redir per Melaen. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 17:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fate Is the Hunter

edit

bad capitalization --> the right article is Fate is the Hunter Melaen 22:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was closing afd as entry was speedied earlier. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 17:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Decline of Video Gaming 3 Script

edit

Wiki goes to Hollywood today I think (See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evening of The Reanimated Corpses (first wiki movie)). Misuse of wikipedia space. Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 23:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 23:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Mclean

edit

One paragraph about an nn 19-year-old, followed by several paragraphs about the style of martial arts he supposedly follows. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 17:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Decline of Video Gaming Script

edit

Wikipedia is not a place to publish the script of a flash animation, or any other sort of work of fiction. --Pmetzger 23:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 17:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spam wars

edit

Finishing incomplete AfD nom. No vote. BD2412 T 02:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 17:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Akner

edit


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 17:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Daryl Petree

edit


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 17:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gender Stereotypes in American films

edit

Original Research, Essay, Delete abakharev 09:19, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete, per CSD A1, empty article. --Titoxd(?!?) 05:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Manhattan Loverboy

edit

almost no content Melaen 23:33, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep yes it's a substub, but the author has audiobook on salon.com, an interview on suicidegirls.com, coverage on BBC website etc. It's not an NN book, but article needs expanding. Pete.Hurd 01:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC) Delete content would go best in the Arthur Nersesian, but there is no content to move Pete.Hurd 05:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 17:12, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Fuck Up

edit 
remember to delete also the redirect [24]


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

The result of the debate was Delete JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 23:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Michael Purse

edit


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

The result of the debate was already userified, now deleted. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 16:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ilka

edit


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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 23:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guillaume Masson

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 16:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cracka Killin' Committee

edit

Non-notable street gang StoatBringer 23:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_20&oldid=1234127193"