Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 September 25

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< September 24 September 26 >

Purge server cache

September 25

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 DELETE as COPYVIO. -Splashtalk 02:08, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arambašići

edit

This is a recipe an d does not belong in Wikipedia --Nv8200p (talk) 16:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: As per User:MacGyverMagic's suggestion, User:Sj moved the content to The Rule of the Harlots and made Pornocracy a disambig page. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pornocracy

edit

Neologism; no references that mention the term. Should be renamed or merged. +sj + 05:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rules of Make Believe

edit

Article for a webcomic, which can be found here. Alexa ranks it at 2.5million+. Although the comic seems to be at a slight hiatus since July of this year, the page rank, if it is a notable comic should be higher than stated. A Google search shows up nothing that would distinguish this from any other random webcomic. Just because it's a 100 strip+ webcomic does not mean it is inherently notable. Are we going to start making articles for 100+ post bloggers now? - Hahnchen 23:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 00:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Binary Research Institute

edit

The mission of the Binary Research Institute is dissemination of the theory that the Sun has got a companion star. The outfit has a website, which is rather well done, but doesn't seem to have a presence in the physical world. (At least I couldn't find any). The theory that the Sun has a companion star does exist, but as the pages at the Institute never mention the existing research they are run-of-the-mill crackpots.

Please consider in this context Walter Cruttenden as the founder of the institute, whose page is also up for deletion. Pilatus 00:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Binary model of equinox precession, a POV fork of Precession Pilatus 16:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"run-of-the-mill crackpots" ... there's a nice NPOV for you. Further, the pages of the Institute are replete with information and links to the research. Don't let the agenda of militant skeptics fool you. comment left by anonymous user 65.11.192.128
We are not concerned with the veracity of the theory, merely with its importance. If it has ever been mentioned anywhere in the press (not the vanity press!) it would boost the case for keeping. Pilatus 00:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my comment below for a link to a mention in mainstream. Oswax 11:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"The ground-breaking and richly illustrated new book, Lost Star of Myth and Time, marries modern astronomical theory with ancient star lore to make a compelling case for the profound influence on our planet of a companion star to the sun." is how the review starts. This is hardly a review, it reads like advertisement copy, and on the PBS website there is no trace of the Cruttenden-sponsored documentary "The Great Year" that is mentioned in the text. Pilatus 11:52, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The point is they didn't ignore the institute and the book they published. So why should we ignore them? Don't mistake me, I think the theory is bull, but you wanted a mention, and there's one, no matter how lousy. Oswax 13:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The same text (plus or minus a paragraph) can be found at physorg, where it has the attribution "Source:Binary Research institute". It looks as if the folks at the Institute sent out press releases to everyone and their dog, and some websites did put them up. Giving space to someone's advertising material is different from reviewing a theory. Pilatus 16:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Do we have an article on this binary star system theory, however basic (just saying: this psuedoscience theory is x y z)? If we do, I'll shift my vote on this and Walter Cruttenden. Oswax 16:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is a small paragraph in the Precession#Alternative views entry (section "Alternative views") where the "double star" theory is mentioned. Binary model of equinox precession is just a POV fork. Pilatus 17:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'll shift my vote on both. Oswax 18:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is AFD, if we were to be NPOV in AFD, we would all vote neutral wouldn't we, and everything would be kept, which would probably satisfy many of the inclusionists here. - Hahnchen 00:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-widespread pseudoscience, probably original research as it's extraordinarily unlikely to have received peer-reviewed publicaiton. -Splashtalk 01:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are not concerned with the veracity of the theory, merely with the verifiability and notability of the subject of the article, surely? Verifiability, not truth, quoth the Five Pillars. I think the theory's utter twaddle, you think the theory's utter twaddle, but then again Phlogiston's twaddle as well, and nobody's putting that on AfD.
    I vote Weak Keep, although I note even the only contributor asking to keep this can't be bothered to quote something that verifies the article, not the theory. The theory is not the concern of this AfD. This crackpot institute exists, as does the crackpot theory. And I will vote to delete any article that tries to promote a POV that the theory is true. Tonywalton  | Talk 01:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not because it's crazy, but because it's non-notable crazy. -- Kjkolb 02:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it is currently only a stub. How can the article be developed if it is attacked and shot down as soon as the stub went up. It takes time to attract interested contributors. Modern scientific research into this topic is in it's infancy, even though it was known to the ancient Greeks and other ancient civilizations. Modern science isn't going to embrace it overnight. It is, however, gaining more and more recognition, and I think the topic is important enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. Comment left by anonymous user 65.9.1.159.
  • Delete. Attempt to use Wikipedia to promote original research. Not a widely recognized theory either within or without the scientific mainstream. Within: Search of Proquest Research Library, an electronic index of two thousand scholarly journals: Searching for "binary research institute" did not find any documents. Apparently members of the institution have publishing nothing in these journals. Without: 315 Google hits on "Binary Research Institute," high-ranked hit on Wikipedia and its mirrors, most of them referring specifically to Cruttenden. No obvious evidence of widespread belief. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an inhabitant of an invisible non-existant planet that happens to revolve around the invisible non-existant binary star that is the focus of the above mentioned group which studies it, I have to say that this is an outrage! No-one is supposed to know about us! Delete! Wait till I tell the Lizard people! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC) This vote on the VfD of an Archeology-Astronomy-Astrology-Hinduism-History-Mythology-New Age-Star stub is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by voting delete![reply]
  • Delete, OR crackpottery. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sasquatch, would appreciate it if you would please stop vandalizing my work. Thank you, 65.9.1.159 .
  • Keep, if this organization exists and is likely to affect the beliefs of a fair amount of people. Anthony Appleyard 05:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes, it's crackpottery, but sadly, I have to acknowledge that it is apparently notable, non-OR crackpottery, in that IMDB confirms the documentary, the producers, and that James Earl Jones appeared in it, and assuming it was released as a film and/or shown on PBS, it had a sizeable mass audience. Sigh. --MCB 06:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Changed my vote due to lack of verification that the film was shown on PBS or anywhere else. --MCB 18:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On the website for the movie, Walter Cruttenden is listed as one of the sponsors. Vanity press, anyone? Pilatus 18:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Goodness gracious, it was his idea to finally introduce this very ancient theory to the modern day public, the documentary is his work, he wrote it, he worked hard to produce it, he financed it, his institute is the one carrying out the research into it. If that seems like vanity press to you, I wonder how many serious, professional endeavours you've ever been involved with. IP 65.9.158.81
If he financed it himself, then it would seem exactly like vanity press to me. Publication through normal channels proves that the author of the work was able to convince others to put their money where the author's mouth is. A normal book or movie has survived a difficult external review (albeit one based on profitability rather than truth). It sets a reasonably high bar, one which a self-published work does not need to hurdle. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
'I do not know if he financed the entire thing himself, or what part of it he did. A more accurate description might be that it was financed through his institute I guess. I have no idea how much came from where. It is obvious that getting knowledge of this theory out into the public is an uphill battle (that might be an understatement), but the theory itself has the potential to alter the beliefs of many millions of people (the entire population of the planet) if it were to be proven true. Like I said before, research is in its infancy, and faces heavy attack from the scientific establishment. Witness what has happened here, within a few minutes of the stub appearing it was marked for deletion. That is the kind of uphill battle Mr. Cruttenden, the Institute, and the theory face. But the potential for it to affect the lives of every human being is there.' IP 65.9.158.81
And when it is proved true, we should have an article about it. More to the point, when it can be shown to have altered the beliefs of hundreds of thousands of people, we should have an article about it. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for the promulgation of worthy theories. It is a encyclopedia, a secondary reference, that reports facts that are already widely accepted. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Crackpottery indeed, but a very notable one at that. Owen× ☎ 18:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, those who are referring to this article or it's subject as crackpottery should re-think their statements, what is crackpottery one day is factual science another. Piecraft 22:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some who have voted keep here and at the Cruttenden vote are basing their votes on the existance of the DVD narrated by James Earl Jones. It should be re-stated that no-one knows for sure if the thing has even aired on PBS, which throws into doubt it's notability, and thus the notability of both related articles. In all seriousness, these need to go. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • good point, i have removed PBS claim from article as it is unverified. Derex 06:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it actually aired, it should not be hard to verify this. Any supporters of the article care to step up to the plate? Dpbsmith (talk) 09:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Did it air on PBS or not? This is important to me, at least, in assessing whether we should have an article on it. If it did, it should be easy to provide verifiable evidence, and I hope some supporters will do so. For my part, I note that the Amazon listing makes no such claim (nor do any reader reviews). It is trivially easy to self-publish books and get them listed on Amazon; I don't know if this is true of DVDs. Search for "Cruttenden" at www.pbs.org yields six hits, none referring to this film. ("Abigail Cruttenden is a British television and film actress...") Search for "Great Year" at www.pbs.org yields 46 hits, non referring to the film. Search for "James Earl Jones" returns 40 hits, none referring to the film. DID IT AIR? IF SO, WHEN AND ON WHAT STATIONS? If someone will provide this information I think it could be verified quickly. I can't find anything at http://www.thegreatyear.com/ suggesting that it ever aired. If it aired on the PBS network I would change my vote. If it aired on a single PBS affiliate station, I would want to email them and find out more about the circumstances. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
23skidoo has verified that it aired January 28, 2004 on KOCE-TV in Huntington Beach [3]. That reference doesn't indicate whether it was distributed by the PBS network, or whether it was aired by one PBS affiliate (not the same thing). I've submitted an email query to KOCE's program department inquiring about the circumstances of its airing. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, those opposing these articles should have the ability to simply type: Walter Cruttenden in Google to come up with many sites relating to the man and his research along with the PBS broadcast. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out this is a factual and notable person who has already been discussed throughout: [The Great Year] Piecraft 10:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is the discussion about the institute. The man, the theory and the movie have each their own discussion. As far as the "Binary Research Institute" goes, it has 300 Google hits, 97 of which are unique. A bunch of these are speaking engagements on the esoteric circuit, the rest are copies of the press release on the movie and Wikipedia entries. There is no indication that the institute or the theory ever hit the mainstream. A Google search for '"The Great Year" Cruttenden' returns 48 unique hits; again many of these are copies of the press release. The movie is self-produced; there is no inducation that Cruttenden managed to find an investor. No indication is given anywhere that it was shown on PBS or anywhere outside the esoteric circuit. Walter Cruttenden himself heads an investment firm with a staff of three. Cruttenden exists, sure, but he has done nothing but finance a movie and set up a website. Even fervent inclusionists usually draw the line at personal vanity and self-promotion. Pilatus 13:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It hardly seems like a vanity page and does not fall into what appears to be the category of the WP:NOT - you can find further relevance to this article by seeking out the official site of the [Binary Research Institute] and checking the link for Board of Advisors, the names placed are of notable people which can also be Googled, this is a relevant Institute which has been around since 2001. Even fervent deletionists can't come up with a good enough excuse for deletion, until you can prove to me this is purely for vanity purposes than I rest on the case that it is a relevant encyclopedic article that ascribes to an Institute founded by a notable individual as can be seen from the notable and reputable background and coverage on the Net. Piecraft 13:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • This discussion is about the institute. It was founded four years ago, and if it had made any impact it would by now clock up more than 100 hits on Google. Again, the discussion is not about the qualification of the members, it's about what the organization has achieved. If they haven't done anything except self-publish a movie and a book they ought to go. (I guess I'm applying a standard similar to WP:MUSIC.) Pilatus 14:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If this discussion is about the article about the Binary Reasearch Institute, then I would suggest it be kept - i've read it's less than 10 lines several times, and found it not objectionable at all, nor it falls into any category of non NPOV - it's merely a stub about what IS this institute, nothing else. If the pseudoscientific theory they're trying to promote shouldn't be here according to wikipedia (original research) then well, that's another thing - the article about that theory should be deleted. The same about article on Walter Cruttenden himself and the film "The Great Year". Registered at least, hope this helps (BattleTroll)

  • Delete. Non-notable crackpot institution. If it is kept I will say that the article shows remarkable restraint for a crackpottery-related topic and sticks to neutral and verifiable (or practically verifiable) statements. Quale 08:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, this is obviously a bad faith nomination. The delitionist attitudes here are unbelieveably oppressive. The rabid, visceral comments reek of hidden (or not so hidden) agenda and ulterior motives. Why are they are trying so hard to silence and suppress. It's suspicious. Earthian 16:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC) User registered on September 27 and made contributions only to this and related AfDs. Special:Contributions/Earthian[reply]
    • Comment, thank you Pilatus for proving my point. I couldn't have done it better myself. The rabidness with which you are going about this, and the fact that now you are stalking me and adding "special comments" to my contributions here further proves that these three nominations were in BAD FAITH. You proved it better than I or anyone else could. Earthian 17:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • If your edits are only to this and related VfDs Pilatus has every right to point that out. Roughly, 100 diverse edits prove an editor stopping by a VfD is "disinterested" rather than pushing their own cruft or creations. Marskell 18:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conflict of Interest - Question: should the person who nominates articles for deletion also be making changes to those articles? In this case, Pilatus has nominated these three articles for deletion - Walter Cruttenden, Binary Research Institute, and The Great Year - and has made extensive changes to them. In most of his changes he leaves behind typos and grammatical errors, broken links, and straggling headers (i.e., after he's removed everything that was under a header), not only messing up other users' work but leaving the article in much poorer shape than it was before. He also deletes extensively, and removes categories and stubs aggressively. He goes in after anyone adds anything to an article and removes everything the other person contributed. He seems to be working to increase the chances for deletion of the articles. In light of this, it would be appropriate, in order to avoid this obvious conflict of interest, for the person who nominated the articles to refrain from modifying them until the decision has been made? Syug 21:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Most articles up for deletion are not judged upon the quality or quantity or their content, but rather the appropriateness or notability of the topic. Any edits that Pilatus may have made to the content of the article are irrelevant, for he cannot make a worthy topic unworthy by bad grammar or misspellings. Oswax 21:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • AfDs are closed by an admin who was not involved in the debate to prevent conflicts of interest. The offer still stands: instead of complaining feel free to add content to improve the article. Also note that there is broad consensus for my edits. Pilatus
    • Syug, your comments are vague and general. We're talking about one particular article here. I infer that you think Pilatus has intentionally damaged the article in order to influence voting. Which are the specific edits where you think he's done this? I looked at one case of an editor "(correcting more Pilatus syntax errors)" and it didn't look to me like anything that would affect voting. Your own edits, which he removed, didn't seem like anything that would have led people to vote "keep" had they been left in. Nor do I see any evidence in the discussion that anyone is complaining about typos or grammatical errors or using them as a reason for deletion. If you think that Pilatus has been deliberately damaging the article in order to influence people to vote for deletion, you really should open a WP:RFC on this. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this might not be good faith here Yuckfoo 21:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for reasons expressed many times already. -R. fiend 14:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is exactly zero primary evidence for Cruttenden's notions about the Sun being part of a binary system. There is no excuse for inclusion of this trash in an encyclopaedia, except as an example of pseudoscience/bad science. Comment left by anonymous user 62.64.220.164 who has only participated in this and the three other related articles being nominated for deletion and left the same comment in each.Red herring! Surely it is the content of the comment, not who left it, or where else he left it, that is relevant? 62.64.237.112 15:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research, unlikely to have many non-POV contributors.--inks 08:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the institute has not yet had enough impact on the world to be encyclopedic. The Literate Engineer 22:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal Though I know most would like to see these three artciles deleted, why not merge them altogether into one article describing the phenomenon, the man and the institute (including his film) - as for the title it could be placed under "Binary model of equinox precession" Piecraft 12:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 00:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Walter Cruttenden

edit

Walter Cruttenden is an investment banker and has its entry here as the founder of the Binary Research Institute, which is also up for deletion. Please consider the two AfDs together. Pilatus 00:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Binary model of equinox precession, a POV fork of Precession Pilatus 16:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And what is wrong with being an investment banker? Or the founder of a research institute??? comment left by anonymous user 65.11.192.128

Since you asked, the fact that his theory and the institute devoted to it have attracted no attention from anyone are reasons that it shouldn't be listed here. Sources that the institure (and its founder) are somehow notable are good grounds for inclusion. Pilatus 00:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sasquatch, would appreciate it if you would please stop vandalizing my work. Thank you, 65.9.1.159 .
  • Weak Keep. The subject may well be (and probably is) a pseudoscientific crackpot, but he is listed with the writing credit of the film The Great Year, apparently funded or whatever by the Binary whosis, and it';s listed in the IMDB, was narrated by James Earl Jones, and was asserted to have been shown on PBS (and I think I remember something like that). --MCB 06:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Changed my vote, as above, due to lack of verification that the film was shown on PBS or anywhere else. --MCB 18:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If this discussion is about the article about THE PERSON, then I would suggest it be kept. If the pseudoscientific theory his "Binary Research Institute" doesn't deserve a place at Wikipedia for being original research then the article about that theory deserves being deleted, but not the stub about this guy. The same about article the film "The Great Year". Now I'm a registered user (BattleTroll)

  • Delete. If the crackpot theories were encyclopedic, Cruttenden should be mentioned on them. I think they're not encyclopedic, and Cruttenden himself does not appear to meet WP:BIO. Quale 08:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, this is obviously a bad faith nomination. These delitionist attitudes are unbelieveably oppressive! The rabid, visceral comments reek of hidden (or not so hidden) agenda and ulterior motives. Why are they are trying so hard to silence and suppress. It's suspicious. Earthian 16:01, 27 September 2005 (UTC) User registered on September 27 and made contributions only to this and related AfDs. Special:Contributions/Earthian[reply]
    • People are included in an encyclopedia because of a degree of importance, not because of personal vanity. Instead of crying "Oppression", why don't you list Walter Cruttenden's achievements? Pilatus 17:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have no reason to list his achievements, they are readily availble on the net for all to see. They were included in the articles, with links, and you deleted them. The fact that you feel the need to stalk me and add the stupid disclaimer above to my contributions in the deletion pages only further proves my assertion that these three nominations you made are in BAD FAITH. Why are you so afraid of Walter Cruttenden, his Binary Research Institute, and the film they produced that you must work so hard to censor them? You vandalized the articles, removing other people's contributions, you hang here 24 hours a day making sure your supress any information that appears. I am no longer suspicious, after reviewing your history here, I am certain that you have hidden agendas and ulterior motives. Furthermore, if one were to apply the unbelieveably strict standards you are setting up for these three articles to all the articles on Wikipedia, half the articles would be deleted immediately, and on further consideration, few of the other half would survive. They'd be lucky if 10% of the articles survived. I repeat, this is BAD FAITH. Earthian 17:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conflict of Interest - Question: should the person who nominates articles for deletion also be making changes to those articles? In this case, Pilatus has nominated these three articles for deletion - Walter Cruttenden, Binary Research Institute, and The Great Year - and has made extensive changes to them. In most of his changes he leaves behind typos and grammatical errors, broken links, and straggling headers (i.e., after he's removed everything that was under a header), not only messing up other users' work but leaving the article in much poorer shape than it was before. He also deletes extensively, and removes categories and stubs aggressively. He goes in after anyone adds anything to an article and removes everything the other person contributed. He seems to be working to increase the chances for deletion of the articles. In light of this, it would be appropriate, in order to avoid this obvious conflict of interest, for the person who nominated the articles to refrain from modifying them until the decision has been made? Syug 21:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Most articles up for deletion are not judged upon the quality or quantity or their content, but rather the appropriateness or notability of the topic. Any edits that Pilatus may have made to the content of the article are irrelevant, for he cannot make a worthy topic unworthy by bad grammar or misspellings. Oswax 21:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is exactly zero primary evidence for Cruttenden's notions about the Sun being part of a binary system. There is no excuse for inclusion of this trash in an encyclopaedia, except as an example of pseudoscience/bad science. Comment left by anonymous user 62.64.220.164 who has only participated in this and the three other related articles being nominated for deletion and left the same comment in each.Red herring! Surely it is the content of the comment, not who left it, or where else he left it, that is relevant? 62.64.237.112 15:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal Though I know most would like to see these three artciles deleted, why not merge them altogether into one article describing the phenomenon, the man and the institute (including his film) - as for the title it could be placed under "Binary model of equinox precession" Piecraft 12:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and No to the proposal all of them likely to get deleted --JAranda | yeah 21:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ky-Mani Marley

edit

Tagged as a speedy for not asserting notability, as it stands I'm inclined to agree with that. Not sure if it's a speedy though. --fvw* 00:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Station V3

edit

Total webcomic vanity, see the webcomic here and its ghost town forums here. A webcomic reaches its audience purely by the internet, so a current ongoing webcomic, if popular, should have a decent Alexa rank, ie one which is better than 5 million. (note that it's web rank will probably breach the sub 5million mark if people visit it from this AFD) This one however, doesn't. - Hahnchen 00:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:18, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Bottle District

edit

Ad. --fvw* 00:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete, content is already at Wikibooks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Goodbye Russia With Love

edit

A recipe for a cocktail. WP:NOT recipe book. DeleteOwen× ☎ 00:21, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Redirect to Janice Dickinson for now. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No Lifeguard on Duty

edit

No useful information. Looks like a 3rd grade article. .::Imdaking::. Bow | DOWN 00:21, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Redirect to The Simpsons DVDs Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bart Wars

edit

Article contains the same information as its corresponding section in The Simpsons DVDs. -Kaizersoze 00:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-ana

edit

I have been contributing to this article for a little under a year in hopes of making it something worth keeping on Wikipedia, but recently I've realized that it is not only unencyclopedic, but completely unverifiable. All of it is hearsay. Not an appropriate topic for Wikipedia. ♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (contribs) 00:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep notable internet subculture. Klonimus 20:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Census is no longer valid, sure. But that's because it's been a while. Look for new stats. However, pro-ana sites ARE growing, and there are many campaigns to stop them, news articles on them, etc. They're important. We NEED a page on them.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 20:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Sound of Animals Fighting

edit

Non-notable side project of a member of the band Rx Bandits, who themselves are on the low end of the notability scale. Barring a wide interpretation of article 5, they fail to meet the criteria of WP:MUSIC and should be removed. Kertrats | Talk 00:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per Kertrats. -- Kjkolb 02:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As nomination. Hear that? It's the sound of articles dying. Oswax 11:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, side projects are even more notable than albums. Kappa 15:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is The Sound of Editors Deleting. Side projects are even less notable than albums. Often indifferentiable from Guy Who Had a Fight With His Real Band Goofing Around With His Buddies. Notability of the specific "project"'s actual work, demonstrated through major media or a zillion non-fansite Google hits or something, would be needed to get my "keep" vote; and the work is barely being recorded, let alone released. The only external link, to an AbsolutePunk.net "article", is actually just to a chat board where some fan claims a person will be their new lead singer. No indication of passing WP:MUSIC enough to overcome "not a crystal ball". Barno 05:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was A Narrow No Consensus. Redwolf24 (talk) 22:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cat Town

edit

Does a website with an alexa ranking of 1.2mil notable enough for a wikipedia article? Probably not. What about a subpage of that said domain at CAT TOWN. A set of captioned photos, each one featuring a cat. Apparently, it's some sort of fumetti, and is listed as a webcomic. There are some sites which intentionally look bad to be funny, this one tries, but fails at being funny. Just because it's a webcomic does not mean it is notable, this entry is pure vanity. - Hahnchen 00:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED. Either a user test or an A1. -Splashtalk 01:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cruzes

edit

An entirely perplexing entry on the plural for the Spanish word for Cross followed by some entirely unrelated website. Delete (if not speedy). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was MERGE to Consumerium. -Splashtalk 21:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ConsuML

edit

ConsuML is not notable and never was and will likely never be since the design paradigm of Consumerium was changed to heavily utilizing wiki on August 31 2003 --Juxo 14:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting in search of more discussion. -Splashtalk 01:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1987 TV series). I'll add a link to the dab page, too. -Splashtalk 21:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Carter (Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles)

edit

This article states the name of a character from an old tv show, but provides no other data. It doesn't even say whether "Carter" is a first name, last name, nickname, etc. I don't think it adds anything to Wikipedia. -- Supermorff 19:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting in search of more discussion. -Splashtalk 01:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as per Kjkolb. If anyone knew enough to search on Carter (Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles) rather than Carter then they'd have gone to Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles in the first place Dlyons493 03:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. The nominator appears to retract in their later comment (perhaps an accident, but important nontheless) — since some cleaning has been done their later comment certainly leans in the direction of a keeper. Given the work that was done and the wavering of the nominator, and the lack of an outright consensus to delete, I'm not persuaded that there is a rough consensus on what should be done, so I shall do nothing. -Splashtalk 21:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The College of Wooster Greeks

edit

No way to verify, as far as I know, and any attempts to get original poster to edit the page have met with silence. --Jacqui M Schedler 03:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC) (Sorry, signing things is generally considered good Wikiquette)[reply]

Relisting in search of more discussion. -Splashtalk 01:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Don't see that there's antyhing worth keeping (neither does its author apparently). Dlyons493 03:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. College cruft. TheMadBaron 05:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (no vote). Some attempt at verification has been made, though the listings could sure use some author names. I personally would like having an article on this topic once it were properly cleaned up, but as I am indeed a College of Wooster student, I believe my opinion to be biased. --Jacqui M Schedler 00:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I cited my sources (and recited once I had time to return to the College of Wooster special collections to find the Independant Study and Book authors names), and worked to clean up any hint of an agenda (I had none in creating the page except to create an easy-refrence guide to the greeks for students and others; as I belong to none of these groups, I have no benefit from setting any agenda in regards to them. The problem probably stemmed from writing too late at night...). This was only my second major edit to a Wiki page, so excuse the mess if the page started out poorly; I feel my changes have improved it significantly.--CastAStone 21:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the very least, if you don't keep, userfy, as I researched exhastively.CastAStone 18:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Content is already on Wiktionary. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dumbass

edit

Another perfectly good dictdef that I cannot imagine could ever be anything more. Jkelly 01:21, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Hermione1980 00:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MPI Home Video

edit

Delete. No content other than advertisement. ♠ DanMS 01:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

نتائج مسابقة الفنون النسوية

edit

Very short article in Arabic which has been on WP:PNT since 11 September. If someone wants to translate it, go ahead, but I cannot see much harm in deleting something so short (and in an alphabet which is hard to handle for most en: users). Physchim62 13:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dudtz 9/29/05 5:06 PM EST

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 06:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Alasky

edit

Marked for speedy deletion as being a hoax. No vote. --fvw* 01:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP and clean up. — JIP | Talk 09:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Gordon Teather

edit

Claim to notability is that he saved two fishermen. Displaying heroism is non-notable for Canadians. On a less flip note, a similar article in French about someone who saved some people from a fire I just tagged as nn-bio speedy, as it had been tagged as a "speedy transwiki" to the French wikipedia. Jkelly 01:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Eric Meunier. Someone is copying everything from the Governor General's honours index. Jkelly 01:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Well, the numbers are towards three-quarters at 11d-5k. This is the kind of debate that could be swayed by work during, though. That does not appear to have happened as the deleters continued to stack up throughout. Also, Piecraft's comment though numerically I put it as a keep, sounds more like a categorify, without any particular desire to retain the article. -Splashtalk 21:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous hypochondriacs

edit

Unsourced, useless, possibly libelous. Delete. Neutralitytalk 01:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 06:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vendmax

edit

Ad. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 06:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ras El-Khaimah cave monster

edit

This article discusses a minor internet hoax that seems to have long since died out. Most of the Google hits are to Wikipedia mirrors. Delete. Chick Bowen 01:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Oswax.--Alhutch 17:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Lyons

edit

Colin Lyons is supposedly a playwright, writer, director and actor, but I was unable to find evidence of this through Google or IMDB. I especially like this sentence, "In his early twenties he has become a bit of an alcoholic but great things are expected from him." -- Kjkolb 02:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Hermione1980 01:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zohar Manna

edit

This page surivied vfd back in April but only got 4 votes 2 Del and 2 Keep and this page havent expanded since. Looks like a nn professor. Delete --Aranda56 02:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 06:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

God's Fury

edit

Article about software which doesn't exist yet. Delete. Owen× ☎ 02:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus... Redwolf24 (talk) 22:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Vestibule

edit

Non-notable forum. --fvw* 02:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep. --Ryan Delaney talk 06:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight Macabre

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ResMap

edit

This article is an ad right now, and it doesn't seem very notable. -- Kjkolb 03:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep. --Ryan Delaney talk 06:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rusty Foster

edit

This survived a Wild and Confusing VFD back in March Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Rusty Foster so i going to placed this article again hopefully not as crazy as last time. Looks like a nn blogger vanity page Delete --Jaranda | yeah]] 03:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC) My new sig[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 06:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fang Technologies

edit

Spam. NN. Jwissick(t)(c) 03:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Once again, sockpuppet votes have been ignored. — JIP | Talk 09:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shinra Online

edit

Non-notable message-board, Delete Amren (talk) 03:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Alexa rank of 607,931; so Delete Ziggurat 04:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article contains some POV, and is, as Amren put it, a non-notable message-board. Nihiltres 04:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other articles are more questionable than this one, like the donkey-punch article. At the same time, there are various important articles that seem to be missing due to a contrast of opinions in history. Also this is a article based on fact not POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.34.221 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. No evidence of notability. Gamaliel 07:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shinra Online has been one of the longest consistently running communities on the Internet, which is astounding given it has no real content other than the forum itself to keep people coming back. SO was once said to be the forum equivalent of a cult film; this can be seen in its hardcore member base, as it is ranked #6 out of ~1,400 on Big-Boards.com (a site dedicated to statkeeping for forums possessing over 500,000 posts, a milestone in all itself) for average posts per user. Keep It. Gerk 07:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. *drew 07:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shinra Online admins have created their own vb coding such as the Store exclusively into existance for the website which many other forums have tried to emulate. Shinra features forums like the War Room which was one of the premier flaming websites on the net. It has had over 12,000 members register in the five years since it was created. Certainly notable. Keep It. Chibi Hikaru
  • Delete Not notable, poor Alexa rank. Sockpuppet supported. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Innovative site with large member base and wide spread notability among other forums. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.211.74 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. One of the first forums to use a form of currency (gil) that could be used to buy items from the store. This feature was widely sought after for years.--Picard102 14:25, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A crap site seeking only to advertise and find new members from people looking up Final Fantasy topics.
  • Delete This is a commercial site that promotes acts that would be illegal in most countries with the exception of Aruba, Let them spend their own money advertising, rather than use Wikipedia to anonymously communicate. 15:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC) User:209.178.165.58

*Delete, for the sentence "We offer many free pictures of underage girls and boys that will get your whilstle blowing" if nothing else. Vizjim 15:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC) Didn't spot that this was vandalism. Still deserves a delete, though. Vizjim 22:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It This is not advertising, but a archive of the site's history. Also, "Sockpuppet Supported" and "Crap site only based on Final Fantasy" are poor and unsupported claims for deletion. Keep the childish excuses to yourself please. Also, why would we communicate through wikipedia if we already have a forum?
  • Keep It If you look at the history, some anonymous member decided to edit our article to the point of non-recognition. Someone with the ip 71.114.80.103
  • Side Note: All comments ranging from "A crap site seeking..." to "Delete for the sentence..." were made based on vandalized versions of the page created by the IP Address 71.114.80.103 (the first comment mentioned having been created by said IP Address, no less), and I move they should be stricken from the record. Gerk 18:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ziggurat. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable Internet bulletin board. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep It For the record, I am one of the admins over at www.shinraonline.com and having read some of these comments, there are a few errors which I would like to take a moment and address and correct.

1. It was one our members who approached us asking to create this wiki article to record some of the sites rich history. You can read that for yourself here: http://shinraonline.com/board/showthread.php?t=139474

2. Why are you using Alexa Rank? Everyone knows that its not a true estimate or accurate guage of a sites popularity since only a select portion of surfers use thier software. If you would like some better statistics, try our google rank of 4 (not bad) or our stats over at www.big-boards.com where we are ranked 581 in posts made just last week, this is great considering slashdot, dslreports, offtopic and howardsterns forum rank at the top of these lists. We are also ranked very close to the top in other catagories.

3. "No evidence of notability" - our site and our reputation are duly noted at a dozen other internet sites.

We are also the creators of the "forum points and store system", a system which was copied onto every major bulletin board package available, including phpbb, and has had well over 5 thousands unique installations across various incarnations. Please see http://www.vbulletin.org/forum/showthread.php?t=35267 for some of the demand prior to its first release in which even a vbulletin developer said they may code something akin to it.

4. We are not a commerical site, at this time all expenses are paid out of pocket with the occassional member initiated donation. We have no advertisements, no adsense, nothing. We make not one dime, it's a labor of love.

Now that that has been said, I personally think the article itself could use some work as I feel it would be more appropriate to chronical the actual history of the site rather than list the forums we have which change continuously but like all articles, this was something a member initiated and not something I or any of the staff had been actively engaged in until this moment.


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

The result of the debate was DELETE, kyl määki Turuus. — JIP | Talk 12:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unikankare

edit

Non-notable webzine: it has an Alexa rank of 3,290,532, and 152 backlinks. There's a link to it on Turku, and that's quite sufficient. Ziggurat 04:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 12:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Webscope.tv

edit

Non-notable website, spam.--Shanel 04:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy redirected. — JIP | Talk 12:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unschool

edit

obvious reason.. Yonir 04:25, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support a redirect to Unschooling per Natgoo. - Mgm|(talk) 21:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 12:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Albions Crusaders

edit

nn gaming guild, first person. Created by User:AlbionsCrusaders. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 12:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A T M

edit

nn musician. "No exact release date has been set for ATM's Album but Dynasty has mentioned you can expect it very soon.". User:Zoe|(talk) 05:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 12:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

T.E.R.R.O.R. (band)

edit

nn vanity bandcruft. Delete with fire.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 05:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 12:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Select Start

edit

nn band, no artistdirect or allmusic entries. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There may not be, but I've seen them perform twice and they do a mean Zelda. -Hawk

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 12:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An introduction to Valiant

edit

I suggest not merging this with Valiant Comics. It is pure POV and wildly overstates the company's historical importance. Delete. Gamaliel 05:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 12:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of rights

edit

My main reason is to nominate an invalid speedy candidate. I however vote weak delete in the sense I have really no idea in what context this article is about, whether it is redundant or not, and not sure if it's complete nonsense and will readily change my vote if someone else can justify this article's existence. Natalinasmpf 05:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED. A7, almost A1.-Splashtalk 02:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anastacia donde

edit

NN. Not found on google or amazon. Jwissick(t)(c) 06:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The bradley

edit

Complete and utter neologism Malo 06:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit Blvd.

edit

Non-notable website, or at least fails to provide a purpose for its existence on how it adds to the project of documenting the total sum of human knowledge. For one, it seems to detract from human knowledge by representing subjective opinion as fact, while not adding anything significant. This is different from the addition of a school, for example. Looks like a POV advertisement with severe factual inaccuracy, with weasel word statistics. Plus, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but it argues that it will soon "become a hot spot on the internet". Way to go. I have no doubt the vain author will engage in an edit war over this to try to find some excuse or justification this outrageous act of misinformation and obvious intent to deceive the public, but I rest my case. Therefore, it fulfils the critera for deletion. Delete. Natalinasmpf 06:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yay! Becoming a hotspot! I'll go tell Kevin M. right now. Sheesh. --WikiFanaticTalk Contribs 2:10, 25 Sep 2005 (CDT)

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

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 00:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

James Arthur Ray

edit

Vanity page apparently created by its subject. There are a lot of millionaires out there, most of whom aren't notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article. —Brent Dax 07:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 14:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Harry W. Pedler Company

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. The only keep vote is by User:J87, who is a sock puppet (only contribution ever is to this AfD). — JIP | Talk 14:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Kennedy (writer)

edit

Non-notable, vanity type article CambridgeBayWeather 08:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 14:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CHANGES IN THE EARTHS DAY DUE TO MOONS ROTATION

edit

This article is very odd Swollib 09:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, highly POV, highly crackpot. Not speedy, though; I can see a glimmer of hope for cleaning it up, NPOV-ing it, and moving or merging it somewhere, if anyone feels up to it. --Ashenai 09:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 14:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PROJECT TOC TIC

edit

Non-notable, incomprehensible crackpot theory --Ashenai 10:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 14:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

19th Street Subway Station

edit

Was speedied once as nonsense - that version was all in caps and the designer was Harold Jackson. Is it nonsense or just 'very badly written in need of cleanup'? -- RHaworth 09:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 14:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Levitica

edit

Fiction, hoax. Can find no reference on Google. -- RHaworth 10:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedied as patent nonsense/possible attack page --Doc (?) 23:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jarrod Herscu

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Evidently not a delete, but much uncertainty over whether to merge or keep outright, especially as several people give both options without a conditioning (note to such editors: it's hard to know what you really want.) -Splashtalk 21:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Banana (person)

edit

dicdef. I propose transwiki to wiktionary 202.156.2.75 11:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete 3 del, 1 keep, 1 copyvio and it was copyvio indeed. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 22:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

International Schools Invitational Basketball League

edit

This is a school basketball competition. It is not an elite competition but one where every student gets a guernsey. This is all very well but it is not encyclopaedic. Comment by User:Porturology


Keep! I the writer- this is one of the major secondary school basketball leagues in Singapore. Thousands of students are involved and it is very well organised. --Sand-Bar 12:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio I have deleted and sent to the appropriate place--Porturology 12:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore is a city-state with a population of roughly 5 million. The equivalent would be an intramural league in a city like London, and considering the fact that about a dozen teams compete I must say that this is below the bar of notability. That competition isn't even like regional league football. Delete Pilatus 13:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP but MOVE to Undercover Teacher. Mgm is welcome to do the rephrase he requests. -Splashtalk 21:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Dolan

edit

Tagged as an nn-bio speedy, but it's not quite. However, nominator wants it deleted and I'm completing the malformed nomation (see the discussion on the article's talk page). --Doc (?) 12:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'll go for that - we solve two problems at once --Doc (?) 15:52, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change title to Undercover Teacher and keepas per Vizjim

sounds good to me. Dlyons493 19:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Magnet Theater

edit

Bad ad for this website which started in March this year. Site has no Alexa rank and article lacks serious context too. Because of the lack of web presence of the site, I don't think a rewrite is useful. Delete - Mgm|(talk) 12:25, 25 September 2005 (UTC) Delete as per nom. TheMadBaron 12:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy redirect, -- RHaworth 08:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Da Vinci Code paintings

edit

It is a personal essay of a speculative nature. KindOfBlue 12:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Android79. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:25, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Itoko Otoko

edit

Tagged for a speedy, but it's not exactly a bio. Report of someone's incest being posted on an image board. Really! --Doc (?) 13:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo Forum

edit

Tageed as a speedy for'useless advertising' - not a CSD (I wish people would read WP:CSD!). However, this does look like a useless plug for nn site so sendng here. --Doc (?) 13:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 21:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry Blossom Clinic

edit

A local radio show. -- Curps 13:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural borrowing

edit

Nothing more than a dicdef. JobE6   14:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Protex Blue

edit

Does not meet WP:MUSIC guidelines. No allmusic entry, apparently no records released. Joyous (talk) 14:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spitfire black

edit

Band vanity; does not meet WP:MUSIC. Joyous (talk) 14:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Desa7

edit

Not notable band almost formed in 2005. No releases, doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. feydey 14:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete 1 del, 1 comment -- (☺drini♫|☎) 22:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Von Braun Moon Rover (Orbiter sim)

edit

I'm not sure what this is, but it sounds like it is a non-notablke item from a game. The fact that it has no Google hits doesn't help. [12] Sonic Mew | talk to me 14:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 21:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Camstreams

edit

Not notable small company, with the web page Alexa rank >300,000 [13]. feydey 15:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. show how the web casting experience has been enhanced to provide smooth video and audio streams 2. show how emerging technologies are combining to enhance user experience 3. record significant developments in technological use of the Internet 4. record a notable event (nobody else is providing a similar non commercial service of benefit to the public at large) Peter Haycock 09:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Has been completely re-written. -Splashtalk 21:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clarias

edit

Content is not syntactically correct, and the entry should refer to the family of catfish, not some obscure self-promoting band. 68.161.60.90 15:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete 2 keep/9 delete Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 00:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Binary model of equinox precession

edit

This is nothing but a POV fork of precession to give voice to Walter Cruttenden and his Binary Research Institute, which are up for deletion here and here.

Also consider The Great Year (film), whose AfD page is here. Pilatus 17:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The "double star" theory is mentioned somewhere near the bottom of the Precession entry. Pilatus 16:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article as it stands today (2005-09-26) clearly states that the standard physics theory completely disagrees with this model. It also states that most mainstream scientists regard it as nothing more than pseudoscience - this is stated not once, but three times during the article, as well as 2 reasons for considering it pseudoscience (lack of empirical evidence and unfalsiability) are provided. However, if these 2 criteria were universally applied, the theory of superstrings should also be clasified as pseudoscience (it's unfalsifiable and right now there's no evidence for it), as well as the "dark matter" theories (MOND does have empirical evidence in it's favor, predicted acurately some behaviour of low emission galaxies and is falsifiable) I wrote the entry on the double star theory ("Nemesis", which itself was proposed by a respected mainstream scientist, though not well regarded today) was deleted from the Precession "alternative views" entry. I left it out for I wanted to settle down the controversy surrounding the article. I myself find some aspects of the "bin. model of eq. prec." objectionable, and it's proponents don't do their own theory any favor (trying to pass ancient Indian religious texts as scientific evidence isn't sound to say the least) but nonetheless interesting as it relates very well to the Nemesis theory and could have something to do with it - it could very well be possible that a rotating sun/nemesis system induced a slight parallax change thru millenia, which could add to the natural precession of Earth due to gyroscopic effect. Mr. Pitchford, if you don't mind a little criticism... have you ever read Kuhn or Feyerabend? Sometimes you sound REALLY dogmatic on your writings, as though your views on science were more akin to August Comte's positivism than to modern epistemology as put together since popper, kuhn, lakatos or feyerabend's times... By the way, now I've registered. BattleTroll

    • I agree with Battle Troll. Many of these scientific apologists are as closed-minded and dogmatic as the religious folks they despise so much. In fact, many of their views and exclusionist attitudes are as bad as anything in Catholic Church history, including the Inquisition that so many of them love to use as an example of oppression. The irony is, they're members of a Science Inquisition that is going on in modern times that's just as bent on silencing differing views as the Catholic Inquisition was. They also have a lot in common with the Christian fundamentalists that they criticize so much. Earthian 16:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete POV fork written to promote a specific point of view, one which does not have enough adherents to warrant documenting as a belief system. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC) See below.[reply]

Darn, ambiguous outcome. Although it is mentioned, it is only mentioned in a discussion forum, not on the main site itself. Trying to be as fair to myself as possible, I am withdrawing my "delete" vote, but I'm not going to change it to "keep." Dpbsmith (talk) 18:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pseudoscience. Self-promotion. There is exactly zero primary evidence for Cruttenden's notions about the Sun being part of a binary system. There is no excuse for inclusion of this trash in an encyclopaedia, except as an example of pseudoscience/bad science. 62.64.220.164 08:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC) Comment left by anonymous user 62.64.220.164 who has only participated in this and the three other related articles being nominated for deletion and left the same comment in each.[reply]
  • I decided to consult my university library's online-access-to-scholarly-journals service. The journal Solar System Research (English translation of Astronomicheskii Vestnik) has 23 articles since November 2000 containing the word "binary", 23 that contain the word "equinox", and 2 that contain both. One's about the binary asteriod 423 Diotima and the other's about the Ephemerides of Planets and the Moon. Neither mentions this theory, and no article mentions Cruttenden. The journal Astronomy and Astrophysics (affiliated with the European Southern Observatory) has, since 2001, 0 articles mentioning Cruttenden, and 0 results for the search [binary AND "equinox precession"). The journal New Astronomy has, since July 1996, had 0 articles containing the word "Cruttenden" and 0 articles containing the three words "equinox", "binary", and "precession", in any order. In light of this, I think this is a violation of the general policy espoused in WP:NOT Sec. 1.4, as the hypothesis lacks the widespread notability/influence to make it legitimately encyclopedic. This is also a potential violation of WP:NOT 1.3.1, as the lack of acknowledgement outside the originators suggests that this article constitutes "proposing theories". As such, I am convinced that the proper course of action is to Delete this entry. The Literate Engineer 23:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mc Holy Ghost

edit

No evidence of notability. Googling "MC Holy Ghost" yields 14 hits, not all relevant; no evidence of any albums released. Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Calpito

edit

I think the article is trying to assert notability, but I don't think there's enough. Joyous (talk) 16:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Room 101. — JIP | Talk 05:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Room101

edit

NN. No goggle hits that i can see. Jwissick(t)(c) 16:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Edit conflict on listing it. Fails to establish notablility, fails WP:MUSIC. Nothing on allmusic (although there was an entry on "RM. 101" with no content in it). Plenty of hits on Google, but "Room 101" is extremely common, esp. in the US, where it's used to note a primer class in high school or college (e.g. Chemistry 101). I don't know if that's true elsewhere. --Blackcap | talk 17:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per blackcap. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 17:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Room 101. -- RHaworth 18:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confused Is this band notable - if so keep. If not then turn into a redirect to Orwell's Room 101. Is that what we're saying? Dlyons493 19:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who are you talking to? This is a vote, so we're not saying anything collectively. See WP:AFD and WP:DP. If what you're asking is what's been said up to this point, then it's that this band fails WP:MUSIC and thus should be deleted, while RHaworth says that this should be turned into a redirect to Room 101. --Blackcap | talk 14:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, the one thing that it isn't is a vote. It's a discussion, to obtain a consensus. Uncle G 22:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • That may be the idea, but from the AfDs and RfAs that I've been in or witnessed, it's more of a vote counted somewhat like but not actually consensus (i.e. a majority won't win, but a large majority, anywhere from 2/3+ will depending on the admin, his/her mood and the article in question). As I am part of a cohousing community, where consensus is used to solve all problems and do everything (establish the community's budget, landscaping, etc.), I am intimitely aquainted with how consensus works. If one person says no, consensus is not reached. Consensus doesn't mean that everyone agrees, it just means that no one is actively blocking consensus by saying, "This is unacceptable." WP, on the other hand, likes to say that we work by consensus, but we don't. We work by majority rules, and instead of having a 51% majority count, we say that a 67% majority (more or less) counts, and 80% for RfAs. The fact that we require a high majority doesn't change the fact that rarely is there actually a consensus in an RfA or AfD. And anyway, few AfDs are actually discussions. It's often taken as rude to ask about or otherwise query into someone's vote, as their vote is their vote and it counts as much as anybody elses regardless of their reasoning (unless they're a sock or their vote is completely irrelevant to the topic). I have seen, both AfD and RfA, people ask about a user's vote and recieve an answer of, "I don't have to or want to tell you," which here is considered a completely valid answer. So, in a place where that's acceptable, there's hardly a discussion or a consensus. I could write for hours about this, but I don't want to take up too much more of your time talking about this semi-unrelated topic in this AfD. --Blackcap | talk 00:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have expressed the decision succinctly. The only question therefore is whether the band satisfies the WP:MUSIC criteria. It certainly doesn't going by what the article says. There are no hits, no albums, no tours, no notable members, no awards, and no press coverage. The article also cites no sources and no sources of information about the band can be located. (What 84.191.192.85 points to below actually tells us less than the article at hand does — which also raises a question about how much of this article is verifiable.) Uncle G 22:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Room 101. --TM (talk) 01:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don´t DeleteIt cant be found on google if you write it like this. I tried out " Room 101 Crust" and there were tons of hits concerning the band -Unsigned post by 84.191.192.85. This is this user's first post. --Blackcap | talk 14:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 00:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The Great Year (film)

edit

This is the Walter Cruttenden-sponsored movie from the Binary Research Institute where the Binary model of equinox precession is put forward. All three articles are up for deletion.

I couldn't find any proof for the movie being aired by the PBS as the entry says. Pilatus 16:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, this attempt to have all three articles deleted seems to be a bad faith campaign by rogue elements to censor views that are alternative from the mainstream and to silence anyone and anything that deviates from their deeply held gospel of their one and only brand of science religion. It is so transparent. As to the narrator, yes, it is James Earl Jones, I have the DVD and he narrates throughout. And it was shown on PBS stations in California, not sure about other parts of the country. Posted by IP 65.9.158.81, haven't registered yet.
  • Speedy keep. I don't know if PBS showed it, but the DVD is for sale on Amazon. 23skidoo 17:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would call this self-promotion, as the anonymous editor has almost exclusively made contributions to Walter Cruttenden and the Binary Research Institute, whose ideas are put forward in the movie. Wikipedia isn't a medium for spamming or gaining a high Google rank. Pilatus 18:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello, it is me, the big bad "anonymous editor". I'm sorry I have offended so many. I just haven't gotten around to registering an account yet. Though I doubt that will stop the insults from coming, or keep the vandals from vandalizing my work. Once again, for the record, I have nothing to do with this organization, I've never even so much as exchanged an e-mail with them or with Mr. Cruttenden. I just simply believe in the theory and would like to see it someday either proved or disproved. That's all. I first read about it more than 10 years ago in the book The Holy Science by Swami Sri Yukteswar, (which I think was the first mention ever of it in the Western World, as far as I know), that's why I added the bit I did to his article, which Pilatus promply deleted, as he follows me around deleting whatever I write. Apparently the fear that I might be connected to this organization (I am not) or worse, that I might be Mr. Cruttenden (I'm not) strikes fear in a lot of people's hearts. I'm sorry I have offended the sensibilities of so many. Posted by IP 65.9.158.81, haven't registered yet.
  • Keep per 23skidoo. I'll delete the PBS mention though as that's what I was referencing as dubious (it can always be re-added later if it is verified). Not a speedy keep though :) Ryan Norton T | @ | C 18:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Dlyons493 19:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Being available for purchase on amazon is not verificaton of notability. There are lots of self-published books for sale on amazon, but we don't want them. Or do you think that we should have an article on every single book and film sold at amazon? This is self-promotion, pure and simple. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advertising of pseudoscientific, unverifiable original research. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Zoe. -- Kjkolb 02:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • In line with my other votes, Delete. It's a non-notable crackpot theory, spread by a non-notable crackpot with too much money, who used that money to produce a vanity DVD that, for some reason, may or may not have aired on PBS. In all seriousness, these all need to go. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Did it air on PBS or not? This is important to me, at least, in assessing whether we should have an article on it. If it did, it should be easy to provide verifiable evidence, and I hope some supporters will do so. For my part, I note that the Amazon listing makes no such claim (nor do any reader reviews). It is trivially easy to self-publish books and get them listed on Amazon; I don't know if this is true of DVDs. Search for "Cruttenden" at www.pbs.org yields six hits, none referring to this film. ("Abigail Cruttenden is a British television and film actress...") Search for "Great Year" at www.pbs.org yields 46 hits, non referring to the film. Search for "James Earl Jones" returns 40 hits, none referring to the film. DID IT AIR? IF SO, WHEN AND ON WHAT STATIONS? If someone will provide this information I think it could be verified quickly. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
P. S. I can't find anything at http://www.thegreatyear.com/ suggesting that it ever aired. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Great Year aired on PBS on January 28, 2004, per KOCE Huntington Beach, CA 23skidoo 17:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I thought a while about this. Basically no one can find a source for the PBS claim other than message board posts and statements from the organization, which leaves it highly suspect. Without the PBS claim its just another DVD. Would support a Merge to binary research institute if it survives the VfD. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 20:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Same thing (my God, this is insane). If this discussion is about the article about THE DOCUMENTARY FILM, then I would suggest it be kept. If the pseudoscientific theory his "Binary Research Institute" doesn't deserve a place at Wikipedia for being original research, or not enough mainstream, or not sufficiently recognized... well, then the article about that theory deserves being deleted, but this stub... how does it promote a POV? It merely states what the film is about, who produced it and who narrates it... Now I've registered (BattleTroll)
    • A film produced by the subject in order to promote the subject's crackpot theory does not deserve an article in an encycloedia. ***User:Zoe|(talk) 01:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • It does deserve its entry when it's sufficiently well known. Instead of finger-pointing on all sides we should ask ourselves how well know it in fact is. Amazon gives a sales rank of 18000. How much is that? Considering the fact that Amazon quotes a delivery estimate of 3 to 4 weeks I'd guess that it doesn't sell that well. Pilatus 18:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Where are you seeing 3 to 4 weeks for shipping on Amazon? I'm looking at it right now here and it says "Availability: Usually ships within 24 hours Only 2 left in stock--order soon (more on the way)." Earthian 03:38, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Seems they received new stock. Anyway, I tried to find movies with a similar sales figure in Amazon. Looking at the section DVD→Independently Distributed→Documentary ordered by sales figure these are titles that come up on page 4: Manchester United 1001 Goals (sales rank 11973), The Complete Massage Pack: Basic & Professional Massage Therapy (# 14751), Open Mic - Dave Chappelle (#13881), Complete Taekwondo Kicking (# 10497). Any questions about the impact of your movie? Pilatus 12:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep simply because I find the deletionist attitude on all three related articles to be extremely oppressive. It has already been verified that these three individual articles are notable and based upon an existing Binary model of equinox precession. Piecraft 01:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The contention has been made that these articles are notable, it has not been "verified". User:Zoe|(talk) 01:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The contention has been made by some participants that these articles are notable. Pilatus 02:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see nothing but assertions of notability, apart for one sole reason: it is said to be notable because the Binary Research Institute produced a DVD. That's verifiable, but not very compelling. Did I miss something? Has other evidence of notability been presented? Has the DVD been reviewed by a science magazine? Did it ever air on national television? Has the theory been presented in any print publication not directly associated with the Binary Research Institute? Dpbsmith (talk) 10:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, this is obviously a bad faith nomination. I echo the comments of Piecraft, the delitionist attitude is extremely oppressive! The rabid, visceral comments reek of hidden (or not so hidden) agenda and ulterior motives. Why are they are trying so hard to silence and suppress. It's suspicious. Earthian 15:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC) User registered on September 27 and made contributions only to this and related AfDs. Special:Contributions/Earthian[reply]
    • Comment, thank you Pilatus for proving my point. I couldn't have done it better myself. The rabidness with which you are going about this, and the fact that you are stalking me and adding "special comments" to my contributions here further proves that these three nominations were in BAD FAITH. You proved it better than I or anyone else could. Earthian 17:49, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: although I have as yet been unable to find a PBS airdate for this (I am seeing signs it may have been aired as an episode of another program), and PBS stations don't tend to archive their listings online, I have found reference to the documentary being shown at the Southern California Writers' Conference sometime in early October 2005.[15] The film was also nominated for a CINE Golden Eagle Award [16].
    • Comment - I got curious about this when I saw the rabidness with which they are trying to get it deleted. I did a google search, and there are many mentions of it being shown on PBS. A search on groups.google.com turns up this, where a person wrote about it after seeing it on PBS: The Great Year and The Wheel of Time in 2004. One thing I will say about those who are looking for it on the PBS website, I think PBS only keeps webpages about specials that they produce, or their affiliates around the country. This wasn't produced by PBS, that might be why there isn't mention of it on their website.Earthian 18:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conflict of Interest - Question: should the person who nominates articles for deletion also be making changes to those articles? In this case, Pilatus has nominated these three articles for deletion - Walter Cruttenden, Binary Research Institute, and The Great Year - and has made extensive changes to them. In most of his changes he leaves behind typos and grammatical errors, broken links, and straggling headers (i.e., after he's removed everything that was under a header), not only messing up other users' work but leaving the article in much poorer shape than it was before. He also deletes extensively, and removes categories and stubs aggressively. He goes in after anyone adds anything to an article and removes everything the other person contributed. He seems to be working to increase the chances for deletion of the articles. In light of this, it would be appropriate, in order to avoid this obvious conflict of interest, for the person who nominated the articles to refrain from modifying them until the decision has been made? Syug 21:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Most articles up for deletion are not judged upon the quality or quantity or their content, but rather the appropriateness or notability of the topic. Any edits that Pilatus may have made to the content of the article are irrelevant, for he cannot make a worthy topic unworthy by bad grammar or misspellings. Oswax 21:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is exactly zero primary evidence for Cruttenden's notions about the Sun being part of a binary system. There is no excuse for inclusion of this trash in an encyclopaedia, except as an example of pseudoscience/bad science. Comment left by anonymous user 62.64.220.164 who has only participated in this and the three other related articles being nominated for deletion and left the same comment in each. Red herring! Surely it is the content of the comment, not who left it, or where else he left it, that is relevant? 62.64.237.112 15:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Try not to take it personally. It's not fair, but it's done for fairly good pracical reasons.
There is a longstanding tradition in Articles for Deletion of pointing out remarks left by users without accounts, and users with very, very new accounts--specifically users who have made very few edits except to matters closely related to an AfD. The reason for this is that a) because of WIkipedia's openness and anonymity, there is absolutely no way to know for sure whether the same person is casting multiple votes under different identities; b) it frequently occurs to people that this is possible, and virtually all Wikipedians believe that "sockpuppets" are very common in AfD, and virtually all Wikipedians believe that it is frequently possible to recognize them; c) ignoring sockpuppet votes is a matter of judgement; d) ignoring votes by not-logged-in users or very new user accounts is generally accepted as a reasonably neutral guideline. It's not fair to legitimate users with IP-address or very-recently-created accounts.
It is the vote that is being ignored, not the comments that accompany the vote. Wikipedia is probably the least authoritarian organization you are likely to find. If you make a cogent comment in AfD, your comments will influence the subsequent discussion, no matter whom you are. Since creating a Wikipedia account does not require disclosure of any personal information at all--not so much as an email address--everybody in Wikipedia is judged by the identity they create by themselves by their writings within Wikipedia. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'd like to remind everyone that the subject under discussion is this article, about a particular film, not this article, about a hypothesis. The latter half of this article doesn't address the film, which leaves a stub that amounts to vanity/advertising about a documentary of debated legitimacy and notability. As such, in accordance with WP:NOT Sec. 1.4.3, it ought to be deleted. The Literate Engineer 22:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nom and Literate Engineer --JAranda | yeah 21:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splashtalk 21:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ned (Scottish)

edit

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ned (Scottish)1 for the first debate]] Was marginal consensus to redirect to Chav the last time, but editors don't want to respect that and insist on keeping the article. It is an identical term to Chav, merely scottish, and it seems that some Scottish patriots are insisting on a separate article even though it is identical in meaning to chav, SqueakBox 17:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Contrary to the assertions of Squeakbox, 9/7 is by no means a consensus. The previous AfD was closed as a keep by another admin and this decision was changed by Squeakbox two months after the initial closing of the AfD. Although the two terms bear some superficial resemblance, they are by no means the same. The use of "ned" pre-dates "chav" by at least forty years. --GraemeL (talk) 17:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If the issue is to decide between keep and merge the article shouldn't be discussed here. Speedy keep this, Pilatus 17:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

 
Scotland != England
File:ENG.PNG
NO
 
Scotland+England+Wales+NI= UK

(erm, what about Wales and N. Ireland then? Just arrogance ignoring them really, isn't it?)

Wales and NI don't have their own versions of Chav, SqueakBox 17:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Northern Irish version is a 'spide'. David | Talk 14:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That is not true. This is the place to discuss it if it needs to be redirected, SqueakBox 17:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion policy is here: WP:DP. You want to put merge tags on Chav and Ned (Scottish) and discuss the move on the article talk page. Pilatus 17:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. You have reverted in defiancce of a Vfd and now you are claiming we cannot put another vfd on it, SqueakBox 17:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was me that reverted the redirect, not Pilatus (who I assume the comment was directed to). Personally, I have no problem with you taking the issue back to AfD. --GraemeL (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And I have no problem not making it a redirect but just merging relevant material and deleting. I am not arguing that scally should get the same treatment because Ireland is a separate country. We have already deleted Charver and Charva on the basis that they are other words for Chav, and it should be the same for Ned, SqueakBox 17:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC) SqueakBox 17:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It may interest you to know that England and Scotland are also separate countries; They just happen to be part of the same state. Charver and chavra are obviously derivatives of chav and do not deserve separate entries. The same cannot be said of ned, which is of completely different origin. --GraemeL (talk) 18:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am English but I respect the indisputable fact that Scotland is a nation with its own culture. By the way there is no such thing as a "marginal consensus" only a marginal vote, which is not a consensus at all. CalJW 18:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Why does everything that is distinctively Scottish have to be homogeneised and fitted in to an English perspective of the planet? Variety is the spice of life. For another example of this linguistic levellerism, see Talk:Public school (UK).--Mais oui! 19:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThis is distinct to Scottish culture, irrespective of similar expressions that may or may not exist in other Britannic cultures.--Nicodemus75 22:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Neds are particularly and peculiarly Scottish, in the way that Bogans are Australian. There is no such thing as an English Ned. Average Earthman 23:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's an argument that doesn't work. Consider gasoline and petrol. That "there's no such thing as American petrol and no such thing as English gasoline" doesn't mean that we have two separate articles. See below. Uncle G 00:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep. This argument relies on a false analogy. "Gasoline" and "petrol" are synonyms: two words used to refer to the same concepts, albeit in different dialects. On the other hand, "chav", "ned", "bogan", etc. refer to similar -- but not identical -- concepts, because they refer to different subcultures of people. Colin M. 01:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, shouldn't the article be called Ned (slang) or something more obvious?--nixie 23:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's best not to. This is not supposed to be a dictionary article about a word, but an encyclopaedia article about a type of people. For a dictionary of slang, see Wiktionary, which has a long list of these regional slang words. (See Wiktionary:chav and what it links to.)

      The discussion on whether or not to merge is not a linguistic one, as several editors above have erroneously painted it, but a sociological one. We don't have separate articles where the titles are merely synonyms for the same person/place/concept/event; nor do we have separate articles where it is simply the case that different countries have different words for the same things. (Witness gasoline/petrol, squash/marrow, and so forth.) This is an encyclopaedia, with one article per concept, not a dictionary with one article per word. The important question to answer is not about the words at all, but is whether the two concepts are in fact the same. That's (a) a discussion that belongs on the talk pages not here (since merger of duplicate articles doesn't involve deleting anything) and (b) a question that can only be answered properly by citing sources on the subjects of these concepts.

      Unfortunately, citing sources is exactly what is almost never done in chav, charva, townie, bogan, gogan, westies, feral, and their ilk. The articles are perennial original research magnets. (Witness as an example the edit wars over what vehicles certain stereotypes own and drive, and the lack of cited sources on all sides of those disagreements.) These discussions have been, too, with editors using "I am English", "I am from Newcastle", "Xe is not Scottish", and so forth as the sole bases for their arguments — bald assertions that that add no weight at all to the arguments that they supposedly support. I encourage both editors who assert that neds and chavs are the same and editors who assert that neds and chavs are different, to cite sources. Uncle G 00:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Neds are a different group altogether. Typical Anglocentricism. Why not merge chav into Ned? Vizjim 01:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, as nobody at all wants this deleted, including the nom. Slap a disputedmerge tag on both pages, and argue about it on the talk pages in question. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 04:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Neds, Bogans, Hoons, Westies, Scallywags, Chavs et al. Fight Saxon imperialism! Grutness...wha? 04:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the ned phenomenon has a depth which appears to be lacking in these chavs come lately, and is well worthy of an article...dave souza 00:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Neds are distinctly Scottish and predate chavs on the evolutionary timeline by quite some distance. --Cactus.man>Reply 07:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge with Chav. They might be slightly different, but the differences will be best explained by having the two on one article rather than an extensive duplicated comparison on different articles. Thryduulf 13:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- If anyone needs merging, it is the chav newcomers. Both articles should be kept separate though, as there are enough substantive differences to merit this. Leave wur neds alone ;-) --OorWullie 17:53, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Unless of course you want to merge Chav with White Trash because those are identical terms, but Chav is mearly used in the UK rather than in North America --Colin Angus Mackay 23:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Personally I think the definition of Chav, at least as given in the Wikipedia article, is much less precise, and also that article is subject to a factual accuracy dispute at the present time. That dispute, for me, is enough for me to support keeping the articles separate for now. The term Chav, as used in England, is much more wide-ranging than ned, being used to label anyone who is alleged to demonstrate poor taste in their choice of clothing, motor vehicle or lifestyle, even if that person of royal blood (Prince Harry). OTOH, "Ned" is a much more precisely defined term, covering mainly teenagers who are almost exclusively working class. English teens with a similar lifestyle are only one part of the amorphous Chav grouping. If the Chav article is improved then I might support a merge, but not at the present time. -- Rugxulo 22:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Un-merge. Definitely distinct from chavs. --Meiers Twins 09:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I have just read the Chav article again and see that Ned (Scottish) has already been merged, by User:Squeakbox on 24 September ([17]), yet his listing here (25 September) states: "Was marginal consensus to redirect to Chav the last time ..." So why the pre-emptive merge without discussion on the relevant talk pages? There is also a discussion starting about this on the Chav talk page. The merge should be undone, pending concensus. --Meiers Twins 09:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I followed the strong suggestion to merge and redirect, and got reverted, which is why we are here. So I did it for the rather obvious reason that that is what was suggetsed in th elast Vfd. Your comment aqbout my overturning the decision is false and makes no sense. I enacted the decision, not overturned it. Or are you suggesting that merging with and redirecting to chav was not a "strong suggestion to merge and redirect." SqueakBox 14:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and recognise charva as a totally different thing too. How do you reopen these deletion votes? I never got a say on the last one.

>>We have already deleted Charver and Charva on the basis that they are other words for Chav, and it should be the same for Ned,<<= BS. Charva is totally different, I suppose in southner terms it is a mixture of a chav and a hoodie (though it does mean more then this). They are certainly not 100% chavs. Charvas also predate chavs by a decade or over, you have only started hearing about chavs this century but charvas have been a common part of the NE for as long as I can remember. >>Charver and chavra are obviously derivatives of chav and do not deserve separate entries. The same cannot be said of ned, which is of completely different origin. -<< Again total rubbish. Chav is the derivative of charva, chav is a more mainstream, non-criminal popularization of charva culture with far heavier american aspects mixed in. Just as Scotland has its own culture north east England also has its own culture equally distinct from that of the south. The petrol argument doesn't work. It could apply if we were talking about western petrol and that totally different stuff they used to have in eastern Europe though for petrol/gasaline, two words for the same thing. Definatly not.-Josquius

  • Keep and unmerge. The term is in widespread colloquial use in Scotland,among all classes. It certainly deserves its own article. Its not as if we are going to run out of pages, and it prevents suprprise when someone follows a link and ends up in an apparently unrelated article. --Nantonos 19:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Time Up

edit

Ding, ding. Time up gentlemen please, drink up now. This discussion has surely run its course. Can some well balanced admin please do the necessary closing up procedure in accordance with the voting. Thank you. --Cactus.man ✍ 20:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus. Redwolf24 (talk) 22:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Invasion of Theed

edit

Fancruft, just a minor element of the movie, already covered by Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace and half a dozen other Star Wars related articles. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 17:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC) RRC:[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockrunnercard (talk • contribs) Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 02:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rescue the Scientists

edit

A nearly meaningless stub - the only info I could make out of it was that this was a DOS video game. Googled hard to find some form of notability, but was unable to. If notability can be established, it would fine to have an article on this, but this particular text is so small that it would be trivial to recreate. Delete, as notability not established and content-less. JesseW, the juggling janitor 17:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was KEEP and clean up. — JIP | Talk 05:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NationMaster

edit

I put this in votes for deletion because it seems to have started as promotion for this site and then backfired to morph into a screed against it. Although I go to Nation Master a fair amount the problems with it being an article here seem insoluble.--T. Anthony 14:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. On simple counting it's 5d-2k which I would not ordinarily write out an explanation for. However, in this case there has been much well-argued debate. The fact is, however, that nobody has been persuaded to shift their position as a result of it, and the deleteists are still sure of themselves even after the Unfocused-Hoary exchange (which I thought was quite an illuminating conversation). Tancarville, in my view, weakens his position by having to resort to the tourist trade for extraneous notability having not won much ground with the title alone. All of that taken together is enough to give the deleters their way. -Splashtalk 21:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Sant Fournier

edit

Delete - a signed article on a person which is not notable and does not fall under the rules on Biographies of Wikipedia. Note: The man in question is an accountant with a degree in IT and not in accountancy. Maltesedog 17:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undecided All sorts of issues with POV etc. Re notability - would the titles alone make him notable in modern or historical Malta? Dlyons493 19:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP is not the social register. -- Hoary 01:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Following deletion of Charles Gauci, as far as I know there was concensus amongst users that unless notable for something else a listing in the Maltese Nobility page would be enough. Maltesedog 11:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete still POV issues. Both his titles are in Maltese Nobility and are Googleable but that's nn enough as per above. Dlyons493 Talk 21:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Counts and other nobility were highly notable during the period of their dominance in history. Highly notable in their relevant time period is more than notable enough for inclusion here today. As far as I'm concerned, as long as the title is inherited the notability follows. I can wish the world was more egalitarian, but the notability of people like Paris Hilton convinces me that it never will be. Unfocused 15:49, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response: That's an interesting point. From my limited knowledge of Paris Hilton, her surname and inherited wealth were essential to the formation of her celebrity. But whatever the methods used and however undeserved her celebrity may be, celebrity she has most certainly achieved. Google tells me that a search for "paris hilton" -hotel gets about 10.6 million hits. Even discounting a large majority as vacuous bot-bait ("the Paris Hilton tapes they never showed!!!" etc etc etc), that's a large number. Meanwhile, "stephen sant fournier" scores 95, and as far as I can see every single one of these is either from Wikipedia or copies thereof or some kind of social register. But is he better known as Steve? Er, hardly. Google offers just eight hits for "steve sant fournier". Should PH be noteworthy? Probably not. Is she noteworthy? Definitely. Is SSF noteworthy? No. -- Hoary 03:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • My point wasn't about the relative fame levels of notability/notoriety, but instead that we don't get to choose who joins the "lucky sperm club". They are similar in that each is notable by virtue of being born to certain parents. Of course, PH later used the media to make herself more notable (and then even more so), but the fact is, she and SSF had a similar head start that 99.999% of the world doesn't get. Unfocused 03:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry if I misunderstood your earlier remark. I'm not sure I fully understand the latter one, either. However, I believe I understand one part: that SSF and PH are similar in that each is notable by virtue of being born to certain parents. I'd say/guess that PH inherited an extremely minor degree of notability until she (or others) decided to exploit it. She has now indisputably achieved notability (of an particularly cheap and transient kind, perhaps, but notability all the same). I don't see that SSF is notable in any way, unless one is to suggest that anybody who can call himself "Count", etc., is thereby notable. (Moreover, the number of Google hits implies to me that there's virtually no interest in him.) If you take the latter position, then you open up WP to mostly genealogical articles on a vast number of people. I think that, say, the principals of grade schools (or those of whom verifiable info is available) are vastly more deserving of WP articles: these are people who are contributing to the world. (NB I've nothing against the fact that SSF is a count. On the strength of his verifiable position as managing director of a notable newspaper, some months ago I was arguing "keep" for the VfD'd article on some "noble" German gentleman. Sorry, I forget his name.) -- Hoary 04:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I suppose we'll continue to disagree. Parentage often equals notability: if Barbara and Jenna Bush were born to a truck driver and a Wal-Mart associate, there would be no article on them. I certainly wouldn't mind if everyone who can legitimately call themselves "Count" had an article here. It would certainly be interesting to compare their achievements and career paths with those who aren't born into peerage. Unfocused 05:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think that B&JB too are unremarkable. However, (i) their pop is famous and SSF's isn't; (ii) they're famous and SSF isn't. (I hope I don't have to labor the point with numbers of Google hits, etc.) -- Hoary 14:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • As I said, we'll continue to disagree. It's still a matter of parentage as B&JB haven't done anything noteworthy enough on their own to have an article. Who your parents are matters. Now I think you can agree that this is a question of degree that will have to be decided individually in discussions such as this. Unfocused 14:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What's notable isn't verifiable and what's verifiable isn't notable. All these Maltese nobility articles are extremely problematic and should be flushed as original research. Quale 19:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, It seems that Maltesedog and Hoary have no background on History and are picking on my work alone. Just view their logs alone. This is not fair and they should be BANNED. Their comments do not make sense nor are suitable for editing or placing any item for deletion. Its about time Wikipedia puts these two to rest. Tancarville 06:38, 28 September 2005 (EST)

Hoary 03:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Same as above
  • Delete, no evidence of notability given. --fvw* 06:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Evidence of notability can be found not only on web sites and www.maltesenobility.org but also on each year book of Malta which lists the nobility. Steve is also a recognisable artist whom rarely sells his works without a hassel. Steve displays his news works once a year, and let me say, people come from all corners of the world to take up his works. Must not only mean he is notable for his noble connections but for his passion for Maltese hertiage. Though most are blinded by the fact that this gentleman is titled. Tancarville 18:20, 28 September 2005 (EST)
  • Comment, Tancerville, before placing the article for deletion I have placed a comment on the talk page, asking you to proof notability. As already stating nobility does not fall as a category in the Wikipedia polciies on biographies. Being a Maltese, I have never heard of his fame, however if there are other Maltese who know about his works and can provide more detail on him this should be done over here. The comment I have placed in the talk page was evidently removed by you. Maltesedog 17:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Its a pity that now we have Stephen Sant Fournier similiar to Charles Gauci close to deletion as both have contributed highly in the world of Nobility in and out of Malta. Stephen is not only notable but also a leader amongst the nobility leading them both out of the 19th century into the Modern times. Without Stephens' help, the Nobility in Malta would have been extinct in a matter of heritage in Malta. Both Stephen and Charles Gauci are leaders in the fight for restoring some cultural benefits to the Tourism for Malta as the nobility is considered a MAJOR interest to the Tourist trade and importantly keeping many employees in Malta in a job. Please rethink your decision, as this is of essence. Thank you.. Tancarville 06:48, 29 September 2005 (EST)
    • Comment: You seem to imply that without the effort of these two people (of whom one has had article already deleted via AfD), the Maltese people and nation would have forgotten about Maltese "nobility". Quite aside from my own attitude toward inherited titles, this seems somewhat unbecoming; or anyway I hardly think it "aristocratic" to embark on a PR job on behalf of one's own "aristocracy". The tastefulness of their campaign aside, they are of course free to pursue it -- but I hope that WP is not being employed as part of it. Hoary 04:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm far from a deletionist, especially concerning articles on people, but I just don't see the basis for including this. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete, Pcb21| Pete 20:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Www.palmwalk.com

edit

Advertising ♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (contribs) 17:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Merge and redirect to Microsoft Powerpoint -- (☺drini♫|☎) 22:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Death By Powerpoint

edit

Dicdef, neologism. ♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (contribs) 17:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete -- (☺drini♫|☎) 22:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suburban Hardcore Records

edit

Band vanity, nn label ♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (contribs) 17:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted as patent nonsense, hoax. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Last

edit

No context, almost gibberish. If important will be recreated later. By the way, AFDing this article was my thousandth edit. Congratulate me! ;) ♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (contribs) 17:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Portraiture and biographies

edit

This was created by an anon five months ago, and tagged for cleanup almost immediately. At the time it seemed to me that it wasn't really an appropriate Wikipedia article — it's more of a chunk out of some other article. I didn't know what to do with it, though, and so I left a note at Talk:Woman asking for guidance (which shows how naive I was at that stage in my Wikipedia career). There was no response, and it's still there, untouched except for an extra space, and a title-change to correct capitalisation. If anyone can suggest an article for it to be merged to, fine — but otherwise I think that it needs to be put out of its misery. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 21:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nemesea

edit

Not notable group with 1 release [18]. Although could stay if no. 2 in WP:MUSIC is interpreted strictly. feydey 17:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied by Jtkiefer Ryan Norton T | @ | C 19:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gothic Wizards

edit

Varsity pinball team? Nn. ♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (contribs) 17:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto-area roads (group 2)

edit

Bulk delete these roads: Brimley Road, Birchmount Road, Pemberton Avenue, Parkwoods Village Drive (Toronto), and Wilson Avenue (Toronto). None of these has any cultural or historic significance. This is a continuation of consensus-building for road articles.

For background, see these AfDs for previously deleted roads:

and these additional AfDs:

Note that this batch of roads have about the same stature as those listed in the previous Toronto-area roads batch. Mindmatrix 17:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've got some feelings about some of these postings, as I created at least one of these Articles Parkwoods Village Drive (Toronto)....If it is of consensus that PV Drive be condensed into Ellesmere Road and/or York Mills; you have my blessings;
    • Wilson Avenue; a major road; unfortunate that Toronto has not tried to put Ellesmere, York Mills, and Wilson into one name across Toronto; if it is the will of you folks; perhaps merge these three (and Parkwoods Village) into one....
    • Pemberton Avenue--delete; likely submitted by a resident.
    • Brimley Road--keep; Entry acess to Scarborough Bluffs, Scarborough Historical Museum, Thomson Park, Scarborough Town Centre, etc....
    • Birchmount Road delete, but only if Warden Avenue is reinstated! BTW, Birchmount Stadium is at foot of road....
    • Broadview Avenue; I've already stated my case, but could also be merged into Don Mills Road
    • Woodroffe Avenue (ottawa)--Keep part of Transitway.
    • Preston Avenue (ottawa) no opinion.

User:bacl-presby; edited 19:09, 27 September 2005.

  • As I've pointed out before, "there are notable things on this road" does not equal "the road itself is culturally significant". Yonge Street, for example, is culturally significant because rightly or wrongly, it is listed in the Guinness Book of Records as the world's longest street. It does not get its significance from what happens to be on it. To deserve an encyclopedia article, these are the kinds of questions that need to be answered in the affirmative:
  1. Does the street lend its name via metonymy to an entire industry (eg. Bay Street, Wall Street, Broadway?)
  2. Is it listed in the Guinness Book of Records for something?
  3. Is it so famous that a person who's never even seen a map of the city in their lives might still conceivably have heard of it?
  4. Is it closely linked to a major historical event or political controversy?
  5. Does it have some unique feature like Syracuse's upside-down traffic light or Lombard Street's switchbacks?
  6. Is it on a Monopoly board? (And yes, Canadian Monopoly counts.)
  7. Is it the primary ceremonial boulevard (eg. Sussex Drive, Pennsylvania Avenue) in the nation's capital?
  8. Have TV shows been named after it?

Being an important traffic route within the city it's located in, or having significant things located on it, do not make a street encyclopedia-worthy. None of the streets in this debate meet any criterion of notability higher than these two, so delete all. Bearcat 22:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Just a street that is not well known. Dudtz 9/29/05 6:09 PM EST

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Tibetians

edit

Not notable by WP:MUSIC, no releases, google doesn't know them [19], did not even try Allmusic. feydey 17:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Decrepit Birth

edit

Nn band vanity ♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (contribs) 17:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splashtalk 21:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane proof building

edit

Inherently POV how-to guide ♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (contribs) 17:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nuke it. --Golbez 18:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete howto guide. could be rewritten - but currently is probably a speedy candidate. LOL Golbez :) Ryan Norton T | @ | C 19:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very useful topic and needs to be expanded to help people make good decisions about building in hurricane prone areas. More knowledge in this area could save lives....
  • we have a guide for seismic retrofit, why not a guide for hurricanes, etc?
  • If it's really useful, it should be transwikied to Wikibooks and a link created from the page on hurricanes, yes? Alba 22:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least for a while. The article was posted only today and it looks like the author intends to expand it. I certainly would be interested in reading how buildings are built to be hurricane-proof. However, the article should be written not as a “how-to” but as a discussion of the methods used to reinforce buildings to withstand hurricanes. ♠ DanMS 22:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, perhaps move to a better title like Hurricane precautions. Notable, useful, can easily be presented in an encyclopedic tone ("Authorities typically recommend..." or "A common practice is for people to...") instead of a how-to. Cite copious sources, as plenty exist. -- BD2412 talk 00:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per DanMS and BD2412. -- Kjkolb 02:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is not enough in there to save. If kept, the title should be changed to something like Building Cyclone ressistant structures. I think it would be better to change Building standards to an article that would cover issues like this or issues like snow load and cyclones or freezing temperatures. Since there is a lot of common information there, one article would be more encyclopedic than several articles. Vegaswikian 06:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I already voted keep above, so I can’t vote again. But I like Vegaswikian’s idea about expanding this article to include not only hurricanes but other natural and weather phenomena that have to be considered in housing construction. Would be a very interesting article. ♠ DanMS 22:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's info about hurricane proof building design, but it is scattered all over the internet. Wikipedia is a good place to consolidate it all. However, all work stops on an article after vandals threaten to delete it. I've had several works in progress deleted by people who just sit around all day deleting stuff on wikipedia.
    • I wikified the formatting of the comment above, which was malformed. The comment was posted by 71.131.43.185, whose IP address is similar but not identical to that of the article’s author. People should realize that a vote or comment carries a lot more weight when it is signed. ♠ DanMS 22:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see why you would think this is Point of View. Wind loading, etc is an architecture topic. Maybe the recent hurricanes have made some people a bit too sensative. I would not combine it with a building designed for snow load as they are different issues and different solutions. It's a stub (basically a request for article outline) which should be added to if it gets past the AfD trial.
  • Rewrite - this topic could be rewritten as an overview of different techniques that are used to hurricane-proof buildings. However, as it stands it's a how-to guide, which is not appropriate for an encyclopedia (it is appropriate for Wikibooks, however; see Wikipedia is not an instruction manual). Ziggurat 23:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep definitely needs a rewrite, but definitely could prove encyclopaedic after that rewrite. Certainly wouldn't be POV after a rewrite - either something stands up to a hurricane or it doesn't - there's no two ways about that, and a Force 12 wind is pretty objective in its assessment of buildings. Grutness...wha? 09:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sipi

edit

Dicdef, doesn't even say what body part specifically is, archaic, out of use. ♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (contribs) 18:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete (marked as such). Not in OED. Chick Bowen 18:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Speedy on the basis that it is nonsense. I also checked the OED and did not find the word. ♠ DanMS 22:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I removed the speedy tag because it did not mention a specific CSD ("not a word--not in OED" is not a quote from one of the CSD), and it did not seem to be Wikipedia:Patent nonsense - as that page specifically says Hoaxes are "Not to be confused with..." patent nonsense. If you have further questions, I'd be delighted to explain further. Nevertheless, it is obviously a hoax, or neologism, or otherwise inapproriate for Wikipedia, and so I have voted. JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Colleen Fitzpatrick. — JIP | Talk 05:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vitamin C (Artist)

edit

Dicdef, neologism, never heard of it. ♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (contribs) 18:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Christie

edit

Non-notable poet just starting out; contains mostly academic information. Note that Matrixbooks, listed as his publisher, is a print-on-demand press (see [20]) Chick Bowen 18:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Purplefeltangel sounds like a delete to me.-Splashtalk 21:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mezmerize/Hypnotize

edit

These are two separate albums by System of a Down.. we have individual articles at Mezmerize and Hypnotize, making this article redundant. It's also an orphan. Rhobite 18:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OpenRIA

edit

Delete. Non-notable software. Article seems to be vanity/advertising. KeithD (talk) 18:21, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus: KEEP. ~~ N (t/c) 20:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cove Reber

edit

This article consists of a single, poorly written sentence, which offers little information. Simply put, the subject of the article doesn't seem worth creating, if more information cannot be provided. Arc Orion 18:21, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - if his band is worthy of an article and he is the frontman, I reckon he deserves an article. I've tagged it as a stub - perhaps this will encourage further edits. Having his own article also allows him to be categorised by year of birth, which could be of use to anyone researching that particular year. CLW 18:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete non notable claim (nnbio) and also fails WP:MUSIC -- (☺drini♫|☎) 22:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Nebergall

edit

Delete This guy has apparently only published through vanity presses, which to me makes him inherently non-notable, and this a vanity page... --Etacar11 18:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 09:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disneyfication

edit

Pure dicdef, neologism. ♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (contribs) 18:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Board 313

edit

Nn forum ♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (contribs) 18:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Kaosnoway is discounted, of course. -Splashtalk 21:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cheese House

edit

Seems sound enough at first glance, but a Google search for "cheese house" + "Marshman Warren Taylor" only seems to bring up hits for Wikipedia and mirror sites - suggests that the phenomenon is not in fact particularly notable. To me, the article seems to be part of an attempt to increase the Wikipedia presence of Arthur Marshman - propose delete and merge info to Arthur Marshman. CLW 18:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, play fair and mention that you wrote the original article :) CLW 07:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to confirm that - but didn't think it was particularly pertinent! ...en passant! 06:54, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Curiouser and curiouser. Kaosnoway cast this vote within the same minute as his/her first user contribution. Only contributions to date are four AfD comments/votes made within the space of two minutes. These are made in rather broken English and yet he/she feels strongly about a middle-class 1970s Northamptonshire-focussed type of housing. "Why should you deleted it?" is, IMO, answered in the nomination. CLW 14:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Very odd - he hasn't done any more edits since either. ...en passant! 06:54, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 22:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dope-ass

edit

non-notable slang dictdef. Someone marked it for wiktionary but I doubt they'd want it. RJFJR 18:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was No consensus, positions all over the place. Rx StrangeLove 05:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

January 1, 2005, January 2, 2005, et al.

edit

Copies of what can be found in January 2005 (he's now transcluded the days). There's no need to have the information presented by day, every day. Ral315 WS 18:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete daycruft ♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (contribs) 18:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with January 2005. This is generally not the kind of place for that kind of thing, you know :). Next time maybe try a merge sticker :). Ryan Norton T | @ | C 19:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge if there's anything new since the "un-merge" Dlyons493 19:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note this is only about organisation. No-one is suggesting removing any content. Ral315 says there is "no need" to have day-pages. Good, Ral315 can read the (unchanged) month pages as his preference. I prefer day-pages, so I can read them. Organising the content this way, we all get the display we prefer. The re-merged way, we are restricting choice with no gain. I urge votes not to re-merge, because there is no benefit in doing so. Pcb21| Pete 20:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, Delete the redirects.  Grue  20:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert to merged version and delete. � Phil Welch 20:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all similar articles. Daycruft indeed. / Peter Isotalo 20:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd argue that these should be kept but transcluded into the years and the days. I really hate when I'm fixing links to a disambiguation and I have to change the same text in multiple places. --SPUI (talk) 23:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect It will be too difficult to keep the articles consistent with each other. Pick one. --Ryan Delaney talk 23:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps you misunderstand - this operation has not created any more separation of content than before. Contrarily, it has made it *easier* to manage content - see my note to SPUI above. Pcb21| Pete 00:12, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Re-merge with the months. Indivudual days clearly don't need articles.--Sean Jelly Baby? 02:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge content back to individual months, and delete redirects. It was interesting idea, but after consideration I don't think it's the best thing to do. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps you'd care to explain why? Pcb21| Pete 08:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Certainly. With few exceptions, I don't believe individual days are notable enough to merit individual articles. If you desire a specific reason from Wikipedia:Deletion policy, then "Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article" would probably suffice (although I don't believe the redirects would need to be kept). I just don't feel that January 8, 2005, for instance, is significant enough to merit being in its own article. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would be extremely grateful if some contributors would take a wider view than just articles. We have a tens of thousands of pages in the main namespace that are not articles - lists, disambiguation pages and component pages such as found on the cricket pages. These individual day pages are not so much articles in themselves but building blocks so that we can create more useful articles (see above). With this point of view, I think your concern goes away? Pcb21| Pete 11:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I should also add that in general, I disapprove of article text being transcluded (and I was opposed to the cricket pages being transcluded, as well). Lists and disambiguation assist with article navigation; I don't belive that this sort of transclusion does. — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-merge, no redirects. These are so small that having extra articles for them seems to me like unnecessary clutter. ~~ N (t/c) 14:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am going to call you on that. Define "clutter". A database is not physical space. Pcb21| Pete 15:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The main thing is that it complicates editing because when you hit a section edit link and edit a day, you end up at the day page and have to hit "back" to go back to the month page. Nobody wants that. Also, it's probably slower. Those are the only real issues I can think of. ~~ N (t/c) 15:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Seems odd that the day-by-day log is an acceptable method for AfD but is not for actual real-world events worthy of going in the encyclopedia. If that editing problem really bothers you, then AfD must be a nightmare ... get a tabbed browser. Pcb21| Pete 15:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Your logic is severely flawed. AfD has 100-150 entries a day; January 1, 2005 has only eleven. AfD gets thousands of edits a day, the only people to edit January 2005 this month have been you, and a couple interwiki bots. Ral315 WS 16:12, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ok, I am stupid. Explain the logic flaw to me. Pcb21| Pete 16:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • You're trying to explain that a relatively small, rarely edited page needs to be split up by comparing it to a large, frequently edited page. Ral315 WS 16:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • Lol, ok let's follow the chain of events that led you to cause me of logical flaws.
                  1. Nickpar dislikes the extra mouse click required when finishing up editing transcluded pages.
                  2. I put out that the current events page are a drop in the ocean compared to AfD pages, and so he may as well succomb and get a tabbed browser.
                  3. You tell me that AfD is busier (The number of clicks required is identical no matter how busy the page is).
                  4. You then tell me that actual you were really talking about the utility of the pages themselves rather than the number of clicks required.
                • So it is you that is jumping around with the logic. Anyway all of that is irrelevant. You seem to agree that transclusion is good thing for AfD. Maybe it won't be such a huge boon for date pages (I think that it will, but it will take time as we learn that it useful to link to individual dates sometimes - e.g. dates of people's deaths) but the size of the boon doesn't matter. As long as it's a boon, and the cost to people who prefer to continue to look at the unchanged in look month pages is minimal, then there is absolutely no need to delete these, because they are providing a positive benefit. I note that no-one has argued against that. It all appears to me to be arguments about strict definitions of what is in the article space and an unwillingness to try anything new.... I am glad this feeling wasn't around when Wikipedia was much smaller else we'd have never got anywhere! Pcb21| Pete 19:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • No, I disagree. Transclusion is bad in any event. The only reason it's used on AFD is because it's a necessary evil. And they're not creating a positive benefit- I could split up any page by sections, and they wouldn't create a benefit. That's essentially what you're doing. To view your articles by section, one would have to manually enter the URLs- something it seems like only you would be doing in the first place. In any event, I'm done arguing with you, because no matter what I say, you have your feelings, and nothing I say is going to change them. Ral315 WS 20:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    No vote now. I see absolutely no reason to care. ~~ N (t/c) 23:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back from whence it came, but I see no reason not to 'redirect. A date seems like a natural search term. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, after taking a closer look at the pages it looks like this does indeed work alright, with some nice flexibility addded. For now, however, I would strongly oppose going back and making single-date pages for the times prior to our own compilation of current events. Give this time to settle before expanding the new organization substantially. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, else merge, and potentially sanction serial responder for being querulous. Ambi 14:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's actually policy for you to have to give a reason for deletion. So I hope you don't think my asking you to do so is also querulous! I'm sorry if I sound frustrated, but I know being able to link to individual dates is going to be a big boon for Wikipedia long term and I am frustrated that I have not summoned up the linguistic skills to convince others. AfD is a frustrating place when you are trying to change the status quo. Pcb21| Pete 16:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep From what I noticed, on the main Jan 2005 page, the transclusion works good, so we need separate pages to make the transclusion work. Zach (Sound Off) 20:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also it would be great if interested parties could check out January 1 (the new box on the right) for a way of presenting information that has opened itself up now that we can link to individual pages. Pcb21| Pete 20:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I can understand why these pages would have been unwanted in the past; but now that wikipedia itself has become one of the best online sources for current news, and background on news events, I think there will be enough content for these pages, at least for now on. (But don't create pages yet for dates more than a few years in the past). Eugene van der Pijll 22:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep with Community Discussion about future standards for this type of information. In the long term, cataloging individual dates could be a very useful and innovative use of Wikipedia. The massive hypertext data of Wikipedia enables a better cataloging of the events of an individual day than ever before. However, currently we can only search it by year and day only, not the two combined. Wikipedia should eventually be considered a resource for social science data mining. Combined with semantic tags, maybe we could discover for example whether people are more or less likely to commit suicide on days with bad news or disasters. Or whether different periods of the year are more likely to be associated with different types of historical incidents. Although the standards for this information need to be discussed, a day actually ranks pretty high there up on the quality of encyclopedic knowledge. I think this is an excellent test by Pcb21 and a taste of the future of Wikipedia. Don't cut Wikipedia short.
On top of that, it has immediate value because people are interested in what happened on their birthdays and wedding days, etc. And the edits to Pcb's article will give us ideas about how to manage this information. That's the beauty of Wikipedia. Tfine80 22:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 16:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tecno DJS

edit

Does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC guidelines. Band vanity. Joyous (talk) 18:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP and REDIRECT ~ Veledan • Talk + new 19:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Smooth Brain

edit

Found this one while googling for "==Headline text=="-type newbie errors on en.wikipedia. If this article is legit, it belongs on wictionary not here. Originator is an ip address without a talk page, so I didn't create one just to notify it I didn't like the 'article' ~ Veledan • Talk + new 18:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've set up the redirect. Now that Kzollman has found out what it means, there's no need for this nomination to continue. Thanks guys ~ Veledan • Talk + new 19:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of German Political parties by dialect area of seat

edit

Nonsense! What next? "Murder rates by icecream sales"? This is a deadend-page. -- j. 'mach' wust | ‽ 19:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All Communist parties mentioned are in the Westphalian dialect area.

Sarcelles 05:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

James Sainsbury

edit

Utterly unnotable in own right. Shoplifting is his claim to fame SqueakBox 19:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus: KEEP. ~~ N (t/c) 20:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Teenbeat

edit

Delete Fails under WP:MUSIC criteria Forbsey 19:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


4. Has been prominently featured in any major music media..

The Teenbeat have featured in the NME and recently were reviewed in the Sunday Times music section by Stewart Lee...

caravan to obscurity cd - the sunday times the teenbeat formed in liverpool in the mid-199os, and are led by adrian shaw a dryly amusing fellow often seen rattling the perimeter fence of the london conceptual-art scene. the band record in vast, incoherent jams, then cherry-pick the best bits, which suggest alan bennett fronting the velvet underground, or george formby singing hank williams. with a little spit and polish, they could be as quirky a commercial proposition as pulp once were, but one suspects the teenbeat are reluctant to spoil something secretly special. this best of collection has 62 songs on three discs and costs £12.99 from www.sickhappyidle.com. out of five stewart lee - the sunday times, july 24 2oo5

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

The result of the debate was unanimously Delete -- (☺drini♫|☎) 22:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mont Blanc Greta Garbo Party

edit

Google turns up no hits for "Mont Blanc Greta Garbo Party" which suggests that this was not the official name of this event, which in any case is unlikely to have been sufficiently notable to merit an article. Seems to be part of an attempt to create articles for every event featuring Fann Wong - see also A Force In Asia To Create The Future and Huabiao Film Awards Ceremony CLW 19:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 16:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Seago

edit

This fellow is a non-notable newspaper editor. Also, the article is copied almost word for word from here. Oswax 19:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He is an important figure in Western Washington! Please keep the article, it is legit.

Being a Tacoma resident, David Seago has a huge political influence on local politics and it is important for residents to be able to weigh his background with his current opinions.

We can keep the article if you can show why he is important (and the copyvio is removed). I've no doubt that a number of people who read the Tacoma Tribune know his name. Oswax 19:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete -- (☺drini♫|☎) 23:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(☺drini♫|☎) 23:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A Force In Asia To Create The Future

edit

see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mont Blanc Greta Garbo Party CLW 19:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete -- (☺drini♫|☎) 22:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Huabiao Film Awards Ceremony

edit

see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mont Blanc Greta Garbo Party CLW 19:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 16:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Seago

edit

Non-notable. A student who wrote an anti-war piece for a minor newspaper Oswax 19:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Notibility is increasing.Dvt62 20:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the article should be deleted.

Article has been substantially updated since these comments were left. Please keep the article.Dvt62 20:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was 'Delete (btw, it was copyvio too) -- (☺drini♫|☎) 22:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LoopyLoopX

edit

nn software vanity; author admits this on the talk page. May also be speedy since he said "you can delete it," which is almost like a request for deletion. — brighterorange (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus: KEEP. ~~ N (t/c) 20:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sick Happy Idle

edit

nn publisher of "obscure records". See also The Teenbeat, also on afd — brighterorange (talk) 19:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They do not publish "obscure records", they have published several records on their record label including "Caravan To Obscurity" which refers to a song lyric on the album, and not a description of the record. It was recently reviewed in the Sunday Times by Stewart Lee, receiving 4 stars in the recommended albums... hardly obscure. There's none so blind as those that cannot see.

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

The result of the debate was no consensus: KEEP. ~~ N (t/c) 20:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Shaw

edit

member of The Teenbeat, also up for afd, is his only notability claim. — brighterorange (talk) 19:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Appeared on the Channel 5 TV series Jerry Sadovitz VS The People. Appears on television narrating for programmes, he recently narrated the Channel 4 documentary on the artist David Shrigley. Organises the music for the Late at The Tate Britain gallery event. Appeared in art galleries and exhibitions over the last 10 years. Curated exhibitions. Music has been played on Radio 1, played live on Resonance FM. His latest album recently reviewd in The Sunday Times Newspaper, receiving 4 out of 5 stars in a review by Stewart Lee. Cartoonist - designed the guidance signs for children that you will find hanging on the walls in the Tate Britain gallery, London (so, yes his work hangs in the Tate Britain gallery alongside Turner's!).

top that :P

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 16:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Putas de mierdas

edit

Bad joke? freestylefrappe 20:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you add up the individual times for each song you get about 23 minutes, whereas the total time on the CD is 34 minutes 27 seconds. Maybe this should be speedied. freestylefrappe 21:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:44, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

500 greatest songs of the 20th century

edit

Wikimedia is not a repository for POV lists Sapient 20:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The anonymous author has now seen fit to add the remaining 95 songs that were missing. Ho hum... Sapient 18:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was COPYVIO, so deal with it over there instead. -Splashtalk 23:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Castle On the Cliff

edit

Promotion for a not notable place. feydey 21:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was redirect. Woohookitty 09:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The_Good_Shepherd_(2006_film)

edit

Originally to be merged, but mergeto article has more information than this one. Kushboy 21:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 22:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BSD and Linux

edit

This article is inaccurate from the first sentence. There are too many generalizations about the differences between *BSD and Linux in the article. I encourage anyone to read through the article and make a convincing argument that it should be salvaged. Sether 21:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It's a compare-and-contrast essay. That's original research, useless to Wikipedia. Superm401 | Talk 21:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I cannot see how this page can be fixed, it's straining for a far too broad topic and has been done by people that do not even know the facts about the subject. I really can't see anything in there worth saving. Janizary 21:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This page is inaccurate and biased. It has no place on Wikipedia. Cmihai 21:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)cmihai - Cmihai's first edit. See WP:SOCK. --Blackcap | talk 18:43, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article is incoherent, inaccurate, poorly structured and certainly not NPOV. Nothing in it looks worth saving. NicM 21:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC) - NicM's first edit. See WP:SOCK. --Blackcap | talk 18:43, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is just an essay, and a lousy one at that. Procus the Mad 22:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorrowful Delete. I've put a bit of effort into this page and I think it has valuable data- but that data belongs on a general BSD page or Linux page. Not in separate article which essentially is an essay. Sorry guys. --Maru (talk) 23:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 23:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or revert to earlier version. I started the article when I wasn't quite as aware of our original research policy. I later intended to back it up with published sources, but never got to it. It has since degenerated into a horrid article that isn't likely to serve it's purpose. If anyone cares to, check the earlier versions to see if anything is worth saving. It could be taken from there and redone using the Kirk McKusick's books and a few others to legitimately discuss the differences between the OS families, but I'm not going to get to it. - Taxman Talk 18:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete joining Taxman's and Maru's consensus. The first sentence of this article is, "BSD and Linux are two families of open-source computer operating systems." If a need for deletion is due to the article's being perceived as inaccurate from the first sentence, then the important issue is merely that the two OSs are favorably named on the same page. So be it, give 'em what they want and delete the entire article. If someone wants to recreate it anew in the future, let them take up any founder's responsibility along with the no-win language and cultural hassles. Like Maru, I worked a lot on this. Like Taxman, I was not quite as aware of Wiki's O-R policy when I contributed. Whether this article is horrid, bad, informative, or was consumer useful to me is moot. It should not remain published here if it is undocumented and thus indistinguishable from Original Research. Wiki O-R policy excludes informative insider knowledge because, by "insider" definition, their knowledge is infrequently documentable. My thanks to all who provided content. From the expert editors I've learned much of what I had hoped to find on first arrival at the article. Especially AlbertCallahan who knows a lot about shells (and cooking), a critical choice for new B & L users along with packaging systems. (How are your taco shells? "yum"  :)
    Milo 11:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Too bad content was never completed. Wikipedia "BSD and Linux" is GFDL copyright ("copyleft"), so if you think it can be fixed, copy it from Google's cache:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_and_Linux and pass it on to other web sites. Milo 03:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The article is NOT in the public domain. It is copyrighted by contibutors and licensd under the GFDL. Do not copy without following the GFDL. Superm401 | Talk 12:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
May or may not be true - if he can get permission from all the authors involved and not use the licensed edits then it would indeed be public domain Ryan Norton T | @ | C 01:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter in practice. Generic lists of facts and organizing outlines aren't copyrightable; for example, non-telco telephone listings. The paragraphs can be rewritten until a plagiarism detector like free WCopyfind doesn't match any uncommon long phrases other than referenced quotations. Poof, old license gone -- analogously to the way both BSD and Linux came into existence from copyrighted UNIX. Milo 07:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I found the article to be informative, and answered questions that were in neither linux or BSD. I agree it needs to be fixed, but I hate it when useful true objective information is erased. 66.75.49.213
That you found this article to be informative is a key reason to delete it, because it isn't right. It's because of how bad it is that it is up for deletion in the first place. Janizary 21:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I don't know much about Linux and BSD. Why doesn't someone just go in and delete anything that is false or subjective and leave an objective comparison of the two? I came to wikipedia to help me decide between installing freebsd and linux as my first non-windows OS experience. This was the only wikipedia article I could find with a comparison. 66.75.49.213
Because if everything that was viewed as wrong was deleted, you'd end up with an even more useless article. There is a massive conflict of personalities between most Linux and BSD users, from Linux users constantly spreading misinformation and slander to the BSD users constantly belittling Linux users for their usage of a worse system. And that's just the BSD perspective, the Linux users think of BSD as a dead and arcane piece of garbage that only an idiot would use. And even then, there are worse things going on between the two overcultures. The fundamental differences between the two groups causes constant conflict and pretty much constant and embittered arguments, often with no real cause behind them. My opinion, if you want to learn Unix, you go to OpenBSD because it's documentation is better, if you want a Windows replacement you go Ubuntu. Janizary 03:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The term "BSD" describes any modern day derivative of the Berkeley Software Distribution (such as FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, etc.) or the Berkeley Software Distribution itself. In other words, "BSD" refers to an operating system. The term "Linux" describes the operating system kernel developed by Linus Torvalds – not an operating system. To compare a complete operating system to just a kernel is like comparing apples with oranges. Not only that, but you can't compare "BSD" to any other operating system because "BSD" doesn't refer to a single operating system – it refers to a family of operating systems that are actually very distinct from each other. I don't understand why the article is titled "BSD and Linux" if it's really a comparison of FreeBSD and GNU/Linux. But a change in the title of the article isn't going to fix anything either – why does Wikipedia need a comparison of one specific BSD derivative and "GNU/Linux" (which doesn't refer to an operating system either; there is no GNU/Linux operating system, just distributions that combine the Linux kernel and GNU userland)? The basic idea behind the entire article is flawed. Sether 03:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(Sigh) There were some old-title links that the linking page editors (maybe you?) needed to update. By talk page consensus, the article is no longer comparing one specific derivative with another entire family. The article compares the two families generally and makes a non-comprehensive sample comparison between one derivative and one distro (copy-editing in "derivative" was on the to-do list). The "just a kernel" objection was already covered in the article. The empty "The Linux Kernel and the GNU Utilities" to-do section was to intended to explain Richard Stallman/GNU's marginalization as being why he started the "just a kernel" issue (see the talk page). If you consider yourself an unbiased Wikipedian, maybe you should read the article again, particularly the Scope section, and withdraw your AfD as based on obsolete understandings (IIRC, you do strike-through formatting of your AfD intro, and add a brief retraction). Milo 07:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, come on. The article is garbage. It varies wildly between being overly simplistic and being terribly confused and confusing. Not to mention often spouting complete rubbish (does anyone really need to be told that new users sometimes have problems? what is all this Major Software nonsense? is Wikipedia really the place for this rather odd Marxist analysis, interesting - if poorly presented - idea or no? what is this rubbish about FreeBSD linux compat? have you even read the handbook?). A clear (simple or in-depth) introduction to the differences between the BSDs and Linux may or may not be useful (I think not), but this article is not it and will not become so short of completely starting again. NicM 15:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]
To 66.75.49.213 Yours was like my experience, except I wanted to compare of all the BSDs and Linux, for future consumer folks like us. Simplifying, even though BSD and Linux have mostly indistinguishable OS features, a persistent eye-roller objection was that they can't be compared because the two OSs have different cultural names for too many things. That language issue could be resolved ...except that too many objectors don't want it resolved. With persistent nitpicking, the objectors plus normal critics won't give the outnumbered unbiased editors the year or more it would take to document the article's extensive use of O-R look alike insider info. Milo 07:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

THE_BEARTON_AUTOMATIC_RIFLE

edit

No reference of this rifle on Google. Kushboy 21:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 16:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Qui-Gon Jinn 12" Inch

edit

Not at all notable. I recommend deletion of images too upon close.

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Pharos makes a particularly valid point, the deletion is on the button of two-thirds and I am concerned that this may be na artefact of systemic bias. -Splashtalk 22:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rohingya villages

edit

List of villages without any siginificance or notability. Note that this is not a significant list of subdivisions, rather a enormous list of villages. I am not against listing notable entities, but simply creating a list of names of villages does not really contribute to wikipedia.

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

The result of the debate was Delete -- (☺drini♫|☎) 22:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzzy fuzzy Holloway Zarathustra

edit

Most of the Google links for this phrase link to a porn site. One other Google link is to a fan site with 2 members. I can't imagine anyone searching Wikipedia for this exact phrase. We already have an article on H. Beam Piper and Little Fuzzy, so I'm not sure what purpose this is supposed to serve. Joyous (talk) 21:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete -- (☺drini♫|☎) 23:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exocrew

edit

Non notable web hosting company. Significance not established in article. Most Google search results point to own Exocrew website / advertisment for Exocrew. Hurricane111 22:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 22:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wicker People

edit

As the article itself states, nothing is known about the Wicker people. --Austrian 22:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 22:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

King of the Wicker People

edit

A fictitious person who is mentioned once in one movie. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wicker People. --Austrian 22:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a joke, it is actually in Batman. Watch it, it's near the beginning when they are at Wayne Manor. The statue looks ligitmate, leading to the question of whether or no there really are Wicker People. --Rhfactor28 00:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was deleted as hoax by Raul654. · Katefan0(scribble) 06:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sher Khan

edit

This is probably a clever hoax created by the same persistent prankster or pranksters who invented the Nasher dynasty (old VfD page). It appears plausible, but:

  • The Ghaznavids haven't ruled anything since the 12th century. The article claimed that they did, but it should be easy to guess who added that fact.
  • Several assertions are verified and unverifiable through any sources I can find, namely:
    • the assertion that he founded the Spinzar corporation. In fact, it was founded as a venture of the Afghan National Bank.
    • the assertion that Kipling named Shere Khan after him. Not only does Shere Khan mean something like "Tiger Lord", according to the commentary in the 1992 Oxford University Press edition, but if this person was born in the 1890s, he would have been no more than four years old when The Jungle Book was published—thus an unlikely source for the name.
    • The assertion that Afghanistan's largest port is named after him. As was pointed out in the previous VfD, Afghanistan is landlocked, thus it's unlikely that it has any ports named after anybody. Okay, Shir Khan is a real port in Afghanistan, but I find no indication that it was named after him.

There may be some parts that are true, or at least based on a real person: see [23], the reliability of which is hard to judge. It appears that the hoaxster took some facts about Farhad Darya's grandfather from that source, mixed them with fiction about the Nasher dynasty, and came up with this article. References to this fictitious person have been added elsewhere and will need to be trimmed out carefully. —Charles P. (Mirv) 23:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment I buy that this article is a hoax. Note that the Columbia encyclopedia has an article about "Sher Khan" [24] from a totally different time period. — brighterorange (talk) 23:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Shere Khan as possible misspelling to avoid recreation. - Mgm|(talk) 09:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding Kipling - did he ever go to Afghanistan? Some flicking through a handy biography suggests he spent several years in Lahore and got as far as the Khyber Pass, in 1885, to report on the visit of Abdur Rahman Khan; he doesn't seem to have travelled there, or if he did his biographer didn't think to mention it. As far as I can tell he'd have been in the UK or America by the time Khan was born, and it beggars belief a character written in 1892-4 would be named after an infant - possibly not even born - who he'd have no reason to be aware of. I'm not voting either way on the article, but that part's definitely got garbled en route; I'll remove it... Shimgray | talk | 00:18, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • (That said, if it does get deleted concur with Mgm - redirect as plausible mispelling rather than outright delete)

Support I was the one who created this article about Sher Khan. As a matter of fact, I created the original version which has been altered by other users. When factual errors appeared, I corrected them. I am a PhD student at Brown, specializing in Afghan history. Sher Khan is a key figur in post-British Afghanistan and should thus remain in the dictionary. About your points: True, the Ghaznavids have not ruled the country after the 12th century as Kings, but they lived as hereditary Khans in their home area, having some sort of 'traditional' power. The Spinzar Company was founded by Sher Khan, but largely owned by the Afghan Government through the Bank-e-Milli. Sher Khan held about 5 % and some percentage in the ACG (Afghan Cotton Company) in Gulbahar and Pol-e-chumri. After Sher Khan's death, his son Gholam Serwar served as CEO until the war with Russia broke out (most literature on Afghan history is - ALAS!!! - almost impossible to get, this you can check online on http://www.institute-for-afghan-studies.org/HistoricalResearchCorner/ACFAE9.pdf). He was then imprisoned by Daoud. The Spinzar Company is back in action today, ran by Mr Arianpoor. I do not know much about the association to Kipling. I do however know that Kipling spent some time in Kunduz. Sher Khan Bandar was named after Sher Khan Nasher, this fact is undisputed among anyone dealing with the history of Afghanistan. As a matter of fact, the Sher Khan Road leads from the Spinzar Company up to Sher Khan Bandar (passing Sher Khan high school). In 2002 the Afghan government wanted to change the name to Massoud Bandar. An outrage, followed by a quasi-riot broke out in Kunduz up to Sher Khan Bandar which made the government change its mind. The Columbia article deals with a different Sher Khan, mostly referred to as Sher Shah. He was an Afghan ruler of the Mughal empire for five years (1540–1545) who had defeated Homayun. So: except for the Kipling part, all the info is accurate. Steve

(the above posted by someone using the South African IP address 209.203.60.6 (talk • contribs), who also removed the AfD tag from the article and deleted the reference to the old Nasher hoax from my initial post. —Charles P. (Mirv))
Hi Steve. Are you LloydHughes (talk · contribs), who created the initial revision of Shir Khan, or are you 141.2.161.249 (talk · contribs), the Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universitaet IP address who created the initial revision of Sher Khan, or are you both? Can you cite any sources for the claims here and in the text of the article? It's important that information in Wikipedia be verifiable, and without sources, it's very hard (you're right about the paucity of literature on Afghanistan) for anyone else to check the facts—and they certainly need checking. I have access to a first-rate university library and should be able to get my hands on any relevant English or French works. (also, just FYI, it's generally considered impolite to edit other people's signed comments in a way that changes their meaning.) —Charles P. (Mirv) 18:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mirv We appreciate your effort very much. We are all trying to get as close to historical accuracy as possible. There is no need to act offensive. This service of writing about something I know much about (and spend my life with) is something I am giving to the Wikipedia community. I defended the points but I am not writing a scientific text scattered with footnotes for you as I have many other things to do (namely do research about other historical incidents and people I do not know much about). Regards, Steve

I am not asking for exhaustive footnoting of each and every point; I just want to know where you got the information contained in this article. My own research has turned up nothing that confirms what is written here; this, plus my experience with the previous Nasher hoax, leads me to believe that some or all of the article is erroneous or fictitious. If the facts cannot be verified, then the article will probably be deleted. I am willing to take the time to verify it, but I've hit a dead end in researching and don't know where to continue. If you name a few of the sources you used in writing the article, other editors can check them and be convinced that the article is not a hoax. —Charles P. (Mirv) 19:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I note with dismay that you have again edited my signed comments in a way that changes their meaning. This is considered vandalism and is not acceptable behavior. Please do not do it. —Charles P. (Mirv) 19:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC) [This post was deleted; it has been reinstated. Please do not delete others' signed comments. —Charles P. (Mirv) 23:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)][reply]

Reply For the info on the Spinzar Cotton Company and Sher Khan and his son check "Light Garden of the Angel King: Travels in Afghanistan" by Peter Levi; Binding: Paperback Publisher: Trafalgar Square Published Date: 05/01/2001. The Kipling part I cannot confirm. The rest is 100 % accurate, see above. Dear Mirv, please understand that I cannot and will not leave personal indiscretions on this site which are of no concern to the matter discussed.

Thank you. As it happens, the Bibliothèque nationale has a French translation of that book; I will go there tomorrow and see if it confirms what is said in this article. I am also going to ask you one more time to stop altering and deleting signed comments from this page. This is impolite, unethical, and a violation of Wikipedia policy; if you persist I will have to ask another administrator to block you from editing. Removing information about an IP address from my post does not remove it from the site; it is still recorded in the page history, and whois searches are trivially easy. Furthermore I consider it highly relevant to this matter, because it originates from the same part of Germany as the IP address used by the creator of the original Nasher hoax (according to the Geobytes IP locator). One address is from Johann Wolfgang Goethe University, which is in Frankfurt am Main; the IP locator places the second in Bensheim, which is (according to its article) within an hour's drive of Frankfurt. I doubt this is coincidence. —Charles P. (Mirv) 23:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted, per what appear to be accurate assertions that it is a hoax. →Raul654 05:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was speedied -- Francs2000   23:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nonmagel

edit

Recipe created by "Marla"; do you really need a reason? ♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (contribs) 22:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Redirect to Selfless Service, Rx StrangeLove 03:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sevadar

edit

Dicdef not English not good candidate for Wiktionary♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (contribs) 22:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki wiktionary:. Superm401 | Talk 23:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Note that the author may recreate this article at a later date if it is substantially different than this version. · Katefan0(scribble) 19:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

String inverter

edit

The whole thing is completely POV and very original research. It's probably a press release by some company promoting the idea. It also seems very vapor ware/crystal ball. Let's just purge it. Superm401 | Talk 23:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the author replied in 40 minutes saying: Nevertheless - it is my fault to have not cleaned the article. I will take care within the next 4 weeks - so please be so kind and give me this more time. I think that he should get it - it waited for a year, it can wait for one more month. Renata3 16:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete -- (☺drini♫|☎) 05:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jocularfilms

edit

Non-notable website. --fvw* 23:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 17:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SB Designing

edit

Website vanity/Ad. --fvw* 23:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 17:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Poppycock Circus

edit

Although this comic has been on a hiatus since February this year, I really don't think it's notable enough to have its own article. There is no alexa rank, and the graph shows that there hasn't been any traffic for the past 2 years of data (as far back as alexa stats show). In the end, Poppycock circus is just a website which no one ever visited, just because it was a website with a comic on, does not mean it deserves an article. - Hahnchen 23:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 22:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Simpson

edit

Probable hoax Google for "Wild Myers", the trilogy he supposedly stared in, turned up nothing except false positive hits. There are three Jack Simpson's in IMDB, none of them particularly significant, and none of them this guy even if he be not a hoax. Caerwine 23:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect -- Joolz 15:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo of Canada

edit

Well, A substub about a subsidiary of a major company; despite notability it may remain a substub.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_September_25&oldid=1234127445"