Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 September 29

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

Purge server cache

September 29

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

The result of the debate was Keep. DES (talk) 04:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Caschera

edit

Likely hoax. The village of Broccostella is real, and Google comes up with geneaology websites listing Caschera as a surname attested in the village, but there is no evidence of lions or Julius Caesar. Pilatus 00:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am doing a report on the Providence of Frozinone. There are several references to the Cascheras, but they are all in Italian. Please see "Broccostella: I Fondatori". Please also note that they are only legandary. Italians are famous for having such creation/founding myths, ie Romulus and Remus and the she-wolf. 141.161.98.205 17:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)Don Tote141.161.98.205 17:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • At the moment the sounds rather incongruous. Julius Caesar and his mythical ancestor Aeneas lived 1000 years apart. Someone's ancestry can be traced back to one or the other but not to either. And the idea that anyone (even a legendary figure) could be nursed by a lion in the densely populated Latium of 100 AD isn't believable. As I said, verifiable sources are needed. Pilatus 22:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • 141.161.92.132 23:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)In fact, Caesar did claim that Aeneas was his ancestor, please see Plutarch's "Life of Caesar" and Suetonius's "Life of Caesar". Also, Latium was and is not "densely" populated even to this day. Most of it is rural mountainside with peasant villages scattered along the Appene mountain range. During this time period, the region was popluated with Lions until the Romans killed most of them off. Furthermore, the fact that they are legendary figures seems to escape some people. They were most likely not real, that is, these are figments of ones imagination not to be taken seriously. To say that it "isn't believable" would mean that one was ignoring the fact that they are legandary. I have managed to find a reference of The Caschera's in "Mythical and legendary narrative in Ovid's Fasti" by Paul Murgatroyd. A further study would have to be required in order to justly remove this entry. Also, the Fibreno River can be located to be an actual river found near the village. Thank you, Don Tote141.161.92.132 23:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Legends must be self-consistent, too, people like them to make sense. I know that Caesar traced his own ancestry back to Aeneas. Someone would trace back his own ancestry only to Caesar or to Aeneas, who lived 1000 years previously, but not to both. As far as the lions go, from what I know Latium was the heartland of the Roman empire and at that time extensively used for agriculture. There is no place for lions on cultivated land. Pilatus 18:30, 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 keep CDC (talk) 23:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Acid Breaks

edit

non-notable music. Not written in encyclopedic form or tone, and nearly impossible to fix because there isn't enough context. (e.g. is acid breaks the name of one track or all the tracks?) Written as personal recollection (could be original research also other entries under WP:NOT). RJFJR 00:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy keep --Doc (?) 08:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of self-referential songs

edit

This is the second nomination. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of self-referential songs for the previous ballot. Anyway, this list is now rendered unmaintainable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.209.176.99 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 29 September 2005

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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 08:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Soccer in Western Australia

edit

Here's one page that im confused about. I was thinking about a merge but I dont know where or if because it is only one line and i dont normally deal with soccer so im placing it on VFD for a check. Looks like maybe a Speedy in this state for lack of content . --JAranda | yeah 00:19, 29 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 Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 00:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


St. John's Military School

edit

Obvious self promotion by the school. Hoovernj 00:23, 29 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. FCYTravis 02:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Taco Bell Assassins (T.B.A)

edit

Dont delete this page its my contribution to wikipedia and i shouldnt BE silenced by the man (preceding unsigned comment by Immortal technique (talk · contribs) --Sherool 00:39, 29 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. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glencoe Hedge Fund

edit

Advertising of a non-notable hedge fund. Delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:49, 29 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 Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prookum, the Echidna

edit

None notable webcomic made by Morrowism, who's articles on Shame McSheista and Geronimus Nil I've tagged for speedy deletion due to nonsense/hoax/non notable. I also had to revert a single line vandalism on Andy Warhol. I don't think however this comes under CSD, a defunct webcomic hosted on angelfire with 1 google hit. If this can be speedied then that would be great. - Hahnchen 00:49, 29 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. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 01:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sccrewed

edit

Non-notable, no mention on Google NeilN 00:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 08:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wasted designs

edit

Non-notable politically-motivated art group. Delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 01:01, 29 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 4/15 +/- (due to how interpretation of certain uncertain votes) Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 00:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Evolution poll

edit

Article has escaped under the radar screen. It is basically a creationist POV-pushing endeavor. Any worthwhile content can be merged to the creationism article or the creation-evolution controversy article. This article, however, is misleadingly named (it is not a poll on evolution but rather a poll about the creation-evolution controversy) and the article has very little worth salvaging in terms of content since this basically is original research or, where it isn't, can be appropriately addressed on other pages. Joshuaschroeder 01:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

....delete, delete, delete, or at least teach a few rednecks to read a damn genome

  • Keep This is one of the oldest articles at Wikipedia (3 years, 10 months). It was originally created to settle a dispute over how many people "believe in evolution" - which turns out to depend of various definitions of biological evolution.
    When "evolution" is defined in naturalistic terms about 1 American in 8 supports it. When the definition of "evolution" is expanded to include gradual emergence of species guided by an intelligent force (like God) then additonal 3/8 of Americans may be said to "support evolution".
    Sources have been in this article (I know: I put them in there at least twice over the years). If sources were deleted for some reason, then simply put them back.
    There is no reason to delete this article, other than to suppress information about the controversy, dispute and/or debate between advocates about their positions on evolution.
    It's especially disturbing that when I linked to this article, another contributer immediately said that he would try to get it deleted. This smacks of censorship - which is sneaky and low down way to win a debate! Uncle Ed 17:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, you created this article, according to the edit history, and by article, I mean one paragraph copy/paste, you then proved it 'valid' by linking to a washington times article, which apparently is where you copy/pasted it from.. using a tabloid as an encylopedic source is a rediculous standard, not to mention straight out copy/pasting?..--64.12.117.11 11:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Uninformative, not encyclopaedic Ex0pos 21:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm no evolutionist but get rid of this lest Wikipedia becomes a repository on poll results for every concievable controversy Paul 00:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am a thorough-going evolutionist, but if this is the only Wp article treating the well-known phenomenon of the apparent popularity of creationism in the US, then it should definitely stay and be improved upon. Unless I'm missing something — like that this article repeats information elsewhere in Wp, then I agree with Ed — this smacks of censorship. --goethean ॐ 14:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Evolution is a dirty conspiracy, it's ten times worse then that whole 'round earth' bit, 5 times as insideous as that 'global warming' crap, and just as absurd as that whole 'gravity' thing, can you believe the leftist commie pinkos are actually allowed to teach this stuff to our children?? next thing you know they'll be handing out abortions like they're soada pop--172.208.123.70 14:40, 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 08:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow Moon

edit

Totally non notable webcomic which can be found here, alongside it's desolation city forums here. A google search for yellow moon brings up quite a few entities and websites named Yellow Moon, this non notable webcomic, does not feature. If we take a look at the Alexa rankings at keenspace, we see that this comic is not mentioned in the report suggesting that it is one of the very little read webcomics on the site. With stupendously lax inclusion criteria at WP:COMIC, random fans are adding webcomic articles to Wikipedia unchallenged, we have to stop this from happening, longevity does not mean notability. - Hahnchen 01:07, 29 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 as follows:

  • の had 19 keep, 5 delete, and 4 merge to wiktionary. The result was KEEP.
  • い had 8 keep and 3 delete. The result was KEEP.
  • あ had 6 keep and 4 delete. The result was no consensus.
  • Votes for all three overall were 12 keep, 0 delete, and 1 merge to wiktionary. The result was KEEP.

The final result was KEEP. Robert 20:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kana alphabet articles

edit

This is a merger of three VfDs: あ, い, and の. The outcome on these articles should all be the same, so let's get a consistent consensus rather than having some of them deleted and others not, ok? Kelly Martin 16:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you make it clear how votes count here? Do I have to put delete after each kana, or will you only count votes one for each person for the whole article? Sorry if this is a stupid question, but I'm not sure of the rules. --DannyWilde 00:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not likely to close this AfD myself (I rarely close AfDs) but I would recommend that whoever does close this use common sense in counting votes. It is important, in my opinion, that all three articles close with the same result, and I imagine that the closing admin will examine all offered opinions without too much regard to which articles they are offered in connection with to reach a decision about consensus. Frankly, at this point, I can't see how a consensus will arise out of this swamp, but stranger things have happened.... Kelly Martin 01:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/い and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/あ. I have only created three kana articles and stopped when "no" was VFD'd. Toothpaste 03:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note that all the other kana are being added, so the outcome of this vote should also apply to those also. This was the first letter to be added, so the main discussion for all of them should probably be here. --Interiot 01:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

の

edit

Dictionary definition. DannyWilde 00:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, dictionary entry exists in Wiktionary anyway. --DannyWilde
  • Weak Delete, as DannyWilde said, they're already in wiktionary. The roman alphabet (A, B, C, ...) has individual pages, but the wiktionary pages seem to already have more information than is being created in the en/wikipedia pages. If there's enough information to go in these, that doesn't belong in Wiktionary, then Keep. Are all 50/100 kana going to be added? Are any kanji going to be added?? --Interiot 01:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No, kanji will not be added, only the kana, and the katakana will redirect to the hiragana articles. Like with the articles on the English alphabet letters, these articles could show the history of the writing of individual kana. In fact, I have a 2000 page dictionary in storage that shows the history of each English letter, with each article on them at least two pages. Aside from the history, the article could go slightly deeper into phonology, too, and possibly instructions on how to write the kana. Toothpaste 01:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No reason why these aren't any less encyclopedic than the letters of the Roman alphabet. Kelly Martin 01:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per our Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), if there is an encyclopaedia article to be had, it should be under an English title. But, as per the far better dictionary article の in Wiktionary, there is clearly no subject for an encyclopaedia article to be had. This article is a mis-placed dictionary article, pure and simple. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. As a stub encyclopaedia article it would have no hope of expansion. Delete. Uncle G 01:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you are unsatisfied with the name of the article, it can be moved to No (kana) and the actual hiragana and katakana can be made into redirects.
      • I reiterate: There is no encyclopaedia article to be had here. Everything that you have proposed adding, pronunciations, stroke indexes, and so forth is dictionary article content about the word. Wiktionary has had vast numbers of such articles with pronunciations, stroke indexes, and so forth, since 2003. If you want to improve them with pictures, Wiktionary is the place to do so. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Uncle G 01:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • We have articles on A and B and so on. I don't know, but I should expect you would be able to say as much about the kana as about Roman letters. ~~ N (t/c) 02:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • One can, and the dictionary does. Go look at some of the thousands of such entries in Wiktionary. Some of them are huge. They have Unicode values, stroke indicies, input method indices, meanings in several languages, transliterations in several systems, translations, and more. Pictures would improve them yet further. A random medium-length example (selected, ironically, by hitting "random page" exactly once at Wiktionary) of what a dictionary can contain: 冝. Uncle G 02:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge. Agree that this would be better in Wiktionary. Disagree that the article in Wikitionary is "better." This one has some nice information not duplicated there. Crypticfirefly 02:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Toothpaste - there is a rich history at A and B ... and it would be nice to have the same sort of history for the kana. Johntex\talk 01:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, articles about letters are well-founded (we used to have them even back in UseModWiki days, indeed). James F. (talk) 01:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What of the overlap between wikipedia and wiktionary? Is there a substantial reason to have them in both places? If not, which one should be kept? --Interiot 01:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wiktionary. Uncle G 01:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Both can be kept, just as how the elements of the periodic table belong in both dictionaries and encyclopedias. In addition, the Roman alphabet also exists in a dictionary. Toothpaste 01:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • A false analogy. Whereas a dictionary article on plutonium tells one about the word, how it is pronounced and so forth, an encyclopaedia about plutonium tells one about plutonium — about the element that the word represents. This is not the case here. You are not creating encyclopaedia articles about the things that the words represents. (It's clear from the Wiktionary entry telling us the meaning of the word that there isn't an encyclopaedia article to be had about the thing that this word represents.) You are creating dictionary articles about the words themselves. Uncle G 02:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Toothpaste. Acetic'Acid 01:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to e.g. No (kana) because we have articles on the Roman alphabet, and surely the Japanese alphabet is just as interesting. ~~ N (t/c) 01:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very, very strong keep. I didn't even know that there were actual entries about the kana characters on English Wikipedia. It would be a total and complete shame to delete these entries. Cjmarsicano 01:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If kept, rename. I don't have any particular strong opinion on whether we should only have a wiktionary entry, or an encyclopedic entry (although I lean slightly toward the latter; alphabets are encyclopaedic). However, I have a very strong opinion about the title: it should be in English (or, at least, the English alphabet). Noel (talk) 02:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've decided to move it to No (kana) if kept, along with all other kana articles, as that seems to be the consensus here. Toothpaste 02:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge these contributions into Wiktionary, but make sure that it's easy to get to from the hiragana, katakana, and other relevant articles. I would love to see full histories, stroke orders, and such for each of the kana (and kanji!), but I don't see any compelling reason that they should be here instead of at Wiktionary. —HorsePunchKid→龜 02:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, a good reason might be that that's /way/ outside the scope of Wiktionary. The article you describe doesn't belong in a dictionary. It belongs in an encyclopædia. James F. (talk) 03:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Complete rubbish. It's not outside of the scope of Wiktionary at all. Go look in Wiktionary at some of the existing articles. See the one that I picked at random above, for example. Many of them have stroke indexes, Unicode encodings, and other technical information. (And even they aren't complete. One could add audio pronunciation files, for one example.) That's what Wiktionary would like for all such articles. Uncle G 03:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This could start a trend. Do we want to keep the wikipedia server administrators employed (or unhappy with heavy storage issues )with 70,000 or more Chinese characters stored in their databases? While we're all here, could we also start articles for each character of Thai, Arabic, Tamil, Hebrew, Both Simple and Traditional Chinese, each 70, 000 characters x2 =140, 000, also Vietnamese,Cyrillic, Greek,Sinhalese, Sanskrit, etc. BTW, this is the character for cow:牛, horse:馬、--Jondel 02:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • To my understanding, kanji are used as the bases of words. Hiragana and katakana are uses as noun endings, adjective endings, for other suffixes, to show the pronunciation of kanji, for stylistic purposes, for otomotopoeias, for emphasis, for technical terms, and for the transcription of words borrowed from other languages. I do not think we should have an article for every character representing a word, or part of a compound word, or a rootword, but for characters that represent individual sounds that can form a word, as in the English alphabet and with the kana. If this and similar articles were to be kept, only approximately 50 or so kana articles would be created total. Toothpaste 03:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I guess as its gonna be moved to 'No' or whatever. I don't think every character will be necessary as this is just one of the most common and all... zOMG not bold Extremely strong machoman randy savage delete. C'mon, a solid majority of us (I'd estimate between 80 and 95%) just see a ?. Its a dicdef even for those who have the language pack. Useless for an English Encyclopedia. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, see reasoning at い). Pilatus 03:05, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a note from the person who suggested deleting this in the first place: there is some information about some of the kana characters which could be worth having in Wikipedia. For example the origin of the kana ン is disputed. It might belong in Wikipedia if we were to discuss the origin of the character, or if there is to be something other than just "this is a Japanese character, it is pronounced "no" ". However, I'd expect such information to come from a split from katakana or hiragana pages if it came from anywhere. Also, "no" has very important grammatical functions in Japanese grammar. So I think there is a possibility of expansion or split from Japanese grammar of a "no" page. However, since there are already lists of Japanese symbols on the hiragana and katakana pages, I'm very dubious about making a full set of small, unexpandable stub articles about every single Japanese symbol. --DannyWilde 03:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep this please and all other hirigana katakana and kanji characters pilatus is right we are an english wikipedia but we should also too stop the systemic biases here enough is enough Yuckfoo 04:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the discussion? The point is that the characters all already exist on Wiktionary. --DannyWilde 07:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We already have articles on Latin alphabet letters and Cyrillic letters, why not Japanese kana syllabary? In any case, this is more than just a stub. -- Curps 05:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are two articles, hiragana and katakana, and complete entries on Wiktionary. If there is any additional extensive material to be added to the article, let it first be added to hiragana or katakana, then if those pages become too long, then consider breaking them. --DannyWilde 07:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 07:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: since I started the vote for deletion, this article has been artificially bulked with copy-paste edits from other pages, probably in order to avoid being deleted. For example, the comments about "no" coming from the sousho form of characters, etc., apply to ALL of the Japanese kana, not just this one - there is no point in having fifty identical pages, one for each kana, with the same copy-pasted statement. Using this kind of trickery in order to avoid the page being deleted should not be acceptable. --DannyWilde 07:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith. If you'd prefer the history section to be taken out temporarily, this would be fine. The transition of man'yōgana to hiragana is much more complex than what is written now. For example, it's a pretty big jump from the second character to the third in the picture at Image:Nohistory.jpg. I'd rather have a few copy and pasted statements, aided by pictures, than an article lacking completely in history content, which applies to this VFD, but overall, and I already it's already a beginning to be a bit comprehensive. Toothpaste 07:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you are serious about writing in detail about the origins of kana on a per-kana basis, I would suggest an article on "Origin of kana" with section headings for each kana you want to discuss, if you have enough material that it will make hiragana or katakana too big, of course. If there is so much stuff on one kana that you actually need a whole article on it, I'd be surprised. Spreading origins all over the place in fifty different articles doesn't make any sense, since the hiragana and katakana are all very closely related to each other and the history is the same. --DannyWilde 13:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to bed now, as I've been working on these for the past four hours, so you'll know why my reply will be delayed. Toothpaste 08:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's too much to ask that an article be born an adult. The purpose of stub tags is to indicate potential growth. These articles have the same potential as the articles on the letters of the Latin alphabet. The number of symbols, and that the language is foreign, might result in slower growth, so let's give them time. Fg2 08:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I've stated before, just because this Wikipedia is written in the English language, is no reason for articles about Japanese kana to exist, and I feel it is just as justified here as on the Japanese Wikipedia. How are the Roman letter articles different from these? Also, I think saying, "You didn't read anything that was said," is a patronizing tactic way too common in Wikipedian discussion, which also applies to the other side, given a few people that, at first continued to site the article's location at の as a reason to delete even after I had moved it. Toothpaste 15:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


い

edit

This is a mis-placed dictionary article. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wiktionary, which is a dictionary, already has い (and many others). As an encyclopaedia article, this article would have no hope of expansion, and would be under an English title anyway, per our Wikipedia:naming conventions (use English). Uncle G 01:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I like the new No (kana) version -- (☺drini♫|☎) 21:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete . This could start a trend. Do we want to keep the wikipedia server administrators employed (or unhappy with heavy storage issues )with 70,000 or more Chinese characters stored in their databases? While we're all here, could we also start articles for each character of Thai, Arabic, Tamil, Hebrew, Both Simple and Traditional Chinese, each 70, 000 characters x2 =140, 000, also Vietnamese,Cyrillic, Greek,Sinhalese, Sanskrit, etc. BTW, this is the character for cow:牛, horse:馬、 ,yamemashou やめましょう,sayounaraさようなら:佐様奈良--Jondel 02:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I do not believe that "heavy storage issues" are close to being a problem or are likely to be a problem in the future. It seems to me that this is not a good reason for wishing to delete or prohibit certain types of articles. Lupin|talk|popups 02:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. See my reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/の. Toothpaste 02:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge... somewhere. I don't see the reasoning behind deleting letters of languages with lots of letters if we have quite respectable articles on languages with fewer letters. It does need more information if it is to stand as an article in its own right, though. Lupin|talk|popups 02:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That we have articles on the languages is no reason to have articles on the individual words in those languages. That is what a dictionary is for. As I have already pointed out both at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/の and above, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. That's Wiktionary's job. If you think that い needs pictures, or pronunciation guides, or Unicode information, or attached audio files (which will being it up to the level of the other dictionary articles that have these things), then please add them. But turning the encyclopaedia into a dictionary, counter to the official policy, is needless duplication. The dictionary is right there, and will take all of the dictionary content that editors have to offer. Uncle G 03:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are entries for the characters of the Latin alphabet and on some unicode characerts, so there is good reason to believe that a decent article can be written on each individual kana character. Note that I don't hold similar optimism for primary sch**ls. Pilatus 03:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • For good articles on these characters, see the dictionary, which has had lots of such articles since 2003. The dictionary is the place for writing articles about words, and many such articles have already been written. Uncle G 03:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is not a word but a glyph from a syllabary alphabet, and as such should be kept here. The article in its present form isn't a dictionary entry at all but an entry on the character. Pilatus 13:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep this too please my explanation is already at no (kkana) Yuckfoo 04:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We already have articles on Latin alphabet letters and Cyrillic letters, why not Japanese kana syllabary? There are only a few dozen kana, by the way, so comparing this to adding thousands of Chinese character articles is off the mark. -- Curps 05:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. See A or B. JPD 10:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Pilatus. Please try to avoid bias against non-English languages. --Last Malthusian 13:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a dictionary definition, but it doesn't belong in an English-language, Roman script encyclopedia. I'm not even excited about article like å, and keep in mind that I'm saying this as native Swede. / Peter Isotalo 14:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia may suffer from systemic bias, but it's also en.wikipedia. Dict def articles about non-Roman symbols are not encyclopaedic. Proto t c 15:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

あ

edit

As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/い. Uncle G 01:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep I like the new No (kana) entry -- (☺drini♫|☎) 21:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Continued, merged

edit
  • Comment. Dictionaries are for the physical written, spoken, and electronic symbols, how those symbols fit into larger physical expressions such as individual sentences, and the historical changes of the physical symbols. Encyclopedias explain the ideas those symbols refer to, and refer back to physical symbol history only when needed for disambiguation purposes. This goes doubly for individual letters. You wouldn't put an audio pronunciation on the wikipedia の page, any more than you would put 'his-t(&-)rE &v "ar-&-'zO-n& on the History of Arizona page. --Interiot 16:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I wouldn't naturally think to look for a letter of a foreign alphabet in an English language dictionary --TimPope 17:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • (moved above so comments aren't doubled) Why not? You find satsuma and seppuku and yakitori in an English dictionary. They're in an English dictionary because the definition is in English, not because the subject itself is english. --Interiot
      • Those are all words, these articles are about characters. I see a distinction. --TimPope 17:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • And, as stated above, letters are even more low-level representations than individual prefixes, words, or phrases. You find pronunciation of words and a long list of historical spellings in dictionaries, but not in encyclopedias. That's because dictionaries describe how you write a word down, how you pronounce the word, how you attach it to other words. Encyclopedias describe the concept, history, and larger context that pops into your head when someone says/writes/types that word to you. Individual letters having nothing to do with abstract ideas in your head. There's clear precedent that pronunciation belongs in a dictionary, so it follows that how a letter or word is expressed in Unicode or Braille also belongs in a dictionary, because these are just different mechanisms for communicating between two people, but they don't have any impact on the higher-level thoughts a person has once the idea is communicated to them. Note that kanji (and chinese characters generally) blur the line between letters and words, and chinese characters clearly belong in a dictionary. --Interiot 17:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have made the information expressing how to pronounce it more similar to that of a. The only difference now is that Usage does not have its own section. Should I give it one? Toothpaste 18:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If given its own section, the Grammar section will be merged into Usage. This is similar to how "a" as an article is mentioned under the Usage section of a. I'm just using Latin alphabet articles as models. Toothpaste 18:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are also articles on pentagram, and ampersand. Some opponents seem to confuse syllabary with ideograms. Kana is syllabry, so its characters are letters. -Hapsiainen 18:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ahh. Ideograms clearly are dictionaries (eg. see character dictionaries). As for the difference between pentagrams and syllabary... You can stick a pentagram next to an octagon next to a circle, and it doesn't mean anything syntactically. Whereas, with syllabries and letters, their purpose is to be part of the language hierarchy (eg. letters form words, words form phrases, phrases form sentences, sentences form paragraphs, paragraphs form encyclopedia entries (or something)). Letters are on the opposite end of the language hierarchy from where encyclopedias sit. --Interiot 18:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I used pentagram and ampersand as examples of signs that have their own articles. I didn't say that pentagram is a letter or an ideogram. -Hapsiainen 18:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • According to the standard I put forth in the couple of comments above, language-oriented graphemes should be placed only in a dictionary (contrary to current precedent), but non-language-oriented pictograms (such as a pentagram) should be placed only in an encyclopedia. So those were arguments for that position. Both Encarta and Merriam-Webster include entries for individual roman letters, so I suppose a safe way to rule on this would be to put the same/similar content on both wikipedia and wiktionary. But that's a bit of a weird solution, especially if we can find a standard that indicates which articles should go where. --Interiot 18:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • As does Britannica. If this gets deleted, do you agree that a should be VFD'd? Toothpaste 19:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm proposing that if an organization produces both an encyclopedia and a dictionary, and makes them equally available (especially for free), it should not have duplicate entries for every single grapheme. So, yes, I'm suggesting the two articles should be merged. --Interiot 19:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not a dictionary definition, and that pretty much says it all. -- grm_wnr Esc 19:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...so... The wiktionary entries should be VfDed? --Interiot 20:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • You can try, but I guess Wiktionary wouldn't take too kindly to proposing their article for deletion on Wikipedia :P. If by "VfD" you mean wikt:Wiktionary:Requests for deletion, I guess a dictionary entry could be written under that topic as well, so no. I hope you're not implying that wikt:encyclopedia should be deleted just because we have Encyclopedia. -- grm_wnr Esc 20:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think most people can understand the difference between Wikipedia and Wiktionary. However, I don't understand how there's a difference between existing content for the grapheme articles (Braille, Unicode, audio pronunciation, part of speech usage, stroke order, etc). It seems to be the same on both sides. --Interiot 21:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am of the opinion that this is material that is perfectly appropriate for an encyclopedia, and maybe less appropriate for a dictionary entry. However, whether they think it is appropriate there is something they have to decide by themselves, and I'm saying that I think this is appropriate here in this discussion. There is no rule that content must not be duplicated on Wiktionary and Wikipedia, as long as both communities want it. -- grm_wnr Esc 21:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • So, the suggestion then is that users should click on the interwiki link, and read through both articles at the same time, to make sure they get the full/best information? Or that one of us personally ferry information back and forth to create two copies of the best information? --Interiot 21:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as pre the precedent of the Latin and Cyrillic alphabets. --Carnildo 21:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep some (not necessarily all) characters are notable --madewokherd 22:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, at least until we delete Z. Seems a reasonable start. —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 00:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Keep keep keep. Not only per precedent, but there's some damned interesting stuff in here. Are we supposed to go to Wiktionary to find out how the stroke order evolved? --Golbez 04:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep of course. The history of these ideograph and ideograph components is certainly encyclopedic, as is the practice of writing them and any notes on usage and significance (in the same manner as we have "grade A" or the quote "I am the alpha and omega"). Demi T/C 04:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A small correction: Japanese kana aren't ideographs. Anyway, I completely agree with your point. I hope something everyone will agree with is that the history of kana does belong in Wikipedia. But, before deciding whether to keep the article on that basis, please take a look at the two excellent existing articles, hiragana, and katakana. If there is a lot of information to include, it is possible that each individual character might need to have a history page, giving more details, but as I suggested above I think it would be better to integrate the information into one focused page if at all possible. --DannyWilde 05:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rename in English, otherwise the articles are more or less useless. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, The issue is that, I strongly believe it's a problem if the standards say that information should be completely duplicated in both places. At this point, there's precedent on both Wikipedia and Wiktionary (1), (2) to keep all the information discussed so far on either side. When AfD/RfDs come up, the easy thing to do is vote Keep, and act like a problem doesn't exist. So eventually this information will get copied to both sides, while all along, people aren't required to give reasoned arguments for or against the idea that it should be copied verbatim in both places. I'm a programmer, and one of the first things that was pounded into my head over and over, was that you don't keep information in multiple places unless there's a really really good reason, because it always causes more problems than you think it will, keeping them synchronized or coordinated wastes a lot of human time, and usually there's a simple technical or procedural fix for it. This discussion is made more important because we really are talking about duplicating hundreds and thousands of characters.         Most dictionaries and encyclopedias have characters in them. So people will come to either place looking for information. We're an electronic wiki, we're one community, not two, and we can do better. The solution is to put a redirect or interwiki link on the other side, and only store information on one side. And there is precedent for doing that too. --Interiot 14:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge While there exists the potential to make a significant article for each of these, none of these has enough to justify a separate encyclopedia article at the moment. Caerwine 23:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Japanese alphabet? Keep, we have A, A (Cyrillic), Alpha (letter) and Æ, so why shouldn't we have articles on Kana, given that they are now at English titles? Alphax τεχ 13:37, 6 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 08:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo 9 (webcomic)

edit

Non notable webcomic which can be found here, along with previously deleted webcomic Gemini Bright. Its alexa rank is at 5 million, although a spike did send it up to 1 million at one point. A google search shows up nothing which makes this website more notable than any other out there. Just because a website is a webcomic, does not make it inherently notable, let's delete this. - Hahnchen 01:26, 29 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 Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 00:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


List of Guantanamo Bay detainees

edit

A list of nn people with a bunch of red links just begging to be created. POV anti-Americanism, WP:POINT created because individual people whose articles already created have been listed for AfD. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - I'm not sure, but isn't this stuff better in commons? Anyways, get rid of all redlinks and NPOV the thing. And when I say get rid, I don't mean make an article. - Hahnchen 01:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sans broken links and NPOV. Gazpacho
  • Keep they might not all merit articles, but a fair number do. Not pov in concept at all. Far more important than many articles about U.S. news events that have a similar level of detail. It only reflects badly on America because Guantanamo Bay reflects badly on America - as many of America's traditional supporters agree, not to mention plenty of Americans. CalJW 02:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Since when has it been anti-American to talk about those people that Americans have wrongfully incarcerated? Shall we delete Japanese internment in the United States too? FCYTravis 02:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Worthwhile list. Crypticfirefly 02:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep An important list. Even if the items in a list are not that notable the list can be. --Apyule 02:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep arg... why are we trying to fracture a fractured debate even more? --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 03:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The list itself is important, the people in are not so they red links should be removed (if anybody wants to expand on individual detainees they can do that within the article as none warrant their own).
  • Keep The existence of the prison at Gitmo is significant, and the list of names is also significant, although individually they do not merit their own articles. There are many such articles on wiki; see, e.g., Category:Lists of people who were executed. Brandon39 03:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and please zoe do not try to delete something to make a point that is a waste of our limited resources so please do not do it again Yuckfoo 04:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is yet another case, where a list is a good place to re-direct/merge minor articles to, instead of going through AFD for each one. No AFDs were needed to deal with this problem. The appropriate thing, was to discuss it centrally on the list's talk page, and merge/re-direct minor articles to the list. --rob 05:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but most of the people aren't notable enough for their own article. The ones that aren't should be redirected and the current red links should be removed. -- Kjkolb 05:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The Anti-Americanism can be solved by editing the top paragraphs, the red links by making the names non-linking. Removing the names altogether as now has been done, was a bad step, which I will be reverting. - Andre Engels 11:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - This is vitally important information concerning a significant and continuing political event. The article needs serious improvment, and accurate sources need to be cited the for content of the first two sections and the names on the list. I see no anti-Americanism in the article as it stands, and it should be kept and improved, redlinks or not. And when was the existence of numerous redlinks a reason for deletion? Well done to Andre Engels for restoring the full list. --Cactus.man>Reply 14:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, delink all the redlinks. Most of the names that do have links are so stubby they should be redirects to this list, anyway. Maybe someone could look into that. Proto t c 15:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is that what you see? I see a few, which, at this point, remain small stubs. I see many that are several K in length, and I think almost all the remaining articles contain both noteworthy, verifiable facts and link to sources where those facts can be verified, or expanded.
  • I must be missing something. Could you please explain how redirecting an article back to the list improve the wikipedia? -- Geo Swan 17:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete the sourcing is suspect. needs clean up and sources. Joaquin Murietta 04:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can you offer those name(s) of the entries whose sourcing you find "suspect"? Since I worked on trying to make sure there was at least one source for each entry I would be happy to set your mind at ease. -- Geo Swan 23:40, 6 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. – Rich Farmbrough 16:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outsider (comic)

edit

A webcomic which can be found here, on a website a website with an Alexa rank of over 450,000. If a page were made about well-of-souls.com, where the comic is hosted, it would most probably be deleted. Yet because this is a minor webcomic hosted on that site, it deserves its own article! Such is the failing of WP:COMIC. I do not want to endorse WP:COMIC in any sort of way, but this fails even the massively lax inclusion criteria. - Hahnchen 01:42, 29 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 08:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Slumming

edit

Nn neologism. --Blackcap | talk 02:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nom removed. I came across this when all it said was about it being a phrase in Good Will Hunting, apparently not a neologism, keep. --Blackcap | talk 04:51, 29 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, withdrawn by nominator Pilatus 22:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice Achieri

edit

Delete - This guy claimed to be pope. So what? No claims of a significant number (or any) followers. Anybody can claim to be pope, king, god, or whatever. By itself that means nothing. Also, happening to have the same name as another person (even if that person is notable) isn't signficant either. rob 02:09, 29 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 delete. --Phroziac(talk)  00:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Virtz

edit

Hoax/Personal essay--Shanel 02:13, 29 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 delete. --Phroziac(talk)  00:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jubin Jacob

edit

non-notable person. Less than 1,000 Google hits, even assuming they are all the same person, which I doubt Johntex\talk 02:21, 29 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-Default to keep 11 keep/10 delete Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 00:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Brown school

edit

non notable Johntex\talk 02:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote disregarded due to closing admin due to fact that vote uses the "just because it's a school" argument, just because is not a general criteria to neither delete nor to keep. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 00:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The school was founded in 1893, and I suspect it has some history and alumni worth mentioning, if it was given some time. --rob 04:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if it can be expanded to include historical relevance or notability. Otherwise, delete. Compare this Brown school to The Brown School here in Louisville, Kentucky. Some relevance is included in the latter. >: Roby Wayne Talk • Hist 04:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Since 1893" indicates a long history with lots of details to be found. A very good school stub so far, and will be improved over time. However, I would encourage anyone feeling bold to move it to a more specific name as soon as one is decided. Unfocused 04:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 20+ schools are added a day. Nominating one now and again is pointless and mass deletion attempts are heavily defeated. Please don't nominate any more schools. CalJW 08:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - So nobody should nom a school for deletion just because nominating 1 is "pointless" in your view and mass noms are frowned upon? That is ridiculous reasoning. Unless there is a policy that all schools are notable, noms like this are going to happen and should happen until there is a standard set for notabilty of schools. Just because you don't agree isn't reason enough for someone who believes schools are not notable to stop nominating them.--Isotope23 18:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • But the facts that it achieves nothing and creates bad feeling are. CalJW 20:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Still, there is no policy to prevent a nom for deletion. I understand where you are coming from CalJW but just because it ruffles a few feathers is no reason to abstain from a nom for AfD. I also disagree with your contention that it achieves nothing: it keeps the issue of school notability alive on the AfD pages. Hopefully this will prompt a discussion where a consensus can be reached pertaining to school notability. Otherwise we will be having this conversation over and over...--Isotope23 20:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • We also have 100+ articles written on non-notable people and websites every day. The fact they're written doesn't have any bearing on their keepability. - Mgm|(talk) 09:05, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many people believe all schools have notable. We have the upper hand and have established a de facto policy. Schools shouldn't be nominated just as countries shouldn't be nominated. On the other hand almost no-one believes all people are notable and many biographical articles are deleted every day. CalJW 20:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • How many schools have to survive the AfD process before we can declare that a concensus exists "not to delete school articles" simply because they are about schools? What percentage of nominated school articles must survive the AfD process before we can declare such a concensus? How many poorly-written articles have to be fixed through the AfD process before we can declare a concensus that "it is better to just to fix a poorly written school article rather than immediately send it over to AfD"? How many months of schools surviving the AfD process are needed before we can declare a concensus that "it is better to work together to build the quality of school articles instead of gaming to system in a vain hope to get even one school article deleted"? While these are partly rhetorical questions, I think that those that nominated and vote to delete school articles on the basis that either A) "They are schools and non-notable" and/or B)"This school article is poorly written", should consider answering the questions. How long must the charade of AfD rules-gaming continue?--Nicodemus75 08:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vote disregarded due to closing admin due to fact that vote uses the "just because it's a school" argument, just because is not a general criteria to neither delete nor to keep. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 00:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vote disregarded due to closing admin due to fact that vote uses the "just because it's a school" argument, just because is not a general criteria to neither delete nor to keep. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 00:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no particular indication of notability. DES (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets my second criteria for keeping a school - open since (well) before WWII. -- BD2412 talk 17:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. These sort of time wasting exercises can be avoided by either tacking on a {{school-stub}} or merging the article somewhere until it can be expanded. There is demonstrable evidence that school articles are not deleted when nominated here, so it is not unreasonable to ask that people stop nominating these and find something more productive to do with their time. My personal reasons for keeping, in addition to the fact that this school is over 112 years old, are posted at Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Silensor 19:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Another un-notable school. Dudtz 9/29/05 6:32 PM ESY

Vote disregarded due to closing admin due to fact that vote uses the "just because it's a school" argument, just because is not a general criteria to neither delete nor to keep. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 00:24, 7 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.

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 attack page --Doc (?) 16:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The human lobster

edit

Fails WP:MUSIC, does not assert notability, in fact, the opposite. --Blackcap | talk

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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 12:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bad spelling and grammar

edit

There are only 13 Google hits for "bad spelling and grammar" tim bowen, most of them Myspace pages and the like. (The title is an accurate description of this article, by the way.) sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 02:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This AfD page blanked by 68.88.177.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 04:03, 29 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. Robert 22:21, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scandal Sheet!

edit

A webcomic hosted on keenspace, and can be found here. The Alexa report shows no mention of Scandal Sheet on its report for keenspace, and its forums is a ghosttown. A google search shows up nothing which would lift this website above all the other more popular websites out there. A webcomic is no more notable than any other website, and just because it has surpassed one hundred strips does not make it notable, no matter what WP:COMIC says. - Hahnchen 03:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep as a patently invalid nomination. FCYTravis 05:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Laverne & Shirley

edit

No educational value. Not everyone in the whole wide world is familiar to it.205.188.116.11 03:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep as invalid nom. FCYTravis 05:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Taxi (TV series)

edit

This article is too stupid to be an encyclopedia article. Educational rating of ZERO. Only Americans are familiar to that show205.188.116.8 03:20, 29 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.

{{subst:void|1=This template must be substituted. Replace {{afd2 with {{subst:afd2.}}

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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. — JIP | Talk 12:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about mothers

edit

Seems like this list is potentially unmaintainable. Some people might treat this like "List of songs about being a motherfucker", "List of songs with the use of the word 'mother'" and other possible wording.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 Christopher Walken. Robert 23:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Walken in 2008 Campaign

edit

This article is a hoax, as documented on wiki's article on Christopher Walken. Brandon39 03:28, 29 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 12:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Human rights abuses by Anhui police

edit

Once all the inaccuracies and POV statements are removed, this article has literally nothing (0 words) left:
Human rights frequently are abused by police of Anhui province of China. Says who? And what exactly is so special about the situation in the province of Anhui as opposed to the rest of China that merits this article? This has to be seen in the context that Anhui still is seen as a part of China which is less developed than the entire East of China excluding Manchuria. Patently false. Manchuria is far being from the poorest region of eastern China. Henan, Jiangxi, Shanxi, and Anhui all have GDP per capita lower than Manchuria.
It is administered by the provincial Public Security Bureau, whose director is Cui Yadong. Provinces in China are administered by Party Committees and the Provincial People's Governments. Public Security Bureaus are subordinate entities. This statement is laughably false.
In 1995 police in Anhui province launched a campaign to hit and eradicate five religious groups. Source? Which five?
Also, the first external link adds nothing to the topic of human rights abuses in Anhui, and the second link isn't even about Anhui at all. ran (talk) 03:40, 29 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 (12 delete, 5 keep). Robert 22:26, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

East campus

edit

A non-notable dorm at MIT.-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 03:47, 29 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 Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Slugfest

edit

Non-notable floor of a MIT dorm.-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 03:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If this goes don't forget Fourth East, a redirect page. CambridgeBayWeather 03:59, 29 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. Robert 00:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of foreshadowed media titles

edit

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information --NeilN 04:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Neither the nominator nor anyone else wants this article deleted. (A modicum of research shows that the Wikipedia:criteria for inclusion of biographies would have been satisfied in any event.) Uncle G 06:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lilian Keil

edit

I'm actually voting to keep; I jumped the gun on this one, and googled for "Lillian Kell" rather than "Lilian Keil". I'm leaving this on the list only because of the notice not to delete the afd notice until the matter has been resolved. Brandon39 03:58, 29 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. --Phroziac(talk)  00:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Casual Competition

edit

Orignal research? Nonsense? Call it what you want... NeilN 04:22, 29 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 Woohookitty 10:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Students' Union Offices

edit

Useless article. Delete --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 04:27, 29 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. --Phroziac(talk)  00:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of gross-out songs

edit

Listcruft NeilN 04:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My sarcasm wasn't very well written ;-). I agree with Dottore So! >: Roby Wayne Talk • Hist 17:01, 29 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. Additionally, this was already on BJAODN last time i looked. --Phroziac(talk)  00:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How to make a PBJ

edit

Don't know if this is a joke (the text gets pretty sarcastic), or just a confused new user. Either way, there has to be something to do with this. Delete. Tzaquiel 04:34, 29 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 as on attack page about Jorn Barger. - Mgm|(talk) 09:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jornbarger

edit

Delete. Nonsense. --Salleman 04:37, 29 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 merge and redirect to Nobel Prize. – Rich Farmbrough 17:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why Isn't There a Nobel Prize in Mathematics

edit

Badly-named OR. DS 05:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, I go for a merge. Who is going to type the whole thing in the encyclopaedia anyway ? Tintin 01:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly an original research. Google comes up with a lot of links starting with this Tintin 23:31, 29 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 because the page had been edited so that the reason for deletion did no longer apply. - Andre Engels 11:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Orchids of Western Australia

edit

This article is written in such a way that it's nothing more than linkspam. I've got no problem with the subject material, but it needs to be written in a much more encyclopeadic fashion. I've removed the URL to defeat the linkspamming. jmd 05:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sanket Alekar

edit

Not sure if this ought to be speedy or not. Seems like nn-bio and or patent nonsense. jmd 05:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Alekar or delete them both as nn and promoting. Seems nn here in the States, perhaps a notable tome in India? >: Roby Wayne Talk • Hist 06:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article may sound promoting, but I believe it is a good entry. I have read the book in the original language, and it is quite funny, to be honest. I suggest it should be redirected, not merged, as some people will want to search for their favorite character on Wikipedia. Or, this page could be translated to Marathi, the language of the book. Also, Wikipedia is not important only to Americans, is it? HistThe Big Guy
  • Delete Well, I live in Maharashtra, and I've never heard of this book or author. Not that I read Marathi novels, but a google search only points to only one site [5], which suggests that this is probably a prank or so. Certainally non notable, unless user:The Big Guy can give us an ISBN number, and prove otherwise. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:37, 29 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 12:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tooheys New

edit

NN. Local only. Jwissick(t)(c) 05:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

THat would require a merge and redirect instead of a delete. - Mgm|(talk) 09:19, 29 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. --Phroziac(talk)  00:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kiyotei

edit

Delete as promotional advertising. Еdit 05:41, 29 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. --Phroziac(talk)  00:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

4diskclean gold

edit

Advertising spam, also 4diskclean -- Ketil Trout 06:19, 29 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. --Phroziac(talk)  00:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

4diskclean

edit

Advertising spam, also 4diskclean gold -- Ketil Trout 06:21, 29 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. Robert 00:03, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CJDJ

edit

Not notable. Jwissick(t)(c) 06:29, 29 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. --Phroziac(talk)  00:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Red White and Brainwashed

edit

One track from some CD. Doesn't quite fit the Speedy criteria, so I better ask ;-) Lars T. 08:35, 29 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 · Katefan0(scribble) 04:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Dodd

edit

Hoax. (Compare Special:Whatlinkshere/Charlie_Dodd and also Tiffin Boys' School. The dates don't match (the school opened in 1880), and the image cries hoax, too.) Delete unless verified. Lupo 09:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete-I have put in correct dates corresponding to when he lived. Somebody had been lying, he never went to Tiffin school but he was minister on the council of leicester. I can't verify if he was minister of transport but he was on the council. P.s He did not die from liver failure, that is somebodies idea of a "joke". Grabbo

  • Comment I cannot confirm Mr.Dodd's attendance at any particular School, nor Tiffin Boys' Schoool. However, having a flatmate that Studied in Leicester, who worked part-time in the House of Records, I can confirm that Mr.Dodd is indeed mentioned as being on the council for at least 2 terms, I am planning a trip to Leicester soon, and shall post my findings on his status as Minister for Transport. Dupe
  • Comment reverted vandalism on this vote. -- Sliggy 17:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can find no reference to this person as described in the (revised) article, and there is suspiciously little detail about the "drastic railway reforms" introduced by Mr. Dodd. Sliggy 18:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No Google hits on "Charlie Dodd" + "Minister of Transport". - Andre Engels 08:16, 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. — JIP | Talk 12:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Ong

edit

Probable fabrication. I don't think there was any person named "Ong Tzu Sun" who changed his name to "Alex Ong". Some google hits on "Alex Ong" and "Alexander Ong" (they are fairly common names) but nothing on "Ong Tzu Sun". Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I take care to inform you that google is not the source of all mankind and will consistently fail to provide you with all the right answers. Also, Lupo has been on my case for ages making his opinion incredulous.

Above comment was posted on 12:44, September 29, 2005 (UTC) by 213.18.248.17 (talk · contribs). Lupo 12:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Do British school kids have nothing better to do than to fool around here? Remember Ong, Nebraska? Lupo 12:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to remind user:lupo that you cannot change user's pages at a whim. the other false "Bude" is a nickname by some prankster i imagine; my name is my real second name. I hope this witch hunt will end. Bjude

Cut the crap and get back to learning. Lupo 12:58, 29 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 under A7 --Doc (?) 12:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Willems

edit

Vanity article by a non-notable amateur musician The Land 10:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, there is another page whith the same content JanW. That was an error due to unfamiliarity whith Wikipedia. The other page can be deleted. This one (Jan Willems) can not please.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 under A7 --Doc (?) 12:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

JanW

edit

As Jan Willems; non-notable vanity page from an amateur musician The Land 10:42, 29 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. --Phroziac(talk)  00:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fyx

edit

Looks like fancruft or something, but I have no idea of what. Maybe some private joke? - Andre Engels 10:47, 29 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. Robert 00:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Davis (footballer)

edit

Player on the Sydney Swans list. Recreate the article when/if he actually plays a game. JPD 10:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Playing a game I find a rather non-stringent criterium still. One season in the base squad might cut it. - Andre Engels 12:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's worthwhile to cover the entire squads of major clubs, and he is at a leading club in Australias main sport, which has something like the 6th highest average attendance of any league in the world. CalJW 20:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based upon the rationale provided by CalJW. Hall Monitor 23:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. His team just won the AFL Grand Final, one of Australia's largest sporting events, so I believe his entry is valid. Cnwb 00:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm fine with creating articles on players - even those who have played very few games. But this guy hasn't even played one. It's vanity if I ever saw it. Ambi 05:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain. In principle, I don't like to vote to delete people, but I think that if we do -- and we do -- a criterion for sportspeople that they should have played one game for a professional club is not wholly unreasonable. This guy would be the absolute borderline, I think, if you took that view. Grace Note 05:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am have been a Swans fan and passionate supporter of Australian football since a young age, and I still nominated this article for deletion. I don't think the importance of the sport or the team are relevant here. If he had played in the Grand Final, or even one game in the season, I would be more than happy to keep it, but as it is there's not much to go in this article, and no guarantee that there ever will be. JPD 08:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per JPD, who seems the only knowledgeble one about the article at the moment. Proto t c 10:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As someone who has been creating these stubs, I am actually not sure...I know Matthew Davis has played a few games, but as a relatively new fan I think I will keep him. I mean if you're going to delete Matty Davis why not go ahead and delete Stevie Doyle as well? J L C Leung 17:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Stephen Doyle has played 40 senior games for the Swans, Matthew Davis has played 0. That's the difference from my point of view. Do we create these stubs for every player who has ever been on a team's list for 1 or 2 years? JPD 14:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Waitaminute...I thought he played at LEAST one. Maybe I could be wrong...but when I created all those stubs I looked at the Swannies' senior player page to start it all. So I really was quite blind to who has played a game at the AFL level or not...and besides, I did all those stubs at 4:30 in the morning two days after the qualifying final vs. West Coast. I'm sorta bound to make a mistake or two...! --J L C Leung 09:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The individual players' pages at the moment list all the games played by that player in the 2005 season. Nothing is listed for M Davis. He didn't play last year either. The only reason I nominated this article for deletion is because it seemed it must have been a mistake. JPD 10:08, 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. Rx StrangeLove 14:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Desempacotamento

edit

The assertion that "Desempacotamento belongs to the top [pub quiz] teams in The Netherlands" notwithstanding, this does not appear to be notable.--Ashenai 11:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Playing pubquiz is a very serious business in Holland and is fast becoming an inseparable part of the Dutch identity. Considering the growing importance of the pubquiz in Holland it is in fact notable to be a top quiz team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.171.208.225 (talk • contribs) , at 16:50, 2005 September 29. First edit.

Google seems oblivious to any mention of this team other than their own website (though not knowing Dutch, it's difficult to tell). --Ashenai 11:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, this is similar to online gaming clans, who are also regularly deleted. Playing pub quizes may be serious for the members of this team, but: "Playing pubquiz is a very serious business in Holland and is fast becoming an inseparable part of the Dutch identity." is seriously overstated. I am from the Netherlands and study in Utrecht and haven't come across any pub quiz players in the 5 years I've been studying here. If this was as serious as claimed, I would've at least seen more announcements and come across fellow students and PhDs playing which I have not. - Mgm|(talk) 08:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, MgM's remark about not having come across players in the last 5 years in Utrecht is irrelevant. I've lived in Utrecht for 9 years and have not met any Mah-Jong players in that period. Despite that, I would welcome a Wikipedia-page about the best Mah-Jong players in Holland. Besides, MgM uses his own rather limited empirical experience as argument, which doesn't do much to help his case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.171.208.225 (talk • contribs) , at 17:25, 2005 October 10. Second edit.
  • Delete per Mgm's magical analysis. -- BD2412 talk 14:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:V, WP:N. encephalon 10:47, 11 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. Rx StrangeLove 15:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nonversation

edit

neologism Ashenai 11:33, 29 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 16:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Naruto Manga Returns

edit
  • Delete. I'm a fan of this manga (that's how I found this page) but I don't think this specific forum is close to passing any reasonable test of notability. -AceMyth 11:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm uncertain about that. It gets 970 Google hits, most of which seem to be relevant. I haven't checked their "14,000 members" claim, but if true, I'd think we should err on the side of keeping. I abstain, for now. --Ashenai 11:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I just googled it myself and found TONS of spam search results. Little to no "I've just been to Naruto manga returns, and..." or "Check Naruto Manga Returns, I think you can get what you're looking for there", or whatever, but lots of "porn tennis Natalie Portman Naruto Manga Returns free DVDs". Fishy, if I may say so. --AceMyth 12:36, 29 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 16:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SLUM

edit

Personal vanity plus advertising. Also unencyclopaedic. Ben W Bell 11:42, 29 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. Robert 00:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fast Forward Scripts

edit

There's already a Fast Forward article. (Tagged for clean-up. I've cleaned up the introductory paragraphs, but there's a long, rambling, poorly written list of various sketches still there.) No need for a Fast Forward Scripts entry which would probably be a breach of copyright anyway. Delete CLW 11:51, 29 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 Fast Forward. – ABCD✉ 04:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fast Forward Series One

edit

There's already a Fast Forward article. (Tagged for clean-up. I've cleaned up the introductory paragraphs, but there's a long, rambling, poorly written list of various sketches still there.) No need for a Fast Forward Series One entry which is mostly another more-of-the-same non-encyclopedic rambling list of various sketches. Delete CLW 11:55, 29 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 · Katefan0(scribble) 04:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Avivasoft

edit

Delete. CSD'd as an ad, but not speediable that way. Blatant advertisement for non-notable software company. 18 hits for avivasoft, but take this Google test with a grain of salt as the company is from Hong Kong. android79 12:28, 29 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 Nomination Withdrawn. android79 01:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Caleb Ralph

edit

No vote. Wasn't sure if this was an A7 speedy so I brought it here. I know nothing about rugby, so I can't tell if this article asserts notability or even if it's a flat-out hoax. android79 12:29, 29 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 tag for cleanup. --Phroziac(talk)  00:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam Petroleum Institute

edit

Delete. CSD'd as an ad, but not speediable that way. Blatant advertisement. Had contact info before I removed it from the article. 98 Google hits for "vietnam petroleum institute". android79 12:31, 29 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. Ang Mo Kio Avenue 1, Ang Mo Kio Avenue 2, and Ang Mo Kio Avenue 5 were deleted by User:JIP before this closure; I deleted Ang Mo Kio Avenue 10. Robert 22:35, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ang Mo Kio Avenues 1, 2, 5 and 10

edit

This is a collective AfD for Ang Mo Kio Avenue 1, Ang Mo Kio Avenue 2, Ang Mo Kio Avenue 5 and Ang Mo Kio Avenue 10. Ang Mo Kio Avenue 6 was nominated for deletion a few days ago; its AfD page is here.

All four roads are passing through the housing estate of Ang Mo Kio New Town, which has already a section on transportation where these roads are mentioned and put into context. As they have no cultural or historic significance and there is no point in having separate entries on every single one of them the lot ought to be deleted. Pilatus 12:37, 29 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 16:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rambutans for Ang Mo Kio?

edit

This is a fairly incoherent essay that discusses the etymology of Ang Mo Kio, a new town development in Singapore. It's nowhere near an encyclopedic format, not sure what can be salvaged from here. Pilatus 12:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was 'SPEEDY DELETE by user:Android79 as "Hoax vandalism". Thryduulf 16:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Roberts

edit

Self-admitted hoax. Delete, including the image. Lupo 12:43, 29 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. --Phroziac(talk)  00:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aeolipilanthropy

edit

This is a neologism and possibly nonsense as well. The only Google hit for Aeolipilanthropy is a Wikipedia mirror site. Thryduulf 12:49, 29 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. --Phroziac(talk)  00:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Magatama (disambiguation)

edit

It lists only two elements, one of which has been voted for deletion and is unlikely to return Loona 11:18, 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. This is by a narrow margin, as contrary to obvious expectations, the anonymous IP who added the keep vote does have other contributions. But I personally feel this is a very non-notable neologism. — JIP | Talk 16:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dopetacular

edit

Neologism / Dic. def.

I have heard this word several times in my area. I agree with Mr. Lewis's post. I do not feel it should be deleted.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 16:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Silly Revolution

edit
  • Delete. Non-notable nonsense. Appears to be related to deleted article Pharsh. android79 13:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Never before have I seen so much nonsense thrown up in just one article here. We should get rid of this idiocy as soon as possible --SoothingR 13:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but not speedy. This is a non-notable phenomenon probably dreamed up by some kid in junior high with way too much free time. But similarly "silly" memes _have_ achieved notable status. This one hasn't, but that's only made clear after a Google search. --Ashenai 13:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The article itself calls this so-called "silly revolution" - and I quote - the most pointless example of social activism since the pro-Star Trek demonstrations. End of quote. Why even add an entry in an encyclopedia if it's entirely pointless? --SoothingR 13:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • AYBABTU is entirely pointless, and yet we have a sizeable article on it. We want to include stuff that's notable, not necesarily stuff that has a point. The subject of this article is neither, of course, but that's a different issue. :) --Ashenai 13:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Silly, but true: Article re Pharsh Militia and the "Silly Revolution" in The Jerusalem Post, Israel's largest English-language daily newspaper. --DardaDos 13:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • A single mention in a human interest piece in a newspaper does not make something notable. Besides that, the Wikipedia article is still absolute nonsense. android79 13:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment: First of all, Nonsense it is not, beacause it states true facts (as silly as they may be), and secondly, while I agree that the article linked cannot be considered an epitome of journalistic endeavours, the many other, more in-depth articles (including Television, Radio, Printed and Electronnic Media) that could be presented are all in Hebrew, and as such will probably not be accorded the significance due to them.DardaDos 13:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting! This only highlights the shortcomings of the article, though; it says nothing at all about Jerusalem, Pharsh, and gives no names at all. If the article is cleaned up, actual encyclopedic facts are included, and notabilitiy is asserted, I could easily see changing my vote. Please note, though, that while Wikipedia articles can be about very silly topics, they should never themselves be silly. --Ashenai 13:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; regardless of merit/lack of merit of article itself, the underlying phenomenon is insufficiently notable. --MCB 17:42, 29 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. Rx StrangeLove 15:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Christos Karaolis

edit

Not notable. Also, the subject of the page wants it deleted. 163.1.239.184 13:32, 29 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. Robert 16:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tim poland

edit

This appears to be a garage band. The article fails to assert notability, and a Google search yields largely unrelated results. Ashenai 13:55, 29 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 Move to Cisco Global Exploiter. Rx StrangeLove 18:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cisco Global Explorer

edit

This information is unverifiable, a web search reveals almost nothing.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 Ahoerstemeier --Doc (?) 16:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Target identification

edit

Nonsense page The Land 14:04, 29 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 16:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Harumph

edit

Delete, dicdef of an interjection with no actual meaning (making it IMO not even suitable for a transwiki to Wiktionary Angr/tɔk tə mi 14:09, 29 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 17:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GalaxyX

edit

I was as big a TNG fan as anyone, but I still say that a page of speculations on the detailed technical specs of a class of starship that only appeared once, in an alternate future, is cruft. DS 14:08, 29 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 User:R. fiend (and quite rightly) --Doc (?) 16:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Technical University of Ilmenau

edit

Content free speedy candidate The Land 14:13, 29 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 : turned into redirect to Light. Hext time be bold. mikka (t) 18:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vislble light

edit

Virtually no content. That which there is should be in Light The Land 14:15, 29 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. Robert 00:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dane Stern

edit

Hoax page; subject of the article does not exist. Google gives 346 hits [11], but "Dane Stern" cricket gives only two, neither relevant. Loganberry (Talk) 14:15, 29 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. Robert 00:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Jacob Samuels

edit

Hoax page; subject of the article does not exist. Google gives 31 hits [12], all from Wikipedia or its mirrors, while "Nathan Jacob Samuels" cricket gives the same. Loganberry (Talk) 14:15, 29 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 to delete the article.

Utpal

edit

Common Indian first name, but the article is poor and I don't believe that we try to catalogue information about name. I'm only a weak delete on this one. — brighterorange (talk) 14:45, 29 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 08:31, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Freak Power Network

edit

Vanity page. Only one google hit. All external links are to "coming soon" sites. Most "Rocky the Dog" google hits are from Microsoft's PR dog, and it's not clear how many google hits for "Chris Ramsay" refer to the one mentioned in this article. Interiot 14:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not a vanity page actually. I was unaware that the web presenses for these items were not currently active. These are valid entities on the Eastern Canadian underground literature scene. Legions-of-Pluto 10:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is for independent, verifiable information about notable topics, it is not free web space for advertising groups who want to some day become notable. -- Corvus 18:09, 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, the content is on Webcomic Wiki now, there's no need to Transwiki and the consensus seems to be that it doesn't belong here. Rx StrangeLove 00:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rave Kitty

edit

A webcomic which can be found here, hosted on comicgenesis/keenspace. Although listed on the Alexa rankings of ComicGenesis it is not one of the more popular comics, being that most are still hosted on the keenspace domain. Relatively new with just over 50 strips uploaded, furthermore, a google search shows no mention of notability for the website. If this were a website, it would have been deleted, but because it has a webcomics stub instead of a website stub, it makes it so much more elusive. It shouldn't be so. As of writing, there is no entry for this at Comixpedia, is Wikipedia becoming the first port of call for webcomic artists? Let's do something about it. - Hahnchen 14:50, 29 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 08:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tidju Boxing

edit

Tidju Boxing might be real, but the iron fist art, which is the entire subject of this article, is OR, nn, and has apparently been speedied before. — brighterorange (talk) 15:03, 29 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. Robert 16:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Rejectors

edit

blatant advertising for a band, which probably also does not meat WP:MUSIC. — brighterorange (talk) 15:09, 29 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 · Katefan0(scribble) 04:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Videocardforum

edit

Delete, nonnotable website. (Not exactly advertising, though, since the website is allegedly free. Angr/tɔk tə mi 15:10, 29 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. Woohookitty 10:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Homelander Generation

edit

Neologism. Tagged for speedy delte, but doesan't fit under any of the WP:CSD IMO. Speedy tagger also saud "original research" bug a source is cited. Weak delete keep if widspread useage is shown. DES (talk) 15:12, 29 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 · Katefan0(scribble) 04:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crystalclouds

edit

Patently nn site; few to none non-selflinks on Google, Alexa Ranking 1.2 million. Delete  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 15:07, 29 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. --Phroziac(talk)  00:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Milston

edit

This article is pure fiction! Please refer to Dane Stern and Nathan Jacob Samuels who all attended the same school [13] Vivenot 15:09, 29 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 Planetary habitability. Robert 16:53, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Habitable planet

edit

This is a laundry list of dubious noun conjuncts ("Inhabited Terraformable Marginally Inhabitable Planet"). Hard to follow and if not OR essentially an off-the-top-of-the-head ramble. The much more comprehensive Planetary habitability has recently been created. I'd merge if I saw anything worth it and instead think it should be deleted. Marskell 15:17, 29 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 08:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Superhero Intern

edit

Can someone tell me if this exists? Is it a flash animation? I tried googling it and only found some forum posts, but mainly wikipedia-esque articles on the thing. A search on the warner brothers site came up empty. Even if it does exist, I'm still moving to delete on notability grounds. - Hahnchen 15:22, 29 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/poss. attack page --Doc (?) 16:05, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Woehl

edit

Hoax. Article claims tha subject is born of a sea-captain and a whale. In addition, it claims to publish "Great Expectations 2" and the "Star Wars trilogy. Tagged for CSD but removed by author of article. Hurricane111 15:27, 29 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. --Phroziac(talk)  00:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

STONA

edit

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. poorly named, poorly formated piece of US-centric political advocacy. Delete. DES (talk) 15:39, 29 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 08:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TrafficWorks4U

edit

Spam. Apears to be promotion of a non-notable website. Created by the same IP user who created Jubin Jacob. Delete. DES (talk) 16:11, 29 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 08:40, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grandcolor

edit

Advertisment Zeimusu | Talk page 16:19, 29 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 · Katefan0(scribble) 04:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"dearth of acumen"

edit

Appears not to be real. Got 4 google hits, none relevant. R. fiend 16:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per above. --Interiot 17:03, 29 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 08:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brick Day

edit

Notable? Real? Only seems to exist on some guy's blog. DJ Clayworth 16:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second year that some of us are celebrating the holiday, from St. Louis to San Francisco. It may be small, but that does that mean it's insignificant? It *is* listed under "humorous" holidays, after all... Oh, and what blog did you find mention of it? Kopper

Wow, cool! I hadn't seen that before. Thanks for the link. I actually learned about the holiday last year from one of the guys in The Mothballs. I guess it's a big deal in SF. But just because it's gotten little "Web exposure" is no reason to kill it! I took a brick to a bar last October 15th. Didn't you? Save Brick Day!! Kopper

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. --Phroziac(talk)  00:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Madison House

edit

Not even a complete sentence, and from a commercial advertisement posing as a username. —Uris 17:00, 29 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 · Katefan0(scribble) 04:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ARAGI

edit

Non-notable. I couldn't find anything on Google about this group. Only a single sentence. --Quasipalm 17:02, 29 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. Robert 16:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stereotraffic

edit

NN collage band. Vanity. Allmusic search comes up empty. Google search comes up empty [15]. Hurricane111 17:36, 29 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 · Katefan0(scribble) 04:28, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CLiX Network

edit

Looks like spamvertising to me, but I'm not sure whether it's actually notable. I'm going to abstain from voting until I hear some other opinions. -- Avocado 18:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a website involving a few people, Delete. ··gracefool |☺ 17:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not enough votes, re-listing. · Katefan0(scribble) 17:48, 29 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 · Katefan0(scribble) 04:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Lord

edit

This article has no sources; there is no "John Lord" or "John Michael Lord" to be found on the web and no record of a supposed involvement in the similarly fictional Maserati-Lamborghini F1 team, or with IndyCar. » Christopher | Talk | 18:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough votes, relisting. · Katefan0(scribble) 17:54, 29 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. All keep votes are by sock puppets, their only edits are to this AfD. — JIP | Talk 08:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Milgo

edit

Neologism and if not, just a dictionary definition. Google says 151, none of which have anything to do with a teenage word for boring. --Celestianpower hablamé 18:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[20]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 · Katefan0(scribble) 04:31, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sermons at Beech Hill

edit

No encyclopedic value, promoting a podcast. feydey 18:29, 29 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 (no consensus). Suggestions have been made to transwiki parts, and merge parts but finding something clear here is awfully difficult. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jihad Verses of Islam

edit

del: (1) move the whole bunch of 300+ quotes from Quran into wikiquote. (2) Merge the remaining 2-3 sentences into Jihad. mikka (t) 18:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmmm, what to do with this one. On one hand I could support a transwiki to wikiquote provided someone cleaned it up a bit and removed the bolding which is pretty obviously added for POV purposes. On the other hand though, what is the value of having these quotes retained? All this information exists already in Wikisource if I'm not mistaken. What is the value of sourcing it somewhere else in a decidedly POV format? I'm going to say outright Delete for now.--Isotope23 19:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, no vote yet. This article could not possibly be made NPOV and it’s likely to cause an edit war and a lot of flaming. ♠DanMS 00:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if rewritten. The article does say this is disputed in Islam. If the quotes supporting the self-purification side of the debate were given equal weight, then I feel this would be a useful source article (rather than having the indiviual quotes available but scattered). Best to redirect to a NPOV title as well (i.e. turn this into a redirect). Dlyons493 Talk 02:20, 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, just barely, no consensus, leaning towards delete. (10 delete, 4 keep, 2 merge, discounting User:Earthian's vote). Robert 22:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flemington Circle

edit

This is one of three traffic circles in Flemington, New Jersey, a village of 4000 people. Pilatus 18:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Now hold on there. This is definitely a notable road feature, if not an infamous one. Technically, it's in Raritan Township, not Flemington. And, you can't go purely by the population of the town. In New Jersey all of the towns seem to run together. There are many, many more than 4,000 people living in the area. Al 19:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC) Keep[reply]
    • How am I supposed to know from the article? Here in Britain there are tens of thousands of roundabouts, dozens in each town. The article should mention why that particular roundabout would be of importance to a non-local, otherwise it has to go. Is it the first in New Jersey or a known accident blackspot? Please note that I am aware of two British roundabouts in here, the Magic Roundabout (Swindon) and the Magic Roundabout (Hemel Hempstead). 129.215.194.205 Pilatus 19:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article as it stands is a stub, and therefore patently incomplete. If we were to delete all incomplete articles on Wikipedia as soon as we noticed them, a new article would be a rare thing. And the fact that no one has seen fit to add a comparable set of articles on British roundabouts is neither here nor there. It's not the fault of this article. The correct solution is to add them, not to delete other articles out of some misplaced sense of "fairness". TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Add highway junctions? This is insane! Pilatus 21:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Why not? We have webcomics here, for instance. I guarantee you that more people have been directly affected by the Somerville Circle than have ever even read a webcomic. When people moved to the area from out-of-state, negoitating the traffic circles was often the very first thing they'd remark on.TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • But they wouldn't remark on this particular exhibit, unless they were local to the area. There is a section (than can probably be expanded) in Traffic circle on the Twenties-built NJ roundabouts, that's where the information belongs. And I have seen a slew of webcomics on VfD in the last few days. Pilatus 23:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think they probably would, but you've never had to take the Flemington Circle to get to anywhere I've lived. But I think I agree with you that a section (or article) discussing them collectively and singling out prominent ones is a good idea; better than seperate articles. I had hoped for some future historical information which I do not have access to, but was assured was available, and have been somewhat disappointed that they have not been developed further. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It isn't a notable road feature. Quale 20:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a very heavily travelled roadway, one of the few remaining intact traffic circles in New Jersey, and certainly is therefore notable. Besides, to call Flemington a "village of 4000 people", as if those who lived in the borough were the only local inhabitants, is to ignore the rather dense suburban housing of the surrounding area. But even if the borough were all there were to it, it's a historically significant locale. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article does not establish notability. --Carnildo 23:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article does not establish or even assert notability. --Stormie 02:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The largest traffic in Flemington, New Jersey is NOT my idea of encyclopedic, even for the NewJerseyPedia. Delete. --Calton | Talk 02:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with the nominator. Zach (Sound Off) 05:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - our mission is to compile knowledge, not just any facts. --Pjacobi 09:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Flemington, New Jersey - even if it's too minor for it's own article, it's at least interesting in the context of it's location. Alphax τεχ 09:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, as per Alphax. -- user:zanimum
  • Keep or merge this fine example of roadcruft. Cruft is not a bad thing. --SPUI (talk) 15:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as the other traffic circles of this sort. -R. fiend 19:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This one is interesting and notable. I would not object to a merge to the appropriate locality. Unfocused 19:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable --TimPope 21:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please remember civility. Calling the good faith contributions of other editors "ridiculous" is not civil. If Dr. Who fans can indulge their every tiny interest on Wikipedia, I don't see the problem with granting a little of the same courtesy to traffic engineers and those who are interested in that subject. Unfocused 18:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't make this personal. The Doctor Who wikiproject actually urges limits on content, in line with WP:FICT and other guidelines oft ignored by inclusionists. It would be nice if other areas of content were as restrained. --TimPope 20:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • It isn't personal at all. Claims of "notability" and "not notable" can only ever be judged on a relative scale by personal POV. Civil engineering topics are, in my opinion, far more notable than obscure details of a British television series that only fans will recognize. I never proposed deleting such Dr. Who trivia, only that the reasons for keeping it are similar to the reasons for keeping items like this fine article. We're having this discussion because we have POV differences, and Wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV. Unfocused 21:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is personal because you based what you said on what you perceive about me and how I edit wikipedia. It's a matter of scale and if you think a traffic circle is a major piece of civil engineering, that's fine, we are all entitled to opinions. I find it extremely minor. What you call "obscure details" have so far formed three featured articles, because there is much to write about a television programme that has been around for over 40 years. This traffic circle is hardly in the same league of fame, which had it not been given a name noone would know of. I have the same opinion of the "obscure detail" of Doctor Who and if you don't believe me you can check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Constantine. --TimPope 22:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • It still isn't personal, it's a simple comparison of POV. If you hadn't called someone else's good faith contribution "ridiculous", I wouldn't need to compare POVs to make a point. You're welcome to your own opinion of what is appropriate for an article, but your incivility is very unwelcome. Again, I don't really care how many featured articles come from your interest set, but calling someone else's good faith contribution "ridiculous" is just plain wrong. Unfocused 23:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • From WP:CIVIL: starting a comment: "Not to make this personal, but..." is a serious breach of civility. --TimPope 17:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • It still isn't personal nor is it uncivil. If you're not willing to calmly and rationally debate the relative notability of subjects you're interested in as compared to those that others are interested in, then simply don't use "ridiculous" or "not notable" as your argument to delete. Comparison of our POVs regarding notability, when notability is used as the reason to advocate deletion of retention of an article, is neither personal, nor an attack; its the only avenue available for debate. You've taken words from a policy completely out of context. Unfocused 19:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I regret my original choice of words, but non-notable is not uncivil. I found your comments personal, whether you think they were or not. Csernica found my original comment personal and I have apologised. I am sorry this has continued to escalate, may we stop now? --TimPope 16:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • You said "ridiculous", and that made it a personal insult directed at me, who contributed the article in the first place. You protests to the contrary don't change that. I was willing to ignore it as long as you didn't try to defend your bad behavior. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is just another bad faith nomination by User:Pilatus. Earthian 23:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC) User registered on September 27 and made contributions to four articles and their AfD pages. Special:Contributions/Earthian Pilatus 17:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete Another Traffic Circle that is nn --JAranda | yeah 21:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn --redstucco 08:40, 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 merge with Goodwill_Zwelethini_kaBhekuzulu. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shlobosenkosi Zulu

edit

Weak Delete (Merge and redirect as per Hall Monitor) The only claim of notability that the article makes is being 36th in line of succession to the Zulu throne. If he were a European royal, I'd be recommending a strong delete for someone so far down the line of succession, but since the Zulu crown has a bit more political respect than the usual European monarch, I'm willing to concede the possibility that someone that far down the line of succession might be notable in the context of South Africa. Caerwine 18:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC) (Revised vote Caerwine 21:42, 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 no consensus (7 keep, 7 delete). Robert 17:04, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David DeAngelo

edit

Weak Delete. This name has plenty of hits on Google [21], but as it stands, it is very promotional. Unless it had some serious re-work, I don't think it should be in Wikipedia. Thoughts? PhilipO 19:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Borderline Adcruft the way it is written. I'm also not convinced of his notability, Google hits notwithstanding. I'm abstaining for now, until I do a bit more research. Still, I think a cleanup tag could be slapped on to fix some the (self?)-promotional language used in the article.--Isotope23 20:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge Notable dating coach within the Seduction Community an article that is also up for deletion. Unfortunately, the DeAngelo is extremely self-promotional and aggrandizing, even after extensive revisions. There are also clear factual errors and blatant attempts to enhance his reputation. For example, the "neg" is a "seduction strategy" devised and popularized by another seduction community guru known as Mystery] Also, his real name is not "Mark Matthews". DutchSeduction 09:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see sufficient independent press coverage, which would be needed to provide a reliable bio on him. I don't think blog quotes, are sufficient sufficient counter-balance. Also, the subject matter that this guy writes on, guarentees this article will permanently attract link spammers. One of the blog links, used to provide criticism/balance, includes a sales pitch for the guy's book. While I'm sure editor who added that link, did so in good faith, it's links to advertisements like that, which are extremely difficult to protect against. --rob 21:05, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I've spent over five hours hours writing and editing this article frequently to remove extra links - take a look at today's history. Unfortunately, people keep adding more and more positive things. I strongly dislike what this guy teaches, but it's notable nonetheless - there are a lot of people out there who refer to these things like the "3-second rule." --Quintin3265 21:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment DeAngelo didn't have anything to do with the 3-second rule. The term was invented by another teacher. Just FYI. DutchSeduction 10:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Fast Seduction is an important site to the article - most of what he teaches comes from or is posted there. I thought that, with the text, the issue was whether the article was NPOV - I made it sound a lot more negative. --Quintin3265 22:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. A Google search for "David DeAngelo" +"dating tips" results in over 41,700 matches. This figure appears to be notable within his field. Hall Monitor 23:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As is evident from a Google search, David DeAngelo is well known and ought to be in Wikipedia. Filur 01:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC) User has less than 100 edits[reply]
    • Comment on fairness. This subscripted text is biased. I don't see how it's relevant how many edits this user has. He didn't create his account after the vote began, he's contributed to quite a few articles, and this isn't an anonymous vote. This text should be ignored and the vote counted. --Quintin3265 20:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Not only do the Google searches bear out the validity and merit of this material, the article itself offers an accurate summary of the key points behind the program. (Regardless of a given writer's opinion). Propose people maintain watch on the article for strong bias one way or the other and its overall length, but should not be deleted. -- Barrettmagic 08:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but article needs to be constantly monitored to remove any spammed links to seduction websites selling books, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonjaaa (talk • contribs) 13:05, 1 October 2005
  • Strong keep. David helped me turn my life around. --84.47.55.102 23:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because the article about the larger movement to which DeAngelo belongs, the seduction community article, was deleted. Although I supported that articles existance, I felt that individual members of the seduction community would not merit their own articles because most of the theories of the movement evolved nearly collectively. Therefor this article should be deleted too if the other one was.
  • Delete as no merge possible.--nixie 01:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is adcruft. Also suggest deleting Ross Jeffries for exactly the same reason. The Seduction Community article had 10 references from independent news media like the New York Times and was still deleted. What this means is that the Wikipedia community does not understand nor care to understand the Seduction Community. DutchSeduction 08:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I wrote this article well before articles on the seduction community, double your dating, and the other topics existed. In fact, the term seduction community used to redirect to this article. It existed on its own just fine for a month. --Quintin3265 12:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Quintin, as you have interest in this area, why not work together on creating an NPOV article on the community, which does not unduly promote DeAngelo or any other commercial interest? The point is to explain the men's rights movement from which DeAngelo and Ross Jeffries have been profiting. DutchSeduction 15:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment It depends on the outcome of this vote. I don't see how this article is "adcruft" with 41,700 search results to his name, and after all the changes were made to it to make it NPOV. If this article is deleted, I am not willing to spend another ten hours researching and removing spam only to have it risk deletion also. If you want to change your vote to "keep," and work to improve this article, the article on the seduction community, and the article on Ross Jeffries, then I would certainly be willing to help you. --Quintin3265 15:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Quintin, what you don't realize is that everything related to the seduction community is regarded as commercial spam by a large number of WP deletionists. We need to start from the beginning without any promotional biases toward any particular website or any commercial seduction teacher. (This article is the most poorly written of the three you mentioned and the most POV.) Lest you or I be accused of sockpuppetry or spamming. The bottom line for a lot of people is that the subject of guys picking up women is controversial and not notable, regardless of the amount of Google hits, television and newspaper coverage. DutchSeduction 09:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please if there is too much advertising we should edit this not erase it that is not the wiki way Yuckfoo 18:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While there are several groups that mention him in addition to the multpile Google hits, I'm finding very little quality in there. Is there any media coverage for this person, because I can't find any. - brenneman(t)(c) 00:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are currently AfD and VfU votes taking place for this article, for Ross Jeffries and for Seduction Community. DeAngelo and Jeffries are two of the big commercial teachers to come out of the Seduction Community. These two are also the ones who do extensive Internet marketing, so you will definitely get some Google hits for them. Where media coverage is concerned, the most interesting (and IMO most NPOV) story revolves around the Seduction Community itself and covers a number of the "schools of thought" on this phenomenon. Seduction Community had an extensive list of media references due to the recent publication of a book on the subject, 'The Game' by Neill Strauss. DutchSeduction 04:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So was David DeAngelo (referenced in this new best-selling book 'The Game' by Neill Strauss). All the more reason to keep the article, as his program is now referenced in mainstream materials. To make an arguement something needs to be removed because there's a commercial element to it would require removal of every product/company article on Wiki (IE - movies, high-tech companies, etc.) And yes, his material changed my life as well. -- Barrettmagic 07:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Barrett, I agree. See my talk page and the VfU for Seduction Community, which endeavors to provide an unbiased portrayal of the seduction community - i.e. the trainers, books, etc, teaching people how to seduce women. The topic overall is notable. The problem is that the subject is also controversial and a spam target. You are showing bias to one particular businessman in this case. He himself should probably be a footnote in a bigger story as he is barely mentioned in Neill Strauss' book. DutchSeduction 12:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 pluralism. Robert 17:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperpluralism

edit

Plain dictionary definition. The contents are nothing else but the def. itself. Shauri 19:41, 29 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 userfied as requested by Ed Poor. --Phroziac(talk)  00:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Terms used in the creation-evolution debate

edit

The page is yet another POV-fork attempt by User:Ed_Poor. This distinction is already made on the creation-evolution controversy page and we don't need to start new pages for creationists to illustrate their own ideas. Joshuaschroeder 19:43, 29 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. Robert 00:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalism in the United States

edit

Stub, unimproved for months, inaccurate description of nationalism, 99% incomplete history, apparently personal opinion, in short contains almost no relevant information on this important topic, and seems to exist solely as a vehicle for right-wing links, merge to nationalism is inappropriate since it was cut from there anyway Ruzmanci 19:56, 29 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. Robert 17:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Restaurant Guide of San Luis Obispo

edit

WP is not a restaurant guide. feydey 20:18, 29 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 already deleted. — JIP | Talk 08:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Chang

edit

Nice made up story. Cannot put a nn-bio, since claims to be famous. feydey 20:35, 29 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. Robert 17:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Dawn Of Time-Browser Based Game-

edit

Web page promotion. Horrible alexa ranking: 918,443. feydey 20:54, 29 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 (anons discounted) · Katefan0(scribble) 04:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fluidtime

edit

Unsigned anons

edit
  • Keep but cleanly describe that it is a company, like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google 3 October 2005
  • Keep but change wording as to announce what it is (a company) and what it does (providing people with....) 12:20, 30 September 2005
  • Keep - the wording can be rephrased as much as needed, to better suit Wiki rules, but the service in itself is cool , works better and better, has been tested already in real life occasions like the Turin transport system in Italy, has a history, has been presented over Europe and US a few times already and has even been already mentioned or employed in various cross-pollinated interaction design projects presentations: it would be counterproductive and silly not to find a Wiki explanation.
  • Keep but change wording! 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Fluidtime was an academic research project in Interaction Design Institute Ivrea, which examined how time is becoming more dynamic and personal as communication technologies advance. While I agree the sentence above is very close to advertisement, I would suggest we change the wording so that the entry can describe more about its core concepts. I think its concepts are interesting and worth keeping as a Wikipedia entry.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. Robert 19:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seikilos_II

edit

Hoax. Ex0pos 20:57, 29 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. Robert 00:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cheap for a reason

edit

I believe this is a non-notable band with very little web presence [22] (most google hits here seem to be accidental). I cannot find an allmusic listing, nor a band website. The article seems to be slightly biased to the negative, so I'm not sure its vanity... :) --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 20:58, 29 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. Woohookitty 10:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Double Your Dating

edit

Delete This page is unlikely to ever rise above an advertisement. See related AFDs here and here PhilipO 21:21, 29 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. Robert 19:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Tatum

edit

Appears to be part of a multiple article hoax. Google supports none of the claims in the article. The film he's supposed to star in, Upon September doesn't show up on IMDB.com. This article was also largely copied to create the Christopher Anderson article - which has now been corrected to an accurate stub. (I'd appreciate a hand from anyone in unpicking the sneaky vandalism, AfDing the complete hoaxes, and so forth, from all connected articles, in case I miss anything. I think I've got it all, but I'm not sure). See also Break You. KeithD (talk) 21:23, 29 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. --Phroziac(talk)  00:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Taking flash from the net

edit

It is a how-to article and cannot be made encyclopedic. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:21, 29 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. Robert 17:14, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Upon September

edit

Part of a multiple article hoax. See also Christopher Tatum and Break You. KeithD (talk) 21:26, 29 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 a copyvio. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:01, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Le Peuple De L'herbe

edit

An article in French about a pot-smoking hip-hop band. Notability unestablished, though they do get quite a lot of Google hits. Orphan, only contribution by the (anon) user. Ilmari Karonen 21:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Copyvio of [24] and various other places. Kappa 23:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • They would deserve an article, they are quite notable in France (even I who has absolutely no interest in hip hop have heard of them), but right now this article has no content whatsover, due to copyvio. So what should I write ? Request for article ? I suggest to replace by a place holder such as "Le Peuple de l'Herbe is a French hip-hop band" so that someone complement it with legit content. If you want I could even volunteer to do four or five lines about them. Hektor 01:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Le Peuple de l'Herbe is a French hip-hop band" is not enough, you need to establish some "notability" by mentioning media coverage, chart success or something like that. See WP:MUSIC. Anyway I recommend waiting for this Afd to close, it will be simpler. Kappa 02:15, 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. Robert 17:15, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Break You

edit

Part of a multiple article hoax. See also Upon September and Christopher Tatum. KeithD (talk) 21:38, 29 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 and REDIRECT. -Splashtalk 00:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Babbat

edit

Some kind of nonsense. Not really a Abbott and Costello line. feydey 21:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Begining in 1967, 156 4 minute cartoons were produced with the help of Bud Abbott lending his voice. Almost everyone of them featured Lou Costello's character(voice by Stan Irwin) running for his life shouting "Hey Abbott!!!". They were produced by Hanna-Barbera Studios, RKO-Jomar Productions and distributed by: Gold Key Entertainment, King World Productions.
That information is well documented here [25] and other places. And the line "I've been a bad boy Abbott" appeared in most of the radio, film and cartoon versions of thier comedy as well.
Further if you do a google on "I'm a bad boy Abbott" you'll get a dozen hits stating that was one of their trademark lines in radio, tv and in the cartoons.
So why this got flagged for deletion and cited as nonsense is beyond me. It is clearly one of thier lines. Maybe Feydey just doesn't like the story.
Sincerely,
Jake — Preceding unsigned comment added by MudPuppy610 (talk • contribs) , at 00:17, 2005 September 30. User has 8 edits, all to this AFD and related article.
  • The nomination is for the nn made-up term Babbat. It has nothing to do with the notoriety of Costello's catchphrase which is already documented elsewhere. Delete.. Changing my vote to transwiki to Wikidictionary as the article appears to have been revised so it's not suggesting the phrase "babbat" (not "Hey Abbott" which is not being debated here) was coined by A&C since that form was never used in any of the A&C movies and was bastardized by other parties to become "babbat". Still not worthy of a Wikiarticle, but probably would fit into Wikidictionary though there should still be some sources cited that this is an actual expression and not something just made up. I could create a term like "mickfiddling", come up with a definition and post it too. There are plenty of printed sources to back up the existence of Valspeak and its associated terms. 23skidoo 18:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Abbot and Costello. This is a real A&C catchphrase, but this article is nonsense. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 07:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep So let me get this straight. First the item is nominated for deletion because someone thinks the catchphrase is bogus. Then it’s acknowledged the catchphrase is legit but the content is nonsense because it doesn't pertain to Abbott and Costello. The entry does not have anything to do with Abbott and Costello other than to explain where the origins of Babbat came from. In the United States our language evolves pretty quickly and is littered with slang which often is very regional. For example; Fo shizzle my nizzle is non-English nonsense (why the hell didnt that nominated for delete?). But if you are a teacher in Orange County California and tell your students they can’t use that in scrabble and that sideways N’s can’t be used as Z’s you'll be declared a racist and fired for being culturally insensitive. See Ebonics or African American Vernacular English. Because you have not heard Babbat used does not mean it is nonsense and not being used by people somewhere. I found an entry for Valley Girl here at Wikipedia that describes nonsense terms like "Grody to the max", "Fer sure", "Gag me with a spoon" and what the origins of those words were. Now I'm sure if you surveyed a broad section of society no doubt they would think this was non-sense and just all around poor English. But if you asked the girl working at the Hot Dog On A Stick stand at the Valley Mall in Encino I'm sure she would tell you that it was very relevant to her and that it is just how she and her friends talk. Either way you argue it the fact is that it worked its way in to our culture and our language as evidenced by its entry here at Wikipedia and countless other sources. So let’s just call this what this is. An argument about cultural relevance which really has no place here. Cultural relevance crosses generational, geographical and racial boarders so much these days that what is relevant to one may be irrelevant and nonsense to another. We barely speak the same language from one coast to another anymore. Like it or not in certain circles Babbat is weaving its way in to conversation. If you hung out in brew pubs in Oregon or a DEFCON convention in Las Vegas you'd probably hear it so often that you’d ask “What the &*^% does Babbat mean?” and is why I wrote that entry for Babbat. I was asked what it meant so many times that it was suggested I add it in Wikipedia. Which I might add was my first visit and only entry here. I actually took the time to read the manual, sign up for an account and post the thing. And I got to say I'm thoroughly unimpressed. I could care less if the entry stays or not. But as a community I think you guys got a lot of growing up to do if you're going to have a truly content rich site and not run people off who genuinely just want to contribute something. I can't even believe I'm having this discussion. The fact that Wikipedia gets caught in my spell checker and doesn’t appear anywhere in Webster’s is proof enough that you can make up anything you want, give it a meaning and it will catch on somewhere with some people. Catch a clue guys. I think Catch a Clue will be my next entry. MudPuppy610 10:28, 30 September 2005 (PST)
  • I have changed the page so that it is consistent with other entries on this site. MudPuppy610 11:42, 30 September 2005 (PST)
  • keep Why not? Jake has a good point - I think this is a very valid entry. Believe it or not, I know some of these guys from DEFCON. I used to think there were four or five people who called themselves Babbat. The article set me straight. Thank you! I vote to keep the entry and allow it to be expanded. The person asking for deletion should move on to another victim entry. I'm really surprised that this is even an issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alaninportland (talk • contribs) , at 20:08, 2005 September 30. User has 4 edits, all to this AFD and related article.
  • Delete. The subject of the article is a dictionary entry of what is claimed to be an English word. WP:ISNOT a dictionary, however, and therefore should not accept dictionary entries of any kind, even of established words with widespread usage—Wiktionary is the correct wiki project for such entries. However, this word cannot be entered there either, for it is a protologism. Therefore it is not a candidate for a transwiki. I note in passing that the entry also fails WP:Verifiability and has elements that run afoul of WP:NOR. Regards encephalon 07:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC) NB. I have lightly refactored the page and added {{unsigned}}, for clarity.[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Abbot and Costello. Agree with the man in black above. --Daniel Lotspeich 08:07, 11 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. Robert 17:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Emigrant-direct.com

edit

substub, complete vanity. seems notable, but the current form of the article is in no way encyclopedic. -Greg Asche (talk) 21:43, 29 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 NFL Rookie of the Year Award. Robert 20:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NFL Defensive Rookie of the Year Award

edit

This page had already been created at NFL Rookie of the Year Award.Xpendersx 21:54, 29 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. Robert 20:03, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

San_Luis_Obispo_Bus_System

edit

Wikipedia is not a bus schedule repository. And they misspelled the name of their school besides. 208.22.111.10 22:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought I was logged in. --RSLancastr 22:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Page has been moved to its proper place. Pilatus 22:44, 29 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. Robert 17:21, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Ramsey

edit

Hoaxy story on a completely unknown character. Shauri 22:19, 29 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. Robert 17:20, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SaRz

edit

Not notable group, I was unable to find any info on them with multiple google searches. feydey 22:32, 29 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. Additionally, it should have been speedied after it was userfied. --Phroziac(talk)  00:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Abraham

edit

Chris Abraham <[email protected]> to Grotto, posse

Sep 29

After getting mediasphere, memespace, and memesphere onto Wikipedia, I was hoping that Chris Abraham will survive the deletion pogrom. Help me save Chris Abraham on Wikipedia! if you need fodder, check out my bio page.

http://www.chrisabraham.com/2005/09/save_the_chris.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Abraham

http://www.chrisabraham.com/2005/04/bio.html

I believe public calls for support are against wikipedia's policies.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 clear A7 --Doc (?) 00:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Connor C. Smith

edit

Non-notable frat boy. — Mateo SA | talk 23:05, 29 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. CDC (talk) 23:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Booyaka

edit

nn neologism. --fvw* 23:31, 29 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 speedied by JoJan. --Phroziac(talk)  00:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sweater Tuesdays

edit

A strong case for expanding the speedy deletion criteria. Non-notable. --fvw* 23:51, 29 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; but be glad you didn't have to smell the body! --Phroziac(talk)  00:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vera Barinova

edit

Very few non-Wiki links through search engines; fails the 100 year test and probably hasn't achieved any "renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" Ziggurat 23:56, 29 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. CDC (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ancas Foreign Auto Parts

edit

Advertizing page, not notable. -- SCZenz 23:56, 29 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. CDC (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Objectnotfound.org

edit

Google knows of 6 pages linking to this site. It is non-notable. CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:18, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_September_29&oldid=1081093764"