Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 September 12

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< September 11 September 13 >

Purge server cache

September 12

edit

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

The result of the debate was delete.Woohookitty 09:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Medmania.com

edit

Advertisement. Article does not demonstrate importance of subject Hurricane111 05:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One of plenty on 3rd September that need more participation for a useful decision. -Splash 00:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 09:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NigSek

edit

Fewer than 400 Google results, most not actually relating to this game. I consider myself an inclusionist but really, we don't need this. I even had to remove the AIM contact details of the creator. Soo 11:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn, wikipedia article is the third google hit. -GregAsche (talk) 01:28, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
One of plenty on 3rd September that need more participation for a useful decision. -Splash 00:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 09:52, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Canuck

edit
One of plenty on 3rd September that need more participation for a useful decision. -Splash 00:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Dlyons493 05:08, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nonsense.Voice of All (talk) 06:56, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, combine an internet nickname with website advertising and you have a very deletable article. - Mgm|(talk) 09:00, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's not even an original nickname; dollars to donuts he took it from the Tragically Hip song. (Note that I already thought this before visiting his webpage to discover that the first words in the site intro were "Welcome to the All Canadian Surf Club," which proves my point. I'm psychic, I tell you, psychic! And no, the Hip song was not a notable single, so I'm not proposing that the title be repurposed as an article about the song.) Bearcat 22:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 09:58, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ladderhall

edit

vfd not listed by nom - fixing - no vote --Doc (?) 16:42, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One of plenty on 3rd September that need more participation for a useful decision. -Splash 00:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 10:00, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned toys

edit

Does not meet WP:MUSIC and notability is not established. CHAIRBOY 17:13, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep Their score for isolationist lovers is one of the best film scores I own.
  • keep It was just posted on a music forum that this article was up for deletion, so I
            thought I would voice my opinion on it.  This is a new side project, by the 
            composer for "The synthetic dream foundation", which is one of the most prominent
            electronic music projects in the industrial and dark ambient worlds.  The fact, 
            that this band has the same composer and member as a major, prominent band, makes
            it follow one of the 5 necessary ingredients for inclusion based on the rules 
            regulating the inclusion of bands for Wikipedia.
  • keep Sorry bad english. Keep band for popular in Venezuela.
  • keep I followed the same link mentioned above, and for the same reasons mentioned above
            this is certainly a notable composer and their work should be represented in
            Wikipedia
  • keep This page needs alot of work, but should definitely be kept to be worked upon. I'm no film score buff, but I own one of the scores by this artist
One of plenty on 3rd September that need more participation for a useful decision. -Splash 00:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:54, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:55, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was MERGE to Indrajit. Not going to do the move, because I can't verify for myself which is the correct spelling. -Splashtalk 00:28, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bramhasir

edit

Two Google results, both of which are from this very encyclopedia. Paul 18:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One of plenty on 3rd September that need more participation for a useful decision. -Splash 00:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 20:51, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pars Monthly

edit

VfD not previously listed - no vote (although I can't verify it either) --Doc (?) 20:23, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

nn. i searched google for 3 minutes with all combinations of keywords "pars, monthly, australia, persian, magazine" and did not obtain a single relevant hit. but since i am not familiar with australian media, i will Abstain for now. -- Bubbachuck 05:58, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One of plenty on 3rd September that need more participation for a useful decision. -Splash 00:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 17:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Outboards

edit

Tagged but not listed by User: 138.89.64.126. Listing now. Joyous (talk) 20:40, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

One of plenty on 3rd September that need more participation for a useful decision. -Splash 00:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 17:25, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Podigla Me Iz Pepela

edit

VfD not previously listed - no vote---Doc (?) 20:44, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One of plenty on 3rd September that need more participation for a useful decision. -Splash 00:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Again, User:Splash asked for more discussion when there was only one delete vote, so there is now a clear consensus. — JIP | Talk 20:53, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Raskin

edit

Completing nomination - no vote--Doc (?) 21:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This article fails the WP:MUSIC test for notability. Icelight July 8, 2005 06:26 (UTC)
One of plenty on 3rd September that need more participation for a useful decision. -Splash 00:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'What the hell? It's a disambiguation page into which someone tossed band vanity (rappanity)? Or is it a bandity article into which someone offered to disambiguate two names that need no disambiguation? Both are wrong. The dab is entirely misapplied, since two people with a given last name do not need to be disambiguated, unless they are known only by that last name, and the band vanity is just plain wrong. Delete all the way around. Geogre 16:38, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the band part at least. Last name disambiguation pages have helped me out, though. People often omit first names and I have no idea who they're talking about when I try to fix it. Delete the disambiguation as well, if it's unnecessary. -- Kjkolb 07:51, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Move my page. tell me. --Sheynhertzגעשׁ״ך 02:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS but with a suggestion to merge into Girly girl. (2 delete (inc nominator), 1 merge or delete, 1 merge or keep). Thryduulf 12:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Boyish boys

edit

This appears to be a neologism and/or dicdef. Googling provides no evidence of this as a term separate from the definitions of its component parts. Angr/tɔk tə mi 22:00, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One of plenty on 3rd September that need more participation for a useful decision. -Splash 00:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:53, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dr numbers

edit
  • Delete nn DJ. Allmusic.com has nothing, and the Google hits on his name are usually other people (or monikers for them). The mixtapes don't turn up anywhere either. Note the Googles for "Assassination Now" are usually just the two words either side of a full stop. -Splash 22:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One of plenty on 3rd September that need more participation for a useful decision. -Splash 00:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 20:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christian (Smith) Pancorvo

edit

User:WillC put a VfD tag on this article but never completed the nomination. Completing it now. No vote. JYolkowski // talk 22:44, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One of plenty on 3rd September that need more participation for a useful decision. -Splash 00:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyvio of [www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/ Razorlight-Biography/1A303AFFDA41CF3548256EC20027B81A] Dlyons493 05:25, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I've added the above link to Razorlight, but its information is apparently outdated. Most of the band's other members have original biog pages on wikipedia - Christian (Smith) Pancorvo's page neglects to inform readers that he is no longer the band's drummer. Even if he's sufficiently notable to warrant having his own page, this isn't it. TheMadBaron 10:14, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Being the drummer, even if he were, would not justify him for a biography. Instead, it would warrant a single line in the article on the band (if that were even warranted). Thus with all rock band members: If there is no notable biography, then a simple redirect to the band is all that's needed. Geogre 16:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no good reason to keep, many good reasons to delete (garbled, non-notable, et al.) Paul 17:24, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:55, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Raster Group

edit

the group is about to publish a book i dont see how its not a legitimate organization. its an international art group, thats been around since 2001, if this site should be deleted then so should 'deviantart'

Not notable organization/group-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 00:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

INFROMATION IS ALL ABOUT HITS (comment added by anon at IP 220.253.75.168, DSL account at NSW.netspace.net.au, no other edits -- llywrch)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 20:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bunnybrains

edit

Tagged for speedy as "vanity self-insertion" which, whilst sounding unpleasant, isn't among the criteria. Bands are always good AfD-fodder though. Abstain. -Splash 00:18, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 21:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Caesar St. Augustine de Buonaparte

edit

Tagged for speedy as nn-bio. Whilst sounding ridiculous, Google certainly implies that this nutcase did do these things. AfD gets to decide if these things are enough for an article. Abstain. -Splash 00:21, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn. I don't think it's serious enough to warrant an article. Also, to even think of considering this person, I would have to see proof he not only tried to run for president, but that he actually got on the ballot in at least one state, so he could actually be called a "candidate". Without that, he's just one of countless insignficant crackpots. --rob 03:06, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per rob Dlyons493 05:39, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep in light of this article that proves he did run for the office. There's a mass of other Googleable material on him as well. Vizjim 14:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please check that link; it indicates only that he was a "candidate" affiliated with "The Good Party", which hasn't established notability enough for a WP article of its own. None of that page's links indicate that he ever made it onto a ballot, and I agree with rob. I have several friends who "declared they were running for President" in postal game zines or other sources of entertainment and/or self-publicity. I haven't dug through the links from the Google search mentioned-but-not-linked above, but I would need something more substantial to vote to keep this. Barno 00:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Given the link of Vizjim and some other google, I change my mind. But it should be rewritten, making it clear it is a prank. Cyclopia 15:08, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable crackpot. Simply declaring that you're going to run for president isn't good enough; thousands of people do that. You need to actually get your name on the ballot. --Carnildo 23:12, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. According to the Federal Election Commission's report [2], he didn't get his name on one state's general election ballot, nor a primary ballot, nor even got votes reported as a write-in. User:Vizjim's link proves only that Buonaparte declared himself a candidate, not that he actually made any effort to participate in the election. --Metropolitan90 01:45, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think if notability is asserted solely due to running for public office, the subject has to have made it onto the ballot. MCB 06:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, even if he made it onto a ballet, it wouldn't make him notable enough by itself. That he didn't, makes him even less notable. -- Kjkolb 08:04, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per other delete voters. Quale 01:12, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 18:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Military history of Germany during World War II

edit

Before you start, don't get me wrong, this is a good page in theory and probably in practice. However, it isn't going anywhere. At the moment, it's a useless fork of European theatre of World War II, where all of this info is already available in much greater detail. And it has been given time to grow and develop. Obviously, it's not going anywhere. In it's present form, there is simply no obvious reason to keep it. I argued this point on the talk page a long time ago, but I've no intention of personally writing the article, as I suggested there. If somebody improves this significantly during the voting period, however, I'd be willing to reconsider.--naryathegreat | (talk) 00:30, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 21:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brooks Laich

edit

Tagged as an A1 speedy "Very short article providing little or no context", but I can just about work out what it means with the help of a quick Google. So it comes here instead; I suspect it just needs cleaning. Abstain. -Splash 00:36, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Seattle_Surrealist_Group

edit
  • Delete, Non-notable, article created by user:Daniel C. Boyer to promote non-notable group here on Wikipedia. The only references on this group is two blogs.Classicjupiter2 00:39, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete part of a huge wave of similar stuff, much of which was deleted long ago. 8 unique Google hits. It's worse than I thought, really... on closer inspection, it appaears that this group barely even exists. According to their blog, they have 5 members. Completely non-notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:14, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. -GregAsche (talk) 01:29, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above Dlyons493 05:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN ≈ jossi ≈ 15:44, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and salt the earth: We've been through this before, and through this before, and through this before. It's a clubhouse, not a movement. Geogre 21:04, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nominator. Not a speedy as re-creation of previously deleted material... but apart from changes in the name of the city and the members, it is essentially similar to many others, all voted for deletion. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a total non-argument. There are obviously a number of possibilities: that all these groups are notable, that they are all non-notable, that some are notable and others are not. Making a judgment other than on each on its own merits or the lack thereof is improper. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, sigh; apparently WP policies are one of those bits of reality to which Boyer is trying to avoid conforming. Barno 00:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This article was submitted 11 September of this year; I can't find any trace of this article previously having been submitted. If Boyer is resubmitting content that has been removed thru the usual process, I for one would like to see some evidence. If not, then let's try to be civil about his submissions, whether or not they belong here. -- llywrch 22:04, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you're referring to me, I said that it was "Not a speedy as re-creation of previously deleted material..." perhaps I should have put "not" in bold. I said it was, however, essentially similar to many others, all voted for deletion. Perhaps I should have put "similar" in bold. a) A number of articles that were similar to each other were all voted for deletion; b) therefore, a consensus exists that such articles should be deleted; c) this article is similar to those articles; d) therefore, this article should be deleted. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think that you can go as far as you do in "b". In my opinion the most that one can say is "it seems that a consensus exists that such articles should be deleted", but the way that Articles for deletion is currently done (and I would argue for keeping it this way) the consensuses are reached or not reached on individual articles, not vaguely-defined types of articles. In any case, there are some articles on surrealist groups which have been kept, which suggests in any case that you haven't adequately defined what you mean by "such articles". --Daniel C. Boyer 19:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dpbsmith, I misunderstood. But it would help me (at least) in the future if you linked to this precedent. -- llywrch 19:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. -Sean Curtin 20:58, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Boyer's arguments. Reading this article, I was struck by the lack of any explanation of notability: in blunt English, this article fails to answer the question, "What have they done?" Have they held any exhibits, performances, published any works? Instead of citing examples of these (which would help convince me -- & hopefully others -- to vote to keep), Boyer responds with explaining his own interpretation of the rules, apparently arguing that if the rules do not forbid it then this article should be kept. Sorry, Boyer: that argument does not persuade me. -- llywrch 19:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have argued no such thing. I have not said or argued the article should be kept, I have just argued that it should be judged on its own merits, not lumped together with others, and some other points about what people said. There is nothing to be sorry about as I never said that if "the rules do not forbid it then this article should be kept". --Daniel C. Boyer 23:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, please understand what is being asked of you here. It is very simple: Where we can find information on this group, in regards to publications, gallery exhibits, books, films, anything??? All you gave us was a blog. This really is a clubhouse that you are promoting here and it just gets weaker and weaker every time you challenge a delete vote. I would have supported this article if there was suitable material to go on, but as usual, this is all just promotion. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to promote your friends and their websites and blogs. Daniel, please let me give you some good advice: When you create an article on contemporary surrealism, give us something solid to go on. For example: Nobody that is friends with you and an entity that is notable for their creative ouput. Really Daniel, when it comes to Surrealism as an organized movement, everything kind of goes downhill after 1969. Any university professor will tell you that. These friends of your in Seattle, Portland, Houston, Minnesota, Chicago, London, Leeds, etc. need to accomplish something more solid than cheap attempts at notability by getting their friend Daniel C. Boyer to promote them on Wikipedia. Daniel, with all due respect, you really are a great surrealist artist, yet, where do you find the time to create, lately?Classicjupiter2 01:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nobody in the Seattle Surrealist Group is "friends" with me; I've never met them and have had no contact with any of them whatsoever. I am aware that you have repeatedly defined "friends" to mean those who are my friends, some of my casual correspondents, and some of those who have no connexion to me whatsoever, but have not seen fit to justify this definition in any way whatsoever. Your implication that university professors know more about surrealism than surrealists is in my opinion a questionable position, but it's really a POV and nothing more. This POV could certainly be alluded to in any relevant article(s). The same goes for your opinion that "everything kind of goes downhill after 1969". There are many publications (you're certainly aware of some of these, such as Arsenal, Blue Feathers, &c. -- you may be critical of them, and my bet is, correct me if I'm wrong, you'll express such criticism in your response, but this is once again a POV), exhibitions (you are aware, aren't you, of the 1976 World Surrealist Exhibition?) and other manifestations of surrealism in this period, indeed numerically more than in the pre-1969 period, but any discussion of the quality of those manifestations is, again, POV. An expression of any of these POVs is, again, appropriate in any relevant article(s) so long as (at least in general) the holder(s) are identified. Gratified as I am by your concern about me and whether I am able to create, I am puzzled by its relevance to the article. My bet is that you will not answer any of my concerns here. I challenge you to do so. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really Daniel, I will answer your, "challenge". First, in regards to Arsenal, that is just another publication that your friend Mr.Rosemont SELLS to us all. Remember, Arsenal comes with a pricetag and REVOLUTION has no price! As for that rag being a legit surrealist publication, that is open for debate. Granted, many of Rosemonts friends (like you) will defend it at all costs, because you all share in this scam on the marvelous. If you were so insistent on Arsenal being a real surrealist publication, then why not provide scans of all the issues and put it on the net. Oh, I forgot, according to, "The Surrealist Movement in the United States" website, it comes with a price. As for, "Blue Feathers", that is a total waste of anyone's time. IF I were to go into any musuem with that rag of Dale's and Barrett's, the security guards would throw me out. That is a clubhouse rag. You are promoting a clubhouse here on Wikipedia, Daniel. Lets really be surrealistically real in the surrealist sense. Daniel, you have not once spoken out about Pierre's lame essay. Comrade Richardson did, why not you???Classicjupiter2 03:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • You haven't even come close to addressing my point. You haven't addressed your bizarre and idiosyncratic (to say the least) definition of "friends" and after that it's just one (weak, in my opinion) POV after another. As I anticipated, you do exactly what I predicted, crticising the quality or aspects of the journals and publications rather than addressing my concerns. By your criteria no surrealist journal (La Revolution Surrealiste, La Surrealisme ASDLR &c.) has ever been authentically surrealist; they were all sold. But it is up to Wikipedians how much attention they will pay to what is in my opinion a thoroughly ridiculous charge. As for your theory that everything is either computerised or should be, and that "real publications" are not such unless they are digitized, it is hardly worth the rebuttal. There are things called libraries, they have things called books and journals, and if you don't feel like paying for a journal go to the library and read it or check it out. Another digital-centric (beyond bizarre, in my opinion) POV. And as for your making museum guards the arbiters of surrealism, if you were "surrealistically real" in any sense you would know better than that. It is exceedingly difficult to come to any other conclusion than that you are an anti-surrealist. Finally, the "lameness" of "Pierre's essay" is a POV, and one that has no discernible connexion whatsoever to this deletion discussion. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 23:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Wendy-Ann Antanaitis

edit

married to minor celebrity, non-notable herself NeilN 01:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Her husband easily qualifies for an article. But she doesn't as she hasn't done anything else to be notable. The marriage occurred well after the burst of fame of the Rollers was over. Also, this is probably another copyvio by the same anon editor, who's been copy/pasting bios related to the Bay City Rollers. --rob 04:21, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per rob Dlyons493 05:45, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. I wish to give the original contributor a chance to clarify the licensing, fix the content, and explain notability. Multiple Roller-related articles are a "work-in-progress" right now, which is in the process of being cleaned up. There's now more evidence that she become something of a notable person, receiving attention herself. See the article and Talk:Wendy-Ann Antanaitis for reasons. I suggest giving the Roller-related articles some time, and see what happens. --rob
I hope I don't get in trouble for putting this here, please remove it if this is a violation for me to do. I have left a note in the discussion page, please read it before deletion. I am working very hard on everything. Thank you.
I don't get it. Why did you think this person would be worthy of an encyclopedia article? I'll abstain, but I think the first rule of writing is to ask yourself whether you can justify writing whatever you just sat down to write.---CH
Thank you for asking, I tried to be as detailed as possible and with the connection to her husband, who I consider a celebrity, I've found their story very interesting, that was it. I thought I did jusitfy what I wrote. That's my opinion and the opinion of others I have asked, but I can respect yours. And I'm glad this's no Eva Braun, Mr. Hillman, I wouldn't have wasted my time on someone like her. Perhaps Christopher Reeve's wife, Dana. I thank Rob for his help and will do better in the future, I'll choose to delete my research, though I thank those who wanted to give me a chance. I want to join this first before I go on with anymore research, so I can seek advise while researching and what is expected. Again, I'm new at this, I thought I was doing a nice, informative job. Thank you.
(talk) 08:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus - default to keep Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 23:16, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


New Hampshire Route 118

edit

nn road Delete --Aranda56 02:04, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We keep all the state highways in the US... evidence that California State Route 259 is a short highway, but it has a nice article. This is the sort of article that NH-118 can become... eventually a WP for NH roads will be started and this article will be improved then, if not before... Also note Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Florida State Road 300 and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ontario provincial highway 140. --Rschen7754 03:44, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Comment I would love nothing more to make an NH Wiki, but I don't have the time to learn how or to maintain it. Karmafist 02:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless more info is added (history, notable facts...). A mere list of towns and intersections a road traverses does not warrant an article. -- Klafubra 16:34, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless it can be shown that the road has any more notability than as a path between two points, with a few others in between. Auto-keeping huge classes of articles (I think it's okay to automatically keep any US presidents, for instance, or Kings and Queens of England) is the path to darkness and doom. --Icelight 17:42, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, we keep numbered highways per prior consensus and precedent. Even if this is a bad article it will be expanded eventually as part of a NH highway Wikiproject. Gateman1997 17:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it would be more accurate to say that they are kept through a lack of consensus to delete rather than a consensus to keep. Lord Bob 18:55, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep all numbered state, U.S. and Interstate routes as products of substantial state and federal-level governmental action. As long as the consensus here is to keep every school, I believe roads are *at least* as notable, if not more so. FCYTravis 18:15, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No vote on this article, but I feel compelled to object to that last remark. It is not true that there is "consensus here to keep every school." This has been demonstrated time and again for at least two years. In fact the (inactive) page WP:WIWO bears no less than three warnings that "There is currently no consensus about inclusion of schools, and adding your signature here is not going to help create one." Dpbsmith (talk) 22:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not all roads are notable some schools like Elementary Schools get erased. And most roads are even less notable than that. That is a perfect example.Not ALL numbered roads are notable if we got an article on every road in the world there will be hundreds of millions of articles numbered roads also Probaly a million+ of those out there and We Cant Keep them all. --Aranda56 02:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • There are not even close to a million numbered state/provincial roads in the world. If you assumed a rough average of 100 state routes per state, that would be 5,000 articles or so. FCYTravis 03:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, I'd put the number closer to 600 per state, so about 30K articles...but still, that's fewer articles than the geography bots maintain here... -- Grev -- Talk 05:22, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
        • This is not just a road, this is a state highway. I would never write an article about the street I live on. Also, there are 4,000 people who must use this road... more people than are in a typical elementary school. --Rschen7754 03:07, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
        • Yeah I over estimated the number of state roads. But still 5000 is too high and thats a low estimate knowing that there are many more of those.Some State Highways are still Non Notable. There are at least 30 of them in Miami alone and most of them dont got articles and i will place the vfd on it also because its only a road --Aranda56 03:46, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
These articles don't do any harm on Wikipedia. They're not vanity. This article will eventually be expanded... so why not just leave it until it is expanded?--Rschen7754 03:54, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
Also note that there are probably about 5000 highway articles on Wikipedia... are you prepared to try and get a VFD on all of them? So far there has been no consensus to deleting highway articles. Also note Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Washington State Route 900--Rschen7754 04:07, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

Comment I quote from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents: "Highways and interstates are notable". --Rschen7754 04:53, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep all state highways. -- Grev -- Talk 05:22, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: what's the difference between a state route and a state highway? I would have no problem keeping a state highway, but state routes may be a bit much, if they are below the state highway level. -- Kjkolb 08:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some states call them state highways, some state routes, some state roads. --SPUI (talk) 15:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Oh boy. Here we go... In Illinois all numbered state highways are maintained by the state. These are also state routes. There are also other roads that are state maintained and I argue should not have their own article, but some do anyway. So I think author's discretion should come into play, esp. when it comes to historical value. --Rob 15:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • A route is a set of alignments that includes local roads and long-distance highways. Gazpacho
  • Keep, but note that if someone in Texas were to start doing Farm to Market highways, there would be literally thousands of very small articles. As it is, each primary state highway presumably has a historical precedent to be legislated into existence, and I feel it is this that should be emphasized in such articles. See Illinois State Route 2. The goal is to make these articles more than mere route descriptions. --Rob 11:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: This article is useful since it's a part of New Hampshire's State Highway system. I can think of articles on Wikipedia that are of far less notability than this. --K1vsr (talk) 17:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep simply because it is a numbered US state highway; from what I have read above it appears that there are some states that number more roads than the norm, but I don't think I've heard that about New Hampshire anyway. This road is also not short (approx 43.3 miles).
    • For a road in the United States, 43.3 miles is short. From where I sit right now, 43.3 miles will just barely get me to another city. --Carnildo 03:25, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree. While relative to many areas it may be short (I'm guessing in central US this could be the case), it certianly isn't so everywhere. There are many major roads in my area that are significantly shorter than this one. They are common in connecting suburban areas to cities. --Engleman 04:14, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, useless stub.BillyCreamCorn 00:07, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Quale 01:16, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 23:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Spacement records

edit

Label is not included on WP's List of record labels, one of the two blue links on the page. The other, apparently referring to an artist known as Disconnect, redirects to Disconnection, a Scientology topic. The label's website has an Alexa ranking of 3,373,599. Delete. Joel7687 02:06, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 23:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Lists of flags

edit

Completely redundant with Category:Lists of flags. Not to start a lists vs. categories fight, but *this* list is an unannotated list of existent articles—exactly the job categories were invented for. — Phil Welch 02:11, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 23:22, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Plastic surgery in Venezuela

edit

Unsourced, personal observation/opinion making sweeping generalizations about an entire continent. Deserves the same fate as Helicopter use in Brasil. Do I have to tell you who the author is? paul klenk 02:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete, per above. -GregAsche (talk) 02:41, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 19:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Caruso

edit

A Non Notable James Bond Movie Character that was only Shown in One Scene not even well written JamesBondCruft Delete --Aranda56 02:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bond girl as per Zzyzx11 Dlyons493 05:49, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 19:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To the pain

edit

Original research by admission of creator; see Talk:To the pain for more details WCFrancis 02:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 MOOT. Article was userfied, now found at User:Furik.

Furik

edit

band vanity NeilN 03:46, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 DELETE and REDIRECT. Paul August ☎ 19:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Fraser Elliott

edit

nn Pure Vanity Being a chairperson of the board in a museum and members in hospitals and golf courses does not make him notable Possible A7 Delete --Aranda56 03:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 following rewrite. Thryduulf 12:54, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate Universes in Archie Comics

edit

This is essentially an interpretation, neither factual nor verifiable. Chick Bowen 04:23, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Well, you went to a lot of trouble, and it's very thorough, but I'm afraid the original objection still stands: it's original research. That is, it's a perfectly good idea, but it's your idea, not an established fact such as you'd find in an encylopedia.Chick Bowen 03:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I certainly would have voted Delete pre-rewrite, but now I'm surprising myself by voting to keep. Although a rename to "Non-canonical Archie Storylines" or something similar might be good; that way there's no appearance of an "alternate universe" theory being proposed. To point to the Archie comics as a source and make the obvious observation that some storylines fall outside the main continuity does not strike me as Original Research, as long as you don't theorize on the hows and whys of that being the case. Which only leaves me wondering if the topic is notable or encyclopedic. But with hundreds of Star Wars pages out there, I think there's plenty of room for some well-organized Archie information like this. Bunchofgrapes 03:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fail to see how plot summaries fall short of factual. it is easily verifiable to anyone with familiarity of these comics. I say "keep"! (Unsigned comment by 216.80.110.89 at 20:15, 14 September 2005. IP's first Wikipedia edit.)
  • Keep; too long to merge into the main Archie article, and as it stands now, not original research. -Sean Curtin 21:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. After rewrite it now seems ok to me. Could possibly stand to be renamed per Bunchofgrapes. Paul August ☎ 19:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE --Doc (?) 14:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

General relativity with conservation of energy

edit

Article is about a new theory inspired by one of Einstein's general relativity theories. Original research. No references currently cited. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 19:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Irda (Dragonlance)/Temp

edit

The contents of the temp page are already merged in the Irda (Dragonlance) article, and the Temp page should be free if more copyright issues appear. ReyBrujo 04:45, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE --Doc (?) 14:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moon's time

edit

A poorly written way of saying that because the Moon's gravity is less than Earth's, relativistic time dilation effects will occur. However, the effect is very, very, very small and this is not something that astronauts visiting the Moon need to take into account. In general, this is not a particularly useful or encyclopedic article, and there is no benefit from redirecting it anywhere. -- Curps 04:48, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE --Doc (?) 14:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Warcraft III strategy

edit

Original research, the author describes on Talk:Warcraft III strategy their goal was to include the Warcraft 3 "strategic and tactical significance of units, spells, and items", "macro strategies employed my professional players", "types of micromanagement", "differences in playing style of the four races". Better suited to Wikibooks or GameFaqs. UnlimitedAccess 04:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And referenced gaming strategy is unencyclopedic. - UnlimitedAccess 12:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-It is useful info but needs cleaning up. This article does not have Frequently Asked Questions. Dudtz 9/14/05 4:27 PM EST

You will find most Strategy Guides dont have Frequently Asked Questions even when posted at GameFAQ's. Either way Stategy Guides or any HOW-TO guides whether containing FAQ's or not, arent encyclopedic and dont belong on Wiki. - UnlimitedAccess 03:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE --Doc (?) 14:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Griffith

edit

This might be a marginal case of deletion, but Google and Amazon.com tests don't seem to show much. Perhaps when the book mentioned in the article is released this would be notable enough, but for now, it might be deletion material. Paul 00:45, 27 August 2005

Paul 05:21, 12 September 2005 (UTC) Note: I didn't originally use this template but I put it in on 9-12. Also going to relist on the AFD log. Paul 05:21, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. --Canderson7 00:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vomitorial Corpulence

edit

I don't think this meets WP:MUSIC guidelines; a google search for the name brings up an angelfire site as the main homepage, along with the Wikipedia article 4th down the list and several lyrics sites. Kertrats 05:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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.

Boyd bergeson

edit

Article fails to allege notability. User:Zoe|(talk) 06:10, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 00:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Raw

edit

Vanity & false information Delete 144.138.190.11 06:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 moved to Steven Barron by User:Philip Stevens September 11, 2005; redirect deleted by User:RHaworth September 12, 2005. --Canderson7 00:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wik/Stephen Barron

edit

Page name in misspelled

Speedy delete Article a subpage of 'Wik'? Obvious misspelling. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 06:38, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE Adam Coopper and KEEP (NO CONSENSUS) Urban Shamanism. Thryduulf 12:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Cooper and Urban Shamanism

edit

A non-notable and his school of thought. But apparently not self-promotion - see Talk:Adam Cooper and Talk:Urban Shamanism. -- RHaworth 03:19:57, 2005-09-01 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 00:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander-Howden

edit
  • Delete Seems to be a completely valueless article. Possibly some individual writing about themself. DirectorStratton 03:46, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I was searching on here about rare surnames and this is all that came up. Don't delete it - give me a good article about rare surnames, or expand it at least. 81.170.12.52 23:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory. An article on rare surnames shouldn't even contain a list of rare surnames. DirectorStratton 00:42, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with an article on rare surnames. I think such an article/list might be of some value, and most readers would want to see a few examples. What does the Guinness book of world records say?---CH (talk) 00:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 06:41, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverified nonsense. There is probably a very large number of surnames used only by one person, and anyone can create a new "rare" surname by combining two semi-rare ones. What makes this surname special enough to even be mentioned in an article on rare surnames? And why should we have such an article in the first place? Uppland 07:57, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with Uppland's reasoning. Dlyons493 10:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Uppland. Any combination of two surnames is more unique than its individual constituents. - Mgm|(talk) 11:24, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Quite obviously not a rare surname. Both Alexander and Howden are common surnames. - Last Malthusian 15:22, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless needed as disambig for people of that name. Martg76 22:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nonsense, as Uppland said. I am a name geek, but can't see any value in an article on rare surnames, either. There are plenty of surnames with only one or two bearers, and this one, being rare only by virtue of hyphenating two more common names, doesn't even legitimately qualify. ManekiNeko | Talk 03:01, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. --Canderson7 00:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All-range attack

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

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 00:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alveraz Ricardez

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

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

The result of the debate was del. mikka (t) 03:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amanpour

edit

This article was created by an anonymous user whose previous contributions have all been vandalism. It documents a made-up philosphy, and looks to me like just a new form of vandalism. Michael L. Kaufman 17:10, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was to keep the article. --Canderson7 00:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sensory Integration Dysfunction

edit
  • Article appears to be original research. Delete unless properly cited --Rdos 06:47, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this article has an edit history dating to 2003, it reads sensibly, maybe an issue with some reverts in the history, but otherwise I can see no problem with this that cannot be sorted out by collective agreement on the articles talk page. Alf melmac 11:31, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is that they make wild claims about hypersensitivity and hyposensitivity that they cannot backup with evidences. I cannot see anywhere published research that says sensitivity differences would be related to dysfunctions in integration of sensory information. This seems to be a wild guess only. There is no DSM entry either for SID --Rdos 14:06, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keepThe term is well-known, nearly 80000 Google hits should be sufficient proof. Pilatus 13:12, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think Google is much of an indication, especially since the individual words are quite commmon. A search on sensory+integration+dysfunction on PublMed gives 4 hits and none of them give evidences for the theory presented in the article.--Rdos 14:06, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was searching for the phrase, i.e. "sensory integration dysfunction". Even if it isn't in the DSM and not backed up by science it's at least a popular phrase that is much being thrown around. sensory+integration+autism gave 24 PubMed hits. Besides, for pseudoscience PubMed isn't the best source. Pilatus 14:30, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • If it is pseudoscience, according to original research policy it should be deleted or at least the article should describe it as such. Another problem is the links, that goes to a company selling treatments for autism. Advertising isn't allowed on WP either --Rdos 16:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's not up to us to condemn the research as bogus, what matters is that it is popular bogus. Our job is not to judge but to report what the arguments on both sides are and who supports the theory and who doesn't. The linkspam must go, of course. Pilatus 18:09, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP same person pushing the BS Neanderthal theory here that is original research. Pushing some kind of agenda - please stop! This is backed by many, many, many professionals and should never have been listed. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 17:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No reason to delete with worth-while article. --2mcmGespräch 21:06, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism. Doesn't actually say what the alleged condition is. Mentions what "sensory" means (several times). but never specifies what this neological, sorry, neurological, disorder, manifests as, apart from a sudden leap to autism. Tonywalton   | Talk 22:47, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Can't vouch for the content but apparently is a well-known term. See, New York Times, "Not All Swings Are Created Equal," Sept. 4, 2005. pg. 14.6 (story about a child with "Sensory Integration Disorder"); "Psychotherapy of a Dissociative 8-Year-Old Boy Burned at Age 3," Bradley C Stolbach. Psychiatric Annals. Thorofare: Aug 2005.Vol.35, Iss. 8; pg. 685 (child had been receiving treatment for, among other things, "sensory integration dysfunction."). Crypticfirefly 05:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with {{not verified}} tag (my edit) as a request for further sourcing and verification. This looks like reasonable biomedical science (to my layman's eye), but if relatively newly identified and accepted in the scientific community, there will be acceptable references, although they might take a while to percolate from the world of journals to the publicly-accessible Web. MCB 07:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are several pubmed hits for "Sensory integration dysfunction" (see, e.g., PMID 14730839 and PMID 2468631) and many more for sensory integration therapy, which I agree seems to be a separate thing. Rdos, please read the no original research policy more carefully, as I am not sure that you understand it yet. If you need help understanding it and have questions, please feel free to drop by my talk page and ask me; I'll be glad to help. Regards, Nandesuka 22:06, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Much of the information in this Sensory Integration Dysfunction article can be confirmed in a book called "The Out-of-Sync Child Recognizing and Coping with Sensory Integration Dysfunction" by Carol Stock Kranowitz, M.A. Rdos, I am aware that not all people who have autism have Sensory Integration Dysfunction as a co-morbid condition and this article does not imply they do. However many do, including several members of my family as well as myself. It is a good thing to have a thumbnail article about Sensory Integration Dysfunction like this for laymen. Regards, Aspens (newly registered user) 18:50, 14 September 2005
    • The point is not whether your family have the symptoms of SID. The point is that it has not been verified that these symptoms are caused by integration issues in the brain. --Rdos 09:31, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have SID, so this article's quite important to me. In regards to copyright or advertising, we can clean it up. Sean (talk || edits) 11:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I also have SID. I refer people to this page because it the only convenient summary of SID on the internet. In regards to Tonywalton's comment, this article says exact what it is.
  • Keep. Reservations about the validity of SID can be discussed on the talk page or in an added section in the article, but this is a legitimate topic worthy of an article. There should also be an article about sensory diets, a popular trend in treating Pervasive developmental disorders, and these articles should link to each other. --Woggly 06:56, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 00:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Hook

edit
Still haven't got a life yet, John old chum, I see, Still floating around on discussion boards, making a fuss. My, my, what a lad. I did however enjoy your john self flcker show. The plant on your head pic suited you, sir. I was hoping the roots would burrow into your brain and perhaps leave a residual of intelligence and moral fibre, but alas it seems not. Keep up the good work, old chum. Your biggest fan. (unsigned comment by Owen Why)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. --Canderson7 00:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-pokemon

edit

Anti-Pokemon is an orphan article written about a non existing word/name (Gibberish phrase) which is also misspelled. The content of the article does not explain the term "Anti-Pokemon" and has been made by just guessing wiki markup, for example creating headlines by writing bold text followed by a horizontal line (which users are told to use sparingly) without previewing causing gibberish like "Italic textAntiItalic text". See Pokémon theme music also. --Shreddy 20:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Stupidest article I've ever read. Love, Gold Stur 20:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would counter your reasons, Shreddy. When someone goes to Wikipedia, they want to be able to see info on all types of sources. Also, there is an extensive issue on "Pokemon", so everyone would know what that meant. Plus, horizontal lines are used sparingly (just twice). "Use Sparingly" doesn't mean "never use". Finally, Anti-Pokemon is not spelled wrong, and it is not gibberish, either. Sure hope no one makes the grave mistake of deleting this page. --Scyther-Mantis 12:34, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What is the point of this article, beside the fact its a hoax? Emphasis on hoax. "Anti-Pokemon" is gibberish as well, not to mention provacative. This should be a candidate for speedy deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.189.165.27 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete It's pointless and fannish and doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Any valuable information it might have could easily be contained within the Pokemon and/or flaming articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mumblingmynah (talk • contribs) 23:52, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 06:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete anything that reaches a certain point of popularity will eventually attract a hate site or two... there's also anti-Harry Potter sites and anti-Star Wars sites. These sites are usually only semi-serious and never really have any impact on anything. At best, this topic might warrant a sentence in the main Pokemon article, but doesn't need one of its own. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:51, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • "Because a cartoon and the internet are SERIOUS BUSINESS!" Great, this is so stupid I can't even make fun of it. Wikachu, Delete Attack!. -- Last Malthusian 15:59, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, which I guess makes me anti-anti-Pokemon. Anyway, a minor article on a minor movement that should be mentioned in the Pokemon article if it were worth mentioning, which it is not. Lord Bob 19:02, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Pokemon and duck the fireworks delete. --Carnildo 23:29, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The topic can be discussed in better depth in the Pokémon article - in fact, there is already a section in that article which discusses crticisms of Pokémon. A.K.R. 11:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Gibberish. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 04:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deltism

edit

Noexistent religion, delete--nixie 07:13, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Belikov

edit

Was listed for speedy deletion on the grounds that it's an article about a real person that does not assert that person's importance or significance. But it seems to me the article does attempt to assert this person's importance, for example by saying "In year 2002 he won silver medal at All-Russia Olympiade for Young Physicans where he had shown a great knowledge of mechanics, statical and dynamical electricity and optics", so I'm moving it here. I'm not convinced young Alexander really is important or significant, though, so I'm voting delete. Angr/tɔk tə mi 08:07, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. --Canderson7 00:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kholdeev

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Ugly Spirit

edit

Was listed for speedy deletion, but doesn't meet the criteria. Seems nonnotable to me, so I vote delete. Angr/tɔk tə mi 08:36, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. --Canderson7 00:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Remigius Kanagarajah

edit

Doubts on the factuality of the article Plus, take a look at what I've said on the original article's discussion page. I vote delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parthepan (talk • contribs) 2005-09-12 09:41:04 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 article has reappeared for some reason. Parthepan 13:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete · Katefan0(scribble) 20:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rule 7

edit

Minor internet related saying, no importance for WP. No dicdef eighter. feydey 09:56, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete · Katefan0(scribble) 20:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nagarajan Perspective

edit

Stunningly important philosophical insights which have unfortunately yet to be shared with the world. Non-notable or hoax. Demogorgon's Soup-taster 10:06, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • "a common term in contemporary philosophical thought" which fails to garner a single google hit? I don't think so. Delete unless verification can be found. Grutness...wha? 10:55, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as no such perspective of sufficient notability and currency exists to find a place here. --Bhadani 13:08, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • More mouthwash, er, hogwash. "The only certainity within the Nagarajan Perspective is that all we do is pointless." Great, presumably that includes this article. Delete due to author's own admission of non-notability. -- Last Malthusian 16:19, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nagarajan - a legend in his own mind. Delete. TheMadBaron 21:29, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to start a philosophical schism which amends the tenet to "... all we do except deleting is pointless." Barno 01:09, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I've heard about this guy before somewhere...in some obscure philosophical magazine. Maybe his "influence on modern philosophy" isn't as widespread as the author of the article claims, but Nagarajan does exist. I suggest someone does the research needed and makes the required edits to the page 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.

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

The result of the debate was delete · Katefan0(scribble) 20:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SchwarzReich

edit

(plus a redirect and two incoming links). Non-notable band. Note that of a mere 89 Google hits most are to the Atlantis article here and in clones, which has been carefully seeded some time ago. -- RHaworth 10:13:59, 2005-09-12 (UTC)

  • Delete nn. --rob 12:14, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • allmusic never heard of them, no assertion of meeting WP:MUSIC. Delete quickly before someone claims they're notable as part of the "Chaos Metal Movement". Friday (talk) 17:06, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey! Chaos Metal is a rising movement which will redefine the music scene! We've got our first album coming out as soon as our bassist's mom buys him the CD-Rs, and ah, who am I kidding, delete. Lord Bob 19:09, September 12, 2005 (UTC) (and a note: I'm not actually in the band).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Sadko

edit

The article does not explain why Jonathan Sadko is notable. Aleph4 10:41, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete for no claim of notability of person. --rob 12:09, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. It was created by a vandal under a multi-user IP, there is no claim of notability of person as rob said, it is not an encyclopedic topic, and it is among a series of misinformation articles created by this vandal, (original of Michael_Frank, a false addition to Charles_Hall, and current Jason_Boivin). Besides the point, this vandal has repeatedly vandalized my user page, and I both know and dislike him in offline life. [[Name redacted]] 20:52, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedied. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:09, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 TRANSWIKI to Wiktionary (2 keep, 1 delete or transwiki, 2 Transwiki, 1 Keep or transwiki). Thryduulf 13:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Backhanded compliment

edit

VfD tag added by User:Paul Klenk but nomination never completed; creating now. Keep or transwiki. JYolkowski // talk 15:35, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more discussion. Relisting on 12 Sep. --Tony SidawayTalk 11:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I take it back, the entry is accurate, it just went over my head. Still revising though. Pacian 07:45, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Well, that was confusing. Apparently this was on AfD and VfD simultaneously. Combining the two (or even considering each separately), we have a rough consensus. android79 15:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blogsnob

edit
Please note that this article was renominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blogsnob.

Wiktionary may be a better location for this. user:Matt.whitby 2005-08-07 20:46:43 UTC

  • Possibly: I entered it here as a cross reference to the main article as it was one of several with a dead link. user:nightingale 2005-08-08 08:38:00 UTC
  • This never made it to the main VfD page; adding now. Transwiki maybe. JYolkowski // talk 15:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete outright. Most Google hits look to be a nn software package, it's definitely a neologism here, and it doesn't look to meet Wiktionary's criteria, either. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 16:59:49, 2005-09-03 (UTC)
  • Delete. Internet slang neologism. This should be included in the CSD as far as I'm concerned. Peter Isotalo 15:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Needs more discussion. Relisting on 12 Sep. --Tony SidawayTalk 11:02, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 as either a redirect or a disambiguation page. The vote was 5 in favour of redirection or disambiguation with two delete votes, including the nominator. As to whether or to disambiguate or redirect, it was 3:2, so I will (reversibly) turn it into a disambiguation and the discussion can be taken up on the article's talk page. moink 11:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gouging

edit

Dictionary definition; if there were more info, I'd suggest moving it to Wikitionary Bletch 18:35, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more discussion. Relisting on 12 Sep. --Tony SidawayTalk 11:04, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Football World Cup. There's no consensus to delete, but noone wants to retain it as it stands. -Splashtalk 00:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Football World Cup 2022

edit

While this tournament will almost certainly happen, it is not for another 17 years - planning for this tournament is a long way from starting. There is nothing substantive to be said about it at this point in time. Article purely consists of speculation on possible hosts, with nothing to back it up. Delete. Qwghlm 11:15, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Final Sounds

edit

Not notable group per WP:MUSIC, no albums released, see also google: [5]. feydey 11:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Fujita scale. · Katefan0(scribble) 22:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

F-5 tornado

edit

This page seems rather unnecessary... for completion we would have to have F-0 tornado, F-1 tornado, etc... and none of those pages are weighty enough to have their own category. Also, reasons for "sudden downturn of F-5 tornadoes" can be listed under "tornado". Rob 11:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE (possibly CSD A5). Thryduulf 13:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paraxial

edit

Has been moved to Wiktionary KeithD (talk) 11:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete · Katefan0(scribble) 22:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Magatama (martial art)

edit

It's a misconception that there's a martial art called Magatama in the --King of Fighters-- series - the actual names of the arts used by characters of the Kusanagi family, as well as Iori and Shingo (mostly "Kusanagi style of ancient martial arts") are listed in an official source, the www.kof10th.com website, in the individual character profile pages. The misconception derives from part of the legend that inspired the Orochi plot in the KoF games up to 1997, as there are 3 sacred objects associated with the legend: a sword, a mirror, and a magatama (an object which has its own Wikipedia article, and which shouldn't need to go through a disambiguation page to be reached), which correspond to 3 important characters in that series, respectively Kyo, Chizuru and Iori Loona 11:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that frequent to be worth mentioning in the main KoF article - at most, mentioning the common points (these tend to stick to the some of the special moves they use, and the odd normal attack or two) between the styles used by the characters Kyo Kusanagi, Iori Yagami, Shingo Yabuki and Saishu/Saisyu Kusanagi (Kyo's dad - the spelling of the name tends to change slightly according to the source) in their respective profiles - Kyo's, at least, is in need of some tweaking. In short, the fighting style that does exist (and evolves) in KoF is that of the Kusanagi clan, which the official bios pretty much refer to as "Kusanagi style" - Saishyu passed that on to Kyo (who changed some aspects of it after being beat by Goenitz prior to the KoF96 tournament), while the Yagami had something quite different in many aspects, with only a few similarities that border parody by opposition (this is most noticeable in KoF 95, where both Kyo and Iori - who debuted in that game - have projectiles, but throw them with practically opposite hand movements - Kyo's is up-to-forward, and Iori's is back-to-down; another special has both of them dashing at an opponent, and while Kyo lifts his victim upon hitting him, Iori slams him into the ground - both follow up with an explosion); Shingo is basically a Kyo fanboy who tries to do the same things, but with no formal training (other than bugging Kyo to show him a move, and then proceeding to practice that countless times, so it's said), although Saishyu offers to train him in a KoF2003 ending. In no game or official source is a "Magatama style" mentioned, so it's something not worth focusing on outside the character profiles IMO, especially with a wrong name, and certainly not with a page of its own. Loona 15:22, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. · Katefan0(scribble) 22:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Gay Barbarians and/or the Jaurwars

edit

This band only gets 3 google hits. One of those is Wikipedia, and another is a page written by the author of the article. Pburka 21:41, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment Search on yahoo. The band is completely groundbreaking in everything that they do, why shun them even more? User:misterknowall 16:23, ET.
  • Delete. "Groundbreaking" is one of the oldest POVs in the book. If I had a nickel for every artist that was "groundbreaking", I could finally afford a new cliche to describe things that are common. If it doesn't pass WP:MUSIC, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Sorry, bro. Karmafist 20:25, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)"
  • I think I am prepared to withdraw my nomination and, instead, suggest that this article be Moved. The band appears to actually be named "The Gay Barbarians". I don't know where the "and/or the Jaurwars" part comes from—the only pages on the Web which use that name have all been contributed by misterknowall. Without the suffix, the band garners a slightly more respectable 59 google hits. Pburka 03:53, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, I use the "and/or the Jaurwars" tag on the end due to the name printed on the sleeve and cover of the album. However, I would not oppose the album being headed under the name "The Gay Barbarians" with a redirect from this page.
Seems to me this needs more discussion. Relisting 12 Sep. --Tony SidawayTalk 12:07, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. allmusic has a track listing of one CD, but no bio or other info. No assertion of meeting WP:MUSIC, one record on Charnel notwithstanding. Friday (talk) 17:11, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/question Their CD is sold at tower.com. I don't know if they're actually sold at brick and mortar Tower Records stores, but the tower.com sale would seem to indicate some notability. No vote. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:12, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pleuroma

edit

Non-notable band. No page at allmusic.com. Quite a few Google results, but next to none with any actual content. KeithD (talk) 12:24, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 · Katefan0(scribble) 22:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Claiomh Solais

edit

Fancruft? I don't now, but it's not encyclopeadic, in anyway. Delete now Differentgravy 17:58, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Claiomh Solais is a sword from Celtic mythology. ? 17:53, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Needs more discussion. Relisting on Sep 12. --Tony SidawayTalk 12:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Thryduulf 13:25, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dungeon Craft

edit

Delete Dungeon Cruft. The best part is that it's almost 100% deletable. There is one drawback - the deletion process is not finished yet. Vapourware. -Splash 22:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more discussion. Relisted on Sep 12. --Tony SidawayTalk 12:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete · Katefan0(scribble) 22:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mischief Masters

edit

Delete: a borderline A1 speedy. IMDb hasn't heard of a movie series by this title, although there is some ulta-obscure Mischief Masters: A New Master for which we don't have an article and IMDb hasn't got 5 votes (IMDb:IS a democracy). Nn something-or-other. -Splash 21:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more discussion. Relisted on Sep 12. --Tony SidawayTalk 12:31, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amu Zing

edit

Obvious hoax. However, obvious hoaxes don't qualify for speedy. "Amu zing" is a Sanskrit word, found in the Upanishads, and meaning "agreeable", "jocular", "boffo"? I don't bloody think so. DS 12:59, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Think house

edit

Probably copyvio, certainly spamZeimusu | Talk page 13:14, 2005 September 12 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ray incident

edit

Googling for manchester+coconut, for "manchester school" + coconut, for "manchester grammar school" + coconut, for manchester+coconut+headmaster, for manchester+coconut+racism... gives nothing relevant. Article claims that this happened in June 2005 and led to twelve arrests, in which case it would have gotten substantial media coverage. Hoax? DS 13:40, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Taking the piss

edit

WP:NOT a dictionary, slang or otherwise. Paul 13:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete copyvio posted to fictional title. -- RHaworth 18:37, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regular Grand Lodge of Enland

edit

Possible copyvio - appears to be a cut and paste from www.rgle.org.uk - Demogorgon's Soup-taster 13:55, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 01:01, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By-tor

edit

Article about a character from a Rush song that doesn't even have its own article. Paul 14:07, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete all -- Joolz 23:52, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of primary route destinations in English Counties

edit

List of Primary Route Destinations in Avon, List of Primary Route Destinations in Bedfordshire, List of Primary Route Destinations in Berkshire, List of Primary Route Destinations in Buckinghamshire, List of Primary Route Destinations in Cambridgeshire, List of Primary Route Destinations in Cornwall, List of Primary Route Destinations in Derbyshire, List of Primary Route Destinations in Devon, List of Primary Route Destinations in Dorset, List of Primary Route Destinations in East Sussex, List of Primary Route Destinations in Essex, List of Primary Route Destinations in Gloucestershire, List of Primary Route Destinations in Greater London, List of Primary Route Destinations in Greater Manchester, List of Primary Route Destinations in Hampshire, List of Primary Route Destinations in Herefordshire, List of Primary Route Destinations in Hertfordshire, List of Primary Route Destinations in Kent, List of Primary Route Destinations in Norfolk, List of Primary Route Destinations in Northamptonshire, List of Primary Route Destinations in Oxfordshire, List of Primary Route Destinations in Shropshire, List of Primary Route Destinations in Somerset, List of Primary Route Destinations in Suffolk, List of Primary Route Destinations in Tyne and Wear, List of Primary Route Destinations in Warwickshire, List of Primary Route Destinations in the West Midlands, List of Primary Route Destinations in West Sussex, List of Primary Route Destinations in Wiltshire, List of Primary Route Destinations in Worcestershire

This is a collective AfD for about two dozen Lists of primary route destinations in English counties. The List of Primary Route Destinations in Wiltshire came up for deletion a few days ago.

Each of these lists a couple of towns in the particular county without comment or context. WP:NOT a repository for original data or contextless links. Pilatus 13:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. No context. Each entry seems to be little more than a list of major towns, which should be covered by the specific counties' articles. KeithD (talk) 14:49, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Far from contextless lists, these are lists of primary destinations, the places you'll see on signposts on major roads, and they're grouped by county. They're not all towns, because not all destinations are towns (see List of Primary Route Destinations in Tyne and Wear which includes Tyne Tunnel). I honestly cannot understand what would cause anyone to wish to delete these excellent, useful list articles. As a simple "for instance" example of how they could be extended and improve the organization of information on Wikipedia, the destinations in each list could be annotated with the major roads leading to them, and the articles on these roads in turn could link to the appropriate lists of primary destinations. --Tony SidawayTalk 14:57, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the present state, these lists are absolutely contextless. On their own they are also original data, which does not belong here. One possible outlet for them would be to move the data into the county that they live in. Another would be to put them into a Wikiatlas with the roads that they are linked by. The format of an itinerary (i.e. a road or atlas in words) that you suggest is too clunky to be useful. Even if they were put in the form of an itinerary one would list the cities not by counties but by the road that passes through them. 129.215.195.81 15:41, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Good god, are we going to start making lists for every "destination"? These places have articles. Or use a map! --Fang Aili 15:38, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Also, it is not clear as to what, exactly, a "primary route destination" is. If this is kept, I suggest changing the name to something else. --Fang Aili 15:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Primary route destinations are well defined in the UK and are commonly included in atlases, maps and gazetteers (and, you may not be aware, encyclopedias competing with Wikipedia do normally incorporate at the very least an excellent atlas). The designation is useful for, for instance, gauging distances on the English and Scottish mainland. One would expect to find in a good encyclopedia tables of primary route destinations and their distances from one other.
    • I don't buy the proposition that "No one searching for encyclopedic information would look for or in these articles." In fact I find the suggestion simply incredible. Were I looking for information about the political geography and transportation in a county, I'd expect to find a list of the primary destinations of the major roads, and this is precisely function that these really excellent articles provide. --Tony SidawayTalk 16:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • These lists fail at all the points you raise. They are not maps, they are useless for estimating driving distance between major points or any of the points you mention – really, in which regard are they "excellent articles"? Pilatus 19:07, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. A bunch of arbitrary roadcruft lists. Wikipedia is not a directory. / Peter Isotalo 15:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as useless, or (and only if someone is willing to do it) merge with their counties - do not keep --Doc (?) 16:18, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep information meaning, they can be kept (which I admit seems like overkill to have so many articles... or merged into List of Primary Route Destinations in the United Kingdom or Primary route destination, or some article. They likely don't deserve articles... but the information is fine. gren グレン 16:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all I don't see that these context-free articles are useful. Dlyons493 16:57, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Wikipedia shouldn't need to be a handholding guide for someone trying to follow road signs in England. As written, the information is on it's way to becoming a travel guide, (i.e. "follow these signs, to get to the town you're looking for") which WP:NOT.
  • Delete - Control city primary route destination-cruft. I support a discussion of what control cities and PRDs are and how they're determined, but a big list of them is overkill. FCYTravis 18:35, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a travel guide, a list directory, a collection of source material, an indiscriminate collection of information, or any of a dozen categories which this bewildering display falls under. Roads are one thing, but this is insanity. Lord Bob 19:19, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as they are, but if they were changed into "List of towns in ..." series, I would have no objections. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:16, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all and perhaps put in a pile in one article I guess? Molotov (talk)   22:20, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete listcruft. Bunchofgrapes 22:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - This is just a subset of List of places in xxxshire, and the main settlements in a county can be found in their corresponding county article. These articles are just repeated information in a place no one is going to find them. - Hahnchen 23:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all: Wikipedia is not a collection of random information. --Carnildo 23:45, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. No potential to become encyclopedic. Might as well list Street names in Bedfordshire containing exactly three vowels. (Which would, of course, be very useful to anyone who wanted to know which street names in Bedfordshire contain exactly three vowels). Dpbsmith (talk) 00:16, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Pilatus. As a second choice, if there is no consensus to delete these articles, merge and redirect to the articles on the respective counties. --Metropolitan90 02:10, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. Potentially informative, but useless as it is now. -- BD2412 talk 04:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge with what? KeithD (talk) 08:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There's really no need to merge at all, this information already exists in the county article. - Hahnchen 23:25, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Max Resist

edit

Non-notable band. No entry at allmusic.com KeithD (talk) 14:35, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shieling

edit

According to the OED "shieling" is a Scottish term for "a piece of pasture to which cattle may be driven for grazing" or "a hut of rough construction erected on or near such a piece of pasture". It doesn't seem to be any special type of "pastoral behavior or custom" (and even if it were, this article doesn't tell us what it is!). I don't think this article, currently an orphan, could ever be more than a dicdef. Angr/tɔk tə mi 14:55, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:40, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AirScene Remote Sensor (ARS)

edit

Contextually, this is gobbledegook. Although it could be merged to the main article on Rannoch Corporation I believe that it would add nothing. According to the mfrs. product notes, this is a minor component-set of a much larger system. However, the other article referred to, AirScene, which I have now redirected, said nothing about the role of the ARS either! Delete Eddie.willers 15:41, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Title is a brandname and article details parts, what it is made up of, but not what it does. Remote Sensor for what? ->WCFrancis 16:38, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, maybe it senses your remote when you lose it between sofa cushions. Delete, no indication of notability, just contextless advertising of something with some parts (which might or might not serve some useful purpose) as it stands. Barno 01:20, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Hilgers

edit

I almost wanted to speedy this as a nn-bio, but being an "award winning sports writer" may be too close to an assertion of notability, so I'm AfD'ing instead. I see no assertion of meeting WP:BIO for this person, so delete. Friday (talk) 16:02, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
See next nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews against zionism (2nd nomination).

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Neturei Karta. No consensus to delete, but noone wants to leave it standing as it is, and there's plenty of support for this redirect. -Splashtalk 00:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jews against zionism

edit

Unverifiable, no evidence of notability. All information about this "group" appears to come from the website itself, which does not even list the names of those who are running the "group" or who are members, but instead simply gives a PO Box number for donations. Jayjg (talk) 16:11, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To the death

edit

unencyclopedic; adjunct to To the pain on AfD. WCFrancis 16:13, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Silent Abortion

edit

Google search suggests neogolism, article itself is also not encyclopedic, no information that is not included in oral contraceptives or abortion [7] Tznkai 16:26, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because Silent Abortion <> Oral contraceptives.--Tznkai 20:29, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. --Canderson7 23:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alkmania

edit

Non-notable, probably vanity. Club plays in the fifth tier of the amateur leagues, which is the seventh tier of Dutch football. That's about as non-notable as a Dutch football club can get. Aecis 16:31, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete that way below any threshold of notability that it would be useful to consider. (The irony of which is, if this were a school football team, we'd give them a merge and redirect.) -Splash 03:11, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, substub as platform for external link. And since they don't play in any first or second division games broadcast on national television, I don't think they should really have an article. - Mgm|(talk) 09:37, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 22:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Phatmass

edit

Promotion of a religious movement, AfD under WP:NOTa propaganda machine. Seems to be part of an organized program to prosteletyze using Wikipedia, see http://www.kensmen.com/catholic/evangelize.html Also related Dust Sieber Flowery and image Phatmass_stage2.gif. Expect to find additional "projects" and numerous reverts as this seems to be part of their program --Outlander 16:36, September 12, 2005 (UTC)


Not promotion of a religious movement, rather a description of a religious movement and more. A valid and noteworthy aspect of contemporary American youth culture. Not simply a unique online community, but also an affiliation of musicians and artists. Excluding phatmass from wikipedia strikes me as a mistake consider the fact that there are articles on some of the must banal and absurd topics.

And I fail to understand the accusation of an organized program to prosteletyze using Wikipedia. The link provided points to a page belonging to some unaffiliated organization who happens to have phatmass.com on their list of websites to prosteletyze. Ha!

Phatmass.com is entirely public and is archived by google.com and archive.org. You will find not evidence of an organized program to prosteletyze using Wikipedia, the accusation is utterly absurd. Good day!

vote discounted by closing admin Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 22:45, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re:Phatmass Hmmm… Phatmass.com doesn’t seem to view “trads” in a favorable light See user profile Extra ecclesiam nulla salus - so the kensmen.com "trad" movement seems entirely unrelated. Moreover, Phatmass is a Christian music production group – therefore a valid entry example: Tooth & Nail Records --Lounge Daddy 17:24, 12 September 2005 (UTC) [reply]

A music production group? Is that what they're describing at http://www.phatmass.com/about/? --Outlander 17:41, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Note: Phatmass.com has several members who attend a legitamite mass of 1962, myself included ie: the_rev. Others would include at phatmass, McJust, Totus Tuus, and many more. The reaosn why Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus is marked as "phishy" is because he holds beliefs contrary to what the Catholic Church teaches. Promotion of the SSPX, or affiliation is wrong since they are in schism.

Please do not delete this page, because it may be helpful to others.

The About thing is mainly talking about the site which is forums, but any casual perusal of the site will reveal the music side of things (click the music section, or any of the message boards for a particular band in the forums section). And as I said, you will find nothing about an organized prosteletyzing on Wikipedia or whatever else you were accusing phatmass of. The only thing that is related in the phatmass mission statement is: "Our mission is to live and defend the faith given to us by Jesus Christ by remaining totally and completely obedient to the teaching authority of His Church. We encourage dialogue between people of all faiths and recognize that we are all children of God striving for holiness." This is hardly prostelytism, it is defending the faith when anti-Catholics visit the forums and what not. I do not understand your bias in this case. What is the issue?

And futhermore, did you read on that page the section regarding what phatmass does? Example: "Produces Catholic hip-hop music as a creative method of communication to the youth and urban culture" "Performs at live shows and events across the country with the cooperation of a network of different artists"

Regards

vote discounted by closing admin Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 22:45, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As a website, they have an Alexa rank of ~100k and falling fast, too low for inclusion. As a music producer they have no allmusic page, nor do any of the bands listed. (One of the bands, Remnant, has an album listed, but no bio.) From what I can tell, just about all of those bands would fail WP:MUSIC as well. --Icelight 18:41, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

No all music page? Check it: http://www.phatmass.com/music/index.php http://www.phatmass.com/music/hip-hop.php http://www.phatmass.com/music/rock.php http://www.phatmass.com/music/rythm_blues.php http://www.phatmass.com/music/electronica.php http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showforum=31

Also the same was ranked pretty high on a recent list of popular Catholic sites.

Allmusic, as in Allmusic.com, a site referenced by WP:MUSIC as providing a rather good indication of what a band or lable has done. --Icelight 19:34, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Note - I'm not accusing Phatmass of anything. We delete or keep pages on their own merit, not on any imagined conspiricy. The reason for the note on www.kensmen.com was simply to make other wikipedians aware that such programs exist. --Outlander 20:31, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • I hate myself already, but keep. 68,700 google hits for "phatmass." The article has improved a little since it was nominated, it looks like. Bunchofgrapes 22:07, 12 September 2005 (UTC) Vote changed to Delete - Icelight is correct below, and the vast vast vast majority of those google hits are identical forum pages. I'm no longer convinced this site/movement/organization is notable. Bunchofgrapes 18:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What's so different about the two sites that they'd allow Onerock and not Phatmass?

Onerock is in AfD - --Outlander 17:55, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning toward keep now that it's cleaned up. Getting slightly off-subject, a friend of mine is friends with Father Stan Fortuna and talks about him often. I've never met him myself. I was flat blown away when I saw his name over on new pages patrol, so I expanded the article. According to his website, he's quite notable. Only thing that keeps me from a full-blown "keep" on this article is no mention of "phatmass" on his website. His main genre seems to be Catholic-based hip hop. - Lucky 6.9 05:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fr Stan was involved with - and has a track on - Phatmass' first comp, released 1993
  • Keep, article is clean; indications that bands and phatmass brand have been associated with notable youth events, national and international (eg. World Youth Day); I encountered related interviews/features in online sources of apparent note. --Fangorn35
  • Yahoo returned around 128,000 results for 'phatmass'.
  • 1,950 registered members at Phatmass.com

Keep, is straightforward, has no "hidden agenda", seems to be a clear and professional organization with links to large events like WYD and NFCYM.


KEEP IT....useful article and cool website. No harm done.

vote discounted by closing admin Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 22:45, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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 delete · Katefan0(scribble) 23:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Chateaus in the Highland of Castlemore, Brampton, Ontario

edit

Delete generic residential development. This is not a community, but just a group of homes being built simultaneously. Mindmatrix 16:42, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Group Delete for ALL generic residential developments as perMindmatrix - wiki is currently too slow to wade through them individually Dlyons493 18:07, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a community it was in the Toronto Star for being one of the last of its kind. There are few subdivisions with large houses being built anymore and it was designated as an Exective step up community by the city of Brampton. There are few areas in Brampton that are building these types of homes and it is very significant to the area Gsingh 23:58, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Perhaps the word 'community' is being thrown around a little too loosely. I know little of Brampton but I know a lot about residential subdivision and development. I don't think they should be included in Wikipedia for several reasons, among them: they're just trying to sell a product, they're all hype, and they're not significant in themselves. Few grow to be real communities, most simply just get integrated into the town and lose the 'place', unless there is a gate around it - then it becomes something else. The name is meaningless - just a selling feature, like my couch the 'Palm d'Or' (it has palm trees on it!). It will be gone as fast as the developers once the last house is sold. rant rant rant... --maclean25 02:18, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Quale 01:52, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A new pile of houses like every other one in North American suburbia. Not notable in any way. Radagast 14:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:51, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lakelands Village, Brampton, Ontario

edit

Delete generic residential development. This is not a community, but just a group of homes being built simultaneously. Mindmatrix 16:48, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:51, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Four Corners, Georgetown, Ontario

edit

Delete generic residential development. This is not a community, but just a group of homes being built simultaneously. Mindmatrix 17:02, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Digitaldreamdoor.com forums

edit

Delete, nn forumcruft (1486 registered users) Punkmorten 17:10, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. --Canderson7 23:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

edit

No encyclopedic value. Punkmorten 17:10, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but since you can spell almost any word with SMS, that wouldn't be a list, that would be a dictionary in itself, and a delightfully pointless one. Someone should definitely write it. Only, not here. TheMadBaron 02:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was MERGE and KEEP as redirect. Paul August ☎ 14:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Germs (Batman)

edit

Non-notable Batman: The Animated Series character. Has only appeared in a two-parter. Apostrophe 17:14, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. --Canderson7 23:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma Tau Psi

edit

Non-notable fraternity. Apostrophe 17:15, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • If it had a national, I'd say keep. As is, delete as a non-notable student organization. Friday (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Seeing as how there are other small local fraternities and sororites posted on Wikipedia, would we be setting a precedent here that non-national US higher ed Greek orgs are inherently nn?  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 20:09, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If we didn't delete it, would we be setting a precedent here that non-national US higher ed Greek orgs are inherently notable? Let's stay out of the "inherent" business, which seems to have the effect of factionalizing the community, and decide whether this organization is notable. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless convincing evidence of notability is presented prior to expiration of AfD discussion. If this were a person, it could be speedied because nothing notable about the organization is mentioned in the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:23, 13 September 2005 (UTC) P. S. It claims to have the biggest basement in Geneseo.[reply]
  • Delete. Local fraternity = local student organization. Nn. -- DS1953 02:43, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sigma Tau Psi is a notable fraternity in that it challenged the 1953 New York State ban on national fraternities, as an underground affiliate to Sigma Tau Gamma national fraternity. Further, membership in an activities sponsored by this organization have been a dominant force in social activities at SUNY Geneseo for 42 years. DS1953 11:35, 30 October 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.

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. --Canderson7 23:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Past Committees

edit

Delete. Behind this wonderfully ambigous name (I was afraid I'd find a list of every comittee every made) we have instead a (partial) list of the past leadership of a student orchestra from a university in Australia. While the orchestra itself might warrant a page, if there isn't room on it for ex-members, they probably don't deserve their own page. Icelight 17:23, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete with a unanimous 6 or 7 delete votes, depending on whether the group vote is counted. moink 20:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Manors of Wellington Crown, Brampton, Ontario

edit

Delete generic residential development. This is not a community, but just a group of homes being built simultaneously. Mindmatrix 17:21, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete, with a unanimous 5 or 6 votes, depending on whether the group delete is counted. moink 20:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Estates of Valleycreek, Brampton, Ontario

edit

Delete generic residential development. This is not a community, but just a group of homes being built simultaneously. Mindmatrix 17:21, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. I don't see an assertion of note in there (apart from ones I resolutely refuse to attach any actual meaning to). -Splash 23:34, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maniax

edit

Doesn't seem sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia (although I don't think he's quite non-notable enough for speedy deletion). KeithD (talk) 17:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 spam by FCYTravis. android79 19:41, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Razor gunk, Fresh razor gunk, Fossilized razor gunk

edit

Delete. Neologistic dicdefs, spam. Part of an advertising campaign for the "Razor Gator" by, oddly enough, User:Razor Gator. See that user page for the actual ad. android79 17:29, September 12, 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.

"Razor Gunk" the term is now commonly in use. fresh and fossilized terms used to describe such 'gunk' are descriptors. An upload of content on a product like Razor Gator is content none-the-less.

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

The result of the debate was Redirected to Inline linking Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 23:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Bandwidth theft

edit

This article misleadingly conflates a number of unrelated actions under the rubric "bandwidth theft". It gives the impression that this term has some legal or technical meaning, which it does not. Some of the actions described are not crimes at all. Others are crimes under unrelated laws which do not treat with "theft".

Many pieces of the article appear to me to be original research, or simply opinion presented as fact. Others are simply erroneous or misleading. The title, and the presentation of this morass as a single legal or technical category called "bandwidth theft", rather caps it off.

I don't see any way that this can be improved in place: the title needs to go; most of the content is misleading; and what isn't misleading is redundant with other articles that deal better with the specific subjects. That's why I'm recommending it for deletion. For more discussion of the problems, please see the talk page. FOo 17:59, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the title need to go? What other title is suitable for this concept? Kappa 18:02, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The title needs to go because it's a made-up category. There isn't really a connection between the things being described as "bandwidth theft" -- it's just several unrelated things that someone doesn't like, thrown together and given a title. There's no reason to expect that there is a right title for this grouping of things.
It's as if someone created an article entitled "Sex theft" and put into it discussions of rape, adultery, copyright violation of pornography, and faking orgasm. Some of those are crimes; all of them have something to do with sex; but they don't belong to a category called "sex theft". It's just made up. --FOo 18:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Webmasters bitch about it, sometimes frequently and with great vigour, and I think it's notable. Is it illegal to link to an image on somebody else's web page? Good God, no, but theft the crime and theft the concept can be two different things. Lord Bob 19:24, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
    The action you're talking about is dealt with in our articles on deep linking and inline linking -- two neutral titles which describe the action rather than pretending that it's a crime. Slapping the mistaken term "theft" on top is just a bog-standard NPOV violation, since it assumes the point of view of people who think this action should be illegal. Moreover, what do you suggest be done with the bits of this article that deal with spam, malware, advertising itself, and other unrelated things that someone wants to call "theft"? --FOo 19:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    For one thing, I don't think the title is nearly as bad as you say...although I do see a problem, the term is the term in common usage. You want to move it, fine, but that's obviously not an AfD matter. And if non-bandwidth-theft related content is in there, then my suggestion would be to take it out (or, if it's content that's only bandwidth-theft-related to a small group, mention it in a little section). Be bold and so forth! That said...and here's the part you're going to like because I admit my ignorance...I wasn't aware of inline linking and deep linking. Oops. So I change my vote to merge to inline/deep linking and redirect to inline linking, which from my experience is the more common usage. Lord Bob 23:43, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

*Keep. it's a lousy article, but the term has Google hits well into six figures. Here's an example of a standard discussion of what's referred to. http://www.buffyguide.com/webmasters/directlink.shtml Monicasdude 19:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC) vote struck by closing admin Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 23:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC) [reply]

  • Well, since the title "bandwidth theft" is an NPOV violation, how would you feel about changing this to a redirect to inline linking, the neutral title for the subject of that page? This assumes, of course, that the spam, malware, and advertising sections are not worth considering. --FOo 19:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's a commonly used term, maybe the most commonly used term. It definitely refers to a different concept than inline linking. It's not an NPOV violation to describe the way the term is used. And with 150,000+ Google hits, it shouldn't be ignored. Monicasdude 16:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. The term is in use, although it is somewhat provocative. struck by closing admin because unsigned vote Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 23:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge to List of legal terms. --Canderson7 23:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abscond

edit

DICDEF, Delete, already in wiktionary.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 19:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete with 5 delete votes, a keep vote from an anonymous contributor, and a keep vote from a newly registered user who seems to be unaware of Wikipedia:No original research. moink 20:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lillehovde's Dynamic Network Address Protocol

edit

I don't think this is real. Can't find it in Google and does not seem credible. YUL89YYZ 19:54, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

  • keep The project is very much real, and it have been under development for a couple of years. There're some pretty interesting changes in the field of computer networking compared to conventional protocols, and those who're familiar in the field will recognize those are very much real. The article now contains a good deal more information than the brief overview also. I must comment on that it would be hard to find it on google because the project have been publicly closed until recently, but with the bsd implementation of the stack that is on the way, I believe that's going to change. Tempus0 01:16, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: It may change. When and if it does, that would be an appropriate time to create this page. Again, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Also, it's helpful if you sign your comments by entering four tildes (~~~~). Bunchofgrapes 23:57, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: The "not a crystal ball" section you're refering to have nothing to do with this article, however I understand that it may fall under the "no original research". Depends on how you look at it, because it can also be considered a practial application scheme. But research should have referances to reputable publications, which this one lack. The project leader was publishing some papers on this, so I'll find out which magazines that was and add it. Tempus0 01:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply: I place this in the Crytal Ball category because you seem to be asserting that this topic is going to become notable (shortly?) in the future. It is not notable now, except perhaps as notable original research. It is also a little hard for me to believe that a proposal for a Networking Address Scheme would not have a large number of google hits before it came into wide or even limited real-world use. My opinion (which I could be argued out of, perhaps) is that a network scheme described in research magazines but not even moderately deployed in actuality would not be notable. Bunchofgrapes 03:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply: I agree that this article may be a bit "early". When some articles have been published, the implementation is available for public development and testing, and I hear there's also a Internet-draft on its way, then someone else might take the time to write an article again here. Tempus0 18:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Why is this one on delete? seemed kinda interesting in my opinion. 00:30 13, September 2005 (UTC) (Unsigned comment by IP 151.203.191.170; IP's first wikipedia contribution.)
  • Delete per WP:NOT crystal ball, WP:V. Barno 01:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. This is either a hoax, a joke, or someone's OR. There is absolutely no way that a serious or legitimate proposal to redo a Layer 3 addressing scheme can exist in a total vacuum. Where's the RFC? Where's the IETF Working Group? Where is any evidence whatsoever of any publication of this in a journal? Proceedings of a conference? Even a BOF session at a user group? Not even a single Usenet posting??? I am familiar with how network standards and protocols are developed, promulgated, and adopted, and it is inconceivable that something could be described at this stage and there be absolutely no record of it in the entire Internet standards & protocols community. Plus, there are fewer than 10 unique Google hits on the protocol's alleged designer (or a person or persons with the same name), none of which refer to any networking or protocol design activties. [User:MCB|MCB]] 06:11, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: It have already been pointed out that the protocol is under development, which do explain the lack of documentation. So, yes, it's original research so it doesn't belong here. That matter has been resolved. But since you claim to be familiar with protocol development, you probably know that layer 3 protocols like IPv4, IPX and XNS had years in closed research / developement before they became widely used / standarized. What you seem to have described in your post is the process to adapted a widely used protocol to a network standard, which is something years ahead of a protocol still in development. Tempus0 18:09, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, no. IPX and XNS are not good examples, because they were originally designed as proprietary protocols designed to provide commercial advantage, and were kept secret (in fact, trade secret) during development. IPv4, on the other hand, was not "closed R&D" by any means, and was widely discussed in the network community before its deployment on ARPANET. The Lillehovde protocol, on the other hand, while it may not be entirely imaginary, does not by any means appear to have any independent or verifiable existence. I mean, many of us have sketched out protocols or meta-protocols on whiteboards to solve particular problems; perhaps even written code stubs to handle them on top of a lower layer. That does not really signify anything. One of the very odd and suspicious things about the article is that neither Lars Lillehovde nor his institution (company? university? laboratory?) is identified. Unless a project is proprietary or a trade secret, it strains my credulity that there is no mention of it in any form whatsoever other than the article itself, even though we have access to essentially every web page, Usenet group, conference proceeedings, or mailing list in existence. In 2005, the world just does not work that way. Perhaps you could give some details about Mr. Lillehovde, his institution, and about yourself and your affiliation as well? -- MCB 23:03, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research, and appears to be a load of crap as well. MCB hits it right on the head. Quale 01:56, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Yes, it's original research. However the rest of your post only show how immature you are, and that you're not to be taken seriously. You seem to lack the ability to be constructivity and proffesional, and I think you should consider if this is indeed the correct forum for you. Tempus0 18:09, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely party

edit

A mock political party in a satirical skit in one episode of the popular UK Dead Ringers (comedy). There is simply no content to merge, and it would create a pointless redirect. --Doc (?) 20:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Xixax

edit

Delete. Non-notable project. Essentially, it's someone with a projector putting "graffiti" onto the walls of buildings. Once you eliminate a film forum by the same name, and a few screen names, it doesn't appear to have had any impact on the world, or achieved much notice. Icelight 20:10, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:52, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

O'Connor Drive

edit

Delete generic road article; this road does not have cultural or historical significance to Toronto. Mindmatrix 20:21, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should get a speedy criterion for road articles that don't say anything apart from their location (similar to CSD A7 for people). - Mgm|(talk) 09:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:50, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Leisure 7

edit

nnbv?? --Doc (?) 20:31, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. Nominator appears to have withdrawn. -Splashtalk 00:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TNTlite

edit

Self-advertisement, has no outside links or contributors. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TNTmips. --David Wahler (talk) 20:39, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was very glad to find this article on the Wikipedia the other day, since I had been looking for a free GIS program. Trying to find something like that using Google had proved to be nearly impossible. I agree that the article needs work. I've now downloaded the program but not installed it. After I've installed it, I should be able to improve the article. Note: The article has been wikified by me, and there have been two other editors besides the original anon, so David Wahler is incorrect when he states that there are no outside links and no contributors. BlankVerse ∅ 21:04, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have been more clear; I meant that there were no links from other articles, and that there were no contributions of new content. I didn't mean to imply that your contributions weren't appreciated, I just feel that this program isn't particularly notable, and that Wikipedia isn't necessarily the best place to make it notable. --David Wahler (talk) 21:59, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I originally found the article through the List of GIS software, but you deleted that link (see [8]) just before creating this AFD! That's one way to make the facts fit your argument. BlankVerse ∅ 14:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You know, in retrospect this doesn't seem like such a good idea. Please understand, I'm relatively new here and didn't mean any harm -- just trying to be bold. I apologize if acted too rashly. No hard feelings, right? --David Wahler (talk) 02:10, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Even the split comment is unsure of which way it prefers to lean. -Splashtalk 00:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TNTmips

edit

Self-advertisement, has no outside links or contributors. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TNTlite. --David Wahler (talk) 20:40, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:52, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Harlequin Centre

edit

Not notable, I googled it and found nothing that would indicate that this shopping centre is more notable than any other one. Could even be construed as advertising.--Carabinieri 21:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:52, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Milena Benini

edit

not notable, in particular as we know nothing about the Croatian Weekly Economic Bulletin yet. Also there is (so far) no Croatian page hr:Milena Benini Austrian 20:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 16:19, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Tony Large

edit

Non-notable, dead-end Dhartung | Talk 21:21, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. I'm not going to take this to WP:CP since without an offer of a rewrite in the 12 days on here, it's not going to get one sitting over there either. -Splashtalk 00:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gary M. Reiner

edit

Was listed for speedy on grounds of vanity, but I think claiming to be senior vice president of General Electric is at least asserting notability. I abstain from voting. Angr/tɔk tə mi 21:29, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. There was no trace of an assertion of notability in that. Image to IfD. -Splash 02:58, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Power

edit

Delete, resume-type of article on an nn subject. (It's not a vanity page; the author is not Keith Power.) --Idont Havaname 21:00, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Idont habaname I don't understand your objection to this submission? Could you explain the statement 'resume-type of article on an nn subject'. Person in question quite noteworthy where he comes from. (

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffery V Merkey vs. World

edit

Meets Deletion criteria. Molotov (talk)   22:06, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Which criterion specifically?
  • Which criterion? Delete as it stands since info exists at Jeff Merkey. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 00:38, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, sub-stub that does not establish...well, what it's talking about. I should take on the whole world in a lawsuit sometime for "emotional pain and anguish". Lord Bob 00:50, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. -- BD2412 talk 03:46, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Redirect to Jeffrey Vernon Merkey then protect page Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 23:08, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Jeff Merkey

edit

A resume in an encyclopedia. Molotov (talk)   22:04, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. However Mr Merkey is a controversial figure in the Linux and OSS community by way of his own actions and perhaps a page is justifiable. Mr Merkey does not handle criticism well and keeps changing the page to reflect his own narrow viewpoint. Unfortunately there are many within the community that Mr Merkey has angered that enjoy poking him to get a reaction, consequently we are getting a wildly erratic entry based on who had the last edit. Written by Fava

As much as I like the 'Poke Jeff With A Stick' game, this really has no place in an encyclopedia. Jerryg 23:08, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As Fava notes, Merkey is a well-known public figure - I think that alone warrants keeping the page. Poking him with a stick doesn't belong here but a record of his public acts and comments DOES belong in an encylopaedia. (TWP)

  • Weak Delete - To me, the entire history just looks like one vandalisation versus another one. Because of this, I have no idea what is actually true and what is false, this makes it a useless wiki article. And what sort of notability is there? I've gone for delete, because he doesn't seem that notable, but if someone could do a complete rewrite and establish what is true in the article, then I'd go keep. - Hahnchen 23:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I started the Jeff_Merkey wiki and I've tried to keep what I wrote factual. Merkey is a minor player in the whole SCOX vs World+dog lawsuit circus but he has done and said some very interesting things. I envision the wiki as just a container pointing to the various things he has said online. FYI I didn't have my jeff_v_wookie ID when I started, but I did this so my edits would be tagged as mine. 

Go ahead and let the Jeff_Merkey wiki die, but Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey should continue ...
  • Strong Keep - Obviously Mr. Merkey IS a public figure deserving an entry in Wikipedia. As with any controversial topic the editors of the article should painstakingly try to be NPOV. Gugganij 12:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removed legal threats and personal attacks by 67.137.28.187. [9] El_C 01:04, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


From JMERKEY gadugi:

This article is simply an attempt to harrass and google spam me with wikipedia. The links posted in previous versions contain libel, statements and emails I did not author which are attributed to me, and copyrighted materials and materials which are currently sealed under a Federal Court Order. The version of this story which is present under Jeff_Merkey is accurate and I approve of this content should wikipedia choose to keep it. Please do not allow others to post links to external content or copyrighted materials. End of JMERKEY:


The Merkey "approved" pages are compleatly meaningless because it doesnt address the issues that would make the entry significant. That is his attempts to buy the linux kernel and his threats of lawsuits against those in the community who disagreeing with him. His (removed) legal threat against this forum is just another example of why this is important. I think that the community CAN create a NPOV entry that sticks to the known facts, however as long as Merky keeps reverting the page to his prefered version the community will continue to react in kind. Fava 02:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


From JMERKEY gadugi:

These individuals have never met me, don't know me, and are simply perputating false, libelous, copyrighted, misleading, and incomplete "hearsay" on the internet for their own political and social agendas to promote wholesale IP Theft by OSS and Linux accross the planet. I have never worked for SCO, Canopy, Microsoft, or any of the companies these stories and links reference. I have had my identity stolen, and have had to resort to litigation to stop these indviduals from harassing and threatening not only myself, by my family. They do not have the facts of my life -- but I do. Please go to the source for the accurate information, and not a group of misinformed, anonymous internet users.


Mr. Merkey, you seem to have a peculiar view of what an encyclopedia is. An article about a person doesn't require that person's approval. It's doubtful that George W. Bush, Michael Jackson, or Osama bin Laden approved articles about themselves. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia guidelines on autobiography and verifiability, and edit war. If you feel that there are errors in an article, you can present alternate points of view instead of engaging in vandalism. Exabit 03:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


From JMERKEY gadugi:

An encyclopedia first and foremost is ACCURATE. Unsubstaciated commentary and attribution, plaugerized copyrighted materials, and libel are CONTRARY to WIKIPEDIAS policies. I will remove any content which is false, inaccurate, copyrighted, or libelous -- period. These categories are PROHIBITED by your POLICIES which state that REMOVAL OF SUCH CONTENT is NOT VANDALISM. I could of course contact wikimedia and speak with your legal representatives for clarification as to what constitutes copyright infringement if there are legitimate questions.

  • Delete, not notable. -- BD2412 talk 03:47, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Removed personal attacks by 67.177.35.211 [10] Exabit 04:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff seems intent on abusing wikipedia for his own ends, and he's bringing his obnoxious lawsuit threats (which are part of why he's notable) to wikipedia. I reckon we should report Jeff for his continual reversions of this and the Jeffrey Vernon Merkey article. Once he's learned to play nice, or is out of the way, a factual, balanced article could be cobbled together.

  • Keep but Protect It is clear that Mr. Merkey is notable and that there is a massive revert war going on over this article in which the subject is participating. Since no one can be considered objective about himself, he cannot be allowed to have an editorial veto over the article. This article needs to be hammered out on its talk page and then put in place and protected. Caerwine 09:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this condition: weak keep, if cleaned up: strong keep. Jeff Merkey is actually quite an interesting person. His role in SCO vs. reality deserves some attention. There is a lack of NPOV information about him in the internet. One reason to delete this entry might be his behavior. Wikimedia Foundation has better things to do than to reply to lawsuits from Jeff Merkey once he discovers his wikipedia entry. -- 84.176.181.81 10:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. This entry could never be objective and hence has no place in wikipedia.

Well Jeff has publicaly announced on his website that he intends to sue wikipedia (You might want to read it quickly, articles on his site tend to come and go very quickly). This is standard practice for Jeff, anyone who criticizes him will be threatened with a suit at some time. Most of the time its just an empty threat. Fava 16:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's a mirror of the removed post at [11] and the one that replaced it at [12].

Unfortunately the wikipedia has become embroiled in the tail end of a long running dispute between Jeff Merkey and everyone.

The controversy began with a post by Merkey to the Linux Kernel mailing list in which he offered $50,000 for a snapshot of the kernel to be re-licensed under the BSD license. Currently the Kernel is licensed under the GPL, this allows people to use and change the software but the changes must be public and also licensed under the GPL. The BSD license does not require that the software remains open and public and kernel snapshot could be exploited for commercial purposed without changes being given back to the community that created it. So say that this proposal caused discussion and controversy would be an understatement. Much abuse was directed at Jeff as a result of this proposal and it was almost universally rejected by the community.

As a result of this proposal some people began digging. One thing that was found was legal documents between Timpanogos Research Group (Merkeys company) and Novell (Merkeys former employer). Novell alleged misappropriation of trade secrets and Merkey alleged sexual harassment. Novell requested a temporary injunction against Merkey that was granted. The text of the injunction is extremely critical of Merkey, paragraphs 112-125 are particularly damming. Merkey then began to threaten anyone who hosted or discussed the ruling. He argued that the Judge was a Novell stooge and that the ruling was a preliminary one and that he was completely vindicated in the final sealed settlement agreement.

On Jun 21 Merkey filed suit against a few named individuals and 200 ”John Does”. As part of the filing he included the sealed final ruling between himself and Novell. Due to a filing error the sealed document was publicly available for a short period. The settlement agreement did not vindicate Merkey as previously claimed. Within a few hours of the inadvertent release of the document it was being mirrored all over the internet and was being widely discusses.

Merkey began to threaten those who hosted and discussed the settlement agreement and he soon filed an amended complaint that named those individuals and websites.

Some highlights of the Amended complaint.

  • He has alleged a broad range of first amendment, torturous interference, identity theft, and hate crimes.
  • Bruce Perens suggested in a public posting that Merkey be added to each users killfile. Merkey accused him of making death threats.
  • He has accused the linux community of aiding and sponsoring terrorism.
  • And much more.

Merky has continued his complaint of abuse and threats against anyone who is critical of him. The 2 deleted entries on this page are good examples of this. This is the most basic of background information, a proper summary would be many pages. Fava 18:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have not seen the article yet, so I can't comment on the specific article's merit but I believe it is highly likely that an article on Jeff Merkey would meet our notability criteria from many angles. He has been discussed in the national media, and has caused at least a much noise as any infamous internet personality though at least some portion of it is limited to the Linux related community. On the flip side, I think we will have a very difficult time producing a good article about him that merkey will agree with, because there are some very solid references which say some very negative things about him. I strongly disagree with the above delete view that the article couldn't be objective... Unlike sollog Merkey doesn't really have followers, and he is also not completely unreasonable. If we can write an acceptable article on any internet personality we can write one on Merkey. My position should be cosidered a keep because deleting the specific text will not help the stability problems we've had with this notable subject. --Gmaxwell 22:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that it is possible to write a neutral piece about the subject "Jeff V. Merkey". It is unlikely that the result will please Jeff, but at the same time, it won't be the piece that his main distractors like to see. The person of Jeff and his actions are interesting enough to warrant an entry in Wikipedia, I suggest to keep Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey. --213.84.14.16 10:41, 14 September 2005 (UTC) MathFox[reply]

The definition of a compromise has been said to be an outcome with which all parties are displeased... Usrnme h8er 08:22, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete, violates all the vanity pages, NPoV, and other guidelines. Most data is from various JVM sockpuppets. The phrase "legend in his own mind" applies. N0YKG 13:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - highly notable in the SCO Vs Linux litigation. He's somewhere between a nutter and a troll (including legal trolling), but that doesn't affect whether he warrants an article. Read older articles on Groklaw (he's not mentioned in current ones precisely because he's suing them now) and you'll see why. I urge all delete voters whateverit'scallednows to read, learn and reconsider. Might merge with the full name article, or merge that one with this one - he's more commonly known as "Jeff Merkey" - David Gerard 06:01, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Crypticfirefly sounds like a keeper to me, and Paul August does provide some evidenciary basis. Will tag it for cleaning. -Splashtalk 16:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exo-cuisine

edit

Transwiki to Wiktionary and delete. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:15, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was MERGE ALL to Address Unknown (television series). I'm going to do this by adding the single-sentence synopses to the target article under a new section heading, removing the then-redundant wikilinks and adding links to the Wikiquotes entries in the same new section. This is all purely editorial, so someone who knows a better way to do this is welcome to do better. -Splashtalk 16:56, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Address Unknown: Episode 6

edit

Episode 6 has a more thorough explanation and description in the main Address Unknown article, the additional article is unnecessary.

Address Unknown: Episode 1 Address Unknown: Episode 2 Address Unknown: Episode 3 Address Unknown: Episode 4 Address Unknown: Episode 5 Address Unknown: Episode 6 If we vote on one we should vote on all. -Ajshm 08:14, 14 September 2005 (UTC) Adress Unknown is a very important part of the Max Payne series. If you really are considering deleting the scripts, then why not delete any mention of the game series or all video games. You should just leave this page be. There is no need for deletion.[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 --Doc (?) 23:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1977 Pacific hurricane season

edit

This article is actually about the first storm of that season and that storm is nowhere near notable. Look at its track, it did nothing. [13] Even if it was notable, it'd need to be moved. This anon article has no hope-Delete. A speedy delete might be a better option.-- E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 22:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This hurricane does not seem particularly important with winds of onlu 55mph. However, history should be preserved and remembered. I think that this currently dull article deserves to be kept and expanded. ----Kacachura

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 01:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DeathByVoltage

edit

Delete, band vanity (possible hoax). Google gives 43 results for "death by voltage" and 5 for deathbyvoltage; none have to do with the band. --Idont Havaname 22:36, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Thought about relisting but 1) it doesn't have a serious chance and 2)it's a copyvio anyway. -Splashtalk 00:57, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CQdesign

edit

Delete

edit

NN Web Design Company, nothing in portfolio section of website, very little Google, Vanity, also possible copyvio - the text is lifted straight from the company website. inks 22:59, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Deleted Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 16:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Sunsara Taylor

edit

nn activist -- 111 Google hits. Writer for a "newspaper" we don't have an article on. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:26, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP --Doc (?) 22:50, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Girl Who Slept Too Little

edit

Tagged as nonsense, but doens't fit. Looks like a merge/redirect or something. -Splash 23:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Blackwater USA. -Splashtalk 00:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blackwater_mercenaries

edit

This page is redundant; see Blackwater USA. Nicktastic 03:21, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_September_12&oldid=1234127380"