Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 October 23
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Woohookitty (talk | contribs) at 10:51, 23 October 2005. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
< October 22 | > |
---|
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. gren グレン 12:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, Bob Saget!
dicdef (if that) Flapdragon 23:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete V/M !
00:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply] - Delete This wishes it could be a neologism when it grows up. Gets roughly 15-to-20 Googles (actual Google count is 46, but most of those are a line " 'OH!!!', Bob Saget squeeled." from some bestiality story that I'm sure as hell not clicking on). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable. TheMadBaron 02:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn neologism coined by an exploitative website (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tourette's Guy) --Anetode 07:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Delete. Not worth noting. - Kookykman (talk • contribs) 13:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Delete Per above comments. Banes 16:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I have voted for both the Tourette's Guy/Tourettes Guy sites to be deleted too. I also agree with Anetode that this is exploitative and probably insensitive to many sufferers who have to put up with this misunderstood syndrome. --MacRusgail 16:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This should'nt belong in an encyclopedia.The Republican 19:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, neologism. - Mgm|(talk) 20:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously, delete.—Gaff ταλκ 22:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. NN. Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 02:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 11:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Luna class starship
This is not an offical class of starship in Star Trek and it has not appreared to my thinking in any books. The Refrence to the USS Titan is canon but however no class name has ever be introduced with it. This Article should be deleted. Aeon 23:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete V/M !
00:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply] - Weak keep According to the article, it was the winner of a design competition for the books and was used in the Titan books (as the main ship of the novels, commanded by Will Riker). Though I'm aware the books are not strictly considered ST canon by Paramount, they're still official, and as major publications from a major publisher are worthy of being covered anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, appear in major publications from a major publisher. The article should clarify how canonical they are. Kappa 01:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete The published books are NOT considered canon by Paramount. There for this entry should be deleted They have made many statements saying that the books are not official or even considered canon. Also published books are not major publications. Major Publications are more like the Star Trek Encyclopedia and Companions. The Published Paperbacks and Hard Covers have never been considered a major publication as several of them have been contradicted by the TV Shows and by Official Sources. 63.207.248.188 04:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge non-speculative content of article with List of Starfleet ship classes --Anetode 07:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not relevant to an encyclopaedia. Doesn't even exist in a fictional universe. --Bucephalus talk to me 10:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong merge into Star Trek Titan, with an emphasis on merging the info about the design contest. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 10:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Regardless of whether or not the class is canon (and it's not) to Star Trek, it is canon for the Star Trek: Titan series of books. The information and image provided regarding the competition are accurate and I believe at least some of the history and stats provided are confirmed in the Titan novels. The article does need to be cleansed of conjectural info and it needs to be made clear that it is not canon as far as Paramount are concerned (and as such, has no place on the ships list), but the information provided in the Titan novels and by S&S Inc. means that this article is perfectly valid given the all-encompasing nature of Wikipedia. -Hayter 15:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. I am quite happy that Wikipedia includes established but non-canonical elements of major fantasy universes. [1]. Wikipedia Is Not a Place To Insist On Solely Canonical Interpretations Of Other Peoples Fantasies. The Land 19:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Just mention books are not established canon. They're still major publications and deserve being included. Merge if we've got the book. - Mgm|(talk) 20:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Star Trek Titan, which is short enough to accomodate this; wouldn't be opposed to keeping it either. CanadianCaesar 20:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or at most...merge. Paramount does not get to dictate others contributions towards the reality of a fictional univers. If this class starship is appearing in stories published, then it seems to be a notable entity. I'll let the debate about "Star Trek canon" alone.—Gaff ταλκ 22:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It has been in books, and is therefore somewhat "official". I draw the line between published and fanfic, not between canon and non-canon. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, as per Sjakkalle. Carioca 05:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The problem with including non-canon material is that Paramount don't make any attempt to maintain consistency with their licensees. So anything in the books can be contradicted by any canon series/movies that may appear from Paramount, or other non-canon licensees. What do we do when someone else publishes a book about starships and gives totally different information for the Luna class than the Star Trek Titan novels? AlistairMcMillan 08:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that according to the Star Trek card game, Riker's USS Titan is a completely different class. The novel publishers felt no need to maintain consistency with the card game. This isn't like the Star Wars expanded universe where the licensees do attempt to maintain consistency. AlistairMcMillan 08:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Acknowledge both references, and note that there are conflicts. The Pokemon articles have long acknowledged the conflicts between the games, anime, and manga, if you'd like to see an example of dealing with multiple conflicing continuities. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 09:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was to Speedy Delete the article. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 02:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sopme
Neologism--Shanel 00:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
ATTENTION!
If you came to this page because this post on facepunchstudios.com told you to come here and vote, please note that this is not a vote on whether or not this article is deleted. Despite what you may have been told, it is not true that everyone who shows up to a deletion discussion gets an automatic vote just for showing up. The deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely. You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made purely upon weight of numbers. |
- I disagree on the grounds that Shanel used a word I dont understand - leelad - unsigned comment by anon user:83.100.154.11
- Delete, wikipedia is not a dictionary. Kappa 00:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as per Kappa. --Allen3 talk 01:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree that this must be deleted! SOPME FOREVAH! -DarkFlame - unsigned comment by anon user:24.67.253.203
- Sopme I disagree on the...hehe...YAY! -Sopme - unsigned commeny by anon user:72.29.38.96
- DONT DELETE SOPME IS OUR SAVIOUR! THERE ARE SOPMEISTS EVERYWHERE! - unsigned comment by user:TheBlackViper whose edits thus far are only to this article and to this deletion discussion. The same user also edited the comment of user:24.67.253.203 above. I have reversed that edit.
- Delete neologism, admitted joke. Note to closing admin: don't forget to delete the pictures too! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: At this point in the discussion, anon user:72.29.38.96 page-blanked this discussion. reverted by user:Kappa
- Comment: Folks, we are going to delete this thing whatever you say, no offense. If you want to share it with people try, Wiktionary has a place for it at Wiktionary:List of protologisms Kappa 02:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, ok. It's moved to Wiktionary. Sorry for all the retardness. But now we get to start all over there. Yay. (sopme) - unsigned comment by anon user:72.29.38.96
- Delete. "Note that this is a joke and to not be taken seriously." Wikipedia is not a joke book. And it's not even funny. Yay. TheMadBaron 02:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yay for Kappa and his/her Wiktionary. Thanks. -Sopme! - unsigned comment by anon user:24.67.253.203
- I disagree that this should be be deleted. - unsigned comment by anon user:70.24.38.250
- Comment: At this point in the discussion, the page was vandalised by anon user:72.29.38.96 who attempted to replace the discussion with nonsense. Reverted by user:Meelar.
- You can't kill the sopme... - unsigned comment added by anon user:144.131.162.182
- Comment: At this point in the discussion, the page was vandalized by anon user:24.254.222.142 who attempted to remove all the "delete" comments. In the next edit, anon user:24.185.197.213 page-blanked the discussion. The page-blanking was reverted by user:Joy Stovall. The rest of the vandalism was reverted by user:Aranda56.
- SOPME IS OUR SAVIOUR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - unsigned comment by anon user:84.58.16.205
- Speedy Delete as nonsense and Protect from recreation --JAranda | watz sup 03:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: At this point in the discussion, anon user:70.24.38.250 vandalized the page by deleting several comments. Those comments were later found and restored by user:Nameneko
- Speedy delete, patent nonsense. — ceejayoz ★ 03:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the images also. - Stoph 03:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and delete the one on Wiktionary while you're at it. -Nameneko 03:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 03:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't delete the wiktionary one, they told us to put it there. - unsigned comment by anon user:72.29.38.96
- Delete. Nice art but a neologism based on a typo on a website is not notable. Wiktionary is a different site and this vote will have no influence on them. Capitalistroadster 03:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- DONT DELETE New words are added to every language every day let this be another one! - unsigned comment by anon user:65.67.60.119. In this user's next edit, he/she removed several "delete" comments. Vandalism reverted by user:Kirill Lokshin. The anon user again attempted to remove comments and was again immediately reverted by user:Kirill Lokshin
- Delete nonsense. --rob 05:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable, not encyclopaedic. --Qirex 05:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Bottom line. "Note that this is a joke and to not be taken seriously.". Saberwyn 07:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete garish nonsense --Anetode 07:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete deliberate nonsense Bwithh 07:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- DONT DELETE sopme is too awesome to delete, you cant.(not influenced by mentioned post)- IpHa - unsigned comment by anon user:69.208.71.162
- Delete, Pathetic attempt at a fad. - unsigned comment by anon user:82.18.103.53 who initially "signed" the post as user:Cheeez but later removed that signature.
- Comment: At this point in the discussion, the page was again blanked, this time by anon user:24.6.139.85. Reverted by user:Joy Stovall
- Neologism, spam, vanity. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 16:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete please! --MacRusgail 16:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongest Possible Delete In The History of Wikipedia: This vote should be closed already, but I didn't want to do it just because I wanted to show my support against the Sockpuppets. I'm also heading over to the Wiktionary version and making sure it's burned with fire and putting it on my watch list over there so it never comes back again. Karmafist 18:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- JESUS H CHRIST... Delete. Non-notable, a la Chebs. The Land 19:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The page is absoult nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Republican (talk • contribs) 20:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, nonsense. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 20:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. BTW, a very good infobox, and I hope to see it more often in similar circumstances. --Agamemnon2 21:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy
keepdelete. I listed it as such.—Gaff ταλκ 22:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply] - Very Speedy delete vanity RadioActive 22:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete ASAP in agreement with all of the speedy criteria mentioned above. --Fire Star 22:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete when the word becomes widely used then it can have an article. Cedars 23:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Kappa voted to delete!?!! Hey, I'm going ice skating down below! MCB 00:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 13:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Zoeken
Personal essay, bad title, not-encyclopedic. JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.--Alhutch 01:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is a POV essay in the wrong namespace with a title not explained in the article itself. --Metropolitan90 02:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Diatribe. TheMadBaron 02:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom --Anetode 07:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Personal essay. Wrong namespace. Hard-to-follow grammar. - Kookykman (talk • contribs)
- Delete. as above and badly written too. Gaius Cornelius 19:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per all of the above.—Gaff ταλκ 22:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- DeleteStu 02:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleteprashanthns
- Delete per all of the above. Johntex\talk 23:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The title means "Search" in Dutch, and it's a somewhat sloppy translation, possibly by Babelfish. Nevertheless the topic has some merit. Rename to History of The Netherlands after WWII or thereabouts, slap on NPOV and cleanup tags, and keep. Radiant_>|< 10:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Looks like the article has been fixed. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Skogskyrkogården - The Woodland Cemetery
The first draft [2] appears to be a copyvio from here, and am not sure how to untangle the non-copy-vio parts. In addition, there is already the article Skogskyrkogården. Fred-Chess 01:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Untangling the non-copy-vio parts was actually very easy, since all but the first three sentences are indeed lifted directly from the official website.... I have now merged the first three sentences with Skogskyrkogården, and added a link to the website. Skogskyrkogården - The Woodland Cemetery can now be deleted without loss. TheMadBaron 02:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with "Skogskyrkogården" after (c) issue settled --MacRusgail 16:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete copyright violation from the history and redirect per GFDL. - Mgm|(talk) 20:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What MacGyver said. encephalon 01:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 13:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Galante
Bio that just barely avoids being a speedy
- Delete. Gazpacho 01:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Vanity. TheMadBaron 02:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. — ceejayoz ★ 03:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 06:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable. Remy B 06:57, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Holderca1 15:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Vanity, non-notable. Johntex\talk 23:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Deletion review nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedily kept, as the nomination was withdrawn. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 10:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
InvisionFree
non encylopedic, advertising JPotter 01:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination reasons --JPotter 01:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep and cleanup. "invisionfree" gets two million Google hits, and I've definitely encountered it before. The Alexa traffic rank is also a hefty 775, meaning it's in the top 1000 sites on the web in hits according to Alexa's monitoring. Notable enough, considering we've far less notable internet sites on here. — ceejayoz ★ 03:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep and cleanup per Ceejayoz. There is also a worthwhile NPOV discussion going on intermittently at Talk:InvisionFree that I beleive will make this article better over time.Powers of i 03:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep easily. It needs to be improved, especially about POV. I would say almost any forum using it as a free host, is likely not worthy of an article. But InvisionFree itself, seems to easily warrant an article. --rob 04:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 12:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
BortnerAnimation
- OK, guys, I can kind of understand why you would say that this site isn't very notable, but about the spamming thing: My two brothers and I are really sorry about that. Our site was in it's awkward developing stage, which is when we didn't really get this sort of thing. We had a lot of stupid ideas, which we deleted, but we don't even know WHY we did that spamming thing, especially on the H*R Wiki. We really like Homestar Runner. We went to the deletion logs and read what we had typed and were like, "Wow, I can't believe we wrote something like that." That's the only thing in our history that we are ashamed of doing. Again, we're sorry and hopefully you can forgive us for that. --ZAF 15:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- www.bortneranimation.com seems a non-notable website. --Mysidia (talk) 01:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable self-promotion / site-promotion. Seems like this site has been advertised and subsequently deleted before (see last December's deletion log here and use your browser's find command), and I'm sure I remember some spam somewhere else. --Qirex 05:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not nearly notable enough. but i must admit, I laughed. -- Malo 07:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It's funny, it's topical, it's well done, but still makes no claim to notability. --A D Monroe III 15:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable --Rogerd 03:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable/encyclopediac Prashanthns 17:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Prashanthns. Johntex\talk 23:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thief Incarnate
This is a non-notable web forum. "Thief Incarnate" gets 49 hits on Google, many of which do not refer to the forum itself. NatusRoma 01:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No attempt has been made to assert notability. TheMadBaron 02:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. — ceejayoz ★ 03:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom --Qirex 05:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom --Rogerd 03:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per TheMadMaron. Johntex\talk 23:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Deletion review nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. (Note I dod not do teh deleteion, i am just closing the afd) DES (talk) 07:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
White star army
Non-notable nonsense Nameneko 01:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No attempt has been made to assert notability, or anything else. TheMadBaron 02:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. — ceejayoz ★ 03:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. At best, it runs contrary to the interests of wikipedia, at worst, plain nonsense. --Qirex 06:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Qirex and TheMadBaron. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 06:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. gren グレン 12:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Underground Crips
Nonsense.
- It has been suggested that this article be merged with Crips, but it would need a total rewrite first.... it has been marked for cleanup since May, but it seems unlikely that it can ever be cleaned up much, since its basic 'facts' are either unintelligible or, at best, disputed (see talk page). The best solution, I think, is to delete it, since it's basically trash anyway.... TheMadBaron 02:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete per TheMadBaron's comments and generally utter nonsense in the entry and the Talk. Powers of i 03:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unintelligible, apparently not even factual (although I have no first-hand or reliable knowledge either way) --Qirex 06:00, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm liking TheMadBaron's plan. Delete. Saberwyn 07:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, me too. --Apyule 10:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unsencyclopedic nonsense. MCB 00:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete agreed with MCB. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 22:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- delete, fiction getcrunk 00:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete How many votes do we need to actually delete this? Canthony 15:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Same question as above...JustinStroud 13:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not really a question of a particular amount of votes being required to delete an article - articles are deleted, or not, at the discretion of the admins. No-one has suggested that this article is a candidate for speedy deletion. Since we have a clear consensus to delete it, it's a safe bet that some admin or other will see fit to do so.... but not before it's been on AfD long enough to get a fair hearing. TheMadBaron 14:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue is waiting about 5 days before closing any AfD... this had massive consensus and has for a while so it probably could have been closed earlier but it's typically safe to wait at least five days before you start closing too much. But, I'm a new admin so what do I know. (read Wikipedia:Consensus) gren グレン 12:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 13:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Saro Mardikian
No relevant hits in google. Probably nn. Tintin 02:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Shameless vanity. Being an extra in Voyager does not make you notable. TheMadBaron 03:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom --Qirex 06:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete despite additional claims to notability, including "awesome", "uncanny", "immortal" (not culturally, but physically!), and "super duperly cool". Unverifiable. --A D Monroe III 15:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per TheMadBaron --Rogerd 03:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Hoax. Johntex\talk 00:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not useful. BeteNoir 09:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 06:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Greenvangelical
Non-notable, very few (2 from and they're from the Daily Show) google hits, recently constructed religion Broken S 02:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not encyclopedic, not notable, crystal ball, and, since they want 1/4 of your money, advertising. TheMadBaron 03:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete. I got one unique google hit. It's just a lame (personally irritating and mildly offencive) joke which no-one has ever heard of. --Qirex 06:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete as per Qirex. --Apyule 10:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Don't DeleteGranted, I put it in there, but of course it doesn't have many entries in google - it is only 24 hours old!. The Tithe is .25%, not 25%. At least 850 of us have heard of it, we were at poptech. We learned of the "Daily Show" guy after we googled it. --
User:mdaitzman10:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]- this vote is actually by User:24.91.217.87 Broken S 15:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as part of "War on Portmanteaux" --MacRusgail 16:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't delete link entry under New_religious_movements and Environmental_movement. The Daily_Show reference was not a joke but interview with Pastor Richard Cizik of the National_Association_of_Evangelicals who argues for the Right_Wing to embrace Environmentalism. The Tithe is of a non-commercial nature. Religions often fuse concepts like Uni[fied/Sec]tarian, or Scient[ific/Ont]ology, so Green[MovementE]vangelical has precedents. --ProfessorAI
- Strong delete per TheMadBaron. -Nameneko 05:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED as copyvio by DragonflySixtyseven. Robert T | @ | C 20:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
North-west coast
Generic title for an unnecessary article. All this stuff can be dealt with in Tasmania and other related pages. — ceejayoz ★ 02:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. — ceejayoz ★ 02:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. TheMadBaron 03:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep cleanup and move to North-west coast of Tasmania. Notable part of the state of Tasmania with 24,600 Google results see [3]
* Delete. We already have an article on the North-west coast of Tasmania so this article is surplus to requirements. It could be a disambiguation page if we had other North-west coasts. I have added this to
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. .Capitalistroadster 04:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Our Tasmania article lists this as one of the regions.Capitalistroadster 04:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]- Merge to North-west coast of Tasmania created by same author a couple minutes later. --Scott Davis Talk 05:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Scott Davis. "North West coast" could refer to hundreds of places around the globe. Tasmania's not the first to spring to mind though... --MacRusgail 16:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - unless there is perceived to be a need for a disambiguation page. As per user:MacRusgail there are many places that could be described as North-west coast around the globe, including the Kimberley coast of Australia. They are rarely described as such out of context though. I do not believe that a redirect to NW coast of Tasmania is appropriate nor a disambiguation page necessary.--User:AYArktos | Talk 19:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to more descriptive title, merge and redirect. - Mgm|(talk) 20:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I have tagged the article North-West Coast, Tasmania created by the same author (renamed from North-west coast of Tasmania) with a speedy delete tag because of copyright violation of the urls http://www.tased.edu.au/tot/nw/ and http://www.touringtasmania.info/north_west_coast1.htm . I have also tagged this (North-west coast) article with a speedy delete as copyvio of the url http://www.austtravel.com.au/tasmania_north_west.htm --User:AYArktos | Talk 21:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The article has now been speedy deleted--User:AYArktos | Talk 01:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, it seems the article was edited to be a redirect to an article which is a copyvio. As a result, the original article was speedied. The content may have been not the best, and the article title might have been incorrect, but it is a perfectly valid topic for an article. I'll re-create the article later as a non-copyvio, non-stub article. -- Chuq 03:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Deleted as nn single person vanity
Ryan Glanzer
Non-notable vanity page created by the subject of the article. Alexa doesn't even have a rank listed, and Google has about two unique incoming links. — ceejayoz ★ 02:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. — ceejayoz ★ 02:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. TheMadBaron 03:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Powers of i 03:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom --MacRusgail 16:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete NN, per nom --Rogerd 03:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Deletion review nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. DES (talk) 05:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Kyle Mullan
Non-notable vanity page. Created by subject of article. — ceejayoz ★ 02:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. — ceejayoz ★ 02:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. TheMadBaron 03:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Powers of i 03:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete as nn-bio. --rob 05:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 12:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Bolumia
Looks like a fabrication to me. "Bolumia" yields no Google hits related to Central/South America or imaginary souls. Delete if not verified (but if verified then we can withdraw this listing). Wile E. Heresiarch 03:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no sources, unverified, -- Malo 05:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 06:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom --Qirex 06:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - Spanish language Google gives no returns other than references to bulimia. --MacRusgail 16:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 20:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Entity of Ages (EoA)
Nonnotable amateur film production company, formed three years ago and now disbanded. Delete Wile E. Heresiarch 03:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. Very few hits on google, and those were only bits and pieces on public message boards etc.--Qirex 06:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unverifiable. --Apyule 10:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Note that none of their films were completed. Non-notable. --A D Monroe III 15:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, production companies that make a few shorts with no real impact on the world. - Mgm|(talk) 20:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was merge with Hampton School. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hampton School Social League
Nonnotable soccer league.
- Delete Wile E. Heresiarch 03:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Hampton School Zeimusu | Talk page 05:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as per Zeimusu's suggestion --Qirex 06:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as suggested. - Mgm|(talk) 20:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose the thing to do curently is Merge, although I and a few others intend to put more work into the article until it deserves its own page --Cruci 22:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 13:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
T and T Protection Service
I did a search for it on google, and nothing related came up. Then I said on the article's author's talk page that they needed to provide proof for the series, and that if they didn't I would put the article on Articles for Deletion. And here we are. FDIS 19:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. - FDIS 19:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom --Qirex 06:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No claim to notability. --A D Monroe III 15:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Holderca1 15:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 10:45, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Aussie-nintendo
Tagged for speedy as website vanity. If it were a platform for a single external link, it'd be a speedy, btu since it doesn't include a link, it's not. -Splashtalk 03:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There is no evidence presented that this community of Nintendo users is worthy of note. Capitalistroadster 04:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. Capitalistroadster 04:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There were some forty-thousand hits on google for this (link). Aside from the result returning a link for the actual site, of the first ~50 results I scanned over, as well as the ~two dozen results starting from number 200, every single one was spam on forums, blogs, etc.(I didn't look at all 40,000 for obvious reasons). This website is not notable. --Qirex 06:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If there is a list of Nintendo communities, then merge, otherwise delete. --JB Adder | Talk 13:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable and I smell some vanity here, maybe it's just me. Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 02:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Snottygobble | Talk 02:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. non-notable -- Ian ≡ talk 03:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Nintendo (well, ya never know). --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If there is a list of Nintendo communities, then merge, otherwise redirect to Nintendo. Alphax τεχ 00:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, otherwise redirect. Ambi 02:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 20:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
CrystalPlayer
Seems to be nothing more than self promotion. Also appears to have no real...context? Robbjedi 03:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as advertising. - Sensor 05:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom --Qirex 06:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Holderca1 15:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as advertising Tony 21:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom.Bjones 16:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was dealt by Various Mills, which is keep. - Mailer Diablo 07:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
St. Louis Mills
This is just a mall/shopping center, and I don't see how it's particuarly notable, so I think it should be deleted. --172.162.11.172 03:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Hang on a second. There is a whole category on properties owned by The Mills Corporation; see {{Mills corp}}. How can we delete this article while keeping the rest of the articles, nay, the whole subject? - Sensor 05:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This article is completely worthwhile. Like most articles on Wikipedia it needs to be enhanced. There has been no discussion on its Talk page, just one wild Deletionist again taking it upon themselves to remove what others are working to create. ContentLuver 06:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for now. General concensus is that this stuff is okay to be here (I don't agree but that's not the point). If people want to get rid of this stuff, there needs to be a fair bit of discussion with the aim of determining what to do with it all, not just scraps here and there without centralised discussion. --Qirex 07:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete. This is a completely interchangable, forgettable mall (I've been there many times), and right now this is a address directory entry. There's nothing encyclopedic to say about this particular mall, and this article right now runs afoul of WP:NOT. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 10:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand. As long as its name appears on the template, it will likely just keep getting created again. I agree with Qirex, if we are going to get rid of it, we need to get rid of them all and merge with the parent article. --Holderca1 15:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It's the store directory of a shopping mall, guys! Pilatus 17:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is mere advertising copy. It's a directory and directions. There is no encyclopedic content here. If you're worried about recreation, then remove it from the template. (The fact that we've not yet deleted other equally non-notable articles is not justification to perpetuate the mistake.) Rossami (talk) 18:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nothing encyclopedic --JAranda | watz sup 18:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I have proposed a deletion for all the articles about individual Mills properties. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Various "Mills" --Blackcats 19:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand, it a shame that we let ingnorant people make deletion decisions. --Boothy443 | comhrá 20:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I've removed the instructions on leaving the mall. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Also rephrased some POV and wordy language. Someone else should make the rest more time-resistent.- Mgm|(talk) 20:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - otherwise it's just gonna be like a trash for years here. There are other pages much more notable and needing attention. Renata3 00:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean by "it's just gonna be like a trash for years here." --Holderca1 01:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- See Category:Cleanup from October 2004. There are a lot of trash around here and not enough mops. PMSing Renata3 03:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- While I certainly commiserate with your PMS and your disgust with the current state of that category, I don't think that's really a valid reason to delete this article. It's a reason to try to make some changes to the cleanup system, instead. --Jacquelyn Marie 03:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- See Category:Cleanup from October 2004. There are a lot of trash around here and not enough mops. PMSing Renata3 03:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep shite malls. --SPUI (talk) 08:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Mills is on the leading edge of retail and the projects associated with them have a huge impact on communities, economics, and trends in retail. The article needs to be developed further. An article should not be deleted because it appears weak and someone therefore thinks it is not notable. Most articles start off small and need time to grow. This article has been growing due to the contributions of many users. It needs more time to develop. Information should be added about when it first opened, the retail concepts used, and what makes it unique. For those that want to delete this, please instead focus your energy on making articles in Wikipedia better, rather than trying to rip away the work of others. 24.240.204.226 19:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep revised version. Good edits, thanks. Unfocused 03:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Mgm's edits were quite helpful. See also my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Various "Mills". --Jacquelyn Marie 03:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nothing encyclopedic about this article - this leading edge of retail comment has more information than the actual article - Tedernst 21:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 06:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Game Freaks 365
Tagged for speedy as "advertisement/self promotion", which isn't a speedy unless it's pure spam which this doesn't appear to be. Article may have other problems, however. -Splashtalk 04:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep with Massive Cleanup The structure is there and there are interesting notes about the site. However I have neither the expertise nor patience to edit the article. Maybe someone, somewhere does and it actually sounds like it could be interesting. Powers of i 04:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Alexa ranking of 37,449. Needs lots of work but seems notable. - Sensor 05:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Cleanup then keep google returns 267,000 results I agree with the previous two votes. -- Malo 05:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Abstain. I agree that there is some notability here, but that does not make it inherently worth having an article on wikipedia. Alexa ranks it at ~37,500 (link), but I think that number is rather unremarkable, and does not automatically suggest that there needs to be a wiki article on it. Contrary to the implicit claims, the growth of the site is stable, neither growing or declining much. Also, I pose these questions: Do we need a page describing a website which one can just as easily visit themselves? Does this website have some kind of notable permiation of online circles or videogame circles? I don't know. I don't think a strong case could be made to keep, and I do think a convincing case could be made to delete. Having said all this, I think it's too close for me to feel comfortable voting, but I just wanted to try to provoke some more critical discussion. Aside from anything else, I think that when in doubt, it should be left. If it does stay, I agree that it needs to be cleaned up, because at the moment it reads somewhere between an advertisement and an 'about us' page which would belong on the actual site (not here) ps. sorry for the length of this comment --Qirex 07:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 06:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Gamers LTD
Another one incorrectly tagged for speedy as "advertisement/self promotion". -Splashtalk 04:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable enough, Google returns 624 results (I would expect ALOT more for a bias search about a Gaming site) and it feels completely unencyclopedic. -- Malo 05:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable, sorry about adding the speedy delete tag, I didn't have time to create an AFD nomination. — Wackymacs 08:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No claim to notability. --A D Monroe III 15:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 18:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
P-P-P-Powerbook
This article was tagged by Zoe, who couldn't create the afd page due to a computer bug. I'm creating it for her. No vote. Joyous (talk) 04:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. I remember seeing this on MSNBC, as well as Slashdot.org and FARK.com. — ceejayoz ★ 05:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Del. Thoroughly non-encyclopedic. encephalon 05:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Something Awful Forums under, perhaps, "notable events", its own section, or something similar. -Nameneko 05:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable enough to have its own page. Friggin' hilarious, too. - Sensor 05:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Something Awful Forums. It's an amusing anecdote that was well-publicized at the time, but Bob forbid articles should be split at the "good anecdote" level. — mendel ☎ 06:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral at this point. A more highly condensed version of this story might merit inclusion somewhere. What worries me is the gratuitous link to the article on "Something Awful", which I've found to be an utterly non-notable site that's vigorously spammed over Wikipedia. -- Hoary 08:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I'm afraid that this article was flagged because of my "editing". This was attempted in an effort to correct the ending of the article which did not coincide with information posted on http://www.p-p-p-powerbook.com. I am however confused as to which guideline for deletion the article violates. The article describes a well known internet event, which is at least as interesting as All_your_base or JEFF_K. Just because a community is solidly devoted to entertaining humor does not mean that it should be condemned to internet mediocrity. 68.185.207.169 04:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep or Merge as per other suggestions- a pretty major stunt from SA folks that got media attention too. --Wwwwolf 10:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]- Merge or Keep I personally think this is worthy of documenting, due to the significant amount of media attention it got, though I have concerns that giving it its own article might encourage forum users to create articles about more marginal events. Still, I'd prefer keeping it, even as its own article, to outright deletion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as scambait that made the news. It's better known than most conty councillors. Pilatus 13:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable incident in the non-notable history of a non-notable forum. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- keep notable 24ip | lolol 21:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Something Awful. Well known prank but I don't think this quite deserves its own article as it wasn't as popular as the "all your base" thingy, for instance. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 21:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. Agree with Rune Welsh above. I remember this - I lived in London at the time, it intrigued me. But by itself it's just a nice story. It's noteworth that the three big mirrors linked from the site are down, and that it's basically moribund. The chap must have felt better than Hitler did after France capitulated, though. -Ashley Pomeroy 22:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It's a notable 'Net phenom, as far as 'Net phenoms go. Deserves its own page, too. StarryEyes 23:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Merge with Something Awful --devotchka
- Keep - notable -- Chuq 03:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- K-K-K-Keep. N-N-N-Notable c-c-c-counterscam. Unfocused 03:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Of c-c-c-cource we should K-K-K-keep this! As above. Trollderella 04:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand. McPhail 01:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 13:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rose Jackson
Non-notable. — ceejayoz ★ 05:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. — ceejayoz ★ 05:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable -- Malo 05:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. NN. "Rose Jackson"+"SDC" gets only 61 unique google hits, all very SDC centric and unverifible by outside sources. The only claim to notability is unsourced hints election irregularities. --A D Monroe III 15:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Holderca1 15:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I've never heard of this person. The Republican 18:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Vanity, thy name is Rose Jackson. Stu 02:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Vanity page, like the last guy said. Devotchka 22:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Vanity page, I agree. Totally pointless. 01:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 14:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Maineventz
Not notable, the google results I get all seem to be forums with that user name. I still haven't found any results regarding him. Allmusic.com returns no results. I can find no matching citeria of WP:MUSIC -- Malo 05:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 06:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Apyule 10:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. NN. "Maineventz"+"rapper" gets only 19 unique google hits, including shameless promotions as "future legend". --A D Monroe III 15:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Holderca1 15:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Total vanity page. Devotchka 00:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 15:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Akron/Family
Music group with no assertion of notability. Though the group has technically gone on an "international concert tour", the only venues listed on the site are such things as bars and cafes. Nameneko 05:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- As it seems to be a unanimous "keep (and expand)" vote, I'm going to retract my AfD nomination and vote keep and expand knowing that there are similar articles around Wikipedia and that this article qualifies under WP:MUSIC. An administrator may close this discussion when they feel that it is appropriate. -Nameneko 20:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:MUSIC criterion #2. According to the band's own web site and their record company's web site, they are currently on a tour of eight European countries (not even counting their work with Angels of Light, which could give them another seven countries). They may not meet any other criteria, but their tour looks sufficiently international to qualify them. The article could use significant improvement, though. --Metropolitan90 06:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- However, does "international" simply mean a string of performances in small venues in more than one country? -Nameneko 06:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Bands like The Legendary Pink Dots and Current 93 tour internationally, and perform almost exclusively at small venues. I wouldn't say that these bands are not notable because of it.--Kooky | Talk 08:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- However, does "international" simply mean a string of performances in small venues in more than one country? -Nameneko 06:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand. Allmusic.com notes two albums counting a split recording with Angels of Light see [4]FAMILY&uid=CAW060510230314&samples=1&sql=11:702tk6rxtkra~T2 as well as the international tour despite the size of the venues. Capitalistroadster 07:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but expand the article. The band is somewhat new (2002) but has really gained niche popularity. --Kooky | Talk 08:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This needs expansion. The Republican 18:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 09:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Anarchopedia
Damaged nomination made by another user. This article was deleted at this page, but the current verision is not IMO "substantially similar" to the version delted by consensu, so i have removed the speedy delete tag. Abstain. DES (talk) 05:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete This is a difficult one. I don't see a reason to delete this, except that there was a strong consensus to do it last time, and I don't think that the situation has changed. --Apyule 11:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is an easy one. The article makes no claim to notability. Anarchopedia's main page says it has a total of 148 articles. Maybe it'll be notable someday, but not yet. --A D Monroe III 16:00, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - fairly interesting, even if small. We have links to Uncyclopedia and Kamelopedia, as well as the Star Trek one. --MacRusgail 17:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep --Revolución (talk) 17:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. That is almost exactly like wikipedia. The Republican 19:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep. Their Special:Statistics page says that they have over 1700 pages, and it seems to be a fairly frequented website. It might be of some interest to people interested in open-content information databases like Wikipedia, so its placement here is valid, in my opinion. Frag
- Delete, has few articles and still gets few visitors (Alexa: 1,535,224). - Mgm|(talk) 21:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- delete lots of issues | leave me a message 02:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- merge to List_of_Wikis Renata3 03:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nn forum, few users, articles, and very low Alexa rank. MCB 03:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Renata3. Unfocused 03:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and add a link to it on Anarhcy. still contains many people's point of view and, as such, part of human knowledge on this subject --Dave
- Keep I keep seeing mention of how their meta site has only 151 articles. This is true, but Anarchopedia is not just its meta site, it is its English, Indonesian, German, Spanish, French, Croatian, Serbian etc. The reasons for delete here are that there are few articles and such, but the people saying this seem to only be going to the meta site, while Anarchopedia and the Wikipedia article about it mention the other sites. Ruy Lopez 15:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Wikipedia has had an article on User:Fred Bauder's Wikipedia fork called Wikinfo for around two years. It is important to be consistent. If the Wikinfo article is going to be kept, so should this one. 172 | Talk 12:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Further, the recent changes for [Anarchopedia http://eng.anarchopedia.org/index.php/Special:Recentchanges] and Wikinfo show contributions by about the same number of people, if not more on the part of Anarchopedia. More edits are often made on Wikinfo; but the bulk of them are by Fred Bauder and the user whom I think is the site's only other administrator. So we can't delete this article but keep Wikinfo on the basis of notability. 172 | Talk 12:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - notable in many languages Tedernst 21:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 13:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Pinowski Curve
original research. No google hits for Pinoski-curve. Zeimusu | Talk page 05:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete complete non-sense, no references, no google results, -- Malo 05:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, utterly unverifiable. --Apyule 11:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Holderca1 15:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per all above. In addition, it's bad. --A D Monroe III 16:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; original research, unencyclopedic nonsense. MCB 00:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's hilarious. I know a lot of people (including myself) who have always considered doing research on a relationship that ends up looking like the "Pinowski Curve." I don't see a problem with it being left here. -Bob Saget — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.154.206.66 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 24 October 2005
- Then please read our Wikipedia:no original research policy. Uncle G 19:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Original research, along with N-Curve (AfD discussion) and J -Curve (AfD discussion) . Delete. Uncle G 19:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. — ceejayoz talk 19:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete... or maybe BJAODN along with its partners. ;) — Haeleth Talk 22:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Patent nonsense/probable hoax. Peter Grey 07:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 15:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
ABC Supply Company
This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 05:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. over 280 stores and verifiable. It could do with expanding and wikifying though. --Apyule 11:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand. 280+ stores seems notable enough for me. --Holderca1 15:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Honbicot 03:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Aerose
dicdef Flapdragon 22:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now.
Transwiki to Wiktionary. —Cryptic (talk) 05:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)Delete, it's been created on Wiktionary. —Cryptic (talk) 20:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply] - Speedy it clearly a dictdef - reason I created it was that it was the only link missing from List of words spelled with æ. I've just changed that link to Wiktionary instead. Dlyons493 Talk 09:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as above. --Apyule 11:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki per Cryptic--MacRusgail 17:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. There appears to be no need to transwiki, a definition appears to be on Wiktionary now. The speedy delete comes from the fact that the creator wants it deleted and the article has been edited by no one else (AfD tags do not count as an "edit by someone else", IIRC) - a G7. Wcquidditch | Talk 17:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 16:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Brainbowl
This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 05:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unverifiable. --Apyule 11:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete --MacRusgail 17:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable Renata3 03:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 16:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Clint M. Diesto
This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 05:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unverifiable. --Apyule 11:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete lacks context, apparently someone in Phillipines? --MacRusgail 17:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable; borderline CSD:A7. MCB 00:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this vanity Renata3 03:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for already stated reasons. --Condorman 03:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE all. — JIP | Talk 08:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Helpful Things, All Quest, Toot Oriole Quest
This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. Three related articles by the same contributor, apparently a contextless game guide of some sort. Delete. —Cryptic (talk) 05:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. These are horribly incomplete guides for Kingdom of Loathing. Guides don't belong on Wikipedia anyways. -Nameneko 08:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not a how to guide. Plus, all of those red links scare me. --Apyule 11:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Apyule --MacRusgail 17:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. I was going to suggest trasnwikiing until I saw the state of the pages. - Mgm|(talk) 21:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep with move. Physchim62 (talk·RfA) 20:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Indian Squash Players
This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 05:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to List of Indian Squash players. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge verifiable info with List_of_squash_players Renata3 03:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Move as per Nichalp. --Pamri • Talk 03:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Move as per Nichalp. utcursch | talk 06:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete (copyvio). -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 02:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Leela Bandaranaike Peries
This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 05:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment copyvio from [5] anyway. --MacRusgail 17:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE ALL. Robert T | @ | C 20:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Professor David Ashmead, Notes for the Reader, and Hemisphere (poetry)
Non-notable professor and two non-notable volumes of poetry. Google for "David Ashmead" + Hemisphere found no results. Delete. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 20:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No Google hits for "David Ashmead" at the University of East Anglia. For a member of the faculty one would expect to see old course pages, collaborations with colleagues or at least an obituary. Delete as hoax. Pilatus 20:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unverifiable.--Scimitar parley 21:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per Scimitar abakharev 08:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Pilatus. feydey 08:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 05:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete due to lack of verifiability about this man and his books. You would the British Library would have copies of the books if they existed due to the Legal Deposit that a copy of every book published in the UK must be provided to them. Capitalistroadster 05:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable. Unverifiable. For all we know, someone could have just made this up. Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 02:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was: 'Speedied as re-creation of material previously voted for deletion.
Project Tiger OS 2
The OS is definetely non-notable, and it looks like advertising. Very clearly. Delete.--SoothingR 20:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Thousands of UNIX clones out there. --Mm35173 20:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 05:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- De... Shit? AGAIN? They already already got redirected and nuked and by jove, nuked again! I was looking at them amused with their kind warm-hearted enthusiasm and ineptitude, but I'm slowly growing more cranky. Can someone please tell them really nicely that they shouldn't create Wikipedia articles until they, like, release something? Oh, and Delete this article. --Wwwwolf 10:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete you turn your back for a second ... --Apyule 11:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedied, blatant re-creation of material previously voted for deletion. Also marked as deleted page and protected, as was done for Project Tiger OS. Thanks for the legwork, Wwwwolf. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC). Note: See:[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 13:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Reader's fatigue
Nah dont do it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.136.48.238 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 05:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as neologism. Most of the prominent searches are Wikipedia and mirrors see [6]
While there is a link to a BBC online article see [7] the phrase is used in relation to reading all of the Booker Prize shortlist in a short time so it contradicts the article's contention that it relates to reading amateur writing. Capitalistroadster 05:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per Capitalistroadster's comment --Qirex 07:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not a neologism, but the article is a) dicdef, and b) self-explanatory from title. --MacRusgail 17:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 13:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rev. Michael G. Diesto
- This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 05:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete vanity page --Leo
- Delete vanity, and badly formatted --MacRusgail 17:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No claim to notability. Unverifiable. "Michael G. Diesto" gets 4 unique Google hits. Other versions of the name get no correct hits. --A D Monroe III 18:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, just a nn resume. MCB 01:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nothing notable about this guy. The Republican 03:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 13:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sovereign equality of sates in contemporary international relations
This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 05:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as POV essay. --Metropolitan90 06:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - POV and spelled wrong! Keresaspa 14:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete someone's essay, cut and pasted. Probably counts as "original research" violation anyway.--MacRusgail 17:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC) Insert non-formatted text here[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Physchim62 (talk·RfA) 20:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Statistical process control
This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 05:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I don't understand why this was listed for deletion? --Qirex 08:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Same reason as Qirex. --GraemeL (talk) 17:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Obvious notable, verifiable, and encyclopedic. --A D Monroe III 18:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for the reasons mentioned. chowells 22:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep obviously encyclopedic topic. Klonimus 05:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Maybe this AfD is a joke? keep, keep, keep. --Condorman 05:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. As for the why, the guy who slapped the AfD template on the article wrote on the talk page
- "Wordy, unsourced, no good examples. I'm still not sure how the article even relates to the title. What do statistics have to do with it? What sort of process is being controlled? Is there a thing called "process control"? Who says you can control a process? Or that you can't? This article stinks. I'd delete it if it was up to me."
- I agree with the general sentiment of these remarks, but the article (in particular, the first paragraph) does have some information. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, many Google hits, with the first one pointing to a "A bibliography on Statistical Process Control compiled by the NASA Headquarters Library." I removed all but the first paragraph, which in my opinion is the only one that contains information, and added a stub notice. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 20:48, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Although the subject is misnamed, it is the standard business term. -- Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I'm in a class about this in college right now, I'm pretty sure it's valid. Bloodshedder 03:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was redirect to Alphonse Mouzon. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 02:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Tenacious Records
Delete. Not notable, basically an advertisement for a sole proprietorship.--Mm35173 17:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 05:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete NN, vanity, promo The JPS 11:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Alphonse Mouzon. Factual and verifiable, but Tenacious Records is notable only through him. --A D Monroe III 18:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge & Redirect per A D Monroe Renata3 03:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Condorman 03:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect this is a two sentence stub, and the information in it is already in Alphonse Mouzon. Simply redirect. encephalon 01:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 01:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Teslathon
Delete, Advert. --Oscarthecat 08:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Tesla maybe or Move to Wiktionary. Does get google hits, but not sure if more can be added. --JJay 17:41, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 05:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Tesla. Only 133 unique Google hits, so not notable by itself, but I think it's existence would add something to the Tesla article. --A D Monroe III 18:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per above Renata3 03:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete (copyvio from http://web.revolutionrock.com.au/oral-hist/index.php?id=36 ) -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 03:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Black Assassins
This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 05:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No claim to notability. 13 unique Google hits. Unverifiable. --A D Monroe III 18:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Do Not Delete. This band was an important part of the cultural and political history of Brisbane, Australia and the development of Australian punk music in the early 1980s. It's totally verifiable as evidenced by the links to other sources within the article. The band who are the subject of the article also have significant claim to notability among people who live in Brisbane and Australia, which is presumably a topics the person calling for this page to be deleted knows little about. This article should NOT be deleted. --User:andyn
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 21:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Generation Sound Machine Experience
Apparently NN band, who I have listed for deletion. This is a non-released album! MacRusgail 17:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 05:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment from me. The band Generation Sound Machine is also up for AfD and this is an album, which by the article's own confession may never be released. This would be okay if we were talking about "Smile" by the Beach Boys, but the band doesn't appear to be at all notable. --MacRusgail 16:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the lot. How can you get less notable than unreleased albums by a former band with no other releases? --A D Monroe III 18:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both Renata3 03:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted by RHaworth as attack page. --GraemeL (talk) 12:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Learey
I don't know if this is for real or not. I searched Yahoo! and Google, and Wikipedia is the only (two) hits. I think this might be a joke. WikiDon 19:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 05:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Nonsense. Powers of i 20:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Google shows nothing. Denni☯ 02:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteSpeedy Delete I have an unproven theory that the construction service provider A Allan Learey is a user of excavator(s) based in Queensland, Australia and one unofficially called "The Learey" is used in Geelong, Victoria, Australia. But I think, it's fair to say nothing real has been, or could be found on this, and if anything about it is real, it's trivial. So, we should just get rid of the nonsense. --rob 02:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]- Speedy Delete, CSD:A1, "very short articles providing little or no context". --MCB 03:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy as nonsense. Alr 03:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - nonsense. --A bit iffy 08:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 03:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Streets In The Depths
"Small local band" apparently MacRusgail 17:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 05:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment from me. The band Generation Sound Machine is also up for AfD and this is an album, which by the article's own confession may never be released. This would be okay if we were talking about "Smile" by the Beach Boys, but the band doesn't appear to be at all notable. --MacRusgail 16:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the lot. How can you get less notable than unreleased albums by a former band with no other releases? --A D Monroe III 18:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Threshold Music
This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 05:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete if not substantially expanded in next two days. --MacRusgail 17:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as it stands. No claim to notability. Only 247 unique Google hits. --A D Monroe III 18:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 13:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
White Collar Fugitives
This band does not appear to be noteworthy (see the guideline WP:MUSIC). -- Super Aardvark 19:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 05:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom --MacRusgail 17:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No claim to notability. --A D Monroe III 18:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Physchim62 (talk·RfA) 20:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Zhou Chuan Xiong
This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 05:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Claims to have released albums on major records, so passes WP:MUSIC. Article needs a lot of clean up, though. --A D Monroe III 18:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep appears to pass WP:MUSIC and verifiable with google. I've added {{cleanup}} and {{copyedit}} chowells 22:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus (thus keep). – Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Musicianforums
Non-notable forums. Part of a group of four non-notable webpages. -Nameneko 05:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This forum claims 73,000 members. When nominating, please provide reasons why you think something is non-notable. Meelar (talk) 05:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable messageboard, nowhere on the level of say... the GameFAQs board. Reads like an advertisement. --Madchester 06:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Your first argument is not valid. WP:WEB says the following: A website's impact can be demonstrated by meeting one or more of the following criteria: (...) Having a forum with 5,000 or more apparently unique members. Now, this article claims 85,000 members for this forum. This would clearly meet the criteria and pass the notability bar.
The catch is that I can't open the site to check for myself.Anyway, however, the article does at least make a strong claim to notability. Punkmorten 21:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply] - Keep. I have now been able to open the site, and it says Members: 85,258, Active Members: 10,393. Notable. Punkmorten 16:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus (thus keep). – Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mxtabs
Non-notable website. Part of a group of four non-notable webpages. -Nameneko 05:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete NN, vanity, promo The JPS 11:00, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. 976,000 google hits, Alexa rank of 3,303. Notable and well-known tabs website. Punkmorten 18:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, appears to be a well-known and well-visited site. --MCB 03:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Physchim62 (talk·RfA) 20:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sputnikmusic
Non-notable website. Part of a group of four non-notable webpages. -Nameneko 05:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Returns a lot of Google hits and I had heard of it before this discussion. Impaciente 08:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Look at the forum, it has more than 85,000 registered users. This website definetely is notable. -- SoothingR 09:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Although the article makes no claim to notability, I believe it could. Someone needs to add such data with cited sources to the article, however. --A D Monroe III 18:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 22:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mxtabs network
Non-notable website network. Part of a group of four non-notable webpages. -Nameneko 05:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as per nominator. It's vanity. Superm401 | Talk 08:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per nom. -Andrew 03:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE (discounting IPs). Robert T | @ | C 20:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vosh
Supposedly about a parody magazine, but I can't confirm that it even exists. Even if it does, it almost certainly doesn't qualify as notable--it was originally created for a Current Events class. Googling on the phrase "Vosh magazine" gets 2 hits, both WP mirrors. Even a search for +Vosh +magazine gets only 1500 hits, and those appear not to be relevant--this magazine was not mentioned within the top 30. Meelar (talk) 05:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Google returns nothing. I think they're bringing the parody here: "VOSH came to an end when the syndication deal terminated. Despite the short run, VOSH has had a tremendous cult following and several magazines have tried to capture the feel and design." Marskell 09:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 09:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't Delete I have heard of this magazine. I am not affiliated with the creators at all. I believe this article is about a magazine that has reached cult status in a particular state that neither of you live, which is understandable. However, to the people living in this state this article has perdenance and should be kept to please everyone. -BK
- Don't delete For those who don't believe in the magazine's existance, I can fully backup its unbreathed animitity. Although the result of a google search shows less reassuring evidence, it is probably because of the lesser amount of publication about the magazine. The comeback startled my friends and me. We all got out out wallets to purchase the hilarity known as Vosh. Beleive what you want, but the truth is known by myself. I don't personally know the creators, but it's apparen that they enjoy any form of public attention, and deleting this would sadden the creators and might affect the content of the magazine----Ej Streib
- Don't Delete I have never heard of this magazine, but I think that the fact that google shows limited results does not permit deletion. There are other mediums that this magazine might be well known as. As for saying "they're bringing the parody here", if you can't prove it's wrong, you're at no position to say that. I've seen worse articles on this site. It's only fair to leave this one here. -I don't have a screen name but I browse Wiki frequently.
- Keep This is Mazeman, creator of the article. The magazine started, as the article states, in a Current Events class that I attended as well. Big things can start in small places. I knew the creators, Johnson and Soldiers, quite well and I was behind them when they sent in VOSH to a small syndication company in New York. The first seven issues sold nearly 200 each, which, for a magazine that started in a Current Events class, was huge. Their was a critic working at the syndication that did look over the issues. I assure you this magazine is real and, just because its not huge, or on Google, it does not deserve to be deleted from this site.-[[User:Mazeman|User:Mazeman/Sig]] ]
- Delete per nom. -- SCZenz 01:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete
I can see why you'd want to remove this article, but I want you to tell me why it should stay. Point out some positives. Just because the magazine doesn't affect you (nor does it affect me) I'm sure it is a form of formal reference for the curious few that want to find something out.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 06:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ginger Coyote
Article is vanity information. - Korpios 06:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. - Korpios 06:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not vanity. It's not even really about Ginger Coyote. However, it is incredibly badly formatted, and it is copyvio of garageband.com. Delete. TheMadBaron 11:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete as copyvio. Capitalistroadster 23:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete per nomination. Vanity. Ad. Copyvio. Not to mention darn hard to read. I'm not sure I saw a period in the entire article. This article is just awful, plain an simple. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 02:48, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete--is this an ad? A vanity page? Who cares? What a mess. Devotchka 00:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete/speedy. --Celestianpower háblame 13:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sourse of funding NGO/Sector
- The article contents nothing but soliciting of funding to some charity. Delete abakharev 06:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete Spam. Marskell 10:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. TheMadBaron 11:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP as rewritten by User:Meelar. — JIP | Talk 14:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Marketing in schools
- Delete per nomination. The article has no encyclopaedic merit, contains only a loose definition and a small list of schools in the Victoria, Australia area. Remy B 06:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There was a whole fuss in the media over here about this, but even so, the article currently there is not worth keeping. Saberwyn 07:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Crud, it's even got the wrong kind of marketing! The whole fuss I was thinking of was over a school posting a sign saying "Proudly Sponsored by *local* McDonald's". I think what's actually going on here is a bit of a whinge about how some private schools are more about making money through insane fees than education. Saberwyn 09:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete. I don't see how a school having a motto constitutes marketing, or how it "distracts from a school's primary responsibility to its students". If there's a point to this alleged debate, the article fails to make it. TheMadBaron 07:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I am sure that an article could be made about marketing in schools or even about marketing of schools. However, this article fails to do either. I would be happy to keep a decent stub. Capitalistroadster 10:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article would need to have a complete rewrite to be acceptable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Fix, rather than delete. There is definitely enough for an article on this topic. The Land 19:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's nothing stopping anyone from doing that after this article is deleted. Equally, there's nothing that guarantees the article will be 'fixed' if it's kept.Keep as fixed. --Last Malthusian 22:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]Delete as title of article does not match the content, and the content is unencyclopedic per Remy B and Saberwyn.I am open to reconsidering my vote if the content is changed to discuss the promotion of commercial products in schools. --Metropolitan90 00:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]- Keep as rewritten. --Metropolitan90 06:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for the first time today ;) Renata3 03:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep my rewrite--this is a clearly notable topic, with widespread public concern (especially on the political left; see e.g. this article in Adbusters). I've rewritten the article to be about the actual practice--it's still stubby, but will expand. Meelar (talk) 06:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Valid subject, and reasonably well written although I am unsure of how neutral this can get. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as rewritten. TheMadBaron 09:16, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The original author has reverted Meelar's version, which I have restored, and created Marketing of schools as a distinct article. Confusing, this. The Land 10:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm very confused as to why another article (Marketing of schools) has been created when Marketing in schools is still be debated for deletion. I can't see any reason why the 'Marketing of schools' article shouldnt be marked for deletion as well, as I put that same text up for deletion when it was found in 'Marketing in schools'. If someone rewrites an article to save it from deletion, the last thing we want is for the unsuitable text to be dumped into a near-identically named article. Remy B 11:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I mainly did it to stop someone reverting the original article to the mis-named version again. Feel free to nominate Marketing of schools as well. Frankly I think there's space for both, though IMV marketing of schools is borderline while marketing in schools is a definite Keep. The Land 17:36, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm very confused as to why another article (Marketing of schools) has been created when Marketing in schools is still be debated for deletion. I can't see any reason why the 'Marketing of schools' article shouldnt be marked for deletion as well, as I put that same text up for deletion when it was found in 'Marketing in schools'. If someone rewrites an article to save it from deletion, the last thing we want is for the unsuitable text to be dumped into a near-identically named article. Remy B 11:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The original author has reverted Meelar's version, which I have restored, and created Marketing of schools as a distinct article. Confusing, this. The Land 10:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the copy at marketing of schools, but delete this one, as it is not about marketing in schools. A great article could be written about that topic, but this isn't it; it's about something else. An article about marketing in schools could cover, perhaps, schools getting textbooks, sports equipment, etc, with name brands all over/in them because the schools can't afford those things otherwise. It's a common phenomenon. --Jacquelyn Marie 04:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is continually being reverted from the rewritten version by the original author. Please note that the rewritten version was the one made by Meelar. Remy B 12:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Toa garil
Nonsense. TheMadBaron 06:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not entirely nonsense, just a non-notable character from Lego's Bionicle product series. Same applies to the contributor's other entry, Toa Lhikan's group of Toa. --Anetode 08:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Anetode, but out of context, might as well be rubbish. --MacRusgail 17:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Physchim62 (talk·RfA) 20:08, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hegardt
- Tagged as a speedy, reason given was "non-notable family", which is not one of the speedy delete criteria. Howver This page does not look to me like a very useful addition to wikipedia, and the notability is at best doubtful IMO. Weak delete. DES (talk) 06:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if the family were notable, it would be unusual to have a page named for them (note that Kennedy, for example, is just a disambiguation page). Since the only claim to notability relates to Christian Bernhard Hegardt ("a diplomat and undersecretary of state, was raised to the nobility in May 11, 1818") the article should be named Christian Hegardt.... if he could be considered suitably notable, which seems doubtful. TheMadBaron 07:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]- Keep Notable because the family is of verifiable Swedish nobility. See De la Gardie (linked to from List of Swedish noble families). --Anetode 08:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - there are nearly 3,000 families on the List of Swedish noble families - should we have articles on all of them? Is everyone in Sweden notable? TheMadBaron 08:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The Hegardts, like the De la Gardies, include notable members. Christian Bernhard Hegardt was reputedly the undersecretary of state. --Anetode 08:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That's one notable member.... can you name another? TheMadBaron 08:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Not being able to decipher the google hits for "Josias Hegardt" (probably genealogical references), no. However, as you suggested, the article could be rearranged to be about Christian Hegardt. (By the way: Kennedy family :-) ). --Anetode 09:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair point.... TheMadBaron 09:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Not being able to decipher the google hits for "Josias Hegardt" (probably genealogical references), no. However, as you suggested, the article could be rearranged to be about Christian Hegardt. (By the way: Kennedy family :-) ). --Anetode 09:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That's one notable member.... can you name another? TheMadBaron 08:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The Hegardts, like the De la Gardies, include notable members. Christian Bernhard Hegardt was reputedly the undersecretary of state. --Anetode 08:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The family has been considered significant enough for there to be an article about it in Svenskt biografiskt lexikon, the Swedish equivalent of the Dictionary of National Biography. Josias Hegardt (merchant and industrialist, Mayor of Malmö, and Member of the Riksdag) and Peter Hegardt (20th century military) each have fuller biographical articles of their own. There is nothing unusual with articles on families in general reference works. Many (perhaps most) of the 3,000 noble families cited above need to be looked-up in specialized genealogical works, but I think the ones represented in Svenskt biografiskt lexikon deserve inclusion in Wikipedia as well. Uppland 20:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Uppland. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 21:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, and expand to include biogs uncovered by Uppland. TheMadBaron 09:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Enoough NO CONSENSUS (default keep) - if anyone thinks a different result is possible then revert my closing -Doc (?) 00:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Maryville Middle School
I attended this school, and it's not special. It teaches math, English, and science, phys ed and music just like every other public school. It has no special programs. The community does not "come together" around it (except the students, who are required to by law). There's nothing here for an encyclopedia article.
- Delete. Gazpacho 07:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as per nominator. Superm401 | Talk 08:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. --rob 08:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Marskell 09:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. The JPS 10:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom --JAranda | watz sup 18:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- keep please it is special and important too Yuckfoo 19:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- All right, tell me how it's special. I can't wait. Gazpacho
- How many public schools teach Latin?--Nicodemus75 23:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Mine did. I don't think it's terribly rare. Someone is buying copies of Cattus Petasatus and two of the Amazon reader reviews say "I wish I had this book back in middle school where we had two years of Latin" and "Having studied Latin throughout high school." The National Junior Classical League has "49,701 members in 1064 chapters throughout the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom." If we guess that one chapter typically means one school, that's a thousand schools. Here's one college that lists about twenty Latin M.A. candidates, most of whom are teaching in public schools. This site says that there is "a nationwide shortage of high school Latin teachers, so the job outlook is excellent for Latin majors who wish to pursue their interest in Latin in this way. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- How many public schools teach Latin?--Nicodemus75 23:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- All right, tell me how it's special. I can't wait. Gazpacho
- Good grief what a waste of time! I premptively closed this as the result was inevitable ('no consensus') and the so-called 'debate' a pointless waste of bytes. Obviously someone disagrees and believes another result is possible, or that the discussion will take us foward some how. Well, I now wait to being proved wrong! --Doc (?) 19:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- A pre-emptive 'no consensus' is quite plainly a 'Speedy Keep' declaration by any other name. And clearly this is not eligible for Speedy Keep. --Last Malthusian 22:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- But we all know it will be kept, so whether one wishes it deleted or not - what is the f***ing point of this ritual of pointless attrition?? Debates are for civil people to converse - to listen to each other with a view to reaching a consensus. This purile nonsense is not a debate. Gaahh! --Doc (?) 23:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The point, as previously declared by several of "those who routinely nominate and/or vote to delete school articles" is to deleted 'even one bad article' or 'to keep inclusionists honest'. This in spite of an overwhleming 85%-90% precedent that school articles are not deleted on the basis or either being a stub or "non-notable". Frankly, this nomination is the picture of bad faith.--Nicodemus75 23:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- What, and thumping up "votes" isn't? - brenneman(t)(c) 07:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- While I'm not a big fan of the divisive phrasing in those "alerts," since when has it been a problem to draw attention to a contentious ongoing debate? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 09:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- "Drawing attention" is when you ping someone who participated in a discussion, regardless of their opinions. That's not what this was. It's the unintentional irony of phrases like "conspicuous and concerted effort on the part of deletionists" that stands out most here. - brenneman(t)(c) 09:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- What, and thumping up "votes" isn't? - brenneman(t)(c) 07:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The point, as previously declared by several of "those who routinely nominate and/or vote to delete school articles" is to deleted 'even one bad article' or 'to keep inclusionists honest'. This in spite of an overwhleming 85%-90% precedent that school articles are not deleted on the basis or either being a stub or "non-notable". Frankly, this nomination is the picture of bad faith.--Nicodemus75 23:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- But we all know it will be kept, so whether one wishes it deleted or not - what is the f***ing point of this ritual of pointless attrition?? Debates are for civil people to converse - to listen to each other with a view to reaching a consensus. This purile nonsense is not a debate. Gaahh! --Doc (?) 23:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- A pre-emptive 'no consensus' is quite plainly a 'Speedy Keep' declaration by any other name. And clearly this is not eligible for Speedy Keep. --Last Malthusian 22:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as always. I refuse to believe a middle school can EVER be intrisincally encyclopedic. It will be if a widespread cannibal cult of Marduk is discovered on the premises, not a second before. --Agamemnon2 21:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Hail Marduk! - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 18:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep a known
and self-declareddeletionist, nominating his own school and disparaging it, does not make the school non-notable. I am sure there are many students who attended this school who would disagree with the nominator.--Nicodemus75 22:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]- I've never declared myself a deletionist, nor did I disparage the school. Gazpacho 22:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies, I confused you for someone else on the list at m:Association of Deletionist Wikipedians. It's so hard to keep track of "those who routinely nominate and/or vote to delete school articles".--Nicodemus75 23:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no bloody cabal, deletionist or otherwise. Nobody is organizing keep or delete votes on school articles or any other, and the "Association of Deletionist Wikipedians" (just like the "Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians) is more or less a tongue-in-cheek reference to the good-faith disagreement between Wikipedians about what is appropriate encyclopedic material. I daresay you, Yuckfoo, and Kappa aren't conspiring "Inclusionists" any more than Denni, Dunc, and I are conspiring to annoy you personally by nominating schools for deletion. Please stop being intentionally divisive and realize that everyone here, whether they agree with you or not, is acting in good faith. That's the point of WP:AGF. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 11:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, I'm even more mystified. Of the people on the meta AoDW page, one (Denni) regularly votes to delete school articles. Dunc occasionally votes to delete, and purplefeltangel feels that all high schools are encyclopedic topics. Really, don't take those pages too seriously. They're more or less tongue-in-cheek. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 18:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- And despite Nicodemus' likely desire to ignore it, I do vote to keep school articles. Of three articles on AfD on one day last week, I voted to keep all three. This, I believe, demonstrates that I am willing to do something I would not have done in times past - accept that there is a place for articles on schools. I remain convinced, however, that school articles are subject to the same inclusion criteria as all other articles; that is, they are about notable subjects, and they have sufficient content to avoid speedy deletion per CSD:G1 or CSD:A1. Denni☯ 01:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not principally your voting record I have problems with, it is with your philosophical approach to concepts such as "notability" "encyclopedic" and schools.--Nicodemus75 08:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- And despite Nicodemus' likely desire to ignore it, I do vote to keep school articles. Of three articles on AfD on one day last week, I voted to keep all three. This, I believe, demonstrates that I am willing to do something I would not have done in times past - accept that there is a place for articles on schools. I remain convinced, however, that school articles are subject to the same inclusion criteria as all other articles; that is, they are about notable subjects, and they have sufficient content to avoid speedy deletion per CSD:G1 or CSD:A1. Denni☯ 01:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, I'm even more mystified. Of the people on the meta AoDW page, one (Denni) regularly votes to delete school articles. Dunc occasionally votes to delete, and purplefeltangel feels that all high schools are encyclopedic topics. Really, don't take those pages too seriously. They're more or less tongue-in-cheek. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 18:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable, no attempt to prove otherwise. Moreover, inclusionists need reminding that a hundred 'no consensus'es do not add up to a Keep. Nor do a thousand or ten thousand. VfDs should continue until consensus is established. --Last Malthusian 22:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes they do. WP:DEL clearly states: "At the end of five days, if a rough consensus has been reached to delete the page, the page will be removed. Otherwise the page remains." Only one "no consensus" is required for a keep.--Nicodemus75 23:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- 100 "no consensus" results doesn't mean a consensus to keep; it means that the articles are being kept until consensus is established. That's why no consensus defaults to keep; the article or articles are kept until consensus either way is established. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 11:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The statement that "it means that the articles are being kept until consensus is established" is just your interpretation. That is not what deletion policy states. It states that lack of consensus means that the article is retained, not that "it is retained until consensus is reached".--Nicodemus75 22:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- 100 "no consensus" results doesn't mean a consensus to keep; it means that the articles are being kept until consensus is established. That's why no consensus defaults to keep; the article or articles are kept until consensus either way is established. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 11:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes they do. WP:DEL clearly states: "At the end of five days, if a rough consensus has been reached to delete the page, the page will be removed. Otherwise the page remains." Only one "no consensus" is required for a keep.--Nicodemus75 23:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It teaches grades 7 and 8. So what? Pilatus 22:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable with next to no useful public information. Cedars 23:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, knowing about this school might help me understand why its alumni don't wish to share knowledge with me. Also per wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Kappa 23:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Best vote I've seen in a month.--Nicodemus75 23:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep, all schools are categorically notable. At a bare minimum, 43 school articles were created last Friday. 36 were created on Saturday. 37 have been created today so far. 2% of all articles created on Wikipedia are about schools. Please put an end to this senseless time wasting, there is no consensus to delete schools, nor should there be. Silensor 23:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Nor is there consensus to keep schools. If I'm mistaken about that, please point out the relevant policy page. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- However, there is an 85%-90% precedent to "not delete" school articles on the specious criteria of either being a stub or being "non-notable" (in the subjective opinion of "those who routinely nominate and/or vote to delete school articles"). This circumstance is a product of the application of WP policy, in that some 40% of those articles were closed as "no consensus" and are thusly "not deleted". The fact that school articles are simply not deleted on the basis of either being a stub or being "non-notable" is clearly not accepted by "those who routinely nominate and/or vote to delete school articles" is truly baffling. Despite my repeated questioning of why the precedent clearly established by the utilization of the AfD process and the implementation of WP policy is continutally disregarded, I have yet to read a single response that justifies the chronic war of attrition that is being waged against school articles, other than the repeated assertions that they are "non-notable" and that individual editors oppose the existence of the articles themselves. My question is (re-stated): "In the face of overwhleming precedent, why do "those who routinely nominate and/or vote to delete school articles" continue to nominate and vote to delete them? - What is achieved by these repeated nominations other than the continuation of a (clearly lost) battle? - How does nominating and voting to delete school articles that clearly will not be deleted in any way contribute to Wikipedia?"--Nicodemus75 01:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- How does haranguing people who make good-faith AFD nominations contribute to Wikipedia? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 11:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- How on earth can nominations and votes in the face of overwhelming precedent be characterized as "good faith"?--Nicodemus75 22:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- How is continually harrassing people who are participating in a legitimate AFD a "good faith" action? Just because the article has a low probability of deletion does not mean that an AFD is a "bad faith" action. Especially when the majority of school articles historically have had over 50% in favor of deletion.Gateman1997 23:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- How on earth can nominations and votes in the face of overwhelming precedent be characterized as "good faith"?--Nicodemus75 22:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- How does haranguing people who make good-faith AFD nominations contribute to Wikipedia? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 11:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- However, there is an 85%-90% precedent to "not delete" school articles on the specious criteria of either being a stub or being "non-notable" (in the subjective opinion of "those who routinely nominate and/or vote to delete school articles"). This circumstance is a product of the application of WP policy, in that some 40% of those articles were closed as "no consensus" and are thusly "not deleted". The fact that school articles are simply not deleted on the basis of either being a stub or being "non-notable" is clearly not accepted by "those who routinely nominate and/or vote to delete school articles" is truly baffling. Despite my repeated questioning of why the precedent clearly established by the utilization of the AfD process and the implementation of WP policy is continutally disregarded, I have yet to read a single response that justifies the chronic war of attrition that is being waged against school articles, other than the repeated assertions that they are "non-notable" and that individual editors oppose the existence of the articles themselves. My question is (re-stated): "In the face of overwhleming precedent, why do "those who routinely nominate and/or vote to delete school articles" continue to nominate and vote to delete them? - What is achieved by these repeated nominations other than the continuation of a (clearly lost) battle? - How does nominating and voting to delete school articles that clearly will not be deleted in any way contribute to Wikipedia?"--Nicodemus75 01:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Nor is there consensus to keep schools. If I'm mistaken about that, please point out the relevant policy page. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator Dpbsmith (talk) 23:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, schools are not inherently notable, particularly those below the high school level. --Metropolitan90 00:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. - Condorman 00:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as per nominator G Clark 00:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, notable. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete another article by an author who is too damned lazy to find out more about a school than its name and address. This is not encyclopedic. Denni☯ 02:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Re-read WP:NPA. Calling an editor "too damned lazy" is without question, a personal attack.--Nicodemus75 02:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. This seems to be a boilerplate article, similar to stubs on towns and albums. While I don't think this is an appropriate encyclopedic stub, I don't think this was made in bad faith. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 11:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- And indeed I do apologise to Gracefool for impugning his/her intent. Nonetheless, I feel it incumbent upon all who submit articles to provide as much information as they possibly can, and to accept that articles with little or no content are legitimately subject to CSD:G1 or an AfD vote. Denni☯ 01:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep
ALKIVAR™ 04:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Nothing would be lost by doing so. Vegaswikian 05:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#KeepJoaquin Murietta 05:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I'd ask all the delete folks to take a look at the Afd on Bush on the Couch here since this article is essentially a book review written by a guy who didn't read the book] Maybe you'd like to vote delete on that one? Joaquin Murietta 05:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- What does that have to do with anything? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 11:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I'd ask all the delete folks to take a look at the Afd on Bush on the Couch here since this article is essentially a book review written by a guy who didn't read the book] Maybe you'd like to vote delete on that one? Joaquin Murietta 05:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Non-notability not established by nominator. —RaD Man (talk) 05:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- And how might I do that, O facetious one? Gazpacho
- Can't we all just get along? —Cryptic (talk) 06:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Past consensus has been to keep schools (see Wikiproject Schools archive and arguments to keep schools). ··gracefool |☺ 06:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You are referring to individual discussions of individual schools. In some cases, there has been consensus to keep and in some there has been consensus to delete. There is no consensus on any policy as to which schools should be kept. Unlike WP:Music and biographies, there are no guidelines that have achieved consensus. And until the school inclusionists are willing to make a good-faith effort to establish sensible criteria for inclusion, there never will be. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It is absurd to compare deletion of a school article to deletion of a country article. You may have a good-faith belief that school articles should be kept, but that is just what it is, a belief. There is no hard and fast policy that school articles should be kept, and in fact there isn't even a clear consensus to do so. And your intransigent attitude toward compromise will get you nowhere here. I am probably the hardest-core deletionist here, but my ability to obfuscate and stonewall is dwarfed by people such as yourself, who have moved not a millimetre in the direction of a middle ground for school articles. While I have demonstrated my willingness to accept in principle that school articles have a place in Wikipedia, I have seen not the slightest suggestion of a complementary gesture from the inclusionists that perhaps school articles should have to meet certain criteria, as all other articles here do. Denni☯ 01:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Worthy encyclopedic subject. Just like every other enduring public institution. Not vanity, nonsense or original research, therefore no reason to delete. Keep.--Centauri 07:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep lets move on to some more useful work. Dlyons493 Talk 08:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Maryville, Tennessee where this school is already mentioned. The article is only a stub, and the merits for a separate article are dubious. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - it clearly states that it is a school in the title. --Celestianpower háblame 08:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and makes no assertions of notability whatsoever. This is currently only geographical and population source data, with no hope for expansion. Delete. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 09:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. -Poli 13:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Smerge with Maryville, Tennessee (this has already been done); delete the separate article per the nominator. We are not WikiSchools, nor are we the Yellow Pages, so since there were no national news stories involving this school then there is no reason for keeping an article on it. --Idont Havaname 14:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. -- DS1953 talk 14:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. And per all other arguments above and every other keep argument on every other school that has been kept. Seems that the time involved in arguing these points over and over, and the resources expanded in server space, bandwidth, etc is consuming more than would having the principal of every school in the English speaking world submit an article. Plus, these are public funded non-profit institutions. Its not like people are submitting these to gain profit for private schools that teach off the wall (POV) attitudes on religion or creationism/evolution or anything else. Rather bland articles, but still serve a purpose and are more helpful than not.—Gaff ταλκ 15:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - no valid reason for deletion listed. This is a factual, neutral and verifiable article. Trollderella 16:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Gaff. --Andylkl (talk) 16:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Selecting one article from a class of thousands, hundreds of which have survived nomination attempts, for deletion is not appropriate. CalJW 16:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete what a waste of "not paper". Grue 18:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. See my arguments here. Xoloz 18:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete until the article shows some reason this school is worthy of an article. Existance is not reason alone to keep an article.Gateman1997 20:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually, it is. Kurt Weber 23:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Um no, it's not according to general consensus on Wikipedia. Or do you have an better explaination as to why Albertsons Saratoga Avenue, Santa Clara, California or Village Preschool, Saratoga, California were both deleted?Gateman1997 23:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus--if indeed what you say is consensus--is wrong; they shouldn't have been deleted. Kurt Weber 22:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you care to explain how consensus (which is the basis of Wikipedia) can be wrong?Gateman1997 23:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it conflicts with what is objectively true. As the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand proved, what people think is true or would like to be true does not affect what actually is true. And it is an objective fact, provable from first principles of the Universe, that such articles do indeed belong in Wikipedia. Kurt Weber 00:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- While that may be your opinion of school articles that does not make it true or untrue. It simply means it is your opinion. And fortunately your opinion is only one of many and the MANY make up what is true on Wikipedia... through consensus.Gateman1997 00:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it conflicts with what is objectively true. As the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand proved, what people think is true or would like to be true does not affect what actually is true. And it is an objective fact, provable from first principles of the Universe, that such articles do indeed belong in Wikipedia. Kurt Weber 00:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you care to explain how consensus (which is the basis of Wikipedia) can be wrong?Gateman1997 23:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus--if indeed what you say is consensus--is wrong; they shouldn't have been deleted. Kurt Weber 22:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Um no, it's not according to general consensus on Wikipedia. Or do you have an better explaination as to why Albertsons Saratoga Avenue, Santa Clara, California or Village Preschool, Saratoga, California were both deleted?Gateman1997 23:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually, it is. Kurt Weber 23:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Good article of its type. --Tony SidawayTalk 22:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Any currently operating public school meets my criteria for notability. StarryEyes 22:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as part of the fight against deletionist vandalism. Besides, the mere fact of something's existence makes it notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Kurt Weber 23:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Then why was Albertsons Saratoga Avenue, Santa Clara, California deleted?Gateman1997 23:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of us don't think it ought to have been.--Nicodemus75 23:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Then if I were to recreate it or open a VFU would you support it?Gateman1997 23:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. But it wouldn't change the fact that if you were to do so, it would be a bad-faith action.--Nicodemus75 23:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- How would that be a "bad faith" action? The article has a legit reason to exist per your reasoning, shouldn't I as a reasonable member of Wikidom give it a chance to exist then. Gateman1997 23:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Please stop resorting to straw man arguments and creating fictitious schools, by accident or not. Please consider that at the end of each day, between 2.0-3.5% of all new articles added to Wikipedia are written about schools. They are not written about your neighborhood grocery store. Your rhetoric is transparent and you do not need another Wikipedia editor to explain why. Silensor 23:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to see your evidence that 2-3% of all new articles are school related, also you did not answer my question. No one from the "keep" camp has actually. Explain how a neighborhood grocery store is any less deserving of an article then this school? It effects more people's lives then this school, and exists... so it seems to meet the criterion that are the basis for this school having an article. Why you think this is a straw man argument is beyond me. It is a legitimate question that keep users constantly dodge because they have no answer to it. Gateman1997 23:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it is less deserving. I just think that YOU think that your Albertson's store doesn't merit an article, based on the history of your arguments about schools and other institutions. Thusly what you propose would be bad faith because it is contrary to your previously stated beliefs. If I see you consistently voting to keep school articles for 2 or 3 months, then I would believe a VfU on Albertson's would be in good faith.--Nicodemus75 23:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously you've never read WP:FAITH. And if you've ever watched my voting trends they are fluid. I'm not a set in stone kind of guy as there is not set in stone policy as of yet. It is a reasonable proposition to play devils advocate now and then. Gateman1997 00:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:FAITH "Of course, there's a difference between assuming good faith and ignoring bad actions. If you expect people to assume good faith from you, make sure you demonstrate it. Don't put the burden on others. Yelling 'Assume Good Faith' at people does not excuse you from explaining your actions, and making a habit of it will convince people that you're acting in bad faith.". You cried "Assume Good" faith when accused of the hoax you later admitted to, so please give it up. I concede your voting pattern is fluid, given you created a preschool, your ip nominated it for deletion, you voted to keep it, and then you voted for deletion. That's highly fluid. --rob 00:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I was wondering when my stalker would show up. I admitted to the WP:POINT hoax, but that was a seperate incident from Village Preschool. That article was made in good faith and nominated by my coworker. That has been established. And so what if I changed my vote. On that particular article the winds were pretty heavy toward delete. No reason for me to stand by my keep in that instance.Gateman1997 00:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously you've never read WP:FAITH. And if you've ever watched my voting trends they are fluid. I'm not a set in stone kind of guy as there is not set in stone policy as of yet. It is a reasonable proposition to play devils advocate now and then. Gateman1997 00:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not an argument I have any interest in, sorry. If you would like to review the evidence that greater than 2% of all new articles are directly school related, please refer to Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/New. Please note that these statistics only establish a bare minimum as an intentionally limited search criteria is being used. These repetitive discussions are without a doubt pointless, and I now understand why Tony Sidaway has removed himself from the bulk of these discussions; the schools will inevitably and ultimately prevail. Silensor 00:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, I must admit that is an impressive amount of clutter... I mean articles.Gateman1997 00:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep. It really is getting time to face the music, isn't it?--Nicodemus75 00:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, just more articles to sift through to seperate the good articles from the AFD candidates. Oh well, no rest for weary.Gateman1997 00:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep. It really is getting time to face the music, isn't it?--Nicodemus75 00:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, I must admit that is an impressive amount of clutter... I mean articles.Gateman1997 00:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it is less deserving. I just think that YOU think that your Albertson's store doesn't merit an article, based on the history of your arguments about schools and other institutions. Thusly what you propose would be bad faith because it is contrary to your previously stated beliefs. If I see you consistently voting to keep school articles for 2 or 3 months, then I would believe a VfU on Albertson's would be in good faith.--Nicodemus75 23:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to see your evidence that 2-3% of all new articles are school related, also you did not answer my question. No one from the "keep" camp has actually. Explain how a neighborhood grocery store is any less deserving of an article then this school? It effects more people's lives then this school, and exists... so it seems to meet the criterion that are the basis for this school having an article. Why you think this is a straw man argument is beyond me. It is a legitimate question that keep users constantly dodge because they have no answer to it. Gateman1997 23:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Please stop resorting to straw man arguments and creating fictitious schools, by accident or not. Please consider that at the end of each day, between 2.0-3.5% of all new articles added to Wikipedia are written about schools. They are not written about your neighborhood grocery store. Your rhetoric is transparent and you do not need another Wikipedia editor to explain why. Silensor 23:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- How would that be a "bad faith" action? The article has a legit reason to exist per your reasoning, shouldn't I as a reasonable member of Wikidom give it a chance to exist then. Gateman1997 23:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. But it wouldn't change the fact that if you were to do so, it would be a bad-faith action.--Nicodemus75 23:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Then if I were to recreate it or open a VFU would you support it?Gateman1997 23:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of us don't think it ought to have been.--Nicodemus75 23:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Then why was Albertsons Saratoga Avenue, Santa Clara, California deleted?Gateman1997 23:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A school is not a grocery store. This argument stems from a misconception of what a school is. Schools have an existence quite apart from the simple bricks and mortar from which they are constructed. Schools are social institutions with distinct cultures and histories which often extend beyond the life any any individual person or building which forms part of that institution. Pburka 00:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- While what you say is true of SOME schools it is not true of all schools. I've seen plenty of schools closed as quickly as a KMart and with as little consequence to their community as a store closing would have.Gateman1997 00:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- What a nice piece of dreamwork I see here. Schools no more have "distinct cultures" than Safways do. Except for the obvious differences between, say, a rich suburban school and a poor inner-city school, you can pretty much exchange one school's culture with the next and find zero real difference. If there were a big difference in histories, I would expect to see that reflected in the content of school articles. But despite reading over a hundred school articles (no word of lie, I read every school article Wikipedia currently possesses for California and Texas), I saw nothing to demonstrate that most schools have a distinctive history beyond differences in their opening dates. In fact, one of the biggest differences I saw between schools, based upon the information that these articles contained, was their school colors and mottos. While I'm sure the reality of the situation is different, it's a sad comment on the dismal quality of most school articles here. As far as I am concerned, if schools are important, it is incumbent upon the authors of these articles to convince us of that importance or be prepared to see their articles deleted for lack of content. Denni☯ 02:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This school does not have an distinct culture that extends beyond the individuals. It doesn't even have the same mascot it did when I was there. The culture of the band class is defined entirely by how Mr. Huffaker teaches it. When he retires, the band class will be completely different. Gazpacho
- While what you say is true of SOME schools it is not true of all schools. I've seen plenty of schools closed as quickly as a KMart and with as little consequence to their community as a store closing would have.Gateman1997 00:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep When I click "random" article, I usually get an article about a "city" in Utah with a population of 143 or an anime character. If those are good enough, so is this. Honbicot 03:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. --Vsion 04:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It's a verifiable public institution. --Centauri 06:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and stamp out vote stuffing [8] --redstucco 08:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Informing other concerned editors of an ongoing process is not "vote stuffing"--Nicodemus75 11:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- And what Monica Lewinsky did with Bill Clinton was not sex. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually it is. We've gone over this before in school debates... it IS vote stuffing. Do it again and an RFC might have to be started.Gateman1997 16:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No it isn't. And someone with your admitted track record of gaming the system by creating hoax articles and point articles should be last to talk about starting RfCs.--Nicodemus75 21:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You saying it isn't doesn't change the fact it is vote stuffing. I got in trouble for the same thing and so will you if you persist.Gateman1997 21:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No it isn't. And someone with your admitted track record of gaming the system by creating hoax articles and point articles should be last to talk about starting RfCs.--Nicodemus75 21:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Informing other concerned editors of an ongoing process is not "vote stuffing"--Nicodemus75 11:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. and stop wasting all our time, don't you have something to contribute rather than everyone having to go over, yet again, the very well-trodden ground of Should We Delete This School? I have lost count of how many schools have been nominated for deletion recently, and SFAIK none have been deleted - all have been kept. I personally find Beer Games non-noteable, BUT I realise there is enough interest that MY lack of interest is not universal. Ergo, they are noteable in spite of my opinion. Same with schools. You are not interested, you think they are nn, fine, don't read the darn articles! But surely you have realized that enough people consider them notable that the articles serve a purpose. Stop this senseless waste of time and do something productive, please. KillerChihuahua 11:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete in the vain and forlorn hope that one day, people will understand the difference between an encyclopaedia and a web directory. Quality not quantity, Wikipedia is not toilet paper, four walls and a roof are not inherently notable. And censure User:Nicodemus75 for vote pimping and incivility. Proto t c 13:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Restricting access to the sum of human knowledge is indeed a vain and forlorn, and somewhat heartless, hope. Kappa 14:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Knowing that a quarter of the attendees at a middle school are eligible for free lunches is not a big contributor to the sum of human knowledge. If anything, it probably detracts from it, along with the thousands of other crufty nonarticles on Pokemon and some trash compactor in Star Wars that belong in Everything2 and not Wikipedia, obscuring the real goal of Wikipedia, which is to provide a comprehensive encyclopaedia under a deluge of crapulence. Proto t c 14:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If you don't think the economic profile of students is a part of human knowledge then I don't think you have any understanding of the word. Kappa 14:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything2 wouldn't put up with a one-paragraph article about how many students go to a school for five minutes. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 16:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, that was what caught my interest most on this stub - that's a very high percentage to be on Free Lunch, and its a small school, yet they manage to teach Latin, and their website is better than my High School Alma Mater, so I'm thinking, there is more to this school, and I certainly hope someone adds to this article. KillerChihuahua
- Knowing that a quarter of the attendees at a middle school are eligible for free lunches is not a big contributor to the sum of human knowledge. If anything, it probably detracts from it, along with the thousands of other crufty nonarticles on Pokemon and some trash compactor in Star Wars that belong in Everything2 and not Wikipedia, obscuring the real goal of Wikipedia, which is to provide a comprehensive encyclopaedia under a deluge of crapulence. Proto t c 14:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Restricting access to the sum of human knowledge is indeed a vain and forlorn, and somewhat heartless, hope. Kappa 14:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because it is obviously a worthless and cheap piece of crap fit to be wiped on Chuck's poophole — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mchammer (talk • contribs) 14:16, 25 October 2005
- Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Aquillion 21:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would we be defending it if it was indiscriminate information? Kappa 00:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You know, I ask myself that very same question. Yes, why would you? Denni☯ 00:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- We wouldn't... Kappa 00:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- And yet...you do. There is nothing here about the history of this school, any special programs it may have, any joint programs it may be involved in with its community, any notable staff or alumni. In short, what is here is indiscriminate information, and precious bloody little of that. Denni☯ 01:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- We wouldn't... Kappa 00:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You know, I ask myself that very same question. Yes, why would you? Denni☯ 00:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would we be defending it if it was indiscriminate information? Kappa 00:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. I understand the likely outcome of this (or any other) school AfD, but it seems to me this should be no deterrent from voting my honest opinion on whether this particular article is sensible to include in our encyclopedia. -- SCZenz 01:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. I am sorry that you're not very interested in reading about your own school. (Maybe that's because you went there and already know everything about it.) In any case, I am interested in reading about it. --Jacquelyn Marie 02:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep and comments of Kappa. For those keeping score, I was solicited to participate by someone else, but please note that I would have participated anyway so the solicitation had no effect at all. Unfocused 03:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable. See also Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Delete. When roughly half the people think the same something time and time again, the other half shouldn't just tell them to shut up. The people who are voting "delete" are doing so for a reason, even if in my case that reason is severe chemical imbalance and shrapnel in my frontal lobe. Please do not try to stifle debate, even debate as moribund as this one. - brenneman(t)(c) 07:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- "come together" right now, and delete as per nom... there's nothing extraordinary in the article, except that one quarter of the school is poor getcrunk 20:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was relisting. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
NITIE
It seems likely to be a copyvio, and even if it's not, it's very poorly written and unwikified. It also may be a vanity/advertisement article. Superm401 | Talk 08:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Deletecopyvio from [9] --Anetode 08:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]- Article was reverted to a revision lacking the copyrighted material, speedy delete vote withdrawn.--Anetode 09:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- As a future note, you can't speedy copyvios unless they're copied form a commercial content provider. Therefore, even if the version I saw was the only version, it still wouldn't be a speedy. Futhermore, the article's still clear advertising. Will you change the vote to regular Delete? Superm401 | Talk 09:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I am withdrawing my vote and abstaining from this discussion altogether. After negligently posting a speedy delete tag on the article, I read through the copyvio policy and discovered just what you've mentioned. I'll try to be more cautious and prudent in the future. --Anetode 09:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- As a future note, you can't speedy copyvios unless they're copied form a commercial content provider. Therefore, even if the version I saw was the only version, it still wouldn't be a speedy. Futhermore, the article's still clear advertising. Will you change the vote to regular Delete? Superm401 | Talk 09:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Article was reverted to a revision lacking the copyrighted material, speedy delete vote withdrawn.--Anetode 09:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Without the possible copyvio material, there is practically nothing here. Saberwyn 12:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete copyvio but Keep if article is recreated at some later stage. NITIE is reputed; it's one of the most prestigious organisations in India. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep though most of the article seems to be lifted out of the institutes webpage. NITIE is one of the most prestigious institutes in India. This article may have been created by one of its students without knowing about the copyright vio regulations.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.197.39.166 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 23 October 2005
- Keep. The anonymous posters are right. This is a very professional institute supported by the government of India, it's not some local college. Anetode removed the copyvio material. Put a clean-up tag on it, though. -- Corvus 04:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi!!
I am an alumnus of NITIE and presently working as a Management Consultant with a leading Consulting firm in India.
NITIE is a premier institute in India and offers admission only to creme` de la creme` of the country for its post graduate programs.
The flagship courses at the institute include the Post Graduate Diploma in Industrial Management (PGDIM), the Post Graduate Diploma in Industrial Engineering (PGDIE) and the Post Graduate Diploma in Industrial Safety and Environment Management (PGDISEM).
The institute is focused on developing techno managers by grooming the elite engineers to take up management responsibilities. The institute takes in top performing students at the Common Admission Test (CAT) for the PGDIM program and the GATE for the PGDIE program.
The illustrious alumni of the institute bear the testimony to the quality of the students and the programs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.149.212.242 (talk • contribs) 08:25, 24 October 2005
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/NITIE"
This article is very poorly written in zilch quality english.It is lifted straight out of the institute's web page
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. also from wikipedia's OFFICIAL POLICY: wikipedia is not a slang guide -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 02:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Bosshole
slang dicdef, also POV and just silly, I found the page tagged AfD and agreed, followed up GTBacchus 08:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki this neologism to wiktionary, per widespread forum use and book --Anetode 08:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Dicdef. TheMadBaron 08:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, and also as part of "War on Portmanteaux" --MacRusgail 17:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 21:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"solvent drag"
Fails the Music notability test. I found 0 hits on google. I have a feeling this is a local garage band. --Woohookitty 08:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC) Woohookitty 08:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because they only had one album, and it was recorded in 1992. They're not a garage band, but they don't seem notable. If they were, they should have released a second album. TECannon 08:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete NN, vanity, promo The JPS 11:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Butch Vig's is a notable producer, and this article would be of interest to a completist collector. I found 14 Google hits for "Solvent Drag" "Butch Vig". Only having one album is not a reason for deletion, unless you also want to delete various articles about one-hit wonders. TheMadBaron 10:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 02:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Igames
Does not seem notable enough for an article, reads like an advertisement/promotion. Wackymacs 08:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - nn promo The JPS 10:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. --MacRusgail 17:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and cleanup; 1,910,000 google hits strikes me as somewhat notable. Robert T | @ | C 20:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 16:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Bosiphus
Best-case scenario: a misspelling of Bocephus and/or a reference to the film Bubba Ho-tep. Worst-case scenario: patent nonsense GTBacchus 08:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Appears to be a joke at best. Superm401 | Talk 08:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It looks like nonsense. Insufficient context to establish notability. TheMadBaron 08:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I own the DVD of Bubba Ho-Tep but haven't yet watched it, so I'm not sure if this is some sort of reference to something from the film. However, it reads like nonsense and even if this is a notable film character/concept/whatever we'd be better off starting from scratch. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Hank Williams, Jr. on the grounds that this is plausible misspelling of Bocephus. Dsmdgold 13:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Deletion review nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedy delete as non-notable, though technically he does make a claim of notability ("Grand Prime Emperor of the Universe and its Surroundings") :). Thue | talk 09:57, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mario Itzcoatl Quintanilla Nava
Obviously created as a joke. Superm401 | Talk 08:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nonsense - cohesion | talk 08:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I am the Grand Prime Emperor of the Universe. Delete the imposter. TheMadBaron 08:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete for vanity. -- SoothingR 09:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Toa Lhikan's group of Toa
Nonsense. TheMadBaron 08:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable entry concerning the bionicle product series --Anetode 10:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete OR very weak redirect to Lhikan or Toa. Nothing to merge, as all information is contained either at Lhikan, Nidhiki or Toa. Saberwyn 12:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above --MacRusgail 17:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was merge to List of New Order Jedi characters. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 02:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Tekli
Nonsense. TheMadBaron 08:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not nonsense but nn, unverified fancruft. Marskell 09:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Sigh. I swear we've been through this before, a few weeks ago. Tekli is a canon character from the Star Wars New Jedi Order series. However, there is, at this point in time, not enough published material to justfy an article, either on her, or any of the minor NJO characters, at this point in time. Delete. Saberwyn 12:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- We have been through it before, and numerous similar articles have already been deleted, but this particular one appears to have been overlooked. Since it doesn't attempt to define "Chadra-Fan", "Mon Calomari", "Myrkr", or even "Jedi", doesn't even mention "Star Wars", and makes no attempt to differentiate between fact and fiction, it is, as it stands, utter nonsense. TheMadBaron 14:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I just cleaned this article up, and I'm pretty sure it's all 100% true. The character is in the massive New Jedi Order, and is now being featured in the post-NJO Dark Nest Trilogy. That said, I say merge to List of New Order Jedi characters. -LtNOWIS 19:50, 23 October 2005 (forgot to sign)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE, should have been speedied. — JIP | Talk 20:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dirty Needles
not notable, encyclopedic cohesion | talk 09:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, garage band. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 09:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete NN, vanity, promo The JPS 11:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I have replaced the AfD tag, which the author removed. Delete Dirty Needles, and rip off
theirthere antics. TheMadBaron 18:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply] - Delete. Another band which doesn't meet WP:MUSIC andd this one can't even spell.
- Delete. Good example of what drugs can do to your brain. --JJay 23:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Speedy Delete. Agree with Merovingian. Stu 02:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Tudor Hassett
Short stub about an unnotable actor who only has this one minor credit on IMDB. No real articles link here. I found it through 'short pages' and tidied it to a reasonable form. The JPS 09:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete One episode doesn't seem to be enough. --rob 10:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This article seems to be made by somebody who has put nonsense in other articles. Tud123 (name coincidence?) also created/signed an article with the text "T. Hassett Creator of Wikipedia"[10]. Also, note the original version of this article claimed "Tudor Hassett starred in Jonathan Creek." (a slight exaggeration, since he did just one episode) --rob 10:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I tend to be very inclusionist with actors, in general, but geez... one guest appearance on a not-particularly-well-known series is way under any reasonable bar of notability. According to this, Tudor is 11 years old. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable. TheMadBaron 18:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ive created a new article about this kid...
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 13:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Shophouses Of Chinatown Singapore
This article currently has no content but a few non-encyclopedic comments. Thue | talk 09:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom --MacRusgail 17:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. TheMadBaron 18:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Vanity. *drew 22:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Sliggy 22:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is a copyvio from [11], as with other original articles from this user. ErikNY 01:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 20:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete (unanimous). --Scimitar parley 21:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Streeter
Non-notable bio; probably vanity or self-promo. The films cited on his website are just amateur. It's both a lonely and a deadend page. The JPS 10:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No attempt has been made to assert notability. TheMadBaron 18:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per nom. -Andrew 03:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 02:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Lightning OS
A non-notable hobby project. Thue | talk 10:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. TheMadBaron 18:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Denelson83 08:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Billy "BK" Man
Nothing on google. I'm pretty sure this is a hoax. Woohookitty 10:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Flapdragon 12:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I want to read the rest of the story. I just don't want to read it here. TheMadBaron 18:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. "The Western Fries and La Cheez Burgell" seals it for me. Punkmorten 18:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- delete Total hoax. Devotchka 22:35, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.