Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 November 3
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dglynch (talk | contribs) at 06:40, 3 November 2005 (Heuristic squelch). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
< November 2 | > |
---|
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 wasThe result of this dabate was Keep (10/1).May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fotolog
Relatively low Alexa rank, but stats going down every day. [1] Will not be anything resembling notable in six months. ♥♥purplefeltangel♥♥ 00:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete... promotional vanity...Dakota 00:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and cleanup. Over 2 and a half million Google results see [2] and nearly two million users makes it notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 00:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems notable enough for inclusion to me. If it becomes NN later on it can be deleted then. --ASchmoo 01:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, once notable, always notable. Kappa 11:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep. Needs some clean up. PJM 14:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Two million users, a relatively popular photo hosting site. One of the earlier ones, being a bit eclipsed by some of the newer arrivals, but still notable enough I think. Article needs some work, but let's do that instead of deleting. —Morven 18:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; clean up. --Optichan 19:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, cleanup and expand, as it is notable. Carioca 20:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable site, still popular, and not dead yet. --Calton | Talk 01:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- keep and please do not erase this later either we should keep it forever for research reasons Yuckfoo 18:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- keep the site recently got helped out by investors and should only keep improving. Its extremely popular in Brazil . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesinclair (talk • contribs)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Neutralitytalk 20:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Porn Tastes Good
NN web site. 187 unique Google hits and a number of them don't refer to the web site. Delete --howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- del. nonnotable. mikka (t) 01:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. An Alexa rating over 1,500,000 combined with the Google results above indicates that this is just another website with relatively low readership and influenece. --Allen3 talk 01:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So because something is not famous it cannot be listed? It is a legitimate website, it is in the proper category, and there are 100s of people who read it daily. What is the cutoff for how "popular" something has to be to be categorized here? Here are some examples of obscure people or things that are listed in Wikipedia: Tatjana Jambrisak Zombo.com Mysophilia
I'm not sure why all these articles are worthy of inclusion and this one is not. (unsigned comment by 67.185.234.168)
- Well, things do have to be a bit famous to be in an encylopaedia (see Wikipedia:Importance and Wikipedia:Notability). Flapdragon 02:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- of the three articles noted I'd vote to delete the first two as vanity/advertisement of nn person or website and move the third to Wiktionary. B/C there exists articles that have not been deleted that are worse than the article presently up for vote is not enough reason to keep the article FRS 03:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete nn, per nom jnothman talk 02:47,
- Delete basically an ad--FRS 03:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It's Remarkable that there are only 20 other articles now categorized as [[3]], considering the thousands of sites on the web. Of the 20, at least two are also up for AfD, some are miscategorized, some are not about any single website (e.g. Internet pornography and two or three are legitimately "famous" or notable b/c they're (among) the largest or first in their genre or b/c of some other public controversy (e.g., Whitehouse.comFRS 21:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The "Two Wrongs don't make a right" argument. O.K. Look at the category page for Adult Entries, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Adult_websites I believe the average Wikipedia user would find Porn Tastes Good just as interesting, and more importantly, RELEVANT, than some of those sites listed. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but part of the point of Wikipedia is for people to research what they are interested in, not just what is important or academic. I can't tell you how many interesting sites I've enjoyed on Wikipedia that I wasn't specifically looking for. - (unsigned comment by user at 67.185.234.168) - Dalbury 13:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. PJM 03:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Each article should be considered on its own merits. In my view, there's no point arguing "Article X is on Wikipedia. My article is superior to Article X, therefore my article should be on Wikipedia too". Porn Tastes Good is the article in question here, no other. Based on the proposed inclusion criteria at WP:WEB, the Alexa rating provided by Allen3 shows that this website does not have the necessary readership to merit an article. On that count, I move to delete this article. Saberwyn 10:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. - Dalbury 13:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as there's no evidence of notability within the porn community. -Colin Kimbrell 15:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Deletion tastes good. --Optichan 20:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 21:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 23:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep You guys win, I accept the fact that my article is going to be deleted even though it has only been up for less than 24 hours, which really isn't enough time for any members of the general public to have their say in the matter. So much for letting the 99% of people who view Wikipedia and don't control the administrative side of it having a say in the matter; the Wikipedia Gods jumped on this site instantly and decided to destroy it before anyone else had a chance to judge its merits on this discussion page. My faith in Wikipedia is shattered... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.234.168 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 3 November 2005
- I don't see how your faith could be "shattered" here. You have what may be a very good website for all I know. But you don't have a website that deserves to go into an encyclopedia. Would you expect Britannica to list you? Are you writing to them daily? Do you think that, in 100 years time, your website will be important enough to be in an encyclopedia? Honestly? Really, nice try, but no banana. And readers don't decide here: users do. All the people who voted are users rather than just readers. And as people who use the Wikipedia, in whatever way, we've come to a consensus that this article doesn't fit here. Have you tried sending it to The Open Directory Project for listing in a web directory in the right category instead? That'll do your Google rank mare good than this place will, honestly. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 00:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, you win. I just thought Wikipedia was a little more democratic than most mainstream commercial sites. I don't understand the difference between a user and reader; I "Read" encylopedias, and "Use" them at the same time to research information. I don't see how the addition of my entry in any way hurts Wikipedia...the only people who are going to find it are people researching "Porn" or "Adult Sites" and my entry is a legitimate resource for those people as an example of a sex blog, a TGP, and a link list. Anyway, you all win, I've given my opinion. And no, I wouldn't expect Britanicca to list me...but by that criteria, the vast majority of entries in Wikipedia should be deleted.
- Comment. Two things: First, Wikipedia is more democratic than most sites, hence the review process in operation here. You can't get much more democratic than an open vote with direct participation by the user base. It may not be going the way that you'd like, but it's definitely democratic. Second, the guideline most people use for notability is whether the article in question is considered notable within the overall heirarchy of such things. Your article isn't garnering delete votes because it's a sex blog, it's garnering delete votes because (in the opinion of most people here) it's not notable within the overall community of adult websites. It doesn't have an exceptionally large user base, it hasn't received notable amounts of coverage in the mainstream media, and it hasn't effected a fundamental change on the industry (as a site like JenniCam did, for example). Though it looks like it won't be kept, I thank you for your contribution as it appears to have been entered with good intentions, and I wish you luck with the site. -Colin Kimbrell 16:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Ingoolemo talk 05:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
FM Toyohashi
nn Japanese radio station. ♥♥purplefeltangel♥♥ 00:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
abstain for now, will wait until some editors with more knowledge on Japan vote. Youngamerican 01:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)weak keep based on my analysis of the arguements below. Youngamerican 03:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]- Comment: this is an extremely low-power station, which are usually not notable, but since it is in a relatively large city, it may have a large audience. -- Kjkolb 02:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, potential audience of over 800,000 according to the Japanese page. Kappa 04:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep per above comment by Kjkolb and vote by Kappa. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 05:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep per kappa --Isolani 10:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)I change my vote to 'abstain' as long as it isn`t cleared up, thanks for pointing the Wattage issue out kjkolb. --Isolani 11:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]- Comment No vote because I'm not sure of the policy on radio stations, but is 'potential' audience really relevant? Something's potential audience can be huge but that doesn't mean anyone watches/listens to it - websites are the extreme example of this. --Last Malthusian 10:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: that's why I didn't vote keep. Even the most non-notable station in a big city has a big potential audience (though some have such a small range, it might not be that big). I'm voting delete for now because it doesn't make sense for a notable radio station to have such a low transmitting power. It's only 20 Watts. The well known local FM stations in my area are 3,000 to 25,000 Watts, and they're not big city stations, which are often more powerful. If someone from the area says it's notable or some other evidence is found, I'll reconsider. -- Kjkolb 11:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep PJM 13:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A "potential" audience is not the actual audience; for example, NHL on cable TV in the US has a potential audience somewhere in the neighborhood of 60 million. It has an actual audience generally less than 500 thousand. As for 20 watts, my local (population approx 15000 ppl) radio station broadcasts at 50000 watts.--Scïmïłar parley 18:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Article claims that this station was the third ever community FM station in Japan. Also claims that it is a leader in the low-power community FM movement and is an 'opinion leader'. To me, that sounds sufficient for it to have an article on Wikipedia. This probably has as much listener-ship as most college radio stations in the US, and it is generally considered that a college radio station is notable enough to have an article. Cleanup of this article would be a good move, though, I think! —Morven 19:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a keep here. A bread and butter entry. Marskell 22:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A 20-watt radio station has a "potential audience of over 800,000"? Leaving aside the nonsensensical handwaving about "potential audience" (every website, by that logic, has a "potential audience" of billions), there's no way 20 watts is going to cover that many residents. Urban Japan may have a high population density, but it ain't THAT high. --Calton | Talk 01:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Scimi and Calton. encephalon 01:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC) Further comment. I should have said this earlier. In common with most problematic pages on Wikipedia, this one does not meet WP:V and WP:RS. There is a self referential external link, but there are no references to any independent, reputable publications (newspaper, magazine, book, thesis, monograph or other) that focus on this subject (ie the station): if someone had off-loaded spam onto Wikipedia, it will not look much different. That is the main reason this page should be deleted. In addition to that, the wattage of the station raised concerns about whether the unverified claims and projections might not be entirely incorrect: however, this is a technical issue, and its answer, whatever it is, is of secondary importance to the central weakness pointed out above. Fg2's comment seems to suggest that it is possible for a 20W statio to broadcast as widely as the blurb on the page claims. I'm willing to go along with the claim that this is true in principle, although I'm not convinced that this station actually manages it. Be that as it may, this is peripheral to the problems of the page. My vote remains unaltered. Regards encephalon 01:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is verifiable, honest information. Deleting this article would diminish Wikipedia's encyclopedic nature. For reference, note that the city of Toyohashi has an area of about 260 square kilometers (the same as a circle with a radius of 9 km or 6 mi) and a population of 380,000. Fg2 02:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Morven Sam Vimes 09:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Obviously. If this survives AfD, it needs to be relisted and the nominator needs to a better job pointing out the 20W issue, which is less than a lightbulb. That may, however, be a mistake for 20 MW. Dottore So 12:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: a mistake for 20 kW perhaps, but not 20 MW, as that would probably make it the most powerful station on Earth. However, some small stations are actually 20 W or less. I believe the FCC requires a license at 10 W, so unlicensed stations, in the U.S. at least, would be even less. -- Kjkolb 14:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- lol. Thanks for correcting the error. I believe you are correct about the cut-off; iPod and other digital music player attachments that work over FM are about 10 are they not? And those barely have enough juice to get picked up by a car antenna. It makes a 20w station highly unlikely and definitely not noteworthy.Dottore So 16:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Walkie-talkies (hand-held transceivers) are in the milliwatts, and have ranges of a few hundred meters. Radio amateurs, with bigger antennas, can communicate halfway around the world with five or ten watts. Yes, that's comparable to a night light. See this link. A high transmitter tower is a key to success in an FM station. Fg2 21:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: a mistake for 20 kW perhaps, but not 20 MW, as that would probably make it the most powerful station on Earth. However, some small stations are actually 20 W or less. I believe the FCC requires a license at 10 W, so unlicensed stations, in the U.S. at least, would be even less. -- Kjkolb 14:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn Radio station --JAranda | watz sup 02:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Ingoolemo talk 05:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Cultural radicalism
dicdef & inherently pov ♥♥purplefeltangel♥♥ 00:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, needs expanding but could certainly be more than dicdef Flapdragon 01:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This article is certainly problematic at the moment. However, a Google search shows that a number of books have been written on the subject see [4]. I would vote to keep a decent stub on the subject. Capitalistroadster 03:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Clean up as well. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 05:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Paleoconservatism Dlyons493 Talk 06:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- delete this is an impregnable mass of hokey --Isolani 10:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep Needs some clean up and more context. PJM 14:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Trollderella 20:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and flag for cleanup. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 21:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rewrite - a inaccurate definition (what does the author mean by "supporting liberties in a cultural setting"? what does the author make of conservative anti-tax radicals or free-market fundamentalist neo-liberals then? Weren't Nazis and Communists cultural radicals? and What Would Jesus Do?). The "any society" statement is too sweeping and the article needs supporting references. But the article could be worth keeping if "radically" cleaned up. To avoid POV, a neutral sociological approach rather than the liberals vs. conservatives oversimplification might be more appropriate. Bwithh 21:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- weak delete pending expansion, if so done then change vote to keep. Klonimus 23:16, 5 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 deleted. Consensus was overwhelmingly clear, so at the risk of being trout-slapped, I'm closing this before 5 days are up. Friday (talk) 18:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Riot Siren
High school band that has yet to record anything and may be on the verge of breaking up. We really need a speedy criterion for articles like this. Delete posthaste. --howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete come on; nonsense or vanity has to apply to this. ♥♥purplefeltangel♥♥ 00:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- SPEEDY DELETE Per nom Stu 00:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Flapdragon 01:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No notability established. -- Necrothesp 02:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom jnothman talk 02:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Borderline A1. --JJay 02:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 05:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete With fire! Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Close the Afd as a clear consensus for deletion. I see no need to delay for 5 days in obvious cases. Friday (talk) 17:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. Non-notable band. Yay! --Optichan 18:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I improperly speedied this, though it should still be 'deleted as quickly as possible. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per everyone. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 21:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete minor vanity. Kingfox 22:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete A1, A7, G1. Vanity. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 23:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete only because a band whot hasn't practiced together inn't really a band, now, is it? It's just a bit o' nonsense. (Vanity has nothing to do with it, there's nothing to be vain of here.) Unfocused 17:07, 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. Neutralitytalk 20:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wagon Ride - The Stager
NN online game that shows 8 Google hits. Delete --howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --JJay 02:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable. - Dglynch 05:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 05:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. jnothman talk 07:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. --Optichan 18:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 21:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by me, under A7. Saying you have a job (or, in this case, a hobby) is not an assertion of notability. Friday (talk) 17:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Lawrence Watson
Young comedian who performs around Pittsburgh. Not yet notable. WP:ISNOT a web host. Delete. --howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Flapdragon 01:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable. -- Necrothesp 02:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom jnothman talk 02:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --JJay 02:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 05:46, 3 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 wasDelete....mmmm...Ravnica crap rare :-)...Voice of All T|@|Esperanza 22:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Razia, Boros Archangel
What is this? An RP character? I can't tell. Delete, anyway. ♥♥purplefeltangel♥♥ 00:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently a card from Magic: The Gathering. One of thousands of cards, and not a very notable one. Article appears to be little more that a text copy from the card, so the might just be the possibility of copyvio there, but I don't want to be the one to open that can of worms. Delete (without any kind of merging or redirecting whatsoever) Saberwyn 04:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Would it be possible to consider Juzam Djinn and Mahamoti djinn (articles by the same user with the same level of detail as Razia, Boros Archangel) in this deletion as well, or would I have to nominate them seperately? Saberwyn 04:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd nominate them separately. -- Grev -- Talk 05:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mahamoti djinn and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juzam Djinn. Saberwyn 05:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Would it be possible to consider Juzam Djinn and Mahamoti djinn (articles by the same user with the same level of detail as Razia, Boros Archangel) in this deletion as well, or would I have to nominate them seperately? Saberwyn 04:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete via Power Nine precedent. (In a nutshell: The nine most famous cards of Magic are good enough for one combined article. No single card, therefore, gets its own.) -- Grev -- Talk 05:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete does not satisfy notability criteria in Wikipedia:Fiction. - Dglynch 05:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Grev jnothman talk 07:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. per nom--Dakota 08:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all schools, I mean Magic CardsSorry got confused - DELETE--Nicodemus75 09:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]- Delete pointless to keep, someone might look at the other things this user did also, about everything he added is worth deleting. Boneyard 16:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete NN Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 21:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per the Black Lotus precedent. No single Magic card should get its own article. Andrew Levine 01:10, 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 SPEEDY A4. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Lochac-where-to-buy
Wikipedia is not a webhost Geopgeop 00:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. - Geopgeop 00:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- delete and can this be speedied? :S seems pretty nonsensical to me. ♥♥purplefeltangel♥♥ 01:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedied, not as nonsense, but as A4, attempt to contact. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, using Wikipedia as e-commerce website Flapdragon 01:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom jnothman talk 02:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 05:49, 3 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. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 13:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Knight entertainment
advert, NN Flapdragon 00:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is similar to Newgrounds and it was not removed as an advert. Rcknight 3 November 2005
- What's the similarity? Flapdragon 01:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
newgrounds article states the nature of Newgrounds and how it is relavelent to the internet. Miss Dynamite article is similar in nature to the mention to Dr. Shroud. This page does not promote Knight Entertianment, but is simply a related article that is in relation to three other web pages and two related articles. The FCC is similar to the Ultimate Fighting Championship. Newgrounds, an established Article is also related to items involving Knight Entertainment. This article does not promote any of these other entries, but just states their nature and relivance to other articles. Also Knight Entertainment is in talks with Miss Dynamite as well as other popular flash series about the production of flash related DVD's. These are all in direct relation to the established article for Newgrounds Rcknight 3 November 2005
- Newsgrounds appears to be a large and well-established website with 850,000 registered members. Knight Entertainment (est. 2004) is doubtless a fine company, but one DVD release does not make it notable. An article whose only contributor is the founder of the company, using a Wikipedia account seemingly set up for that purpose and which has contributed nothing else, will naturally be open to suspicions of vanity/advertising. Flapdragon 14:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the former writer. This is no reason to consider this entry for deletion. Nsight7
Above comment by anon 70.112.39.83 --Aquillion 06:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This article is obviously not an advertisement. Rcknight 02:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete looks like vanity/advertising designed mainly to promote upcoming releases. Does not seem notable with only one DVD issued. Related articles may also warrant AFd. Page has also been recreated as Knight Entertainment. --JJay 03:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- And incidentally Rcknight also exists as RCKNIGHT, doubtless an accidental case of dual identity. Flapdragon 03:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The duality exists because there was an error with the lower case 'e' in entertainment. Both were to be capitolized as in Mirror site I alter created.
The duality of Rcknight and RCKNIGHT was due to the fact I did not know that articeles were case sencitive. Please delete the all cap one.
If you do not want me to list the releases, I will modify to accomidate.--Rcknight 04:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Do NOT blank this page please... -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 05:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC) (User:Rcknight has blanked this page once. Please do not do it again, as it is vandalism.)[reply]
- Delete per nom. - Dalbury 13:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete NN, sock support. Also see Knight Entertainment, below. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as above. Dottore So 12:16, 7 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. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 13:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Backstroke of the west
not notable Melaen 01:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. -- Necrothesp 02:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 05:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. - Dalbury 13:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per author request or, alternatively, redirect to Star Wars III: Revenge of the Sith. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 21:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 23:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete encephalon 01:52, 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. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 13:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
HBO Movie Premieres
pointless list Melaen 01:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Pointless. -- Necrothesp 02:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete pointless listcruft -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 05:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. - Dalbury 13:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. PJM 18:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 21:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Kingfox 22:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. encephalon 23:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. *drew 03:04, 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. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 13:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Brain theory
delete original "research" Melaen 01:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- delete. In the studio with me tonight I have an elk. Grutness...wha? 01:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Good topic for an article but this isn't it. --JJay 01:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Flapdragon 01:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete original research jnothman talk 02:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as above. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 05:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this original research. Carioca 20:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete original research. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 21:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete OR. Edwardian 06:48, 7 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. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 13:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Squigglenotches
A website with stuff on it run by some kids. Seems cute but the few google hits show its not notable JJay 01:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --JJay 01:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Flapdragon 01:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom; sad to see it go jnothman talk 02:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable. Carioca 03:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn as above. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 05:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I won't lower myself to typing just "nn" (NSLE! You know better!), but let's just say it doesn't belong. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and possibly BJAODN for the joyful way in which it establishes its own insignificance - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 21:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Self-evident nn. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 23:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Neither cute nor cool. Just lame. Denni☯ 02:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Yet to be notable. *drew 03:05, 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 deleled; closing old discussion. Renata 09:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5078 Yonge Street
Not notable, if anything, and if kept could be used as a violation of WP:POINT. A search for "5078 Yonge Street" returns 0 hits. [[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] [[additions | e-mail]] 01:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this article is now a redirect; the redirect has been nominated for deletion. Please see Redirects for deletion. Mindmatrix 16:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Appears to be a non-notable office building. Article doesn't even say where it is. -- Necrothesp 02:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Still Delete Not so useful redirect for a nn office building to a town --JAranda | watz sup 02:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but I think it's supposed to be about 5075 Yonge Street, if the web link is anything to go by. Kappa 03:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Allright, but then this article should be deleted. I'm not sure how this building is notable enough. It has 422 Google results, but they're mostly about the space. I don't know if the strongest inclusionist could argue that this should stay. Maybe the little information it has could go under the header of where it's redirecting to? -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] [[additions | e-mail]] 03:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, but why keep it as a redirect? Do you honestly think anyone is going to look for or link to this article? I understand redirects are cheap and all, and maybe I should bring this up at RfD, now that it's a redirect, but if the address is even incorrect, why would anyone find anything useful here? Who is going to search for a building with little significance in an ENCYCLOPEDIA and type in the incorrect street address? Fine by me if you want to redirect 5075 Yonge Street, as much as I disagree, but I really don't think an incorrect address redir is needed. I welcome your comments. -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] [[additions | e-mail]] 04:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Specifically, move this redirect to 5075 Yonge Street, then delete the original wrong redirect. Kappa 04:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for reconsidering. While I consider myself neither deletionist nor inclusionist, I can respect the view of an inclusionist such as yourself. It's a shame that you turned down adminship, as I'd gladly support you should you choose to run. Keeping this post relevant to the topic, I agree that this page should be deleted, but the redirect you proposed is another battle for another day. Thanks, [[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] [[additions | e-mail]] 04:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Also muck out North York, Ontario#Buildings in North York -- most of the buildings listed there are not important enough to merit any special mention in Wikipedia at all. Trivial six-storey office towers? Condo developments? Get rid of them. The anon who created this is pinging my Fat pig73/SNIyer12 (an ongoing and unstoppable problem contributor) radar. Bearcat 04:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Is this a notable landmark of some sort? If so, merge particular elements with Yonge Street or Toronto (or similar); in any event, nix it. E Pluribus Anthony 10:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge with a parent article. There is not enough info here to justify an article. --maclean25 05:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy keep. This article is clearly going to be kept, so it is not necessary to wait five days to close the discussion. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
786 (number)
Non-notable number Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- keep notable meaning in Islam, it seems. See article for details. Youngamerican 01:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Any meaning in Islam would best be merged with more appropriate pages. -- Necrothesp 01:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: seems about as notable in Islam as 666 (number) is in Christianity. —Wahoofive (talk) 02:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- keep, highly notable. Pages cannot be merged if deleted. Kappa 03:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Not so, actually. It's possible to do a history merge, or use one of several tricks to merge and leave no article behind. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 18:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Highly significant in Islam it seems a search for 786 Islam got nearly 175,000 results on Google see [5]. Capitalistroadster 03:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Capitalistroadster --JAranda | watz sup 03:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep helps counter systemic bias. Jacqui ★ 03:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep because it has more than three (3) properties, not to mention all of its prime factors are Chen primes and Sophie Germain primes. Giftlite 05:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That's probably true of a lot of composite n < 18361. Anton Mravcek 20:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. the article clearly establishes the significance of this number. u p p l a n d 07:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Numbers in this range are usually not encyclopedic, but the mentioning in the Quran makes this number one of the notable exceptions. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: for above reasons. --Bhadani 14:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The number is given with precision in the sacred texts of Islam and has been the subject of scholarly theological scrutiny. PrimeFan 15:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. Honestly, is someone reading the mailing list? They spew some irrational bile about how all AfD nominations consist of "non-notable [whatever]", and then here y'all are, nominating articles because "non-notable", without explaining why! Is this some kind of sick self-parody? --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep, as a number with interesting properties it is entirely appropriate to have an article on it. Alphax τεχ 16:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep per Wahoofive. Very important number in Islam. flowersofnight (talk) 16:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, largely because of the religious meaning. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 18:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. --Optichan 18:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Trollderella 20:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as this number is notable because it is important in the Islam. Carioca 20:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but needs cleaning up a bit. I don't think we need to know that it's between 785 and 787 either... - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 21:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you come up with a better dictionary definition with which to start every number article? Anton Mravcek 20:46, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep a notable number. Kingfox 22:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep notable for religious reasons. Xoloz 17:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- keep and please help to prevent systemic bias Yuckfoo 18:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Anton Mravcek 20:46, 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 wasThe result of his discussion was Keep (6/0/0). May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Robert J. Fox (priest)
NN Flapdragon 01:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Director of the Fatima Family Apostolate and editor of the Immaculate Heart Messenger", its quarterly publication "in honor of the Immaculate Heart of Mary" -- has notablity really been established here? See WP:BIO Flapdragon 02:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Cleanup. The external link shows that www.dailycatholic.org named him one of the "Top 100 Catholics of the Century". He is not only director but founder of the Fatima Family Apostolate. The article says that he has authored over 50 books; a Google search turns up many examples of his books that are widely available from religious booksellers, including Prayer Book for Young Catholics, The Intimate Life of Sister Lucia, Only Heroic Catholic Families Will Survive, and Francis, to name a few. He seems notable enough for me. -- DS1953 talk 05:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep cleanup and expand. Prolific author on religious issues. Meets the criteria in WP:BIO. One of a list of top 100 Catholics of the Century see [6]. Galenet's Contemporary Authors Online has an article on him. Has a number of books available online on Amazon see [7]. Capitalistroadster 09:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Clean up and add context. PJM 17:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, fits WP:BIO. Badly in need of cleaning up, of course. The article, not the reverend gentleman. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 21:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I have expanded and cleaned up his article. No change of vote from Keep. Capitalistroadster 06:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per anyone else. He's notable. That's why I only tagged it for cleaning and not place {{nn-bio}} on it. (I moved it from a not-quite-correct title, too, but that's not fit for AfD.) --Wcquidditch | Talk 21:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep notable preist. Klonimus 23:21, 5 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. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 13:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ephraim A. Hacker
This seems to be either extremely unnotable or a fake article. I can't find any references to this character in either google or the 15 archaeology journals available on JSTOR. silsor 01:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The single link in the article has no mention of this person. Delete as hoax. Also noting page history has "07:50, August 18, 2005 Francs2000 m ("Ephraim A. Hacker" moved to Ephraim A. Hacker)", with its original page having quotation marks - a fake person perhaps? -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 06:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Obvious hoax. This article originally ended with the sentence "This vein of work eventually earned him irrifutable fame and a glorious Putt-putt course in his honor." That line was only removed yesterday. - Dalbury 14:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Hoax, which roughly equates to Delete. Optichan 18:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete apparent hoax. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 21:51, 3 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. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 13:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Craig Melson
probably non existent, see Ecco_the_Dolphin Melaen 02:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete attempt at humour? Flapdragon 02:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete currently tagged as CSD, but not likely to be speedied. Chick Bowen 04:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - "to better headbut pixellated squid", indeed! - 68.215.59.74 14:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC) This was me, lost my login again. - Dalbury 14:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Still think this is pure nonsense. --JJay 14:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Seems to be a spoof of Ecco the Dolphin. --Sparky Lurkdragon 15:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. --Optichan 18:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete, though it seems unrealistic this is actually true though some of the dates are a little out. It is believed in some circles that Prof Melson may have been the inspiration behind a number of well known films involving marine biologists and their relationships with the animals they studied. (preceding unsigned comment by 159.92.110.238 (talk · contribs) ) - Dalbury 19:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unless 159.92.110.238 can cite sources for why this is a real entry. And quickly. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 23:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: How very interesting. User:159.92.110.238 vandalized my user page, and it seems to be related to this; see [8]. --Sparky Lurkdragon 23:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I created this page, and it is based on the factual character Professor Craig B. L. Melson, although someone seems to have vandalised it in their own personal joke about someone. Presumably Melson did get the inspiration for the naming of his subject matter from the game Ecco the Dolphin, but someone seems to have edited the page into a spoof of the game after finding the mention of the name Ecco. I will do what I can to return it to its correct state. (preceding unsigned comment by 128.86.149.202 (talk • contribs) ) - Dalbury 17:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: 128.86.149.202, removing anyone else's comments from any Wikipedia talk page is very bad form. I've manually reverted the removal of my comment and Redvers' vote. --Sparky Lurkdragon 00:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as hoax, pending verification. Klonimus 23:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Joshua Kentwell
Nonsense bio, no references. 66.191.124.236 02:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment subject seems real, I couldn't say how notable, but article seems to contain large elements of spoof/fantasy mixed in. "A young man named Fiona Blee"?? Flapdragon 02:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Close to A1 or G7. --JJay 02:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I have cleaned up the article getting rid of the nonsense after the first paragraph, adding references and turning it into a cricket-bio stub. This fellow is a semi-notable cricketer playing for the Canberra Comets in the Cricket Australia Cup. For mine, this does not meet the notability criteria for cricket as this is the secondary cricket competition after the Pura Cup. Delete as not yet notable. If it is kept, move to Josh Kentwell. Capitalistroadster 04:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. . Capitalistroadster 04:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 06:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. NPOV, verifiable. Cricinfo has a profile on him. Regarding the notability criteria for cricket: Canberra does not field a team in the Pura Cup, so it could be argued that this is the primary cricket competition for the ACT. Snottygobble | Talk 00:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as rewritten. Flapdragon 01:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. I'm not sure exactly what is meant by "notability criteria for cricket", but Snottygobble's argument is lousy (articles for Northern Territory Football League players?), and Kentwell doesn't fit the sportsperson criteria at WP:BIO. JPD (talk) 09:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- keep this please he is a professional sports person the article looks really nice now too Yuckfoo 18:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep obscure but WP isn't harmed by including this. Klonimus 23:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, and I'll write up something on Cricket Australia Cup in the next day or so. -- Ian ≡ talk 01:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to a suitable topic which better satisfies WP:V, WP:RS. Also, doff hat at Capitalistroadster for his display of uncommon class. encephalon 01:48, 9 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.
There is a clear consensus that this article should be merged into at least one other. Debates as to the most useful disposition of cricket match articles are not new; to outsiders (to cricket) they can be extremely confusing. I'm one of these folks, so it took me a while to go through the articles and categories to familiarise myself with the issues. Briefly:
- The article that is the subject of this AFD pertains to a single cricket match that took place during the 1971-72 South Africa cricket season. The article is four sentences long and is a short summary of the game. It is unlikely that there is much more that can be sensibly added to the page.
- There are dozens of SA cricket seasons, see Template:South_African_cricket_seasons.
- In the 1971-72 SA season, some 32 matches were played. See Category:1971/2_South_African_cricket_season_matches. Each of these matches has been given an individual page, usually only a couple of sentences long.
- Aside from individual pages for the matches, there are also individual pages for each team's performance in that season. For example, Transvaal B in 1971/2, Northern Transvaal in 1971/2, Rhodesia in 1971/2.
- Aside from individual pages on single matches, there are also articles on the various tournaments (I hope that's the right word) within that season. In the 1971-72 season, the tournaments were Currie Cup Section A in 1971/2, Currie Cup Section B in 1971/2, Gillette Cup in 1971/2, and Non-Castle Cup first-class matches in South Africa in 1971/2.
- The material in the articles on the tournaments (what I mentioned in #5), and the material in articles on teams (what I mentioned in #4), are all collections of substs of the individual match articles (what I mentioned in #3).
I agree with Stephen Turner, OpenToppedBus, Ian, A Man In Black, and (I think) Sam Vimes that these individual match (not just the one here discussed on the AFD) shouldn't be maintained. The information is all in the larger articles, each of which consist of a series of substs of the match articles. The larger articles also provide the opportunity for context that the tiny articles don't (I'm sure a bit more could be said about the 1972 Northern Transvaal team, for example, than merely a list of the matches they played). I would also like to point out that the team articles (ie. what I mentioned in #4), are poorly titled. Rhodesia in 1971/2 may be an acceptable title for a cricket encyclopedia, but on a general encyclopedia like WP it is misleading.
The disposition of articles not the subject of this AFD cannot be decided here, but there does appear to be a strong consensus, both within and without the WP cricket community, that the individual match articles be merged (and redirected if not deleted). I lend my voice in support of this idea. Finally, I'm a little mystified as to why the match articles were written in the first place, and agree with OpenToppedBus that they shouldn't be in future. encephalon 03:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Northern Transvaal v Natal B 1-4 January 1972
This is a nn cricket game from more than 30 years ago. WP:NOT a scoreboard Delete --JAranda | watz sup 02:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, like Category:2005 English cricket season matches. Wikipedia is timeless so 30 years is irrevelant. Kappa 03:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Harmless. No reason why Wikipedia shouldn't include a guide to first class cricket matches. CalJW 03:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. We have other cricket matches articles. Carioca 03:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The 30 years are completely irrelevant. If this is deleted then all the recent matches should be deleted as well. JPD (talk) 11:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Currie Cup Section B in 1971/2, Natal B in 1971/2 and Northern Transvaal in 1971/2 when they're all finished. Sam Vimes 14:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Either Move to subpage of 1971-72 South African cricket season (or some such suitable title), or Delete. I voted to keep the 2005 English cricket season matches, but only because I understood that they would all be merged at the end of the season, and that it wouldn't be done that way again. I very much respect the authors' dedication to cricket and to Wikipedia, but I am unhappy that WikiProject Cricket is continuing to provoke so much controversy. Stephen Turner 14:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]- I've just read Wikipedia:Subpages, so I change my opinion to: Move to subpage of a user page immediately, and then Merge per Sam Vimes when the whole collection is ready. Stephen Turner 16:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Either merge per User:Sam Vimes and cleanup, or transwiki to Wikisource if they'll have it. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per User:Sam Vimes. Some cricket matches might deserve their own article, if they were pivotal enough or eventful enough, but in general, the information would work better as a collected season or league or tour roundup. I really doubt much more information could be inserted into this article than is already there. —Morven 19:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per His Grace. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 21:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Query - I thought the whole point of the 2005 English county match reports was that at the end of the season, they would all be merged together into a week-by-week analysis or a team-by-team analysis, and that the original match reports would then be deleted. Is my understanding wrong? If so, would very much appreciate knowing what was intended originally and what happened in the end, now that the season has been over for a month or more. --Peripatetic 00:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Your understanding is not wrong. However, because of holiday and things it's taken a great deal of time to clean all the articles up (I'm into the middle of August at the moment) - when that's finished, I'll subst them all in and ask for someone to merge page histories. Sam Vimes 07:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into relevant articles on the greater competition. Lord Bob 02:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep We've discussed this all before (is it four or five times now?). Why bring it all up again? The series of articles on the 1971/2 South African cricket season will be completed sometime, and this is an essential part of it, jguk 04:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. It might be useful to have links to the previous discussions: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
- There was no consensus in any of these discussions. So pretending that a precedent has been established is disingenuous.
- It was clearly stated by several contributors that the articles would be deleted promptly at the end of the season. I suspect that the vote would have been more negative without this promise. However, this has not happened, and I'm not even sure whether this is planned for these South African articles. I'm beginning to suspect that the authors quite like having the individual articles.
- The fact that WikiProject Cricket is continuing to do something so controversial based only on the inability to reach consensus either for or against is itself worrying to me. We're not being good neighbours, and we're giving our project a bad name. Besides, we could do without wasting time having this argument every few weeks. We should be voluntarily finding a better way to do this.
- As for myself, I can no longer support these individual articles,
although I'd still be happy to have them as subpages. Stephen Turner 10:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. It might be useful to have links to the previous discussions: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
- Merge to a higher level article per previous commitment to do so for the English 2005 articles -- Ian ≡ talk 12:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into higher level article, and an extremely strong recommendation to the Cricket Wikiproject that future articles on individual matches, if they are only intended to exist temporarily for future use in larger articles, should be created either on user or wikiproject subpages rather than in the main namespace. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 12:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong merge per Sam Vimes. Wikipedia is not a scorecard. Dozens of professional sports games are played every day, the bulk of which have no lasting impact even on the participants and observers. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 21:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge this article, along with everything in Category:1971/2 South African cricket season matches --AllyUnion (talk) 13:42, 7 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. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 13:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Montgomery Sands
Long description of book/writer. Unconfirmable via google and not found at amazon indicate hoax JJay 02:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --JJay 02:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not clear whether this is meant to be a book, a real person, a fictional character or some kind of hallucination. Clearly nonsense anyway. Flapdragon 03:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The same text (or some variant of it) appears as the user page of Jcash. Note also the comment at User talk:Jcash. Flapdragon 03:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as above. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 06:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 21:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Hoax, nonsense, nn, Jcash insulting people more intelligent than him/her rather than editing the d--- article in the first place, etc... ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 23:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. hoax..Dakota ? e 01:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. dr.alf 07:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE per A7: Makes no assertion of notability, and, also, G1 (Nonsense). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dar
Non-notable Runescape clan, or something. --keepsleeping say what 02:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom --keepsleeping say what 02:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 06:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
D'Adamo
Geneology. No members of the family are encyclopedically notable, with the possible exception of a Baltimore city council member. 66.191.124.236 02:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete very narrow focus - Massimo D'Adamo for example is notable but that's no reason to keep a family name. Dlyons493 Talk 07:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable.appears to be vanity...Dakota 07:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
cut it
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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 keep. Plenty of consensus for keep, even the nominator does not appear to have wanted this deleted. Discussion of merge with New Year's Eve is better done on talk pages, not Afd. Any such discussion is not precluded due to this Afd. Friday (talk) 18:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
New Year's Eve party
Someone deleted this article without an explanation as to why. I vote that the article should be kept, it's a well written article. What do you think?CarDepot 22:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it was ever deleted. It should not have been brought to AfD. Editing disputes, e.g. whether an article should be a redirect or not, should be discussed on the article's Talk page, Talk:New Year's Eve party in this case. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- keep. Kappa 03:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand. Notable topic and article should explain the traditions. Capitalistroadster 03:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep more notable than elementary schools --JAranda | watz sup 03:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand Well, if we're going to talk that way, JAranda, then it's more notable than Wikipedia Day. Jacqui ★ 03:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per Kappa. Garr 04:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. —Brim 04:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It wasn't deleted, it was converted to a redirect to New Year's Eve, which is how it should stay, in my opinion. The article as it stands really says no more than "this is a party on New Year's Eve" and goes on to define what New Year's Eve is. Leave as redirect and merge anything remotely useful into New Year's Eve. Tonywalton | Talk 15:13, 3 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. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 13:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Cholerectic
This article is an obvious hoax, though it's a nice change from all the copyvios in Category:Articles that need to be wikified. ;-) -- Kjkolb 02:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete hoax. - Dglynch 05:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. - Dalbury 14:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. We seem to be missing an article on the "African Reptile Service for Endangered Animals". Another for WP:BJAODN? Flapdragon 14:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete hoax jnothman talk 14:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as it is a hoax. Carioca 20:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Don't know about a hoax, but self-evident nonsense is clear. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 23:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by Dcoetzee as attack page. --GraemeL (talk) 14:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Peter Peter Ball
Evidently a page written by children to insult a school child somewhere. If someone can point to a suitable criterion for speedy deletion that would be helpful. Deco 02:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Never mind, some friendly Wikipedian pointed out a suitable speedy criteron. I went ahead and deleted it. Thanks. Deco 03:05, 3 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. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 13:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ritual suicide (band)
I can find no evidence this "band" or its member even exist, and they would not meet WP:MUSIC even if they did. --keepsleeping say what 02:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. There should really be a speedy category for this sort of thing. --keepsleeping say what 02:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete NN. I agree, there should be an nn-band tag. PJM 03:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. nn, probably nonsense too. Agree with PJM that a {{subst:nn-band}} nom template would be v useful. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 23:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete NN. *drew 03:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete 64.194.44.220 15:12, 6 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 MAKE INTO A DISAMBIG PAGE. — JIP | Talk 06:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Birthday party
Is this article useful? Or should it be deleted? CarDepot 02:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as dicdef (no more than a dictionary definition)Flapdragon 03:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]- Changing my vote to redirect to birthday. I really can't imagine there being enough meat in this for anything but a dicdef, but someone might look for it. Flapdragon 14:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, notable type of party. Kappa 03:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand as notable type of party. Currently a dictdef but capable of expansion talking about traditions and means of celebrations. Capitalistroadster 03:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand. Definitely a notable type of party, just like bachelor party and similar parties. --Idont Havaname 03:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable type of party --JAranda | watz sup 03:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per Kappa. Garr 03:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- merge with birthday, I guess. Jacqui ★ 03:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Notable party.Carioca 03:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]- Merge with birthday. —Brim 04:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Birthday. All the content in this article is already at Birthday anyway. --Metropolitan90 08:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to birthday as per Metropolitan90's argument. Proto t c 12:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Birthday as mentioned above. PJM 14:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect. No useful information not already in Birthday --Optichan 18:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Trollderella 20:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge:With Birthday RENTASTRAWBERRY FOR LET? röck 00:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Make into disambiguation page leading to Birthday and The Birthday Party. Grutness...wha? 00:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Expand GuardDog 01:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep what kind of encyclopedia wouldn't have an article on a birthday party?--Nicodemus75 04:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep everyone is invited to da club
- Keep and expand... otherwise you're a party-pooper. Edwardian 06:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep 64.194.44.220 15:11, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expandI love birthday parties!. Sweet-as-suger 05:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as per Optichan --redstucco 10:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. As much as I hate to give this guy a victory, I still have to follow the rules. Seems to be notable. -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] [[additions | e-mail]] 12:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Pocket door
Is this a useful article or should it be removed? It's currently a dictionary defintion. CarDepot 02:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing seems to have happened since the article appeared. Suggest delete unless the article improves. --DannyWilde 02:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, notable type of door. Very popular in Japan. Kappa 03:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- There is already fusuma, which is the general name of sliding doors in Japanese (I don't vouch for the fusuma article, though - it also needs work). --DannyWilde 03:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm where should Japanese doors redirect to... Kappa 03:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm no expert on Japanese doors but doubt that they exactly match the definition of the pocket door, which "slides into the wall". Flapdragon 03:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:fusuma.jpg This is a snapshot of a fusuma in a recess in the wall, which is what Kappa was talking about, I think. I don't know if this is a pocket door or not. I don't remember seeing doors which slide between one wall and the other in Japan. Quite hard to keep clean, I would guess. --DannyWilde 03:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm no expert on Japanese doors but doubt that they exactly match the definition of the pocket door, which "slides into the wall". Flapdragon 03:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm where should Japanese doors redirect to... Kappa 03:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- There is already fusuma, which is the general name of sliding doors in Japanese (I don't vouch for the fusuma article, though - it also needs work). --DannyWilde 03:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as dicdef. Flapdragon 03:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete dicdef --JAranda | watz sup 03:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per Kappa. Garr 04:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Similar doors are common in San Francisco too - we could of course improve the article. Throbblefoot 07:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I've lived in houses with pocket doors. It does need to be expanded. - Dalbury 16:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - this is a useful stub that will eventually be expanded by someone, I'm sure. —Morven 19:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, as above. Trollderella 20:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Googling on "Pocket door" turns up slathers of pages on "install a pocket door," "fixing a stubborn pocket door," "sliding, folding, and pocket door hardware," "Pocket doors were popular at the turn of the century, but fell out of favor for awhile. Today's casters and hardware have eliminated the problems," "Pocket door kits save floor space, are easy to install," "The primary advantage of using a pocket door instead of a standard hinged door is, "buyer's guide of pocket door kits," "Pocket Door Solutions" etc. etc. This is obviously an encyclopedic topic, and a perfectly good ordinary builders' term for doors right here in the good old U. S. of A, (land of free, home of brave etc.) Dpbsmith (talk) 01:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete dicdef --redstucco 10:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Cat flap. -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] [[additions | e-mail]] 12:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Doggie door
Is this article useful or should it be deleted? It currently looks like a dictionary definition. CarDepot 02:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- keep, wikipedia should tell the world what it knows about doggie doors. Kappa 03:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't seem to know a whole lot. Delete as dicdef. Flapdragon 03:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to Wikidictonary if its not there and Delete dicdef right now --JAranda | watz sup 03:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per Kappa Garr 04:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with cat flap. I mean, "doggie door" is just a neologism to describe the dog equivalent, right? There's no actual difference 'twixt the two? If so, then let us, indeed, tell the entire world what we know about doggie doors (not a whole lot, as Flapdragon says), but do so from within an existing, better article. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with cat flap. If the invention was originally for cats and were later obviously adapted to dogs, then we should just mention it on the first article (alike "a variation for dogs exist called doggie door" or something) ☢ Ҡieff⌇↯ 16:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per above. It's a real term, but since cat flaps and dog/doggie doors are the same thing, we only need one article on it. —Morven 19:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as above. Trollderella 20:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep GuardDog 01:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as per MarkGallagher --redstucco 10:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per above. Srl 10:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above. 64.194.44.220 15:12, 6 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. Non-notable, cookbookish and drug-culture-related, Wikipedia is none of these. -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] [[additions | e-mail]] 05:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Stoner burrito
Wikipedia is not a cookbook.keepsleeping say what 03:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep it doesn't look like a cookbook entry to me. CarDepot 03:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep, not a recipe. Kappa 03:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]- Delete - WTF? Concept with ONE Google hit, completely unverifiable and unencyclopedic. I can't believe the keep votes here. Absurd. FCYTravis 03:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per FCYTravis unverifiable --JAranda | watz sup 03:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I would vote to keep this if it were verifiable. However, a Google search for "Stoner burrito" gets a solitary result see [9]. A Google search for "Frito pie burrito" does better although none of the results seemed particularly definitive see [10]. The problems with WP:V for this article will lead me to vote Deletewhile noting that, if kept, it should be moved to "Frito pie burrito". A Google print search for Frito pie burrito" came up empty swinging my vote towards delete. Capitalistroadster 04:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Come on now, I mean for real! What the hell are you all talking about a Stoner Burrito? You know up here in the northern part of the U.S. certain individuals will act out violently upon hearing such terminology. I mean after all the 1960s was the era of Civil Rights Activism. I know it was mainly just for women and blacks. But what about the hispanic/Latino culture?
Go ahead and walk into any of America's numerous ghettos or certains other parts of the inner city and call the first person you see that you can classify as a hispanic/Latino a "Stoner burrito" and see what happens!!! I bet you dollars to doughnuts that you will not like what you see, not to mention the fact that you will be extremely lucky if you don't happen to see the glint of a steel blade being exposed or tearing at your skin for such a rude racist comment.
This says a lot comming from a white guy who used to be a racist and knows all different sorts of phrases from back in the day, if you know what I mean.
- Delete Echoes aforementioned reasons. Upled
- Delete. Proto t c 12:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete completely unverifiable jnothman talk 14:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unverifiable nonsense. —Morven 19:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Disgusting article. Garr 23:57, 3 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. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 13:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Knight Entertainment
mirror of Knight entertainment, NN DVD manufacturer Flapdragon 03:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See also votes and comments at Knight entertainment, cited above. Flapdragon 03:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Here is the AfD discussion for the incorrectly capitalised entry: Knight entertainment. It's now a redirect.
Please delete other mirror site. The 'e' in title was not to be lower case. Also Delete User RCKNIGHT as it was my first atempt to create profile and I did not realize that it was case senitive. Rcknight profile matched my user log in.
- Do Not DeleteI have edited site to not show releases, or up comming release to aid in any issues with this article.
Other entries on Newgrounds such as Star Syndicate are allowed Wikipedia articles, then why not a DVD prodcution that features a animation of Newgrounds Mascot, or another series like Dr. Shroud? --Rcknight 04:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Do Not Delete There is no advertising, it is factual in nature only. You allow other flash series found on newgrounds like Neurotically Yours Please how mine is differnt?--Rcknight 05:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You aso have the flash series found on Newgrounds known as Salad Fingers How is this not advertisment like mine?--Rcknight 05:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also the mascot of Newgrounds the character Pico (Newgrounds.com) is on the Dr. shroud DVD production, and is a cartoon found on Newgrounds here - [11]. This character is worthy of his own article, when he has only appeared on a few flash entries, but the production and production company that contributes more to this character is not allowed to exist? These are facts presented on my article that directly relate to and go in conjunction with existing approved articles.--Rcknight 05:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Another Flash found on Newgrounds allowed to have an article Xombie--Rcknight 05:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Alien Hominid a creation of Tom Fulp ,like Pico feature on the Dr. Shroud DVD. Now tell me how this is an approved article, and not advertisement in comparrison to the current state of this article? If this article is in violation, then should every article that is related to a manufacture product that can be bought or sold.--Rcknight 06:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The character Pico (Newgrounds.com) is on the Dr. Shroud DVD production and is another fact that realted to other exisinting approved articles.--Rcknight 06:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Alien Hominid is a single production made by a new company and it is an accepted article. This particle has a production that is Newgrounds Related, as well as related to other articles. Also several more productions are in the works set to be released in 2006. FFC alone has 4 to 6 releases a year and is similar to otehr Mixed Martial Arts entries. Information added to this article will also be added to related articles. Several Flash Animated series do not even have DVd productions are allowed to have articles.--Rcknight 15:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with the former writer. This is no reason to consider this entry for deletion. Nsight7
Above comment by anon 70.112.39.83 --Aquillion 06:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Above comment pasted over from previous debate on other mirror site to be deleted. --Rcknight 15:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete NN site, sock support —Wahoofive (talk) 16:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. - Dalbury 16:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --JJay 17:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Do Not DeleteThis Article Does Not Promote Nor Does It Advertise. It Is Factual In Nature Only and is similar to Articles listed above. No one who has taken the side of deletion has explained how this is and advertisement and the others are not. Also, there has been not supproting evidence as to why they feel this site varies from the others that have been listed above and are approved.--Rcknight 17:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete ad. (Don't see any socks here, though, just lots of votes from the article's author.) AndyJones 18:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Do Not Delete I just made it late yeasterday, and I have yet to tell anyone about it due to the deletion ststus. I have yet to have anyone give me compelling reson why my article should not be allowed when some of the articles I have mentioned above are allowed? Most of the flash series you allow are just web sites. Knight Entertainment not only works with several differnt clients, more will be added upon the release of the 6 other projects currently in works. Those 6 were not listed because they are not a matter of fact until then. I also do not want to get accused of "promoting" them.
Give me a reason why the above articles were allowed to exist? If my site is an advertisement (I do not post any links to where to buy the DVD by the way. It is listed on over 30 web stores.) then the articles listed in my earlier comments are advertisments for their web sites. If there is no "stock" here, then why is there stock in articles that explain about web pages based on flash animation series? No one has dared to explain that to me. I have just as much stock if not more with an actual product.--Rcknight 20:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason is that (as explained before) the subject of the article is not notable (NN). By the way your objection has been registered, there's no need to keep voting again and again. Flapdragon 20:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- So just making a web page is notable. (As in the examples I listed above.) But taking something in cyber space, and taking it to market in association with a variety of those notable web pages is not notable. I fail to see tha logic. Other DVD production are noted, and other flash series are noted, then why is a flash series taken to the DVD not notable? Of the 100's of flash animation, only 8 have made it to the DVD market. I am helping more to faciliate that need. --Rcknight 21:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete NN. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 21:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rcknight, please stop blanking text on this page. Vandalism will not exactly help your case. Flapdragon 21:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I blanked it because that link and issue is over. It has no bearing on this subject, and it is misleading since it was due to an error on my part when setting up this article. I even noted that change as such.--Rcknight 22:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- There are other, different, comments there accumulated separately due to the confusion of having two mirrored entries. You also blanked the initial nomination of this page. Flapdragon 22:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I blanked it because that link and issue is over. It has no bearing on this subject, and it is misleading since it was due to an error on my part when setting up this article. I even noted that change as such.--Rcknight 22:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I am still waiting for clearification on why my article is not notable, when it is more of a rare acomplishment then simply making a web page as sited articles listed above. In fact I am currently in talk with two of those flash animated series to aid them in the creation of DVD's prodcutions as well. Now if I--Rcknight 22:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC) were truly "promoting" or "advertising" I would have mentioned those facts, but I did not. If you are doing this just because I made it then delete it and i will have someone else create it, would that satisify your issues? I have noticed that the notion of advertisingment has not been used, but now it is a matter of not being noteable, when much more simple accomplishements have been noted. I keep stating my case because no one has yet to offer any compelling evidence to the contrary. It would take less time and effort for me to get someone to draw and create a flash series, and that would be notable. I have spent my time and efforts setting up a distribution network, DVD production editing studio, praphic arts design, and manufcaturing capaibilities to provide a cost effective way for underground series and productions a way for them to get their series to the main stream market. This is a far more complicated task then building a web site, and placing some flash animation on it. But my efforts are not notable. I still fail to see the logic in that, and have yet to hear otherwise from any of you. Then again I would doubt that any of you have a real concept of what it takes to get something to market in the mainstream media.[reply]
- Delete. Rcknight, lots of people here use other articles or previous decisions as precedent to stop their own advertising or non-notable pages from being deleted. It never works (in fact, it draws the attention of "deletionist" editors (like me?) and is thus counterproductive). Each Article for Deletion consideration is based on the article's own merits. The only way to avoid deletion of an article where people are generally anti is not to argue here, but instead to go back to the article and edit it to address the concerns. You have five days to do that between nomination and deletion, which is plenty of time to repair an article that looks like advertising or something non-notable. If it is either of those, you won't be able to clean it up and it will be deleted. If it isn't, you will easily reform the article and all will be well. But arguing - and especially arguing-by-exception - just won't work. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 23:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per Redvers Olorin28 02:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable. *drew 03:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Do Not Delete I have made chages per the direction of REDVERS who actually offered constructive critisium, which is all that I have ever asked for. Please re-review and offer new opinion. Thanks! --Rcknight 23:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Reworking the article does not make its subject more notable. (Nor incidentally does voting over and over again.) Flapdragon 23:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- On the plus side, the more he says the more convinced I am that my delete vote is correct :-) - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 12:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Abstain If it stays, it needs a major reworking. The introduction reads like a press release. Include a list of publications. Tell me something about the history or the company. What's an "Affilate" in this context? Does Newgrounds really need 8 mentions? If it survives and these changes are not made, I would probably vote Delete in a second VfD, but I'll let it go for now. --Billpg 16:11, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Introduction edited, History and Publications added, Newground mentions limited. Afilate was used in an alternate to "Clinet" due to VfD comments above about "Advertising". Explaination of "Affilates" may be taken as advertising which is what I am tring to avoid as well. --Rcknight 16:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the mirror entry. Dottore So 12:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Mirror entry already deleted. Now a redirect.--Rcknight 16:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 06:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dawn Stensland
Not encyclopedically notable. TV news reader in Philadelphia. 66.191.124.236 03:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn news anchor --JAranda | watz sup 03:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, passes WP:BIO. Kappa 10:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events". She reads the news on TV, so she would fall under the category of journalism/media. -- L3TUC3 13:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC) (This user's first edit was after this article was nominated for deletion. - Dalbury 17:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]
- Delete per nom. - Dalbury 17:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete agreeing with Dalbury's response to Kappa above. Dottore So 12:20, 7 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. Joyous (talk) 01:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
MIB Grenoble
An article for a specific program within a school seems unnecessary and possible advertising. No real useful information. ASchmoo 03:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. - ASchmoo 03:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and delete also the refernce in the disambig page. -feydey 12:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. - Dalbury 16:54, 3 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. Joyous (talk) 01:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Harry Dennison
seems to be non-existent person/character, not confirmable via Google; allegedly the creator or alter ego of, or same person as, the equally unconfirmable Montgomery Sands, cited above. Flapdragon 03:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless verified. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 01:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete..hoax no google hits..Dakota ? e 01:24, 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. Ingoolemo talk 03:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Afelhem
I appreciate that the author has tried to make the article appropriate for Wikipedia, but the game still hasn't been released and until it is, it is unlikely to be notable enough for inclusion. Here is the first nomination. -- Kjkolb 04:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The game isn't encyclopedic until it either gathers significant press attention or controversy, or is released. Sorry guys. The Land 12:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. - Dalbury
- Ok guys, I'll come back when it's done. I understand what you mean, I'm sure many games start up and fail... Well I'll be back in 6+ months I guess... Btw, this is a public computer atm, please ignore if there is any vandalism, it was not me.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Cryolathe
Article appears to be the abstract of a medical paper. Extremely difficult to understand and doesn't say much about the topic itself. There might also be a copyright issue.
- Delete per nomination Comatose51 04:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. Tonywalton | Talk 15:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is an abstract from the National Center for Biotechnology Information [12] and, as a U.S. government publication, is in the public domain. The topic itself should qualify for an article. While this article needs a lot of work, it is someplace to start. - Dalbury 17:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This refers to a technique of in which a portion of cornea of the eye is removed, frozen, reshaped and replaced on the corneal stromal bed. Sort of obsolete because of laser procedures. Klonimus 23:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was merge. Ingoolemo talk 06:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ruvaush
Non-notable. Only 60 googles for Ruvaush, some of which are wikipedia mirrors. There isn't any context but it looks like somebody's RPG character. RJFJR 04:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Werewolf. This is from a list of names for werewolves and similar creatures at [13] - Dalbury 17:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Paul Bosworth
This sounds like nonsense. No google hits for this name — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brim (talk • contribs) 00:08, 3 November 2005
- Delete My guess is it's a hoax. No mention in the Battle of Trafalgar article, and as the nom said, no google hits. Seems quite well written, and possibly real, but I'm guessing it's a hoax. -[[User:Mysekuritynowiki></nowiki> [[additions | e-mail]] 04:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be a haox - lechery wasn't a a legal offence. Dlyons493 Talk 07:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems ok.Probably not a hoax, Nelson had many advisors who have escaped official records. Well written though. User talk:deathrow_bozo (preceding unsigned comment by 217.206.184.196 (talk · contribs) ) He has also edited other user's comments to disrupt formatting. - Dalbury 17:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC) [reply]
- Sadly, one of the tenets of Wikipedia is verifiability. People who have "escaped official records" tend to be quite difficult to verify, so we tend not to include articles on them. The absence of any sources in this article make it impossible to determine whether the information is true or not, so unless someone provides sources, we will be forced to assume it's made up and delete it. — Haeleth Talk
- Delete if no evidence produced to show he actually existed. Reeks of hoax. As an orphan, he went to Nova Scotia at the age of 18 to discover the Northwest Passage, was a palm reader, phrenologist, opium addict and "notorious" gangster, was imprisoned in the Tower, Trafalgar brought him "success and fame" -- such a colourful character would hardly have disappeared without trace. Flapdragon 11:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, looks like a hoax. feydey 12:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. - Dalbury 17:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- exaggerated Informative article, if not slightly over the top. The author should be alerted to tone down the exaggeration of the article but it is true that Nelson had many different forgotten and disgraced comrades who fell between the cracks after the war — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.142.95 (talk • contribs) 2005-11-03 18:27:33 (UTC) (User has no edits not related to this article or its deletion; user has also vandalised this page by blanking it - — Haeleth Talk)
- Delete as non-verifiable. — Haeleth Talk 18:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
All good he does get a mention in Dennis Cook's extensive biography of Nelson, the link is probably ancient but here it goes anyway [www.tenegenius.edu.uk/history/cook/bosp1.html]
- I've never heard of "edu.uk", and Google has never heard of "tenegenius". Where's that link from, please? And what's the title of the biography? Flapdragon 15:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Leave this needs a lot of cleaning up, probably a newbie. Give him a chance as this article has real potential, considering the thousands that fought in the time of Nelson, Wikipedia needs more articles with a deep discourse regarding his peers. Major cleanup of format and language needed. 19:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC) (preceding unsigned comment by 217.155.197.19 (talk • contribs) ) This is user's second edit. the first edit was vandalism on Curtain. - Dalbury 19:48, 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. Joyous (talk) 01:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Jule Crain
Nom & vote Del. Text is
- Jule Crain, age 83 as of 2005, of Salem, IL is the oldest living hemophiliac in the world
Googling this name gives no hits (&, just in case of a typo,
- "Julie Crane" Salem OR hemophiliac
produces only un-related law-clerkship info in the 2 hits that mention Illinois). An appeal for verification has been ignored since August. In fact, it is highly unlikely that the identity of the oldest hemophiliac is known: offer a scenario in which the worldwide original research ever gets done! Even then, the failure to verify accents the inherant non-notability the assertion would have, even if verified: no one beyond the creator and presumably the subject's intimates cares about this. Del, Del, Del!
--Jerzy•t 04:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Delete per nomination. Non-verifiable claim. The Land 12:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. - Dalbury 17:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no google hits for Jule Crain. Punkmorten 13:25, 5 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. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 13:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
TheHumpHouse.com
Non-notable website ("While slow at times and short on members, the site is young and hopefully will become more stable as it grows"). tregoweth 04:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. -- Captain Disdain 11:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per submitter and the fact that the site has no Alexa ranking. --GraemeL (talk) 14:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. - Dalbury 17:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. *drew 03:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Edwardian 04:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete (A7). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Malo-kun
Vanity/Spam page
- Delete per nomination. - SFT 04:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy as A7. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:53, 3 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. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 13:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sasiska
I can not find such a cat breed on the net suspect Hoax. Delete abakharev 04:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Some people will never grow up. KNewman 04:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. hoax. mikka (t) 04:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- delete hoax. --Irpen 17:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
CertainlyDeletebut this does not meet the patent nonsense criteria.Tonywalton | Talk 15:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete hoax or very bad spelling. Either way, neither I nor Google can corroborate. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 23:55, 3 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 socks. Ingoolemo talk 06:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Modojo
Article about a non-notable website (Google: 235), content at the end is bordering on patent nonsense [[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] [[additions | e-mail]] 04:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This article should not be deleted. Modojo is one of the only websites that focuses solely on mobile gaming. In addition there is a fairly large and active community behind Modojo. Update: Please keep in mind that the Modojo Forums were perviously called Cloudchaser and XenGamers. Modojo is rather a recent name, which is why it produces unimpressive results in Google. Also keep in mind that Modojo is one of the only gaming sites that is devoted exclusively to handhelds. plucas 05:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I don't see how this particular little-known website is any more important than the zillions of other Internet forums out there, and the article doesn't seem to be able to establish any importance beyond quoting some unimpressive statistics. —HorsePunchKid→龜 06:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, Cloudchaser and XenGamers get a comparable number of hits on Google. —HorsePunchKid→龜 06:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It's not so much the site itself but the community/group of people there and the rather interesting history it has; i.e: a lot of metamorphesis of the site has occured but the original community for the most part has stuck together. 220.236.33.103 06:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. HorsePunch- The website is differenciated from the "zillions" of other gaming sites/forums because of its strict mobile focus. It fills a specific online niche that very few (no one else?) is focused. Not all websites can or should be gauged solely on their google rank. Modojo is very relevent in the ever-growing mobile gaming scene. Cell phone gaming is EXPLODING in popularity, and I don't know of any other site that examines in so closely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.254.35.179 (talk • contribs) 2005-11-03 01:36:49
- Delete the article and Eat the meatpuppets, they're delicious with gravy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It's somebody's website. I have a website too, but I don't write articles about mine, and neither should other people. Delete for lack of verifiability and significance. Friday (talk) 16:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. 7300+ people could make a midsized town - even if the internet is incomprehensibly large, why should any part of it be ignored? (preceding unsigned comment by 129.21.41.2 (talk · contribs) ) - Dalbury 18:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC) [reply]
- Keep. The website is looking to pioneer in creating communities for gamers. They are looking to differentiate themselves from the zillions of forums out there by building a community with MySpace like feautres for people who share a common interest. Sites with similar social networking features may become common in the future but this site is one of the first in a potentially new area. While they may be small now there is potential for this website to become significant. mcwiggin Please use four tildes instead of three, so that a time and datestamp may be applied. Thank you, [[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] [[additions | e-mail]] 03:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- My delete vote (per nom, nn +/- vanity) becomes strong delete votes when puppets are involved. Cut the strings. Ifnord 17:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom as non-notable. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not sifficiently noteworthy to satisfy WP:V, WP:RS encephalon 22:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The forum has existed for over 6 years and effected thousands of peoples lives. Give it some time and it think you will all see the merit of the page. (preceding unsigned comment by 66.166.232.206 (talk • contribs) ) This is the fourth edit for this user; the first three were in the article Modojo. - Dalbury 03:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The community use to be one of the leading video game media websites on the Internet. This isn't a website by Joe Schmo who wants some free advertising, and the forums were at one time were the official community of a print magazine. There are other, less notable websites on Wikipedia (see Talk page), so if you vote to remove this entry then by default those other entries should be removed as well. JTrost 02:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep With a little touching up, I don't see why not. Besides, "Ignore all rules, including this one." Toupee I edited the article recently without logging on. My mistake.
- Keep This website has become MoDojo only recently. There is a large community with a long, interesting history behind it. Besides, how many other sites devoted exclusively to mobile gaming do you know? (preceding unsigned comment by 71.57.120.22 (talk • contribs) ) This is the first edit for this user. - Dalbury 02:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep because it's one of the top gaming forums in population as well as being the best mobile gaming exclusive sites. Mirthoneist (preceding unsigned comment by 66.177.213.74 (talk • contribs) ) This is the user's first edit. - Dalbury 02:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This site actually has a history, a fairly long and complex one. It has encompassed many sites and Modojo is the most recent one, the forums are a mainstay of the website and have included members from all the forms Modojo has taken. For the fact that Modojo deals with mobile gaming is what sets it apart and makes it worthy of keeping. Barnolde Please use four tildes instead of three, so that a time and datestamp may be applied. Thank you, [[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] [[additions | e-mail]] 03:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment To save all you Modojo supporters some wasted effort, please read Wikipedia:Sock puppet, and particularly the section on "Meatpuppets", before posting. - Dalbury 03:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Modojo members who have actively participated in Wikipedia have been encouraged to vote to keep this entry, however they have no control over people who are not members that vote here. JTrost 03:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It may be non-notable to you (*drew, et al), and I'm afraid I would have agreed with you, but I took a look at the category this article is in, and if you put up an AfD for this article, you should do it for the likes of GiveNGo and FOK!Games as well. For all I know, Modojo seems much more well established than either one of those two and some of the others in that category as well. I'm most certainly not a meatpuppet, and this is my honest opinion. janey the crazy 06:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- On a sidenote, in reference to mysekurity's google count, [14] turns up almost 100k results. the difference between 235 and 76100 is quite huge. janey the crazy 06:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but that counts vast quantity of links that shouldn't be; for example, links from modojo.com to itself. I don't know exactly what Mysekurity's search was, but I tried several and kept coming up with numbers in the hundreds. —HorsePunchKid→龜 05:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Mysekurity's search omited several articles outside of Modojo linking to itself such as the Business Week and Sports Line articles. On a related note, doesn't the fact that highly reputable publications such as the LA Times and Business Week cite Modojo make it all the more noteworthy? It also makes Modojo the subject of national media attention outside of the Internet, which means the website meets 2 of the 3 requirements to be a notable website (according to Wikipedia's policy, it only needs to meet 1). Jtrost 06:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm not sure what, exactly, my search was, as looking through my Search History on Google brought up no real indicator (the search looks to be indeed 76100). I'm not sure why the descrepancy happened, but in any event I'm sorry. I'm not an inclusionist, and personally think that Wikipedia doesn't really need articles on sites such as these, but I think I'm willing to let it slide. I'm going to be neutral on this, because I'm not really sure of the merits of having an article on this site (why not have a history page on the forum?), except to drive traffic. What normal encyclopedic article, may I ask, would link to this site? What are the merits for keeping it on Wikipedia as opposed to having this information on the site? -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] [[additions | e-mail]] 20:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is an example search that shows only a couple hundred results, though it may be too restrictive. This gives about 18,000 hits, but includes a lot of irrelevant garbage. For what it's worth, my lame personal website, which I make no effort to advertise, gets over 30,000 hits. —HorsePunchKid→龜 21:56, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- First, I would like to establish some credibility for this website. It isn't made by a bunch of people sitting at home on their computers (not to say that's a bad thing, several websites with entries here are made in that sort of environment). Modojo is a real business that takes in revenue. Look at the business's address: 268 Bush Street in San Francisco. Google can show you that hundreds of reputable businesses are located here, including the IGDA San Francisco Chapter.
- Now to answer the bigger question of why Modojo deserve its own entry on Wikipedia. It's already been established many times on this page and on the talk page that there are other, less notable websites with entries here, so I won't go into that again. The WP:WEB states three requirements for websites. Modojo meets all of those except for the Alexa ranking, which is understandable seeing how it's a newer website. However, Cloudchaser Media, the company that the community derives from, was in the top 10,000 during 2001. Even if you omit that fact, this website is still notable according to Wikipedia's standards.
- However, you bring up a good point about if this still merits a Wikipedia article. I can see how people who are unfamiliar with the website can easily dismiss its entry on Wikipedia because it does look like blatant advertising. Please look at the current article again. The vast majority of the text deals with the history of the community, not the main website (the idea of creating an entry here was to tell the story about the history of the community, not a seven month old website). At its peak, the community had over 11,000 members, and during highly publicized events such as E3 and the Game Developers Conference, it's common for there to be HUNDREDS of active users on the website at the same time. The current record is 544 members who were on the forum simultaneously on 02-07-2005, which was around the time of a big announcement that is escaping my memory at the moment.
- This community has a long and interesting history, and it's a story that many people here (even if you omit the meatpuppets) think should be told. Why should this be on Wikipedia instead of a page on the website? I think it's for the same reason that every other of the 800,000 articles on Wikipedia should be here. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia of everything notable. Over the years this community and all the websites it has been associated with has had several million viewers. It's part of the Internet's history. Jtrost 22:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. In addition to the citations in news media mentioned by Jtrost, Modojo's official industry contacts make them seem noteworthy. Also, the history is interesting enough on it's own - even to someone like me who had never heard of the site before today. 63.224.187.10 04:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: this is the user's first edit [[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] [[additions | e-mail]] 04:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn, sockpuppets. Dottore So 12:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep 7000+ forum members meets informal wiki requirements. What's the argument here? 63.224.187.10 18:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This user's only contributions (4 at the time of this post) have been to this AfD and another, Origenxbox360, which was deleted. -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] [[additions | e-mail]] 03:09, 10 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.
This article was speedily deleted by Geogre on 2005 November 4 with the summary "Not enough allegation of notability for VfD: a kid wrote a paper & hosted it. Woo-hoo." I am accordingly closing this AFD. encephalon 03:23, 6 November 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. Joyous (talk) 01:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Muhammad Lotusflower
This person does not appear to actually exist, according to a Google search. Also, the article contains many subtly ridiculous claims about his past, and there are no sources cited. I suspect this is entirely fabricated. Dglynch 04:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing regarding the past experiences of Mr. Lotusflower that can be construed in the slightest way outlandish, unless you view attending a Go Team! concert as unbelievable. All of the individuals cited in the posting are used as influences towards his ideology, rather than contemporaries or partners.
- Delete per nomination. - Dglynch 04:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Hoax / nonsense. --keepsleeping say what 05:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete hoaxy hoaxy hoax hoax hoax. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above --Rogerd 05:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 07:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, also per nom. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 07:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete vanity. I meant to nominate this yesterday (came across it in the great CFRU-cruft muckout), but forgot. Bearcat 01:27, 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 and make into a protected deleted page. — JIP | Talk 08:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dirty needles
Non notable garage band. Interesting history, but not notable enough (Google searches come up with no relevant links)-- [[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] [[additions | e-mail]] 05:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: it's already been deleted, but it may merit protection, as it has been deleted 3 times now. -- Kjkolb 05:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Seconded, please protect The Land 12:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Protect against recreation. --Optichan 19:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I put on the speedy tag for recreated article, but please feel free to list this on WP:RFPP --[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] [[additions | e-mail]] 23:30, 3 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. Ingoolemo talk 03:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Arnold Mossup
Delete unless verified. It gets zero results on Google except for Wikipedia. -- Kjkolb 05:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There aren't even any Google hits for the "St. Piron" mentioned in the article. - Dalbury 18:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 01:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unverified. *drew 03:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete 99% certainty it's a hoax. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 22:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The anon user at 86.130.107.172 who twice blanked this page created an article for St Piron which was nominated for speedy deletion. - Dalbury 22:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Ingoolemo talk 06:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Philosophy in literature
Subjective (POV) list with no justification for inclusion of entries.
Delete per nomination. --DannyWilde 05:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]- Keep. Article has been extensively rewritten and should not now be deleted. Thank you to the author of the current article. --DannyWilde 07:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I am sure that an interesting article could be written on this topic. However, this isn't it. I would vote to keep even a decent stub on this topic but for now delete. Capitalistroadster 05:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete arbitrary list. Looks like the reading for an undergraduate lecture course. — Haeleth Talk 18:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. May try to flesh this out. I cannot say that this list will be useless to someone who wishes to write a more extended article. I may add some stubbly bits. Smerdis of Tlön 17:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I have endeavoured to write some off the cuff text to surround the list. Needs a lot of work, though. Smerdis of Tlön 17:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That's amazing for 22 minutes! Bravo! Now Strong Keep.
- I have endeavoured to write some off the cuff text to surround the list. Needs a lot of work, though. Smerdis of Tlön 17:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/redirect/somethingWP needs an article on this; though this list is fairly bad, it is a good faith effort, and belongs in the history of the eventual topic. If nothing else, redirect to philosophy itself. Xoloz 17:54, 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 Speedy Delete by Zoe as nn-bio. --GraemeL (talk) 14:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Bolbo Jung
Not notable. (AfD started by User:SpLoT) 66.248.82.94 05:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is an accurate, biographical first hand account of someones life. Just because one isn't famous, or rich does not mean they are not entitled to have their own entry. Deleting this webpage just exemplifies the social hierarchy that is entrenched within our culture. Everyone has equal right to their own wikipedia web page.
Although one might say Bolbo Jung's life isn't significant history, I believe the definition of "significant" history is completely subjective. Although his life does not profoundly impact the world on a whole it does accurately portray the "typical" life of a suburban upper-middle class male. To some, this sort of account might be very "significant." The most mundane everyday articles tell the most about our socitey. Society isn't made up of the Barry Bonds' and Albert Einstein's that make up Wikipedia, it is made up of the Bolbo Jungs, Joe Shmoes, and John Q. Publics.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 00:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Harry's_place
Archive of previous VFD (how did this pass?) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry's Place2
Obvious vanity/advertisement, not notable Skrewler 09:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Harry's what? --Timecop 14:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No attempt has been made to establish notability. TheMadBaron 15:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Blatant vanity, advertisement, non-noteable. --KirkJohnson
- Delete -- Femmina 22:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. According to Alexa, my personal homepage has almost twice as many page views. Without details on how its founders may be notable outside of this blog or on how it might influence other people and/or websites, I don’t think its sole existence is notable enough. Just another opinion website. Sam Hocevar 22:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not notable. --supers 23:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not encyclopedic. Incognito 23:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Waste of time. --Impi.za 00:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. 65.34.232.136 02:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable blog. —Cleared as filed. 11:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I've never heard of this 'Harry's Place' shit, and nor do I ever want to again. Non-notable, worthless garbage. --86.2.56.178 12:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose listing. This was only removed from AfD 6 days ago. Angela. 12:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable, I don't think it will be a few days from now either. Vanity. --Depakote 12:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn blog. Dottore So 13:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete How the hell did this survive its previous AfD listing? Someone tell me, please. Whoever voted keep last time should hang their heads in shame. Reyk 01:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I hate jumped-up-charlie, "look at me, I'm on Wikipedia", self-referential blogshite as much as the next guy... nay, much more than the next guy. Unfortunately, a very little internet research shows: Alexa is 110,806, which isn't great but isn't bad, Google shows that it's made it into the gaurdian um ,twice and was even nominated by them for the Backbencher's political weblog awards. Thus, as this is not a vote every entry with "not notable" is just a waste of photons, methink. - brenneman(t)(c) 10:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, ok guys, had your fun yet? --Daniel11 02:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Steve J. Termath
Vanity. Actor claims several roles, all uncredited insignificant parts save one. Only source for article is IMDB, and IMDB has serious credibility problems and lack of verification. (The IMDB article is pure vanity as well.) 66.191.124.236 05:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete by my count, 8 of his 9 movie roles were uncredited. it's funny how seriously this article takes itself. non-notable, get rid of it.--Alhutch 06:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 01:07, 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. Vote count is 8d 4 to do something else. I am not inclined to merge this with Church of Christ, since adding info on a small church into the main article will just clutter it up. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Living Streams Church of Christ
nn church, utterly unremarkable. Article does not establish notability. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 18:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. - Dalbury 18:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, it's a real church. Trollderella 20:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. I've had chemistry classes with more people in it, should those get an entry too? This is less a church than a fellowship, a non-notable one at that. Ifnord 22:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Church of Christ. Tonywalton | Talk 22:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Reduce content and Merge as an external link only to Church of Christ Bwithh 03:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep real churches.--Nicodemus75 04:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete if the community considers it nn. I don't think a merge with Church of Christ would be taken well in any form, 1. because there are a lot of CofCs, and 2. CofCs are nondenom, so not all members acknowledge all other members, and not all churches recognize all other churches. Isle 05:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The church is now mentioned in the Clackamas, Oregon article. Do not "keep all churches". Punkmorten 13:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn, per nom. Dottore So 17:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per Zoe --redstucco 10:29, 7 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 various devious signatures. Ingoolemo talk 06:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Etoll
Vanity bio, loaded with the usual hyperbolic language and unverifiable claims. 66.191.124.236 05:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per WP:BIO. Less than 100 hits on Google see [15]. His main claim to fame is Sewer baby which was nominated for deletion yesterday and does not seem to be notable outside Minneapolis. He has an IMDb page showing he was the art director of The Can see [16]. In short, he doesn't seem to meet Wikipedia's notability inclusions for biography. Capitalistroadster 05:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep User 66.191.124.236 calls this a "Vanity bio, loaded with the usual hyperbolic language and unverifiable claims" Do some EXTENSIVE research, not all of your research can, or should be done from a computer desk at home. Make some phone calls, walk around and examine things with a magnifying glass, and then (and only then) claim that these claims are unverifiable claims. (Yes it is me!)Samuel Payne 05:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per Capitalroadster. Marcus22 15:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. - Dalbury 18:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep if it's real, otherwise Delete Garr 23:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless verified. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 01:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete..vanity, commercial (wikipedia style doesn't look like a new user wrote it.Only one logged in user in all the edits to it and that user page has a external link)..Dakota ? e 01:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unencyclopedic encephalon 02:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom Olorin28 02:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn vanity. *drew 03:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep No vanity here. As I personally know Mike Etoll, I can verify that none of the names or places cited have been exagerated. He is a major player in the Minneapolis artist scene.User:Mutai 23:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. User:Mutai's only edits have been on Poosa, Sewer baby, Mike Etoll, and Image:Lunginsewer.jpg, and the delete discussions for the three articles. The Lunginsewer image has also been marked as a possible copyright violation. - Dalbury 11:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Dalbury, what's your point? Mutai edits and comments on what's important instead of spending his time as a professional critic. The Lunginsewer image is mine and I gave permission for its use. - User:Poosa 16:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I did not mark the Lunginsewer image as a copyright violation. Someone else did that. Wikipedia has strict rules on the use of images. If you are the photographer who took this photo, you must release it into one of the available licenses, preferably the GFDL, and show that in the Image:Lunginsewer.jpg page. - Dalbury 08:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep User:Booty(contribs) 22:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)(This user's only edits are in the deletion discussions for the related set of articles of Mike Etoll, Poosa, and Sewer Baby, the last two of which have already been deleted. - Dalbury 00:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]
- Delete. No verifiable claim to notability. --A D Monroe III 21:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Dalbury is wrong about Sewer Baby being deleted. He's starting to make mistakes. User:Mutai 01:15, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Ah, I see my mistake. I entered a reference to Sewer Baby instead of Sewer baby, which gave a red link and made me think it had been deleted like Poosa. - Dalbury 10:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It seems as though Mutai and Dalbury enjoy the game here. Keep having fun at my expence (I have been suffering for the last
2000years20 minutes due to your squabbles and a heavy case of the gout). Mutai, Please be nice. Dalbury, Did you mention Poosa's deletion in an attempt to get under Mutai's skin? (Did You Mention Poosa's Deletion In An Attempt To Get Under Mutai's Skin, a new Sci Fi epic by the makers of the soon to be deleted Sewer Baby.)Mike Etoll 19:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It seems as though Mutai and Dalbury enjoy the game here. Keep having fun at my expence (I have been suffering for the last
- Comment Ah, I see my mistake. I entered a reference to Sewer Baby instead of Sewer baby, which gave a red link and made me think it had been deleted like Poosa. - Dalbury 10:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Dalbury is wrong about Sewer Baby being deleted. He's starting to make mistakes. User:Mutai 01:15, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I do not fear an army of lions, if they are led by a lamb. I do fear an army of sheep, if they are led by a lion.
Alexander the Great, 356--323 BC
A D Monroe III states that there is "No verifiable claim to notability" in reference to my artical. What constitutes notability? Is my popularity strictly determined by how often my name appears on a google search? A D Monroe makes an absolute claim with this statement, a claim that is unverifiable and meaningless due to the simple fact that it is not true. -Mike Etoll
- Welcome to Wikipedia, Mike Etoll. Have you read Wikipedia's policy on Verifiability? Your notability is determined by neither me nor you; by definition, it's determined by the public at large. If you can provide links or references to public acknowledgements of your accomplishments, then your notability is verifiable, and I'll change my vote. Without those references, it's unverifiable. It's that simple. (Note that acknowledgements made by you or on your behalf don't count as "public at large".) --A D Monroe III 21:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey AD, As far as I am concerned, we are both part of the "public at large". Is this statement untrue? Mike Etoll 14:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC) I can provide verification of my accomplishments for you, or else you can do a search on my name. For example,I created illustrations for the book Six Galleons for the King of Spain: Imperial Defense in the Early Seventeenth Century By Carla Rahn Phillips 1987, wrote an icon in '94 for an Orthodox church to work off my community service hours for breaking the law (I am now reformed). Things like this are hard to prove through internet searches, and may also seem insignificant but not only are they true, they are also uncommon accomplishments. The public at large will determine if things like this merit fame. All you are asking for is verification of my accomplishments, and this evidence exists even if it is not fully recorded on the internet. Mike Etoll 14:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Note that one or more persons signing (but not signed in) as User:Mutai, User:Marjon Leger,
and Mike Etollhave posted from IP address 24.223.252.12. In addition, an anon user at 24.223.252.12 removed six Delete votes from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sewer baby.This makes it appear that Mike Etoll is User:Mutai and that User:Marjon Leger is a sock puppet of Mike Etoll.- Dalbury 10:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply] - Comment It may appear as though all of the users posting and editing here are the same, but this claim is not true. I have not deleted one post, or altered any of the comments here illlegally. Please trace my IP from this posted comment (if you wish) and in the future, please do a more thorough job investigating your subjects before you make claims concerning their validity. It is unwise to state something as fact unless you know that your statement is 100% true, and in this case Dalbury, you are wrong. -Mike Etoll
- Comment Thank you for pointing that out. My apologies for the error. You are posting from IP address 65.25.215.205, as have persons signing as User:blorch, User:Tom Paulson and User:Samuel Payne. I recommend that you sign in to Wikipedia before editing, and then sign comments in these dicussions by typing four consecutive tildes (~~~~). Among other things, doing both steps will hide your IP address. - Dalbury 22:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentThank you for posting my IP address. it was never my intention to hide it or to pretend that I have not posted under strange pen names. Thomas Coates Paulson III has an extensive internet history in his own right, but that's a horse of a different color.... Mike Etoll
- Comment Yes Dalbury, I admit here for the first time anywhere that I am the Paulrus.
-Mike Etoll p.s. how exactly does the tilde thing work? Is there a problem with me commenting and signing my name as I have been? Thanks -Mike Etoll
- Comment. Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages explains the signature business. - Dalbury 02:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- keep This is obviously an interesting individual whom I'd like to study further. Jaguarmask 05:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC) (Note: This is this user's (contribs) first edit. - Dalbury (talk) 10:13, 7 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mahamoti djinn
Unnecessary article on inconsequential Magic: The Gathering card (one of thousands). Article text is only marginally more than a copy from the card itself. (Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Razia, Boros Archangel) Saberwyn 05:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nomination. Saberwyn 05:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Power Nine precedent. -- Grev -- Talk 16:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a particularly forgettable M:tG card. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 18:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Particularly forgettable? If I only could count the times I've grinned when drawing it and groaned when the opponent played it. But damn, Delete it still. No matter how you look at it, it's only a 5/6 blue flying creature. Not noteworthy at all. --Wwwwolf 22:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Certainly one of the classic old-school blue flyers of Magic, but not deserving of an article. Andrew Levine 01:09, 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 redirect. Ingoolemo talk 05:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Juzam Djinn
Unnecessary article on inconsequential Magic: The Gathering card (one of thousands). Article text is only marginally more than a copy from the card itself. (Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Razia, Boros Archangel) Saberwyn 05:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination.Saberwyn 05:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]Delete. The Juzam Djinn is pretty high up there in terms of value and fame, actually, but nowhere near the P9, and as noted elsewhere even they don't get their own articles. Changing vote to redirect to Arabian Nights (Magic: The Gathering), since I see it's already mentioned there. --Aquillion 06:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]- Keep or merge somewhere, verifiable game card. Kappa 08:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Power Nine precedent.Though I wouldn't be averse to this one being redirected to Arabian Nights (Magic: The Gathering), since it is the most well-known card of the set. -- Grev -- Talk 16:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]- Redirect to Arabian Nights (Magic: The Gathering), as it's arguably the best-known card from that set. (Feel free to take this as a "delete" or "merge" if that will build a consensus.) - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 18:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Arabian Nights (Magic: The Gathering), as above. A rather famous card within the M:TG subculture. Kingfox 22:17, 3 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hilarious consequences
Subject is not encyclopedic and undeserving an article. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 05:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 07:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP is not a dictionary or usage guide. Flapdragon 14:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- There was also a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/hilarious consequences listed in the AFD log. I had voted delete there and I vote delete now. Oh, and I redirected it to this AFD page once I realized it existed. --Optichan 19:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, without hilarious consequences. Tonywalton | Talk 22:20, 3 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Kendra Benham
Voice actor with only a single credited role and no other notability claimed. 66.191.124.236 05:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete A7. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 01:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as per Howcheng. *drew 03:19, 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 merge. Ingoolemo talk 06:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Seal of Orichalcos
It's a minor card in a card game; not notable. Dglynch 06:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. - Dglynch 06:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, major card in a card game and major plot feature in the TV series. [17] Kappa 08:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Yugioh or whatever. We can't have articles on every card in every trading card game. Not enven the ones that feed the losers soul to the great Leviathan. The Land 12:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to the card game. Come on, even incredibly culturally significant "real" cards like Queen of hearts are redirects. Why should cards for obscure games get articles to themselves? — Haeleth Talk 19:02, 3 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rene de Jong
vanity page 68.121.165.205 06:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- delete , as far as I can tell (google) René de Jong has only recently completed his Ph.D. thesis (U Groningen, 2004) and is a respected, but not (yet?) notable academic.
--Isolani 10:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn-bio. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 01:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable. *drew 03:21, 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. Ral315 (talk) 04:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Byron L. Reid
Appears to be non-notable, few original Google results and no All Music entry. -- Kjkolb 06:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Music by Dr. Reid that has been published and recorded included, "Heaven Will Be Worth It To Me" by Stamps-Baxter music, recorded by company group. "On One Glorious Day", recorded by Joe Roper as piano solo in 1979 on Stamps-Baxter album, "No Tears Over There", recoreded by Arthur Watson in 1981 published by Stamps-Baxter in 1980. There are other songs more current, but thats all for now.
Back Again! Other songs for which he is known include, "Unto Our Great King", (another recorded song), "Sing A New Song for Him" which is still being sold on sheet music today, "Heaven" recorded by Ben Speer and published by Stamps-Baxter music 1987.
Other songs, like, "Don't Be Late", "He's My Guide", "In Heaven My Eternal Home", "In Stormy Weather", and "I'll Never Understand" have been reprinted in various congregational songbooks over the last 15 years. "I'll Never Understand" has been recorded by various church groups and choirs in Tennessee and Kentucky.
Both "I'll Never Understand" and "Because Of Jesus" were recorded by the Cumberland Valley Quartet, a group which Dr. Reid and his wife Betty-Marie B. Reid sang in before the birth of their son Nathan.
In the area of children's music, "Jesus Loves A Kid Like Me", "Close You Eyes and Sleep", "We Shine For Jesus", and "God's In Control" have all been published by Leoma Music Co. between 1993 and 2005. All have been recorded and performed by various childrens groups at various singing schools. Also they have all been recorded by the Leoma Singers.
Ben Speer Music published and recorded, "Peace For My Soul" in 1993. Again in 1994, they did "Peace, Joy and Love".
Got to Go!
The Jeffress Family Singers recorded, "Strike The Tent" 1999, "One God, One Faith, And One Salvation" in 2000, "Heaven, Home For Me" in 2001 and "Only Jesus Had a View From The Cross" in 2002. All four songs were published by jeffress/phillips music in those same years.
"Inside Heaven's Gate" was publsihed and recorded by the Cumberland Valley Music and the Cumberland Valley Singers in 2002. Again they recorded and sang "We'll Shout and Sing" in 2003.
Music published and recorded by Leoma Music Co and the Leoma Singers included, 2001: "One More Day", and "Service To The Lord" in 2002: "Singing In Glory", He'll Know My Name", "Oh What A Blessing", "Jesus, Our Lord and King", and "I Know". In 2003: "Moving On", and "Jesus Is The Way". In 2004: "Celebrate", I'll Hear Jesus", and "Jesus, My Friend". In 2005: "Peace", "Wide Will Swing The Gates", "It's Forever", "We Won't Wonder".
This was all we could come up with on short notice, and it may be a week or two before we can get back with you all. Hope this will give you something to chew on in the meantime. As you may have found out, a lot of folks in this area do not get any recognition or fame, thus little written record of what they have done or what they are doing. Dr. Reid is not the most famous by any means, and you folks would do a world of good to find out more about him and many others involved in Southern Gospel Convention Singing. For an easy to reach source, try Arkansas State Senators Jimmy Jeffress and Gene Jeffress. They are first cousins to Marty Phillips and of the jeffress/phillips music company of Crossett, Arkansas. You can email the State Senate in Little Rock or just give them a call. Like any elected official, they would love to get your attention! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.38.40.106 (talk • contribs)
- Delete unless 66.38.40.106 can explain how any of that meets WP:MUSIC criteria. Tonywalton | Talk 22:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and also logorrheic vanity. Ifnord 22:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete.. vanity advertising promotional..Dakota 23:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:NMG. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 01:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't delete yet, not sure; I'm not sure that the article should be kept, but think it might possibly be salvaged into something useful. Some have noted that this doesn't meet WP:MUSIC criteria. I followed the link and read it. I suppose that if we strictly follow that criteria, very little in the southern gospel music field would rate an article. - Rlvaughn 04:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I have just pared the article down quite a bit, trying to keep "bare facts" and remove what appears to be promotion and/or name-dropping in order to make it appear more like an encyclopedia article. Perhaps this is a foundation that can be built on for making a decent article, and if not, it probably should be deleted. - Rlvaughn 04:56, 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Marion's Piazza
A "local pizza legend" in Dayton, Ohio is a non-notable restaurant to me. 66.191.124.236 06:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, like nom. said NN. -feydey 12:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete NN, even though one can never be too informed about good pizza places. PJM 14:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Garr 22:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn *drew 03:21, 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Master of Oz
Minor card in a card game; not notable. Dglynch 06:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. - Dglynch 06:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as one of many, many lagely interchangable Yu-Gi-Oh cards. Redirecting this somewhere might be a good idea, though. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 18:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nomination. Garr 22:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 06:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Compassion Propaganda
Seems to be either vanity, or made up. No references provided to substantiate content. Google search for "Compassion Propaganda" returned nothing resembling this article; subsequent searches for "Muhammad Lotusflower" and "Noah Goodbaum" returned nothing at all. PeruvianLlama(spit) 06:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete hoax. See also AfD:Muhammad Lotusflower. - Dglynch 06:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per nom, and Dglynch's comment above. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 07:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. A decidedly facetious, but sincerely wrought bit of nonsense. --JJay 17:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Tom Harrison (talk) 23:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete if it weren't so large, I would heartily recommend it to BJAODN. Wonderful nonsense. KillerChihuahua 00:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete any article whose first paragraph describes its own subject as "spurious, but sincerely wrought". Bearcat 01:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand that this silly page belongs on a private blog or Website. It's a vanity article through and through, and the claims against it are reasonable. It is not, however, a hoax; and I will (however objectionable it may be to do this) continue to update it and keep it in place until its deletion by Admin, at which point it will become a non-issue. If the option remains open, I'd love to shorten it, so that it might be included in BJAODN. KillerChihuahua, it's wonderful to hear you got something out of it.- M. Lotusflower
- Delete, unencylopedic nonsense. MCB 08:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Ingoolemo talk 05:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Knowledge is Power
Almost a CSD A1, it isn't explained where the phrase is in common use or why, and even if it did, that'd be transwikied to Wiktionary. It seems like OR in an attempt to put in an article for the phrase. Karmafist 06:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, It isn't original research but a quote from Sir Francis Bacon in his 1597 book Meditationes Sacræ. De Hæresibus. I am not sure whether this has potential for an article. Capitalistroadster 07:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the Verification, Capitalist. Karmafist 15:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a quotations dictionary. Flapdragon 11:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- ... but Wikiquote is. If one reads the Wikiquote article on Francis Bacon, one finds the actual quotation, in the actual language that it was written. ☺ Uncle G 12:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to Wikiquote. Aecis praatpaal 12:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to Wikiquote --Alynna 13:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as already on Wikiquote. Tonywalton | Talk 15:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Francis Bacon. Carioca 16:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Research indicates that there is enough secondary source material on the subject, both supporting and decrying the assertion. It also indicates that Francis Bacon is not the proper place for covering this subject. Weak keep. Uncle G 17:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Uncle G. Enough references in today's society to warrant an encyclopedic article. Punkmorten 13:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is also a widespread concept. The article Property is theft! is kept, even though it is a phrase. Concept-phrases should be explained, expanded, and kept! Canadianism 02:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge, i.e. mention as an aphoristic quote, into Francis Bacon, does not need its own article. MCB 08:52, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 06:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Black Pony
They haven't released any music and have no All Music entry. -- Kjkolb 06:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Flapdragon 11:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Tonywalton | Talk 15:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete bandity howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. encephalon 02:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete NN *drew 03:21, 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 Ingoolemo talk 05:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Heuristic squelch
Not notable student newsletter. Dglynch 06:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. - Dglynch 06:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- delete – non-notable. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 06:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. encephalon 02:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable *drew 03:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep a real (humorous) paper. Notable. --Zippy 06:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- as evidence of its noteworthiness, the phrase "heuristic squelch" yields 20k hits on Google, with a quick scan of the first 30 results showing that most point to this paper (~ 2 results appear to be dictionary spam pages) and the paper has been published for > 3 years. --Zippy 06:44, 5 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.