Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 November 1: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Modular (talk | contribs)
316 edits
No edit summary
Line 135: Line 135:
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massless gauge bosons in heterotic string theory}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massless gauge bosons in heterotic string theory}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creation-evolution poll}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creation-evolution poll}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infamous P}}

Revision as of 22:20, 1 November 2005

< October 31 >

Purge server cache

November 1

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Gun politics. --Celestianpower háblame 14:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gun ban

Is there any truth to what it says in this article? Is it useful? If not then delete. CarDepot 20:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 10:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good is Good

Song, Crowcruft substub. She deserves better than this. Delete or redirect to the Album or artist page if it isn't expanded. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 23:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 10:11, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My Favorite Mistake

Song fancruft substub. Can be easily merged with the album or simply just deleted Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 23:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 10:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan (American singer/songwriter)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 10:15, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vic Fieger

Non notable bio, claims to make freeware fonts and a webcomic, Dubmarine, also up for deletion - Hahnchen 00:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 10:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Responsive Software Ledger

Essentially an ad for Responsive Software.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 10:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ferbalize

Made up and unused. 11 Googles - many relating to Al Queida coincidentally.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 11:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Syntagmaworld

Not notable 17 Googles.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 (defaulting to keep). --Celestianpower háblame 14:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Enda Marren

An anonymous user has posted at Wikipedia:Help desk claiming to be the creator of this and several other articles and that these articles are hoaxes that should now be deleted. [1]. Unfortunately, the person asking for deletion is at a different IP address than the original creator, and the articles have been edited by other people. I believe most of these articles are probably speediable under G1 - hoax because not enough factual context is provided to allow anyone turn the article into something real. However, "Enda Marren" has survived VfD and "Enda Marren" + "Dublin" gets one Google hit, therefore, I will list this one for AfD. Johntex\talk 00:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. Several of the other articles are more clearly hoaxes. This one may not be, so I listed here. However, even if this article is about the person found by Google, I see nothing to show that the person is notable enough for inclusion, so I would vote to delte under A7 for lack of notability. Johntex\talk 01:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He certainly exists and is active in Irish politics. Since he survived a recent Afd I don't feel he should be re-submit right now [2] Dlyons493 Talk 01:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- the AfD had only 2 votes. Therefore, I don't think the prior AfD should cary much weight Johntex\talk 01:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is "Enda Marren" the same person as "Martin Enda Marren"? I can't find any source for MEM being his name.--Isotope23 03:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, stubbify. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 01:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep what can be verified. Trollderella 01:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Enda Marren" is verifiable [3], but "Martin Enda Marren" is not. Can someone source that this person's name is indeed "Martin Enda Marren"? I would change my vote if this person is indeed named Martin, but as it stands I recommend the text of this article be moved to Enda Marren (dropping the Martin of course) which currently is a redirect here and delete the version under this name. as far as I can tell, this person does not exist and the article text actually refers to Enda Marren.--Isotope23 03:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Short of 'phoning Fine Gael I can't see if Martin Enda Marren exists and/or is the same as Enda Marren. The latter does exist and I suggest I expand that entry slightly (see eg info from his old school in the link). That names his practice as Enda E Marren which argues a little against Martin Enda Marren as being his full name, but it's not conclusive (could be his father or something). Then Martin Enda Marren can be put to rest. If anyone wants to search add Fine Gael which is his political party to the search string! [4] Dlyons493 Talk 05:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Martin Enda Marren was the name used in the first sentence of the article by the anonymous poster who created the article. That is why I moved the page to that name and made the redirect. The person who claimed it was a hoax mentioned several other articles [[5] that have checked out as hoaxes, such as the claim that the Marren surname is tied to the "Earl of Kensington", which turns out not to exist. Johntex\talk 16:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 05:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angry Asian Man

Angry Asian Man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable topic; no legitimate sources support the article, sources are made up by personal websites and blogs, violating WP:OR and WP:NOT#BLOG. Chris! my talk 21:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also nominate this redirect for deletion.Chris! my talk 06:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angry asian man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 14:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

YouThink.com

Advertisement. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-1 01:04


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 11:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Macin-Talk Networks

Advertisement that actually admits it doesn't exist yet. WP:NOT a crystal ball, and it's still an advertisement. Wcquidditch | Talk 01:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Jkelly 21:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chase_Weeks

Joke page, not encyclopedic, involves homophobia 131.252.243.153 01:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Closing early with clear consensus, to reduce backlog. Friday (talk) 04:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rockstar (drink)

Advertisement. BrainyBroad 02:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This Product is huge. Not only is it the first energy drink in a large can, but numerous companies have copied the product. Rockstar has done so well that even Coke began to distribute the beverage last spring.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. - ulayiti (talk) 23:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Goldencloud Weiner

Non-encyclopedic huckster whose creation (Rockstar) is also up for deletion. Oh, and he has a famous (?) daddy. BrainyBroad 02:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note—The primary definition of "huckster" at dictionary.com [6] is "a peddler or hawker." I suspect this article exists only in relation to the Rockstar advertisement, leading to my use of the word. No other meaning was intended. However, since we're throwing around wiki rules, how about WP:AGF?? BrainyBroad 03:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (defaulting to keep). --Celestianpower háblame 14:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Athalite

Previous nom. No one voted except nominator (me), so I'm reposting this. -R. fiend 02:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalistroadster 08:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I'm not convinced it's that notable. I see only 70 Googles (not 700) and some are wiki mirrors. [9] is one of them and it's sceptical - thinks that is just two-pieces of carbon that short-circuit. Since we're dealing with a commercial product which has an advertising budget dedicated to getting it coverage I'd err on the side of caution and delete. If it's really notable it will appear from third parties. Dlyons493 Talk 14:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. See my comments in previous AfD. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 10:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems to be notable enough for a stub at least. -- Foofy 13:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- perhaps it could be merged into an article on soldering? Does it fit in any of those? - Dandelions 18:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. This is a coined, purportedly Trademarked, name (i.e, a neologism) for a component or material used in a nn commercial product. Nothing verifiable about this component or material is known, except that it is not, contrary to the current text of the article, patented (at least in the US). Arguably,the founder of the company who does have two patents and two pending patent applications relative to cordless soldering irons is notable, and maybe the company itself, but NOT this neologism--FRS 21:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted by Friday.--Scimitar parley 21:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anders J. Nielsen

Vanity page for a high school comedian.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 speddily deleted by JoJan.--Scimitar parley 21:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

William Stewart

Unencyclopedic academic. Request for explanation of importance has been ignored for over a month. BrainyBroad 02:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Insanity peppers

NN, far too specific and particular

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shivani Kak

Unencyclopedic athlete. Majority of google hits are mirror sites. No google news hits. BrainyBroad 02:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was: Speedily deleted by Wayward.

Short Biography of Albert Einstein

Obvious joke page. I think this is BJAODN country. -- Captain Disdain 02:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 14:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chemsoc

This is almost a dictionary definition - at British universities Chemsoc means a social society for Chemistry students. Pilatus 02:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sh-

It may be slang, or it may be a joke, but it's not encyclopedic. BrainyBroad 03:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by Wayward as nn-bio. --GraemeL (talk) 17:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Casaula

Non-notable.-- Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 03:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The man with the smallest penis in existence and the microscope technician who loved him

Non-notable. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 03:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. --Holderca1 02:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Hoss (album)

Non-notable, doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 03:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, usually regarded as the best album by the first band to be signed on to Fat Wreck Chords

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 11:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hook-up

This article isn't noteworthy. The expresion is clearly straight forward English --Requiem18th 03:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bob James (actor)

Delete. There is no "Bob James" in IMDB with the listed birthdate or anywhere close to it, the only film cited in the article likewise has no IMDB citation, and the article is a stub written in an incomplete style. RGTraynor 04:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lydia Bethany-Rose Rupp

A girl who was kidnapped, and then found. There was extremely little coverage of her disappearance when it happened, and nobody outside of her family will care about her 5 years from now, much less 100. NatusRoma 04:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Recalled Audio Sequence ( R.A.S.)

The title of the article is a neologism, and it is therefore original research. Dglynch 04:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Auronix

appears to be advertising. Does not meet criteria in WP:CORP. Gsd97jks 04:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to New Zealand English. - ulayiti (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand slang

WP:NOT a slang dictonary Transwiki to Wikinaries (spelling) and Delete --JAranda | watz sup 04:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • also, in response to Grutness, terms shared with Australian English should be given as an example in a separate section of this article on common slang shared between the two countries. Those shared with more general English should probably be removed. jnothman
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Jkelly 22:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Torbert

It's not technically a vanity page as Mr. Torbert didn't create it, but it's still not appropriate for Wikipedia. Kuciwalker 04:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tools for CVS

Wikipedia articles are not mere collections of external links. —Cryptic (talk) 04:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. --Holderca1 02:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

707 (band)

Seems to be a pretty-much unknown band. (Does that make it a candidate for speedy deletion, or a VfD?) --jnothman talk 03:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

change to keep: I didn't find this information when I did a brief search. Should the afd be removed? --jnothman talk 07:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you declare that you withdraw the nomination, and no one comes in demanding that the article be deleted, I'm sure an admin type will come along fairly soon and just quietly close the AfD, remove the AfD tag and we'll be done with it... I think that as a matter of principle, it's best to let an AfD be officially closed once it's been officially opened. In the meantime, I added the {{cleanup-date|October 2005}} and {{band-stub}} templates to the article. -- Captain Disdain 08:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep according to WP:NMG. Allmusic.com notes that they have made five albums including a couple on Casablanca Records, a notable record label see Allmusic page [10].

A couple of albums charted in the early 1980s. The sing "I Could Be Good For You" reached #52 on the Billboard Hot 100. Capitalistroadster 09:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

C.R. Taylor

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 05:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joao Joya

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 05:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hamboussi

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 05:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 08:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nrgetik

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 05:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete G7. Rd232 talk 11:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paulin Tay Straughan

This article is about my mother, a prominent sociologist, and I have written it recently. It contains personal information about my family which I regret placing on the internet. Thus, I strongly believe in the deletion of my article. Please consider my appeal. Thank you for your attention. 203.124.2.18 15:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 05:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the article doesn't actually establish notability at all; this is a classic "average professor" situation, and it's obvious that she's no more notable than any other professor out there. I propose that the article is speedily deleted under A7. -- Captain Disdain 06:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Captain Disdain. --Metropolitan90 07:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. -- Kjkolb 07:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The "average professor" case is not one where we should apply A7 speedy delete. That is applicable when the article makes no claim of notability about its subject. The article states :"Paulin Tay Straughan is a sociologist working at the National University of Singapore (NUS). She is the vice-dean of the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences(FASS), and also serves as the deputy head of the sociology department at FASS. She has a PhD in sociology and is an associate professor." That is an assertion of notability. It does not establish notability but that is a different case. I would vote to delete as the article does not state what Ms Straughan has contrbuted to the discipline but it is not a speedy. Further, my vote could easily change if someone could refer to her research. Delete
  • Speedy Delete It is almostnot an A7/nn-bio. More signficantly, per G7, the user requested its speedy deletion *before* anybody else edited it. Even after that point, there's been little revision. Logic dictates we let people speedy delete their self-admitted mistakes. If this person is really notable (I doubt) then somebody will likely create a fresh new article. --rob 10:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This article is eligible for a G7 speedy. However, it does not come within a bull's roar of an A7 non-notable deletion and should not be considered to be a precedent for any other "average professor" articles. As always, we should be very careful not to delete notable people because their current article isn't up to scratch. Speedy Delete under G7. Capitalistroadster 10:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete jnothman talk 10:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. --Holderca1 03:01, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Riblets

There is no good reason to delete this. They are a real product and the information about them seems to be accurate. It should possibly be marked a stub but certainly not removed.


This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 05:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by User:FCYTravis. —HorsePunchKid→龜 06:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer forman

I doubt that Spencer Forman merits his own article, even with the links to his (also dubiously noteworthy website). Delete as vanity. —HorsePunchKid→龜 05:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer himself agrees that I do not merit my own link. However, I strongly argue that www.trikepilot.com does. If one is interested in learning about ultralight trike flying, there is not one other single source on the internet sharing as much information about the sport or as much multimedia for free. Please feel free to suggest how one could otherwise provide this information to the wikipedia without uploading 5Gb or more of videos and content to the wikipedia server? As far as the link is concerned for Spencer Forman, feel free to kill it... that was a sandbox mistake that got out into the wild and I cannot figure out how to get rid of it. —Spineight→龜 05:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on your talk page, since this has already been speedily deleted. —HorsePunchKid→龜 06:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bahoots

If this article really, truly is a dicdef, then transwiki to Wiktionary. If not, then just plain Delete. --WikiFanaticTalk Contribs 00:02, 1 Nov 2005 (CDT)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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 RHaworth as attack page (in Swedish). --GraemeL (talk) 17:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Areskog

Page consists only of Swedish, use of words such as "noob", "hobbies ... Warcraft 3", and "ROFL" suggests it's a vanity article. Qutezuce 06:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Collibus

Thoroughly non-notable band, and page appears to be vanity and/or commercial self-promotion. Should be in my opinion a speedy delete.--Nlu 06:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Platt

Vanity page. Absolutely no indication that this person or the band he belongs to is of any significant value to be included in an encyclopedia. Speedy delete is my opinion. --Nlu 06:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not, based on the contents of the article. --Nlu 16:55, 2 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 11:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stone Rule

Neologism with 12 unique Google hits, including Wikipedia. Only 3, really. GTBacchus 06:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as nn-bio. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rsmaniak

Vanity page of mere nickname BeteNoir 07:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Savior mary

vanity advertisement for non-notable book BeteNoir 07:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stripped art

Ad for nn company Delete --JAranda | watz sup 08:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This complaint states that the entry in question is an "advertisement for a non-notable company."
To address this I have demonstrated below::
(1)What an advertisment is...
(2)How this article is no different from similar, existing articles which could under the definition applied also be construed as advertisements.
(3)What makes something notable...
(4)How the subject of this entry is "notable."
(5)Therefore, this entry should be approved and included in Wikipedia.
(1)WHAT IS AN ADVERTISEMENT?
source:: www.dictionary.com
Advertise: To make public announcement of, especially to proclaim the qualities or advantages of (a product or business) so as to increase sales.
(2) Does this article aim only to "proclaim the qualities or advantages of 'stripped art' so as to increase sales"? No.
It describes an organization objectively, but does not promote the organization.
It describes the organization in a manner similar to that in which Wikipedia describes Playboy. How can one then allow Playboy to have a Wikipedia entry, but not Stripped Art?
(3) Notability?
WHAT MAKES SOMETHING NOTABLE?
source:: www.dictionary.com
adj Notable: Worthy of note or notice; remarkable:: notable beauty; sled dogs that are notable for their stamina.
This definition does not say that something is "notable" only because thousands of people know about it already...
But it does say the thing must be "worthy of notice."
Now, the fact that thousands of people already know about something could make it notable. But not necessarily. Millions of people are aware that Brad Pitt left Jennifer Anniston. Is it notable? Is it worthy of putting in Wikipedia? No.
Then we need a different test. Let's look to the definition of notable, then.
Worthy of notice. What makes something worthy of notice? Well, why do we have Wikipedia in the first place? To educate through informing.
What does this article do? It informs people about a unique business and a unique business concept that yes, thousands of people do already know about. But that shouldn't make it notable.
Then why is it notable? Because the business model can be applied to funding other kinds charities. There is a method, and method can be adopted by others. That is "worthy of notice." And a lot worthier than a great deal of the content already on this site.
-----james.j@consortiumbank.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.130.160 (talk • contribs) 2005-11-01 10:27:52 UTC
  • Delete, nonnotable. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 08::36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn ad. Created by one persistent user, who argues against non-definition of notability, but does not give evidence of notability, see Talk:Stripped art. --jnothman talk 08:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please re-evaluate your positions based on the arguments above. -----james.j@consortiumbank.com
  • Delete. Non-notable and advertising. Nothing to reconsider - simply stating the dictionary definitions of notable and advertising doesn't change the matter at hand - that the article is about something not the former and is definitely the latter. ●REDVERS HELLO●EMAIL●DOINGS 09:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have not simply stated dictionary definitions. I have applied the meaning of the definitions to the situation at hand. How have you done the same? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.130.160 (talk • contribs) 2005-11-01 10:27:52 UTC
      • Okay then. My vote remains delete, because simply stating the dictionary definitions of notable and advertising doesn't change the matter at hand and neither does applying those meanings selectively to the text. Happy now? ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 16:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete my criteria for notability are increasingly liberal - but this is nowhere close. No alexa rating - no evidence of exteral discussion/review or media interest. AFAICS no neutral information available - outside the website. Thus the significance is unverifiable (even minor schools have ofsted reports) --Doc (?) 10:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The jury has found that this article needs to be deleted. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 10:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no evidence I can find for this thing's importance, interest or even existence, except for a website. Wikipedia Is Not a Links Directory. As well as being non-notable, the subject is barely verifiable. The Land 10:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Research turns up no published works whatsoever by independent sources (no newspaper features, no corporate histories or biographies, no consumer reports) on the subject of this company. The WP:CORP criteria for inclusion of companies are not satisfied. Delete. Uncle G 11:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable and border line advert per the author's (?) notability argument above that "Because the business model can be applied to funding other kinds charities. There is a method, and method can be adopted by others...". This would appear to be a clear indication that the article is at least in part intended to be an advertisement for the company's business model.
forgot to sign my comment--Isotope23 15:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tracie Cullum

Article is on a non-notable UK murder victim, one of several created by an anon with a racist agenda (See Talk:Anthony Walker). ●REDVERS HELLO●EMAIL●DOINGS 09:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Yates

Article is on a non-notable UK murder victim, one of several created by an anon with a racist agenda (See Talk:Anthony Walker) ●REDVERS HELLO●EMAIL●DOINGS 09:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A Google suggests he died a year ago this week. BBC News Online has just two entries, both on local pages, nothing national. I'd say that a year with no more news, plus the lack of a national story on the UK's most comprehensive news site suggests that the story is over and the unfortunate Mr Yates is a non-notable - just another statistic, sadly. ●REDVERS HELLO●EMAIL●DOINGS 11:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There's an October 2005 court case. [11]. Rd232 talk 14:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. --Holderca1 03:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Organizing vision

nonsense with no meaningful content BeteNoir 10:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Hancock (other)

Delete nn vanity, was an audience member of a show, self-described keen drinker etc. I thought some might argue the article claims notability if I put a nnbio tag so I brought it here, but speedy if you think it qualifies. TM (talk) 10:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was SP DELETE A7. -Doc (?) 14:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Michael Mahon

nnbio BeteNoir 10:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New Oscland

An online community of 50 people. Wikipedia Is Not A Links Directory. The Land 10:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Montana and The Bar Association

musicians who are not notable BeteNoir 11:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP and CLEAN UP. — JIP | Talk 20:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge debate

  • Keep and cleanup - I've been following this debate for a couple of years and will help clean up the page. APologies if I edited this page wrong but I didn't see any way to do it an add the time stamp.Tracy White
  • Nominate and Delete - Crazily non-encyclopedic, nowhere near the quality of conspiracy articles like Kennedy assassination theories. Staxringold 11:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup well-known debate. Low quality is a reason to edit, not delete. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup I have to agree, well-known debate. Low quality is a reason to edit, not delete. MaddMaxx 16:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC) Madd Maxx MaddMaxx 16:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Good grief - Admiral Husband Kimmel got scapegoated over unpreparedness/advance knowledge issues. This is definitely a notable subject about which lots has been written. Needs bigtime cleanup/expert attention and I have tagged it as such. - Sensor 00:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup. My mistake, sorry, vote amended as it still DEFINETLY needs a clean-up. Staxringold 01:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup, per Wahoofive and MaddMaxx. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 09:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion - Delete it entirely as it damages the spirit and intent of Wikipedia. Our group's interest is not well served here; this is the wrong forum for this now multi-generational squabble. Note that there are no totally agreed upon "experts" on this topic; a balanced pro/con view has not been abided. Various of the materials as shown even today are objectively incorrect as can be easily shown to be erroneous by simple fact checking.

This is not what a free, open, and insightful information sharing communities' encyclopedia should be about.

  • Keep, cleanup, merge with Attack on Pearl Harbor. Even though the article requires a lot of work, there are enough documents, research results and most of all academical comments to support an ongoing debate, which should not be swept under the carpet simply because some countries are a little sensitive about the issue. aeris 00:07, 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Korean crime syndicate: 신속한 물고기 (black tiger)

A google search for "black tiger" Korea crime found nothing relevant. This, together with the article's contents, led me to believe that it is either a hoax or a fiction. (There exists a movie "Tears of the Black Tiger"; if this is what the article is about, it should be rewritten to make that clear and also moved to a more reasonable title.) Delete unless verified/rewritten. - Mike Rosoft 11:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted per author's request. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 19:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Midwest Lakes Policy Center

This appears to be advertising. Article doesn't establish notability. Martg76 12:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This is not adveritsing, this is giving people a chance to research lakes and watersheds at a deeper level than Wikipedia can allow. (Unsigned comment by 24.180.186.74, creator of the article in question)
  • Delete per nomination. Website does not mention any notability and contains little research information. A Google search doesn't turn up much more than links to the site. --mdd4696 13:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable institution. Watch out for vandalism by article author, he already blanked this nomination once. jni 14:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am just trying to delete the article if people object to it, thanks. This way we can just end this now instead of waiting.(Unsigned comment by 24.180.186.74).
  • Speedy Delete per author request.--Isotope23 18:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(and don't bite the newbies... author appears to be fairly new and not familiar with deletion process)--Isotope23 18:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted by author's request. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 19:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Midwest lakes policy center

NN, copy of Midwest Lakes Policy Center --mdd4696 14:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 14:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Morrissey

nn musician Isolani 12:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He has also toured with the band notably on a tour supporting Modest Mouse see [16]. Capitalistroadster 01:03, 2 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 to Drinking game. --Celestianpower háblame 14:38, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I Drink, You Drink

Was at one stage marked as speedy, but does not meet the criteria. However, appears to be unverifiable - Google searching finds only different, unrelated drinking games. Probably original research. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 12:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Omega (fiction)

NN short story by NN student writer. Delete PJM 12:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was redirect to baldness. - Mailer Diablo 11:32, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Allopecia

Near-blatant dicdef. Not even sure it is even appropriate for Wiktionary... Wcquidditch | Talk 12:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Extraprotential

If this were a real word, it should go to wiktionary, but there are no google results, and it's not in the dictionary. — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 12:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Lefrancois

NN Vanity Page --mdd4696 13:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SiteKreator

Non-notable advertising. Alexa rank is over 90,000 with only one incoming link.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. I count 12 keep votes and 7 delete votes, with "strong" qualifiers on both sides. That is too narrow a margin for consensus. — JIP | Talk 20:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural references in Pokémon

This is still a list of random historical or pop-culture "references" in Pokémon, and is a collection of indiscriminate trivia. There's no good place to merge it, and no real use for it as a standalone article. The Pokémon Wikiproject, as far as I can tell, hasn't shown much interest in fiddling with this list of trivia, and other than some vandalism patrol and bot changes, it hasn't been touched since the last AFD.

Please note that this is not a merge target, and deleting it will not result in a bunch of Pokémon stubs popping up.

For those interested, this has been on AFD twice before. The previous AFDs are here and here. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 13:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Speedy Keep You have attempted to VfD this article twice in the past two months. Both times it was kept. Do not attempt to delete articles through attrition. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I listed this for AFD a month and a half ago; Apostrophe listed it a second time a week later, and I would have advised him not to. Both times it has received a majority of delete votes; the last AFD had a 2d:1k ratio, with several of the keeps because of the too-quick relist.
      Note that it has been a month since any non-vandal, non-bot edit of this article, despite being listed on the Pokémon Wikiproject's talk page. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 14:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Going a month without a major edit is hardly a reason to delete a substantial article which survived two very recent deletion attempts. If you really want it deleted, unlist it and try again in 6 months. 3 AfDs in two months is completely unacceptable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Both times it barely survived AFD for reasons unrelated to the quality of the article (a mistaken belief that it was a merge target, a much-too-soon relist). Both times it received a majority of delete votes. The only relevant Wikiproject has no interest in doing anything with this. Had I just redirected this to Pokémon (anime), I'm doubtful anyone would have noticed.
          Don't be so hung up on process, especially when there aren't any applicable formal rules. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 14:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with Andrew on this - leave it at least 3 and preferably 6 months. However pointless the article is! Dlyons493 Talk 14:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article will not get improved untill possible contributors to the article believe that their contributions will be kept. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unreferenced Original Research Cruft. I've not seen the "I Feel Skitty" episode, but does Meowth really kick someone in the style of Chun Li? Was this an actual cultural reference, or someone picking up the merest coincidence with something else? Meowth's ability to speak is reminiscent of Garfield? Even if the script writers confirmed these things, I still don't think Pokemon episodes should have every facet which deals with real life in a article. I mean, one of the episodes contains a samurai? Is this a notable event in the Pokemon world, do people sit up and think, "Wow, Samurai were mentioned, that's an important cultural reference in my favourite show!" - Hahnchen 16:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh dear. Have any of the reflexive "keep" voters actually read the article? User:A Man In Black is right, Despite the title, which might lead one to believe that it contains references to popular culture this is a unsalvageable grab-bag of trivia. Delete. Pilatus 16:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a job for cleanup, not for AFD. Keep, keep, keep, a thousand times keep. I want to be careful to avoid personal attacks, but I feel that this is verging on a bad-faith nomination. -- Plutor 16:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • You've made a fairly serious accusation. Do you have any evidence to back it up? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 17:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're right. I apologize, I didn't really mean bad-faith. I really should have just agreed with Starblind that this is getting a bit repetitive and possibly disrupting. Based on your other edits and votes and whatnot, I'm sure that you do have the best of intentions. I withdraw my accusation. (But not my vote) -- Plutor 17:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Cleanup has failed since mid-August. No one on the Pokémon Wikiproject, who are a pretty active bunch, has ever wanted to touch the mess up. Can't blame them for it. Pilatus 18:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While it has scraped through by the skin of its teeth twice, it has improved beyond being a list of "references to general human culture in Pokemon"! I will however pop it on my watchlist and if any edits I consider blatently ridiculous come up again I will delete them with haste. Lets face it, before the edits half of it was complete rubbish and I fear the article may well attract the same kind of blatently obvious and pointless trivia it contained before... I mean the prunes comment... bloody hell! *sigh* Jezze 18:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SP DELETE A7. -Doc (?) 14:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jostein henriksen

Delete - Non-notable norwegian. Article created by what looks like his wife. Bjelleklang - talk 13:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. --Celestianpower háblame 23:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Real Big Prawn

Speedy Delete per nomination. Creator removed db-nonsense tag I placed on page. It appears to be nothing but "unfinished" nonsense - if the non-verifiability with Google is not enough to go by, then surely the title of the page is. LichYoshi 13:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dendrobranchiata. Bjelleklang - talk 13:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY DELETE Stu 15:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was merge with PlanetSide. - Mailer Diablo 14:15, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merger has been succesful, time for deletion Eirek 00:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After merging, there has to be a redirect to preserve the history. I've done that. -- Kjkolb 03:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PlanetSide Tanks

I've been playing this game since closed beta testing and I still love it. Even I don't think that this article needs to exist. The trivia of speed, armor values, and weapon type are better served by the PlanetSide wiki anyway. Whatever is left can be merged into the PlanetSide article. You can call me Al 13:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

6.001 (MIT)

Individual class; not notable Gerrit CUTEDH 14:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. - Gerrit CUTEDH 14:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Please let us not start down this road. -R. fiend 17:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Crikey! --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think "Individual class; not notable" is a statement of fact followed by an assumption; the assumption might be a natural one but I think it may be mistaken in this case. 6.001 is not just a class but a particular course design and as the article mentions, the design of this specific course has been actually copied by other universities. I think voters should be careful to make sure they are assessing the notability of this core class at this highly famous and influential university, and not the notability of a generic class at a generic university. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Carioca 21:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: this article has existed for more than three years. Gerrit CUTEDH 21:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not the perfect article, but I assure other editors that encyclopedic writing can be done about this subject. As far as "notability" is concerned, surely this is one of the most "notable" undergraduate computer science classes in the world. Having said that, I wouldn't like to see WP start mirroring course catalogues from every university either... Jkelly 22:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ugh (i.e. nn). Dottore So 22:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. If someone wants to write an encyclopedic article on a particular teaching style in computer science, with references and explanation of why it is notable, fine, but that is by no means this. MCB 22:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article asserts notability, and such is demonstrated. Come on; it's a notorious elementary programming class at MIT. Sounds notable. And the article doesn't mirror the course catalogue. Like many things at MIT, the class seems to have developed its own folklore. - Sensor 00:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this is worthy of inclusion, it seems to me it is only because it has been copied by other universities. If that's the case, surely it goes by another name? I've taken a bunch of classes in my day, but not one did I ever call "HIST 377" or anything. I'm still leaning going for delete, but if someone can offer a convincing move, and perhaps some tidying, I may reconsider. -R. fiend 14:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment At MIT numbers are used for everything. "History" is called "21H". Jkelly 23:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • But surely if it has been copied by other colleges (it's ownly potential claim of notability, as far as I can tell), they didn't keep this title. And (not that I know much about it) I have a hard time believing classes at MIT only go by numbers. When a father asks his son what classes he's taking, does he get the response "7.989, 45.997, 3.141592, and 77.771." Would that mean anything to anyone? -R. fiend 05:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't think it's appropriate to ask "would the father of a student know what 6.001 is?" I don't think my father knows what Elias omega coding is but that doesn't mean it isn't notable among people who are versed in that field. In the same vein, I'm afraid I don't see why the fact that those people who know it know it by the number seems to be classed as an argument for its non-notability; is RU 486 non-notable because its designation is just letters and numbers? -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • The question isn't whether the father would know what it meant, but what is a class actually called beyond a number designation. Surely when anyone discusses a class, they use some sort of descriptive words. Even the universal "101" has something describing what exactly it is you'll be studying at an introductory level. Other schools that teach this class must use a different title. Whenever I looked through a course catalog at any of the colleges I've taken classes at, I looked at the titles of classes, not just a bunch of numbers, because those meant nothing, and mean nothing without anoither context. -R. fiend 18:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are many classes at many prestigious schools (including my alma mater, Harvard College) which are notable on campus, and have legitimate lore associated with them at their schools. The best fate for such classes is a merge to the school, if they are really very well-known. Having lived in Cambridge, Mass., I'm not sure is. Xoloz 22:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. University courses are not notable. -- Necrothesp 02:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I went to MIT; I know lots of people who went through 6.001; I don't know a reason why it needs to be here. Anville 17:47, 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

6.270 (MIT)

Individual class; not notable Gerrit CUTEDH 14:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Durin. Friday (talk) 04:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Poisionous Tableminton

Delete per nom. The fact that it was apparently created recently makes it non-notable. LichYoshi 14:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Reptilian humanoid. --Celestianpower háblame 14:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lizard People

Probable hoax from user whose Korean crime syndicate: 신속한 물고기 (black tiger) is already on Afd


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. --Maru (talk) Contribs 22:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Darth Tarnum

Delete per nom. Non-notable. -LichYoshi 15:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS (default keep) further 'debate' serves no useful purpose. Doc (?) 23:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dowling Catholic High School

Useless high school article. No content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.249.88 (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 dealt with as copyvio. - Mailer Diablo 14:19, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Hall

nn vanity Gator(talk) 15:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bushwhacker Liberal

Looks to be an advertising piece on a non-notable blog. I get one google hit. JJay 15:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

it may not be notable to you but it is notable to the people who read it, and more articles on blogs in our community will be placed shortly. please do not delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.19.53 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment if you don't want it to be deleted, then you should vote "keep" on this page. I would also suggest getting an account on wikipedia. it takes no time at all, and it offers benefits.--Alhutch 18:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 21:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Sarah Rhoades

This was listed as a speedy because it did not assert importance/significance. I have removed the speedy tag and am AFDing it because it does assert significance, however, I am not sure if it is significant enough to remain on Wikipedia.-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 15:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 14:20, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blogcritics

advertisement for a webpage -Andrew 15:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AH MY EYES THERE'S A JAVELIN IN ONE

None notable webcomic, has been around for less than a month, artist has no prior fame. A google search for the artists name "Vincenze Ravina" does reveal 100 links, but they are almost all to do with some guy who sells magic tricks, and not to a webcomic. - Hahnchen 16:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • It doesn't need to satisfy those proposals, because they are not guidelines. As such they should not be used to justify a vote for deletion. You may as well write "because I feel like deleting it" as your reason. --John Lynch 00:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Um, WP:N would suggest otherwise. Unless you're using an absurdly strict definition of guidelines, in which case I'd image you'd expect such articles to get deleted quite often because (most?) others have a different definition. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 00:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
From the page There is currently no official policy on notability. I don't think "official policy" is to strict a definition.--John Lynch 03:24, 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. — JIP | Talk 20:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Albert_Clark

Contains unverified claims of previously-unheard-of "Internet Pioneer" being "one of the primary drivers behind the modern computer revolution" and having made a decision that resulted in "makers of IBM clones and Microsoft" becoming "the standard". The talk page includes comments by his "old systems analyst" apparently trying to contact him, but it is unclear whether these are actual attempts at communication or attempts at giving the article credibility, written by the creator of the page himself (check the history of the article and the Talk page and look at the writing style). The article on personal computer contains an entire paragraph on Mr. Clark's alleged achievements, which claims that he had a pivotal role in making Intel processors "the standard". The person may very well be real but the "achievements" listed are completely unsubstantiated, so the article is at best a fraudulent vanity page (which should be removed) and at worst entirely false (in which case the page should also be removed and the personal computer article fixed). Google searches on Mr. Clark only turn up his resumé in the Google cache and a bunch of mirrors of his Wikipedia page. The likelihood that this is just a hoax is extremely high. Alskdj 16:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I believe this article may be verifiable, it might just take longer than we're used to here. A Freedom of Information Act request should turn up any records the DoD has on Clark and his computer pioneering activities. As the world's largest source of information, we might even get the fees waived and the process expedited. Gentgeen 17:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and list for the appropriate sort of review/rfc/cleanup. AfD is a poor way to get an article verified -- "Verify it or the article dies!" -- and verification will probably take longer than an AfD-period. — mendel ☎ 17:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, information is unsubstantiated, unsourced, and not WP:V. If someone wants to get a FoIA request and attempt to verify this, that would be great, but I suspect you would be wasting time and money. If any of this were true, you would think there would be at least one passing mention of Mr. Clark somewhere on the web... but alas, all that exist are wiki mirrors and other Albert Clarks.--Isotope23 18:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we can't take chances on potential hoaxes. It seems to me that a genuine internet pioneer would have a certain, y'know, internet presence as well, even if mostly in history documents and such. With nothing substantial on Google and no other sources to speak of, this has to go. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment substantial claims require a substantial body of evidence. This page should at least have a {{not verified}} template slapped on the top. Thanks. :) — RJH 20:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would like to emphasize that there are three possibilities. Scenario 1: The information in the article is correct. It is claimed that a heretofore unknown person has had a hand in creating the Arpanet/Internet and played a crucial role in making PCs, Intel processors and Microsoft the industry standard. This is in violation of the "no original research" policy: absolutely no sources have been mentioned, unless the "contact attempts" on the Talk page are considered to be circumstantial evidence in favor of these claims. It appears to be extremely unlikely that the claims could be true. We should assume that this information does not check out, and the burden of proof should rest on those who claim that it does. Scenario 2: The article is correct for the most part but the information on Mr. Clark being an Internet pioneer is incorrect. In this case, the page fulfills the definition of a "WP vanity page" and should be removed. Scenario 3: This article is nonsense and should be removed. — In light of these three possibilities, I fail to see how this article could be retained unless someone steps forward and provides extraordinary evidence for the extraordinary claims made therein. Alskdj 21:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 2 Upon closer examination, it seems that the major contributions to the content of this article have been made by a single person with two different userids plus one anonymous IP address, posing as several persons (see the Talk page history and work backwards from there if you're interested in the details or check out Special:Contributions/Albert.clark, Special:Contributions/Allynnc and the contributions by 209.22.221.73). Several dubious things stand out. To name just one example, a critical comment has been removed from the Talk page entirely and the Talk page has been edited in an incoherent manner, apparently to make the article seem more convincing. Furthermore, the talk pages related to these users and to the article in question are a complete mess and contain numerous claims that are patently bogus. For example, see User_talk:Allynnc where it is claimed that Mosaic (the web browser) existed as early as the late 1980s. Anyone who looks at the history of this article and the histories plus talk pages of the users involved should see that there's something fishy going on here. Alskdj 22:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete highly suspicious entry based on above. Dottore So 22:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. I worked in this field from 1984-89, in ARPANET/MILNET design, testing, evaluation of equipment, network architecture, etc., on several government contracts including (mostly) the Air Force. I vaguely remember the name, but don't think of him as any sort of major figure in the field. I think the early history regarding network efforts and AUTODIN are probably correct, but to be frank, they do not really represent notable or widely-known developments in the field. I could probably write articles about at least half a dozen people involved in such projects -- myself included -- that were early implementors of network technology in DOD, but I don't believe that they necessarily warrant Wikipedia articles. And some editors appear to have wandered into the weeds of mythology here, too. MCB 22:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 21:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Irelands VCs

This is not an article. I think it's supposed to be about a book, but it's very unclear and poorly written. A complete overhaul might be able to save it, but I'm not sure. -R. fiend 16:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Research publications do not have ISBN numbers, nor do researsh publications get recorded in the British Library. There were only 500 of these books published and I request it be left on "Irelands VCs" page as the ISBN number may be useful to researchers of Irish military history. George Fleming.

There is a list of (SHORT) references (listed by publication year) at the bottom of every Irish Victoria Cross recipient if you care to look. Its ISBN the typo M has has been corrected to N.

A short article describing the book Irelands VCs has now been written. I request that this is not deleted. Thank you George Fleming.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 11:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Author Jeff Benjamin

Unclear that this author is of any significance. Urjeff 16:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hackers Canyon

Looks like vanity for a hacker forum to me. -R. fiend 17:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Harvest Moon: Rune Factory

Game that doesn't actually exist. Google has no related hits, and anyone even passingly familiar with the Harvest Moon series (a slow-paced farm RPG) can tell that whatever this is, it's not a Harvest Moon game. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 17:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 00:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shattered Hand

This was originally listed by Sycocowz on 01 Nov, but the nomination was formatted incorrectly (there was no heading or any reference in the page as to which article it was that was being nominated). I'm correcting the formatting now, and relisting this under 07 Nov. Just completing the nomination, no vote. - ulayiti (talk) 00:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Everything after the first two paragraphs is not documented in any published forum and is likely from all Primary Sources >> Wikipedia:No_original_research As far as I can see no other WoW server has its own Wikipedia article nor do I believe it deserves one in the spirit of "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" (debate this if you feel it does deserve one) Sycocowz 01:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you prove this? Well sycocows i might add you read carefully what standed wikipedia is before you lodge such a delete. Please also give evidence to prove your statement. --Franco rosi 23:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Documented online... A great deal of this information is documented on Blizzard Entertainments own forums and verified by Blizzard Employees, and they do seem to constitute an authority over virtual events that occur on their servers. It would seem that - like a sporting event or scrabble tournament, that the facts reported herein are mostly verifiable. There is a need to clean up some issues, like the statement at the end that one person is a racist. Other than that it seems that the entry shouldn't be marked for deletion. I see no reason for deletion. --BusterGT 14:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Blizzard has a policy wherby they refuse to acknowledge kills etc. I agree that 'blue' posts verifying any of the presented information would be acceptable, but I have never seen any post from Blizzard ever verifying anything other than the server exists and the etymology of its name. They did sticky a list of guild websites, this does 'confirm' their existence but has no official information about them. http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/board.aspx?fn=wow-realm-shatteredhand Sycocowz 20:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get me wrong, I've played on shattered hand since release day. I have no doubt in my mind that most of those things are true. They are completely unverifiable for the purposes of wikipedia however. Internet forums are most certainly not a credible source of anything (blue posts excepted) Sycocowz 12:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not encyclopedic. - brenneman(t)(c) 01:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. 68.255.173.215 calls it "almost completely accurate." I'd like to delete the inaccurate parts. Unfortunately, without source citations I have no way of telling which parts these are. Therefore, I vote to delete the entire article. BusterGT says this is "documented online" but does not provide the documentation. Citing sources does not mean asserting that sources exist and that a reader could find them if they looked: it means providing those sources in a way that any reader can check. "Ask anyone" is not citing a source. If the article is edited to include good, verifiable source citations for the important content, I will withdraw my deletion vote. A "good source" would of course be one with a real-world name and identity, not just an online screen name. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencyclopedic and unverifiable. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 04:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure -- I'm not yet qualified to vote in this case, but... somebody put a lot of work into it. I've seen worse writing. And whatever World Of Warcraft is, it sure sounds exciting. Before deleting, I might ask myself: is it certain that no one will ever find this info useful?
  • Delete as unverifiable and unencyclopedic. WP:NOT a history of every gaming server ever booted up. In 100 years, nobody will care that "On a daily basis, Jubei, the infamous leader of Skyfang, and his guild would invade the Horde city of Thunderbluff to kill the NPC boss Cairne Bloodhoof in order to gain honor, mostly uncontested." Hell, nobody will care in a year. FCYTravis 07:26, 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 Speedy Delete by User:Friday. --GraemeL (talk) 20:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Eisenberg

Vanity. Belongs on a user page (Deisenbe). Keithlaw 17:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Megabonr

Doesn't meet music notability standards, possibly complete nonsense.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 as neologism. - ulayiti (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LATSOT

Wikipedia is not a dictionary of unverifiable slang BeteNoir 18:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rhydderch a'i Fab

Though it grieves me to say it, I don't think they are anywhere near "famous" enough. Deb 18:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC) Note: was not listed correctly in the AFD list. Fixed now. Bjelleklang - talk 18:10, 1 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 all of them. - ulayiti (talk) 01:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NN band/group. Not found on google, allmusic, and is therefore unverifiable as well as not passing WP:MUSIC 158.36.225.169 18:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: I'm the anon user that afd'ed this article, just had some problems with wp/sessiondata. Bjelleklang - talk 18:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: Combining AFDs for articles related to this band (by same author) for efficiency. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 00:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: Relisted on Nov 2 AFD log, as there were other related articles added to the nomination. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 00:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's not about being against the Welsh language, it's about removing an article about a band that can't be verified. Bjelleklang - talk 14:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Whatever that means, please do not engage in personal attacks -- SoothingR(pour) 13:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with SoothingR. A geniune Welsh person would know how to spell TWPSYN. Also, you contradict your own grammar by using the word "dy" in the same sentence and to the same refrence as the more respectable "chi". Furthermore, the spelling "cae" means "field", not "shut". Believe me, I certainly would field my mouth if I could. So, before insulting me, I would recommend you to learn proper Welsh, and please, cau dy geg os gweli di'n dda, y twpsyn ffwc.

I can vouch for this band. They are not on Google, or much of anywhere else but I remember going to a gig once and they were the top billing. I admit it's bread and butter stuff, but it does exist and to delete it is to delete the existence, on the net, of a little known germano-welsh gem.

Comment: It doesn't matter if you say you can vouch for it, as long as the information can't be verified. Bjelleklang - talk 21:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm new to Wikipedia and I found this page, and saw the comments against the band. They DO exist, and, believe it or not, are quite good! They played a university gig (Aberystwyth probably, though it might have been Cardiff) back when I was a student and they really have a solid fanbase, most of which were good guys. So I plead, for them, keep them on!!

  • Nice effort, Grutness(at least better than Proto), but the correct Welsh way to say it is "Dydi o ddim yn dda". It's not quite Maori!
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 default to keep. - ulayiti (talk) 00:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I Love You

The book itself doesn't seem notable enough, but the author is. Suggest redirect. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 18:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Psymastr.com

Small forum that doesn't follow the guidelines of WP:WEB -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 18:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. --Holderca1 03:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Bowden

No firm assertion of notability and probable vanity. Note that page has only been edited by anon IPs (not that this is a reason to delete). No opinion. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 18:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tarquinas Legion

A MMORPG Guild with something of a claim of notability -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 18:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WEB is not a Wikipedia policy, or at least it isn't yet. As such, it should not be considered in a vote for deletion. Rogue 9 19:22, 2 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 11:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

William Bryk

Vanity page for non-notable guy who's written a few articles. See also Bryk, William. Gsd97jks 18:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete (only 64% voted delete), but should be redirected to Nick Lachey. - ulayiti (talk) 00:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Calo

is WIkipedia a gossip column? I think this information fits better to Nick Lachey--Austrian 18:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flash media server

Copy-pasted advert for a product. 62.56.47.151 18:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regret

Simply a dictionary stub, and Wiktionary already has an entry on regret. It would make more sense for this page to refer to Regret, the racehorse, instead. Dandelions 18:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 22:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Japanese intestines

Unsalvageable POV, bizarre nonsense not supported by serious enquiry. JFW | T@lk 18:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; of the four links provided by the page, only the first one is about Japanese intestines, and is actually about what Hata said in 1987 (the second and the third are about the intestine in general and the fourth one is in Japanese). As far as I can see, this article can be seen as:
    • a news story about a remark made by a Japanese minister of agriculture in 1987; or
    • a piece of original research about that remark.
Either way, this is not an article for an encyclopedia. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 20:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Keep This is an interesting piece of material which should be developed and perhaps finally placed in the Nihonjinron page, which should then be better linked to related pages. Ideas like this are widespread in Japan and they have major social implications. The key about the Japanese hypothesis one is that it can be tested and therefore refuted. Because including it here will allow contributors finesse it over time, it should be included from the npov from where it now sits. (previous unsigned comment by 222.229.230.79 -- Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 14:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Vote disregarded by closing admin Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 22:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC) [reply]
      • A line in the “Nihonjinron as pseudoscience” section of Nihonjinron should be sufficent to cover this idea. An article is not needed. I also remark that the two facts used to disprove the claim of Japanese diversity (short time for evolution and same diet of other people) do not in fact disprove the claim. They only disprove that the difference is due to evolution and not, for example, to genetic drift. As for the social implications of ideas such as this one, they should be discussed in the Nihonjinron article: I do not see how intestine lenght and pronunciation of r and l differ from this point of view. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 14:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, but with proviso that it is better written to provide NPOV, and link provided to and from Nihonjinron page. However people may search wiki for Japanese intestines to see what the fuss is about and that should provide the answer. 15:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC) (previous unsigned vote by 202.228.229.71 -- Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 15:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Vote disregarded by closing admin Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 22:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC) [reply]
    • Keep Interesting storm this. I feel the issue of Japanese intestines is important as a testable and refutable element of Nihonjinron. The same goes for the importance of blood as a social signifier in modern Japan; this ideas was originally mooted in Nazi Germany and is one of the remaining legacies of the Axis alliance. While I do not think this topic should unduly impinge into the medial explanation of intestines, it is important to hold the ideology of Nihonjinron up to a more public mirror. And Wikipedia is perfect for that. The consensus seems to be that the article should stay but should be more appropriately housed. The size of the final article would be largely determined by the information provided by contributors familiar with the debate and who could, in accordance with Wikipedia's policy, enlighten the rest of us and. mpre importantly perhaps, chauvinistic Japanese who believe in unscientific fables like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.229.236.136 (talk • contribs)
Vote disregarded by closing admin Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 22:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC) [reply]
      • Genetic Drift There is also debate in Japan about the earliest foind specimens of pottery in the Jomon era; several researchers tried to maintain that Japanese pottery preceded Chinese and that the Japanese were therefore superior; the Nazis had an interest in archaelogy for much the same dark reasons. Genetic drift would take a much longer time to manifest itself and it is not clear why it would manifest itself with the Japanese and not the Indians. This important point could also be included in a revamped entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.229.236.136 (talk • contribs)
Vote disregarded by closing admin Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 22:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC) [reply]

I don't think the article should be deleted, but added as a sub-page to nihonjinron. Anyway, this scientific study that I found through Google scholar has a possible explanation for the myth.http://www.springerlink.com/(mlmsb445aiduhp55ykroozuw)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,1,13;journal,20,57;linkingpublicationresults,1:100430,1 Abstract

Background and aims. Colonic diverticula are located predominantly on the right-side in patients in Japan, in contrast to those in Europe and the United States. This study compared the etiology of right-sided diverticula in Japan with that of left-sided diverticula in the West.

Methods. A literature review was conducted from 1950 to 2001 using Medline and Index Medicus.

Results. Diverticula occur predominantly in the right-sided colon (over 70%) in Japanese patients, and even among Japanese who emigrate, in contrast with the diverticula in Western. Incidence (detection) rates of colon diverticula have rapidly increased in Japan since World War II with the increased dietary fiber intake. The increased detection rate over time is higher in urban areas than in rural areas, and it corresponds to the distribution of dietary fiber intake. Birth cohort analysis suggests that right-sided diverticula is affected more by environmental factors than other types. Furthermore, the significant relationship of right-sided diverticula with intraluminal pressure in Japan is similar to that of left-sided diverticula in the West, and the pathological feature of these diverticula are similar.

Conclusion. The etiology of right-sided diverticula in Japan (and perhaps also other Mongolian peoples) is very similar to that of left-sided diverticula in the West. The location may represent a difference in morphology of the large intestine between Mongolians (including Japanese), and Westerners, rather than environmental differences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mutantfrog (talk • contribs)

  • Delete per JFW and Paolo Liberatore; the article is pointless alarmism masquerading as widespread political opinion. Had the researcher provided several verifiable sources to support the assertion that many agree with the minister of agriculture, there may have been just cause to produce this "rebuttal-like" entry as a footnote to the Nihonjinron entry in a NPOV tone. 219.5.144.3 (talk · contribs) 17:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vote disregarded by closing admin Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 22:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep I wanted to note here that the belief is widespread in Japan. All one need do is to do a search on a Japanese search engine. When I type in the phrase "nihonjin no chou" (Japanese intestines) and "nagasa" (length) at Yahoo! Japan, I get 143,000 hits. If nothing else, this belief deserves at least being mentioned under nihonjinron. --Matt Dioguardi (first edit by Matt Dioguardi (talk · contribs) -- Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 11:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]
    • Comment with due respect to the previous discussant, citing Yahoo! Japan and other Japanese search engines as "verifiable sources" to the assertion that many agree with the minister of agriculture, is weak and suspect, and should not be used as a litmus test for encyclopedia entries. By entering the same keyword searches for "American," "British" or "Western" intestinal length one gets 276,000 hits, 121,000 hits, and 161,000 hits, respectively. Do these relatively high number of hits suddenly tell us that Americans, British, or Westerns generally believe their intestines to be longer? Of course not. In fact, these numbers tell us nothing at all except that the keywords appear somewhere on the pages in question. A more convincing (and verifiable) source would be a formal nationwide survey, or poll, or series of public statements by elected officials or columnists that explicitly agree with the assertion. Anything else is baseless supposition. Delete per JFW and Paolo Liberatore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.5.144.3 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 5 November 2005
  • keep I typed in "British intestin" and " Western intestin" and got no hits on yahoo search. This indicates, as has been pointed out, that the difference is a POV in Japan but not the West. The point about the claim, which most of us suspect has no factual basis, is it is statistically testable. It is, like the idea of blood being a significant signifier, widely adhered to in Japan. Comprehensive encyclopedias must cover modern myths as well as more ancient ones and show us where they can lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.229.233.242 (talk • contribs) 06:25, 5 November 2005
Vote disregarded by closing admin Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 22:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC) [reply]
    • Comment The gentleman has misspelled intestine which perhaps explains his conclusions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.5.144.3 (talk • contribs) 06:51, 5 November 2005
      • Comment on Comment: The gentleman, who may be a lady for all we know, did not misspell intestine but instead typed in intestin to catch some other words such as intestinal. The gentleman also made no conclusions but instead pointed out how ideas like these are linked to other (politically inspired) myths. Please note the marks around the searched for items in the posts above. This is to get them in the desired sequence, standard search progress both in English and in Japanese. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.229.233.242 (talk • contribs) 10:25, 5 November 2005
  • Comment; I have reverted the last edit in which an anon (an unlogged user) changed all unsigned signatures with {{Mambo}}. If the intended meaning was to communicate the creation of a new account, I suggest to add a sentence like “this anon is now using the account User:Mambo” at the end of each comment, instead. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 16:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment to Keep: This article raises a number of interesting hypotheses, none of which have been significantly/scientifically proved or disproved anywhere and some of which can lead to nasty conclusions in line with the Nihonjonron/Nazi thesis/theses. There is an eminently testable hypothesis here: that there is a significant difference in length between the intestines of one "people" and those of (all) others. The idea that the intestines of the Japanese are different is used to prop up the idea, widely held in Japan, that the Japanese are different and somehow superior and special. As part of this process, the idea's apologists come up with figures comparing the relative lengths of the intestines of all kinds of animals, in some Japanese version of The Ascen]]t of Man. In targeting this social, "pseudo-fascist" myth, we end up having to address a wide number of issues, including the lengths of intestines of humans and all other animals. Wikipedia is the perfect place to pool our common, if limited knowledge together in a positive way and not to get bogged down in pedantry or cheap irrelevant shots/deletions. (anonymous aka Mambo)
Vote disregarded by closing admin Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 22:20, 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.

Cledwyn Rhydderch

Comment It's another of those non-notable colours isn't it (in this case white+reddish-brown)! The users recent series of articles include Joni Rhydderch, Rhydderch a'i Fab, Hyrnia Records, Klep dim Trep and all seem, at best, marginal. The related Dafydd Owain at least gets some Googles. Dlyons493 Talk 20:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, I've left Dafydd Owain alone due to the fact that there is some verifiable info about him. I probably could have just combined these all into one AfD if I had an inkling how to do that.--Isotope23 21:21, 1 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The spunkers

Does not meet WP:MUSIC. Searching for '"The spunkers" spattico' on Google returns zero matches. CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Joni Rhydderch

Non-notable butcher/record label owner. Too many claims for speedy though. Delete.--Isotope23 19:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hyrnia Records

Not WP:V. Record label tied to Joni Rhydderch. Delete.--Isotope23 19:13, 1 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tifnod

Non notable neologism. Google finds no references either. delete. -- SoothingR 19:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was deleted early due to sock brigade. There's no way there will be any serious discussion of keeping this. Friday (talk) 00:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Friday Night Line

High school comedy team and show. Not notable at the moment. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anders J. Nielsen. Delete. —BrianSmithson 19:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by Friday as nn-bio. --GraemeL (talk) 20:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

William Ho

Vanity, non-notable, borders on patent nonsense, but thought I'd play it safe. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anders J. Nielsen and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friday Night Line. Delete. —BrianSmithson 19:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Bogus article. William Ho (Ka-Kui Ho) is a Hong Kong film actor[22] who has nothing to do with any american tv.-Dakota


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 11:44, 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"55 STITCHES"

Appears to be band vanity. Unsigned and does not meet WP:MUSIC. delete --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 19:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New California Republic

Per WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The thought of how California might be called if it ever was to become independent is very interesting and entertaining, but imo it is not Wikipedia material. It would in my view only become Wikipedia material if a group was to declare Californian independence under that name. Aecis 20:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC) PS. There is a seemingly notable organization called New California Republic[reply]

  • Delete - The fact this group "New California Republic" has a web site, doesn't make them notable. Most obscure fringe groups have web sites. Also, not that it matters, but the above web site, seems to propose something different than the article (e.g. a country made only of the US state). However, I only gave it a short read, and can't tell. It really doesn't matter. --rob 22:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; Aecis' first idea was right. There are exceptions to the crystal ball policy, in particular when the event will almost surely take place or when the proposal is really notable. This seems not to be the case, however. A search for “link:www.newcaliforniarepublic.org” on Google returned that only 27 pages link the web site of the organization (including the pages in the site). I do not especially trust Google for establishing notability in general, but in this case I think it's fairly accurate. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 00:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: WP is not a crystal ball, but there has been enough talk about California secession/division that this may well rank its own article. - Sensor 00:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment an article about a current and notable controversy is perfectly fine. In this case, the article should be named Controversy on California secession or something similar, and contain information about the controversy (who proposed separation, etc.). In this particular case, I have some doubts about the notability of such a controversy. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 14:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone provides good, solid, verifiable evidence that the phrase "New California Republic" is in genuine, widespread use in California and not just promotion for a website. I am very skeptical (hence my provisional "delete") because the article conspicuously fails to cite any references and because Googling on exact phrase "New California Republic" gives unimpressive results. The serious prospect of a "New California Republic" would be of national concern, so I think it is also revelant that an online search of The New York Times from 2000-present yields no occurrences of the exact phrase "New California Republic." Dpbsmith (talk) 19:56, 2 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. Jkelly 23:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Alchemy Substances and Symbols

This article is nonsense. I move for a speedy Harvestdancer 20:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. First time nominating a speedy, so I didn't know.Harvestdancer 23:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, no harm done. Good call on the speedy part, by the way. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:02, 2 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Downingtown Area School District

Non-notable, attack, no context. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 20:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford University Tory Reform Group

This is a minor student political group in one university, the article being placed here by its President elect. It's a vanity article on a non-notable organisation. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Barbier

I suspect a hoax. I can find no confirmation of the material in this article. The "youngest CEO" of a Fortune 500 company ought to have some internet presence. Original author also has vandalized a few articles, one by inserting the name into an article where it didn't belong. Joyous (talk) 11:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Note the later related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Ivies. This note aded to avoid confussion. DES (talk) 21:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Southern Ivy League

Although it is qualified as "colloquial term," this term appears to have been invented by the author. While I can imagine colloquialisms like "Southern Ivy" or "Southern Ivies," the very nature of a League is formal, and no formal relationship exists between any of these schools, as the article itself mentions. Furthermore, unlike Public Ivies, Little Ivies, Jesuit Ivy and other terms that derive from the Ivy League, this term appears to have no historic context or documentation to support it besides the subjective opinions of contributing Wikipedians 129.105.35.219 20:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. - 129.105.35.219 20:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No Google hits; no formal association among the schools. | Keithlaw 20:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if its a coined term, its used in very, very, very limited circles. Stu 22:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it is not a formal association 160.39.243.196 16:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neologism, probably invented, no evidence presented of real or widespread use e.g. by guidance counselors. Not only are no sources given for this subjective list of "prestigious" Southern schools, I note that no sources for the "Magnolia League" mentioned in the article are given, either. This is really just a subjective list of good schools together with a proposal for their promotion. Neither is encyclopedic. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have heard this term used in the South, but not with the consistency or frequency necessary to warrant an article. Xoloz 22:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a widely used term in Southern academia. It is acknowledged to be a colloquial term in the article. Just because some other people haven't heard of it, it's no less valid. I know the Magnolia League was a proposal in the mid-to-late '90's. Check with the student government archives at Emory, Vanderbilt, Duke, etc. I don't think the author made it up, because I have been hearing it for the past 20 years. Why delete a phrase that many Southern wiki-users know? That smacks of regionalism.
  • Delete. Unsourced and unverified, apparent neologism, smacks of boosterism, apparently unencyclopedic. -- Rbellin|Talk 05:44, 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heedless Coding

Certainly does not appear to be a real term--possibly a vanity page, or simply inaccurate--a Google search turns up no other references to this term.

+ Delete per nomination.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 11:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Richard teasell

thus in title but the article calls him Richard Teasall. Alleged DDR-born porn star. Hoax - zero Google hits. -- RHaworth 21:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 14:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Badical

Hoax. Delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 21:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

this is not a hoax - the badical uses the robot thing as an novel gimmick, from what i can gather. Check out the Aquabats on wiki for a similar deal. sorry new to this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.30.161 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

while its pretty doubtfull that the badical is actually a robot, he/she does make and distribute music that I have heard on a (DAB) radio station

I have seen 'The Badical' play small gigs in venues around London. Despite the fact that he wears a robot costume made of cardboard on stage, the man behind it all takes the music very seriously and is a valuable member of the music society. Do not delete this entry for it provides those interested with valuable information on this artist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.245.248 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete it? There is Badical music out there, he/she/it does claim to be a robot. It exists, it is as it says on the entry, thus, it should be kept!


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Denni☯ 03:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Massless gauge bosons in heterotic string theory

This topic should be covered within the article on heterotic string theory. We don't wish to set a precedent for gravitons in type I string theory, Kalb-Ramond fields in heterotic string theory, etc., do we? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phys (talk • contribs) 23:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as a recreation of content already deleted via Afd. Friday (talk) 04:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Creation-evolution poll

Already deleted under evolution poll the author of this article User:Ed_Poor moved it to a new namespace to prevent its deletion. Actually, this looks like an administrator abuse. He undeleted the article without going through the proper channels. We maybe should refer this admin for discipline. Joshuaschroeder 22:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution poll moved to Creation-evolution poll: Was deleted in part because misnamed: "it is not a poll on evolution but rather a poll about the creation-evolution controversy"

However, looking at the AfD, its pretty obvious that the consensus was that if information was to be merged, it should be merged into creation-evolution controversy. There was no consensus to simply rename the article. I, too, am troubled by another unilateral act by Ed Poor that goes against consensus. -Satori (talk) 22:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Thue. Friday (talk) 04:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Infamous P

Non-notable, probable vanity Modular. (Talk.) 22:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_1&oldid=27108505"