Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 November 10: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
ComCat (talk | contribs)
735 edits
No edit summary
ComCat (talk | contribs)
735 edits
No edit summary
Line 59: Line 59:
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St John's Roman Catholic Church}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St John's Roman Catholic Church}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Hallahan}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Hallahan}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Overstone Combined School}}

Revision as of 05:23, 10 November 2005

< November 9 >

Purge server cache

November 10

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 from Wikipedia with a strong recommendation that it be offered to Comixpedia. Not being a sister project under WikiMedia, we can not perform a straight transwiki.

I see that Comixpedia is also licensed under GFDL so a transfer is allowable. However, not being a member of their site and being completely unfamiliar with their codes, formats, styles, etc., I am unwilling to attempt to add the article there myself. If anyone wants to carry out the transfer, please contact me (or any admin) and we can recover the article in order to submit it to Comixpedia. Please remember to also have the Talk page transferred at the same time because it documents the author's release of certain content to GFDL. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LeveL (webcomic)

Non notable obscure webcomic, found here, it's 40 member forum can be found here. Looking through one of their sparse forum threads, I know plenty of effort has been put into this, but I just don't think that the website is notable enough for wikipedia. Can I introduce you guys to comixPedia? Where every webcomic under the sun can get their article there? - Hahnchen 23:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This nominationt was closed here. It was then discussed here and here.

To date, there are three clean deletes + nominator + one withdrawn, two transwikis, three clean keep + two with very low contributions (-Flare- (talk · contribs), 12.160.33.128 (talk · contribs)). As this is far from a clear consensus, and not even a clear "no consesus", per discussions with the closer it is being re-listed extended for another five days to draw wider community input. - brenneman(t)(c) 23:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  1. If that came across as a bite, I apologise, that wasn't my intent.
  2. It says at Wikipedia:Guide_to_Articles_for_deletion#Discussion "Always explain your reasoning," because it's not a vote.
  3. I dont see how WP:AGF applys. Don't you assume good faith when someone wants to delete?
brenneman(t)(c) 07:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Captain Disdain's arguments. - Andre Engels 08:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia:Web comics lists several possible criteria for webcomic notablility. This doesn't meet any of them. I'd also point out that User:12.160.33.128's understanding of the Alexa ranking system is limited. For example, Penny arcade ranks in at 4500, not 400,000. This comic ranks at 2 million, which even taking into account Alexa's margin for error, is pretty bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.238.34.168 (talk • contribs)
  • Neutral, long-running and extensive archive, I just can't find its audience. - Mgm|(talk) 11:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable. Wikipedia is not a web directory. - Dalbury (talk) 12:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per Bryan and Flare in the first run of this. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 12:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I don't understand this "Bryan and Flare" thing. What point did Bryan make that you agree with? Was it (1) that the article was extensive and all long articles are notable or (2) that you don't understand why people are voting Delete? What argument of Flare are you agreeing with? Do you agree that (3) any website with 600 visitors/day is notable or (4) notability may be asserted in ways that do not need to be described? I await your comments. Ashibaka (tock) 02:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The point of me mentioning the visits a day was to show that it is obviously known aside from the 40 people in the forum, since some of the voters for deletion used 'forum has 40 members, noone reads this thing' as an argument. It's not like this site DOESN'T generate tens of thousands of visitors a month. I was also referencing the guy that brought up points against Alexa rating, but he didn't have a user name, so it was probably easier to refer back to me. As for the ways that need not be described, it's obvious I'm a reader of the comic and thus have a bias, which is why mentioning any points about the actual quality of the comic over the quantity of activity around it would be putting myself on display to be torn apart. When I looked at WP:WEB before suggesting the article, it still had the alternate proposal that included longevity, a certain number of existant strips/pages and some other things that I can't remember right now but that were all met. Now that it's pretty much popularity only, any such argument has become void- I can't argue against the fact that it doesn't have an audience of millions. -Flare- 13:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am probably going to hate myself for saying this, but I'm all for frankness: This is still only a proposed guideline. It's referred to as a pointer for what the current suggested direction for this guideline is according to those who have taken part, but that is it. Don't let it deter you from making a pitch for its inclusion based upon longevity or something else. And anyone who's wavering in ther recomendation, don't be swayed by the pseudo-official nature of WP:WEB which I've had lots to do with shaping. Feel free to make your own decision, but please be ready to state your reasoning clearly. Thanks.
          brenneman(t)(c) 13:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails every guideline we've ever had for "notability," and the fervor of its fans in voting is not any argument against that. For those who wish a "reason why" it shouldn't be here, even though there is no reason why it should be here, I'll simply say that encyclopedias cover that which is referred to in alien context and which needs explanation and contextualizing. This forum/comic/game is known by its fans and referred to by none else. Those who wish to know, know. Those who do not know, will not hear of it and need to know. Since Wikipedia is not a place to satisfy the fan's obsession nor a place for people to advertise, the article should be deleted. Geogre 13:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Geogre. It's old, but unremarkably so. People read it, but not very many. It is, in short, an utterly and completely average webcomic, and Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for the utterly and completely average. (Of course, if Comixpedia wants it, they can have it) Lord Bob 16:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Geogre--Isotope23 17:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. nn, webcomic. Dottore So 17:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above; try advertising the comic more in places that accept advertising, and then come back to WP when you have the readers you deserve. — Haeleth Talk 17:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I was the original nominator, so please don't count my vote twice. I wasn't too happy with the no-consensus of the first vote. I did not have a chance to reply to the erronomous and misleading comments above. Dragonfiend has already established that a popular webcomic like Penny Arcade has a respectable Alexa rank. The comparisons to Orrin Hatch and Pete Ashdown are totally irrelevent, these are people who have had major press attention, something which this comic lacks, even in the webcomic community. I would however, either redirect an article on Orrin Hatch's website to Orrin Hatch, or even move to delete. Just because a site links to it, does not mean it is notable. Heck, some blogs even link to my wikipedia page. This comic has no assertion of notability, a low readership and almost empty forums. Other arguments above, saying that "keep - long archive", I just don't agree with. One of my main points against the no defunct original WP:COMIC was the, longevity = notability" clause. Would you keep an article for a person who's only claim to notability was living up to retirement age? - Hahnchen 18:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --JJay 19:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, just in case previous votes aren't being re-counted (I voted before). Why is this being re-listed? If the result wasn't a consensus, then it was "no consensus". Bryan 00:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for that it's not actually been "re-listed", I mispoke before and have corrected it. It has been extended as is common for AfD discussions that do not reach a clear consensus. For example, a 50/50 split with strong arguments presented by each side is a "no consensus" and thus no action is taken. In this example, neither the numbers nor the arguments clearly indicated the "will of the people", and extendind the discussion appears to have made things clear. - brenneman(t)(c) 00:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as this is a comic with no evidence of popularity, significance, or impact beyond its small fanbase. (Of course, this should be transwiked over to Comixpedia, but you can do that with anything that meets their goals.) - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Based on the discussion, I am reinstating my delete vote. Even though it is not the webcomic I originally thought it was, this webcomic appears to miserably fail the proposed guidelines at WP:WEB and WP:COMIC. Also, to those who try to justify keeping articles based on the argument "Article X is on Wikipedia. This article is in this way better to Article X, so therefore it should be on Wikipedia too", please don't. Each article should be kept or deleted on it's own merits, and it's own merits alone (as the various article policies allow). I will support a transwiki to Comixpedia, but will shed no tears of this does not happen. Saberwyn 02:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per A Man in Black. Xoloz 16:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Can't think of a good reason to delete this article. Moreover it was subject to a perfectly valid no consensus close, an re-opened as part of an evident campaign of deletion. --Tony Sidawayt 09:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki as per jnothman and others. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 14:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Comixpedia. *drew 22:23, 15 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. --Titoxd(?!?) 06:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

British Isles profanity

Delete. A hopelessly incomplete list of 'profanities' with no scholarly or encyclopaedic analysis. Listcruft, slang, dicdefs...be gone! Eddie.willers 00:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 02:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Global it

Company self-promotion. Fails WP:CORP. --howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 00:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - vanity. Pintele Yid 06:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete.  Denelson83  08:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chocolate skunk

Nonsensical neologism, just barely above CSD Ashibaka (tock) 00:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - someone told me on the village pump that nonsense articles can be speedy deleted by administrators. If that's true, can't an administrator simply delete this one? Pintele Yid 06:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 01:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Waleed algorithm

There needs to be an article about the waleed algorithm, but this ain't it. --howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 00:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weird. Looks like "waleed" was added between "SAFER+" and "algorithm" back on 19 August, probably just a newbie edit that got overlooked, then "waleed algorithm" was wikified into a link on 28 September, probably by a well-meaning editor, and finally someone created the Waleed algorithm article, most likely via the red link, on 9 November to promote their web site. (I'm so glad I stayed up late to unearth the provenance of a bad article; I'm just not sure I'll still be as glad in the morning.) --DavidConrad 06:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Guess I was wrong -- there is no need for an article on the waleed algorithm (but the SAFER+ algorithm could probably use one). Nice detective work. --howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 16:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was 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. Robert T | @ | C 02:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dow Chemical Company/Locations

Though the company is notable, but the a list of unexplained locations that show no notability doesn't really belong here. Also, this list exists on the company page. Fallsend 00:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete.  Denelson83  08:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Benton

Unverifiable NN bio. Network Solutions verifies that Steve Benton owns sweepmasters.com but other than that, can't find any information on him. --howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 00:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep (18 keep, 8 delete, 1 merge/redirect). Robert T | @ | C 01:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Cindy (2005)

Non-notable storm. No additional information than from 2005 Atlantic hurricane season#Tropical Storm Cindy. Redirect to 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. NSLE (讨论) \<extra> 00:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, and as a side note, there is no consensus on what justifies having a separate article for a tropical cyclone. Everyone has their own opinions. Current practice is that storms that are not historically notable are simply covered by the main season article. However this runs into trouble when non-historically-notable storms accumulate too much information about them (many of these storms kill people and do millions of dollars in damages, so they're definitely worth writing about) and begin to clog up the season article. Jdorje 01:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think some of you are missing the point here, this is a duplicate article. --Holderca1 03:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The duplicate-article claim is not a good argument, for two reasons. One, it is not a full duplicate of 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, because it has information (including the infobox and added picture) that aren't on the main article. Two, 2005 Atlantic hurricane season is 58 kb long and needs to be made shorter; moving information on that article into sub-pages is a good way to do that, particularly information which (like this storm) you consider not to be notable. If we were to make a new sub-article 2005 Atlantic hurricane season storms populated with all the information about all the non-notable storms, then we would have a way to move this excess information off of the season article without having to worry about clutter; however, I don't see why this would be any better than one article per storm. Remember Wikipedia is not paper...non-notable information should be moved off of the main season page, not onto it, so that if people don't want to read it they don't have to. Jdorje 04:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to clock face. I personally did not see anything worth merging but if someone else does, please recover it from the page history. Rossami (talk) 21:34, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hour hand

Extremely trivial information. I don't see anything that can be merged into clock face. --howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 00:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

You have decideed in merging it with clock face. It just means that you hae no real understanding in horlogy. Whatwever. Somedaxy ithe article is going to pup up again in its own right, just as any other major par of a watch.

claude (talk) 22:38, 15 September 2009 (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. Robert T | @ | C 01:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

United_Bimmer

vanity/non-notable/advert gloss? --Sirimiri 02:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 01:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Losing Game

A game for losers, by losers. Totally NN and unencyclopedic. --howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 00:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-encyclopedic. It offers no information not seen on The Game (game), and is certain unencyclopedic. Boxclocke"!" 08:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 01:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft .Net Sockets

WP:ISNOT an instruction manual, especially a POV one. --howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 00:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per above. not that an article on this topic couldn't exist, but this one has little or nothing worth keeping, even the intro is technical and manualish.Dsol 02:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Syrthiss 13:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Howard and Dsol. A real article on this topic should only tell what makes these sockets different from sockets in general and then point to relevant stuff on the web or on paper. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 21:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Jasmol 02:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey guys, give me a break. There are entries on berkeley sockets and Windows sockets that give most of the API away, or have stubs for API to be added. The windows sockets article is largely obsolete as it is being replaced by the topic of this article. This article even directs people to the other sockets SDK API and MFC. I don't have a problem with folks jumping all over this thing and re-writing it, but I don't see how deleting it outright is going to improve things. If this thing were the size of a textbook, I'd understand, but it's no bigger than the other sockets articles. Please rewrite or improve it, don't delete it.User:wiarthurhu 14 Nov 2005, I'm the original author and I'm teaching a class in .NET sockets.
  • Delete per nom. *drew 22:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page was speedily deleted by CambridgeBayWeather, whose stated reason for deletion is "Previous deleted attack page". This AFD is hereby closed. encephalon 01:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ZTD

uncited; probable hoax. Tom Harrison (talk) 01:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 01:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Student Recreation Center (UCR)

Student Recreation Center (UCR) tagged because it concerns a non-notable building within a school campus. Swegner 01:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 02:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

B.G. Knock Out

Poorly edited, I also did a google search got some hits for lyrics to B.G. but nothing at all close to this article Delete KnowledgeOfSelf | talk. 01:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as nonsensical attack page.

Ayaz Kishtwari

Unverifiable. No related google results for this guys name, none of his alleged hit songs get any results either. If they were moderate hits in the UK as claimed he'd be notable, but since that claim can't be verified... seems like a hoax probably. W.marsh 01:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 01:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The_J.Verses

A private fantasy worldbuilding enterprise

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

The result of the debate was delete.  Denelson83  08:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AyuScience - A 5000 years old science of life for longivity.

Obvious quackery, probable advertisement. However, the term AyuScience gets just 149 results on Google (despite claims that 500,000 doctors practice it). Seems like just an advert for a non-notable product or whatever. W.marsh 01:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 02:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Azeru

Character from a video game that doesn't have an article on WP to merge to. Non-notable. W.marsh 02:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 06:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jung-Suk Ryu

Mr Ryu is an unsuccessful candidate in the 2004 municipal council elections in Edmonton, Canada achieving 3,817 votes or 5% of the vote. While this is relatively impressive for a teenager, it doesn't meet WP:BIO which states that "Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office" are notable enough for articles. Nor does a Google search for "Jung-Suk Ryu" indicate that he is notable enough for achievements in other fields to deserve an article see [9].Capitalistroadster 02:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nomination. Capitalistroadster 02:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the nominator votes they should do so inside the nomination. That said, delete as a non-notable biography. Not a speedy, not a resumé, but doesn't meet WP:BIO either. Alphax τεχ 05:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you think the nominator should only vote within the nomination, I suggest you get the guidelines for deletion changed, since they currently clearly state that the nominator should make a separate vote. — Haeleth Talk
  • Comment There was quite a bit more to this article than what it is now showing. An anon user 199.126.210.155 was removing quite a bit of information, and it of course looked like vandalism, but the anon user left me a msg on my talk page saying why he was removing large portions of the article. His comments were polite and civil so I've left it alone due to the fact he seemed to know a lot more about this article than me. Maybe if someone who knows more about Jung-Suk Ryu could go back and check, to see if the information the anon user was removing could make the article meet WP:BIO. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk. 06:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I listed this page because a gentleman raised concerns about the neutrality of the article on the helpdesk list. I checked out the article and considered that notability was a real concern of the article. If someone can deliver verifiable evidence that Mr Ryu meets our biography notability guidelines, I would withdraw this nomination. However, I couldn't find anything in my searches to indicate notability. Capitalistroadster 08:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - "weak" since there's a possibility that the guy's more notable than he seems, but "delete" since I personally can't find any evidence that he meets WP:BIO. — Haeleth Talk 18:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Dottore So 23:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep. WP:BIO says "This list (of eligible people) is not all-inclusive." Someone who finished sixth (see here for official results) in a city-council race is really pushing it. But this guy is likely to run for office again, and people might be interested in who he is. -- Mwalcoff 04:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Xoloz 16:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm with the delete side; city council candidates just aren't that notable. The Alberta Centennial Medal stuff gave me pause, until I read the article — it doesn't make him part of a particularly exclusive and notable class of people, either, as there are 8,000 recipients. Bearcat 07:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As previously stated on the articles talk page, I am an acquaintance of JSR. I have chatted with him about this article, and am quite sure that the anonymous user deleting things was him, seeking to remove the heavy negative bias the article had. Although his achievements go beyond being a city council candidate, they are still relatively local in scope and are perhaps not significant enough to warrant an article. Combine that with the fact that edit wars would probably just continue between JSR and those who have a negative view of him. I believe someday there will be enough content for this article, when his run for city council can get just a brief mention.--LucidGA 19:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 14:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. *drew 23:58, 15 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 Alexandra Christina, Princess of Denmark, Countess of Frederiksborg. Robert T | @ | C 01:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Nigel Manley

Other than his daughter being married into royality nothing else said. Delete for not establishing notability SYSS Mouse 02:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep (14 keep, 7 delete). Robert T | @ | C 01:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

St. Austin Catholic School

Advert for a NN school. Fallsend 02:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 02:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BA-92

Counterstrike clan with 5 members and no claim to notability other than being a CS Clan. Forum has 7 posts from 4 members. W.marsh 02:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED as per authors request. JeremyA (talk) 03:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aarskog sryndrome

I wrote this article without realizing there already was one. I merged the information into the established article.--Jfurr1981 03:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 02:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BCADA

Joke article pretty much. Claims to be some drinking club or something related to a frat... not particularly notable even if this could be verified. Claims in the article of recognition (by NAMBLA among others, what an honor) are almost certainly jokes. W.marsh 03:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 01:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Victor R. Lu

It is sad that he died but is he notable to have a biography entry? All I got from the article is a soldier that died in combat. Reason for my nomination: Wikipedia is not a memorial. J. Nguyen 03:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 02:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fudge riot

original research, seems like cruft --Phil 03:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Ingoolemo talk 05:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cheapskating

Little used slang term. Supposedly from Motley Fool, but googling cheapskating "Motley Fool" returns nothing aside from this stub. Text implies it is synonymous with frugal living, but Google results show little currency for this use. Dforest 13:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Like tightwaddery, cheapskating is a pejorative term, but frugality is a virtue. The current text states it is "often incorrectly confused with cheapness or miserliness". So I don't think it appropriate to redirect there. We have cheapskate, which IMO should probably be redirected to miser. Dforest 08:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am relisting this AFD in hopes it might accrue further comment. Regards encephalon 03:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED JeremyA (talk) 03:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

St. Noels Parish Hall

Article about a church hall. Not notable—delete JeremyA (talk) 03:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is not notable as a church hall or hospitality venue so should be deleted. However, it is also an attack page on the staff and thus warrants a Speedy Delete under category A6. We learn for example that one of the bar staff is supposedly insane and that the waitresses eat all the food and steal rocks. Capitalistroadster 03:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You're right—looking at it again, I should have just speedied it, which is what I will now do. JeremyA (talk) 03:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep --JAranda | watz sup 05:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PublishAmerica

nn vanity press. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, almost without a doubt the most notorious and controversial of all vanity presses or-traditional-publishers-which-are-nevertheless-accused-of-being-vanity-presses. Gets 597,000 Google hits; if this is a not-notable vanity press, then it should be possible to show the other vanity presses getting many, many more hits than that. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's mentioned in the article on Vanity presses, albeit briefly, and the Atlanta Nights article. More importantly in terms of nobility, it's been mentioned in the mainstream media, for example [11], and gets 39 other recent results on Google news [12]. --W.marsh 04:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. There's no indication of why the nominator thinks this vanity press is non-notable. Furthermore, it pretty clearly isn't non-notable; check out Atlanta Nights, which is clearly linked from this article. Bryan 04:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable publisher with number of articles in the mainstream media including this Washington Post article see [13]. Meets WP:CORP. Capitalistroadster 04:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The press itself is notable. Almost everything it publishes is not. --Tabor 05:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While the subject might be noteworthy, this article is the mother of all edit wars. From the Washington Post article cited above: Feeling betrayed, a number of disillusioned PublishAmerica authors have taken to the phones, the mail and the Internet. They've filled hundreds of Web pages on writers' sites with their bitter sagas; they've complained to the Better Business Bureau of Maryland, the Federal Trade Commission and other law enforcement agencies. There appears to be no possibility of NPOV on this subject. It flip-flops between anti-PublishAmerica gripes by disillusioned authors and pro-PublishAmerica press statements. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Durova 05:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So we should delete George W. Bush and a few hundred other articles by that logic? I'm sorry... that an article is controversial is not a reason to delete it, in my opinion. --W.marsh 05:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • False analogy: yours is a press war between two opposing camps who each erase the other's entire content as rapidly as possible. There's almost no dialogue on the discussion page except a little gloating from authors who think they've won a skirmish. And you, Mr. Marsh, performed many of those reverts. I wish I could defend the article. If the firm is as terrible as you apparently think then an intelligent reader could deduce the truth from a balanced presentation, as readers do with a few hundred other articles. Durova 06:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • What? I'm not sure what you mean. I've never editted PublishAmerica. I have editted GWB once or twice, but just reverting the obvious vandalism that occurs there. Where did I say the firm (PublishAmerica) was terrible? I said it should have an article here and that's about all I've said. I haven't stated an opinion about what I think of their business practices (I really don't have an opinion on that anyway). I think you're confused... --W.marsh 06:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: "mother of all edit wars"? Either you're deliberately exaggerating or you've got very little sense of proportion. You also seem a bit confused: you yourself address the fact that the article could have a "balanced presentation" on the subject, yet instead of actually, I don't know, doing something towards that balanced presentation, you're arguing to delete the article based, apparently, on an unspoken and unsupported claim that the article could never contain a balanced presentation. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Antaeus Feldspar. NPOV concerns are a valid reason to discuss and edit the article, not to delete it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apology: I misread the name of a respondent. Please accept my retraction. My deletion vote stands. The editors of this article make no attempt to achieve any NPOV consensus. External research suggests they may be involved in a legal dispute. The article is a waste of Wikipedia resources. Durova 21:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What you actually mean is "I can envision a possible scenario in which the Wikipedia editors who keep reverting the edits by representatives of PublishAmerica which violate NPOV and of course Wikipedia:Autobiography might happen to be in some cases some of the same people who are bringing lawsuits against PublishAmerica. I have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that there is any such connection but the existence of some vested interest which is it possible to imagine some Wikipedia editor having is enough to "suggest" to my biased mind that this is the true motivation of the editors that I oppose -- or at least mud I can smear them with. In any case, the fact that there is some form of dispute makes this automatically "the mother of all edit wars" (much bigger than all those Middle East articles) and of course, this means we should delete it because mumblemumblemumblemumblemumble." So what's your dog in the fight, Durova? Up above you said that an intelligent reader should be able to tell the truth from a balanced presentation, and then you proceeded to present wild hyperbole and malicious baseless accusations in support of your delete vote. What's your vested interest that isn't served by a balanced presentation that gets at the truth? -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Most notable and controversial of vanity presses which received masses of press attention and discussion in writing circles. - Mgm|(talk) 12:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Extremely notable and vanity press, and since when is the existence of an edit war a reason to delete an entire article? Penelope D 21:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very notable (unfortuantly for bad reasons though). --Apyule 09:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. This article is dreadful in both its versions. (Compare [16] with [17]). I have reverted to the "anti-" version, on the basis that at least it has a dispute notice on it, and that we cannot allow a corporation to control the content of its own article. There is no real case for deletion, though. AndyJones 13:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - rather notorious in writing circles, should be notable enough. NPOVing is not so hard as long as both arguments are included (there are various other pages where both critics and the company itself has a say) - Skysmith 13:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Whilst virtually every book produced by PublishAmerica is "nn vanity" (though we do have an article on Atlanta Nights...), sadly the press itself is not. Shimgray | talk | 18:51, 11 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. Robert T | @ | C 02:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Yaffe

A college kid who wants to be in wikipedia because he volunteered at a soup kitchen. Non-notable. --Quasipalm 03:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Fact of the matter is, having known Ian personally and attended school with him (and knowing he didn't write this article) he is an influential individual within the Washington DC community... you may refer to him as a college kid but he is much more... In his years not only is he on the board of directors of the largest food kitchen in DC, but he is also a local hero for his work as a firefighter and other charitable contributions. Wikipedia chronicles Hitler, Stalin, Tojo and many others, but a good guy who strives to use his position in society to help others is "not notable" and BTW he lives in DC not Australia, idiot

You lived in the suburbs... as in Potomac where your idea of charity and good deeds is a 10,000 dollar check, and the only people you know go to your country club?

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

The result of the debate was delete.  Denelson83  08:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Cheeky Monkeys

And I quote... "The Cheeky Monkeys have currently only played one show. In June of 2005, they opened for Betrayal at the Knights of Columbus Hall in Lindsay. Not very many people showed up, but everyone who was there had loads of fun."

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (1 keep, 3 delete, 3 merge). Note that this doesn't preclude anybody from being bold and doing a merge and redirect themselves. · Katefan0(scribble) 21:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Luxord

character in a video game that hasn't been released yet. crystal ballcruft, speculation. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 01:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RuneScape slang and terminology

OK, so it's been a long time since I spent time on VfD (ok.. AfD now), but please tell me that we haven't started considering this kind of fansite material encyclopedic. Isomorphic 04:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was merge into Kingdom Hearts II. - Mailer Diablo 00:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Xaldin

Speculation and trivia. Fictional characters in games that haven't even been released yet are NOT encyclopedic. If you ask me, they won't be encyclopedic after the game is released, either. Isomorphic 04:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus (16 keep, 18 delete, 2 merge, 1 redirect). Robert T | @ | C 01:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Laurel Mountain Elementary School

I dont think a elementary school should be in wikipedia. Its non-notable --64.12.116.10 04:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think Wikipedia should have articles on some elementary schools. Summerhill, for example. I think we should have an article about Froebel's original kindergarten, and very likely the other historical kindergartens mentioned in the kindergarten article. I don't know where the oldest operating Montessori school in the United States is but it should have an article. We need something more discriminating than "keep all schools" or "delete all elementary schools." We should keep the ones that are encyclopedic and delete the ones that are not. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
where does it say that less than a high school is not notable Yuckfoo 18:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, right above in RJH's vote.--Isotope23 02:54, 11 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. Robert T | @ | C 01:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer Owen

nn musician, his website is a myspace page. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DO not delete! This guy is a genius as well as highly influential, albeit in a somewhat small group currently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.6.151 (talk • contribs)

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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 02:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cobb's Curve

This appears to be original research, and entering the article name into Google only returns two hits.  Denelson83  04:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep (I added a {{cleanup}} tag, though). Robert T | @ | C 02:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Corruption in Mumbai

POV rant. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. legitimate topic. Should move to Corruption in Mumbai --Vsion 05:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. Legitimate topic, extremely POV, looks like original research. Sadly, this may be the work of an earnest person on a crusade for the greater good. I hope the press picks up the issue. Better suited for a private website. Durova 05:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rant at present but needs some editing to get more matter of fact and neutral. That will take some time as i collect my thoughts and get time to edit the page. Anyway even if it is deleted, just let me know so that i save it somewhere else. Thanks.
  • This page may be relevant for tourists and foreign institutional investors. Unless these issues begin to be addressed, the increasing misgovernance will cause problems for future investors in the long run as crime and instability increase.User:Hiphop2 10 Nov 2005
  • Keep. It is highly POV but it only needs someone with knowledge in that area to fix it. A1kmm 10:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree. The article requires encyclopedic 'touch'. --Bhadani 13:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I think that this article proves to me one of the few measures to compile and distribute information on corruption amongst other Indians in general and thus remains as a trivial process in the eradication of it. I feel that the article shows what is done and the problems with it so that future generations can improve in the process. The article provides vital information to many people who, though they have a high loyalty to the Tiranga, are illiterate in this particular subject. Thus, I strongly state that this article should be kept at any and all costs. If, however, you do decide to remove this article, please contact me so that I can save a copy of it somewhere else. -- Koyla 20:55, 10 November 2005
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 02:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Epstein

Looks like a vanity biography. The two ostensibly important external links are in fact worthless. Delete User:Ethanepstein's autobiography.

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

The result of the debate was deleted as recreation of previously deleted material. - Mgm|(talk) 12:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OGZA

Vanity cruft. Should be a CSD but tragically isn't. Delete. — Phil Welch 05:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I first suggested to Delete. Somebody put a lot of work into it, but Wikipedia is not the appropriate home for it. It is an orphan page with no wiki links in or out and appears to be of no significance. Hu 05:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "failed" is confusing me. The original AfD seems to have succeeded because there was a unanimous vote to delete. Then it was supposedly deleted according to the page. Now it has reappeared. The vote was late October. But the article history shows the new one with title in all caps was created in September. Kill this zombie sucker and make it stay dead. Hu 05:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I see it as failing the vote if everyone votes to delete... I guess it's semantics. I'm not really sure what it means that this was voted to be deleted under a very similar name... if nothing else it sets a good precedent to vote Delete (again). --W.marsh 06:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was ambiguous. I count 3 clear "deletes", one "delete or merge", one straight "merge", one "keep or merge" and only one "keep as is" (the unsigned edit discounted). While the general concensus seems to be leaning toward a decision that the article should not remain independent, I am going to call this as a "no consensus" decision. My own opinion is that he probably does not meet the recommended criteria WP:BIO. I can't find anything in WP:CORP that would sway the decision, either.

What notability he has appears to be entirely derivative of his founding of the company. As an ordinary editor, I am going to merge and redirect this article to Squaw Valley Ski Resort, the company he founded. That article has plenty of room for expansion. I recommend that Cushing not be broken out into a separate article until the ski resort article gets very large. Rossami (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Cushing

Seems like one of several million businesmen on the planet. Vanity? Wouldn't be surprised. -R. fiend 05:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 02:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

James Monroe Grimes

Google has not heard of this person or his ministry. The referenced website indicates it has had 152 visitors. --Tabor 05:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete.  Denelson83  08:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kristin Cyr

Unverifiable, delete. ComCat 05:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus (merged), as I count seventeen delete votes and nine keep votes (plus an odd-man-out merge vote), with issues being confused by interpersonal disputes instead of discussion of the subject. While I don't see a firm consensus to delete this article, what I do see is a rather bare stub (that people were apparently unable to expand or reference during the AFD period), and a consensus to not have a separate article about this church.

As such, I have merged this very bare stub into Barrhead, with the edit history at Barrhead, Scotland. Please don't break this article out again unless you can expand it and add a claim of notability (or take this to WP:DRV). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

St John's Roman Catholic Church

UE, D. ComCat 05:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I feel certain that there is individuality and historical significance to this church, but this article is yet another attempt at getting Wikipedia to house the local Yellow Pages. No information in the article (that's what we're debating, and any vote that mentions "churches" as opposed to the article ought to be discounted as simply not applicable) indicates what is almost sure to be there. If a rewrite or a new article on the church explained its status, function, and place in history, it would be fine. As it is, not at all. Down with mass produced votes. Geogre 01:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: My vote is based on general principles applying to "churches", but nevertheless I have read the article and don't believe this particular church is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, nor that the content of the article needs to be included in Wikipedia. The closing admin should not discount any votes on the grounds that the voter claims to consistently vote either to keep, or to delete, articles about churches. --Metropolitan90 05:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I suspect that the number of members (5,300) is inflated because it is bigger than the population of the entire town (4,212). The surrounding communities have churches of their own, I checked. According to this source, church attendance in Scotland is about 11 percent. If that is the case here, the number has been overestimated by over ten times. Even if church attendance in town is significantly higher than average, it is still far lower than the number given, unless the church has a lot of members that travel from other towns. -- Kjkolb 01:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Are people sniffing glue? The article title is "St John's Roman Catholic Church," but the article (anyone read that?) says that it's not the name of the church. Supposing, however, that it were the name, how many other churches have that name? How many in New York City? How many in New York State? How many in New Jersey? How many in England? How many in South Africa? How many in Australia? The name collisions are inestimable. Wikipedia is NOT the Yellow Pages. Please, folks, get sane about this. I know you want every high school in the universe, including all home schools, to be included, but just think for a moment about what happens when you unthinkingly vote "keep OMG why are you nominating this!" on a misnamed, misplaced, empty article like this one. Geogre 01:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: as I am the only one who edited the nomination after you did, is your comment is about me or did you think of something to add later? I voted to delete the article, and the church's full name isn't relevant to my comment, only that it's the correct town. The article would need to be renamed to its full name, if kept, and I found a lot of churches named "Saint John the Evangelist", so if all the other churches are added, there would be a huge amount of disambiguation required. I think the church's non-notability is the reason it should be deleted, however. Sorry if I misunderstood you and as for my glue abuse, no comment. -- Kjkolb 02:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • By no means did I intend you. In fact, we were editing at the same time, so your comment wasn't visible to me when I made mine. I was reacting to the votes above that were repeats of those given whenever the voter thinks that the issue is "notability" and my suspicion that they are afraid that admitting that a particular church is an improper subject is going to transfer into a statement that a particular school is an improper subject. I was simply trying to remind folks that it's not the subject we assess, but the article (per my rant above). Geogre 11:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sniffing glue! That said, I'm pretty sure everyone else isn't, so please do be civil, eh? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 03:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd like to be. I really, really would, but this has been going on for two years now. When "consensus" gets inflated to be a requisite 80%, it only takes a couple of people who don't read the article but who vote on "principle" to get a vandal article kept. Folks mentioned that the nominator has a history of abuse. Is it possible that his nomination was not "let's get a good article deleted" but "let's get a bad article kept?" The fact that he's controversial means that folks need to keep a tight grip on their knees and not let them jerk so violently as to type a vote. Geogre 11:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. Amen, brother! - Dalbury (talk) 11:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Maybe you should just keep your own contentious, uncivil rants off the AfD pages. If you don't like the policies upon which WP is built (in this case, the AfD consensus policy) go whine about it somewhere else without insulting people that are voting their own philosophical position. You have absolutely no idea whether editors read the article, vote as blocs, or whatever else. And suggesting that "voting on principle" is somehow wrong is hypocritical, elitist, consdescending and rude. Your vote and rant is every bit as much a "vote on principle" as your largely irrelevant dissertations demonstrate. Referring to an editor's obvious good-faith contribution as a "vandal article" is a clear violation of WP:AGF.--Nicodemus75 16:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's funny. I have been here for long enough to watch "consensus," which actually isn't defined by policy, get informally increased from majority to 70% to 80% to near unanimity. I have been here watching and voting since VfD had a whopping 30 articles a day to now it's routine 170 a day. I have been part of defining policy for that long as well. Do I know if votes are bused? I certainly do. Do I know if voting on principle without regard for the article is incorrect? I certainly do. If you feel that my comments apply to you, then that is your business, but, given the fact that this church's membership is greater than the town's population, your conclusion that it is "obviously" good faith is as suspect as that article itself. Geogre 19:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Do I know if votes are bused? I certainly do. Do I know if voting on principle without regard for the article is incorrect? I certainly do." Please cite your evidence for these outrageous claims. You don't "know" anything. These are wild, uncivil, unsubstantiated charges that do not assuem good faith. I do not "feel that your comments apply to me", I am pointing out the absurd and unsupported nature of your ranting, whining charges. Please refrain from these offensive, uncivil rants particularly when flailing about what you "know" without citing any evidence whatsoever. Having, "been here watching and voting since... [whenver the hell you like]" doesn't make your unsubstantiated claims carry any more weight.--Nicodemus75 20:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please do not make personal attacks. They are against policy, and, indeed, harm your case considerably. I have seen the evolution of the trends that you are defending as policy, and I can tell you that they are themselves not policy. They are, in fact, counter to policy. Vote the article, per the name of the page: articles for deletion. Do not vote "churches" or "schools" or "notability is not in the guidelines" or "webcomix must stay" or "blogs must go" or anything except the article. That's clear enough, isn't it? Geogre 22:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment. I am distubed by an earlier vote in this discussion, where the editor said, "Incomprehensible nomination by a problem user. He/she shouldn't be encouraged." That did sound to me like the editor was basing his or her vote, at least in part, on who nominated the article. - Dalbury (talk) 16:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Del per the inestimable Geogre. encephalon 02:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Geogre... no individual claim to notability. If it housed a relic of the church or had some historical significance, I would vote differently, but as it stands, this is one of probably 100 (if not more) Roman Catholic Churches called "St. John's" and it isn't even as significant as the St. John's church in my old hometown.--Isotope23 03:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN. Serves schools? Now there's a stretch! Denni☯ 03:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article makes no claim to notability, and there must be hundreds of other churches by the name Saint John the Evangelist. Yamaguchi先生 03:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename more specifically to make room for articles on all Saint John's churches. Fg2 04:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Churches, unlike public schools, are private institutions. I can found a church in my back yard, or my mind only. There must be some notability bar. Article does not establish notability. Xoloz 16:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's a freaking church!  Grue  22:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverified --redstucco 09:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Churches are notable. This private/public definition is not at all useful in defining notability.--Mais oui! 13:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there are far too many churches to be listed on wikipedia. This one is not notable, and also there are probably thousands of other Roman Catholic churches out there called "St John's" (I can think of at least a dozen. --MacRusgail 13:36, 15 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 speedied as a copyvio. Ingoolemo talk 05:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hallahan

NN, D. ComCat 05:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus (11 keep, 11 delete, 4 merge). Robert T | @ | C 01:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Overstone Combined School

UE, D. ComCat 05:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_10&oldid=27894551"