Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 December 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Peachlette (talk | contribs) at 01:03, 12 December 2005 (Take Back UMass). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< December 11 >

Purge server cache

December 12

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, since such is the procedure after noone offers to translate, and noone offers to keep. -Splashtalk 00:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Message (Movie)

From WP:PNT, been there since Nov 16. Discussion from WP:PNT follows... Jamie 00:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks Arabic - not much else I can say or do. Schutz 16:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No it's Farsi. CG 21:04, 18 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 merged and redirected into Scrabble letter distributions. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scrabble letter values

Now successfully merged with Scrabble letter distributions, so can be deleted safely.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, since it was translated subsequent to all the deleters' comments. No prejudice to a nomination on other grounds in future. -Splashtalk 00:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Orang Sungai

From WP:PNT, been there since Nov 19. Discussion from WP:PNT follows... Jamie 00:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely Bahasa Indonesia/Malaysia. - splot 04:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is a strange one. It seems to be a discussion of two different ethnic groups, and then purports to prove that they are the same.... so can probably be deleted as it's not impartial. However, not all the words are familiar to me, and the locations mentioned certainly aren't, so a second opinion from someone who speaks Malaysian rather than Indonesian might be helpful.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 00:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Radio DGH

A hospital radio service of one UK hospital. Really stretching the limits of notability. JFW | T@lk 00:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 00:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Laws of happiness

Seems like some kind of joke. No explanation of notability. JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment. A reference is provided. If this exists, it may not be a hoax. JFW | T@lk 00:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The book citation is given as "Van, Bernard , et al. Happiness Quantified. Oxford University Press. 2005". There is a book by that title, but it is: Bernard van Praag and Ada Ferrer-i-Carbonell (2004-04-06). Happiness Quantified: A Satisfaction Calculus Approach. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-828654-6.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: year (link) — note the differences in the authors and the year of publication. Looking at the excerpts from that book that are available as tasters, it seems unlikely that it contains anything as superficial as these three laws, albeit that it is possible. Uncle G 00:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further note: There are books that explicitly address "the laws of happiness":
      • Jon Mundy (December 1998). The Ten Laws of Happiness. Royal Fireworks Publishing Company. ISBN 0880924535.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: year (link)
      • Ryuho Okawa (2004). The Laws of Happiness: Four Principles for a Successful Life. Lantern Books. ISBN 1-59056-073-6.
    • They appear to bear no relation to the content of this article. Uncle G 00:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, doesn't appear to be any AFD criterion by which this should be deleted. Stifle 00:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The citation in the references section has been corrected. Aerapmcheecephy 01:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense. --YixilTesiphon Say hello 01:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it seems the source has nothing to do with the content. ESkog | Talk 01:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable. Blackcats 02:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. Capitalistroadster 04:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nonsense trying to masquerade as OR. Eusebeus 09:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. From the article: Corollary: The change in the total happiness level of the universe is always zero.. I would like to add: the difference between a bird is 10... carotes. :-) Gtabary 12:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nonsense, whether the source agrees or not. How does one mathematically quantify 'happiness'?! StealthFox 22:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 wat's sup 00:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Folquet de Marselh

From WP:PNT, been there since Nov 19. Discussion from WP:PNT follows... Jamie

Romanian. Physchim62 (talk) 08:00, 19 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, but a merge is clearly needed. It's already tagged. -Splashtalk 00:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Porno Graffitti

The article is pretty much all song lyrics, has nothing to do with the band itself, and probably a copyright infringement by posting the lyrics on the article in the first place. Cernen 00:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 translated, it's an nn-bio. No prejudice to a recreation done properly. -Splashtalk 00:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Parellada Molet

From WP:PNT, been there since Nov 19. Also possbile nn-bio. Discussion from WP:PNT follows... Jamie

Spanish bio. Physchim62 (talk) 08:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There's not much to this one that's encyclopedic. Not sure he deserves an article. - Taxman Talk 21:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Spanish bio which has an obituary tone. Not very encyclopic. Will translate it if it's kept but don't think it is notable enough.--Dakota t e 23:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
initially translated, lacking a lot of context -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 20:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. The content looked like it could be merged into Contemporary culture of South Korea but it was just a copy-paste from a how-to guide. howcheng {chat} 18:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Business and Cultural Communication Styles in South Korea

Appears to be original research. Stifle 00:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: relisting 19/12/05, which in your star-time is still the 18/12/05. Something to do with the speed of light, I understand. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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'm going to move it to Laszlo Toth, however. And if'n I catch anyone removing AfD tags from an article still under discussion again, worl ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lazlo Toth, vandal

Does not appear to be notable. Possible merge to Pieta. Disputed nn-bio. Stifle 00:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC) Actually, delete and redirect per Eusebeus. Stifle 11:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -Splashtalk 01:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tydamonic Alliance

Uncited; I suspect it's a hoax. Tom Harrison (talk) 00:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete - Now some anonymous user has come in and added two "references" (unlinked, naturally) that have nothing to do with "Tydamonic Alliances". Someone is trying to hoax Wikipedia. Maybe they heard about the Seigenthaler thing and thought they could do it too. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 00:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 08:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Thy pitiless unmanning is most meet / Thinks Ercole, the zany Paraclete." Billbrock 10:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 00:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Take Back UMass

Non-notable student group. The relevent information has already been merged into University of Massachusetts Amherst. This page should be deleted. peachlette 01:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I knew that would probably get suggested. I just think it is incredibly unlikely that anyone will be looking up this organization. As you say, though, redirects are cheap. I wouldn't be opposed to that, I just see no reason to keep it around. peachlette 03:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is another reason why I would argue a redirect is preferred/required here: you say that the information has been merged into another article. Because of the GFDL, a merge requires a redirect - we can't delete the old page because the page history for the merged information goes with it. ESkog | Talk 05:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's reasonable. The only reason I merged it was to avoid upsetting its original author. I don't know that it even really belongs on the UMass page. I think the place for it is really the UMass wiki. peachlette 08:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_December_12&oldid=30992043"