Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 September 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
< September 20 September 22 >

Purge server cache

September 21

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Music City Academy

Doesn't appear to be very notable. And it looks an awful lot like advertising. Tuf-Kat 06:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of all-men bands

Here is a list with only 3 bands on the list and im suspitious about 2 of them. Listcruft Expand Greatly or Delete --Aranda56 00:22, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete (probably should have been speedied) --Doc (?) 22:15, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Penis Van Lesbian

Tagged as speedy and, whilst it ought to be, it isn't. Abstain with a giggle. -Splashtalk 00:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stryke

Vanity. Kushboy 00:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP as rewritten by User:Thivierr. — JIP | Talk 07:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barrier

Dicdef with definition already in Wiktionary. Kushboy 00:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE and damn the sock puppets. — JIP | Talk 07:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Superrooters

Delete. Appears to be a local club. Zero google hits and no indicia of encyclopedic notability. External link provided confirms this suspicion. -- BD2412 talk 00:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Save.Have heard of the superrooters, but they are considered an underground society with a great deal of sway at the university of adelaide, so there is unlikely to be anything publicised about them. -- JohnyChimpo talk 00:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

save. I've also heard about them, I went to adelaide university for 5 years and they're an important part of the culture of the university. Keep it up.

Vote actually by 203.166.5.68 (talk · contribs). Lord Bob 01:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Save the Rooters They exist, ask any recent graduate from Adelaide University, they'll all claim to have met a 'rooter.

Vote actually by 203.166.5.68 (talk · contribs). Lord Bob 01:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Save I'm dating one of the 'secret seven' and I can well and truly testify to the existence of the superrooters. I'm sure that me, and many other girls, can vouch for the worthiness of the superrooters.

Vote actually by Mvjansen (talk · contribs) again. Lord Bob 01:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Save I met a superrooter at Skullduggery, they're the real deal.

Vote actually by 203.166.5.68 (talk · contribs). Lord Bob 01:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unverifiable university group of which the article states "Not much is known about the club other than the fact that there were seven original members." BTW, root is Australian slang word for sex heightening my suspicion that this is a hoax. Capitalistroadster 01:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save Looks good to me. -Widdy ......... added to the top at 03:23, September 23, 2005 by 210.211.100.143
  • SAVE SAVE SAVE! The superrooters are alive and well. our most recent meeting was very 'roductive with the induction of a number of new members and a 'roposal for alliance with the COE. we do heaps of tops shit like skolling and bbqs,our choral subcommittee is also coming ahead in leaps and bounds. let us have no further discussion as to the deletion of Superrooters, we are alive and well with a 'romising future. - Danger ....added to the top at 09:43, September 22, 2005 by 61.68.227.7


Good Blokes You're all such good blokes, with, I imagine, heaps of cool friends, hot girlfriends and witty acronyms and jargon for everything. Not like the geeky limp dick poofs that you sound like. Boy the Buttslammers are really masterbating over the keyboard today.

SAVE'SAVE'SAVE'SAVE'SAVE'SAVE'SAVE'SAVE'SAVE'SAVE'SAVE'SAVE'SAVE'SAVE'SAVE

Vote by 202.20.20.129 (talk · contribs). Lord Bob 05:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notible. Jwissick 05:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Save and File this page This organisation has significant influence on the cultural identity of Adelaide University and its students and as such should be kept up. The influence of this club can be seen in their structured mentoring program for gifted individuals, which fosters intellectual, spiritual and physical growth. They are an active participant in many events and there are frequent references to them in community newspapers, street press and University communications. You don't have to spend long in Adelaide to hear a story about a good deed they've done or a function they've organised. This organisation has been involved in the running and organisation of the prestigious Cascade Cup. Including rowing to several notable victories. They are known to stand for the strict maintenance of rules and standards in inter Varsity 'rograms. Most of the comments posted above seem to come from well intentioned but illinformed users from the other side of the globe. I appreciate their input and it's understandable that patent attorneys from the US would have little understanding of the cultural significance of such an organisation. The page stays because it contributes positively to the World of knowledge that is Wikipedia. unsigned vote by: 165.228.46.130 (talk · contribs)

Save It is clear to me that this article should be well and truly retained. The use of the term 'sockpuppetry' which all you deleters despise is just xenophobia towards people of the wider community intruding in on your little world. How many people do you think actually spend all their time critiquing websites? It makes sense that anonymous users should vote for this article, as it refers to and is known by people whose main concern is not the internet, or let alone wikipedia. Furthermore, comments like 'unverifiable' really pertain to the effort applied and the access to such knowledge. A quick search on google, an american centric search engine, is hardly enough evidence to rule that something well known, significant and verifiable in the city of Adelaide Australia, doesn't exist. The enthusiasm of some of the'sockpuppets' while over done, is indicative of the very real existence and influence of this club. The article editor obviously thought that Wikipedia was a global repository of knowledge- which is not something that is only approved and seconded by a small esoteric community of close minded internet dwellers. unsigned vote by: 202.20.20.129 (talk · contribs)

I'm an Adelaidean and can safely say this is bullshit. Stop sock-puppeting.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 05:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Save. It's a good thing that the Cyberjunkie knows everything about Adelaide, bow down before the mighty intellect of the all knowing and wise Cyberjunkie who is so learned that he ended up at Flinders Uni. It's safe to say that the intellectual powerhouse that is Flinders has produced some well informed individuals over the years, but CyberJunkie must be foremost amongst them becuase he knows everything about Adelaide. I think it's safe to say that CyberJunkie hasn't bothered doing any research other than going to the comic book store or tapping away at the keyboard. If Cyberjunkie bothered asking around, or even looking in a few local publications, they'd see many references to this organisation. In fact only a few months ago they featured live on channel 7's sunrise program. I suppose when you are hacking the internet and deleting wikipedia articles all night, you don't get up early enough to watch morning TV. The sort of subjective generalisations that CyberJunkie is making are reason enough to delete everything he's ever contributed to Wikipedia, but since i'm not a vindictive busy body, I've got better things to do than conduct some sort of Cyber terrorism against legitimate encyclopedic content. It's safe to say that a little bit of knowledge(Flinders Uni) in CyberJunkie's case is a bad thing.

Vote, such as it is, by 203.166.5.68 (talk · contribs). Lord Bob 00:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the laugh! --Cyberjunkie | Talk 03:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable. --Ashenai 09:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The sockpuppets would be enough for me to vote this way, but the article itself doesn't merit inclusion anyway. Mindmatrix 16:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it's sockuppet bait, then there's probably a good chance it should be deleted regardless of content. This article doesn't even have that content, so it's pretty much dead. Karmafist 03:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • save. having met some superroots i can say they exist. although they are not as spectactular as they might like to beleive. also the history they give here is wrong because they were actually founded in 2002 in hobart by the originalsuperroots ..... added at 03:46, September 23, 2005 by 192.43.227.18
  • Save. There is no 'sockpuppetry' here. Simply people with a shared, and vested interest in preserving this small and untroubling reference to a society affiliated with the uni of Adelaide. Lord bob, professes "inclusionism" as one of his "wikibeliefs" but is seemingly determined to have this page removed thereby being decidedly "anti-inclusionist". Snowy ..... added at 10:58, September 23, 2005 by 220.238.247.203
  • Delete Not notable. There are thousands of university societies like this one. I'd be willing to listen to any rationale as to why this one is different, but until then there seems little reason to include this. —Zootm 11:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per sockpuppets. Owen× ☎ 18:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Junk infected with our friend sockpuppets that should meet Mr.Ban --Aranda56 01:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable. --A bit iffy 14:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable (and ignore the votes to Save if these sockpuppets can't figure out the correct form is Keep, they don't deserve to have their votes counted) -- Arthur Rubin 00:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this vanity/hoax quickly, please. -- Hoary 11:09, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Every 10 minutes

Trivial but not speediable.

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 09:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, and is trying to push a "popular opinion" (rather than describe what groups, organizations, and notable persons opinions are) through the use of a Wikipedia page. I would have no problem merging any information into existing articles, but most of it is already present in others. --Mrmiscellanious 01:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also: how in the world could this possibly be considered "not notable?" Penelope D 00:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 23:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

local yokel

This is an (inaccurate [1]) dictionary definition without a corresponding entry in Wiktionary. — Mateo SA | talk 01:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VideoBRIDGE

Advertising. -- RHaworth 01:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wombonger

unverifable neologism WCFrancis 01:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete, as per nom. ≈ jossi ≈ 17:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. Thryduulf 13:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Capri

How is this encyclopedia-worthy? There's plenty of porn directories on the net, Wikipedia doesn't need to be one. Also, listing her real name, residence, employer, and link to her blog seems like a great way to get this girl fired, harassed by stalkers or anti-porn zealots, etc. Her blog says she is unhappy with the extent of exposure she got. So she had a youthful lapse in judgement, one that she'll have following her for years. Wikipedia doesn't need to play a role in that. There's nothing of scholarly value in this page, and it seems unethical in the extreme to list some of this information in this context. -Murple

  • Keep, but perhaps remove some of the personal information. She is one of the most widely recognized names in Internet pornography (she claims to have been "the second most popular softcore ameture gal on the internet"). She discusses her nude modelling on her blog -- it's not like it's a secret. Pburka 02:11, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • AfD tag added yesterday but never listed, so I've listed it here.
Strong Keep - I'm pretty critical of notability, but Jordan Capri was at one time, and may still be for all I know, one of the most popular softcore models on the internet. Any judgement of her notoriety aside, that still is a pretty strong case for notability. As for is this encyclopedia worthy, I'd say yes in the context of Wikipedia. Look around... there are articles on Jenna Jameson, Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and GG Allin. This isn't the Britannica. As for the content of the article, Ms. real name has stated all these things in her blog. It's not like she is trying to hide the information or her identity. If this article posted her home address, phone number, or some other personal information that she herself had not posted on her public blog, I'd agree with you, but in light of the facts, there is no reason to delete this other than a distaste for the subject matter, which in my opinion is not merit enough for deletion.--Isotope23 02:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Remove everything unverifiable (i.e. nearly everything personal). Also see previous VFD: Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Jordan_Capri. Dragons flight 02:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Sorry, Murple. You may not approve of these types of entries, but the precedent has already been set, and Jordan Capri certainly passes the bar for notability. 23skidoo 04:10, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup: You might also want to wash after doing so. I don't like these kinds of articles, and I'd just as soon they all were deleted. But like 23skidoo says, the precedent is there, and there are plenty of others like it. — Cory Maylett 05:10, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pr0ncruft. Another undistinguished, interchangeable product of the sex industry. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. --Vsion 06:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep given that she is notable, I don't see how Wikipedia can really distinguish what ought to be censored on the basis of some people's moral objections. Avalon 06:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable porn performer of the Internet era. And performer bios like these typically feature birth date, birth name, and "what he/she is doing now", so I don't see the need to redact that information (but this is not the place for that argument). -- MCB 06:32, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable enough for me. --Apyule 06:35, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am real name Jordan Capri. I have been having issues recently with "fans" coming into my work. Just this past Monday someone came in asking for my autograph & said he found me on THIS site. First of all, on my MySpace page, I never gave my last name away nor the engraving shop's name, because I did not want people to find out my real name. This is a serious issue; I could have potential salkers, rapists, ect. now!! What if some crazed fan comes in, waits for me to leave late at night, then follows me home!? Since I found this thing I've been scared to death! Please delete it for the sake of my safety not to mention potentionally being fired from my jobs from the flood of phone calls/visits I've been receiving there. I'm begging you, please take this down. In all sincerely real name 10:04, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, real name may be genuine. --Apyule 06:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Also, I'll vouch for her authenticity, since I wrote her to tell her about this article and the fact that it had personal information such as her place of employment etc, and suggested she come and speak for herself. User:Murple
  • Keep. Notable model, solely responsible for her own career choices, with the same editing privileges as everybody else. TheMadBaron 10:34, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sorry Ms real name (assuming it is you), but you are/were notable and therefore we need to have a page on you, including your real name if we know it as this is a basic piece of information about someone (and is not a personal detail). -- Last Malthusian 10:53, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've deleted the personal information and think that it should be removed permanently from the article's history (is this possible?). Wikipedia is not the stalker/rapist's friend. That said, the article itself should be kept, for notability reasons listed above. Vizjim 11:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Only possible if someone keeps on top of the article, or it is locked from editing. I suspect this might turn into a fight over contenting, but I for one support your edits Vizjim.--Isotope23 18:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The problem many will not. I did a random sampling from the porn stars category and plenty have the real names. The thing is the Internet is a stalker/rapists friend; to be a public figure in this information age is to fight a losing battle for privacy. I did a basic search on Google for "Jordan Capri" and her real name and came up empty for the first fifty pages, which impressed me. We can try to do our part. - RoyBoy 800 19:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to scrub out her real name and personal info from the change history and from this AfD? If it is feasible then this might not be a bad idea. I'm not a big fan of censorship, but I can also see the point of view where she would not want her personal info splashed all over wikipedia. Of course with a page history the damage has already been done unless someone can scrub it out... The article itself should be kept as it has value in the context of other articles pertaining to the same subject matter, but in the interest of simple decency it might be a good idea to remove all reference to her real name, employment and the link to her blog from the history. Of course the article would almost have to be locked to prevent someone else from coming here and posting the info back on, but since she is apparently out of the industry, what more is there to say? nevermind... just looked at the article and it is possible.--Isotope23 14:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I vote strongly for deleting this article and similar ones... but if it must be kept, how's this for a compromise. Delete the article so the history disappears and the girl doesn't have to live in fear of some Wikipedia stalker tracking her down, and create a new one that only has the "relevant" information and not her personal information. It seems to me that if anything bad happened to this girl as a result of her info being listed here, Wikipedia would be potentially legally liable. As far as the excuse "well its in her blog"... her blog isn't being advertised with her Jordan Capri name, so it's not making the link between her identities that this Wikipedia entry did.
  • Keep per previous VfD, with personal info removed per Vizjim. Her real name does not need to be part of this article, and was not related to her modeling notability. If it were up to me, her real name would not appear in this AfD, even though she's apparently used it on a blog and in responding to its use here. Barno 14:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notabilitry os not related to morals ≈ jossi ≈ 17:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • <strikethrough>Delete - Porncruft. Not notable enough, and the agendas of some editors to endanger her life and wellbeing are deplorable.</strikethrough> --Golbez 18:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Editors have that agenda? Strong accusation. - RoyBoy 800 19:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why yes, yes it is. Changing vote to keep provisional on their edits remaining deleted. WP:SCHOOL, WP:MUSIC; WP:PORN? --Golbez 19:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is the "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". Yes, there's a lot of stupid articles, but we can't censorship anything. Knowledge is free,knowledge is global. Maybe we're sharing a little too much info, but that's the thing: info is for everyone ! Respect her privacy but also respect the free knowledge in wish Wikipedia is based on. We must keep Jordan's article. AT most, don't show her real name: she has a reason for hiding it.
  • Keep since her personal information has been removed and taken out of the history for both the talk and project page. -Parallel or Together? 11:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article, but remove all references to Jordan Capri's real name and her address. A delete/selective-undelete trick might be needed to remove those references from the history too. — JIP | Talk 11:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article does not assert notability in any way, other than listing her job. Having a job is not (yet) notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Nandesuka 12:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no reason why Wikipedia shouldn't have a sense of decency. It is supposed to be educational, not a free publicity channel for porn merchants. This article is of no use to anyone. CalJW 18:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are lots of naked people on the Internet, and I think that's a good thing. But there is nothing in the article that illustrates why this particular naked person is notable and encyclopedic. Gamaliel 20:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable.  Grue  10:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, she's very well known ··gracefool |☺ 18:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - I'm pretty critical of notability, but Jordan Capri was at one time, and may still be for all I know, one of the most popular softcore models on the internet. Exactly! and she's was crowned the 'queen of cute' how can that not be notable. also her pictures are still floating around the internet net as of today, and there's even less known "porn people" on wiki so leave it for informational purposes, but take out the personal information for her sake! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.132.125.101 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 28 September 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Justine Chan

I found this page months ago as a random article. I cleaned it up a bit and requested verification of the information. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find any evidence that this article is factual. I would love to be proven wrong, though. Pburka 01:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Motu (Omnipotent Being)

Hoax, nonsense, made up diety. Sadly, I don't quite see this as nonsensical enough to qualify as patent nonsense under speedy. So I guess the writers deserve a few days to argue that this god does exist and is notable... Dragons flight 02:04, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 23:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Perkins

not notable. Can't have a page for every public servant. Possible vanity. Whitejay251 02:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Abstain. "Craig Perkins" "Santa Monica" garners a respectable 130 unique google hits. He appears to have testified before a Senate committee. I'm not sure if this makes him notable or not. Pburka 02:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He's a municipal civil servant: unless he discovered a cure for cancer or won a Grammy in his spare time, not notable enough for an article. And I garner a respectable 83 unique Google hits and no way am I eligible for an article. --Calton | Talk 04:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Santa Monica has a distinctive and notable role in environmental policy, and Perkins is the point man for that role. I've expanded the stub. Chick Bowen 04:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The fact that he was at the helm when the organisation did something that might be significant is not a very good claim of notability. To assert notability we need information on something, anything he actually did to help Santa Monica win the lawsuit. As it stands the article is little more than "he exists, this is what he exists as, and he existed while this was happening". We need "This is what he does, and this is what he did while this was happening". --Last Malthusian 10:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I actually think your formulation--he was at the helm when the organisation did something that might be significant--is a pretty good statement of notability by Wikipedia's rather low standards (WP:NOT paper). We don't know which ideas were whose in meetings between Perkins, the mayor, and their lawyers. What we do know is that Perkins took credit in his testimony before the Senate, because he was in charge when it happened. I really don't see what's wrong with that standard. Chick Bowen 12:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 15:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Elliptical polarization

This stub is almost a dictdef; subject already covered at length and in detail in Polarization (elliptical polarisation is somewhat of a tautology, since all forms of polarisation may considered elliptical in electrodynamics, as the stub itself states). Consequently, this article should be deleted. NicholasTurnbull 02:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sherif Moussa

Non-notable. Unable to find this particular Sherif Moussa anywhere. The write up looks to be suspect. German shells in Paris streets is very unlikly and he would have been 3 years old at the most. CambridgeBayWeather 02:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nasty wing

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Before I Touch (Game)

Delete, as non-verifiable, contrived subject. The article even effectively admits that this is a game contrived for submitting as an article. --Mysidia (talk) 03:16, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP: merge and redirect. Paul August ☎ 23:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Liquid cooling for computers

This topic is already covered as a section with Watercooling. The article itself doesn't really add much in encyclopeadic terms other than describing the equipment that may be used. Delete - this is duplicated material that adds nothing new. Eddie.willers 03:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP The Land 19:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Caesarean text-type

The title says nothing about the article - the article fails to explain the title. Delete as jibberjabber. Eddie.willers 03:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 17:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Roadway Services

This is a sub-stub whose inclusion perfectly illustrates the need to explain: where; when; why; whom etc in an article that is to be considered encylopaedic. Delete unless someone can quickly provide answers. Eddie.willers 03:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was MOVE and REDIRECT. Paul August ☎ 00:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Cahmbers

This character page replicates material given in much more depth at The Dark Tower (series). No need for redirect since pagename is misspelled. Delete Chick Bowen 03:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. (The transwiki suggestion seems...wide of the mark.) So I'm going to be an editor and redirect it. -Splashtalk 00:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kugersput

Is this the funniest deletion in the world? There is sufficient encyclopaedic coverage in 'Funniest joke in the world' link referenced here so what expansion or cleanup is possible? Delete and laugh about it. Eddie.willers 03:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 17:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rock songs plaigarized from other rock songs

Offers no proof, not NPOV. Its useless, pointless nonsense Jack Cain

  • Comment: this needs to be renamed, cleaned up, and end up as something like Famous plagiarism cases in popular music, where the bright-line criterion for inclusion is a court ruling. -- MCB 04:23, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It's hard to take an article seriously when the main word is consistently misspelled. In any case, unless the claims are substantiated, accusations of plagiarism are slanderous. Stating in a public forum that someone is a thief isn't a good idea. If the article is kept, it should be reworded, as MCB said. — Cory Maylett 04:43, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and do what MCB says. --Apyule 06:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless I can see some court cases or confessions on the part of the "guilty" party. Since songs are copyrighted, plagiarism is illegal and should have led to a legal process. If it didn't, the "victim" probably couldn't prove it himself, making it highly dubious as "fact". Usrnme h8er 08:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A court did find that George Harrison's "My Sweet Lord" plagiarised "He's So Fine" by The Chiffons, but I'm not convinced that either song counts as "rock". I couldn't comment about the other songs named, but successful plagiarism cases concerning popular music are surprisingly rare... it seems doubtful that there's much potential for a worthwhile article on the subject. In any case, this piece, for all the reasons above, would not be a strong basis for such an article. TheMadBaron 11:16, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Delete - I support the idea set forth by MCB, but at this point there is nothing of value in this article that could be built upon. I can see some value in the subject matter though and my opinion is that it would be better to write up a Famous plagiarism cases in popular music article from scratch. There are several cases not mentioned here (like Led Zeppelin's Lemon Song) where songwriting credits were belatedly granted. A decent article could be written if someone wants to take the time to do some research--Isotope23 14:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with Isotope23. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. First, because of the word "rock" in the title. People will just add other sorts of songs and then fight over whether it's rock or not, rather than on the evidence of plagiarism. Second, because it is doubly specific in that sense — what if a rock song is taken from another non-rock song? Third, because this kind of information does not stand usefully alone: mention the fact in the subjects' articles where it will have context rather than extracting random bits of information into yetanotherlist. Better, write a proper article on plagiarism in popular music, and put some effort into talking about the questions that were/are raised, the progress of the court cases, the implications of law and jurisdictions, and digital rights management. Lists when there could be articles are excuses for not doing the encyclopedic job thoroughly. -Splashtalk 22:53, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splashtalk 00:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cromer high

Sigh - yes, I know there are other schools listed but, really, do we have to consider the alleged worthiness of every provincial state sinkhole in existence?? Delete. Eddie.willers 03:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmmm. Notable staff? Nope. Notable students? Uh-uh. Notable location? No. Special programs? Nein. Historical noteworthiness? Apparently not. Serves a unique clientele? Only if the locals are. Any Earthly reason for keeping this article? Can't think of one. (Unless, "oh, but it's a school " counts.) Delete. Denni☯ 01:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 17:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gang Band

Not noteworthy, likely a vanity page. Malo 03:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's because they feel Wiki is a way to get free publicity. Many people browse these pages everyday, who's to say someone might not stumble upon their (say a record label exec), though I'd doubt any serious record label would look for anyone on here. PRueda29 07:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. -- RHaworth 06:16, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cuban CHino

non-notable bio NeilN 04:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You should have moved them. It took me a while to work out what was happening. -- RHaworth 06:16, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED. That was just a platform for the single external link. -Splashtalk 22:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Social networking services

Looks like an ad NeilN 04:11, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Xidicone P/L

Advertising Dismas|(talk) 04:45, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splashtalk 01:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hialeah Gardens Elementary School

Fails to establish any notability. Dismas|(talk) 04:51, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Keep: Despite this school's "butterfly garden," elementary schools are inherently non-notable (unless your kid goes to school there). — Cory Maylett 04:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You know, after visiting the Miami-Dade County Public Schools article I've pretty much changed my mind on this. When viewed by themselves as stand-alone entries, elementary school articles certainly seem like non-notable trivia. But when viewed as one of a collection of sub-pages, of sorts, for large school districts, the aggregate value does become important. For example, for someone moving a family to Miami, a comprehensive set of important details on the schools in the area could be a valuable resource. This kind of detail might be impractical in a print encyclopedia, but Wikipedia isn't print. — Cory Maylett 17:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:if you think this serves no purpose I think you should also conseder deleting the other Schools Listed on the Miami-Dade School District page.--Iknothetrth 05:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like I've got my work cut out for me then. Dismas|(talk) 05:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Schools are no more notable than apartment buildings. And Wikipedia isn't google - visit the Miami-Dada school district site if you are looking for information about schools there. Bunchofgrapes 18:34, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the reasons well articulated at Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Silensor 19:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No basis for deletion. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Please do something useful instead. CalJW 21:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, schools are notable, bad faith mass nomination - Wikipedia is not paper. Who gave Dismas his janitorial barnstar??? Unwarranted time wasting effort to remove all elementary and middle schools from Wikipedia. KillerChihuahua 23:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep whoever gave it to them made a big mistake. like Cory Maylett said, "...for someone moving a family to Miami, a comprehensive set of important details on the schools in the area could be a valuable resource..." for this sole purpose the article should not be removed. I beleive further Discussion of this Topic is unnescessary if most of you who say Delete would have read the Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep you would have seen that it says "Schools are not donut shops, traffic lights, or telephone books, they're where we spend a large proportion of our waking lives, where we learn to be adults, gain skills and make friends. They play a large part in determining what kind of society we have." which means SCHOOLS ARE CONSIDERED NOTABLE!--Iknothetrth 23:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While schools amy not be donut shops, neither are they cathedrals, art galleries, ancient artifacts, or lost treasures. Because we have memorable experiences in schools does not make the institution itself memorable, and the real fact is that the vast majority of students attending a school have only vague recollections of it years later, a fact especially true for elementary schools. if Iknothetrth had continued reading the arguments for and against school articles, s/he would have seen the point that "Rows of things performing identical functions are not responsible for nor creditable with the individual experiences of that function." It is the people in schools who "play a large part in determining what kind of society we have": people who fail speedy deletion criterion A7 and would not even make it to AfD. Cory Maylett says "for someone moving a family to Miami, a comprehensive set of important details on the schools in the area could be a valuable resource". I think "could be" is warranted here. This school article, like just about every one that comes this way, is devoid of any useful information about the school except possibly for the external link. This article has no information about possibly notable instructors, possibly notable students, possible special or exceptional programs, any historical noteworthiness, not even how many students it serves. If I were looking for an informative article from Wikipedia about a school my son or daughter might be attending, I would surely be disappointed with this one. Bring out the hook. Denni☯ 01:50, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All Elementary Schools --Aranda56 01:43, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article fails to establish notability. --Carnildo 03:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article about verifiable public institution and censure nominator for disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. --Gene_poole 04:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 17:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Substance is Moot

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 01:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sutherland global services

Advertisement/spam. --Blackcap | talk 05:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus. As there's no votes to keep, I guess it makes sense to redirect, being bold, not as an admin. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Charles Martin Nash

Not notable except for being the son of a famous father. Google hits are from Wikipedia mirrors, and other sites only have 1-liners about him saying he is John Nash's son. Jay 05:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splashtalk 01:01, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ada Merrit Elementary School

Non notable school Dismas|(talk) 05:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED. — JIP | Talk 06:35, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kailim "Kublai" Toy

Non-notable school teacher. I previously speedy deleted it but it has been recreated. Delete. — JIP | Talk 06:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splashtalk 01:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Air Base Elementary School

Non notable elementary school Dismas|(talk) 06:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When the article came up for deletion it was the usual trite stub with address, principal and school mascot. The paragraph on desegregation was added only after the article was nominated. Articles are judged on their own merit, and if they fail they end up here. The author should be slapped with a big fish for for doing poor research, not the nominator. Pilatus 14:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-another un-notable school. Dudtz 9/29/05 6:11 PM EST

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Woodstock, Portland, Oregon

It's a business directory. If someone wants to replace it with real encyc info, thats OK. Full disclosure: My neighborhood has its own article, but its not a standard houses-and-shops neighborhood. Jason McHuff 06:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I'm sure there are reliable sources on many of the neighborhoods on earth. Certainly, census and economic data is probably available. I know for a fact that crime-related information is provided on the internet on the Woodstock neighborhood (and every other neighborhood in Portland, Oregon). Much of this information is probably encyclopedic. The real question here would be how to go about including it, if that's what we want to do: Give each neighborhood a separate article, or include such information in city pages? -Seth Mahoney 07:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, neighborhoods appear to be unknown to the US census. [6] In very many areas, "neighborhoods" are not well defined entities that enjoy official status. (Portland, Oregon appears to be exceptional in this respect). For example, {{Houston,_Texas}} seems confusingly and somewhat arbitrarily divided into "neighborhoods", "districts", and "communities", which overlap or are given contradictory locations (e.g. article on Little Saigon locates it along western Bellaire boulevard, while citing as support a source that describes its location in Midtown, a completely different part of town.) Whether a location is Montrose, or Neartown, or Museum District depends on who you ask. What constitutes a neighborhood can be highly subjective... so a goal of an encyclopedic article for every neighborhood on earth seems to be a strech. --66.101.59.18 09:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splashtalk 01:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Autocunnilingus

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splashtalk 01:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amelia Earhart Elementary School

Non notable elementary school. Dismas|(talk) 06:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splashtalk 01:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arcola Lake Elementary School

Non notable elementary school. Dismas|(talk) 06:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splashtalk 01:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Auburndale Elementary School

Non notable elementary school Dismas|(talk) 06:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splashtalk 01:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Avocado Elementary School

Non notable elementary school Dismas|(talk) 06:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes we are. Usrnme h8er 08:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As long as articles on no-name schools keep appearing, so are we doomed to keep nominating them for AfD. Please can you not appreciate that well-written articles on worthy schools will be kept without hesitation, but brainless one-liner articles will forever be rejected by those with sense. Denni☯ 00:54, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Another non-notable school. Dudtz 9/29/05 6:43 PM EST

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

The result of the debate was Redirect to Sabrina the Teenage Witch (sitcom). Redwolf24 (talk) 01:44, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Roxie King

This, along with Morgan Cavanaugh and Miles Goodman are articles about minor characters from Sabrina the Teenage Witch (sitcom)...I merged the info to the article about the show, so no info will be lost Paul 07:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Redirect to Sabrina the Teenage Witch (sitcom). Redwolf24 (talk) 01:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Cavanaugh

This, along with Miles Goodman and Roxie King are articles about minor characters from Sabrina the Teenage Witch (sitcom)...I merged the info to the article about the show, so no info will be lost Paul 07:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Redirect to Sabrina the Teenage Witch (sitcom). Redwolf24 (talk) 01:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Miles Goodman

This, along with Morgan Cavanaugh and Roxie King are articles about minor characters from Sabrina the Teenage Witch (sitcom)...I merged the info to the article about the show, so no info will be lost Paul 07:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus. Yes, it was a mighty battle, the Deletes had the advantage, but the Keeps came back. </melodrama>. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DoYouDo

Not notable. Delete. - brenneman(t) (c) 07:22, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that.. Something fishy is going on here... read the anon users history and user talk listings.... Jwissick 00:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot going on that's fishy. Among other things, an anon user deleted a bunch of text from this VfD page, most of which was ostensibly from a different anon user. See this page's edit history. These deletions left some of the remaining comments rather out of context. It hardly seems worthwhile to go back and re-integrate the deleted text at this point, however, since it seems obvious that the article is going down. --RoySmith 04:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; spam. Loganberry (Talk) 23:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator, with prejudice when it starts showing up again in other places. Nandesuka 03:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not promotional, has 3rd party coverage. "San Mateo-based doYOU2.com is expected to give MatchNet key competitive advantage as its matchmaking sites grow and become relationship portals, while also opening Match Net up to a younger audience." [8], also covered in Business Wire Kappa 12:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as re-written. --Carnildo 21:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Reviewed the small re-write and the two links provided. No change in opinon: It's a idea that's cute but failed to go anywhere and recieved zero attention outside this page and the patent office. Thus still delete as not notable. - brenneman(t)(c) 00:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Merge and redirect to Anonymous matching. I logged onto eCRUSH yesterday to see what that's all about. It seems identical to the system described in the DoYouDo patent, and eCRUSH is mentioned in the 2002 MatchNet annual report. See Talk:DoYouDo. I am trying to figure out, though, if the "proprietary and patented" process they use refers to DoYouDo's patent. In any case, if the stats eCRUSH claims[9](1.6 million registered users; 350,000 matches) are accurate, then the idea's notability and success are beyond dispute. DoYOU2.com's implementation was flawed, but it's just plain incorrect to say the idea "failed to go anywhere." 205.217.105.2 12:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: this is the creator of the article referred to above by Wahoofive and CesarB [10]. In the future, please refrain from deleting votes and comments on active debates, even your own, it makes them confusing and requires information such as this to be reposted. A simple strikethrough works fine. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I was having trouble making up my mind until the eCRUSH info came to light, and I didn't want my struckthrough comments to prejudice other people's votes. 205.217.105.2 20:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why are you voting Keep on this article for a non-existant company based on the fact that a different company is similar?
          brenneman(t)(c) 00:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • The editor is countering your comment that the company's idea "failed to go anywhere". That a very similar method is used by eCRUSH is relevant to assessing the notability of DoYouDo. Innovations that turned out to be complete dead ends would be less notable. We should have an article on an innovative company that once existed independently but has now been acquired by another (e.g., Avalon Hill). JamesMLane 02:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sorry, but that's not even consistent with the facts presented in the article. A third company bought this with pretend money one based upon perhaps acquiring the already existant eCRUSH at some later date. Don't muddy the waters. - brenneman(t)(c) 02:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • I know it was a third company. MatchNet acquired DoYouDo, while a different company eCRUSH, is using "a very similar method", as I wrote. It goes to the notability of the general subject area. I'll confess, however, that I would've voted "Keep" even without the eCRUSH information. JamesMLane 05:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not the most important company in the world, but some readers might want information about it. This article isn't some promotional rehash of the company's brochure. JamesMLane 07:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, how is this spam? ··gracefool |☺ 19:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Interesting... --Sebastian Kessel Talk 23:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. --fvw* 21:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This user is quite active within a very small scope. I find it very hard to continue to WP:AGF with regards to what is or is not advertising here. - brenneman(t)(c) 23:43, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not evidence of advertising. My style just happens to be that I focus attention on a particular subject until the project is complete. That is how I wrote four featured articles (although I think it would be tough for this subject to reach that level). Just to clarify for the record, User:205.217.105.2 and this IP are the same user. 24.54.208.177 00:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know this is not particularly germane to the AfD discussion, but you might consider registering a real user name. This will make it easier for people to communicate with you, and be less confusing all around. Also (whether it is justified or not), people tend to give less weight to comments left by anonymous users. --RoySmith 00:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, well, creating an account works well in the long run, but in the short run, it looks like a sockpuppet. Moreover, I keep telling myself, "I'm done with this wiki; let me just make this one last edit" but then I end up posting more stuff, yet never starting an account. So that explains the anon edits. True, I did change my mind a couple times about the notability of my own article, but that was because I was doing research and learning more information. Some new info I gathered made it look non-notable, and then further info made it look notable again. So that (partially) explains why I changed my vote. The other thing was that I changed my mind about certain comments, and also got offended at people calling my article "spam" and "just crap," and responding to my comments with what I regarded as ad hominem attacks, so I decided to remove those comments. So that explains the removed comments. I guess when people see unusual behavior, they tend to assume the worst, but in this case it was just eccentricity and ambivalence. There is a little more to it, but you probably would find those other aspects of the situation incredible. 24.54.208.177 01:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ah, I'll tell you anyway, to clear the waters. My name is Nathan Larson and I have been a Wikipedian since around October 2004, and written numerous articles, including jujyfruits, baylisascaris, Piedmont Geriatric Hospital, and four featured articles. For a long time, I was toying with the idea for an anonymous matching system, and a few weeks ago, I finally decided it was time to implement it, and went about looking to patent it. In the course of my search, I stumbled across DoYouDo's patent, which was startlingly identical to my idea. Defeated, I gave up but decided to use the information I had gathered to write a Wikipedia article, so at least my research work would benefit the public. Then my article was put up for deletion and I naturally voted "Keep," because I found the idea intriguing. Around that time, I was gathering information (e.g. looking at the internet archive of the failed website DoYOU2.com) that made the company seem less notable; moreover, in the course of my research for the article, I exchanged emails with Gil Sudai, who offered to help me get in touch with the owners of the patent and arrange to purchase it. In an effort to reduce publicity that might bid up the price, I changed my vote to "Delete." However, I then found out that eCRUSH, having introduced their own version of Sudai's system in February 1999, which was prior to the September 1999 registration of the patent, had been grandfathered in and therefore was able to run their competing (and dominant in the market) system without licensing the patent. That made the patent seem less attractive to me, and at the same time, I also realized that eCRUSH's success made the system DoYouDo implemented seem more notable, because it had been tried by another company successfully and thus wasn't just an idea that never caught on. So, I had a mix of selfish and unselfish motives, but the end result was the same, and that's how we got where we are. 24.54.208.177 02:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As stated earlier, the editor's removal of earlier comments have made this discussion page hard to read, and have also downplayed his earlier zeal, which really did make this seem like an SEO/advertising push. I agree with Brenneman that with all of his antics going on here (he first protested the deletion, then came back and said that the article should be deleted [11], and then removed all of his comments, and is again pushing to keep or merge the article), it's beyond the regular assumption of Good Faith. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 01:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this point, it doesn't matter much even if it is deleted. The information contained therein will be preserved indefinitely in the history page of anonymous matching, which users can access by means of this link: [12]. This ensures that the information will always be available to users who need it. Only a developer can remove that entry from the history page, and to do so would violate the GFDL, which requires that the history remain intact. You will have to AFD anonymous matching if you want to get rid of it. 24.54.208.177 02:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Comment on suggested merger

  • This company is part of the history of this form of matching, but, because it was acquired, it's no longer a player (at least in its own name). Therefore, the current treatment in Anonymous matching is appropriate for that article: just a few lines about the company's role. The detailed information about the history of this particular company would be clutter in that article. It should be kept as a separate article, here, so that the information isn't lost. JamesMLane 00:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except that article was created by and only edited by the same user. brenneman(t)(c) 02:05, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • So what? The issue isn't assessing any particular user's conduct. The issue is what arrangement of the information will best serve the reader. For detailed background on a particular pioneering company in this field, the choices are: put it in an article about the company (linked to from the article about the field and from the article about the company that acquired the pioneer); include it in one of those other articles, where it would be clutter; or suppress the information entirely. I consider the first option to be the most useful for our readers. JamesMLane 18:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except that: A) It's hardly "pioneering" as the idea already existed and was being used. Getting a patent doesn't make you a pioneer. and B) It's not a "company" in any sense outside the most legalistic, and never was. Did ever have any employees? Did it ever have an office? Did anyone ever sit in a DoYouDo cubicle and sob silently at the utter mundane hell of their existance?
      brenneman(t)(c) 22:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The extent of cubicle sobbing and other such information can be included in the article. The issue for AfD isn't how much moral credit the corporation deserves as a pioneer, but whether it's notable enough that readers might want to know more about it. From that point of view, the issuance of a patent is relevant. JamesMLane 08:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. mikka (t) 16:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet propaganda during World War II

I am absolutely amazed how the community turns the blind eye onto something that it really likes. The article as 100% original research. Period. The cleanup would amount to its total deletion, with the exception of quotations, since all discource is nonverifiable. mikka (t) 16:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 01:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Victorian Fairies

Not Noteworthy, a mere 17 google results, Amazon carries this book (ranked #424,415 in book section), however one of the user reviews is this exact article. Delete Malo 07:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

actually this article predates the supposed Amazon user review by about two months, but that just raises more questions as to it's true source. My guess is that it is not original to Amazon or WP. Malo 08:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm more than a little suspicious - as Malo says, this same review is on Amazon's site. The reviewer has a single title to his credit with a review that cries out "copywriter". I really would like to feel a little more confident about the source of this text. But it may be a moot point: its Amazon rank shows this to be an obscure title at best, and as a new title, cannot claim any notability. Denni☯ 02:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - obviously blurb from somewhere else. --MacRusgail 17:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Calypso (software system)

For one, it's an unheard of system, and hence not noteworthy, for two this is shamely self promotion because the user name happens to be the same person who makes this product. Hence advertisement, check http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/db/DOdbs/Jobs/info/122.html and the user name of page history. Delete Malo 08:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete thinly veiled attempt at advertising. If the article can be expanded to neutrally source the "majority of AusNZ market" and discuss the factual information of the software, then it's a maybe. It should be noted, though, that Googling Calypso Travel Software (the deal in question is for the travel agent industry) finds CAD and PGP software before this one. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 14:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, basically adspam unless and until references are provided for that rather inflated sounding claim. Also, the fact that Google picks up others first pushes this further down the notability league. -Splashtalk 23:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedied. android79 14:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln Bertelli

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splashtalk 01:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Pozefsky

  • Delete Vanity, the person is not notable abakharev 11:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete- There is a fair amount of information available about Ms. Pozefsky on the internet, but I'm not sure anything she has accomplished really moves her past the threshold of being a nn-bio. Could go either way and I'd welcome someone to post some links that establish notability. Based on the article and what I've seen in my brief research I'm voting to delete.--Isotope23 15:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, mirror of cv. --Vsion 18:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided. Quoted in "Rural District Catches Up," InformationWeek. Manhasset: Mar 26, 2001., Iss. 830; pg. 54 and "IBM Gives Its Multivendor Network Plan the Hard Sell," Network World. Framingham: Nov 30, 1992. Vol. 9, Iss. 48; p. 2. There also (sadly) seems to be something slightly notable about a woman earning a Ph.D. in computer science in 1979. I may be able to hunt up some more info to add to the article . . . Crypticfirefly 03:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)Keep, Fred and Konrad have convinced me. Crypticfirefly 02:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP This person is an exceptionally successful woman in Computer Science. Highly unusual. She is 1 of approximately 185 IBM Fellows. She is a student and friend of Fred Brooks [14], she is a tenured professor at one of our nation's best Computer Science Universities. She promotes women in engineering fields, she is active in the community (locally and nationally), her career to date easily warrants inclusion. Couple this with her gender and I am stunned this is even up for consideration. She is a well known engineer and exceedingly well respected among her peers. Women in engineering is of the utmost important. There are very few role models for women Dr. Diane Pozefsky is just this. She is leaving an indelible mark on Computer Science. AaronRoe 16:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete 2 I find it difficult to believe that an article such as The_Banner (first result using the 'Random Article' link) can be kept and considered notable information, and yet a short biography of one of the few existing IBM Fellows (no easy feat to achieve) is considered vain and unimporant. Time and again as I randomly browse Wikipedia I come across entries about obscure, fictional people, places, and events (all of which add to Wikipedias touted 700k+ articles) and when I finally do encounter an article about an interesting, non-fictional person, it is put up for deletion. If articles are going to be deleted based on importance, then surely the Wikipedia database will be cut at least in half as I hope the previous examples demonstrated. As stated in your guidelines, Wikipedia "is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information" and the line between what should and what should not be in this encyclopedia is hazy. However if you are deleting articles that are deemed unimportant, frivolous and fictional articles should be trimmed first before real world facts. Dr. Pozefsky is an inspirational individual and an excellent mentor. Her entry into the database is a worthy addition with lots of room for expansion. Konrad
  • Keep. Her 14 patents alone should account for notability. I'd rather spend the space and bandwidth on articles like this than on wrestlers and Pokemon characters. Owen× ☎ 19:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ··gracefool |☺ 19:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 17:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ORMUS

Anti-gravity properties. Super-conducting at room temperature. Philosopher's stone. Pseudo-science, crank, fake - surely? -- RHaworth 11:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response from author: At issue here is wether a discovery which has yet to be validated by the scientific community is indeed Pseudo-science or a discovery with merit that has yet to be validated by the scientific community and become part of common knowledge.

I argue that the entry should be allowed to facilitate discussions in this regard. It is possible that ultimately, the claim will be dismissed as fraudulent and the entry for ORMUS may then show this fact to the benefit of everyone. Alternatively, a new branch of physics is about to open up. Without this entry, neither of these results are possible. User:freddie10538 21 September 2005

Note from Author: I concede and note the above points. If I were a physicist instead of just a high-school grad... :-)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP mikka (t) 03:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Polonism

  • STRONG DELETE! This article contains only POV's. It is absolutely wrong. No need to keep it in an encyclopedia.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.89.66.2 (talk • contribs) .

  • Keep; It clearly states antipolonism is a term to describe hostility towards Poles. Just because it's wrong doesn't mean we shouldn't have an article about it. If it contains POV then fix it. There's enough NPOV there to keep it. - Mgm|(talk) 11:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, obviously significant. Ugly malformed nomination too (since fixed). --Last Malthusian 11:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing my vote to a simple keep because the article does have issues, I initially assumed the nomination was in bad faith from an editor who did not like the way the article was going: however, I do not believe that they are sufficient to just give up on editing the article to standard and throw the whole thing in the wastebin. -- Last Malthusian 12:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This will, of course, get voted down and the article will return to the messy, un-working status quo. I'm voting delete because I feel the POV is systemic enough that this needs to be scrapped and replaced with a better descriptor and NPOV content. From the second paragraph: "It should be noted that the term anti-Polonism has not found wide currency in the English language...To the extent that people believe that Poles, Polonia and Poland continue to be treated as objects of ridicule, discrimination and exploitation, "anti-Polonism" and the kindred term "Polonophobia" may enter more widespread use." Think through the logic of this for a moment. It's a senseless justification for what is effectively a neologism. Marskell 11:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Any valid content can go elsewhere, or already has; the title is inherently POV; and the term is not standard. --rob 12:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)update added: I just learned now, that there was a prior Keep vote. I'll respect precident and abstain. --rob 13:50, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This was already voted on.The result was keep. " From the second paragraph: "It should be noted that the term anti-Polonism has not found wide currency in the English language.." Why not following sentence ? . It has, however, appeared in some scholarly works ([1])and is listed as subject in Polish National Library index[2] Btw your changes are wrong since it is in the dictionary in Polish National Library.You removed that sentence. Also they are scholary works on the issue:

  1. Eduard v. Hartmanns Schlagwort vom "Ausrotten der Polen" : Antipolonismus und Antikatholizismus im Kaiserreich / Helmut Neubach. Mit einer Vorbemerkung von Gotthold Rhode. Stiftung Martin-Opitz-Bibliothek. [Hrsg.: Kommission für die Geschichte der Deutschen in Polen e.V.]
  2. Koch, Angela, Ph.D. Student Institut für Kunst- und Kulturwissenschaften, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Germany * The Relationship of Antipolonism and Sexism in German History (1870-1933/45)
  3. Marike Werner: Welches Geschlecht hat die Nation? Antifeminismus und Antipolonismus in deutschen Romanen nach 1918, in Zwischen Kriegen, Nationen, Nationalismen und Geschlechterverhältnisse in Mittel- und Osteuropa 1918-1939, hrsg. von Johanna Gehmacher, Elizabeth Harvey und Sophia Kemlein,Einzelveröffentlichungen des Deutschen Historischen Instituts Warschau, Band 7 ISBN 3-929759-48-9

--Molobo 13:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC) As you can see the word exists in Polish dictionary of Polish National Library as subject.It also exists in scientific works. --Molobo 13:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I didn't list the full paragraph for brevity's sake; it's a nay (no mention in English dict's) and a yay (one mention National Library) anyhow.
  • There is redundancy with the previous VfD—I didn't nominate here, incidentally—but that isn't going to cause me to change my vote. One keep result yes, but also nine months worth of talk to the effect "something must be done about this page." Any serious attempt to do something gets hijacked by a handful of editors pushing a POV. And yes, it is POV. We should rename it Germans murdering Poles for accuracy's sake. Marskell 15:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please you are trying for a second time to delete this using arguments "this is a bullshit". You are neither serious or credible. --Molobo 17:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This article is the most extreme POV I have seen at Wikipedia. Not sure if it can be fixed. However, this is not a reason for deletion, as wrong as its content may be. Groeck 23:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong delete! Dear Groeck, of course this is a reason for deletion! A encyclopedia HAS TO BE NEUTRAL! Anja.
  • Keep. The article just survived a VFD. However, while there are some valuable informations, the article is in serious need of NEUTRAL editors. Also, since "Anti-Polonism" is a made-up word the article should be renamed. -- Chris 73 Talk 08:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete! Roksana.

" Also, since "Anti-Polonism" is a made-up word the article should be renamed." If you would read the article you would know that the word is used in foreign ( nonpolish) scientific works, and is listed in Dictionary of Subjects of Polish National Library.--Molobo 11:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As the National Library Dictionary is mentioned and the content of the article with regard to this case, it must be noted that also
  • the term...does not appear in major English-language dictionaries
  • LexisNexis shows it to have been used rarely in English-language dailies or magazines within the past 10 years
  • its Polish counterpart "antypolonizm" does not occur in major Polish dictionaries and encyclopedias.
The first two pieced of information are in the article. The last one has been silently erased even though it was verified [15] [16]. Despite this, my personal view is that the points mentioned by Molobo are enough to keep the title in Wikipedia at least as a redirection. Alx-pl D 19:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the word is used in scholary works, is listed in Polish dictionary of subjects in Polish National Library, is reckognised by Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs and studies have been made on the issue.

--Molobo 11:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • STRONG DELETE! No real proof, only POV's. An encyclopedia has to have some proofs! Justin.
  • Keep I have been following this debate for quite a while; I see no reason for the entry to be deleted. Edited? Probably. Silenced? Definitely not. Pius Aeneas 22:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG DELETE! Neutrality disputed! Kazimierz.
  • People who are saying delete need to re-examine policy. POV is a reason for cleanup, not deletion.Keep
··gracefool |☺ 19:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE! factual accuracy disputed. Ellen.

  • Delete I would remove it completely but if it's to stay, at least yank the pictures, they make it feel much more emotional than it should be. Can easily make up anti-anything with a bunch of photographs and historical facts, but is it really valuable? These facts belong to respective historical topics not a social one. Michal from Warsaw
  • Delete An encyclopedia has to be neutral, but this article isn't. Justin.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 02:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Harri Porten

Non-notable developer; 134 unique Google hits. Paul 03:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to HORSE the band. Rob Church Talk 20:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Horse the band

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 18:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hyper viper

Delete - very little evidence of any significance. It was a cleanup page, but when I investigaed it, band members name reveal no true Google hits and I'm not sure this band meets any substantial criteria for inclusion. But I'm prepared to be proved wrong because I like the name! (This comment was deleted and replaced with the useful 'hyper viper rules') Budgiekiller 16:32, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splashtalk 01:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In Concert: New Rock 94-44, disc 2 of 2

Delete this is a non notable promo compilation cd which is not part of the Official discography. It even has commercials for goodness sake. Non notable compilations are excluded from the chronology. - Dr Haggis - Talk 23:06, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 18:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

India Pakistan Friendship Club

Publicity Ahpoddar 22:26, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 18:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Savage Sucks .com, How Don and Mike Removed the Evil One From MSNBC, New Ruskin College

Delete. Not notable. And Wikipedia is not a web directory. Sucks sites might best be added to the attackee page. Mmmbeer 01:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splashtalk 01:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Madie Ives Elementary School

Non notable elementary school Dismas|(talk) 12:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splashtalk 01:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Twin Lakes Elementary School

Non notable elementary school Dismas|(talk) 12:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splashtalk 01:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Van E. Blanton Elementary School

Non notable elementary school Dismas|(talk) 12:23, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splashtalk 01:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Village Green Elementary School

Non notable elementary school Dismas|(talk) 12:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splashtalk 01:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vineland Elementary School

Non notable elementary school Dismas|(talk) 12:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phil talk 14:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Do something with the title if you like. -Splashtalk 01:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia A. Boone/Highland Oaks Elementary School

Non notable elementary school Dismas|(talk) 12:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-another non-notable school Dudtz 9/29/05 5:00 PM EST

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splashtalk 01:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

W.J. Bryan Elementary School

Non notable elementary school Dismas|(talk) 12:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splashtalk 01:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley Matthews Elementary School

Non notable elementary school Dismas|(talk) 12:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splashtalk 01:44, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

West Homestead Elementary School

Non notable elementary school Dismas|(talk) 12:34, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splashtalk 01:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

West Laboratory Elementary School

Non notable elementary school Dismas|(talk) 12:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splashtalk 01:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whispering Pines Elementary School

Non notable elementary school Dismas|(talk) 12:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splashtalk 01:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

William A. Chapman Elementary School

Non notable elementary school Dismas|(talk) 12:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splashtalk 01:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

William Lehman Elementary School

Non notable elementary school Dismas|(talk) 12:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splashtalk 01:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Winston Park Elementary School

Non notable elementary school Dismas|(talk) 12:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splashtalk 01:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zora Neale Hurston Elementary School

Non notable elementary school Dismas|(talk) 12:45, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 01:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Steve_Sweeney

Looks like a vanity page, complete with press release. Serrie 12:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splashtalk 01:18, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nautilus Middle School

Non notable elementary school Dismas|(talk) 12:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second nomination for this article; the first was in June.
First nomination, result was keep
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Nn-bio. The speedy tag, strangely, hadn't stuck which is why it's taken until now to delete it. -Splashtalk 23:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Chiong

Vanity, non notable, biography Dismas|(talk) 12:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 18:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Third positionist

Essay on political views. DS 13:23, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 02:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evanss

Tagged as an A7 nn-bio, but that doesn't apply to articles about bands, ever. Still, "[n]ow you can even listen to them in their myspace.com site" so they're sure to be deeply notable. -Splashtalk 13:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 01:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mish-Mash

Usually when someone creates an article that's just a recipe, I comment that at least it looks yummy. But I hate peppers. And this is just a recipe. DS 13:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 01:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nota Male

Australian school newspaper. "Its audience was largely limited to the graduating class of 2005." Bonus for spelling "its" properly, but non-notable (even though its content "ranged from necrophilia to female masturbation" and "copies did manage to filter down into the lower grades"). DS 13:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 18:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Peters' Drive-in

Substub about a nn drive through outlet. Sadly not speediable. Delete. Proto t c 15:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Non-notable?? But I eat there EVERY DAY and the burgers are delicious! Just kidding. Delete, for lack of any evidence of notability. Friday (talk) 15:53, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Easily notable, well-known drive-in warrants it's own article. It needs substantial expansion, to cover history and more recent events. But, the current poor state, isn't cause for deletion according to current guidlines (even if it should be). --rob 16:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC) If the time was spent researching this, and making a good article, before it went on AFD, it would have a good chance of survival. However , the creator didn't explain anything. And I haven't the time to research this, given the information is partly off the free web (but referencable). I don't want to make statements I can't yet cite sources for. So, I'm taking back my vote, since this nomination has consumed enough of people's time, given the small content, and inevitable conclusion. One should never spend more time on AFD than actually creating an article. --rob 02:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Wow, are you serious? I found here where it's verifiable, but what makes it notable? I take it you're personally familiar with it. There are plenty of restaurants that are well-known in my town, some of them may even be "city traditions", but I don't see what would make them notable. I could certainly be convinced to change my mind tho, if this is not "just another restaurant". Friday (talk) 18:16, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of notability. android79 18:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete individual nn fast food restaurant. The original McDs? Good single restaurant. The world's largest drive-thru? Good single restaurant. Winner of some national business award? Good single restaurant. Stayed in business? WP:NOT the yellow pages. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 19:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Sorry, I can list a dozen restaurants in my hometown that have been in business 30 years and are famous for their large portions nn ad - --Outlander 20:01, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn local business. --MCB 21:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've actually been here. The article is right about the portions, I ordered a large fries and it came in a shoebox. That said, it's still not notable, so delete. Lord Bob 01:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is the most famous Drive In, in the City of Calgary a city of 1 million people and possibly Alberta, dozens of news articles have appeared in the Calgary Herald and Calgary Sun and national media over the years including a terrible and tragic ecoli outbreak earlier this year from contaminated milk shakes that hospitalized some people. there have repeated attempts to buy franchise rights Peter's is synonomous with Calgary's history. --Cloveious 05:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a few excerpts of Peters Drive In, in the national Canadian media CTV article mentioning peters drive in on Ecoli scare CBC another article mentioning peter's from CTV Calgary Sun article mentioning Peter's Drive In on Canoe.ca another Calgary Sun article and another, Yet Another even one of Travelocity Editors Picks etc. --Cloveious 06:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: There is nothing notable about E-Coli scares at restaurants, or journalists fluffing local businesses. Strange that a city could exist for around a hundred years before its "history". -- Corvus
  • Delete. I have visited Peter's and thought it somewhat notable, but this article is a travesty; anyone reading it would have a poorer opinion of Peter's than if there were no article at all. The fact that a week after the VfD, no one has added a single sentence of notability to the article itself clinches it for me. -- Corvus 21:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Not worth relisting this. -Splashtalk 01:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ataji

Neologism. Plenty of Google hits for "ataji"; none in this context. DS 15:04, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stone_structures

The article has a much too large scope, but consists of little more than a list of links to very disparate structures, some of which are not even made of stone. Burschik 15:08, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BlueBell Ice Cream

There is nothing culturally significant about Blue Bell Ice Cream as opposed to other brands of ice cream. One can already find information about ice cream on it's own article. If we're going to do an article about specific brands of ice cream, does that mean we're going to do one on Breyer's, and Edy's, and Blue Bunny Ice Cream? Will there soon be entries for every differnt brand of toothpaste as well? If the company has some significant history or recognition in culture (a la the soda Dr Pepper) then yes, but I see none here. SeaFox 15:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*keep Notable ice cream. Wikipedia is not paper. Roodog2k (talk) 16:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC) D'oh, Merge I pulled a W. Its Friday, and I'm Fried. Roodog2k (talk) 18:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Although the debate is hard to judge, there would appear to be a weakish consensus that the article is not telling the whole truth in some parts. -Splashtalk 01:24, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trigger and Jim

Hoax. Hoax hoax hoax hoax hoax hoax hoax hoax hooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooax. Did I mention hoax? From details such as the precise minute of the band's formation, to the fact that their "countless classic albums" reached the heady heights of #32 on the Liechtenstein charts, to their controversial Albania tour during which they became addicted to heroin and popsicles, there is no doubt whatsoever. Hoax. Kill them with fire - oh, and their article too. DS 16:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but a joke would be funnier. No, this is definitely more hocular than jocular. TheMadBaron 10:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE, although the author gets to comment for turning up, despite being a new user so this is actually touching the two-thirds guideline that is often used. -Splashtalk 01:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Omega Restaurant Pancake House & Bakery

ad for nn four restaurant chain. No claim of notibility, none found on Google Outlander 16:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I beleive it should be considered despite it not being a national chain. It is quite popular here in Chicagoland and at the Niles, IL location. Omega resturant is a privately owned chain in chicagoland.

I do wish that there were more private restaurant chains listed here in wikipedia. Posted by: {BillboardMister}

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 01:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Bushaway

Zero google matches for 'Ricky Bushaway' was first check for notability, followup was no relevant matches for googling '"Sore losers" comic'. There does not appear to be a wikipedia article for the supposed host comic, additional evidence of non-notability. CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Tally: del:7, keep:3, "conditional keep": 2. The author went berserk, got banned and did not fulfil the condition: provide verifiable sources of info and proof of notability. mikka (t) 00:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abram Kamensky

Delete. Nonnotable. Nonverifiable. Vanity original research by an apparent descendant. mikka (t) 16:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

  • Nonnotable. Abram Kamensky was Molotov's supervisor during early years of revolution. He charted the Soviet Republics. He funded the red army. Later he was demoted to somewhat lower posts by Stalin, because of having briefly joined the Trotskyst opposition. Finally he was beaten to death while imprisoned by Stalin's chief of the KGB, Lavrenty Beria. This is an important piece of history.
    • There were millions of bolsheviks who were each other's supervisors. Molotov was young sometime and over time had several stacks of supervisors hardly making all them notable for this reason. mikka (t) 17:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vanity. That is slander, and goes against the "assume good intent" Wikipedia policy. Unprovable, since the subject of the article is notable. I believe that this accusation is motivated by personal bias.
    • Vanity is a shorthand term in wikipedia VfD to describe articles that dwell upon a person or company withouit establishing notability. Personal bias: I am dealing with thousands of editors here. I have no time to develop personal bias to them and you are not that distinctive (of course you may call the latter phrase "bias"; I can live with this). mikka (t) 17:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Original research. The article is based on some old Soviet newspaper article. You can't call it research since it is written by a descendant.
  • The fact that I am a descendant is irrelevant. Each contributor writes about things that are meaningful to them. What is relevant that it is valuable information.
    • The fact is relevant: it gives at least minimal credibility: a descendant is supposed to know his parents, but on the other hand his problem is bias. "valuable information": once again, please read wikipedia policies: valuable information must be verifiable. mikka (t) 17:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am a new user. My other contributions, Intelligent (the Russian noun), category Soviet Intelligentsia were deleted. While I consider all my contributions to be of high quality and relevance, I don't see why would I want to continue contributing to Wikipedia after everything I come up with is blocked. This is a violation of Wikipedia policy against discouraging new users.
  • I was unaware of how things are run on this resource that the public opinion is rigged. I should have known better having some experience with internet communities. But apperantly I got a different impression from Wikipedia's promotional slogans. I though this is more of an information buffet, not virtual socialism. If you vote to delete this article, please do me a favor and delete my other article Aleksander Kamensky, and my Wikipedia account. I don't have time to waste! LevKamensky
  • P.S.: I will be unavailable due to hurricane Katrina for at least three days, and wouldn't be able to comment. <by levKamensky>
  • Comment: don't insert your reactions directly into my post, it makes it hard to read.LevKamensky
  • Abram Kamensky was one of the earliest Bolsheviks.
  • There are articles on much less notable people in Wikipedia.
  • Abram Kamensky is included in the Russian Jewish Encyclopedia [19]
  • If I didn't read the policy I wouldn't call you on political bias, assumption of ill intent, and discouraging new users. Your edits to the Aleksander Kamensky page are vandalism. If you deal with thousands of editors, I wonder where you find so much time to stalk me and make rude patronizing comments. <by LevKamensky>

Conditional keep: If he is notable, it doesn't come across in the article &#151; just one of countless (unfortunate) casualties. However, the additional information from the author, below, does seem notable. Assuming it's factual, the author should add it to the article. Just a suggestion, but I'd change the tone of the article away from reading like a family history piece and make it read more like a neutral observation &#151; avoiding judgmental descriptions like "heroic" and "slaughtered." Maybe more about the man and what he did and less emphasis on his less-notable decendants. — Cory Maylett 17:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I agree, and I was planning to add some more information later. I just created the article, and mikka was on it within seconds, before I even had the chance to make a few edits. I believe that the purpose of an encyclopedia is not only to inform but also to entertain. That's why my writing style is not dry. It has nothing to do with vanity. The facts sink in better when they are presented as a narrative.
  • Comment: This is an encyclopedia, not a movie. This is not a place for entertainment.
  • Conditional Keep. I don't see a strong case for notability as of yet, and right now much of the article is not verifiable... but it's existed for a matter of hours here. I've found vague reference to Abram Kemensky (with a date of death in '38 not '37 shown in the article... but surely the same person) crawling the web. I'm going to say this article should stay for now; give the author a chance to make a case for it's inclusion. If in say 60 days there is not a greater assertion of notability, then perhaps bring it back for AfD.--Isotope23 18:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the reference you found is probably the entry in the summary Russian Jewish Encyclopedia cited above. There are apparantly some mistakes. For example Aleksander Kamensky is referred to as Artist, while he was an Art Critic. When data gets transmitted from Russia, much is lost in careless translation.

Note what the page says: The following list is a translation of names and minimal personal data for 8,500 people included in Jewish Encyclopedia of Russia (Rossiyskaya Evreiskaya Entsiclopediya); first edition; 1995, Moscow. Famous people who are listed in the book, which in fact is a biographical dictionary, were born in Russia, the USSR, the Russian Empire, or lived there. This is the first edition of this kind in Russia and a large group of specialist from Russia, Israel and other countries participated in the project.

I hope that answers the question about notability.LevKamensky

  • Userfy - transfer the page to the author's user page until suitable references can be provided and the page restored. The reference provided only states that such a person existed, not what he did. As it it it's all just conjecture, but if supported it's notable - --Outlander 19:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC)I'm accepting Curps in that there is probably no evidence of notability forthcoming. Change to Delete --Outlander 14:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, notability, notability… As they say, if you kill a man you are a murderer, if you kill a lot of men, you are a conqueror, if you kill millions of men you are god.LevKamensky
  • Borderline. A minor Soviet functionary, mentioned in Vserossiyskoe genealogicheskoe drevo website [20] and also[21] and [22]. His existence is verifiable, but the information about him seems to be limited to a one or two line bio, so many of the details of his life might be hard to verify . If the Russian Wikipedia had the same level of completeness as the English Wikipedia (700,000+ articles), he would certainly might warrant an article there. Since Wikipedia is not paper, perhaps there's no harm in keeping this article, but it's unlikely to ever expand beyond a stub. -- Curps 23:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article was created by the author in the brief period he had today between his two successive week-long blocks, and shortly before he nominated 28 articles for deletion in a matter of minutes. Which happened shortly before those AfDs were all deleted. So don't give me lectures on assuming good-faith. This smells to me like inverse vanity, I'm afraid. -Splashtalk 23:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per mikka. While I sympathize with the ill-fated family of the apparent author, the notability of the subject of the article does not seem confirmed enough (for a person from Russia). There were many victims of the red terror and Stalin's Great Purge as well as many who served on the side, which caused that terror but later fell its victims. - Introvert talk 00:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete for not even asserting notability. Not one thing said about this person in this article suggests he might have been notable. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 00:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Splash --Aranda56 01:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. bogdan | Talk 07:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there an article about him in the Russian Wikipedia? Is there any question among the Russian editors that it be kept? If the Russians think there should be an article about him, then keep. If the indefinitely-banned LevKamensky goes over there to create an article just to justify the article here, or if there is no article in the Russian Wikipedia, then delete. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep real person, mentioned in Solzhenitsyn's book (as google search for "Абрам Каменский" shows).  Grue  20:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This link [23][24] shows that he was a member of the kollegii of the Nationalities Affairs narkomat (ministry) when Josef Stalin was commissar of it in April-May 1919. He was also involved in the founding of the short-lived Donetsko-Krivorogian Soviet Republic. So he was indeed an "old Bolshevik", possibly modestly notable in the very early days of the Russian Revolution, though somewhat obscure by the time of his arrest and death. -- Curps 21:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there any guarantee we are speaking about the same person? What you've found does not match the article. That is the whole problem and reason for VfD: the article is not verifiable. While the scraps over the net (I've seen all this myself, I know google, thanks) do not make into a reasonable article. Not to say a rank and file Bolshevik bureaucrat even found on net is hardly notable. 22:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Per reasons stated by Isotope23. --BrownHornet21 22:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am OK with waiting extra 60 days per Isotope (although I don't remember anything like this for other vanity pages), but something says me it will not help. The only person who could be really interested in doing this decided to go berserk instead of convincing us by providing solid info. mikka (t) 22:44, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep: this vote page resulted from combination of my error and vandalism of perm-blocked user:LevKamensky as explained by user:Curps here. mikka (t) 19:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksander Kamensky

Also, I apologize for the confusion I caused with this nomination. But it seems to be too late. mikka (t) 23:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here's the history. You created this AfD page at 17:32 on September 16 and then deleted it less than an hour later at 18:23 on 16 September. Then it was recreated from scratch by LevKamensky himself today at 21:05, 21 September 2005 [26], for the purpose of making various threats. He then made a couple dozen other bogus bad-faith AfD nominations, which got deleted, and this one got deleted along with them (by User:Texture). I looked at the deleted version history, saw you as the original creator and believed it had been deleted in error (not realizing it was a from-scratch recreation by LevKamensky), and restored it. So if there was confusion, I think LevKamensky was responsible for it to a considerable degree through his rash actions. -- Curps 23:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splashtalk 01:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Coercive monopoly

This concept does not exist in a form well-enough defined or widely-enough used to justify an article. The article's creation looks like an exercise in POV-pushing (see main user's involvement with coercion and natural monopoly for that user's point of view) - which seems to have been rather successful. Almost every single usage of the term in the sense described the article is traceable either to wikipedia's article or to people who use it informally (blogs etc) and have probably picked it up from there.[27] A single-figure number of more serious uses (usually with actual or implied inverted commas) do not justify the article. An encylopedia is supposed to reflect existing knowledge, and the very existence of the article makes a claim to an existence of an established concept, which claim is simply untrue. The actual meaning of the phrase "coercive monopoly" is "a monopoly on the use of coercion", in discussions of the state. Rd232 17:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Addition. I've only just bothered to read the article - I'd nominated on the conceptual issue alone. Frankly, regardless of the conceptual issue, the article is even more transparently a POV fork of government-granted monopoly and/or natural monopoly than I'd expected. Read the whole article - it's obvious. Rd232 14:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is what we've come to expect from you. You put up an article for deletion without even bothering to read it. RJII 13:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And what I've come to expect from you. As I said, "I'd nominated on the conceptual issue alone". The article content being bad merely reinforces the nomination, but doesn't make much difference. Or is there some level above "deletion" I don't know about? Votes for hyperdeletion perhaps, deleting nonsense from parallel universes? Rd232 10:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, you nominated based on the concept interfering with your POV. RJII 15:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Pathetic attempt at censorship. Everybody with a tangential knowledge in economics knows the term "coercive monopoly." It's a real term and a real concept. RJII 20:45, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment rather than deriding the nominator, can you show general usage of the term? I consider myself to have a tangential knowledge of economics but I'm not familiar with it. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 21:11, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't ordinarly deride the nominator, but he took a swipe at me in his comment above and accused me of POV pushing. He's lost all credibility in my eyes. See some of the external links in the article for general usage. This paper by Alan Greenspan is interesting: [28] RJII 21:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • In view of my experience with RJII in the past, merely noting articles I've seen him involved with was quite restrained. As for the Greenspan link, this is another (occasional) usage of "coercive monopoly" which does not support the existence of an independent article, because it is used synonymously with government-granted monopoly. Funnily enough, for a year coercive monopoly was a redirect to that - before RJII came along and started defining it as something there is little evidence for. And as RJII brings up credibility; this sort of thing is (in my experience) typical of him - using isolated examples that don't prove his case to support sweeping generalisations. Rd232 22:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • In my experience with R2d2, he has fought allowing any mention of pro-capitalist laissez-faire arguments in articles he edits. For example, in natural monopoly I had to fight tooth and nail to even mention that not everyone agrees that natural monopoly is a legitimate argument. Finally there is a paragraph in that article presenting the laissez-faire position. Obviously, here he thinks that an article identifying the term "coercive monopoly" is a threat to his POV as well. He wants it deleted as if the concept and term does not even exist. What is he afraid of? Maybe he works as an economic regulator? RJII 22:35, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Pt 2: Maybe mediation between the two of you is a better venue than AfD? — Lomn | Talk / RfC 22:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • No need - RJII's behaviour has caused me to cease editing all articles in which he has an interest (with the recent exception of natural monopoly because this is one of the first articles I was involved with and harboured ambitions to make Featured, until RJII's involvement made me give up on that - as an alternative to giving up on Wikipedia altogether). Rd232 09:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • This is coming from a guy who can't stand to let anyone else contribute to an article. He seems to have ambitions of being the sole editor of any article he edits and not allowing any contributions from others. He is not an editor consistent with the spirit of Wikipedia at all. Hopefully, he'll eventually get a glimpse of what Wikipedia is about. His attempt to delete this perfectly legitimate article is just another attempt at trying to use any means possible to 'monopolize Wikipedia. RJII 13:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While I had not heard of the term prior to the article, it did not read to me as POV-push or fabrication, and I felt I learned something from it. I don't see how the Google link proves that the Wiki entry creates the term, rather than documenting an existing one. That is speculation. A search on my part showed that this term was used by Ayn Rand in an article on antitrust [29]. While she used it in conjunction with government-regulated monopolies, the term certainly predates Wikipedia. Perhaps this is an politically sensitive & economically debateable term. But it exists independent of this site and I think it deserves entry, not deletion. (My first post here ever, so please forgive errors.)
    • It exists, but not as a well-established or well-defined concept - see my remarks above. Rd232 09:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is a false remark from from the nominator. The term is very well defined and conceived. It's a monopoly that is maintained by the use of coercion, rather than by any other method, such as competitiveness. Very simple. RJII 13:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • religious monopoly - a monopoly based on religious faith in a product or company; deistic monopoly - a monopoly maintained by acts of god; and so on and so forth. All well definable, yet not well-established and therefore non-encyclopedic. Rd232 14:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I should point out that I do see a potential use for the term "coercive monopoly", in relation to things like the mafia. But the creation of an article which lumps together mafia and government is so jawdroppingly POV I'm disappointed people don't seem to recognise it. And regardless of whether a mafia-related usage would be useful, such usage is not established, and it is not up to Wikipedia to establish it. Rd232 14:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I find it "jawdropping" that you can't stomach the fact that governments engage in coercion. "Coercive monopoly" is a well-established term thas has been in use in political and economic philosophy for a least 50 years. And, if I'm not mistaken it was in use even over 100 years ago in political-economic philosophy of some liberals --I'll have to make sure on that. Admittedly, if your education is limited to that supplied by a university, you might not have been exposed to it. RJII 15:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I haven't heard of the term either and a search on few economic glossaries & text books didn't return a result either. Rewriting to reflect only coercive practices of a monopolist or renaming the article to coercive practices of monopolies would address also the concern, the term is not invented. Pamri • Talk 10:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is an established concept. For example, Nathaniel Branden wrote about it in the The Objectivist Newsletter. here. This article seems to talk about it in much the same ways as Nathaniel Branden did back in 1962. Not everyone buys what he's selling but he's a respected author and political philosopher. Rx StrangeLove 00:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rd232 is correct in that the term is not used in mainstream economics, however there is a small but politicaly active group associated with Rand and the objectivist/laissez-faire camp that champion the concept. He is also correct that the term was created largely to advance a political agenda. However, I don't no if that is enough to warrant deletion. I would say keep only if the article explains who uses the term and why, otherwize delete. mydogategodshat 03:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough. Rd232 08:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know how much more "mainstream" you can get than the chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan. RJII 13:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now there's a shock - RJII missing the point. To recap what I said above on the Greenspan link: "this is another (occasional) usage of "coercive monopoly" which does not support the existence of an independent article, because it is used synonymously with government-granted monopoly." Rd232 22:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • A government-granted monopoly is just one form of coercive monopoly. Not all coercive monopolies are necessarily government-granted monopolies. A coercive monopoly is one that coercively prohibits competition. It can include government-granted monopolies, government-monopolies, or firms not connected with government at all that are engaging in coercion to prevent competition. It would help if you would read an article before you nominate it for deletion. RJII 15:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Apparently you are well-trained in the art of politics (ever read that book by Schopenhauer, or just picked it up off the TV?). Here we have "Ignore your opponent's arguments; engaging with him just makes it look like he might be right. Just repeat your position over and over." Rd232 17:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ··gracefool |☺ 19:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - neologism -- Arthur Rubin 00:47, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE as copyvio and no offer of a rewrite and a marginal debate here. No prejudice against rewriting this one, however. -Splashtalk 01:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Fritz Leiber

Copied verbatim from http://www.hfac.uh.edu/phil/leiber/vita.htm . Doesn't appear more notable than any other college professor, except for being the child of a notable author. Al 17:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Cleanup and Copyvio are trumped by the fact that this is a non-encyclopedic nn-bio.--Isotope23 18:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete copyvio, but keep rewrite if one gets written. Has published a number of books with notable publishers like Duckworth of London and Basil Blackwell of Oxford. Five of his books are available in Swedish libraries: one in six libraries, one in five and one in two (and that only includes those libraries whose holdings are traceable through the Swedish national library catalogue). According to the article one book has even been translated into Japanese. I'd say that makes him at least as notable as the average professional baseball player or musicians with two albums. Uppland 20:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't the rule in July [32]; what's changed? Monicasdude 23:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That decision is incorrect. I was not involved in that decision, but if it's a copyvio, it's a copyvio, and we can't keep it in the history. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:01, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 01:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nawaz Imam

Delete Strong Delete NN Vanity Unable to verify any indication that he is a published poet beyond mirrors of this article and numerous ldead inks to a defunct Geocities site he had set up for the poetry he had written. Caerwine 17:22, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - ALL INFORMATION IS VERIFIABLE - READ THIS - He is an internationally acclaimed poet, his poetry can be read here http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:3nGdauexxcsJ:www.geocities.com/musicplanet2k/nazpoems.htm and his poetry is published in an international antholody ISBN 0-7951-5160-8. Proof that he is an investment banker: http://ubs.chichi.me.uk/?p=38 Proof that he won LSE prize on LSE internal site. 82.35.90.111 23:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ok the version I saw was this one: [33] which appears to have been vandalism. Sorry about that. Looking at the very stubby current version, and googling, my position is still delete. Not very noteable. Concur with Caerwine.
  • Comment The LSE internal site link is password protected. Neither Amazon nor Amazon UK (which I checked since he is a UK person) have any record of a book with ISBN 0-7951-5160-8 , so either the info is in error, is for a book yet to be sold, or is fraudulent, which given the lack of a title is probably either unsold or fraudulent. And publishing to a Geocities webpage, especially one that is only accessible via wayback machine type caches, is definitively not notable. so I'm changing my vote now to a strong delete. Caerwine 14:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In May 2002 several of his works were entered in the semi-finals of Poetry.com's International Open Poetry Contest, published in Autumn 2002 in "Letters from the Soul", a collection of over 1500 works - ISBN 0-7951-5160-8. Additionally, he was selected as one of just 33 authors to appear on "The Sound of Poetry" CD. 82.35.90.111 22:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks for providing even more reasons for the article to be deleted. poetry.com is a vanity press that publishes small quantities of large numbers of poetry compilations for people who either don't know any better or don't care.

(See link in amateur writing.) The Sound of Poetry, is the same thing, only done to CD instead of paper by poetry.com's parent company, The International Library of Poetry. Being a self-published poet does not make one notable unless people actually buy the book, and I've seen no indication that anyone beyond his friends and relatives have even seen the book. To quote from the Better Business Bureau file on the company:

The company is a vanity publisher of hardbound anthologies, which feature amateur poets, of paperback volumes of poetry by single authors, and of a magazine for amateur poets. The books are not distributed and cannot be found in bookstores. They are only distributed to those who pay to have their work included. The quality of the poetry does not appear to be a significant consideration for selection for publication. However, according to the company, poems containing obscenities or offensive language are rejected.

Caerwine 00:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP The Land 19:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Valley Tools

Advertisement. --Blackcap | talk 18:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 02:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Freeriding.nl

Looks like a non-notable website to me JoanneB 18:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED. Postdlf 18:51, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Devon clones

Not sensible. Not notable. Molotov (talk) 18:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 01:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vootie

This article is structured to define an unnotable term and it should be deleted. Solarusdude 18:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comment on the article's talk page. — flamingspinach | (talk) 18:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I didn't request this AfD or write the article, just for the record. — flamingspinach | (talk) 18:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedied, again. android79 05:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amenah Al-Sherri

Article does not assert that person's importance or significance but given edit by user Mustaffa I did not want to speedy Tracyt1800 19:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED by User:Postdlf. -Splashtalk 01:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

European exploration of North America

Problem: Not formatted in proper form, and any info relevant is already covered in other articles. Molotov (talk) 19:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Balanced and Integrated Spirituality

Advertising or other spam Buster79 20:09, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 01:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MacsWest

Tagged as a speedy (which it's not) for advertising (which it is) - sending here instead. --Doc (?) 21:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as nonsense, nn bio, attack page - --Doc (?) 22:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Shu Siu

Tagged for a speedy, and deserves it. But it isn't 'short' to speedy as an attack, and isn't 'patent' to speedy as nonsense. --Doc (?) 21:35, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete under A7 -- the article does not assert his notability. (Anyway, it's probably a hoax.) --Angr/tɔk tə mi 21:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, I originally tagged this article for speedy deletion. There is no meaningful content in this article. It's also insulting as all else, even if it is a fictional person/name. In addition, this prompts the question as to what length has to regards to insults, aside from it being noted as a critera. For example, if a page was made insulting Thomas Edison or Alexander Graham Bell and it was three pages long, would it still not merit speedy deletion under Article 6? Disparaging is disparaging whether it is three words long, or three pages long. Further, I understand the need for following the rules to the letter, but surely the spirit of the rules has some say, if not, it is gravely concerning. In any case, I feel the policy needs to be updated to strike the word "Short" from it to prevent occurrances such as these which turn a simple affair into a long, drawn out and complicated one. JJJJust 22:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, now speedied as nonsense - this new admin was being cautious - probably overly so - but with two votes for speedy now. I'll be a ittle bolder --Doc (?) 22:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 01:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gonorrhea(band)

Band that has no All Music entry and only has one album, which doesn't show up in a Google search. I could not confirm the band's existence, either. -- Kjkolb 21:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Band that Consists of Andrew Thomas, Andrew Lindsay, Craig McKenzie & Neil Campbell

failure to meet WP:Music -WCFrancis 21:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 01:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The CFP

According to the article, the 'CFP' has been a 'newly founded party' for almost half a year now. No context though (not even the full name of the party, or the name of the 'parent country', as they call it), no sources, so unverifiable. Sounds pretty fake. JoanneB 21:53, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I gasm

Band vanity. DS 22:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 01:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Capon Bridge Streets

Completely local interest. Town only has about 200 people Whitejay251 22:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 01:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[[34]]

Non notable website. Wikipedia is not a web directory. Francs2000 22:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splashtalk 01:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Acton Elementary School

Delete. Not notable. No encyclopedic information. Schoolcruft. Dunc|☺ 22:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splashtalk 01:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sprucefield

This article was tagged for deletion back on 5 July. Someone recently added it to the /Old page with a request that the discussion be closed. I can find no evidence that the discussion was ever listed on the main VfD/AFD page. This is a procedural nomination and restarts the clock. Rossami (talk) 23:08, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Entirely non-notable. Icelight 5 July 2005 23:11 (UTC)
  • Keep. Very notable. The largest out of town shopping complex (recently doubled in size) in Northern Ireland and one of the largest in the UK. The development has been the subject of long and bitter planning applications and appeals by major retailers, the Lisburn and Belfast Chambers of Commerce. Hence has major implications for planning policy. The centre was bombed during the Troubles and the new B&Q store was destroyed by a dissident republican incendiary device in 2004. Mark83 19:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mark, I learned more from your post about Sprucefield than I did from reading the article. From what I can tell of Spucefield from the article is that it's completely non-notable. If you added the information from your post to the article, it might be worth keeping, especially if you can give some more information about the bombings. --Blackcap | talk 19:55, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep now that Mark83 expanded it. Anyplace that was bombed probably deserves some mention. --Blackcap | talk 21:45, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • This is a shopping mall. It's a listing of location and shops. There are many thousands of such shopping malls - none of them noteworthy enough for an encyclopedia article. The fact that the planning process was controversial is completely average. A planning process that went completely as planned would be more unusual. The second argument - that a site becomes notable just because a notable crime happened there - also fails to convince me. The site might be mentioned in the article about the crime but does not automatically deserve its own article. And to be honest, I'm not convinced that this is a "notable" bombing. It was one of many in a very long string. We already have the relevant encyclopedia article at Troubles. This is trivia. Based on what we know so far, I have to argue for deletion. Rossami (talk) 23:08, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - patently obvious that this is notable, for both reasons listed by Mark83. Though blowing up B&Q actually makes me feel kinder towards dissident republican terrorists. Vizjim 09:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly notable. CalJW 18:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please it does seem notable so erasing it is not a good idea Yuckfoo 18:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I've been there many a time and it is an important step in the move towards taking shopping away from Belfast city centre Keresaspa 14:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ··gracefool |☺ 19:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. This is a speedy. -Splashtalk 01:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Pacheco

Vanity, notability not established. siafu 23:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 01:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bunty Claahammers

Complete hoax, zero google hits on Claahammers or either of the alleged culinary terms. Should be speedied, but I can't find any criterion. It's not empty, it's not nonsense, so heigh-ho to AfD we go. Tonywalton  | Talk 23:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 01:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Maw

Non-notable webmaster. DS 23:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trademark item

Tagged for speedy as "This article has no potential for expansion, and all the necessary information contained here is also available in the Warhammer_40000_Imperial_Guard_Equipment_and_Weaponry article". Now, whilst that is certainly no speedy criterion, I would advocate deletion. This is because the term is too generic to usefully redirect to the Warhammer target and is not, so far as my limited legal knowledge goes, a proper legal term. If there is a valid, non-ambiguous legalese target, then it should of course be redirected there. -Splashtalk 23:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 01:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ice metal

Google search for "ice metal" finds results related largely to car wheels, and a few insignificant music links. Sonata Arctica, the band the article cites as a prime example of ice metal, can be easily classified as power metal. While keyboards are important in Sonata Arctica, they certainly don't make the guitars secondary. --Dalkaen 00:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). 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_September_21&oldid=1234127425"