Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 November 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 12 November 14 >

Purge server cache

November 13

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

24601

[edit]

Orphan page that has no potential and is of a number that is not noteable Descendall 05:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2Bucks Short

[edit]

Individual songs don't deserve a wikipedia page. (See WP:Music for more info. Also note that the band which made the song is also up for deletion. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Posse_of_Two. (Both the band, the song, and other pages relating to the band were all made by one person). --Bachrach44 14:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2KORPSE

[edit]

Doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC. 110 Google hits. Punkmorten 23:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

4th album : TBA

[edit]

WP:NOT a crystal ball. And this album doesn't even have a name yet. Punkmorten 23:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

80s Preservation Society

[edit]

Somewhat unverifiable. A search for the name of the alleged founder and 'society' gets no relevent results [1]. The only thing actually calling itself '80s Preservation Society' is a Geocities webpage [2] which may or not be related, but certainly doesn't seem notable. The few other mentions I can find are jokes (in satire articles about the 1980s, joking that such a society would exist). --W.marsh 15:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom -- Squiddy 15:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination, although I have a feeling we'll be reinserting this in six years along with a valley girl revival entry. Durova 18:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment ∾ Years ago there was a series of commercials here in USAia touting (IIRC) compilation CDs of '80s music. They had the same indefinable air of quality that permeates infomercials and commercials for Ginsu knives. In the commercials, a man sitting at a desk, surrounded by '80s paraphrenalia (Rubik's Cubes and the like), announced that he was the President of the '80s Preservation Society, and that he was offering the CDs as part of his efforts to "preserve" the '80s. I seem to recall that, somewhat later, there were very similar commercials touting the '70s Preservation Society. I've always presumed that these "societies" were completely fictional, but I can't say for certain that they're not. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 19:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn and advert per Extreme Unction. I remember those annoying infomercials, and the "organization" was a fake entity formed in some ad exec's head to sell cds. Youngamerican 16:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 01:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

American Peoples Congress

[edit]

Seems to be an advert for new (created October 2005) political campaign/pressure group. No mention of any major achievements/large membership or anything else to make it notable. Hitchhiker89 21:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 01:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Angry Aryans

[edit]

Non-notable band, fails WP:NMG. Verily, Allmusic knoweth them not, and Amazon refuseth to speak their name - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 22:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete well after the nomination I wanted to say something funny here but alas this will be much more dry... the lack of a presence on AMG/Amazon is possibly explained by their underground status and extreme views. Many music venders/venues/etc. want little to do with you when your songs are called "Race Mixing Is Treason" or "Fro-Bro (Nature’s Woe)". There is actually a relatively large ammount about them on Google [3]. I don't doubt they have played a bunch of shows and have a small following. There is slight media coverage of them, not really about their music though [4] (which establishes they live in 94% white suburb Center Line, not Detroit, as claimed in the article). But I can't really find evidence they have

more than one release (Racially Motivated Violence) on Resistance Records so they fail WP:NMG. If they had more media coverage, or web coverage that wasn't mostly auto-generated links and mirrors, that might change it. --W.marsh 23:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The group had appeared on a Vh1 special about hate music--talking in variuos interviews about their views and underground music. They are one of the most controversial bands that has been popular within the white power music genre. They grew up in Detroit as the article states. When old enough, they made a rational decision to move out of the ghettos into safer northern suburbs.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 01:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Asif aftab

[edit]

-- Propaganda. Seems copyvio, bbut perhaps it's too fresh for google to catch on, so I couldn't find a source. Delete-- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 21:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 01:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Basic German

[edit]

I confess to being mildly torn on this one. Can there be an encyclopedic article about the "basics" of a language? My initial instinct is "Yes." But how is "basic" defined? How is that definition verified with outside sources? Can the article ever be more than an attempt at a language instructional course, and should language instructional courses be something Wikipedia should include? In any case, the specific article in question is poorly formatted and possesses minimal information about the subject, so even if the answers to the above questions are positive, the current article doesn't qualify. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 13:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 01:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Batipi

[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 13:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the page is a cut and pasted ad for the non-notable domain linked from the article and the word as such isn't notable either. Bobet 13:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn Renata3 14:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn advert/spam PTSE 17:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete I am the founder of the website, so I assumed it would be ok to cut and paste, if this still needs to be sited then I will make the change. I was trying not to sound like an advertisement, this is why I've only included the defn of the word Batipi, which I created myself. I figured the best chance in havinig this new word included in a dictionary would be the wikipedia. As for the link, I thought this would be useful to the reader, we plan on adding much more content to our website, on the topics of knowledge sharing and "ba", ect. 5:23, 18 November 2005


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

The result of the debate was keep and move to Behr's syndrome. Robert T | @ | C 01:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Behr syndrome

[edit]

dicdef Savant1984 22:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was userfied by me to User:Andrew O. Shadoura, note left on author's page explaining. Consensus is clearly delete, but userfication does no harm and may even (cross fingers) avoid hard feelings. Friday 16:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BelAmp

[edit]

Delete Vanity page about non-notable software [5] PhilipO 19:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Benedict de Boithor

[edit]

nn Polish nobleman, only one account supposedly, the source of which is not included. Zero Google hits. User:Zoe|(talk) 06:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 01:45, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bopsoc

[edit]

Non-notable school group established in 2000 ERcheck 15:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable school group. Creator has started articles as well. Apparent entry. ERcheck 15:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pn. Strangely one current member was born in 1623! PTSE 17:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save It is very important that as a free Encyclopedia, information is given and available about everything. Even if this is some small school event, them having some information about it on the internet is very important and certainly Worth while. If something more significant called "Bopsoc" comes along then certainly change it. Bringmemybow 16:37 14 November 2005 (UTC)
*Comment: Please see "Wikipedia is not". In particular, it is not a free host for school events. ERcheck 03:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bråhögsbadet

[edit]

A bathhouse with no claim of notability - delete CLW 12:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, once the unsubstantiated claim of popularity has been removed, you're left with less than a substub. Wikipedia articles aren't placeholders. - Mgm|(talk) 15:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Some European spas have historic significance. England's city of Bath was featured in two Jane Austen novels. This site returned only two references in English on Google, neither of which claimed notability. If anyone who reads Swedish can demonstrate notability I'm willing to be persuaded. Durova 16:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Rossami]] [[User talk:Rossami|(talk) 02:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedily userfied to User:Bowatson. FCYTravis 10:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Watson

[edit]

This is a vanity page. All of the edits are by User:BOwatson himself, assuming the anonymous edits are him as well. His only other edits have been on the Michigan Technological University page and were serving the same purpose as a vanity page. Recnilgiarc 08:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 01:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Young

[edit]

Seems like a NN-Bio but wasn't completely sure. Only comes up with 2 pages of hits when you search his username on the IMDB site, doesn't seem like a lot. Fallsend 21:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Keep --JAranda | watz sup 22:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher J. Cohan

[edit]

A little known person. Should ber merged, but we can't have a list of all the people that have graduated from Arizona State. 66.177.61.78 02:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clan McWho

[edit]

All signs point to original research. --Tabor 17:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 01:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cock and ball torture

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by Geogre as illegal MLM scheme. --GraemeL (talk) 15:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Conversational Recruiting

[edit]

Blatant advertising. — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 03:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cory You

[edit]

Biovanity, with no claim to notability beyond being a member of the non-notable band above... oh, and "working on a screenplay for an independant feature film he'll be co-directing in 2006." FCYTravis 00:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crossworm

[edit]

No real assertions of meeting WP:MUSIC. His former band 2KORPSE is also up for deletion. Crossworm gets some google hits, but many lead to crossword and other irrelevant things. Not on AllMusic. Punkmorten 23:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus between whether to merge or keep. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 02:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberbegging

[edit]

Neologism supported by a 2003 CNN article. Something Million Dollar Homepage would be two years from now. No incoming wikilinks. -- Perfecto Canada 05:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: 384 unique pages in those 16 thousand. Karol 11:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete (Non notable, vanity) FireFox -CVU- 11:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Bissette

[edit]

The assertion of notability is that he's the Raleigh, North Carolina expert on eBay. This is below my bar, but perhaps not that of the community. Joyous (talk) 03:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

D.C. Scorpio

[edit]

Unformatted, unwikified, cleanup tagged for eleven months, and I suspect it's a vanity page to start with - SoM 15:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 01:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Sea Fucking Scrolls

[edit]

Appears to be not-notable band. If kept, needs to be rewritten in a professional style. -David Woolley 20:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 02:14, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Debbie wong

[edit]

vanity page WriterFromAfar755 20:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Diablozone

[edit]

Very non notable web forum with less than 20 active participants. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 02:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dogbomb

[edit]

Trivia about a web forum. As with Something Awful, forums should record the fine points of their subculture on their own site, not on Wikipedia. Alexa rank is 445,831.

No, don't redirect. Really, the site has enjoyed widespread media coverage, largely on account of the "people more annoying than Mick Hucknall" thing. As opposed as I am to forumcruft, I think that Dogbomb is a site that probably should be represented on Wikipedia.... just not like this. TheMadBaron 19:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 00:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Vinod Shanker Dubey

[edit]

(Fixing AfD nomination.) Autobiographical page; creator should make into a user page if he wants to keep the text. Delete from mainspace. Metropolitan90 18:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 01:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dwayne Rudd

[edit]

Not notable, hasn't played this season. Kookykman|(t)(c) 14:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:29, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eley Williams

[edit]

Vanity. Fredrik | talk 01:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. If someone can verify that she is indeed soon to be a published author with Harper-Collins, that's good enough for me. The page is a mess, though, and needs fixing. wikipediatrix 03:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. But not for WP:BIO - "Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more". If book sales reach 5,000, she can have an article. - Dalbury (talk) 15:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's why I specified "Harper-Collins". Due to the nature of the book industry, it is a given that 5,000 copies of ANY book from such a major publishing house will be sold to stores that pick it up (even though the majority of them may end up returned for credit and/or remaindered). If this was a self-published chapbook, local imprint, or vanity press, then of course, no way. However, there's no mention of her on the Harper-Collins website, so it would appear that whoever posted the article is misinformed at best. wikipediatrix 01:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No verifiable evidence that she is a noted poetry writer. 46 Google results for Eley Williams with the first page being genealogy pages. [9].

No Google news hits either. Capitalistroadster 05:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate wasDelete.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 00:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Elvis and Slick Monty

[edit]

Refer to this old revision. There's a claim of permission on the talk page, but I don't think this is material that we want to keep in any case (it's a sitcom airing only on what is apparently the University of North Texas' tv channel), so checking here first before I request confirmation of permission. —Cryptic (talk) 14:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:29, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Engineering Ivies

[edit]

I just added this for delete because there essentially no hits for the term. [10] —BenFrantzDale 17:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I say Keep. It may be very recent, so Google wouldn't find it yet. Give a chance for the bots to crawl through the blogs. Xuanwu 22:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you comment on this page relating to the rule of avoiding neologisms? —BenFrantzDale 05:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I did my own Google search and it came back with this: Economic Times article and ASEE Prism article. Apparently the phrase "Engineering Ivy League" (which leads to "Engineering Ivies") is legitimate. As for whether this article accurately portrays what it is another matter that can be settled through content updates. But it does not seem to qualify as a neologism. Xuanwu 08:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Uhhh how does even "Engineering Ivy League" not qualify? 54 results on Google. Used in 2 articles. Not really defined anywhere that I can find, let alone in a dictionary of phrases or something similar. Seems like a neologism to me (and to Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms for whatever that's worth).. --W.marsh 15:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The references Xuanwu cites are mostly to "Engineering Ivy Leagues" in India, Japan, China, not in the U. S. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Total nonsense and all but unverifiable. "Engineering Ivy League" gets a very few Google hits referring to groups of universities in Japan (apparently University of Tokyo, Kyoto University, Kyushu University, and Hokkaido University?), and India (apparently to "the six Indian Institutes of Technology and other top tech campuses,"). China is hoping to develop an "engineering Ivy League" [11]. In connection with Japan and China, there's little Google evidence that is is anything more than a personal coinage of Lucille Craft of ASEE, who wrote both articles. If there were enough good, well-sourced, verifiable information on the Indian, Chinese and Japanese "engineering Ivy Leagues" to write a stub, I'd do so, and recommend that this article become a redirect to that, but I don't think there is.
As to the U.S., the phrase is not used, except as a nonspecific adjective for "very good school." This article is just academic boosterism, a pretext for listing what someone thinks are the best engineering schools.
The phrase "Engineering Ivies" could just as well refer to Cornell and Princeton, two Ivy League schools noted for exceptional engineering schools. (Harvard almost deliberately encouraged people not to think of it as an engineering school by refusing to use the word "Engineering" in connection with their excellent Division of Applied Science until very recently, but methinks I recall some rather stellar work done there in the development of computers...)
I hate using U. S. News as an authority, but will nevertheless point out that schools listed don't even bear a good relationship to the U. S. News rankings of engineering schools, in which the real ivies Cornell, Princeton, and Harvard, all outrank both Virginia Tech and RPI, while Stanford and Berkeley outrank Georgia Tech. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Either I'm guilty of WP:BEANS or someone was independently executing on a bad idea at the same time I was explaining here why it is bad. Look. We should not have an article about "Engineering Ivies" in the U. S. unless someone can find a good, verifiable source that defines that the phrase means and gives a reasonably objective list of what schools qualify. Maybe someone can find something that says being a member of the Ivy League disqualifies a school from being an Engineering Ivy, but I'd really like to see a source for that. As for Japan and China, one columnist in ASEE is not a sufficient indication that the term is in widespread use. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Requested by its only author to be deleted, which falls under a speedy cat. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 22:46, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Environment Shift in Episodes of Avatar: the Last Airbender

[edit]

Article consists mainly of POV/fan opinion, what remains could probably/might already be integrated in other Avatar articles Virogtheconq 05:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge any worthwhile content with Avatar: The Last Airbender, and delete. TheMadBaron 07:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please read Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. A complete merge requires a redirect. Merge and delete are not compatible. - Mgm|(talk) 09:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm for complete deletion, and no redirecting, since the article title really doesn't apply to the main Avatar articles. I've seen all the aired episodes of Avatar thus far, so I could probably go through the article, integrate anything I think is noteworthy into other Avatar articles - after that, the article could be deleted. However, since I don't follow it too much outside of its episodes, I might not be the best source for this, but I can do it if no one else volunteers.Virogtheconq 17:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see 'environmental shift', I expect geograhical information, not a theory in the change of director's vision or whatever it is. After a quick read, I doubt that there anything much worth merging into another article, so call for delete. Any cut-and-paste of snippets to a more relevant article will be acceptable in my view. Saberwyn 04:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I went and reread the article, and the only information that seems applicable would be the bit regarding the show time. However, this is minor at best, and if it's really that noticeable it probably would have been written into the main Avatar page already, so it's probably doesn't need to be moved. Otherwise, this page is ready for deletion.Virogtheconq 06:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Message from creator: Go ahead and delete. I will be moving this to my own server. marikun46
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 00:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Klapton

[edit]

Makes no assertion of notability; yet another non-notable band. (Note: Page on their album Really Wonderful Tonight, can be speedied once this one is deleted.) Deltabeignet 23:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:29, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evorgreen

[edit]

Non-notable band. The high point of their musical career seems to be high school talent shows. Zero relevant Google hits. Rampart 12:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 01:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

exacube

[edit]

Neologism, vanity... Alai 20:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE ♠PMC♠ 05:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exindfabrics

[edit]

NN Company, seems more like an advertisement. Fallsend 09:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting. Physchim62 (talk) 13:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as single, incomplete sentence

Extramarital sex

[edit]

definition. wiktionary appropriate maybe, but not here.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 01:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flack Attack

[edit]

Dictionary definition? Neologism? Redirect to propaganda? Keep and expand? You decide, I couldn't - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 22:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete as per nomination's justification - doesn't matter whether permission is given for content. - Mailer Diablo 01:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gingernaps

[edit]

Refer to this old revision. Again, there's a claim of permission on the talk page, but I can't find any evidence that this company meets WP:CORP. —Cryptic (talk) 14:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 15:03, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glenview, Saint Clair County, Illinois

[edit]

According to the Census Bureau, the Saint Clair County, Illinois article, and the Sheriff's website, Glenview is not a city or village in the county. I corrected this statement in the Wiki article. Rand McNally's website shows Glenview in Cook County when one types in Glenview, IL for an online map. Glenview in Saint Clair County appears to be a small area in Saint Clair County when one examines it at Mapquest. The US Postal Service also shows that Glenview in Cook County is the only place in Illinois that uses "Glenview" as the city name with respect to postal addresses. Also, Mapquest sometimes shows names for unincorporated neighborhoods that are not used and not heard of by local residents. If the article is deleted, then links must also be removed from two disambig pages. Slo-mo 04:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete as per nomination's justification - doesn't matter whether permission is given for content. - Mailer Diablo 01:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Golden City

[edit]

Please see this version. This article is a copy from another website and is currently tagged as copyvio. However, someone claims permission on the talk page. Rather than soliciting permission only for it to later be deleted, we are now posting questionable pages here before soliciting permission. (See our discussion.) This article in its current state appears to be a brief description of an non-notable non-profit. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 00:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Edwardian 06:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The article's title has nothing to do with its content. The content never addresses a "Golden City" in any form. Rather it boosts and gives promo materials from a non-profit that is not called "Golden City." Rather, it seems to be about the "Oneness Project." I'm not sure why we'd even want to consider the merits of the Oneness Project, as it's not the subject under consideration, but, if we did, we'd be left with a non-profit that has not achieved very much significant effect at this point and would probably be a deleted topic. Geogre 12:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Geogre. *drew 02:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination and Geogre. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GOTL Theology

[edit]

Combination original research and attempt to start a discussion board on the talk page. --Tabor 05:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 01:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Duke of Edinburgh

[edit]

See Below for amended view following work on article from othersNot been changed or updated since June, and no attempt to explain if this is a notable entry. Mention of this ship could be made on another article rather than a separate stub entry. doktorb 11:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Obviously I see this nomination has got the best out of Wiki - great to see the amendments and additions to the article. I have no hesitation in asking for the original delete nomination to be withdrawn; or for those who need to know to be assured I see no reason now why this article cannot be kept. Thank you to all the great people helping out. doktorb 21:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, as this currently has no content whatsoever. That said, my gut says that warships are notable (although I'm not sure I could articulate why), but this article has no content besides the name and the stub tag. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 14:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Warships are notable because they fulfil the same primary notability criterion that we use for people, companies, web sites, and other things: Multiple separate people, independent of the subject, have written and published works of their own about them, demonstrating that they find the subject notable enough that they have gone to the effort of creating and publishing works of their own about it. People write books, produce television documentaries, and set up web sites about warships. Uncle G 16:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, warships are indeed notable, but this article restates something which is evident from the title, which is a speedy criterion. - Mgm|(talk) 15:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep we learned about this one in history. Just make a stub until someone puts in some more info. 203.122.218.47 15:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per the article and the notability criterion outlined above, keep. Uncle G 16:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Most valid military warships of cruiser class or larger are highly notable. If this was a patrol boat, for example, you might have a good argument. But this is not even remotely close to meeting deletion criteria, particularly following the expansion. — RJH 17:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there are a great many articles about various classes of warships on Wikipedia.--Nicodemus75 18:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand, but rename to HMS Duke of Edinburgh (UK ship). User:Zoe|(talk) 23:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ejrrjs | What? 23:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've tidied the article up a bit, we may need further discussion about which warships are inherently notable, but I've seen a lot of articles on warships. In the light of this, I suggest that, at the very least, all cruisers and larger in the world's major navies which saw active service in 1 of the 2 world wars are inherently notable. PatGallacher 01:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think that there's a need to formulate a specific criterion. The multiple published works from independent sources criterion is a relatively general criterion that works for ships as well as it does for people, bands, companies, products, software packages, and web sites. The criterion that you describe is a simple and direct consequence of its application. "All cruisers and larger in the world's major navies which saw active service in 1 of the 2 world wars" are notable because plenty of people independent of the subjects have published works of their own (written books, produced documentaries, created web sites, and so forth) that cover that very set of ships. (See the very sources cited by this article, for example.) The set of what is notable is already established by the world at large, and the multiple published works from independent sources notability criterion simply reflects that.

      What is needed is for the editors who are creating these ship articles to cite sources. None of the ones that I looked at cited any sources whatsoever. In practice, it is very rare for articles that have citations of multiple published works from independent sources to even come to AFD in the first place, let alone be deleted. Indeed, the simple act of citing such sources has on several occasions changed people's opinions from "delete" to "keep". I strongly urge the editors of these ship articles, and indeed all editors with pet projects, to cite sources in all of their articles. Uncle G 14:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the expanded version. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, definately notable! Thelb4 19:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep mere mention of deletion has generated article extension and get that move done so the navbox works.GraemeLeggett 21:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep verified --redstucco 09:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 01:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I Have A Dream (song)

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a cystal ball. Lots of speculation and "not known". Let's wait till the song is released, if it ever is. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, being that it was recorded already. Or recording started. --Vizcarra 23:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep even if it dos not get released. Renata3 05:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Single by ABBA, off the "Voulez-Vous" album. Reached no. 2 in the UK charts over Christmas 1979. What Michael Jackson's got to do with it, though, I've no idea, so all that stuff probably needs removing. Grutness...wha? 05:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. It's a upcoming single by Michael Jackson and other recording artists (most of which have been confirmed). It's been written, recorded and will be released very soon. November 21, 2005 is the scheduled release date for this single. There's no reason to delete an article about an upcoming single. There are plently of article on upcoming or currect singles.
p.s. This song is not the ABBA song, although they did record and release a song with the same name. Street walker 06:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I realise that - perhaps I should have added a smiley. The point is, though, since the Voulez-Vous page has a link to this one, perhaps a disambiguation page is needed. Grutness...wha? 10:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Was there every an article for the ABBA song? If so, I don't think it was called I Have A Dream (song). If it was, then when I redirected From the Bottom of My Heart (the previous title of the MJ song) to I Have A Dream (song), it would've said there is allready a page with that title. But it didn't. Is there an article for the ABBA song with the same name? Street walker 11:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No there wasn't, although there was about to be - I discovered this AFD when I put a link on the Voulez-Vous page to an article which I was about to write, and was surprised when the link was blue rather than red. A disambiguation is certainly needed. Grutness...wha? 00:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I created an article called I Have a Dream (ABBA). I also put a link to the article on I Have A Dream (song) and changed the link on the Voulez-Vous (album) page. If you know anymore information about the single, go to the article and expand it, because it's pretty brief at the moment. I only used information I could find on Wiki articles. Street walker 13:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 23:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Idiyappam

[edit]

A recipe: belongs in wikibooks, not here. -- Francs2000 21:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Evangelization

[edit]

It looks like someone's private notes for the purpose of spreading religion; original research, also Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 14:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Industrial Rap-core

[edit]

Genre invented by Crossworm, who is up for deletion. Very few google hits (be sure to search with quotation marks). Punkmorten 23:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 15:14, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interchanges on Ontario provincial highway 401

[edit]

This is roadcruft at its worst. Just list a bunch of interceptions. WP:NOT a road atlas Delete --JAranda | watz sup 23:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interchanges on Quebec Autoroute 20
  • Delete as per road atlas. Tom 23:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep; no valid reason given for deletion. Think of it this way: if we have an article on a band, we list albums. If we have an article on a railroad, we list stations. If we have an article on a TV show, we list episodes. And if we have an article on a freeway, we list interchanges. This was too long for Highway 401, so it was split out. --SPUI (talk) 00:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --HappyCamper 00:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm surprised, shocked, and dismayed at the community's reception to this article's content. Has anyone in the community actually tried to contact authorities in Ontario to see whether they would use this information? I actually raked up a large long distance bill doing so to find out that people in the transportation sector, law enforcement, truck drivers, government agencies, postal offices, delivery services, long term care facilities all use this information - on a regular basis, and for their livelihoods. Sometimes we need to go a bit further than our own intuition to determine whether something is encyclopedic or not - and certainly, this is material that is of utility for a large sector of people - many of which can conceivably find it here on Wikipedia. Simply put, if this is deleted, this is one AfD where I feel the community failed in doing its full due diligence in evaluating content worthiness. --HappyCamper 17:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --FCYTravis 00:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per SPUI. JAranda's claim that this is just a list of intersections is false, as it also has references and information on possible extensions of the highway. Also, while I agree that Wikipedia is not a road atlas, that doesn't mean we can't have articles about roads. Wikipedia is not a math textbook, either, but we have plenty of useful articles about mathematical theorems. Given that there have been no other arguments for deletion, and keeping it will retain useful and verifiable information, it seems clear to me that this article should be kept. Factitious 01:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a road atlas in prose. The information would be more easily communicated on a map rather than in this format. --Metropolitan90 01:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia is not paper. Andreww 01:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, nor is it an informational garbage dump. As Gamaliel said in a different discussion (and note particularly the last sentence and clause:
      • Wikipedia is not paper, but it is also not the Library of Babel, nor is it an endless and tedious compendium of every bit of trivia and gossip and useless, insignificant "facts". It is an encyclopedia, not a dumping ground. That means we have a duty not to mindlessly compile facts but to present them in a concise and usable manner, making judgments about which facts are important and which are not.
        • I don't think the article in question is useless or insignificant. I also don't think it was created mindlessly. Factitious 02:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wikipedia is not paper covers more than just the amount of information we can include. It looks like this article exists as extra information for the Ontario provincial highway 401 article. I'm not arguing that in a paper encyclopedia there would not be enough space for the info (trees will keep growing) but that it would be almost impossible to organize it sensibly. By braking the extra information out onto a seperate page - in a different dimention not avalable to users of paper - the editors of Ontario provincial highway 401 have found a good way to arrage things while trying to limit the length of there main article which helps readability. Wer should be considering the future of this page in the context of Ontario provincial highway 401 and not as some isolated list. Do you really want to make Ontario provincial highway 401 worse or not have that article? Then delete this page. Do you think we need an article for Ontario provincial highway 401? Then I think this page needs to stay too. Andreww 09:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Extreme roadcruft. Wikipedia is not an atlas, and any geographical information should be, at best a summary or illustrative. I keep thinking of the Borges about some mythical mapmakers:
In that Empire, the craft of Cartography attained such Perfection that the Map of a Single province covered the space of an entire City, and the Map of the Empire itself an entire Province. In the course of Time, these Extensive maps were found somehow wanting, and so the College of Cartographers evolved a Map of the Empire that was of the same Scale as the Empire and that coincided with it point for point. Less attentive to the Study of Cartography, succeeding Generations came to judge a map of such Magnitude cumbersome, and, not without Irreverence, they abandoned it to the Rigours of sun and Rain. In the western Deserts, tattered Fragments of the Map are still to be found, Sheltering an occasional Beast or beggar; in the whole Nation, no other relic is left of the Discipline of Geography. --Calton | Talk 02:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is of a major highway therefore not indiscriminate. Useful for those studying transportation, which many of us took for granted, but nonetheless encyclopedic. --Vsion 10:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 15:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interchanges on Quebec Autoroute 20

[edit]

This is roadcruft on an astonishing, Borgesian scale. Remember that this is an encyclopedia, where facts are put into context and graded according to importance, WP:NOT a dumping ground for data, where every thing under the sun is left to rot. Pilatus 17:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interchanges on Ontario provincial highway 401, of which this is the continuation. 82.26.169.95 Pilatus 18:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 01:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

International Stock Imagery Association

[edit]

Some nn organization which created a yahoo group in October. Renata3 19:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE and REDIRECT to Animated cartoon. — JIP | Talk 08:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Internet cartoon

[edit]

This article attempts to describe the phenomenon of animated shorts and series (chiefly Macromedia Flash animation) distributed primarily on the web. While Flash animation subculture is certainly a worthy topic, there's virtually nothing salvagable in this article. I would only see it as a cleanup candidate were it not crowned with the arbitrary and erroneous title of Internet cartoon. (Neither Internet nor cartoon is appropriate here, and the term Internet cartoon does not enjoy wide use.)

Since any objective cleanup attempt would necessitate both a page move and and a near-total rewrite, I see no reason to harbor a misinformative article in the interim. – Ringbang 21:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 08:56, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Edwards (EastEnders)

[edit]

This is an article about a fictional character that may appear for 4 weeks on East Enders in 2006. This is NN and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Agnte 18:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. User:Edward NZ is a sock puppet, but even ignoring his vote, the consensus is clearly keep. — JIP | Talk 09:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

James Atkinson (software developer)

[edit]

phpBB is notable, but is the founder of the project notable? Talrias (t | e | c) 22:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as nn bio

Jamie Lee Hamilton

[edit]

political vanity page AJSingh 07:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article was speedily deleted by User:DragonflySixtyseven with the summary "empty". This AFD is hereby closed. encephalon 00:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jaren Ashton

[edit]

Non-notable 16-year old with zero google hits. No claim to notability except being a basketball player. Possible CSD. Delete. A D Monroe III 22:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 11:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jaycee Studios

[edit]

This page is vanity, strongly suspect that it was written by the author of the website. Very NN, google shows no pages link to it [12] and only only 9 websites have ever referenced it [13] Agnte 12:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a friend of the webmaster of jayceestudios.com, and I know the Wiki entry was made by one of her fans. The opening sentance to which you reffered was added when the wiki was taken down before for being 'nonsense'. -Mr Reaper, friend of Jaycee Pawman. (First edit from — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.146.101 (talk • contribs) )

I'm also a friend of the webmaster of jayceestudios.com, and I also know the Wiki entry was made by one of her fans. It DID take alot of time to put together and it is a wonder website. I don't see why you are so hot to delete it. As the article said, it is not 'nonsense'. -The Flying Yoshi, friend of Jaycee Pawman. (First edit from — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.141.62 (talk • contribs) )

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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 01:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Abela

[edit]

This doesn't establish notability. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 01:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Wellington

[edit]

I can't find any outside verification of this, and the article itself reads like a joke. Joyous (talk) 05:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article may read like a joke, but then like they say the truth is far stranger than fiction. I have been doing research on this guy for the past six months and I can verify every word. I'll be adding some of his most memorable quotations soon. Not sure who wrote the article but the guy's done his homework! (Professor Port Talbot Ma Bsc Phd Phd Fag)

It is written in a rather facetious manner, but then again Mr. Wellington is something of a figure of fun in South Wales and especially Port Talbot. I cannot verify the quotations attributed to him but as far as I know everything else on here is true. They can be verified by checking back copies of the South Wales Squirrel newspaper, the newspaper of the regional South Wales Anarchist Group (SWAG) who have hailed Wellington as a paragon of local democracy and free speech (Anarchism is still a living creed in some parts of the South Wales Valleys, although Wellington denies any political affiliation with SWAG). His performance on 'Question Time Wales' is nothing short of legendary in these parts. Max Boyce was reduced to a seething wreck by Wellington's continual jibes about his height.

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

page blanked as courtesy upon polite request--Jimbo Wales 13:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 11:35, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kastle archives

[edit]

Tagged as "vandalism" for some reason; bringing it here instead. No vote. android79 05:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete If all the claims are true, the article establishes a vague sort of notability, but it would still need a massive POV-ectomy, wikification, etc., and this morning I'm feeling to pessimistic to expect any of that to happen. Anville 10:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: We begin with a niche photographer, and that photographer's work is being housed by a niche website, and one part of that niche website is the "archive" section, and that is what this article is about. Ummmm, a bit too trivial, really, and borrowing fame from someone not that famous to give to a site to give to a bit of the site. Geogre 13:19, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - POV (reads like an ad) & marginal notability Renata3 14:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete' as per Anville. Site's Alexa ranking is 92,162. MCB 06:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Robert T | @ | C 01:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keynote Systems

[edit]

Suspected advertising Coolgamer 20:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was dealt with as copyvio. - Mailer Diablo 01:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Knovi: a life-long learning forum

[edit]

Advert (text comes straight from here), and currently non-notable: 55 Google hits Knovi " life-long learning", the majority on the Knovi site itself. Tearlach 19:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 01:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

L virginia bridal

[edit]

Blatant vanity/ad. Only about two Google hits. Superm401 | Talk 19:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 01:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lancaster University Writers' Guild

[edit]

Spam. 9cds 20:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Right, this doesn't belong in the Wikipedia, unless one of their members is rewarded a Nobel prize ;-) Robert 20:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't university-sponsored - it's merely one of over 80 societies. The fact that it has published two anthologies proves there's peple in the society who knows how to use latex. Nice society, just isn't really of encyclopedic relevence. 9cds 20:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 15:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

League of Micronations

[edit]

Nonsense. User:Zoe|(talk) 06:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Edwardian 06:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I must disagree that this page is nonsense. There is infact such an organisation, see link 1 and link 2. Also a google search of "League of Micronations" returns 3,500+ results. Whether or not this group is noteworthy enough for an encyclopedia article might be another topic of discussion, however I think it is unfair to call this nonsense. I have also taken the time to update the article some. -- malo (talk) 08:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please check the last page of your Google search and you'll see that, of those 3500 hits, only 60 are unique. The rest are multiple hits on the same page. Also, 4t.com is a free server, much like geocities, some real organization of this type would certainly have its own servers and domain. User:Zoe|(talk) 08:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for point out the flaws of my google search. You are right in stating that there aren't that many unique hits. There are plenty of organisations too cheap or unaware of the process of buying their own servers. And maybe that is an indicator of just how notable this group is. However, your nomination calls this nonsense. If that was the case, why not tag it with {{nonsense}}, and have it speedy deleted? I don't think this is a speedy canidate however I'm trying to make a point here. -- malo (talk) 19:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I understand that there is a prophecy that this organisation will prove to be utterly useless at preserving world peace and be replaced by the United Micronations. Capitalistroadster 09:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. I hate micronations, so very, very much. Also, I predict that the United Micronations will also be utterly useless at preserving world peace. -- Kjkolb 11:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. But one day the US president will see the error of his ways. However duff they may be, he needs the United Micronations! Marcus22 12:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep valid organisation. Ridiculous to delete it. 203.122.218.47 15:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. No, this is not an international organization for the likes of Palau and Brunei. I checked it out and...oh dear this is funny! Yes it's hosted on a free server. "Join" is a main menu option. Here's an excerpt from their list of qualifications: "The League of Micronations does not accept applicants who do not have an Internet homepage, exist for purely commercial reasons, contain pornographic material, promote hacking or other illegal activities, or are racist or hate sites (League of Micronations Charter, Article 3d)." Even so it only has 35 member "states". Durova 16:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Quite clearly nonsense doktorb 16:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I wonder if you realise what a micronation is, with some of the comments here. I used to live down the road from someone who created his own micronation. His house, the people that lived in it, a few of his friends and neighbours were all members of a country. There were 11 residents, and he printed his own currency and did the whole thing associated with being your own country. I never found out why he did it though. I think he disagreed with Australian laws or something like that. People who do this kind of thing have various reasons for it, but yeah, its legitimate. 203.122.218.47 17:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do realize what a micronation is. Some users might not. The Family Guy ran a hilarious episode about the premise. An association that cannot garner three dozen members or afford its own web hosting is not even notable enough to merge. Durova 18:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom FRS 18:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless Sealand decides to join 'em. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 19:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ben Aveling 19:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ejrrjs | What? 23:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northern Forest Archipelago I wrote that notability generally involves some impact by a micronation upon the real world. Declaring a field to be an independent nation and telling only Wikipedia about it such as the Nation of Pogo (AfD discussion), or setting up a club on a web site such as the Republic of Atlasia (AfD discussion), do not impact the real world at all. Whereas Sealand and Ladonia, in contrast, have elicited mainstream news coverage, and have involved real disputes, real territories, and real court cases. The same applies to purported organizations of micronations. Researching the League of Micronations, I can find no news coverage, no independently written articles about the League of Micronations, and indeed nothing (outside of what the League of Micronations claims about itself) except one-sentence mentions with hyperlinks. The article cites no sources at all, either. There is no evidence that the League of Micronations has impacted upon the real world in any way. Delete. Uncle G 00:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you've made the best case thus far to have this article deleted. Basically because I think you are correct in so far that this league seems not to have had any impact upon the world. -- malo (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Uncle G. Chick Bowen 02:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Zoe and Uncle G. There are many, many, micronations. A tiny number of them are notable. The vast majority are, basically hobbyist social clubs. An association of non-notable clubs is, well, most likely a non-notable club itself. MCB 06:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 01:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of best-selling music artists 2

[edit]
First afd

This article is dreadful. It features on the list of most-revised articles [15], which is pretty bad for an article which is a list of supposed facts - 2928 revisions suggests something is wrong. It is pretty much permanently erroneous - fans put bands such as Led Zeppelin at the top of the list, then someone else puts The Beatles there. There is one user who simply replaces the band name with Cher.

Most of the sales figures are pretty much worthless guesses, based on original research - a quote by some lazy music journalist saying so-and-so has sold 100,000,000 albums in 1996, so let's randomly add 100,000,000 to an arbitrary guess at how many singles they have sold.


The article is unstable, constantly changing. It is original research, and largely worthless as a reference source. The 'facts' in it change all the time. It undoubtedly excludes popular artists from areas where sales figures are poorly collated. Delete!. 87.74.12.83 11:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This article is very useful for people wanting to find out artists' total record sales. It is quick and easy. Most artists' sales on the list are accurate. Expecially Michael Jackson, The Beatles, Elvis Presley and Led Zeppilin who, if you go to the discussion page you will see, have been thoroughly researched and argued out until a very, very accurate record sale was found. Most of the top ten has been looked into and my opinion is that those artists have accurate record sales totals beside their names. You can't find an exact worldwide sales total for any artist, but you can get pretty darn close and this list, as it stands now, is pretty darn close. Street walker 12:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As long as there is a warning to accompany the article, there is no reason for why it should be deleted. Over the past few weeks, this article has actually been greatly improved with the addition of new references as well as warnings that point out the fact that references are not being provided for certain artists. There are also a lot of interesting discussions that go on and it is good to see that the discussions are referenced as well.


  • Keep, well-sourced and throuroughly discussed article. Just because people repeatedly insert misinformation is not a good reason to delete it. - Mgm|(talk) 15:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep . Useful as long as the information stays accurate. 23skidoo 16:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Nominators arguments demonstrate a need for cleanup, not for deletion. Invalid AfD criteria — RJH 17:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Look, I'm going to vote keep for the simple reason that this article was vfd before, and there was no concensus. There has to be a stop to this at some point. I still concur that the information is subjective and needs a definitive source (such as RIAA) to verify any and all information. [[Briguy52748 23:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)]][reply]
  • Delete Bad information can be worse than no information at all. Denni☯ 04:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia should try to provide this information, but if some of it is wrong, it doesn't matter all that much. CalJW 16:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am biting my tongue very hard, trying to keep in mind WP:CIVIL. Yes, it does matter all that much. We want people to perceive us as a reliable source of correct information. If we say, "oh, some of it's wrong, but that's okay" and we can't even tell them what's wrong (or even worse, can't be bothered to tell them), where does that leave our credibility? In the toilet, that's where. We already have difficulty gaining acceptance among librarians, educators, and other user groups. Let's not make matters worse. Denni☯ 03:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Everyone knows the article's limitations and they are clearly explained at the start of the article. Until someone can come up with a definitive list, this will remain as an interesting and useful article.
  • Keep If some of the information is wrong, wouldn't it be easier to just fix it rather than delete it? There are plenty of sources which can be used and these are only estimates - no one would have actual figures as these artists have sold millions of records, and more are sold every day. Sarz 07:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)][reply]
  • Keep. Now that the article features a prominent warning, and more of the figures have linked sources, it's much improved. The figures don't exist for a perfect article, but this is currently the closest thing there is to it, and hopefully it will continue to improve. Of course it attracts a lot of misinformation from fanboys, but provided that sources are checked, this isn't enough to provide cause for deletion. Hopefully we can reach a consensus on this.


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

The result of the debate was delete. (75% delete from 30 votes, and 10 keep votes). - Mailer Diablo 01:50, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish bankers

[edit]

non-encyclopedic listcruft with little hope of ever becoming comprehensive or maintanable → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 12:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just proving my point, someone (Arniep) nominated a whole "list of" Jewish. Not surprisingly, the "List of Jewish Criminals" is going down in flames, while most of the rest are "speedy keep." In fact, one person who voted against "List of Jewish Bankers" voted FOR some of the other lists. This merely proves my point that reactionary politically-correct bias is operating here...I'm sure a court of law would find that since these lists were created by the same user, who has shown an intent not of anti-Semitism but Jewish identity (being Jewish), taken as a whole the lists should be equal. Remember, DISCRIMINATION is picking out one thing and applying different standards.Ryoung122 09:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


List of Jewish American academics List of Jewish American business figures List of Jewish American political figures List of Jewish American scientists List of Jewish American show business figures List of Jewish American sport figures List of Jewish American writers List of Jewish Americans List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society List of Jewish Members of the National Academy of Engineering List of Jewish Recipients of National Medal of Technology List of Jewish bankers List of Jewish criminals List of Jewish publishers List of Jews List of Jews in business List of Jews in law

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

The result of the debate was keep. Robert T | @ | C 01:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of theatres in Mumbai

[edit]

Redlink infected Listcruft. This is like creating List of theatres in Miami Delete --JAranda | watz sup 00:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 15:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of victims of the American Civil War

[edit]

Victims? Besides that, this is an impossible list. Far too many died. And why stop here? How about List of victims of the Hundred Years War and List of victims of the Crusades? And where does it stop? Is Abraham Lincoln a "victim" of the Civil War? How about John Wilkes Booth? User:Zoe|(talk) 05:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete after 2-day extension. —Cleared as filed. 15:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Bailey and his Ukulele

[edit]

Appears to be band vanity, less than 150 results on Google and most not referring to him. Splintax 09:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 01:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mantras and Prayers

[edit]

At best, this belongs in Wikisource. —Cryptic (talk) 00:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 01:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Days

[edit]

Individual songs don't deserve a wikipedia page. (See WP:Music for more info. Also note that the band which made the song is also up for deletion. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Posse_of_Two. (Both the band, the song, and other pages relating to the band were all made by one person). --Bachrach44 14:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. —Cleared as filed. 15:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Curtis

[edit]

non-notability Christofurio 19:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cleanup. This man actually had full length books written about him. See The Mark Curtis Hoax: How the Socialist Workers Party Tried to Dupe the Labor Movement by Martin McLaughlin ISBN 0-929087-46-1, and The Frame-Up of Mark Curtis: A Packinghouse Worker's Fight for Justice ISBN 0873485459. I'd say that level of attention is notable enough for inclusion when the question turns on possible political persecution. Durova 21:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Cleanup. A man who has had two books written about him is notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 00:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup per the previous votes. (Thanks for the research, Durova.) Also, there are happily some solid links there already. That's always a good sign. Jacqui ★ 00:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe if we're going to keep it, the name should be changed to the "Mark Curtis Case". It seems that two different sets of leftist activists have argued over whether he is a rapist or the victim of a frame-up. Aside from that, he seems an utterly unimportant person. So, let's let the article be about the argument, not a bio of him. --Christofurio 14:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. —Cryptic (talk) 01:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Joffre Skinner

[edit]
I tagged it too. Sliggy 00:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by Geogre. Content blanked by author. --GraemeL (talk) 15:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maxsweb

[edit]

Non notable website. I'm never sure where we stand on speedily deleting this cruft. -- Francs2000 00:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 01:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MC Bombadil

[edit]

cute name, but doesn't meet WP:Music --Bachrach44 14:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 01:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Meet The Posse

[edit]

band vanity. According to WP:Music, songs don't usually deserve pages in wikipedia. THe band itself is also up for delete. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Posse_of_Two. Also, wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The song hasn't even been released yet. --Bachrach44 14:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 15:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MenTaLguY

[edit]

Delete, Not sure on this one, but I doubt a contributor to three open source projects is notable - the projects are notable, but he is not. Perhaps he is worthy of mention in the articles about the projects, but I don't think four lines of text about him, two of which are asserting his notability, really belongs on wikipedia -Werdna648 02:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 15:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mexipop

[edit]

Term made out out of thin air, apparently. 32 mentions on google with one referencing this article. Vizcarra 23:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard the term many times here in Europe and despite google has few entries on the subject the article should not be erased, I think. Besides it is a fact that the socalled mexipop is a huge phenomenom in many parts of the planet. And erasing the article won't stop people from using that term.

Thank you.

Bjørn Tore Nystrøm. Norway — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.4.126 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete. If the above would like to provide a credible source documenting the huge phenomenon, he is welcome. Don't worry, censorship is the last thing we're worrying about. (The above editor, 80.216.4.126, is the creator of the page, and has added bits on 'Mexipop' to other pages.) Deltabeignet 23:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


OK, I think I understand the point. However I have a question "and has added bits on 'Mexipop' to other pages"... was it wrong doing that? Thanks for the attention.

Not wrong, but it helps identifying you as the same person, since you have not created a username. --Vizcarra 01:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Should not be erased... not only because I have added a couple of details :) but seems to be a topic on its own. May the divinities consider it. AugustoRomero


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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 01:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mocktroid

[edit]

nn Newgrounds stuff. Only 65 unique Google hits. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 01:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oscarin

[edit]

patent nonsense Savant1984 21:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 01:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PaPa G

[edit]

Article seems largely nonsensical and I can't find any verification, either at the site given or through Google. --Tabor 03:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 01:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Posse of Two

[edit]

band vanity. Doesn't meet WP:music --Bachrach44 06:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - first of all, "starting to develop a following" does not meet WP:Music standards. When they develop a following (and please read WP:Music, the page can be recreated. Secondly, the only support thus far comes from the same anonymous IP that made the page in question, and a bunch of related pages which are also up for deletion. --Bachrach44 02:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Robert T | @ | C 22:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prussian Blue (British band)

[edit]

Non-notable band vanity. Not on allmusic.com, not on Amazon.com, apparently fails WP:NMG. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 22:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete and move Return to Eden (television) here. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 22:48, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Return to Eden

[edit]

The article refers to a Australian soap opera and a 1996 Annie Award nominated Michel Gagné short called "Return to Eden." The name of the short is actually "Prelude to Eden."

http://www.gagneint.com/Final%20site/misc/Prelude%20to%20Eden/Prelude.htm

Because the page now only refers to one "real" thing, the disambiguation page is not needed.

141.213.184.86 04:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Merge to Australian Progressive Alliance Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 23:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Deebank, Geoff Gibson, Chris Grigsby, Reese Malcolm, Tony Newman

[edit]

Minor political candidates for a now-defunct minor party. Polled less than 1% of the vote, and attracted approximately zero media attention. Ambi 11:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]



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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as vanity page

Ryan Warawa

[edit]

This is a vanity page BillC38 06:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus, will redirect to album and maybe soft merge. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 23:08, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sad Café

[edit]

A song by Eagles. The band is well-known, but the song is just another song. I spent like 1 hour looking for info to expand it, but it looks like there is nothing much else to say about it. There is completely nothing special about it. Renata3 13:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 01:03, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Saddam Hussein refuses to sell out Iraq

[edit]

It should be obvious to anyone familiar with Rumsfeld's speaking style and Saddam's character that this is fiction.

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Security breaches

[edit]

Delete; long, rambling, unencyclopedic original research and personal POV essay about matters covered in other articles on computer security. Features section headings like "Thanks California" and "Thanks USA" (author congratulating jurisdictions for legislation) and many sentences where author quotes and/or refers to himself in the third person ("The largest computer disaster of which AlMac is aware, in terms of amount of money at stake, prior to Y2K, was when the US Federal Reserve ran out of #s for issuing Bonds to finance the national debt.") Normally I would suggest or attempt cleanup but this is just a complete mess, and more importantly from an AfD point of view, is duplicated elsewhere. MCB 22:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 01:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual perfomance failure

[edit]

Low content, subject covered at great length in other articles, such as Sexual dysfunction, with a misspelled title on top of it all. Jasmol 19:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE as attack page. If someone wants to replace this with some content (It's a gymnasium in Lund, Sweden, apparently), feel free to call it a win or whatever on Schoolwatch. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 14:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spyken

[edit]

I'm all for the inclusion of articles on schools, but only where they actually say something of use. This one doesn't - delete CLW 13:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 01:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Staffanstorps Livs

[edit]

Non-notable grocery store (unless selling cheap imported soda qualifies as notability...) Delete CLW 12:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy-delete. Page-blanked by the original author and only editor. I'm taking that as evidence that speedy case G7 applies. Rossami [[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]] 01:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Staunton-Lambert

[edit]

Wikipedia articles are not genealogical entries, especially not when the author of a page is linked from it. I was tempted to speedy as an A7, but it's too much of a stretch. —Cryptic (talk) 03:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 01:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strangers (song)

[edit]

band vanity. According to WP:Music, songs don't usually deserve pages in wikipedia. THe band itself is also up for delete. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Posse_of_Two --Bachrach44 14:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep (more detailed analysis on discussion page). Robert T | @ | C 22:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC) (amended by David | Talk 10:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Surviving veterans of the First World War

[edit]

A list of people notable only for being alive. User:Zoe|(talk) 07:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RETURN OF A HERO Mirror.co.uk, UK - Nov 11, 2005 It was in the dark days of 1918 when 109-year-old Henry Allingham said goodbye to France. Yesterday he went back..to remember comrades he left behind. ... Smell of death 'stays with you always' BBC News Britons fall silent for war dead BBC News A rare moment to reflect together on the price of freedom Independent BBC News - ic Wales - all 87 related »

ITN Queen will lead war dead tributes Scotsman, United Kingdom - 12 hours ago ... Henry Allingham, who at 109 is the country's oldest World War One veteran, is expected to be among the former servicemen who will gather to remember the heroes ... Queen leading war dead tributes Scotland on Sunday all 120 related »

  • Keep. A useful link list containing more than a fair number of notable people. Sjc 07:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. They are notable for being alive despite serving in a war ninety years ago. I also do not think it is abusive to point out when someone is being disrespectful. Laszlo Panaflex 08:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I don't get it: they are of a generation soon to dye out, so it's very important to honour them from a historical point of view at least by not deleting this very important page. Bart Versieck 09:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Informative list, but it's going to be quite a job trying to keep it updated... Grutness...wha? 09:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I'm extremely ambivalent about the value of this page. In my opinion, a list should contain intrinsically useful information on its own, or serve as a useful navigation resource for Wikipedia. The information inherant in this list seems to be a negligable value (it's just a group of people who found in a war and survived to this day), and indeed it is dated (and thus transient) information, which, in my view, makes it less encyclopedic.
    On the other hand, there do happen to be a number of people on this list who are indeed notable for other things (and thus have WP articles), so this article does have some (albeit somewhat idiosyncratic) value as a navigation aid. If this were rewritten to be a list of people who have or need their own articles, with brief summaries of who they are, then I think I'd find myself abstaining from voting, on the grounds that this would be a useful but somewhat idiosyncratic list. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 09:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Information for a world's record or trivia book, not an encyclopedia. It would be very difficult to maintain, as they are dying rapidly. Also, it isn't Wikipedia's place to honor anyone. -- Kjkolb 11:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, but your comment really is disrespectful. Bart Versieck 11:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry you feel that way. However, AfD is a place for brutal honesty, and I don't think anyone who voted delete is trying to be disrespectful. They're just trying to explain their reasoning, however offensive some may find it. We have to decide what is and isn't encyclopedic, regardless of whether the subject deserves recognition or honor.
  • Keep. I can't believe someone nominated this. Marcus22 12:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Surviving WW1 is not notable. Living to beyond 100 is not notable. Combining many non-notables does not make one notable. 130.159.254.2 13:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Notability is rarely something achieved simply by being oneself. For example, World's Tallest Midget is not our game, although Dwarfism and Acromegaly are. WW1 gets ample coverage. Surviving the war and then the years that follow is always something to be rejoiced in, but it is not encyclopedic. (And my grandfather was a WW1 vet.) Geogre 13:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there should be then millions of names in the list. It's unmaintainable. Renata3 14:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The list is maintained. It is kept up to date. If the list was for all WW1 veterans then it would be unmaintainable. It is not. It is for those veterans who are still with us. Contrary to being unwieldy, it is a small and dwindling list. In fact it will delete itself in the not too distant future! Marcus22 14:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, ok, my mistake. But then again it will delete itself. And honestly, I don't quite see a purpose of it. It's a list of some unknown names. Maybe just a number would be useful, but not the whole list of names. And how about other countries involved in WWI? Like Russia for example. So it's POV, incomplete and will delete itself. I agree it's all very sad, but... Renata3 14:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • How is it POV? Incomplete because it lacks Turks maybe. But how so is it POV? These people are alive and they are surviving veterans. Those are NPOV facts. As to the missing info. - by all means try to find out the names of those Turks and Russians. Then add them to the list. It would be better for their inclusion. Marcus22 17:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment The article is NOT POV. If Iran or Russia have living WWI veterans and put them in the news, then we'd surely add them to the list. Clearly, the English-language Wikipedia has 800,000+ articles, some languages have less than 100,000. Is that POV because the other languages aren't adding material? It would only be POV if we "refused" to accept, for example, German WWI veterans...clearly, that is not happening. Also, when the last survivor dies, the article could be renamed "last WWI veterans," so it doesn't necessarily have to be deleted. Civil War histories of the last Civil War veteran claimants (Walter Williams, John Salling, Albert Woolson, etc) are still read, and included in newspaper and encyclopedia alike.Ryoung122 21:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep It is not exactly exhaustive though is it? Surely there are some surviving Iranians, Russians, Turks or Japanese? A very westernised list, the only non-westerners are an Algerian and a Serb who both happened to have fought for the French and 3 Poles, 1 of whom fought for the Germans. I vote to keep based only what David (below) says about their "notability as a class". (This anonymous vote is by 82.13.187.66 (talk · contribs)) - Dalbury (talk) 23:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not entirely that surprising. For a start, war rolled over European Russia and the Balkans repeatedly since WWI, whereas France had two comparatively short periods of combat and an occupation, and the UK was essentially untouched bar some bombing, after WWI. In addition to these higher mortality rates through warfare - a lot of those young enough to fight in WWI and still live today would have been called up in WWII, especially in the German or Russian militias in 1941/5, or gone into various resistance organsiations - there's the massive death rate of the early USSR to consider, or the high Japanese civilian deaths of 1944/5, the occupation of Poland... and after all that, there's the simple matters of bureaucracy (if no-one in the country knows you fought in WWI bar your family, it won't be known to the world), which is understandably worse in countries where documentation has been damaged or lost by war or political upheaval, and of medicine - medical care in the West is substantially better than in most other countries, suggesting that a higher proportion would survive to an advanced age (100-110 without good medical care is pretty unusual). I'm not saying they're all listed, but I do think that it's fair to expect some skewing... come to think of it, Japanese participation in WWI was low numerically, pretty much only the navy, so you'd not expect many veterans there, and I suspect Western Europe had higher conscription rates than most other participants generally. Shimgray | talk | 16:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm voting Keep on this one. Fighting in the Great War does not itself make one notable, nor does becoming a centenarian, but the surviving veterans of the Great War are becoming notable as a class: the 1999 French decision to confer the Légion d'Honneur on all surviving veterans who fought in France means something, and the surviving veterans are now the focus of so much media activity to try to record all their memories of the time that some of them are becoming known more generally. Without trespassing on WP:NPA territory, it isn't exactly good public relations to nominate this article for deletion on Remembrance Sunday. David | Talk 14:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per David. I believe that people who are still honored today for a war which they fought 90 years ago are notable. - Mgm|(talk) 15:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The last surviving veterans of an old war become notable as the only remaining people who can give a firsthand account of events. This makes them significant to historians and media. Early motion pictures recorded the rebel yell of surviving confederate soldiers and their reenactments of battle actions. The last four Civil War soldiers were interviewed on the early days of television. Such knowledge is not codified soon after events. As historians ask new questions these can be the best people to answer. Durova 16:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suppose I should add that I do have a degree in history. I am also a war veteran. I had relatives who fought on both sides of World War I. Their oral history brought immediacy to accounts of the war. To offer one example, a popular German slogan was "Gott mit uns" (God is with us). My grandfather used to grin and hold up his hands, describing how the soldiers in his company taunted: "Yeah? We got mittens too!" There are still a few people who can bring such moments to life for the rest of us. The ones who remain are a treasure. Durova 23:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. We're talking about a major period of history that is more than 90 years old. Damn right this is a case of being notable for just being alive. If a big deal can be made for the last surviving Civil War veterans 60-70 years after that conflict, we owe it to these people to do the same for WWI. 23skidoo 16:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I agree with 23skidoo. Also, this list shows the inevitable death of personal connection to the time period of the war. Emersoni 19:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. A topic of enormous interest. This is precisely the sort of knowledge for which the Wikipedia is the best repository. I can't believe that this is being considered for deletion. yeastbeast
  • Obvious Keep. Veterans of the Great War who have survived to the 21st century are eminently notable and deserving of a list at Wikipedia.--Nicodemus75 18:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This information is too ephemeral for an encyclopedia. And don't accuse me of disrespecting veterans, I served my time in Vietnam. Wikipedia is not for memorials. - Dalbury (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP!!!How can you even consider removing it? It sickens me that people would want to remove something that reminds us how close the First World War really was. If we remove this. We might as well forget Remembrance altogether! And having laid a wreath today I can tel you, that is something that you just cannot do! (This unsigned vote is 172.212.127.170 (talk · contribs)'s first edit.) - Dalbury (talk) 23:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is a list which contains our last living links to the Great War--and, granted, some of them, such as Allingham and Flocquet are still very much 'with it'. Soon enough this list will disappear. There are omissions and gaps. However, if you consider 'supercentenarians' and their study 'ephemeral' to the human sciences, then by all means delete. (This unsigned vote is Bacre (talk · contribs)'s first edit.) - Dalbury (talk) 23:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. OK, let me try THIS discourse instead. It's something called "commemoration." IF you were a history major, you'd know what that is. Some people become notable as witnesses to history (oral history). As commoners, they may not have been important individually in 1925 (instead as a group). However, by 1998 (80 years later) the French government decided that it was time to commemorate and honor the surviving veterans of WWI. And don't tell me about Vietnam. We all know about Vietnam. Do you realize that more than 10 million died in WWI, far more, but for many young people today, they know nothing of the "Great War." Even among US soldiers, the war dead (118,000 in less than 2 years) far exceeded the less intense Vietnam conflict, which saw 58,000 deaths over the course of 11 years. Hence, from a historical perspective, this becomes important as "living history." With the current number of worldwide surviving veterans less than 100, and with the major news outlets deciding that their deaths warrant inclusion in obituaries, this becomes encyclopaedic. In fact, the article helps because although not everyone in the list is important enough to get their own article, together a little can be said about each one. This also helps to balance out the media tendency to "pick one person and run with it." I'm not saying that Lloyd Brown deserves his own encyclopaedia entry, but clearly a list of 80-odd surviving veterans is not too much to ask.
    Also, this is an educational tool: it teaches younger people about cohorts, generations, and demography.
    As for maintenance, that is a non-issue: many people have maintained it. And for ephemerality, you're missing the point: when the person dies, their death is recorded and moved to a separate list. I note that during the 1950's, "surviving Civil War" veterans was a popular topic. Several were featured in news publications such as the NY Times. Beginning in 1949, the NY Times included dozens of obits for "surviving Civil War veterans." If you want to re-name the article, "last veterans of the First World War," then one could divide the list into those who are still living, and those who died in the last 5 years or whatever criterion is used.
    Considering that everyone on the list from the US has been featured in a newspaper, I question what is wrong with keeping track, rather than blindly keeping people in the dark.Ryoung122 21:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Of very wide interest. Carina22 21:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Very interesting to many people which is what an encyclopedia is about. There are plenty of people who can and do edit it. Adrian (This unsigned vore is 80.2.178.115 (talk · contribs)'s first edit) - Dalbury (talk) 23:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia should not be a collection of random facts. Ejrrjs | What? 23:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This is not a collection of random facts. To be listed, someone had to have served in WWI and still be living in the 21st century...a very exclusive club, currently with less than 100 members still living.Ryoung122 00:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I should have stressed the word random. To die in a certain year is NN by itself. It probably follows some probabilistic function. Unless you can prove there is some non-random factor about it, like some serial killer targeting some specific veterans, a plague, etc. Ejrrjs | What? 07:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Are you sure you're posting to the right discussion? The nomination above this one is for WWI veterans who died in 2004. This is for the ones who are still alive (and therefore the last remaining people who can remember the war firsthand for the rest of us). Durova 08:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete An article on this subject could be encylopedic. This is not that article. Perhaps if it looked at how these men, or some of them, had influenced the public perception of war or so on. If we do keep, what do we do in a few years time when the 'club' dwindles to zero? Dito for survivors of the 2nd WW, etc. Ben Aveling 01:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: Very good educational value. Coming from the Far East, I've heard very little about WWI before I chanced upon this website. I used the individual names of the surviving veterans on Google search - which throws up a lot of media reports and historical anecdotes of their personal experiences. They are not only moving, but also inspire me to read more about the WWI in general e.g. the major battles of Ypres and of the Somme. (This unsigned vote is from 137.132.3.6 (talk · contribs)) - Dalbury (talk) 23:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep
  • Comment: won't this article effectively delete itself in a few years? -R. fiend 04:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, regardles of the outcome of this article, most of the individual people's articles should be deleted or redirected. People seem to confuse newsworthy with noteworthy. -R. fiend 04:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why wouldn't you want to recognize these individuals? It may not be perfect, but it's better than nothing...in fact this is the only list I've ever found of surviving WWI vets, so why take it away? It's a good starting point for research and deserves to be kept. -User: the5thhorseman (This is this user's first edit.) - Dalbury (talk) 18:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pointless list that will, by virtue of its subject, disappear in a few years anyway. Dottore So 14:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep! Of very wide international interest (This unsigned edit from 82.221.53.156 (talk · contribs) is the user's first edit.) - Dalbury (talk) 18:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Obvious Keep For its reference value alone, if for no other reason. Despite searching for several years this is the only list of surviving WWI veterans I've found, including inquiries to such sources as the US Veterans Administration and the Great War Society web page. Given the incredible significance of the conflict, it escapes me how one can say that tracking the few remaining living eyewitness is not relevant or of 'encyclopedic worth.'Frank Womble (This is this user's first edit.) - Dalbury (talk) 18:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Our basic policy is that if someone is notable, we have an article on them. If a group of people of minor notability are closely related, we merge them into a list and break out to individually notable ones (Harold Lawton, say, or Henry Allingham) using links. Being splashed across national media for two or three days each and every year is pretty much a good definition of minor notability; this is a textbook example of how to write such a list, though probably a couple of individuals could be merged back in. (I also have strong views on the time this was nominated, but for the sake of politeness I'll class it as an accident.) Shimgray | talk | 16:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, as to "unmaintainable"; this page has existed maybe ten to twelve weeks, and had two hundred edits; that's multiple edits a day on average, which is a pretty good indication of it remaining maintained. These people do tend to get at least short notices on the news wires when they die... Shimgray | talk | 16:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Its the least we can do to show our gratitude to all the men- both dead and alive- who fought in such dreadful conditions for our freedom. Very useful and informative page, too. (This is user 88.108.87.158 (talk · contribs)'s first edit.) - Dalbury (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We seem to have sockpuppets at work here. I realize this is a very emotional issue to many who have posted here, but the anonymous votes and votes from brand-new accounts are tainting this discussion. - Dalbury (talk) 18:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is no "David Wong" discussion! These first-time voters likely accessed the Wiki page and noticed it was to be deleted...is it fair to assume people register to vote without telling them in advance when there is to be a vote? Second, unlike the David Wong dispute (where there was obvious evidence of sockpuppetry), many of these first-time editors actually signed their name but didn't know how to post the message (which you went back and corrected). Surely a sockpuppeteer would have known how to post a message!131.96.15.39 00:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I just see a lot of unsigned votes, and votes from newly-created accounts. I might note that discounting those votes will still leave "no consensus", so I'll just let the closing admin sort it out. I will continue to identify unsigned votes and first edits. - Dalbury (talk) 00:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Surviving the First World War is not notable. Surviving well into your hundreds is not notable, although impressive, unless you become the oldest person ever or something. Wikipedia is not a memorial for people who aren't dead yet. I think I've made my point. Lord Bob 20:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep
    These people were not only witnesses to events of great historical importance - they were also participants. Their actions helped enable the events to unfold that have given us the lasting legacy of those people, places and impacts that are now deservedly ensconsed in the pages of history.
    These living links, to what is for most of us is a distant past, are invaluable - just by living and being acknowledged - in their ability to bring that history alive and relevant. The list of real, living participants in these key events that directly lead to the modern western world, cannot help but pique the interests and curiousity of those who otherwise may have had limited awareness or interest in this key historical event.
    Lastly, for all of the positives of keeping this list, to what or to whom, does the maintenance of this list detriment? User: gr8f8 17:57, 14 November 2005 (There is no Wikipedia user named User:gr8f8. This is from 157.127.124.134 (talk · contribs)) - Dalbury [[User_talk:Dalbury|(talk)]] 02:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is just no encyclopedia topic here. This is WikiNews material. It might make it into an almanac. As a society, we should honor our veterans but that's not the proper role for an encyclopedia. Rossami (talk) 02:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep These individuals are lauded by presidents, royalty, and fellow countrymen, who regard them as heroes and living treasures. They are widely covered by the media. The simple fact that they are honored by so many makes them notable. Acctorp 02:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I recommend that this article be kept and that all users who voted to delete it suspend their notions of what Wikipedia is and is not, procure a new notion which includes the permanent presence of this article, and then proceed to edit Wikipedia again. Seriously, some people are so far off track that it gives me concern for the project. What is going on here? silsor 07:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's going on here is that Wikipedia is being used to honor people (who, to be fair, do deserve to be honored), instead of document ideas and knowledge. I don't see the difference between this and using Wikipedia as a memorial or genealogical resource, both of which are called out specifically in WP:NOT. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 07:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Would we post a list of everyone who served in WW1? WW2? Why honour these people above all the others? My Grandfather served in WW2. Why should the fact that he died 10 years back make him less worthy of honour than the people on this page? What about those who died in the war? Why honour these people above them? Ben Aveling 07:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed. This is part of why Wikipedia doesn't honor poeple; there are far, far too many people for this project to honor them all, without neglecting the primary purpose of making an encyclopedia instead of a memorial. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 07:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • You are overlooking the fact that these people ARE notable. For example, as they die, their deaths are reported in the national press. If you or I die, our deaths will probably not be reported in the press. Why the difference? We are not notable and these people are. Similarly, many of them are also reported in the press whilst still alive; if they attend a service it might be reported. If they fall ill and go to hospital; it might be reported. And so on. Why is it reported? Because these people ARE notable! Marcus22 10:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • A Man In Black, I disagree that this list is meant to honor, 'per se', these individuals. The fact that they are honored worldwide makes them notable. It's this notability, not a desire to honor them, that warrants their inclusion. Indeed, many of these individuals are minor celebrities and had their own Wiki pages before this list existed. Acctorp 17:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons above. --Merovingian 07:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, definitely. My only question is what happens to it when the last vet dies. I suppose we could convert/redirect it into a chronology of WWI vet deaths. Everyking 09:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Delete this after the last World War I veteran dies of old age. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 09:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • See, that's the problem I was thinking of. In my mind, an article should never be temporary, awaiting deletion at some future time: if we're going to have it, we need to either plan on keeping it forever or have some idea for redirecting or moving it. Everyking 10:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is incorrect: many wikipages address current events or are dynamic in nature. Acctorp 17:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't dispute that. I just dispute the concept of a temporary article. I'm saying it's fine as long as we have an idea of how to convert it into a different kind of article (move and rework) or redirect it somewhere else. I can think of rational ways to do that; I was just raising a point that occurred to me. Everyking 06:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep It's a useful list. There are so few now that they are notable. --Amortize 11:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Information is information. The only way to be unbiased is to keep all the information we can - removing information is like trying to censor history.
  • Comment Some thoughts on what is being said in here. There are claims that someone is notable because his or her death is reported nationally. My first wife's death went out on the national wire services, and was printed in newspapers all over the country. Does that make her notable enough for a Wikipedia article? I don't think so, as her chief claim to fame was that she was the first woman "of color" to be elected a national officer of NOW. Her death was "momentarily newsworthy". What is notable is that only a few veterans of World War I are still alive. Their individual names are not notable for the purposes of Wikipedia. It has been claimed that these people are notable because of the conjunction that they are veterans of WWI and still alive. By that reasoning, can I start a List of veterans of both World War I and World War II? My grandfather would qualify for that. An encyclopedia is not supposed to include everything imaginable. I recommend everyone read Encyclopedia as well as What Wikipedia is not. - Dalbury [[User_talk:Dalbury|(talk)]] 12:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refactor into something more easily maintained with a name which does not compell us to delete the article in a few years. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 13:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, and, yes, this article will eliminate itself within 20 years. I do think Zoe's comment was a little insensitive, not to mention untrue; the notability argument rests on both their age and the fact that they fought in WWI. Still-living witnesses to major historical events accrue notability as they become rarer. &mdash; Matt <small>Crypto</small> 13:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Heroes though these people may be, this is not the place for them. Also, the list is obviously going to reduce every year. --StoatBringer 14:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Do not abandon history and the memory of what these individuals have done to make the world we live in. --165.247.223.239 19:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)Mike H. (First edit by user User:165.247.223.239)[reply]
  • Delete. Unless these people are individually notable, they should be summarised in an article. There is a difference between respecting what they did and thinking they individually stand out. People are not *entitled* to a wikipedia article, and it is not disrespectful to suggest that an article should not be written about them. --Improv 20:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I say keep it, & please ensure this valuable resource is updated regularly. Mark Denton (First edit from 87.254.67.141 (talk · contribs))
  • Move to something like Veterans of the First World War who survived until after 2005. Wikipedia articles should specify a time period - this article will otherwise keep getting smaller over time. Imagine the 1911 Britannica having a comprehensive List of veterans who survived the Civil War, and kept updating it each time more people died until there was eventually no article left? ---- Astrokey44 22:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • One of the arguments for Wikipedia over Britannica is that we can continually update our articles to reflect current changes; so, no, I can't imagine 1911 Britannica doing it, but why shouldn't we? &mdash; Matt <small>Crypto</small> 23:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • There just seems something wrong or disrespectful with this article. Its sort of like the comment above "ensure this valuable resource is updated regularly" which pretty much means crossing people off as they die. So its like you hear over the news that a wwI vet passes away - ok better go cross him off the wikipedia list. There is some policy I believe here that you should use the date rather than terms like "now" and "surviving" - I read it somewhere, cant find it now. It sets a bad precedent too, lets start: Surviving 1920s jazz musicians, Surviving athletes from the 1904 Olympics and be sure to keep an eye out for the news so you can cross them off as they die, and eventually delete the article completely. Why not a whole Category: Surviving people Astrokey44 00:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I have suggested that this article could be re-named "Last Surviving Veterans of WWI". That word construction is ambiguous enough that it could include living and recently deceased WWI vets (since if they died in 2004, for example, they'd be "one of the last surviving veterans of WWI). In that case, the question becomes, what is the cutoff point? Someone has suggested Jan 1, 2001 (start of the 21st century). The alternate plan is to leave it as it is, and th deaths are being migrated to lists such as "WWI veterans who died in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005...)Ryoung122 09:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds better, and also mark them as deceased but leave them on the list when they pass away, so that the list doesnt disappear. Could you make the cutoff point 2005 and just say that it has been arbitrarily chosen? Astrokey44 11:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

I have made some changes

[edit]

Good Morning, all, I have made a some changes in line with my suggestions (see some things we need to decide?) I have moved Orin Peterson to the WW1 era category, as this seems to be the direction the evidence points. I have moved the Romanian and the anonymous French Vet to the Unvalidated category - with a note on whats "missing" as it where. My understanding of the Unvalidated category, is that unvalidated does not mean false (though some of them, noticeably the 13 year old veteran almost certainly are)rather they do not have full verification, by a sanctioned body, and none of these cases would appear to have such a verification. One final note is that I would suggest we create some sort of "pending" category for new cases, and I received a bit of support for this: thoughts anyone? SRwiki 10:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great job, man. Extremely sexy 14:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
The page looks great! I probably missed this, but weren't there two anonymous French Vets? What happened to the other one? Anyway, nice with the reorganization. --Brianmccollum 18:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, the other one died. Anyone site a source? Czolgolz 19:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Robert Young mentioned his death the other day. Extremely sexy 23:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
It was reported to me that the other one died in December 2006, aged 106. I have requested for a release of the name and birthdate as well as death date. If/when that becomes available, the update will be posted on the 2006 deaths list, as this person is no longer relevant to the living list. I was told his first name was "Raymond." Again, these cases come from the same source that produced several other cases, such as Rene Riffaud, Francois Jaffre and Louis Legournadie.
Sincerely,
Robert Young
→ R Young {yakłtalk} 01:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

______________________________________________________

I think you have done a great job on the changes! I also think there should be a pending section, or at least a way to notify us that there may be another WWI vet. but at least keep him or her in a pending state until we can get some good source info., and not just someone saying he may be one, and listing it without anything to back it up. 209.240.206.201 06:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why have 3 French vets been moved?

[edit]

I am just wondering why 3 of the French vets, have suddenly moved into the unverified category? After much discussion, in December I thought we had come to a reasonable consensus, about who was listed where, and my understanding was that all 3 were recognised as vets in our definition rather than the stricter (and western front orientated) French definition. The moving of the Italian vet who is living in France suggests that who-ever has taken it upon themselves to do this, doesn't understand how the page is laid out. If this vet has been moved because he has not been verified by the French Government, then there is no reason why he would be, he is a veteran of the Italian army - people do move around. Can whoever has done this moving please explain their reasoning? thanks SRwiki 18:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In France, there are only three official WWI veterans.
  • De Cazenave, Louis
  • Grelaud, Jean
  • Ponticelli, Lazarre
The other one do not have the right qualifications to be on this list... I didn't know where to put this other vet so I put them in the last part of the article
Paris75000 21:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying, but I think you are using a different definition of a vet to the rest of us. As far as I can tell the official French definition accepts only those with more than 3 months service, on the Western Front. The definition we are using here, is service anywhere, for any length of time up to 11/11/1918. I suspect the official French definition, is for the purposes of who gets a war pension, rather than who is a veteran.
If you scroll through this discussion page, you will see we have discussed this in great detail
In the case of two of these Vets 1 served in Syria, and one for less than three months, so although not on the official list, are still veterans. The Third vet you moved is an ITALIAN, who just happens to now be living in France, he is never going to be classed as a French Veteran, because he was never in the French Army. But he is an undisputed Veteran of the Italian Army.SRwiki 07:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Finally I notice that Charles Brunier, was awarded service medals for World War 1, but was stripped of them when he was convicted of murder, so another reason he may not be on the official list is that it would be very embarassing for the French Government, if they ended up giving a full state funeral to a convicted murderer. SRwiki 08:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SRwiki"

Hi
I just made some modifications to show exactly what are the official and non official living WWI vets in France. I hope you will enjoy them (I think I striked the right balance)
Sincerily
Paris75000 09:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't Tuveri be included as a veteran of Italian army?

Greetings,

There are several issues here. First, Tuveri moved to France and is a French citizen even though an Italian vet. There is also the issue of a Canadian living in the U.S., Brits living in Australia, etc.

That is a separate issue from the 'official' French government list. For one, I don't give much credit at all the the 'official' list. As someone mentioned, it seems designed to exclude (and thus to possibly save money by denying a pension). Second, the 'official' listmakers didn't do any research (but claimed credit for 'discovering' Rene Riffaud and Francois Jaffre, who appeared on the Wiki article months earlier). Third, the Italian list also doesn't include 'official' vets, either. I think the issue of 'verification' is one of existence and service, not government sanction. Fourth, the official lists changed the rules to include Rene Riffaud (and thus the rules don't seem so important as their marketing efforts). As noted, there is at least one anonymous French veteran not yet releaved. So, the French gov't may be embarrassed if the anonymous vet outlives the three 'official' veterans.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 20:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC) _____________________________________________________ Why is it that when we get the list in pretty good shape, someone comes along and does something totally off the wall. I was for removing the "unverified" French Vet. until a name was released. However, to remove a vet because he has not met the french requirements of so many months service is confusing and does not make sense. Please put them back in the list. As a person stated above, if you will read the comments of the other members you should understand why this is not the correct thing to do. (pershinboy) 209.240.206.201 22:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

Media reports have Charles Brunier joining in 1918, aged 17, and wounded in combat in Syria. However, I'm certain he will NOT get a state funeral. His military honors were stripped in 1923 (after being convicted of murder), why would they be restored now? Further, the French gov't only recognizes "Western front" veterans (a sort of Euro-centric bias, yes). Third, because he was wounded, Brunier served only two months (less than the three-month requirement). Let's not forget that the information on Brunier came from independent sources that were not aware of this Wiki article.

The bigger question is: if the French gov't gives a funeral for the 'last' veteran and then another one emerges, what then? As stated, there is at least one remaining anonymous veteran (alive this month). However my contact dropped contact Jan 16 so I can no longer vouch for the continued existence of this person. My contact did report, for example, Rene Riffaud months before the French gov't noticed, as well as Louis Jaffre.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 19:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Klöpper

[edit]

Don't just delete a veteran with no explanation. Give a reason for the deletion.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 20:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I also added him to this year's deceased World War I Veterans list, but I didn't know his exact date of death at the time, hence. Extremely sexy 21:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems he died in 2006, not 'this years's list.' In any case, it seems the case is now resolved, but I think we should get more details about deleting someone presented as 'living' who are in fact not. Thanks.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 06:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry: "last year's list", but his death has only recently been known. Extremely sexy 14:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Rene Riffaud

[edit]
With the death of Rene there is a ever growing chance murderer Charles Brunier is up for a state funeral. Will he get it?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.206.165.23 (talk) 05:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Interesting Character Charles Brunier, as far as I can tell, he enlisted with the French Navy, towards the end of WWI, the war in Syria, was I believe actually fought in 1919, and was more of a land grab, in which France carved the nascent states of Syria and Lebanon, out of the defeated Ottoman Empire, jailed for murder on Devils Island, and more relevantly for the purposes of this discussion - stripped of his military honours. Claims to be the basis of Papillon, escapes from Devils Island, fights in WW2, is arrested, and sent back to Devils Island, but is finally pardoned for his role in WW2. It's quite a story, and I imagine there is a reasonable amount of paperwork to back this up.
But whether ever makes it onto the list, depends on whether the pardon, trumps the honors being stripped. My guess would be no. I really can't see a coffin carrying the body of a murderer, being paraded down the Champs d' Elysee.

One other thing that has occured to me, is that the French Navy was one of the biggest in the world at the time. I just wonder if in the focus on the Western front, some of these sailors may have been overlooked. SRwiki 08:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


What you did above is a 'thought crime'. Killing someone in combat is NOT murder. It is self-protection.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 19:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legally, and that is all that matters for the sake of this debate the answer is no. Being realistic, this is a rather hypothetical debate, as this will be a matter for the French government to decide. For myself I just can't see it. can you?SRwiki 07:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC) ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Right. The French Government has made a decision, and he in no way will be considered as the last, nor will they honor him. Can't blame them really.(PershinBoy)63.3.7.1 23:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Butcher

[edit]

A while back, a poster here (I forget the name) attacked me for the "vandalism" of removing Stephen Butcher's name, from the living veterans list, even though he was deceased (and I had seen a local newspaper's obituarys section) and demanded proof.

Aside from confirmation from Dennis Goodwin, the UK veterans "guru" as it were, then I repeat below what is held at the London Births, Marriages & Deaths Index for 2005.

Stephen Graham Butcher b. 2 Jan 1904 d. Dec 2005, Portsmouth. (volume Bon-Col Deaths 2005 p 577, entry 4971e)

I hope that now satisfies as enough proof (as I can hardly make up all that information), and with the above information a death certificate can also be obtained should there be any need.

Very shortly, the online versions of these indexes will be updated for online verification as well.

Thanks, Richard J —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.132.144.160 (talk) 17:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

No: thank you, my dear friend. Extremely sexy 00:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Engh

[edit]

M165.234.180.59 19:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)Mathew Engh 1899 August American USA Resides in Grand Forks, North Dakota

This was posted in the Unverified section the other day incorrectly by the poster. Would someone be kind enough to format it the correct manner. Just seems to be an honest mistake. Does anyone else know anything about him or could find any further info? --Brianmccollum 04:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

This claim is too early to determine if its a claim or a hoax. The user who posted it appears to be an established Wikipedian...too bad no news citation was provided. However, the Jim Harrison case (1896?-2004) might be a hoax also...→ R Young {yakłtalk} 08:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Ancestry website reveals no Matthew Engh living in North Dakota or any history of a Matthew Engh. Me thinks it is a hoax........

I couldn't find anything either - no newspaper article, Ancestry listing, anything. There are 5 hits for Mattew Engh on Google but none of these could conceivably be a Vet. I would argue that this name shouldn't even be on the unvalidated list - as it doesn't even have a citiation SRwiki 09:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SRwiki why bother saying that? There are higher forces over here on this page. As long as they don't agree with you, Engh's name will remain on the list and people like Mr. Young will bash at you for wanting to make the list shorter

Re the above unsigned comment, the fact that you failed to sign is an indication that what you said is just 'sour grapes,' and without merit. The name is off the list and I didn't try to restore it, did I? So you were wrong. Excuse me for supporting a little investigation. Last I checked, cases like Robley Rex are STILL unresolved. We are still waiting for someone to produce his army draft papers...→ R Young {yakłtalk} 00:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I have been through US public records & the following Engh's live in Grand Forks, North Dakota: Adam Engh, aged 28; Clarence Engh aged, 35, Robert M Engh, 82, Tim D Engh 35 and that's it.

This is clearly a fake and I shall be deleting it as such. Otherwise people will accept any old nonsense written on the site.

Mr Young can bash away if he likes - but this entry has no substance behind it AT ALL

And so, I was right after all, because I had deleted him immediately, since there was no reference at all, and, moreover, it was indeed an addition by an anonymous user, not an established one, as claimed by Robert Young. Extremely sexy 00:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bart, you 'cry wolf,' writing 'vandalism' for every change you don't agree with...for example when someone deleted the redundant 'oldest woman' box from the Maria Capovilla page. Yet that was not vandalism, it was a difference of opinion.

Also, I never said it was a real case, I said we need to give time to investigate first...and a little investigation turned up no evidence of existence, so deleting was the proper recourse. That doesn't make me 'wrong' because I thought the case should be checked out thoroughly.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 00:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 'ship' is sinking

[edit]

Sad to hear that Robert Meier, seeming in good health, passed away. It does seem that, finally, a LOT of big names are falling in the last 12 months...Emiliano Mercado Del Toro (115), Moses Hardy (113), George Johnson (112), Maurice Floquet (111), Ernest Pusey (111). Even the USA, Italy, and Germany are finally seeing their numbers down to 8, 7, and 6...not good...→ R Young {yakłtalk} 14:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sad yes, but considering the average age is now 107, not altogether unexpected. --Maelwys 14:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In this month, January up to today the 30th, 6 WW1 Veterans have passed away..that is exactly one every 5 days.. If this continues.. sadly,there comes a time....{User Redpepper1952} 13:00 30th January, 2007
But Meier is a sad exception, since he died not long after suffering a bad fall, otherwise he would have made 110. Extremely sexy 00:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a real tragedy for someone so old as Meier 109 yrs. to have a bad fall, Very serious, but at least he did not suffer long. (User Redpepper1952)19:14, January 30,2007

Konstanty Jung

[edit]
  1. 1 november 1901-
  2. 105 years old
  3. http://miastolublin.pl/?m=news&d=17&nr=6626
  4. Surviving veteran? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.30.161.111 (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]


Definitely 105, but there's nothing in that news report that signifies that he is a veteran of World War I (or indeed, any war). Not every man now alive over 100 fought in WWI after all...

Cheers, Richard J

Rudolf Seim

[edit]

Can anyone backup his move to the 2007 deathlist and confirm his passing? I'd just like to know if it was done by a legit poster because there is no day of month or citation. I hope it is not the same person from the whole Matthew Engh nonsense. --Brianmccollum 15:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Engh came from "user 165...". This came from "User 87" and appears to be legitimate.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 01:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

I have been told by a German colleague that calls to a nursing home were made, but they wouldn't release the date. This is not confirmed but it seems likely that Mr. Seim must have died recently. Notably, he would have been named the oldest man in Germany on Jan 29 2007 if still living. → R Young {yakłtalk} 00:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was I. I phoned the nursing home in the case of Mr. Velten, not Seim - sorry, I didn't say that clear. There was a little Note in a newspaper that he died a few days ago, We hope we can find the exact date out. Statistician 01.02.2007 10:59 (CET)

A poster on the Yahoo! Group Worlds_Oldest_People claims Rudlof Seim died on 09.01.2007 --Brianmccollum 16:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We now have a source and a date for Rudolph Seim. Please stop deleting it.

For you people who think it is equivalent to Solinski: comparing apples and oranges simply won't do. We had someone tell us that Seim had died and a phone call was made. Now, someone found the obit in the newspaper. Far more than we saw people do with the Polish cases.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 05:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert, I must respectfully disagree on this point "Far more than we saw people do with the Polish cases" . I have made continued written enquiries about Solinski (previously, and recently again) to his local town asking for more information about him. I'm not sitting on my arse deleting Solinski & saying "I think he went in 2005", I'm trying to do something about it. I accept, and have done so from the start, Seim is dead, but please don't belittle other people's efforts simply because you don't like them.

I AM working on it & hope to produce the evidence one day to confirm it. Please give it time and please have some patience, and less of these little "asides", hmmmm?

Richard J

Has Gheorghe C. Panculescu died?

[edit]

Afternoon All During an idle moment whilst pretending to work I Googled Gheorghe C. Panculescu and the following came up as a Wikipedia link:

General(r) Corp de Armata Gheorghe C. Panculescu(n.26 martie 1903-d.9ianuarie2007) decorat cu Ordinul Steaua Romaniei in grad de Mare Cavaler(1991) si multe ...

But the link doesn't seem to go anywhere Unfortunately my knowledge of Romanian is non-existent, so I couldn't plough through the Roimanian branch of Wikipedia to track it any further. but it does rather look as though he may have died on the 9th Jan. Has any-one else come across anything to corroborate this? Thanks SRwiki 15:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who added this case in the first place? I would assume he died Jan 9 2007 unless someone else says otherwise. Also, with the claimed date of enlistment (May 1918) I think we should add him to the WWI vets who died in Jan 2007. Any objections?→ R Young {yakłtalk} 01:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... not certain. There's nothing in the Romanian press about this. All there is one (defunct) wikipedia page.

Not saying he's not dead, but I can't see why there's one rule for Panculescu & another for Solinski. Neither have any PROOF they are dead for certain, after all.

No one said that Solinksi was dead, no one offered a death date. They just said "we didn't see a birthday story this year." If you will, we can make a 'limbo' list for cases where deaths are unconfirmed.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 01:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more point: the article was written in Romanian, making it less likely to be a hoax. Also, the writer of the article was apparently unaware or didn't bother to edit the USA version, again making a motive of deception less likely.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 02:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But where is this particular link though? Extremely sexy 16:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naum Djordjevitch

[edit]

In the France version of the Wiki you can find Naum Djordjevitch. Anybody knows if this claim is validated? Or is he dead? http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derniers_poilus#Encore_en_vie Statistician 02.02.2007 20:33 (CET)

According to some other sites, Djordjevitch died some time ago, around 1999, I believe.

Can you post one? Statistician 03.02.2007 14:32 (CET)

Antonio Pierro

[edit]

Mr Pierro passed away this morning, Feb 8 2007. This is confirmed.

Please update accordingly.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 15:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damn: exactly 1 or 2 weeks before turning 111, so another old man gone. Extremely sexy 19:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ I believe Frank Buckles made it to France as well. I remember reading in an article this past Veterans' Day that he sailed over on the Carpathia, the ship that rescued the Titanic survivors. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________[reply]

Last living/dying Canadian veteran

[edit]

The Canadian government recently announced (in reaction to an online petition) that when the last surviving Canadian WWI vet dies, he would be given a state funeral, as a way of honouring the memories and sacrifices of all the Canadians who fought in WWI. Should this be mentioned somewhere on the page, either in the header or in the Canada section right above that table? --Maelwys 16:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What if Mr. Babcock ends up being the last? He was born in Canada. Did his training in Canada. However, not only has he spent most of his life in the USA. He is a United States citizen. Will this bother the Canadians? I Imagine he will wish to be buried in the USA. 209.240.206.209 11:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He served in the Canadian military during WWI, so he'd be honoured on behalf of all the members of Canada's WWI military, regardless of where he lives now. Anyway, I didn't bring this here to discuss if it was right or wrong, just whether or not we should mention it on this page. --Maelwys 13:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I say place it on there in a brief sentence. It's an interesting tidbit that regular viewers who come across the page aren't going to learn about otherwise.--Brianmccollum 15:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is an interesting tidbit, but does not belong on the main page. If so, we could probably add another 50 or 60 more interesting footnotes and so on. By the way, the three Canadian veterans say they are not interested in a state funeral. I guess they can be honored, but it sounds like all three want a private funeral... No it shouldn't be listed in the main section. 209.240.206.209 02:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 01:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Teatro do som

[edit]

The article is blatant vanity. It was probably intended as an advertisement. Superm401 | Talk 09:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 01:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That show this Morning

[edit]

Notable school radio show ERcheck 16:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Doc ask? 11:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Scandal

[edit]

Original research. I cannot find evidence that the term "The Great Scandal" is significantly connected to the rôle of the Roman Catholic Church in the rise of Nazism. Whether or not the rôle of the Roman Catholic Church in the rise of Nazism is sufficently presented in Wikipedia, the idea of this article is flawed. We have several articles on this epoch, events, organizations and actors (Enabling Act, Reichskonkordat, Centre Party (Germany), Franz von Papen, Ludwig Kaas). --Pjacobi 20:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cleanup. Digging a bit, the title actually refers to a hypothesis that Christian religious figures both Protestant and Catholic were involved in the Nazi rise to power. Broadly speaking, Germany is Protestant in the north and Catholic in the south. Thus none of the existing articles cited could properly address this issue. This is not original research. The term comes from an article by Gregory S. Paul in Free Inquiry. [17]. In terms of notability this is a close call. It's been cited among some secular humanists as an argument against Christianity. Given the weight of the subject and the scholarliness of the accusation, I'd say this deserves a balanced article. Durova 21:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as another soabox article. If this title deserves an article it should be about the article in question (analogous to Hitler's Pope) and not used as a soapbox. Str1977 22:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please check my link to the original citation. This article misrepresents the scope of the original. The original is not analogous to Hitler's Pope. My college courses on German history support at least this much: there was no great outcry among the Christian clergy in Germany against Nazism or the Holocaust. Heroic exceptions of course exist, yet the overall picture is indeed a worthy subject for discussion. To cast this in purely anti-Catholic terms is unfair to Catholics. Taken as a group, Lutheran clergy were equally silent. Durova 03:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd consider your college sources to be mostly right, but this shouldn't result in separate article but be addressed in the relevant articles. --Pjacobi 11:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • What relevant articles would those be? I checked every one suggested and none fit. The 1933 Enabling Act is inappropriate: that was a legal device the Nazis used to gain power. This doesn't fit into a biography of any specific Nazi figure. The Reichskonkordat, Centre Party (Germany), and Hitler's Pope are all specifically Catholic discussions. Germany has a roughly equal proportion of mostly Lutheran Protestants. NPOV cannot be maintained when three separate articles cover Catholic collusion with the Nazis and none discusses Protestant collusion with the Nazis. When a thesis appears that actually treats both equally, one editor erases the Protestant component and rather than restore balance you prefer to merge it into slimly related matters or a Catholic article? Consider the gravity of the subject. Durova 15:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, the issue is grave but this is not the proper article. If you want some article on non-Catholic clergy and the Third Reich, they could be created. Also, judging from my experience, the starting editor of this article will not talk much about the things you ask for, focusing solely on specifically Catholic discussion (apart from a bit on Industrial magnates on the side). I'm sorry to say that but that's how it is. Str1977 14:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup. Im just wondering what other article paints the pope as aquesting to Germany, because of his anti-communism. I didn't even know about it, until a WWII vetran brought it up. One of those 'missing' peices of the puzzle of WWII that never gets covered in the histry books. Should we just sweep it under the rug too? --Artoftransformation 22:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Str1977. Ann Heneghan (talk) 22:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, OR. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete JG of Borg 04:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clean up I've heard this phrase used in the context of Pius XII. Denni☯ 05:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep,Clean up and expand, possibly rename. Does the funny name justify deletion of the widely expressed allegation? Who says it does? Why? Have they tried balancing the various articles , I ask. How could they not repeat the necessary back-ground and links into each such article. Is it not artificial , and does it not obscure . The reference here to the WWII veteran proves my point at the start of H's Pope- that the term was commonly understood by earlier generations, or is , at best , the Nazi Pope. Because this was hazily understood by such generations, should we continue the haze obscuring it ? Do we not , in fact require editors to obtain the plethora of recently published books concerning this subject both pro and anti, and write the article better? The presentation of the subject of how the dictaorshop took legal hold at the Nazi/Hitler pages is minimal in understanding, and only I included the Communist arrests. Before that, it was written in WP that the Communist party had been banned from the Reichstag , for chrissakes . Keep, & invent true name. I will open a page that seeks to list all the possible titles , now .Ps. Readers of even the defensive links placed in balance will find little defence in the early era, and Goodoldpolonius2 blasted the latter era 's supposed, Jewish ,defence tother day on now NpoV tagged Pope Pius XII talk . Early era produces wriggling of the what w'd u have done kind. Nazi Accession Question posted .EffK 11:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & Cleanup - looks very real [www.secularhumanism.org/index. php?section=library&page=paul_23_4]. Just needs quite massive clean up and checking for POV and accuracy. Renata3 14:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it stands. If it stays, it absolutely must not remain under the current title, which is not an accepted term. (Grosse Skandal, Pius XII [18] produces no meaningful results in Google). Dottore So 14:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is a SOAPBOX article from an editor unwilling to subject his edits to verification and to consensus in the existing articles in the Wikipedia. It is a fork. It is original research. It is written poorly. It basically fails Wikipedia criteria at every point possible. The title The Great Scandal is meaningless and without definition even within in the article itself. patsw 22:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Title of article is apparently original research. Article as written is not capable of being cleaned up. Another article with a different name and written with better sourcing presented as NPOV might be capable of being written. Robert McClenon 01:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup, possibly rename. Smerdis of Tlön 17:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 01:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Original Weedman and E-on

[edit]

Not notable musicians. Google has no definitive, WP:MUSIC passing info on them. feydey 00:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 01:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Phormula

[edit]

more band vanity. doesn't meet WP:Music.

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

The result of the debate was Delete, ignoring sockpuppets Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 23:14, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tim McGowan

[edit]

Overly illustrated page about a musician/composer. Creation by McMusic suggests vanity. Notability check please before I userfy it. -- RHaworth 09:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I wouldn't even bother with userfying it. It's an invitation to bring it back. --Nlu 11:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NN, vanity. There is a profile of him on [19]. The home page of that site says, "Clear Channel has partnered with GarageBand to showcase the best undiscovered talent on our radio station websites." He lists nine CDs, but the only three I can find label information for were self-published (the "Tim McGowan" label and the "McMusic" label). Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC that I can see. - Dalbury (talk) 19:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete Just because the home page for Clear Channel states it is partnered with Garageband to showcase unsigned artists is irrelevant...Does that mean every artist listed on Clear Channel is unsigned? NO! Google "Tim McGowan" He is all over the place, get your facts right 1st! Overly illustrated!! Because someone showed the initiative to brighten the page up and be informative at the same time with album cover pictures and logos? This artist deserves to be listed. Have any of you heard of Kitaro or Arkenstone either??? Don't know where you got your "half of the story" release info from but his music is released by McMusic International (edit by McMusic (talk · contribs))
  • Comment. McMusic International does not qualify as a major label or one of the more important indie labels, as defined in WP:MUSIC. - Dalbury [[User_talk:Dalbury|(talk)]] 20:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In your opinion...and who are you to state this? Uncle Sam? Important enough to have released over a dozen albums from several artists...be listed on the All music guide, Amazon in several countries including Japan - France - USA - UK, Yahoo music, AOL music, Napster, MSN, Sony Connect and dozens more!! His music has been in international/national radio station Top 10 lists for over 12 months, sometimes 4 - 5 different tracks simultaneously in the same Top 10 list. You would have learned this if you had researched properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.218.167.77 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 16 November 2005
  • Kill it with fire. Blatant self-promotion. If Mr. McGowan is indeed found to satisfy WP:MUSIC, it'd be best to start over from scratch from a neutral point of view. This is an ad, not an encyclopedia article. android79 23:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • RE: Kill it with fire "Blatant self-promotion" would be the case if I was indeed Tim McGowan but, Tim McGowan I am NOT!! What do you find offensive about this page? The CD Cover artwork? The Logos? or his promo picture? #1 When Reading about any artist many people like to see the cover artwork...it adds to the collective information about the artists and tells a story in itself. #2 Many people like to see what the artist looks like. #3 Logos are as much a part of an artists identity as #1 & #2. #4. Permission was granted for inclusion of all materials used. Who knows their career history better than the artist himself. You are assured 100% accuracy.

I really don't see what the fuss is all about here. Other than being unfamiliar with the artist in question...Maybe you should broaden your horizon and listen to different genres. New age is a small selective market but thousands of music lovers do appreciate it. I am sorry you don't particulary find the information interesting but many fans do. McMusic

Let's see... McMusic is the music label. Your username is McMusic. How is that not self-promotion? You're promoting an artist on your own label with an ad disguised (poorly) as an encyclopedia article. android79 05:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • So Cynical You my friend are promoting yourself on your page...telling the world your likes dislikes and just how wonderful you think yourself to be. It doesn't matter what I chose to use as a user name it's just a name. Your chose android79...Does this mean you are less than human and lack compassion, understanding and just common sense? The people blocking this page with ridiculous claims at the top are nothing more than vandals themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.154.231.159 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 17 November 2005
  • Please note. Android, Encyclopedias can be general, containing articles on topics in many different fields. An encyclopedia also often includes many maps and illustrations, as well as bibliography and statistics. An encyclopedia seeks to discuss each subject in more depth and convey the most relevant accumulated knowledge on that subject. All of which was done in article. By your comment above are we all to take it that all information on the list of musicians and artists listed on Wikipedia are nothing more that ads? Are we to go edit each of them with notices saying they shouldn't be listed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.154.231.159 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 17 November 2005
    • Uh, that's my user page. It's not a part of the encyclopedia. Note that there is no Android79 or (insert my real name here), only User:Android79. Draw whatever conclusions you wish from my choice of username, though I've explained the meaning, such as it is, on my user page. Please refrain from personal attacks. The fact that you chose McMusic as a username indicates you have some relationship with the music label – that was my point. I'm well aware of what an encyclopedia is. I've got no problem with including an article on Mr. McGowan in this encyclopedia if he is shown to meet the criteria for inclusion and if the article is written in a neutral, non-advertising tone. android79 19:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criteria Met. It says in criteria "is notable if it meets ANY one of the following criteria:" He definately meets several of them, (#1, #2, #3 and #4 immediately jumps out just by visiting his website), if you want you can do the research...The article I wrote is neutral...I did not say he was the best thing since chocolate. I merely described his music for the reader who may never have heard any and wondered what to expect, as in style, if they did. His bio tells the story of what he has done in his musical lifetime so far. How is that an ad? There was no personal attack on your name either, as you put it "Draw whatever conclusions you wish from my choice of username" It was merely a conclusion such as yours on mine. Albeit a wrong one! You say you don't have a problem with Mr McGowan being listed, you can see he meets the criteria, therefore, if you have indeed become an administrator, please put an end to this nonsense and remove any notices and allow this page to be accessed directly without any further obstruction.
    • The article indicates that McGowan's former bands meet criteria #1 and #2; this is an article about McGowan himself. McMusic does not appear to be a major label, so #3 is out. I see no indication of meeting #4. android79 20:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mr McGowan being the writer and copyright holder of the songs for previous bands he has worked with still entitles him to be considered to the meet the criteria of #1. regardless of who else played an instrument along side him in the recording. As far as #2 goes. I can also confirm that McGowan has toured the UK, several times, and I presume you will agree would be considered a medium size country. #3 and #4. are moot points, one does not have to meet all criteria listed...it states "ANY" should be met.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 01:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Todd McKinnon

[edit]

Editor who created this also appears to be inserting links to it into other articles such as Melbourne, Ben Lee and WaveAid - however content of article, as well as quick googling, seems to show that it's all vanity. -- Chuq 00:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A search of Australian and New Zealand newspapers for "Todd McKinnon" achieved 1 result, a profile of a junior rugby player in the Waikato Times. No assertion that he meets any of the criteria in WP:NMG such as albums, hits or tours. Capitalistroadster 01:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted. FCYTravis 21:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Top 10 facist leaders of the uk

[edit]

Clearly a POV insult page, but not clearly enough to be speedied. Superm401 | Talk 18:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nominated for a Speedy and a clear candidate with the list starting with Hitler, running through Stalin and Jiminy Cricket with Jimmys Cousin rounding out the list at number 10. Could be speedy deleted under G3 as silly vandalism, A1 as a short article with little or no context and even A6 as an attack page. Capitalistroadster 18:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There's clearly context and that's a loose interpretation of the vandalism critera. A6 might work, but I didn't want to risk it. Superm401 | Talk 18:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS - default to keep JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 20:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Veterans of the First World War who died in 2004

[edit]

Also, Veterans of the First World War who died in 2000, Veterans of the First World War who died in 2001, Veterans of the First World War who died in 2002, Veterans of the First World War who died in 2003 and Veterans of the First World War who died in 2005

Wikipedia is not a memorial. User:Zoe|(talk) 07:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for being unencyclopedic. Tuf-Kat 07:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as companion to Surviving veterans of the First World War. Laszlo Panaflex 07:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am having trouble deciding where I stand on this afd. First off, I agree that Wikipedia is not a memorial, however I don't really see this list as being a memorial. Counter to this is the reason to keep because it is a companion to another page, which I don't feel is an adequate reason enough to keep. I would like to see this page kept only because the current system prevents me from listing all subjects that fulfill two or more categories, for example Category:2004 deaths and Category:World War I people. Hence, a system able to do this sort of database query would really superseed the need for these sort of pages. However I don't feel I should vote just yet. -- malo (talk) 08:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This just feels too much like a memorial page, and the grand majority of these people do not merit encyclopedia articles (so it's not a useful resource for browsing Wikipedia). - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 09:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - sets a precedent for Veterans of the First World War who died in 1950, Veterans of the First World War who died in 1973, Veterans of the First World War who died in 1989, etc. FCYTravis 10:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. as per Laszlo. Or at least merge these articles into Surviving veterans .... Marcus22 12:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to "Surviving veterans". That they are the final survivors grants an amount of notability, and is as such much different to the mentioned precedent. However, 2005, 2004 etc. deaths don't benefit from their own articles - although recent deaths and survivors should be kept separate out of respect for the latter. --Kizor 19:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete them all - I see no purpose for it. Renata3 14:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC) Neutral. Renata3 18:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As has been pointed out elsewhere, all surviving veterans who fought in France have received the Légion d'Honneur. I don't know enough about the Légion to insist it confers notability, but it must need consideration. Marcus22 14:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting. All the surviving ones since when? Certainly not every single veteran who ever fought? -R. fiend 16:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Apparently France honoured all surviving veterans who fought on French soil in 1998. (Or, possibly, 1999). Marcus22 16:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, that makes sense. Any idea how many there were at the time? -R. fiend 18:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment To qualify, the person had to serve in France during WWI and still be alive in Nov 1998 or later. The number is likely 2,000. I feel this is an 'example' of commemoration, but should not be the criteria for inclusion. I prefer another choice: perhaps those whose deaths made the AP wire? Or maybe those still alive in 2000 or later, already a concession by dropping the 1998 and 1999 honorees (if the annual death rate is about 50%, we can estimate 1,000 left in 1999, 500 in 2000, 250 in 2001, 125 in 2002, 63 in 2003, 31 in 2004, 15 in 2005...)Ryoung122 21:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • The ones here should be the majority. --Kizor 19:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Professionals at the Canadian War Museum have commented to me on how valuable a resource these lists are. - SimonP 14:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll give some more information per request. My father is a historian there, and they are constantly being asked about how many surviving veterans there are, and about the rate that they are disappearing. I find this entire preoccupation somewhat grisly, but there is a widespread fandom for aged veterans out there. The War Museum people routinely direct queries to these Wikipedia articles, as they increasingly do for a wide variety of questions. - SimonP 15:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to List of World War I veterans who died in 2004 (and the others too) so it follows naming conventions more closely. As long as the individuals deserve an article, this list is informative. - Mgm|(talk) 15:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. They failed to create List of World War I veterans who died in 1991 and left out my grandfather. Durova 16:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or perhaps Merge all pages into one of WWI vets who died in the 21st century. An arbitrary cutoff, but it's about as good as we can do. And I'm really wondering hwo we can merge them into the "Survivors" page when they'r dead. Makes no sense. -R. fiend 16:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think there is also a problem with most of the individual articles on the survivors. For the one's I looked at, the only reason they have articles is because they happen to be alive. That's not exactly notable. Will their articles be deleted when they die? I suppose they'd have to be, or else they'r jsut articles on average soldiers in WWI who happened to lie at one end of the lngevity bell-curve. -R. fiend 16:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • See my discussion on the subject in the following nomination. The last survivors of an old war become an important source of oral history. Durova 19:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Slighty off topic but why is it OK to honour Generals but not average soldiers? Most Generals, certainly in the UK and certainly at the time of WW1, did a darned sight less than the average soldier and yet, because they were born into the right family and thus became Generals, they are considered more readily notable!! (I'm not specifically saying that that is your viewpoint R. Fiend by the way). Marcus22 17:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wikipedia doesn't honor anyone. Wikipedia documents encyclopedic topics, topics which have been widely analyzed and discussed. Individual soldiers (generally) fall below that bar. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 17:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • No I didnt mean Wikipedia honoured Generals. Countries tend to honour the well-born and ignore the rest. Here in France there are streets named after Generals, likewise in the UK. Few if any are named after Privates. Its seems rather unfair. However, on a very closely related subject Wikipedia AfD's do tend to claim that "all nobility is notable" - which is just about the biggest load of t**s I've ever heard. Marcus22 17:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I for one, do not think Generals are inherently encyclopedic, but let's face it, many who fought in wars very are significant historical figures. And MiB is right, we're not honoring anyone. Certainly in terms of heroic deeds, many enlisted men did much more than any general; count the number of congressional medals of honor given to privates and comapre it to the number given to generals. But it is a simple fact that General Patton is an encyclopedic topic. The private who stood next to the guy General Patton slapped is not. Some guy who fought at the Second Battle of Ypres and and lived to be 102 is not any more encyclopedic than the guy who fought next to him who died of cancer at 67. -R. fiend 17:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes I agree re: Patton and that's a fair point re: the chap at 102 and the chap at 67. I suppose my problem is that in instances such as these, it seems to me that it is recognition which confers notability and not vice versa. (Hence Generals are more typically notable because they are recognised; even though they do not do necessarily do anything in order to become notable). That recognition, in turn - as is the case with nobility - owes a good deal to the fact that they form a much smaller and more prominent group. Precisely what these Veterans form by virtue of their longevity and relative uniqueness. Hence keep! Phew... I'll get off my soap box now ;) Marcus22 19:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The whole concept is un-encyclopedic. When I was a kid Life magazine would have an article for every Civil War veteran who died, but those deaths were current events, news-worthy because of their rarity, but not historical. At best, I can see a small section in World War I on when the last known veterans for the different countries involved died. - Dalbury (talk) 16:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Doesn't do any harm. Carina22 21:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Or merge into new article, "Last Surviving Veterans of the First World War." France decided in 1998 to honor all veterans who served in France AND were still alive 80 years later with the Legion d'Honneur. Of course, the number may have been about 2,000. The real question for me is at what point does the number remaining become significant? No one even bothered with 1998 and 1999, so the starting point seems to be Jan 1, 2000...those who survived to the new millennium. I note the 2005, 2004 lists are much better maintained; 2003 and 2002 have some use; 2001 and 2000 are thinner. So, each article should have been nominated for deletion separately.
    Also, this is not a "category" list of people with articles: the idea is that while a few of them (Emiliano Mercado Del Toro, Henry Allingham) merit their own articles, the majority do not; hence the list becomes a way to note a few small tidbits about each one.Ryoung122 21:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. This is a perfect argument for why these articles should be deleted. These people are not notable. QED. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are really being riduclous now: it's just the opposite, madam Zoe. Bart Versieck 22:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The point was, this was ALREADY a compromise. Some fanatics went around, trying to create articles for all these people. Having a list in one place with a small mention seems rational. There are many instances in which lists are made, and not everyone on the list is notable, but the list itself is. For example:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_elements_named_after_people
        Wikipedia does not yet have a page called Colonel Samarski.
        Colonel Samarski may not be notable, but "samarium" is.
        However, if you want to belabor the point, nearly everyone in the lists came from an AP wire story (that is, I found out about Kansas's last veteran from another state, not Kansas). Also, several of them have seen extensive media coverage, and so it makes sense to have an article that lists them, together with the others who may not warrant a separate article.
        Consider, for example, that France currently has six remaining WWI veterans who served 3+ months, and plans to make paintings of them. Henry Allingham of the UK has his own museum exhibit. Also, newspapers tend to mis-inform the public. In Jan 2005, it was claimed that Carlo Orelli was Italy's last WWI veteran (but there really are more still living).
        Finally, because what defines a veteran or significance varies,we see for example in Australia, "last Gallipolli survivor," "last digger," "last active-service," "last enlisted," etc. Clearly, a page with all of them together helps to educate and disambiguate what tends to be a confusing subject.
        If Wikipedia is ONLY going to have what's in the Encyclopaedia Brittannica, then we don't need Wikipedia. Ryoung122 22:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Exactly the same reason as for the "surviving" veterans article, my dear friends. Bart Versieck 22:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As it looks like we're not really moving towards consensus here, a merge, along the lines of what myself and Ryoung122 proposed, might be worth pursuing. Obviously we need a cutoff here (we're not going to have a page for every year), so the 21st century might be a good point (that will involve losing the year 2000 deaths, however). SimonP makes an interesting point. He says that the Canadian War Museum "are constantly being asked about how many surviving veterans there are". I'm sure that's the case. Many people are curious, and I am a bit too. The answer, however, is not several pages of information, but a 2-digit number. I'm sure almost no one is really curious about what their names are, except their families (who obviously know), and some historians (who don't use Wikipedia as a source). And Zoe is quite right, almost all of these are not notable, and do not deserve their own articles (with few exceptions). -R. fiend 22:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I know Wikipedia is not a memorial, but listing those World War 1 veterans who died in a certain year is not a memorial. It should be kept because it can be a reference for people to see how many world war 1 veterans were living in a certain year. Stefan Heikel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.83.234.163 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 13 November 2005
  • Delete per nomination. Ejrrjs | What? 23:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the discussion so far about why these people are notable. I also agree that not all of these people need individual articles, so categories are not the way to go here. I like R. fiend's suggestion. Merge to Veterans of World War I who survived into the 21st Century. Jacqui ★ 00:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOT a memorial. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. This is just not encyclopedic. Dottore So 14:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, useful and encyclopedic. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's just no encyclopedia topic here. As a veteran, I feel strongly that we should honor these people. But Wikipedia is not the place to do it. Rossami [[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]] 02:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge into WWI Veterans who died in 21st Century. This information is useful for researchers and media. Solidly encyclopedic. Acctorp 02:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete where did this information even come from? --TimPope 21:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Acctorp - JDH Owens<sup>[[User_talk:Jdhowens90| talk]] | [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#339900">Esperanza</font></sup>]] 21:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge as proposed above. For justification see my comments on the AfD on the surviving veterans. I think the 80th anniversary of the ending of the war, when France awarded the Légion d'Honneur, or January 1, 2000, or the beginning of the 21st century, are three possible options for an objective time at which to begin noting the deaths of those who experienced this war. Perhaps a renaming should be considered as these are essentially lists. David | [[User talk:Dbiv|Talk]] 21:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Whilst this is not the sort of information one would find in a paper encyclopedia, it is, in my opinion, useful, and worth keeping. I followed links to this page having seen a documentary on surviving veterans, and was curious to see if Wikipedia had any further information on the individuals featured, and those still alive in other countries. This is the kind of information I often turn to Wikipedia for, and, I suspect, so do many others. fatbarry2000 23:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Else, put it in another page for the oldest war veterans by age.-Neal. (first edit by — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.125.170.239 (talk • contribs) ) - Dalbury 11:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, unless this info can be verified - in which case keep--Doc ask? 10:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

This article was speedily deleted by User:Zoe with the summary "{{speedy}}{{db-a3}} {{afd}}he is Sooo Chan!!". This AFD is closed. encephalon 00:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Soo Chan

[edit]

An article that wants to be a vanity page when it grows up. Corvus 17:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by Geogre as vandalism. --GraemeL (talk) 15:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Stolishnikoff

[edit]

Does not seem to be notable abakharev 01:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. Hoax. The stub claims he was a Russian revolutionary who escaped to the United States and designed Carnegie Hall. Vladimir Stolishnikoff returns zero results on Google. Carnegie Hall was built nearly twenty years before the Russian revolution began. The principal people involved were William B. Tuthill with Richard Morris Hunt and Dankmar Adler as consultants (hall); Henry J Hardenbergh (tower additions 1894); James Stewart Polshek & Partners (hall renovation); Cesar Pelli & Associates (tower). [22]. Durova 04:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems like a hoax unless someone can verify the claim in the article about page 109 of "The New Russia" as the only place this guy is mentioned (seems unlikely). Anyone in a university library? --W.marsh 04:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as A1 short article with little or no context. User Durova has shown that he had nothing to do with Carnegie Hall other than possibly attending a concert there. Zero Google hits which is unlikely for the man who designed Carnegie Hall. Capitalistroadster 06:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speed-of-light delete, there should be a separate website for wikidotism. KNewman 08:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy deleted as vandalism. A hoax designed to pull one of our collective fingers. Geogre 13:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Doc ask? 11:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

White supremacy psych-pop

[edit]

No evidence that this exists. Klonimus 23:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 01:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Xenocanon

[edit]

Bandvanity, fails to meet WP:MUSIC and has just 925 Google hits. FCYTravis 00:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 01:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Xunil Rumors

[edit]

A single unverifiable rumor about a corporation which apparently doesn't have an article of its own. CDC (talk) 21:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 01:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yaksha technos

[edit]

Blantant spam. Speedy delete if possible (although I can't find a good category for it), otherwise simple delete as soon as possible. --Nlu 10:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_13&oldid=1234127155"