Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 October 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 9 October 11 >

Purge server cache

October 10

[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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 19:05, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

179424673 (number)

[edit]

Not notable. linas 05:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 22:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

29a

[edit]
Also See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benny/29a -- (☺drini♫|☎) 18:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benny/29a Vsmith 16:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anon votes

[edit]
  • DON'T DELETE - the world should know about the group and it is a notable group. What are you guys scared of? If you want to take down the links to the weblogs then fine take down the links. The member list should stay because there is a member list availble on the internet already! What's the point in deleting it!?!?!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.64.5.97 (talk • contribs) 2005-10-11 09:17:00 UTC
  • Don't Delete Your making a big deal out of nothing. The links are off and it is a notable group. The article shall continue to be written and be up as long as there are no links to any weblogs (since your gonna make a big deal about it.) If you want your proof to the list of members then why don't you just go to this link [vx.netlux.org/lib/enwiki/static/vdat/groups1.htm here]. Your denying the right for the public to view this information. This group has been in the news many times before. At the VERY least then leave the paragraph up about them and take the member list down. As I have said before this article shall remain up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.64.5.97 (talk • contribs) 2005-10-12 10:43:00 UTC
Note: above edit was intended to replace all delete votes, reverted by Kgf0 18:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 21:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

363 (number)

[edit]

Not notable linas 04:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep--Gaff talk 00:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC) On second thought, delete unless expert opinion from the number project folks says otherwise. To my read the standard that has been established is:Integers: Continuous from -1 to 200. Multiples of 100 from 300 to 900, then multiples of 1000 to 9000. Afterwards, only powers of 10 (from 1 up to 1010, higher than that only if they have a standard word name and commonly used SI prefix) and numbers with some remarkable mathematical property. --Gaff talk 00:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)Changing my mind (again). Keep it. Its a nice looking article with some interesting information. (sorry for my waffling).--Gaff talk 00:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedied Wikibofh 15:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

427 (number)

[edit]

Nonsense. Do I really have to give a reason for deletion? Doesn't this article speak for itself? linas 04:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Linuxbeak | Talk 00:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A (musical note)

[edit]

Delete this before somebody creates B (musical note), C sharp (musical note) and so on. —Wahoofive (talk) 23:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 19:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A Philosophical Approach to Language and Knowledge

[edit]

Original Research cohesion | talk 06:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 18:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Abkey

[edit]

Advert for a non-notable non-QWERTY computer keyboard. Quale 04:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 19:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Access Now

[edit]

Non-notable campus organization. The website is currently nonoperational though viewable by Google cache [2], and the name doesn't seem to appear outside of a few Hamline University lists. Possible vanity page by creator of Annika Johnson (on list above). Delete. Dvyost 05:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 19:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adam boyd

[edit]

Non-notable bio. "Principal technological inventor" of a railroad freight billing information system. The article actually reads like an oblique attack, since supposedly his system was delivered about 6 months late and then a year later it was decided to rewrite it anyway. Quale 06:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 19:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Valen Levinson

[edit]

Unverifiable bio, likely hoax. Page has been marked as possible vandalism since July. Adam's parents are listed as Gerald Levinson and Nanine Valen. Their son is apparently 16 years old, which doesn't agree with the 1789 birthdate given in Adam's article. For some inexplicable reason Levinson's children had been linked in his article, which was certainly an invitation for mischief. Quale 06:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of a blogger of the same name [3] makes me suspect hoax as well. Delete unless verified. --Dvyost 06:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Appeal. Linuxbeak | Talk 23:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Affirm

[edit]

Transwikify Massysett 03:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 21:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Airline disatisfaction

[edit]

Original research -- at the very least needs to be cleaned up and made less POV. --Quasipalm 14:39, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted under A7. Friday (talk) 20:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Mills

[edit]

Non-notable bio, college vanity. Claim to notability is being an officer in two college political organizations. Quale 18:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Ali. Linuxbeak | Talk 23:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ali ibn Abu Talib (Radiallahuanhu)

[edit]

There is a full article at Ali ibn Abu Talib. Also, adding the phrase Radiallahuanhu is a Sunni Point of View Adamcaliph 13:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 00:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All About Skyscrapers

[edit]

Non-notable organization/website. Google search for the phrase "all about skyscrapers" produces about 300 hits (not all of which are related to this organization/website), and with regard to the website linked from the article, http://allaboutskyscrapers.com has an Alexa ranking of about 2,601,000. Delete. Joel7687 16:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Linuxbeak | Talk 00:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

alt.suicide.holiday

[edit]
24.166.6.153 (talk · contribs) performed two out of the three steps for nominating an article for deletion. Since xe gave xyr rationale, I've completed the process. Uncle G 16:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

not notable, and possibly dangerous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.6.153 (talk • contribs) 2005-10-04 04:09:47 UTC

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

The result of the debate was delete --Celestianpower hablamé 13:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ANGEL Learning

[edit]

Advert for educational software, complete with "MindClick ™ Process Technology". I am excited to learn that its features include "data integration", "application integration", "security", "accessibility", and "scalability". Quale 01:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 19:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Annika Johnson

[edit]

Non-notable bio. College student or recent graduate who is one of seven founders of Access Now, a college organization. The founders are already listed in the Access Now article and that mention is sufficient. Google suggests that Annika Johnson won a student leadership award at Hamline University, but I don't think that's sufficient for WP:BIO. Quale 05:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have, in fact, listed Access Now below. --Dvyost 05:57, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. Linuxbeak | Talk 00:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous sex

[edit]

This is nonnotable. While there is a high number of results on yahoo, 22 million I believe, the vast majority are dating services or pornographic sites. Not very encylopediac in my opinion. If this page had any information relevant to the social phenomenon, or statistics, maybe this would be worth keeping...but it doesn't. freestylefrappe 18:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 19:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arts and Science Students' Union

[edit]

Vanity article. NN. Delete --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 23:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 11:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Fisher

[edit]

Maybe this is a hoax, or maybe not. My instincts say it is, so I'm bringing it here for discussion in case I am wrong. [edit] 03:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 00:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Bryant

[edit]

This page is one of a circular set of self-refential non-notable (low google hit count) bios, all of which have a family relationship and have been created in the last couple of weeks

There's also a set of redirects for various forms of each of the names. Josh Parris # 06:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep, seems notable. Any wikilinks to NN persons can be unwikified. Delete (as Isotope23) -- Egil 11:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Somewhat notable. Logophile 13:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - OK let's break it down. Searching for Benjamin Bryant + Majic 95.5: [5]. 3 hits that actaully are on topic... 2 of which are from his website. Searching for Benjamin Bryant + K-Juice: [6] yields one hit... from his website. So basically, he qualifies as a non-notable disc jockey. The behind the scenes stuff (i.e. Program Director) isn't merit enough for inclusion either. He won a Paul R. Ellis Award, which has it's own wiki entry compelete with mention of Mr. Bryant; not so surprising when you notice that the author of that article is the same as the author of the Benjamin Bryant article. I would surmise the Paul R. Ellis Award article was added to support Mr. Bryant's article...
    • This delete nomination seems kind of personal, probably one of the reasons I felt compelled to research it a little more in-depth. As for the award, the author may be same, but a quick web search for the award supports that it is an award of some repute from a nationally recognized organization. When the entry is worthy of inclusion on its own, do we get to disqualify it because we question the motives for inclusion? http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=3027862 [7]
Moving on, Mr. Bryant hosted and emceed some local events, nothing more exciting than what many local "celebrities" do. Mr. Bryant then moved on to column writing. [8] produces one valid hit, which puts him on the level of every other column writer that doesn't have a bio on wikipedia. The claim that The early 2000s saw Bryant’s writings published on all of the industrialized continents, and translated into several languages... appear to be non-verifiable.
    • This is verifiable, I found a list (with some links to original material) on Benjamin Bryant's website (the same one you cite): A number of these publications appear to meet the circulation requirements of the Wikipedia biography policy and they, in what I, at least, found interesting, cover a wide variety of topics. You seem very insistent that this point is unverifiable. One look at this page (and the links to actual scans and/or reprints of the original publications) kind of debunks that...Benjamin Bryant is clearly a widely published author, if not an author of the "sexy" material variety (No Brad and Angelina articles, though there is a piece on a beauty queen). http://www.benjaminbryant.net/stringbook/ [9] el_amante 21:41, October 12, 2005 (UTC)

      • There is nothing personal about it el_amante and you seem to be inferring bad faith on my part just because I'm actually trying to support my argument for a deletion. I agree that the Paul R. Ellis Award is worthy of inclusion in wikipedia on its own... I just don't agree that getting this award confers notability to the recipient. I view in the same way I view the Medal of Honor: If someone has done something notable, and happens to be a medal of honor recipient as well (regardless of whether or not the notable action is tied to receiving said honor) the MoH certainly merits mention in the person's article. However, just receiving the MoH is not, in my opinion, sufficient merit for inclusion in wikipedia. My argument against using the Paul R. Ellis Award as a benchmark for notability is solely based on that reasoning and my mention of the genesis of the Paul R. Ellis Award was simply a comment, though perhaps inappropriate in the context of an AfD.
Per your second statement, I don't know how you are inferring that I am very insistent that the point about his published work is unverifiable from the statement appear to be non-verifiable... denoting the fact that I could not verify the claim. I missed that link you posted when I originally looked at Mr. Bryant's website. Having reviewed it, I still don't see anything that meets my criteria for notable published works. It is a collection of local newspaper articles. The Soap Weekly article I mentioned in my original vote, and some technical writings and press releases. I'm not judging this on the "sexy" nature of the material, but rather on precedent. Looking around wikipedia, I don't see many articles on local newspaper writers (baring those who write for nationally distributed "local" papers like the NY Times, Washington Post, etc.) or for technical/ad copy writers.
There is nothing personal about my delete vote. My long explanation for deletion in my original vote was simply because that, based on the article, a simple "delete - nn-bio" was inappropriate based on the numerous contentions of notability. I was at least trying to do some due diligence and look at the claims the author made. If this article stays, it needs a cleanup to removed POV wording (like "cinderella-like"), but ultimately I simply disagree with retaining an article on someone of such low notability.--Isotope23 15:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of the article concerns his lineage (which does not confer notability unless you are Paris Hilton), some minor awards, and his career. An unpublished novel and an unfinished play cap it all off. Taking it all together, I don't see anything that confers notability her. It is a well written article with tons information. It would make a great resume, but there as of right now, I don't see anything that distinguishes Mr. Bryant as notable. If his book ever comes out I may change my mind on this...--Isotope23 17:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Isotope23's excellent analysis. The page, although well written, is absurdly bloated for an unkown DJ. Quale 18:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep – the page is well-written, and all the information is relevant. Having won a number of awards, and being related to an Emmy-winner, he is clearly a noteworthy individual. He also holds the record of 'youngest director of a mid/major market commercial station in all of Texas', which is undoubtedly of interest to somebody. Simply not being well-known does not mean that the subject is not noteable. It may be possible to merge all of the Bryant articles into a single article, but deleting is too crude and wasteful.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronald Collinson (talk • contribs) 21:57, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If "[s]imply not being well-known does not mean that the subject is not noteable", then what is the definition of notability? MCB 01:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So if I am related to someone who does something notable, like win an award or become CEO of a company, I'm therefore notable enough for a wiki article? I better start writing up my copy...--Isotope23 13:45, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • C'mon, let's keep this discussion fair and reasonable. Obviously, being related to a notable is not simply enough, but when the person is a published writer related to another published writer of significant note, and obviously part of a family of significant achievement (and we can debate whether a given person is or is not) I think they can qualify for an entry, at least on principle, to be evaluated individually.--el_amante 19:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I was on the fence of "keep" vs. "strong keep" but I ultimately chose strong keep for the following reasons: While this person is not well known, the accomplishments are legitimate. Though some of the Google searches link to his site http://www.benjaminbryant.net (click through to the "professional" site), an actual review of the site provides plenty of supporting information--including several newspaper articles, and a complete list of works written for major publications and public relations campaigns managed in various countries. The most notable are the Black History Maker of Tomorrow award, which I know from watching a TV special years ago is (was?) a legitimate national award given by McDonalds, and being the youngest Program Director of a commercial station in Texas. Other supporting information includes being named "Most Memorable of 1996" and working on a major Defense program that is always in the news. ALONE, the circular reference to the other family members (some of which are also clearly notable, others not so much) or the fact that the Ellis Award entry was entered by the same author, might challenge the article's legitimacy, but there are clearly enough supporting factors to keep this one. I do not think we should be too dependent upon how many Google hits a person turns up--many people accomplished things before the Internet was in widespread use, particulary for archiving. I also think that one of the brilliant things about Wikipedia is that we can include "B-list" notables that might otherwise be left out of traditional encyclopedias due to space constraints. Wikipedia can be less elitist and I think that's a good thing. Sorry for the length of this, but I wanted to rebut the detailed entry above, as I strongly disagree with using primarily quantitative data (hits, etc.) as justification for keeping OR deleting--and I'm not sure that while Ben Bryant's page was cited, that the author actually followed many of the links on that page, which support Mr. Bryant's notability el_amante 19:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]
    • A note: I noticed that the bio on the site(and even the tone of the bio) is not the same as this Wikipedia article, which I often find is the case when a person has done their own their own vanity page. el_amante 21:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I *would* be interested in User25be answering some of these points, so I invite him/her to do so before the 5-day deadline if he/she comes across this discussion. el_amante 19:45 12 October 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Boney M. Linuxbeak | Talk 00:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bonny M

[edit]

Most likely as misspelling of Boney M (page history supports this), which already has its own article. Delete - Pc13 17:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 21:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BooZZe etc.

[edit]

This nomination concerns BooZZe and BroQ (others might follow). These articles describe online gamers. Most of them consist of a single sentence, and it's not clear to me whether any of this information is verifiable, or how notable these people are. --MarkSweep✍ 07:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. 131.128.129.158 18:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Wheeler

[edit]

Neither Brett Wheeler nor the band Nana's A Fugitive make an appearance on allmusic.com, both articles seem to be band-vanity. {edit} 04:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. --Dvyost 05:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per vote in Nana's a Fugitive. Interestingly, while this article claims they played with Grinspoon and System of a Down, the band article states that they played two gigs one at a Caroline Chisholm High School open night. I come from Canberra and have never heard of him or the band. Only Google hits for band are from Wikipedia mirrors. [10]. Capitalistroadster 05:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as per WP:CSD A7. Hall Monitor 17:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know Brett Wheeler from Canberra and the person described in this Article is a fabrication and should be deleted as his friends and himself probably put this artical on here as a joke.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedied. android79 23:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brian senior

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 19:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Delete Text essentially duplicates that of both Castro-directed overt and covert operations (which currently subject to an AfD and History of Cuban espionage (which is not). All three were started by the same author. At most, we need one such article and since I can't imagine anyone will likely type in the name of this article, I'm bringing this one to AfD instead being bold and making it a redirect to History of Cuban espionage. Caerwine 22:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 00:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Sitter

[edit]

Nobody named "Carol Sitter" has been awarded a Medal of Honor. There was a "Carl Sitter" who was awarded a MoH for actions in the Korean War, but I can't verify that any of the information on this page would apply to him. --Carnildo 20:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 21:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Castrol XV

[edit]

Advert/corpvanity. Delete. Dvyost 14:16, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 22:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Celadon-Saffron Metropolitan Area

[edit]

All the information in this article can be found in the articles Saffron City and Celadon City--with much more information too. Additionally, a Google search for Celadon-Saffron Metropolitan Area returns only 115 results, many from mirrors of or links to this Wikipedia article. WindFish 07:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then redirect. Trollderella 00:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To where? Sonic Mew | talk to me 19:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Celadon City was created by NessSnorlax (talk · contribs) in April 2004. [11]. Saffron City was created by Raidentherv (talk · contribs) 0n April 9th 2005. [12]. Celadon-Saffron Metropolitan Area was created by 200.93.214.203 (talk · contribs) on April 25th 2005. [13]. Please check the facts before making such claims. Sonic Mew | talk to me 19:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pretty pointless, really. I can see the logic, but this is not even a termrecognised by the fandom. Besides which, in all representations of the Pokémon world that I know of, there is some rural area between Saffron City and Celadon City. Sonic Mew | talk to me 19:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy keep. This is part of a pattern of nominations from an AOL user that has already included Three's Company (AfD discussion), Jack Tripper (AfD discussion), and Chrissy Snow (AfD discussion), at approximately this time a week ago. This is clearly a bad faith nomination. Uncle G 03:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie's Angels

[edit]

It does not belong into an encyclopedia. Not an E/I (educational/instructional) article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a guide of TV shows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.5 (talk • contribs) 2005-10-10 02:43:57 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 19:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

China History Forum

[edit]

I understand that this page was put on and survived a previous AfD, however the previous vote was inconclusive with 1/1/1, with myself neutral. After reviewing various guidelines I have concluded that this article meets none of the criteria for inclusion in wikipedia. In particular, this article is

  1. non-notable. Alexa ranking 1,034,594. I've seen 300,000 ones get speedied. Google test comes up with 13,400 hits, but bear in mind that this is an EXTREMELY generic name, just like "Rover" is anyone's dog.
  2. original research. Written by the forum owner himself.
  3. vanity. As above, written by forum owner himself.
  4. advertising. Blatantly promotes this forum. Tone and diction like one giant advertisement campaign.

I hope this AfD can stay open until a sufficient number of inputs can be gathered.
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 05:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't think that's the word for it... :D
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 00:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 22:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Concrete sheep

[edit]

Article describes a band that, by its own profession, does not yet exist. There exists no emoticon that can properly describe the extent to which this does not meet WP:MUSIC. CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 22:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

D02

[edit]

Some forum participant's homebrew RPG system. Belongs on those forums, not here. — mendel ☎ 16:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 19:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Ko/

[edit]

Unverifiable. A possible nn-bio. 202.156.6.54 23:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 19:11, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Jennings

[edit]

Nonnotable bio, probable vanity. See also Yeti Photography, above. Delete. Dvyost 06:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy per non-notable bio provision of WP:CSD? --MarkSweep✍ 06:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the Yeti Photography AfD J7 is making a claim for notability for the business (and by inference the owner); the way I understand the WP:CSD, any claim, even a seemingly hopeless one, has to be discussed here. There's no hurry. =) --Dvyost 06:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 18:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Davidstrack.com

[edit]

17-year old musician who does not meet WP:MUSIC guidelines.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 22:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Dashton

[edit]

This is a hoax. Googling "Dick Dashton" provides only links to actor Cameron Daddo who appeared as a character named "Dick Dashton" in a movie called Drive-tim Murders Zeromacnoo 13:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Linuxbeak | Talk 19:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dikta

[edit]

The entry does not assert any notability of this alleged band. 202.156.6.54 00:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It does now, as I updated it quite a bit using Kappa's link and the official site. --Jacquelyn Marie 13:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Dikta’s first album, Andartak (2002), has received both public and critical acclaim. One critic even called it “the most interesting album from an Icelandic band in a long while”. Andartak’s singles got a lot of airtime on Iceland’s biggest rock radio station, X-ið 977, with one of them reaching the top of the charts!" [14] Kappa 02:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kappa. Good research! --Jacquelyn Marie 13:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 22:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do I Harass Us?

[edit]

not notable and/or WP:BJAODN Kgf0 20:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 22:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dovedale Infants

[edit]

A rehabilitation institute for children with drug problems. No context or references. Delete - hoax in its present form. (If anybody thinks that an infants school having John Lennon as a former pupil is notable, then re-write appropriately.) -- RHaworth 10:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 22:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

E-steki

[edit]

del. nonnotable. mikka (t) 16:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 22:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Economic fascism

[edit]

Conspiracy theory craziness, POV.TomTheHand 19:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. Linuxbeak | Talk 23:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

EMSSA

[edit]

This does not seem like material worthy of inclusion. A search for "electronic Martial Spirit of Southern Africa" on Google produces about 500 results. I do not think this is a large enough number for an online community. Alexa rankings don't come into the picture, since their websites are located at Angelfire and Yahoo! (which further suggests that this group is not worthy of inclusion). Delete. Joel7687 06:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 19:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme urban hiking

[edit]

As per WP:NOT - this reads more like a blog entry than an objective article. A quick Google search also reveals no reference to the article's subject matter. Peruvianllama 22:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy redirect to Prank flash.  BD2412 talk 00:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Flash prank

[edit]

Prank flash covers it all, whereas Flash prank is badly written and adds nothing, rather than merge it just needs deleting imo. --PopUpPirate 22:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Linuxbeak | Talk 18:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

French_ensigns

[edit]

the basic concept is based on flawed research, namely, that there exist a certain number of plain flag with the french flag in canton used to design colonial flag. some french posession do have a tricolore in canton but these are either pre-existing flag to which a tricolore was added or flags that were created in toto. --Marc pasquin 01:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the article is more about British Ensigns than French. Several French ensigns are illustrated and there is a claim that they are used by French Overseas Territories but no actual example is given (ie which territories). Given that AVD has a history of misusing sources (Ground Zero has looked up AVD's sources in the past only to find that they don't say what he claims they say) we should probably delete this. Homey 02:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Okay, there are problems with factual accuracy on the page. But that just means the article needs to be revised. It's not grounds for deletion. Justin Bacon 03:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - all these flags are referenced (in the 10 references listed on the article page), and I shall cite each one on the discussion page. As per HOTRs statement that I misuse references, I would suggest that HOTR use his words carefully. If I have to obey the No Personal Attack Rule then so does HOTR. Please visit the French ensigns discussion page, were ALL the Flags will be referenced. ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Saying you've been found to have misused sources in the past is not a "personal attack", it's criticism. You'd do well to learn the difference. Homey 07:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Misusing references? Please cite specific cases of me doing that.
HOTR, you would also do well to attempt to keep a civil tone.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 15:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Being told that using sources that are not correct is not a personal attack. That means that either you need to find the correct sources or just remove the non-factual information. Remember, me and Marc, David and Grutness are vexillologists, if you need information (or perhaps drawings) of flags, just let us know. But since, from reading this, I still personally believe that this article is nothing but original research. I strong suggest merging to Flag of France and perhaps have a gallery of various French ensign (which I could draw easily). Zach (Sound Off) 15:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Next up, Zach, I have studied Flags as well, and I quite capable of arguing that permise that the French ensigns is a valid article, and deserving of its own page.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 15:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article does provide sourcing although there is some discussion on the article's talk page about the accuracy of the contents. That is the proper place to discuss any problems with the current contents of the article not in AfD. Capitalistroadster 05:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge/Redirect with Flag of France. Given that these are variations of the French Flag and that the objection seems to be over whether these are truly "ensigns", it may make sense to move whatever pertinent info exists in the article to the Flag of France article. Homey 07:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

HOTR, I see you have changed your vote from Delete to Merge. It is nice to see that you conceed that the French ensigns article I created has some value on Wikipedia. However, as for Merging the article with another Flag of France article, I would strongly disagree with that suggestion. The French ensigns article touches on a subject that is not generally known in Vexillology, and it provides a compact, specialised article to highlight these French Flags, which are commonly overlooked, and un-emphasised. I submit to you that the French ensigns article is quite appropriate, and educational in its present location (i.e., with its own separate article). ArmchairVexillologistDon 20:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A fundamental misunderstanding of Vexillology? What precisely are you refering to?
ArmchairVexillologistDon 15:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sorry Marc, but you're incorrect. There are a number of flags that have used the tricolor canton. Togo has, Wallis & Futuna has and Morocco has, to name just three off the top of my head. A quick glance at some of the pages on the Flags of the World website (many of which I had a hand in writing, I venture to add) will show that what Don is saying is basically correct, though some of the things said on the page do need their accuracy checked. The use of the word "ensign" is also a little wayward, to say the least - these are colonial flags, not ensigns (ensigns are flown from ships, not used on land). (BTW Don, are you on the fotw mailing list?) Grutness...wha? 12:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay - Marc's explained to me a bit more clearly what his beef is with the page, and I understand now. That there are flags like this in general is accepted, but their direct relation to British ones is questionable, especially given their usage. Also, some of the 'templates for flags" shown on the page in question never existed as flags in themselves. Many countries have used or do use flag designs similar to those probably first used by the British navy, either deliberately or coincidentally - and that is worthy of a Wikipedia article. The current article, though, is not that article. This needs a thorough rewrite, a split and a move to titles like Similarities in European colonial flag designs and Similarities in European naval ensign designs (or possibly something a bit more catchy). Grutness...wha? 12:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no parallel -- none -- in the use of British and French ensigns. The British have a system: red for merchant vessels, blue for government, white for naval (I have somewhat oversimplified) that France never had. Please act along the lines of Marc Pasquin's and James Dignan's ("Grutness") arguments. The parent article is just plain wrong; I don't know where the author got his information. ASKirsch
  • Keep and cleanup, in the sense that the French Ensign is worthy of an article. Much of the page belongs elsewhere, if at all, but that is an issue for talk pages, not AfD. JPD 09:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I want to comment on two issues, espeically since my name came up with regard to one of them. In a previous debate on AVD's contention that the Canadian flag was based on what he calls the "republican tricolour", AVD provided a list of references to support his argument. (This was on an article he wrote entitled "French Republican Tricolour form of Canadian Maple Leaf Flag", which was deleted.) Most of them were for books published decades before the maple leaf flag was introduced in 1965. I looked into a recent book to which he referred, and could find nothing to support AVD's claim. Part of the problem was that instead of providing the page number to support his claim, which is what would normally be done, he provided the number of the page from which he took the publisher's information, which is not useful in any way to someone trying to verify the references. And he never provided the pagge number to support his claim at any time later. The other issue is his statement, "If I have to obey the 'No Personal Attack Rule' then so does HOTR." When has AVD ever obeyed the NPA rule? Several editors have pointed out his violations, and he has never withdrawn the attacks (as far as I know). There is currently an RfC about his personal attacks, and he made a personal attack against me on the RfC page, which he has not withdrawn or apologized for. Because of his behaviour, it is hard to known whether this article has been written in good faith based on the references cited, or if it is original research. His past behaviour suggests the latter. Ground Zero | t 15:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ground Zero, you are misrepresenting our conversion. The conversion is also recorded on my talkpage.
ArmchairVexillologistDon talkpage
Back to the Flag (section on my talkpage)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ArmchairVexillologistDon
Well, I can spend alot of time and effort to clarify and refute your "characterization" of my use o references, and the ideas and points that I was trying to convey to you. However, at the moment I am too angry at you to do so. So I shall "step away from the computer".
Additional note: I mentioned to an Administrated that the article I started French ensigns, was challenged within one hour of me being indefinitely banned. He stated that he was not aware of this, and he had nothing to do with it. Next I asked him permission to defend the French ensigns article, and the Administrator granted me permission to so, with the warning that I was absolutely not to engage in personaly attacks. So far I have kept my end of the agreement.
I will say this, the string of co-incedences that occurs around this French ensigns article is astounding, to say the least. I have one bright spot in this regard so far, a fellow Vexillologist Mysha (from the Dutch Wikipedia) he helped me immeasurabley in improving the French ensigns article. Thanks again Mysha, and it was very nice to make your acquaintance indeed (I learned "light a candle" from you Mysha. Thanks). ArmchairVexillologistDon 18:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected with reference to the Archibald book. You did provide page references after I requested them, so I will withdraw the remark that I made above. The rest of our discussion shows, however, that the book does not support your claim that the Canadian flag is based on the republican tricolour. You have drawn, on your own, the conclusion that the remote similiarity of the Canadian flags to the flags of other countries, some of which are republics, is basis enough to draw your conclusion that the design of the maple leaf flag was chosen to promote republicanism by undermining royal and British connections and symbolism. In this case, the reference that you provided did not support your claim, but rather showed that what you were writing was original research.
As far as the "coincidences", it is not uncommon for editors to watch the contributions of editors who in the past have violated Wikipedia policies. As you know, the "French Republican Tricolour form of Canadian Maple Leaf Flag" was deleted for being a POV fork of what you were trying to include in the Flag of Canada article, which is not permitted. So you should not be surprised if your contributions are being monitored. This is one of the ways that Wikipedia policies can be maintained. Of course, if you are not violating Wikipedia policies, then you should not be concerned that others are watching your work. Ground Zero | t 19:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article as it stands at this moment is acceptable. Homey 14:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I hesitate to enter the conversation here, seeing all the intensity in the conversation above. This is my first encounter of this article and it appears lucid and well written. If factual accuracy is a concern, perhaps expert opinions or fact checking by peer reviewers would be reasonable.--Gaff talk 17:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Update

[edit]

As it stand now (and as long as it stays that way), I have no problem with the page French Ensigns and unless there are objections, I will withdraw its candidacy for deletion.

However, while that page is now more correct, most of the problems I originaly had with the page have been transfered to a new one. (see its talk page Talk:French_colonial_flags),

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 22:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Game teens

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep. Whether this was a bad faith nomination or not, consensus is clear. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 17:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gil Shaham

[edit]

Non-notable violinist. Jake013 14:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 19:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grungry

[edit]

Non-notable dicdef. Should be moved to Wiktionary and deleted from Wikipedia. Solarusdude 23:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was redirect. Surprise surprise. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 21:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gurlukovich Mercenaries

[edit]

An unxpandable stub about the cannon fodder from the first chapter of Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty. Any expansion of this article would necessarily be a duplication of the extremely detailed plot summary at Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty, and these mercenaries aren't particularly notable even in the context of that game's story. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 17:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 22:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hagglecake

[edit]

Neo-foodism - a pastry invented in 2005 - not (yet) notable. -- RHaworth 10:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Linuxbeak | Talk 00:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hedley on the Hill

[edit]

Vanity and friend of gay Swamp Ig 13:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 22:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Horwich Prize Medal Morris Men

[edit]

I think this is a vanity page. No real claim to notability. Dunc|☺ 16:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Hydroplaning. Linuxbeak | Talk 00:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hydroplanation

[edit]

nn neologism. This is just a fun term to use with people. Dlyons493 Talk 20:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedied Wikibofh 15:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IntelliTXT

[edit]

Page only contains an ad. Pgengler 20:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 22:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Iovation Inc.

[edit]

Article about a rather non-notable company (about 600 Google hits) by JonMartinKarl (talk · contribs), who also created an article on himself (at Jon karl, which I speedied). - ulayiti (talk) 19:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Hermione1980 21:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ipso facto

[edit]

Strong keep.

Transwikify Massysett 03:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 11:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's Appropriate

[edit]

Band vanity. Does not meet WP:MUSIC. Joyous (talk) 00:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Linuxbeak | Talk 00:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Ingram

[edit]

I don't feel there's enough info to warrant a proper article, nor is there an introduction to give the reader a good idea of what the article is about.--D-Day 17:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedied. android79 00:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Nunis

[edit]

Vanity page; no hits on Google, no verfiability. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy keep. This is part of a pattern of nominations from an AOL user that has already included Three's Company (AfD discussion), Jack Tripper (AfD discussion), and Chrissy Snow (AfD discussion), at approximately this time a week ago. This is clearly a bad faith nomination. Uncle G 03:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joni Loves Chachi

[edit]

This article is about a sitcom. This makes it ineligible for an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias are no place for sitcoms.152.163.100.13 02:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 22:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Johannesburg Massage

[edit]

Advertisement Carbonite | Talk 13:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 18:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge platin

[edit]

Non notable author, 242 hits at Google [18]. The whole article now looks like an offtopic thread in a forum. -- ReyBrujo 04:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted. Friday (talk) 20:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Solis

[edit]

Obvious vanity. The use of the first-person voice is a dead giveaway. Delete or speedy delete. (Note the redirect JOSEPH SOLIS too.) — JIP | Talk 06:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Linuxbeak | Talk 23:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua P. Warren

[edit]

Originally deleted as copyvio, but the contributor stated that he is the original author. This makes it autobiography/vanity, however. The author has made several other contributions promoting his own work, which should be reviewed. Fredrik | talk 11:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 19:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kamandag

[edit]

Non-notable band. Article is full of irrelevant claptrap needing a rewrite. jni 05:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedied by DragonflySixtyseven ({{nn-bio}}). Lupo 07:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kingfreeze

[edit]

self congratualtory pomp, username and article name coincide without coincidence, Only Kingfreeze I found on Google is a German Rockabilly artist. delete btw author removed first delete tag ! --Isolani 13:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. First version of this page was "speedy userfied" by me, but apparently he didn't get it. Lupo 15:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 21:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Wikipedia isn't an image gallery. dbenbenn | talk 13:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Good work, people. DS 12:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Last Poems

[edit]

Title refers to a book by Alfred Edward Housman but content is just a bad copy/paste of a single poem from it. Since I don't know the subject well, I don't know whether this particular book is good or not. Article was rewritten since nomination. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 15:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the book deserves an entry (but not under this title). It's notable at least for the much-quoted Epitaph on an army of mercenaries
These, in the day when heaven was falling,
The hour when Earth's foundations fled,
Followed their mercenary calling
And took their wages and are dead. Dlyons493 Talk 16:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 22:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Schuker

[edit]

vanity article ChanceDM 00:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 22:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Leitch

[edit]

No sign of notability of this character The Land 09:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Defense: There are remains on; http://www.extremedylan.cjb.net

The old website was http://www.thelside.com but is no longer registered. The image used in the entry is of the character.

As the article explains, "Leitch" was known on a local level. Signs of notability are evident through internet search (google extreme dylan etc).


www.geocities.com/robzcout

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 22:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lenong

[edit]

Colloquial dictionary definition with no links to it. Scott Davis Talk 10:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Hermione1980 21:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lex fori

[edit]

Transwikify Massysett 03:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Hermione1980 21:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lex loci rei sitae

[edit]

Transwikify Massysett 03:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Celestianpower hablamé 11:45, 16 October 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

List_of_cypherpunks

[edit]

This page lists a grand total of one person. It's therefore not really a list. This article would be too small to be worth merging into cypherpunk. 70.106.209.48 00:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And WP said Fatal error: Call to undefined function: linkprefix() in /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.5/includes/Parser.php on line 1232 six times while I tried to put that comment in. Something broken? Tonywalton  | Talk 00:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there were some glitches earlier, but it's all straightened out now. Rob Church Talk | FAD 09:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 22:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mexican sabre fencers

[edit]

I'm nominating this article despite the cleanup tag. I do not think any of the fencers listed has a solid claim of notability yet. It also shows a clear bias for those fencers coached by this 'James Randall' guy. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 16:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:ISNOT a propaganda machine, free host, and/or an indiscriminate collection of information. The individual fencers, upon achieving notability (I suppose it's arguable whether the existing claims constitute notability) could have their own articles, and the list should then be Category:Mexican sabre fencers perhaps as a subcat of Category:Mexican athletes. (Personally, I think every "List of" page worth keeping should be a category, but that's me.) --Kgf0 19:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Linuxbeak | Talk 00:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of revenues

[edit]

Direct quote from a primary historical source (Herodotus). Not suitable as an encyclopedic article as is, and I don't think the subject itself warrants an article, either. Delete -- Egil 06:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. This is Darius I of Persia. The list itself is of considerable historical interest, and a subsection about it at Darius's article would be useful. But I can't vote for merge because I don't think the list should be incorporated, just the lessons to be drawn from it. Sorry to be wishy-washy. Chick Bowen 23:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Though unedited material in tabular format must rank high on the "NPOV" scale, Chick Bowen is right. An introductory paragraph is essential, but the application of this in information is broader than just Darius the King. It should appear in the entry Achaemenid dynasty, following the subsection "System of governing". --Wetman 12:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. Linuxbeak | Talk 00:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lori Bryant-Woolridge

[edit]

This page is one of a circular set of self-refential non-notable (low google hit count) bios, all of which have a family relationship and have been created in the last couple of weeks

There's also a set of redirects for various forms of each of the names. Josh Parris # 06:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Linuxbeak | Talk 23:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lucid crossroads

[edit]

I would have speedied this as OR, but it's got enough Google hits to indicate that it's more than that. But it definitely feels unverifiable. DS 12:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the definition title should be something that encompasses all locations specifically created for visiting in states of consciousness other than waking, I just don't know what they would all be called? (other mind conjured locations are the Lucid Metro, Astral Pulse Island, the Astral Societies Astral Temple and P4 experiement)

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

The result of the debate was Speedied. android79 00:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mark G. Turnbull

[edit]

Vanity. This guy takes 3 paragraphs to say "I like politics, but I haven't run for any office." Best he's done is president of the Young Democrat club at his college and some campaigning for various politicians. R. fiend 19:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 00:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC) Administrator note: Although I would normally rule a no consensus on this type of thing, the only keep vote is from an anonymous IP which removed Kgf0's vote. Delete.[reply]

Martialarm

[edit]

Delete this advertising please. Angr/tɔk tə mi 21:16, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:202.183.110.81 blanked votes adding the following comment 'Its a definition. definitions per "definition" is - a sentence or more giving the meaning of a word - and it is exactly that. no deletion.' which is terribly bad form and a violation of the AfD process. Aside from which, WP:ISNOT a dictionary either, so add dictdef to my reasons for deletion. --Kgf0 16:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Im sorry I did not know to keep all the information in the edit box, I thought it would re-dupliate. Basically it is expressed as informative information about martial arts development and modern progress and includes a definition of a martial arts training machine which is data relevent to this topic. Basic information on any topic is its definition so the definition is included on the page. You wouldn't delete every entry on shoes simply because shoes are a commercial product and here the information and push for further development in the martialarts is key issue.
Note: I took the liberty of reformatting your reply and turning it into a Keep vote, since it's obvious that you're new and that you want it kept. To address your point, certainly an article on shoes would not be deleted, unless all it did was define shoe. Definitions go on Wictionary. Similarly, an article that amounted to an add for a specific shoe would likewise be up for deletion. What would be better is to write an article on something like Martial arts training dummy and include Martialarm as an example of one, among others. See, for similarly themed examples, bokken and List of martial arts-related topics#Training techniques and equipment. --Kgf0 19:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 19:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Pennington

[edit]

looks like a vanity article--Austrian 20:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Matt Pennington was added to the LARP article on September 27, 2005, so there may be some context for having a short biography of who he is. I don't know whether he is a "notable" personality within the LARP scene, but he may very well be. The current tone/content would need to be reworked for a future article, of course. Peruvianllama 22:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but unfortunately not speedy. Makes a claim to notability, of a sort. No evidence of notability, and if he is, this article is not a good starting point. android79 00:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Linuxbeak | Talk 00:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Meditative art

[edit]

I would like to see more people discuss this page, it has been linked on needs attention for over a year, and I have a suspicion this is not a widely accepted term, but I am not an expert. cohesion | talk 08:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A laudable aim, but this isn't the place for that discussion - unless you are proposing that it be deleted. As to the use of the term, it is used, but not widely, and it certainly isn't the "standard" nomenclature. Usually, you will find the term abstract minimalist used (or simply abstract expressionist). People like Josef Albers and Mark Rothko in particular are absent from this article, as is Barnett Newman - so it could do with considerable expansion. But what's there is good. What are you proposing - merging it into something? Because there's too much there to really consider deletion. Grutness...wha? 12:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion was one of the possibilities in mind, if it turned out this was a completely fabricated term for example, since it's not, merging information or some other action probably would be best. - cohesion | talk 17:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've only come across it a couple of times in three years of part time work as an arts reviewer - and in that business it's difficult to say what's a neologism and what's real. A move to Monochromatic art (with links to things like Grisaille and expansion to cover more than just 20th century art) might be the best solution, since that term is widely used. It's probably too big to merge into abstract expressionism. Grutness...wha? 00:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Linuxbeak | Talk 00:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael G. Turnbull

[edit]

non notable architect. only google hits are wikipedia pages. this page was written by the same IP adresses as the Mark G. Turnbull page, which is also up for deletion Alhutch 19:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment as I pointed out in the nomination, searching "michael g. turnbull" on google turns up only wikipedia pages. searching "michael g. turnbull capitol" gets a few more hits (5 or 6). If he's so important, then why doesn't anyone know who he is?--Alhutch 17:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response I reviewed the Criteria for inclusion of biographies and it is a close call as to whether he deserves an article. Two possible areas he fits under are Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office and Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is recognized as exceptional and likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field. If this was just an architect who worked for Joe Blow & Associates Architecture firm, or if he was an orphan article (he is linked from Architect of the Capitol), I would be all for deleting him. The fact is, he is employed as the number two person of a U.S Federal Government ageny. His architecture work involves some of the most well known structures in the United States (and possible the world). The number of people that know of him is not the only factor in deciding whether he gets an article. I think there is room for him on Wikipedia. That being said, as always on Wikipedia, majority rules.  :) Epolk 17:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have come to see that Epolk's reasoning makes sense. Since it's not an orphan article, and since this person has some significance, I think that we have to keep this article. Having changed my mind, i struck through the non notable part of my nomination.--Alhutch 20:59, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was MERGE AND REDIRECT to Faroe Islands

Military of the Faroe Islands

[edit]

There is nothing useful to say. As this stub says, there is no military of the Faroe Islands. Susvolans ⇔ 11:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 22:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mongo (hehu)

[edit]

Subject is non-notable, a one-liner, and has no references (except for link to a swedish bbs.) bjelleklang 12:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 22:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. X Quotes

[edit]

Useless collection of unidentified and nonsensical quotes. Anon editors have continually deleted tags added to the article calling for significant improvements, but really have no case on which to claim this page is needed. Harro5 10:26, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete this page. the authers are my friends. they put their sweat and blood into this, and it provides insight. KEEP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.50.183.150 (talk • contribs)

"THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE QUOTES

The quotes allow a general viewer to receive a better insight into the mind of not just one man, but humans in general. The quotes give a clear indication of how the mind works in certain stressful situations, and the thought processes that appear in many people's mind that link thoughts and ideas into a single sentence. The quotes also, therefore introduce the power of the spoken word, showing how a single message can be used to convey a thought or idea much better than a single action. The quotes also allow people to view the expressions that build in a human's vocabulary as (s)he increases in age, and the frequency (s)he uses said sayings to those that have never heard them before, and in turn passes these sayings to those people which they have relayed the comment to. These people, in turn, may adopt one or more of these sayings and use them in another situation in which the comment makes sense, and so the circle continues.

This article is clearly one that gives an insight into the human mind, and I think it is of clear importance to the community. It contains mannerisms of a personality, and can be used how the user wishes to. If a user has no imagination, then the quotes seem little more than a watse of time where no information is contained. Others, however, will feel that this does have some significance to their lves and the information that they receive in them. They need to be able to understand that while the quotes give no information in a sense, in another sense the quotes are very useful, and informative, because they give us all a look at the mind of a human and their speech patterns. As well as this, the quotes give an indication of wisdom, and enlightenment, and in this sense they give information. They are significant, as without them many would not be able to view key human speech pattern information and it's relevance in today's stressful society."

This is what is said in the article. I put it there just in case people do not bother to read the pages they vote to delete, as I know is often the case. I have used Wikipedia for years. I am a memeber, as you can see, but not for any length of time. These quotes are what they say they are, however, if you feel that the information that they provide is not apparant to the average Wikipedia surfer, then obviously that is fine. I would say that I would vote to keep the quotes, as I do believe they are worthy of Wikipedia. May I point out that the quotes have been on Wikipedia three weeks. Has anyone been hurt in that time, by those quotes? Maybe they have.

KEEP --Chardonnay 22:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 19:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nana's A Fugitive

[edit]

Neither Brett Wheeler nor the band Nana's A Fugitive make an appearance on allmusic.com, both articles seem to be band-vanity. {edit} 04:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Although I hate to defy my friends wishes, I must say that this page should be deleted because the band is from a school

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

The result of the debate was Speedied. android79 00:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-Shail

[edit]

This article makes little sense to me! MacRusgail 22:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete --Celestianpower hablamé 13:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nochaa

[edit]

Vanity page for a band whose notability has not yet been shown. Alex.tan 01:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 23:05, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oath Rod

[edit]

This does not appear to be an encyclopedic topic, but maybe there is a precedent for retaining this sort of information that I'm not aware of. If this article is to be kept, it definitely needs to provide better context. {edit} 04:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 22:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Wikipedia isn't a photo gallery. I'm concerned that many of these photos are "fair use", so using them in a photo gallery isn't really kosher. Any free ones should be put at the Commons, and a gallery page created there. dbenbenn | talk 15:16, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 22:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OTB(gang)

[edit]

Non-notable, non verifiable article about a New Zealand "gang." Paul 11:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 00:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paco Bryant

[edit]

This page is one of a circular set of self-refential non-notable (low google hit count) bios, all of which have a family relationship and have been created in the last couple of weeks

There's also a set of redirects for various forms of each of the names. Josh Parris # 07:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete NN. Including any redirects -- Egil 11:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Logophile 13:28, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the whole lot, unfortunately. It is my hope that User25be (talk · contribs) will continue their work here and continue to contribute to other existing articles as he or she holds the potential to become another great asset to Wikipedia. Hall Monitor 17:28, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as admirable for his service, but ultimately non-notable. Hall Monitor, Look at Lori Bryant-Woolridge before you call delete on the whole lot... she appears to be somewhat notable, even if the rest are not.--Isotope23 18:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep vaguely noteable for his service and relation to clearly noteable Lori Bryant-Woolridge, but not enough to merit his own article. This should be incorporatd into either a Lori article, or one of the linked miliatary articles Ronald Collinson 22:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep as he is clearly the least notable of the Bryant entries. He has won a Bronze Star, which is admirable, but is not uncommon among veterans. The only reason I don't recommend "delete" is that he is differentiated from other veterans as he was (is?) a member of the very famous 82nd Airborne, was featured in a book that is widely available by a very well-respected and widely-known author (just do a Google search for the book and/or the author), and is clearly part of a military family who could be considered notable for the fact that it is has "dynasty" qualities: both grandfathers are decorated Generals, as is the father, and he is a decorated veteran of a high-profile war featured in a major book. Clearly, when taken in total, the family is certainly notable for their consistent multi-generational military achievements (many people are from "military" families, but very, very few, I suspect, consistently reach the general officer level). If this entry is deleted, I would suggest keeping reference to same in the Albert Bryant Jr. and Renee Bryant entries. el_amante 19:56, 12 October 2005
    • May I also say that just because several notable family members are entered at one time and by one person does not mean that they are automatically vanity pages. On very rare occasions (and I think this is one of them) the individuals entered are actually notable for their own reasons. I'm not sure that user25be isn't a relation, but while there are some traditional red-flags, close review shows that these people are largely notable. el_amante 19:56, 12 October 2005
  • Delete NN Josh Parris # 00:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

The orphanage was still well known, and Murdock's grave is considered a historical site in Kentucky.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 19:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paradise Friendly Home

[edit]

This cached Google hit verfies some elements of the arrticle[22]), but there's no claim to notability here; it's an orphanage that no longer exists. Delete. Dvyost 04:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 22:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paul-collinsing

[edit]

Appears to be a hoax article (perhaps doubling as an attack article). Google returns one instance of the use of this term, in a completely different context [23] (referring to a preist who wrote books critical of the Vatican and resigned preishood in 2001). Appears unverifiable. Only article created by this user. The talk page of the article has "confirmation" follow-up from another brand new user. In the unlikely event it turns out to be true but exremely obscure, Wikipedia is still WP:NOT a slang dictionary. --Tabor 18:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless someone can cite some evidence.--Isotope23 18:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the page had no links to anywhere last night (What links here had zero hits), so how the second user (from Galway) found it is a complete mystery. Further, the writing style of the second user was identical (same signature mistake, didn't use tildes) to the first one, so looks like the first user's sock puppet. --DannyWilde 00:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Paul Collins is a former Australian Priest and current commentator on Catholicism. He appears frequently in the Australian media in relation to church issues see [24] and [25]. He resigned from his priesthood after Cardinal Ratzinger attempted to discipline him for his book on Papal Power in 1998. He probably is notable enough for an article. This on the other hand is an unverifiable neologism and possible attack on a Paul Collins of the author's acquaintance and should be deleted. Capitalistroadster 01:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unsourced/unverified speculation, probable hoax/attack. MCB 03:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey there. Just to clear up one or two things. It is a complete coincidence that there is a priest called Paul Collins in Australia. Simple as that. No doubt there are other Paul Collins' out there. As to how I found the article, I got an email from a friend in Galway about it. Maybe he had something to do with putting it up, he is a bit of a history nut. My mistakes in my post are due to my inexperience with Wikipedia... I'm a noobie, please forgive. Oh one more thing, DannyWilde, I'm not from Galway. I'm from Glasson, Westmeath. I went to college in Galway. -- BarrysT 11:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 11:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Peep Jousting

[edit]

non-notable game appearing in non-notable webcomic GTBacchus 02:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 22:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phi Sigma Pi, Beta Pi

[edit]

Fraternal organizations are notable, individual chapters not. Also, WP:NOT a free host. Delete.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 18:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 22:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phiiliip

[edit]

I cleaned up this page that was full of POV ("BEST DJ 4EVA YO!!!!" and the like) but I did a little searching and I'm convinced he isn't notable enough for an article (in all fairness -- he may be someday). Also, he might be confused with a signed artist called "Phiiliip" [26].

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 19:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Physics and Astronomy Students' Union

[edit]

Vanity. NN. Delete --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 23:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 19:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pittance

[edit]

delete dicdef --Trovatore 22:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 22:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Place friendship

[edit]

Original results, no major google hits, self-promotion. jengod 19:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete: first-effort entry: reference to Chatterjee's research deserves attention: open entry to edits --Mary Godwin 01:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 22:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Angel

[edit]

NN band vanity. Or a possible attack page (hinted at such statement like "5 gay students") -202.156.6.62 12:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedied Wikibofh 15:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

POTENTIA

[edit]

Cruft. Fan created character, no notability, and sadly no WP:CSD exists for this situation, except perhaps borderline 1.3.1 (db-empty). CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep --Angr/tɔk tə mi 11:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Punky Brewster

[edit]

No educational value. It does not fit into an encyclopedia. (unsigned by User:152.163.101.10.)

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

The result of the debate was delete --Celestianpower hablamé 13:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel preciouses

[edit]

NN. Jwissick(t)(c) 04:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Linuxbeak | Talk 18:39, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ready at Dawn Studios

[edit]

Ready at Dawn are a "small videogames development company" who have yet to publish their first project. Looks like the games industry version of garage bands. Pilatus 00:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 00:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Renee Bryant

[edit]

This page is one of a circular set of self-refential non-notable (low google hit count) bios, all of which have a family relationship and have been created in the last couple of weeks

There's also a set of redirects for various forms of each of the names. Josh Parris # 06:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; nicely wikified, but NN -- Egil 11:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Logophile 13:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Hopefully the author isn't too discouraged by this because all of these articles are well presented and wiki'd, even if the subjects are not very notable.--Isotope23 18:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Clearly notable for receiving presitigious awards and for relation to a Brigadier General. Possibly, she does not merit her own article, but the Bryants as a whole should certainly deserve some mention. I advocate combining all of the above into one article. (unsigned by Ronald Collinson)
    • What is so notable about the Outstanding Civilian Service Award or the Commander's Award for Public Service? Both of these were added to wikipedia by the author of this article, presumably to bolster the case for Renee Bryant's notability. Can you point out other existing articles on wikipedia where these awards are used as a case for notability (not by the author of the Bryant articles)? I'm not advocating removing the articles for these awards because I think this is good, useful, encyclopedic information (and the articles are well written); however they don't make a case for notability. Your other point about her being notable for relation to a Brigadier General also isn't supported by wikipedia precedent. Norman Schwarzkopf has a wife and three children... none of them have wikipedia articles. Colin Powell has a wife and three children as well. Only Michael Powell has a wikipedia article because he has clearly achieved notability on his own (ignoring any arguements of nepotism) by becoming the chairman of the FCC. The Bryant's clearly have had distinguished and interesting lives, but not one of them, other than Lori Bryant-Woolridge has done anything to acheive an encyclopedic level of notability.--Isotope23 13:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The two awards are clearly notable, as they are (verifiably) the third and fourth highest honors the Department of the Army can award to a civilian. Supported by www.cpol.army.mil/library/mer/awards/public.html, they are clearly not throwaway or vanity honors that are handed out to every Tom, Dick, or Harriet. By definition it stands to reason that there have not been that many of these awards given out (this is admittedly conjecture, but based on similar stats for similar high-level government awards). Interestingly, Albert Bryant Jr's awards are given out to far more people than the ones Renee Bryant has received. Thus in an odd way, Renee Bryant may be more notable than her husband.--el_amante
  • Keep. Based on the legitimate significance of the awards and the clear link to an established multi-generational, award-winning, military family. Just because there are low Google hits does not mean she is not notable. It doesn't strike me that there would be much coverage of this type of individual, however notable, except, perhaps local coverage and or DoD press advisories at the time. Do we know, too, whether some of these awards weren't awarded pre-dating the archiving of articles, etc. commonly on the Internet? (Agree, as well, that the article is well written.) (el_amante) 19:22, 12 October 2005
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 19:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Resonanssi

[edit]

NN college club. 202.156.6.54 23:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 23:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rhilla

[edit]

distdef of non-english word. Delete. DES (talk) 07:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - confirmed with Arrente colleague of fellow wikipedian as not used as a self-reference. --Scott Davis Talk 10:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As Wikipedia is not to be used as a dictionary, then yes, the 'article' should be deleted. However, my original attempt was to correct a mistake in the article on the Arrente, where it refered to them using the term 'anangu'. This is a name used by another Aboriginal group all together (the Pitjantjatjara ). Arrente do not call themselves 'anangu' and would be happy to be referred to by this word.

I have spent all day trying to find an internet reference for the word 'rhilla' but have not been able to do so. So by all means, remove the 'rhilla article', but I would suggest rewriting the original Arrente entry as well. Sorry if I've caused any inconvience. petersmith

  • Removing my delete vote as Peter seems genuine, and I tried to find an internet reference for Anangu applied to Arrente, and failed, too. All the pages I found are either derived from Wikipedia, or use the words to refer to neighbouring groups. Maybe someone will be able to reference some offline printed source? --Scott Davis Talk 10:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. DS 12:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Wood (physicist)

[edit]

Non-notable. Delete. utcursch | talk 12:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate wasdelete. Woohookitty 12:05, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sales Charts & Achievements

[edit]

Inappropriate redirect SGBailey 01:26, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 19:03, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Saxotone

[edit]

non-notable; the technique described is feasible but the article itself seems to have been introduced as a prank (link). Gyrofrog (talk) 05:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would have instead proposed merging this with Hybrid instrument if such an article (or list) existed. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 05:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 18:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sean.com

[edit]

This should have been speedy deleted, but since the anons keep removing the speedy tag I'm posting it here. If I've overlooked something and this really is encyclopedic, please let me know. [edit] 02:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that this was the user's first and only edit. -Greg Asche (talk) 21:28, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 21:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shari Evelyn Kendall

[edit]

Unless all professors get a page at WP, this one has done nothing of note, except for working with "the famous Deborah Tannen". Perhaps Tannen should have an article; I see nothing here meriting this one. paul klenk talk 04:26, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment by paul klenk talk: A publication of Kendall's has been added to the article. All professors publish papers and whatnot; this does nothing to establish her notability.
  • Comment. This is a pretty new page, so I'd be inclined to wait little while for better info to be added. That said, I did a publications search and only came up with one article (info added to wiki page), unless someone can verify that it is a particularly important paper I'm inclined to agree with the nominator. Crypticfirefly 04:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If we see some more examples of the "many articles and books" I might reconsider, but at the moment certainly NN.--inksT 05:57, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not pass the average professor test. Gamaliel 05:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Deborah Tannen does have an article, but she wrote a best-selling book. Shari Kendall has two books in preparation, none published yet (see her CV (.doc)). In the unlikely event this article is kept, move to Shari Kendall, since she doesn't use her middle name professionally. [29] --Metropolitan90 06:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hasn't published anything notable I'm aware, though I would happily change my vote, if something was shown to the contrary. Side note: imo, bio article names with full (with middle) name are best unless they're very famous, to avoid future mistaken links from people who wikify every name in a list, without checking if it matches. --rob 08:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was UNSURE; NO ACTION TAKEN. Linuxbeak | Talk 00:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC) Administrator's note: The page in question is horrid, and I don't see how it can be merged anywhere. I'm going to slap a tag on there, and if it isn't dealt with, I would move to delete it.[reply]

Sharp Voices Still Lives - Birmingham Photography in the 1980's

[edit]

Nonencyclopedic topic: Article is about a minor regional photography exhibit. It appears to reproduce a review of the exhibit and may be copyright violation (not found elsewhere online, though). Dystopos 03:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 18:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shocco

[edit]

All of 30 google hits for a search of "Shocco Springs".. The article seems to discuss a facility that is not particularly notable. --Mysidia (talk) 02:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. Karol 06:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' for linkspamming--all links are external. Chick Bowen 22:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteI don't know anything about "linkspamming" as criteria for deletion. If this was truly a notable place, fixing the links would be easy. Regarding the number of google hits mentioned by dylan, many of those are for Shocco Springs, Alabama (the town, not the baptist conference center). As for notability, this looks to be the most notable event that I could find on my brief stroll through the links. Good photgraph of the pastor falling off the water slide.[31]--Gaff talk 00:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 22:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore gay terminology

[edit]

WP:NOR WP:Verifiability WP:WINAD#Wikipedia is not a slang or idiom guide Kgf0 08:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Linuxbeak | Talk 21:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Singaporean response to 2005 Kashmir earthquake

[edit]

A response to 2005 Kashmir earthquake. I think it would be sufficient to just have 2005_Kashmir_earthquake#International_response instead a separate page for Singapore's response. __earth 08:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. __earth 08:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This is a practice established during Hurricane Katrina. There are at least 25 articles spin-off from the main article Hurricane Katrina. At least 7 articles on "Country X response to Hurricane Katrina". Nobody complained about that. This is a far worse disaster, I see no reason for a lesser treatment, and please help to counter the systemic bias. There is no way to transfer the current content in Singaporean response to 2005 Kashmir earthquake to the main article 2005 Kashmir earthquake without unbalancing the main article. I'm surprise at this nomination made without first discussing, and I appreciate if the nominator can state clearly his reason for deletion, "I think it would be sufficient ..." is just too vague. Is the nominator calling for a "merge" of content or simply a "delete"? --Vsion 09:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt its systemic bias. If there were, wouldn't larger countries like the US which offers $50 mil + several military equipment and China which offers $6.2 mil + dogs have pages of their own? The point is, the main article is sufficient. If there were a bias, this nominee is because it's the only page of its kind concerning Kashmir earthquake. __earth 06:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you think the idea of having separate articles for certain countries is pointless, look at Hurricane Katrina, which has a subarticle on international relief efforts as well as individual articles for Canadian, French, Mexican, Dutch, Russian, Singaporean, and Swedish responses to the disaster. Besides, if you'd like to start other nation-specific relief effort articles, you're free to do so.
-Nameneko 07:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I respectfully disagree with the comments that this article can only exist on condition that other "Country-X reponse" articles are created. There is no wikipedia policy and guideline that impose such a condition. While I can easily satisfy it by creating another article, I disagree with such a condition that is based on editorial preferences, which are not grounds for AfD. Let me state clearly the reasons for keeping this article:
  • The content is NPOV, factual, verifiable and notable.
  • The presented facts received wide coverage not just in local news media, but also reported by AFP, Reuters, Xinhua, as well. [32]
  • Keep in mind that there isn't just one perspective looking at this event. There are X-country's perspectives as well. And I don't deny that this article is about Singapore's perspective. That's nothing wrong with it as we strive for a comprehensive, global perspective in wikipedia.
  • This article is related not just to the 2005 Kashmir earthquake event, it is also part of the comprehensive coverage to provide the knowledge and understanding on the demographics (which has large number of foreign residents), the importance of foreign relations, and the preoccupation with internal security and civil defence in the small country. The relief effort are therefore significant in Singapore. I cannot say for other countries, but they may or may not relate as much to the event in South Asia. Therefore, whether there exists other articles is irrelevant.
  • If you only want to read summarized description of the main event, then of course this article is of little interest to you. But for others who wish for a detailed understanding of the disaster or to study the politics of South East Asia, they would find this full article more useful than just a one-paragraph abstract.
  • This is not a loop-sided contribution by a user, I have contributed much more to the main article 2005 Kashmir earthquake than this one; and many entries in 2005_Kashmir_earthquake#International_response were added by me. We may wish there are other countries' articles as well, but deleting this article is really a step backward, not forward. There are alot more work to be done as we aim for a comprehensive coverage; but as long as this content is encyclopedic, there is no reason to remove it.
  • In its currents state, there is no way to merge this article into another without deleting most of the content.
  • Finally, the stated reason for this nomination is really not valid for AfD, according to Wikipedia:Deletion policy. --Vsion 17:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. Linuxbeak | Talk 23:17, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist thinking and the Empire of Japan

[edit]

This article, I believe, qualifies as original research and is therefore not wanted on Wikipedia. Thoughts, anyone? Rob Church Talk | FAD 09:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 18:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Pacifica_House

[edit]
  • This article is a hoax. The history of the organization, that is, created from two debating societies, does not square with the university's protrayal of the demise of those societies. According to the University: "The Franklin Society was organized in 1824, a year when such a large class entered that the two existing literary debating societies, the Philermenian Society and the United Brothers Society could not accommodate enough of the entering students. The membership was also augmented by the acceptance of honorary membership by Henry Clay, Thomas Jefferson, John Quincy Adams, and other notable personages. Ten years after its establishment, in 1834, the Franklin Society was dissolved, its library of several hundred volumes was turned over to the College Library, and in 1847 its members were elected in equal proportions into the two older societies." Furthermore, the organization is largely unmentioned today. One reference was made in the Brown Daily Herald, but the College Hill Independant article, mentioned in this article, cannot be located. If a more precise reference could be provided, that would be helpful. While a search of the University records finds the society mentioned ONCE among university documents, that reference is questionable, and I am currently awaiting replies from those authors. Finally, a whois search reveals that the "official" website is registered to "Joe Pacifica" with a fake phone number. Micahross 04:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this article does not represent reality, delete it. Anthony Appleyard 05:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if the article does represent reality, delete it anyway. See this report from the College Curriculum Council which discusses a report issued by Pacifica House on grade inflation. Nevertheless, a student organization which exists at only a single school is generally non-notable, and this one appears to have problems with verifiability of information about it, too. --Metropolitan90 06:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I managed to find that very article. Rereading my post I find it was somewhat ambiguous. There is ONE mention in a paper and ONE in among university documents. I am trying to track down the origin of the hoax now, but few people are being helpful. I was directed to a member of the organization, but have yet to hear from him. I think someone created an organization to write a position paper for the university. Micahross 08:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's mentioned in the Skull and Bones article. Not sure if it's real. I don't think it should be deleted if it is.
  • Pacifica House is definitely real. It has multiple mentions in the Brown Daily Herald, has its website, and is mentioned here in several other entries here. Seriously, it is a secret society...probably shouldn't have tons of references, considering it's...well...secret. Definitely shouldn't be deleted
  • Comment: If there's no consensus on whether this is a hoax, maybe the discussion should go to the article's talk page and it should stick around until there's a good answer. Friday (talk) 06:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been able to get a copy of the publication cited by the Brown link. However, there are difficulties verifying both "Pacifica House Trust" and "Brunensis, Ltd." The "official" site is registered to the former, but the latter holds the copyright. Neither is registered as a charitable trust with the IRS. However, this would not be necessary if the trust had no tax ramifications. If the trust accepts charitable donations, this is a tax ramification. There have been a total of TWO mentions of Pacifica House by The Brown Daily Herald. Moreover the university archivist has never heard of the organization, but they could provide me with the papers of the Franklin Society. If Pacifica House had evolved from that organization, I would suspect that they would have kept their minutes and acceptances of honorary membership -- one of these was an 1824 letter by Thomas Jefferson and another was a letter by Horace Greenleaf Whittier. (Sadly, the signatures have been removed.) Those are valuable. On the other hand, I have found one alumnus who claims to be a member of Pacifica House. Finally a careful reading of their website has revealed an oddity: on the history page, a picture of the "charter" appears. (http://www.pacificahouse.org/images/Charter.JPG) This is not a charter -- the text reads: "Providence, May 16: Sir -- Pardon a stranger for occupying a moment of that time which I know to be inestimably precious. I must beg to offer you my sincere thanks for your last proclamation as the chief magistrate of the nation. You call upon all your fellow citizens to render unto God thanksgiving for his recent mercies and to offer to him (sic) as individuals and societies ... prayer ... He will ... our ... efforts with security, which he alone can ..." This a letter, not a charter. Frankly, the matter is out of my hands. I can only provide a finite amount of evidence that this is a hoax. I am also a little reluctant to take unsigned avowals of the legitimacy of Pacifica House seriously. Micah Ross 09:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting. It may well be that we can't determine for sure the status of this without doing our own "original research". This is a problem with verifying people or organizations by their own websites. Friday (talk) 16:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't verify how legitimate the information on this site is, but I can verify that the Pacifica House group exists. I don't know details about the organization, but I do know that it's members regularly meet and it is an invite-only society.
  • Delete--inherently unverifiable even on the extreme offchance that it's true, as Micahross's efforts (thanks for that) demonstrate.
  • (First post from 66.31.44.201) Pacifica House does exist, whether all the information on the Wiki page is true is unverifiable. The question now is: should a Wiki page containing information, much of it unverifiable, on a given entity be deleted on the basis of lack of confirmation? Highly unlikely this group is the creation of just one person--if so then it's an expensive way to be vain--registering the website, etc., and making sure the campus newspaper mentioned the group--but it seems plausible a lot of the "historical" information is just lost in time. Histories have a way of sounding better with every telling. "Deletion" as the ultimate price of unverifiability would implicate a lot of Wiki's pages. but why don't we just edit the actual Wiki page and tell everyone that all this stuff is highly unreliable and not to drink the kool-aid?
  • (Second post from 66.31.44.201) Theoretically ALL secret societies on Wiki are unverifiable. duh. they're secret. but seriously, there are a couple options here. the first is to delete the hell out of this page. if Wiki does this, then so too shoudl be considered every other collegiate secret society. or else we should start conducting research to _verify_ their claims, and if they cannot be verified, delete them, or at least information we don't know for sure: skull and bones claims a long list of alumni, can we verify this? the other option is to let it alone. maybe. the third option is to put a disclaimer like the skulls have now--the article has info that can't be verified. there are a lot of suspicious bits of info on this wiki page that can't be confirmed and that is a FACT. but let's be objective and apply the same principles here to other college society pages. there's far too much vanity.
  • Okay, it seems people have taken an interest in what I have written. Fine. Let's cover a few bases. I can understand the removal of a personal name, but the removal of my research and evidence is fraudulent. (Be forewarned -- this history function of the talk page is a powerful tool.) Also, if you choose to remove a personal name, why not just replace it with a string of Xs? Also, I asked earlier for the sake of clarity that people sign their contributions. Two separate contributions from the same IP does not a consensus make. On 12 October, 2005 I had written "Well, I followed up the information returned from the whois search. It was registered with eNom, Inc. and is hosted at ixwebhosting.com. It is worth noting that www.pacificahouse.info was registered by XXXX X. XXX for the organization "Pacifica House." This is the ONLY person I have met who claims to be a member of the organization. pacificahouse.info is hosted by ixwebhosting.com. Frankly, I'm saying "mystery solved" on this one. The thing never existed beyond XXX X. XXX, who probably authored the article. I suspect he also stopped by here to defend it. Micahross 12:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)" I really hate an intent to defraud. Deleting the fruit of my research has made this personal. Moreover, there are some things about Skull and Bones that can be verified: they have a building, people can -- and have -- watched who goes in and out. For many years they had a page in the yearbook at Yale. Their trust is registered, The Russell Trust, was registered with the IRS (although I think they may have changed the name by now.) In several unsigned posts, it has been stated that Pacifica House indeed exists. In some ways, this is true. The Secret Protocols of the Elders of Zion also exists. I have a copy of it. By the same token, the "member(s)" of Pacifica House are probably limited to those here who defend this hoax. --Micahross 14:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is basically a debate between TWO people--"Micahross" and some anonymous poster! Why anyone in the world should care about "Pacifica House" and whether 100% of its information is verifiable escapes this user. Why anybody has accumulated this much information about such collegiate organizations that have no relevance outside their institutions is also puzzling. In any case: to the WIKI board: if you delete this website, please do not delete it because of one rather long-winded individual who claims that he cannot make unsecret a secretive organization. But if you let it alone, do not leave it be because the benefit of the doubt. It seems we need some rigor in verifying claims here, but this includes claims of people who have come into a website with an agenda, as well as claims of organizations that seem extraordinarily hard to make concrete. Can somebody else besides "Micahross" and "unknown poster" step forward with information? We are hesistant in believing one person on either side.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 00:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spiritual density

[edit]

Original research. I appreciate that this has been written in good faith as an attempt to describe and integrate the recurrent belief in levels of spiritual existence/attainment. However, it's not a comparative objective summary like similar pages (e.g. Subtle body, Septenary (Theosophy) and Plane (cosmology)) but an essay expounding a personal take on the topic. Tearlach 18:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
I wish I'd seen this in time to vote on it. Some of the edits were high quality. Is there any way to extract them for possible inclusion in another article? -- 216.234.56.130 20:01, 26 October 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 18:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


St. Colman's College

[edit]

The text contained within this article previous version is untrue. Contained in the article is picture of the College which does not have its consent given by the owners. St. Colman's College would like to have no association with this article due to its underminding content and wish for it to be removed as soon as possible — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.76.69 (talk • contribs) 15:36

Vote discounted by closing admin. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 18:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteThis college is excellent,well managed and very successful. Please delete this page as it is not correct in detail and all the pages in the history file as they have been vandalized and contain very SERIOUS text.88.109.40.181 08:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote discounted by closing admin. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 18:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteAdministrators please note this college is excellent and is important to all the pupils and everyone associated with it. Please respect this college's reputation by removing this page and all the pages in the history file back to Sept.7th 2005. Please protect the article from vandalism in the future.88.110.194.47 12:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Vote discounted by closing admin. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 18:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteJust discovered this article and I ask you to delete it as soon as possible and I agree with previous request thast all should be deleted to Sept 7th.2005 article as some of the text is disgusting and very derogatory. Please protect the article in future from such wilful vandalism. thank you.88.110.32.149 14:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Vote discounted by closing admin. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 18:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteAdministrators please delete this article as soon as possible at least back to the Sept.7th 2005 entry. The articles from that date contain inaccurate, sad, evil, potentially libellous text.These enteries are just an attempt to use this source to discredit a pupil-focused, well managed college 88.110.193.191 09:23, 15 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Vote discounted by closing admin. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 18:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteThe content of this article is sad and a terrible mis -representation of the truth. Please delete and ensure that such rubbish is never allowed to be put into print on your pages in future as it just discredits your publication. thank you in anticipation of you removing all articles at least back to Sept.7th.2005.88.110.19.228 18:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote discounted by closing admin. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 18:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 11:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

STILL REFUSES TO SAY SORRY

[edit]

non encyclopaedic Xtra 03:16, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was Speedied as an attack page. android79 00:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kappa correctly pointed out that the attack-page criterion applies to short articles, which this was not. I've undeleted and reopened the AfD. Oh, and Delete, POV rant. android79 01:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So if I write an article in which I call a person every euphamism for "penis" imaginable (and there are thousands) it doesn't get speedied because it's not short??? Come on. Kappa should find a better use for his time. I'm gonna go get high. Don't be surprised if I speedy this when I get back. -R. fiend 01:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was TRANSWIKI to Wikibooks. Linuxbeak | Talk 00:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tactical chess problems

[edit]

Just collection of chess tactical problems doesn't belong to encyclopedia. Wikibooks is a right place for such stuff. Andreas Kaufmann 21:36, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Linuxbeak | Talk 23:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tanganyika Laughter Epidemic

[edit]

Reasons I feel this is very probably a hoax:

  • Fairly ludicrous event
  • Links at the bottom fail to verify the validity of the article
  • The article is written in an overly-dramatic manner
  • Can't find compelling evidence elsewhere that this event has actually occurred

--Verbalcontract 19:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • But the article says at the beginning that you should take the story with a grain of salt. Perhaps this is a legend in Tanganyika that people tell in which case it is still a valid piece of information. It's information about a legend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.23.105.7 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I would keep this page. The incident has been documented in other notable sources, and mentioned briefly in an article in American Scientist. [33] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.149.140.99 (talk • contribs) 02:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't delete this article. Aspects of it are most probably exaggerated to some degree, but it is more a reference to a famous myth surrounding an actual event, so it should be kept in for that reason. I think the article makes it clear that there's no rock solid evidence, but it is an interesting study case for psychiatrists and undoubtedly something did happen out there in 1962.

    I believe legends like this have a place on Wikipedia so long as the author makes it clear that the evidence is shakey. --86.137.13.28 08:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I won't vote, but as the author of this page I thought I may as well comment. Thanks for the criticism, and I can only agree with some of the opinions mentioned above. I found the topic to be interesting (though I can't remember where I heard of it first, much like some of the voters below) and sought out a Wikipedia article with further information; I found none, so I made one to the best of my ability. I'll keep the criticism of my writing style in mind if I make future contributions. I'd appreciate it if critics could scale down those sections of the article they find overblown. Oystertoadfish 04:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 08:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, strange though it sounds. Verifiable.American Scientist reference online The Land 09:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've actually heard of this before (I know, I know, it's what the sock puppets always say), so it's at least notable as a legend. That American Scientist article is proof of that, though the author there provides no documentation for the incident either, so perhaps he's merely repeating an urban legend as well. --Dvyost 13:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep documented sufficiently. Xoloz 15:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it makes you feel any better Carnildo, I'll that I'd also kinda heard of this before, in that urban legend sort of way. I don't know what is true about it, but I am sure there is something of a story here. Xoloz 17:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless verified. None of the references looks adequate to me: two of the external links are dead, the third doesn't say anything about the event, just about MPI in general, and the "American Scientist" reference mentions that "it happened", but gives no links to primary sources. --Carnildo
  • I would maybe make it clear that this is an Urban Myth; because the article lacks evidence and is a little muddled. It seems a pretty ludicrous story to me, to be true.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was MERGE with Hergé. Linuxbeak | Talk 23:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The adventures of Hergé

[edit]

Appears to be merely an advert, providing a link to the book. Perhaps better served by linking to Adventures Of Hergé from the Hergé page instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgkay (talk • contribs) 08:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was MERGE with My_Kind_of_Christmas. Linuxbeak | Talk 23:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Christmas Song (Chestnuts Roasting on an Open Fire) (Christina Aguilera song)

[edit]

See discussion on The Star Spangled Banner (Whitney Houston song) above. FuriousFreddy 02:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Linuxbeak | Talk 23:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Funeral (album)

[edit]

Pointless. The article is based on rumors. --Shawn88 16:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Although the template had been added to the article this discussion had not been listed on afd on 6th October: this is why I've just done it today. -- Francs2000 06:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Linuxbeak | Talk 00:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Gospel Harmony Boys

[edit]

No vote. I don't know enough about gospel music to recognize the name. It was a copyvio, but I rewrote it and took out some of the ad content. This is the Google search. Should it be allowed to stay on Wikipedia? --Jacquelyn Marie 22:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate wascopyvio DS 22:57, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Gossage—Vardebedian Papers

[edit]

The text as it is currently, it belongs in Wikisource rather than Wikipedia. JB82 19:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's a blatant copyvio - Woody Allen is still alive - that doesn't go on Wikisource either. Closing up now; deleting the article. DS 22:57, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 22:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Hellraisins

[edit]

Band vanity and advertisement. — brighterorange (talk) 14:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Linuxbeak | Talk 23:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Loft

[edit]

Not Noteworthy --Nv8200p (talk) 19:47, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • NOW Noteworthy, added David Mancuso's the Loft with a brief explanation of the popular underground party and its contribution to the disco scene and the gay community in the early 1970s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigPoppa (talk • contribs) 06:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 09:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs a split vote, as the article is now about two unrelated things. No comment on the 1970s gay parties. I wasn't there. Delete for the nightclub. Blatant ad.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Linuxbeak | Talk 23:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Park School of Buffalo

[edit]

To me, this article looks like a disguised attempt of advertising, esp. since the school is a private school.

I am not from that region. This school might be a local institution, worth listing. In that case, however I think the article should be vastly expanded.

Eptalon 15:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Keep schools. —Cryptic (talk) 09:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN private school, advertising. You're happy to list many orphan pages with a "no opinion" vote, but here you put in a Keep...just because it's a school? With no reference to article content at all? Did you even look at the linked website?--inksT 10:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's a very small private school. From 1993 to 1997, they only had one graduate a year. -- Kjkolb 10:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advertising. --Last Malthusian 11:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 255 isn't a lot of students, but it's enough. It's uniqueness adds to it's worthieness as an article. In its present state, it's not an advertisement. I think generally the more independent a school is (e.g. private or charter), the more it warrants it's own article. --rob 14:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete private schools, because (unlike public schools), I could found one tomorrow, and so could anyone. Xoloz 15:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • On average private schools are more notable than public schools. You appear to be arguing that Eton College should be deleted. You could also found a company tomorrow, indeed it would be a lot easier than founding a school, but try nominating Wal-Mart for deletion and seeing what happens! CalJW 16:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Private college prep schools are just as encyclopedic as public educational institutions. Silensor 15:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The idea that private schools should be singled out for deletion is absurd, and throws deletionist contentions about notability to the winds. CalJW 16:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep though the school is not a local institution per say as wondered by the nom (I live about 5 mi from it), it could be kept because its history and significance. It is Buffalo's only suburban private school, and its only non-Catholic private school. As to the arguement that this is an advertisement, I disagree. --CastAStone 21:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Vivian Darkbloom 21:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, established school. Kappa 23:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this is an important school we can include it Yuckfoo 00:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn school --JAranda | yeah 00:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. School with a long enough history. --Vsion 09:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — RJH 14:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Time is valuable. Diskspace is not. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn school. Dottore So 19:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 255 reasons to go ride a bicycle.--Nicodemus75 20:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, elementary School.Gateman1997 20:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact this school teaches up to and including grade 12 has been verified. This isn't another case of a school article making fictional claims of grades taught. The fact it teaches elementary grades as well, doesn't make it less signficant. --rob 21:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Noted. Doesn't change the fact that it is a poorly written article about a questionably deserving building.Gateman1997 21:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • It doesn't say anything about the building(s). Kappa 22:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • A school is by it's very nature a collection of one or more buildings. This set isn't special.Gateman1997 22:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • If that is so, your view regarding schools is a limited one, one which many here do not subscribe to. Silensor 22:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • It's also the view that about 50-60% of users DO ascribe too. Which is probably the basis for the neverending lack of consensus. Half of us see schools as building in which some education happens, others see them as some higher trancendent institution that is more then the sum of it's parts. I've seen too many schools close with no repercussions to accept that view.Gateman1997 22:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • A school is not a building, it uses a building. By the same token, a playground, computer network, school web site, are also not schools. They're used by schools. Sometimes two schools share one building (with entirely seperate administration, faculty, student bodies; and very occasionally even separate school boards). Obviously, countless schools also have multiple buildings, often disconnected. Often, schools move, or replace buildings, but the school goes on, and just one article for the school exists. One should understand what something is before deleting it. --rob 22:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Obviously we disagree on this point. If the Park School of Buffalo building were to burn down... that school would cease to exist. You cannot deny this. The students would be moved to other schools until the building was ressurected. And even then there is no guarentee that would happen. Or by the same token if a school were to close the institution would be gone, but the building would still be there (infact we have a few articles for just such school buildings). A school is a building nothing more. Sure there can be more then one group of students sharing the building, but if the building ceases to exist so does the school. Admittedly this tendency is more prevailent in public schools then private schools as private schools tend to have alumni and benefactors that are also interested in maintaining the institutional aspects.Gateman1997 22:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                    • You don't know what a school is, unfortunately. If the school burnt down, and they found other places to house them, and then rebuilt the structure, then the school would continue to exist. The same article would apply to the school before and after. In fact, there are a number of articles where a school has relocated, and one article applies to the same school, for the entire time period. This is especially true of private schools, charter schools, and special program schools. Now, some district schools would be shut-down in such a case, but that's not a universal rule. --rob 22:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Please stop starting your responses by insulting me. We obviously disagree, that doesn't make either of us right. And yes it's possible they would relocate the school, but that's more likely in the case of a private school. As I said before if a public school closes its institiutional aspects are gone, finito, kaput, but the building remains and is still Such and Such School.Gateman1997 22:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                        • This is just patently false. This is a nonsensical argument created to support the absurd contention that schools are just buildings (and therefore unimportant). My Junior High School burned down when I was in grade 7 (about 70% of the original site was destroyed). The school district decided to rebuild the school while cleanup of the old site was still going on. They obtained land in a different community within the same city and rebuilt the school. I attended the school as soon as it opened the following winter, it had the same name, same staff, same students, same mascot, same colours, same school song, same motto, same programs, same curriculum, some awards had been salvaged from the old school- but it clearly had a different (AND BETTER, I might add) building. The old site, when cleaned up then was used by the district to construct a new elementary school, which made use of the 30% or so of the old building (including the gynmasium), which had a different staff, different name, taught a different level of schooling, etc. etc. Surely the newly constructed building was the same school (with the same name, etc.) that had been my Junior High School - not the 30% of old buildings that had been incorporated into the new elementary school. Clearly, the institutional structures of the school persisted, even though it's original building had been destroyed. What is more, while our classes were indeed taken inside other active school buildings, our classes were maintained, and we were taught by teachers from our school. There was no integration with the other schools whose buildings housed our classes while we were awaiting our new facilities (in fact, some students from my Junior High School took classes at a local YMCA, and some in a church basement during that year). We were still a school even though the buildings were gone, and the YMCA didn't become our school because it was the building. My solitary example illustrates how simplistic some of the approaches from "those who routinely vote to delete school articles" with respect to schools really are. I actually have two or three other examples that come to mind that disprove, but truly, one example is sufficient to debunk the idea that "A school is a building nothing more."--Nicodemus75 19:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                          • I think the burned out junior high you mentioned sounds far more real to me, than that K-8 Clovis Oceanview. I think its actually good we've got to the heart of the debate, which is about what a school is. --rob 09:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable private school. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neutralitytalk 04:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just a school --redstucco 08:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pilatus 09:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Silensor. -- DS1953 14:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools per Silensor and Cryptic.--Gaff talk 00:23, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 18:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Rose (band)

[edit]

No entry on allmusic.com and their label, Capeside Records, rakes in around 40 hits. {edit} 03:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 22:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Russian Knight

[edit]

Delete. Hopeless. Not to say that "Knight" is a misleading translation of the russian word Vityaz, which is simply "warrior", with connotation "brave, valiant warrior"; see more at Talk:The Russian Knight. mikka (t) 16:08, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No reference to published research. DV8 2XL 16:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research. Should be a redirect to bogatyr. --Ghirlandajo 19:15, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete research is valid, only some of it isn't backed up with a source. Also a knight is a warrior, therefore "Vityaz" does mean knight.user talk:Henrin13
  • Create an article Vityaz and redirect this Russian knight there. Google finds >21000 hits on Vityaz (in latin letters), so I assume it is an English word now. I suspected many English-speakers might look into Wikipedia to understand what the word exactly mean (I, been a native Russian speaker, would be interested as well). According to my understanding Vityaz as a professional warrior, usually on a horse, in armour and with proper weapons. He is much more real than Bogatyrs, but still has some folklore connections. Part-time warriors like Bogatyr Mikula Selyaminovich are never refer as Vityazes, despite been valiant and able.
    While he was a professional warrior, he was not necessarily mounted (at least 30 of them were not :-). Also, wikipedia is not interested in "your understanding". Did you see anything specific on net? As for >21,000 hits (+ 11,000 for vitiaz), the majority of them are various names of things of Russian production (and many of them do fit encyclopedia), so it is not exactly an English word. mikka (t) 06:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead of deleting it why don't people who know about the subject of russian knights/warriors, simply improve the article. Because after all there were such a thing as "Russian" Knights and they were different in appearence from the European and other slavic ones.I have seen and read some books (mostly in Russian) which contain information about Russian Knights, which meens that they did exist. Unfortunatly there simply is no name such as "samurai" to describe Russia's particular type of knight. Also, on a side note, I have seen various figurines of Russian Knights posted on the internet and in stores, so obviously people must recognize that they have existed.user talk:Henrin13
    There were Russian warriors. There were no Russian knights, just as there were no Mongolian knights, no Egyptian knights, no Papua knights. One may call the figurines of lightly armored Russian warriors "Russian knights" to boost their business, but it is not for encyclopedia. the word "knight" has certain complex associations, not transferrable unto early military of Rus. Please sign your posts. mikka (t) 17:56, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, then what would everyone say if an article on the Russian Warrior was created? I hope no one would have a problem with that. I just want to educate people on the fact that Russia also had warriors. The article isn't finished by the way. I just started it and was planning to write about certain battles and warriors of Kievan Rus, Novgorod, Muscovy, ect. user talk:Henrin13
    You will probably run into several troubles with this as well, from other people. I will not go into detail, but there are three problems with this title (not to say about a trifle that the proper style would be Russian warrior). First, a "politically correct" term would be "Early East Slavic", rather than Russian (judging from your intentions). Second, there was no single kind of "warrior"; there were many categories of them, both by social organization and by specialty. Third, all this was changing with time. So I strongly suspect that this title is way too general for your knowledge. Finally, I would not strongly objects against the current article either, but if you excuse me, it is so naively incorrect, primarily by the above three reasons. So I will strongly suggest to use some serious sources, rather than Internet sites. There is so much garbage, lots of Russian pseudohistry, because there is no peer review in the internet, everyone publishes their petty theories, some of which are really crazy, e.g., explanation of the name "Rus" from the meanings of the sounds "r", "u", "s". 00:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your opinion. Like I said before if anyone would like to help save this article then feel free to do so. I will start another one, on this same topic in the near futur, if it does get deleted. Which it probably will, at the rate things are going.user talk: Henrin13
  • Delete-I thought Russian nobles in combat were called Boyars. Dudtz 9/29/05 6:04 PM EST
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 09:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I have a few problems with this article... most of which have already been enumerated above. It's unsourced and seems to have a large element of original research. It is also non-verifiable... and the term appears to be a neologism. That being said, I understand what the author is trying to do here, but as pointed out, is it correct to call this facet of the Slavic military at that time "Knights"? From what I'm reading in this article, they don't appear to bear any real resemblance to what the definition of a knight is. Even calling it Russian Warrior is problematic because of the problems pointed out above, but also because it is unclear to me how "Russian Warrior" merits distinct mention over say "Polish Warrior" or "Chinese Warrior". The term is also detached from the time period you are trying to target. A better route might be to create an article on Early East Slavic Warfare, or something along those lines where you could detail the things that set Early East Slavic military tactics, arms, and armor apart from any other military organizations of the time period... provided you can properly source this of course. You could also make mention of the bogatyr motif, etc. --Isotope23 17:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 22:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The strangeness of things

[edit]

Looks like an obvious vanity/spam entry to me. electric counterpoint 19:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 23:39, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Themanwhofellasleep

[edit]

Delete. Is this guy REALLY notable? - Mrdie 19:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do not delete. Hello. I am themanwhofellasleep's sister and I wrote the article. Notable? Well, fairly. He's written for radio in Britain, and as the article mentions, he is about to have his first novel published (hopefully with a foreword by Julie Burchill). As the article states, the website has been covered in large chunks of the UK press: the Guardian, the Sunday Times, Independent on Sunday, San Francisco Chronicle, Zoo Magazine, Word Magazine and he has a regular column in Time Out London. The reason I added him was that I saw Rob Manuel of B3ta on here, and I figured that if it was good enough for him, it was good enough for Greg. Surely the point of Wikipedia is that it can be far more exhaustive and detailed than other, offline encyclopedia? Dis_embodied (UTC), author of the article}}
  • Do not delete. I'm a big fan of Greg's work, and know many others with similar enthusiasm for it. He is referred to surprisingly often on the internet, occasionally without a link to his site; the page here is useful for more detail. Greg may currently be a somewhat obscure artist, but this will in all likelihood change in the near future with the launch of his book and his continuing media contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackjordan334 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC), his only edit[reply]
  • Do not delete.The question of whether the article falls foul of Vanity Information guidelines has been raised (whether the subject is "Typical" or "Noteworthy"). I would suggest that the subject's activities as outlined are atypical and known to a sizeable community on the web as well as a more general audience via growing media exposure. The subject is therefore "Noteworty". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.69.170 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC), his only edit[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 09:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable, though I would like to see whatever media coverage it claims to have had before making up my mind. The 3 unsigned votes above have suspicious histories. The Land 10:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn __earth 10:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clearly knows he is non-notable if he employs sock puppets. -- RHaworth 10:26, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without even looking at the article. Anything this much sock-supported has to be deleted. — JIP | Talk 10:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If we profiled everyone who's written a novel we'd get 50,000 new articles every year from the NaNoWriMo winners. Ashibaka (tock) 14:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, sock-supported and not notable. --Idont Havaname 14:28, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep despite the socks. Yes I am a fan of the site, but I certainly think he/it is notable enough. He has had plenty of press coverage, I can vouch for having seen many of the ones mentioned. See also [35] and the section "What plans does themanwhofellasleep have for the future?" I will try and find more links. Hopefully no one thinks that I'm a sockpuppet :-) the wub "?!" 14:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please find the press articles and add press citations for them to the article. The subject's own web site does not link to them, and a quick search of the on-line versions of the various publications listed turns up no articles. (The only thing that I did find was two sentences about the web site, not the person, in a roundup of events in The Guardian. That's far from the "feature on the site" that the subject says was published.) So far we only have the words of the subject and of several anonymous and pseudonymous editors that such articles exist. Uncle G 15:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ok, here's an article on the site from the Guardian Guide. Here's a brief article from The San Francisco Chronicle And here's a full page interview with Greg Stekelman from .dot net magazine {you have to scroll down) and a mention of the site in The Clarin of Argentina. Then there's an article from Word Magazine and there is plenty more press available, but not all of it is online. I'll see what I can get from the clippings file to scan in and post on the net. And for those interested, here's the Amazon link to the book that will be released next year. (UTC) Dis embodied 2005-10-10 18:55:23 UTC (according to edit history. Also this user's second vote. Uncle G 01:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
    • Aside from the one from the Chronicle, those are not the press articles. They are images from the subject's own web site, which could have been made up using Photoshop for all that we know. They are not from a reliable source, being provided by the subject xyrself. (One only has to remember Jamie Kane to realize that one cannot trust purported press coverage the only evidence for which comes from the subject's own web site.) For similar reasons, "scanned in clippings" from the subject's "sister" are not from a reliable source. I ask again: Please find the actual press articles and add citations for them to the article. Uncle G 01:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Assume good faith. Why would anyone go to that much trouble to fake those press clippings? I personally remember seeing the Grauniad one, and the regular appearances in Time Out. Plus remember not everything is available online, and I doubt these scans will be found anywhere else. In the case of websites I personally believe offline coverage implies greater notability. As for the sockpuppets, you aren't helping. If you want to provide evidence/reasons to keep then please sign up and do so from one account. the wub "?!" 13:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Assuming good faith has no application here. Please read the page that you are referring to and refamiliarize yourself with what it is actually about. It deals with editors contributing to Wikipedia, not with people publishing stuff out in the Big Wide World. That is dealt with in Wikipedia:reliable sources. Your question was already answered in what I wrote above. I once again point to Jamie Kane. Anyone who always uncritically assumes supposed third-party coverage, that is supplied by the subject of that coverage xyrself on xyr own web site rather than from an independent source or the actual third party, to be true, is being far too credulous. Anyone who thinks that people don't make up things and post them on their own web sites is being naive. Looking for multiple sources that are independent from the subject is as much good encyclopaedism as it is good journalism. Uncle G 05:39, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per above, appears to have enough of a following to be notable. Makenji-san 22:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The whole idea of Wikipedia is to have a large as possible database of information which people will find interesting/relevant. It appears that there must be at least a few people this page interesting/relevant. Guys is this page do young HARM If not thjen why delete it? -Chazz88 22:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. Linuxbeak | Talk 21:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Theomatic

[edit]

tagged as a speedy which IMO it is not. As writen it is a dictdef, and unsourced. It should be transwikied to wictionary, or deleted if not wanted on wictionary, unless expanded into an encyclopedic article. DES (talk) 06:16, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 22:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Three Moon Eclipse

[edit]

Vanity page or ad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nv8200p (talk • contribs) 13:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Linuxbeak | Talk 23:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy J Hickey

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 21:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tindrum

[edit]

band vanity? no assertion of notability, no AMG. — brighterorange (talk) 14:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 22:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tipp City High School Marching Band

[edit]

One non-noteable high school band out of thousands. Article does not even list a geographical location.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 22:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Torin dinh

[edit]

he is a real person and important dont delete it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.217.61 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Linuxbeak | Talk 23:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trufab

[edit]

Appears to be advertising, and I can't see anything notable about the companies anyway. Finbarr Saunders 21:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 22:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tulip tossing

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 22:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Turner Disputes

[edit]

vague conspiracy theory of little substance Scott Davis Talk 09:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Linuxbeak | Talk 23:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Twingine

[edit]

Seems like an ad or a vanity page --Nv8200p (talk) 01:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedied Wikibofh 15:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UK Online Casinos

[edit]

This page is advertising. Delete. jmd 09:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was No consensus; default keep. Linuxbeak | Talk 18:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

White Oaks Secondary School

[edit]

Does not appear to be an encyclopedic. Furthermore, no references are provided within the text to support that Chris Hadfield was a graduate of this school, nor can I find anything on Google to validate this claim. {edit} 04:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article on Hadfield indicates that he's from "Milton District High School." [37]. --Dvyost 05:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a school. Osomec 07:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for being a high school. Yes, Hadfield went to a different high school, so my vote isn't based on that. --rob 09:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Those two keep votes really make me want to vote "Delete, just for being a high school". At least try to demonstrate that the school is notable. Show that you've actually thought about this particular article before voting.--inksT 09:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a waste trying to explain things to some, who don't wish to listen. With any reason I give, you'll say "but that applies to lots of schools". When people nominate tiny municipalities (smaller than this high school), I don't see similiar demands for specifics. The fact a municipality has the same signficance as other municipalities, which are notable, is a reason to keep it. By the same token, its reasonable to beleive this school is as legitimate a topic for an article as most other high schools. You assume, by default, this high school, is as unimportant as any other high school. I, assume, it's as important as any other high school. --rob 10:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't assume that you know what my assumptions are :) Why would I ask for reasoning if I wasn't willing to evaluate the response? Perhaps the problem is that the "schools are inherently notable" argument is extremely weak, and does not stand up to detailed scrutiny. Faced with defeat in a reasoned debate, people voting keep for a school because it's a school invent all sorts of excuses to not justify their position. It is quite obvious from the present state of AfD's that assumptions of inherent notability are doing far more harm then good to Wikipedia.--inksT 21:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Oakville, Ontario#Education, as there is minimal information in this school's article, and an overview of local education would be more useful. Average Earthman 10:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a logically inconsistant approach. Somebody looking at Category:High schools in Ontario would not expect that some schools were there while other schools were inside the town or school district article. People need to be able find the school, in order to be able add info about it. Also if/when somebody adds a detail, like an actual notable alum, are they going to add that to the town's article instead of a school article? That would make no sense. --rob 11:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • If a school becomes notable, then and only then should have its own page. WP:NOT a crystal ball. Having notable alumni does not make a school notable in any case. 99.9% of all notable people went to high school somewhere. --Last Malthusian 11:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why respond to a comment, without addressing the point about categories? The prior voter suggested a merge (you want a delete). Now, deletionists, while consistently wrong, are at least consistent. My comment, was about mergers, who wish to toss information, in various places, sometimes in town article, sometimes in district articles, and sometimes in its own article. This makes categories useless for finding information. It's pointless having information in wikipedia, if it's not where it can be easily found. Also, the "crystal ball" reference is silly, since I'm not suggesting we make a prediction in the article. However, we certainly can make allowances for future article improvement, in advance. We should organize information in a way, that allows for it to be found and updated, in an effecicient and reliable manner; which in this case, means a separate article. I don't call that a crystal ball. But, of course, if we blindly mass-delete articles, we needn't worry about organization. --rob 12:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the usual reasons. Only assertion of notability was made up, as Dvyost said. This retracted and I apologise for appearing to assume bad faith. I've voted to keep a couple of schools that had some interest attached to them and I guess someone at least made an effort here: however, I can't bring myself to vote for a high school just because someone notable went there. Like I said, most notable people went to school somewhere. Maybe if the school he went to was in some way relevant to what made him notable. Abstain. --Last Malthusian 15:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you Kappa and Thivierr for citing additional references for Chris Hadfield during my absence. Last Malthusian, doubt me if you will, but please refrain from making any such ignorant personal attacks in the future; it is not WP:CIVIL and directly violates official Wikipedia policy. Thank you. Bahn Mi 04:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because you're essentially right I'll refrain from being a pedantic git and pointing out that 'ignorant personal attack' is also a personal attack... er, whoops. --Last Malthusian 15:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • While it's appropriate to assume good faith, it's also appropriate to assume unverified information is quite possibly false, and shouldn't be included. Initially, I assumed a mix-up between "visiting a school" and "attending a school". When I see a new school article in AFD, before I vote, I try (as best I can) to start with the assumption the school may not even exist, and check to see it's actually real, along with other info (usually that takes mere moments with the school's web site on a district web site). The only mistake "Last Malthusian" made was expressing his cynicism aloud. --rob 18:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. TomTheHand 13:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and please assume good faith because bahn mi has really done a lot of work with schools it is probably a mistake but anyway this school is notable without that person Yuckfoo 14:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Average Earthman. It's worth mentioning in an article, but it's more useful to keep it as part of a town or school district's article unless significantly expanded. --Idont Havaname 14:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all real high schools. For my reasoning, see this. Xoloz 15:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as no assertion of notability. Nominations like this always go down to no consensus, and just generate needless acrimony and sniping. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 15:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep High Schools (I gave up arguing about it.) — RJH 15:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Secondary schools are notable as per rough consensus. Note that this may have been a bad faith nomination made by a user who has since been banned for having an offensive or confusing user name. Silensor 16:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • sigh I really dislike these arguments precisely because of this. Before pointing fingers at someone for bad faith you should really do your homework first. Edit was a more or less decent editor who just didn't want to change his/her username - this has absolutely nothing to do with bad faith AfD nominations. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 19:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - like RJH, I too gave up arguing about it. --Oblivious 19:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why do we feel the need to consistantly bicker as to whether schools matter or not? I reaffirm my statement that all secondary schools are notable, and their articles should be preserved as such. From what I can see the majority of Wikipedians feel that schools should be kept, so I don't see why we keep getting Afd's on them. Makenji-san 22:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there is continuous bickering and AfD's, there is no clear concensus, right? So why should we not debate the issue? The only reason schools are so problematic is because people keep using the "inherent notability" argument. Stop holding on to the stupid concept that all items in a particular classification have identical properties, and then we can have a reasoned, criteria-based debate, school by school, and the problematic AfD's will end.--inksT 22:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a box with students in it. Even the article doesn't say anything more about it. --Carnildo 22:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Another nomination made to make a point. Kappa
    • Assume good faith, please. I don't see any indication that User:Еdit made this nomination out of anything but a good-faith belief that this was an unencyclopedic subject. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 23:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know that's what the nominator believes, but s/he also knows the article won't be deleted and so this AFD is a waste of time. Kappa 00:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why do you feel the need to make these AFDs even more needlessly confrontational? It's bad enough as it is. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please assume good faith. If there were fewer of these needlessly confrontational and pointless nominations, we could all be doing more productive things. Kappa 00:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • You've accused the nominator of doing something just to make a point, rather than nominating this for the same reason non-notable bands or people end up on AFD. That is a confrontational statement, and I'd still like to know why you made it. The people who are nominating school articles for deletion are, by and large, random users who feel this or that article meets the criteria for deletion, and I don't see any indication that Edit was acting in bad faith.
              I do see that some users on both sides of this debate are starting to succumb to the tendency to see anyone who disagrees on this issue as part of a monolothic bloc with uniform, sinister movites and methods. I'm reasonably sure this isn't the case; TINC, after all. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 01:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • I believe that the nominator is familiar with the situation and made this nomination despite knowing it would not achieve consensus to delete. If that is the case, it is an inherently confrontational action. If it is not the case, I apologize. Kappa 01:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • What are you basing this belief on? Edit registered in the last month, and has only participated in one other school AFD, one which produced a useful dialogue. If making a POINT gets people talking as in that AFD instead of the same old "Keep/Delete per the usual reasons" votes, hell, it's time to ignore all rules! - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 01:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • If Edit followed that discussion, s/he would realize that there is no consensus to delete schools and that this nomination was therefore doomed. You are rather tending to confirm my suspicions: I believe that all established schools are notable enough to be considered part of the sum of human knowledge, you disagree and you plan to change my mind by continuing to nominate schools and repeat the discussion. Kappa 01:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I've never nominated a school article for AFD or VFD, as far as I can recall, and I don't plan to do so in the future; I simply continue to vote delete because I don't want there to be the illusion that there's firm consensus to keep school articles just because everyone interested in conversing about the subject has been chased away from the AFDs. I don't plan on trying to convince you to delete school articles, just to not ascribe bad faith to those who in good faith attempt to delete them. "You plan to change my mind by continuing to nominate schools and repeat the discussion" is the sort of thing I was warning about above; you're starting to ascribe uniform motivations and methods to those who share an attribute. There really is no cabal. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 01:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • (ug - too many stars, LOL) - It's the choice of the people discussing it whether to make it confrentational or not, as its perfectly fine to have a nice debate about the subject (which happens more or less on most AfDs, and is of course what I'd prefer). Ryan Norton T | @ | C 01:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • Why have the same debate over and over again? Kappa 01:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • It's not the same debate. You only think it's the same debate, because you belive that all schools are identically notable. Hence, you always bring the same arguments and reasoning. Actually evaluating each school on its individual merits will produce a reasoned, wide ranging discussion.--inksT 01:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I don't believe all schools are indentically notable, when did I suggest that? Kappa 01:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I'll rephrase it if you like: "It's not the same debate. You only think it's the same debate, because you belive that all schools are inherently notable. Hence, you always bring the same arguments and reasoning. Actually evaluating each school on its individual merits will produce a reasoned, wide ranging discussion." Howzat? Instead of sidestepping the issue with pedantry, discuss the point being made.--inksT 02:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                        • The discussions might be reasoned and wide-ranging, but the result would be incomplete, biased and semi-random coverage of education. Kappa 03:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Thats more like it. An encyclopedia does not need to have full coverage of every school in the world to be "complete" - that's a Yellow Pages standard of "completion". Ideally, it should convey the general principles of organised education, and give more detailed treatment to particularly notable schools. The coverage will be biased, by design, against non-notable schools. Note that including every school by default is also a form of bias (just like the current standards of AfD are biased in favour of keeping). So it's not necessarily a bad thing. Semi-random? I doubt it. Do you mean because AfD's depend in who happens accross them? In which case the solution is to fix the AfD process, as opposed to claiming inherent notability status for schools (which would actually create the bias and inconsistency that you seem opposed to).--inksT 04:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                            • Wikipedia is not supposed be a selective encyclopedia, or it wouldn't aim to have every Simpons episode. Including as much valid information is not a form of bias, and in any case bias is only a problem when it removes information that users are looking for. Kappa 04:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                              • But Wikipedia is selective - otherwise why are we bothering with AfD? :) To further that point, while there may be an article on every Simpsons episode, there isn't one for every TV show, because not all are as notable as the Simpsons. Including excessive and unnecessary information can indeed prevent people from finding what they want - like the difference between giving someone a page reference from a book, and giving them a library.--inksT 04:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Kappa, you're the one here swinging around WP:POINT all the time on practically every nomination. I suggest you take a closer look at your own actions - as we've all got room for improvement. Maybe afterwards you'll find these won't be as confrentational, no? Ryan Norton T | @ | C 00:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn school --JAranda | yeah 00:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a school (for all the usual reasons we keep schools) Trollderella 00:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I did not base my vote on the issue of Chris Hadfield going there. However, as shown in the article, and at Talk:White Oaks Secondary School it does appear that he did go the school for four years, before going to MDHS, which is the school mentioned in the NASA bio. In fact, seven schools claim him. --rob 02:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep school with a fairly large student enrollment. --Vsion 09:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete schoolcruft. No claim to notability. Dunc|☺ 11:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep School noms are a waste of our time. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another completely nn school. Dottore So 19:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All you deletionists trotting out the same arguments you trot out on every school AfD can go ride a bicycle.--Nicodemus75 20:45, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wouldn't you be offended by "All you inclusionists trotting out the same arguments you trot out on every school AFD..." What do labels and a confrontational attitude accomplish? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 22:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is almost exactly what inks has repeated above and on other pages. Repeatedly stating that the philosophical position that "schools are inherently notable" is weak, repetitive, etc. Frankly, I consider the constant re-statement by deletionists that the philosphical position that "schools are inherently notable" is weak a personal attack and extremely uncivil.--Nicodemus75 23:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're labelling people again. There is a difference between asserting the weakness of an argument, and demonstrating it by means of argument, and by pointing to the acrimony that the concept of inherent notability has brought to AfD. If you disagree with arguments against inherent notability, refute them, instead of trying to stifle them by references to civility and NPA guidelines that are frequently violated by both sides. I have always been concerned that the concept of inherent notability with regards to schools is doing far more harm than good, and have yet to see evidence or argument to the contrary.--inksT 23:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • To be fair, "the concept of inherent notability" didn't bring this acrimony to AFD, and if it went away today, there'd be towns and webcomics and roads and whatever people start arguing about next. People on both sides are personalizing these debates, and then lashing out in what they see as justified retaliation. Other people lash back, and both people see themselves as aggrieved (and nothing is accomplished in the meantime). Please, remember, there are reasonable people on both sides who hold their opinions and argue in good faith. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 23:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • This entire exchange illustrates how pointless all of this "discussion" truly is. The fact is, that those who routinely vote to delete school articles (since you don't like "labelling"), such as inks, come to the debate with an equally pre-conceived philosophy, ie. "Educational instutions are not noteworthy in and of themselves, simply by virtue of their being educational institutitons. Other characteristics of such institutions need to be established in order to consider them noteworthy". This position is every bit as much a pre-conception, and opinion-oriented, inherently unjustified philosophical position as the position held by myself and others that: "Educational institutions by virtue of the importance they hold solely as institutions of learning (public or private) carry a noteworthiness to society and the culture by their existence and delivery of education. No other defining or illustrative characteristics are necessary to establish their noteworthiness and thusly their eligibility for inclusion in Wikipedia" (otherwise known as the "schools are inherently notable" view). It clearly, (after hundreds and hundreds of VfD/AfD on schools in the last 2 years) is a matter of opinion over which we fundamentally disagree on the philosophical nature of the issue. Wikipedians accept (for the most part) that *MANY* things are inherently notable: Battleships, Towns (even with miniscule or insignificant populations), Countries, Train stations, Submarines, Simpsons episodes, etc etc etc etc. There simply is no objective standard to determine if and whether schools are inherently notable - either you believe it, or you don't, and most people (even those unwilling to admit it) come to the debate over schools with one or the other position in mind. As to all of the other arguments for and against, we have debated them over and over and over and over and over. They have been regurgitated, re-invigorated, rehabilitated, re-ventilated, swalllowed and re-gurgitated again and guess what - NO FORMAL CONCENSUS EXISTS - gee what a surprise. Whether or not people state "schools are inherently notable" has virtually nothing to do with it. It has to do with a philosophical approach to whether or not schools, in their own right, justify having an article on Wikipedia (just like towns, battleships, countries, pokemons, etc.) or if you believe some other characteristic is required. Saying "schools are inherently notable" is, frankly, just a way of cutting through all the bullshit of these pointless arguments over and over and over and over. We already know that no formal concensus has or will be reached. "Those who routinely nominate and vote to delete school articles" continue to nominated and continue to vote to delete (all the while knowing the nominations and the votes will fail to get the article delete) and "Those who routinely vote to keep school articles" continue to vote to keep them. 85%-90% of all nominated school articles in the past year have survived the VfD/AfD process and the great majority of them do so because at least a plurality of editors who vote believe that schools are "inherently noteworthy" and thusly deserving of an article. The real acrimony exists because "Those who routinely nominate and vote to delete school articles" refuse to accept these results and continue nominating school articles for deletion in what is quite clearly a vain attempt to get even one school article deleted (as much has even been stated by one or more of the usual suspects). All tactics have been tried, multi-nominations, mass-nominations, region or country specific nominations, and they all fail. While there may be contention and disagreement over school articles, one thing is an incontrovertable fact - school articles do not get deleted on Wikipedia because they are "non-notable". You may not like the policies or the processes of AfD, or the results that they generate - but that is the way that WP works. Certainly, school AfD pages are not the place to hash out differences of opinion over the AfD process. This is the tool we have - and it is working. The results are so completely overwhelming that it might as well be policy - "School articles are not deleted on WP simply because they are 'non-notable'". You might disagree, but in practice it is already a fact - the best thing at this point is to accept it. Accepting the results over the last year, will end the acrimony over these articles. There can be no question, that as articles continue to not be deleted at AfD that it is pointless to continue nominating them on the basis that they are "non-notable". Nominating a school article that you know, in advance, will never be deleted on the basis of its lack of noteworthiness engenders acrimony and wastes everyone's time (including your own)- EVEN IF YOU THINK IT SHOULDN'T BE HERE. In summary, "Those who routinely nominate and vote to delete school articles" must accept the results - schools simply aren't deleted on WP because they are "non-notable", like it or not, it's a fact.--Nicodemus75 22:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • You've overlooked an important distinction - I treat all articles equally, and single out no particular class of article for special treatment. Every article I've voted to delete has failed to prove it is worthy to be here. Every article I've voted to keep, I have done so on its merits. To me, no article is inherently notable, and each has to be individually meritous, be they schools, battleships, or Simpsons episodes. Inherent notability is being used as a crutch to sidestep proper discussion.--inksT 02:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • With all due respect, that is balderdash. I doubt very much that you look at an article about a nation-state (like say, San Marino) and make a decision on whether or not it "should" have an article on Wikipedia on it's own merits (and if you do, than the absurdity of your position is manifest). Anyone who sees an article about a nation-state on Wikipedia rightly concludes that it has a place here, irrespective of it's "notability" because it's status as a nation-state confers inherent notability upon it, regardless of it's size, population, impact on world affairs, or any other subjective assessment of it's relative "notability". The assumption made by almost anyone who looks at an article about a nation-state is that it is inherently notable. Even if you do hypothetically assess nation-states in this way, it makes no difference whatsoever. Your insistence that others use your deletion philosophy is condescending and elitist. Other editors are (and should be) free to determine for themselves that certain groups or classes of things (like nation-states) possess inherent characteristics of noteworthiness as a legitimate philosophical approach to building a comprehensive encyclopedia. Your assertion that "your way is superior" is noted, but I just think you are plum wrong. Certain classes of things are inherently notable, and I believe one of those classes of things is schools. To try to suggest that those of us who hold and advance a certain philosophical view about notability in good faith, are to blame for the acrimony in this debate is both false and irresponsible. Despite all of this (pointless) back and forth, your response still refuses to respond or take accountability for the main point of my obscure and lengthy dissertation above in the first place. That is, that "School articles are not deleted on Wikipedia on the basis of being "non-notable"." As I have stated, this is a fact. The obvious question that arises is, "Since schools are not deleted on this criteria, why is it that 'those who routinely nominate and vote for school deletion' continue in their pointless and arguably bad-faith crusade to delete school articles "on their own merits", when it is clearly contrary to what the obvious outcome of these attempts will be? I am not simply trying to be rhetorical here - I am asking for a legitimate explanation from the other side, why they are continuing to nominate and vote to delete in the face of the overwhelming history of VfD/AfD results that demonstrate that school articles simply do not get deleted on the basis of being "non-notable" or being a stub?? Please, please explain what is achieved by repeating this process over and over and over? At this point, "those who routinely nominate and vote to delete school articles" aren't even making a point anymore. Of the last 100 or so schools nominated for AfD, the only candidate that was successfully deleted was an article about a school that didn't exist, which was created by an editor who "routinely votes to delete school articles" on the basis of their lack of notability. You think your approach of "determining how to vote on each article according to it's merits" is better than my system? Well good for you. Just tell me what the point of all this is when the school articles in question will not be deleted?--Nicodemus75 02:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • Apples to Oranges. You're comparing schools to countries. If it were possible to have several million countries in the world, I'm sure we could argue that some are not notable enough to be mentioned here. The point is that if concepts of inherent notability were not used, we could have a reasoned evaluation of each school on it's own merits, and then those that don't deserve an article can be deleted. If schools truly are as important as you assert, what's the harm in dropping inherent notability?--inksT 04:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Substitute "official municipality" for "country", and the example works fine. There are countless municipalities, with a much smaller population than this high school; which are all auto-included. Rather than waste time on pointless AFDs, editors on communities have devoted their time to improving articles. --rob 05:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Hey, if a municipality with 5 people in it had come up on AfD, I'd vote to delete it as well. I'll state it again - if these subjects are truly so obviously important, why is the concept of inherent notability required to defend them? Finally, you can't accuse me of wasting time if you're also here - by your definition, if there was no opposition to a delete vote, there would be no time "wasted" either :)--inksT 23:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Possible micro-agreement: If somebody creates an article for 5 kids in there mom's homeschool, I'll likely delete it. I guarentee you, that you will never, be able to vote delete on multiple real muniicpalities with any real powers, however small they may be (at least in North America). I have wasted time in these school AFDs, mainly at the request of those demanding explanations, that they're not satisified with. But, a vastly greater waste of time would occur, if schools started being deleted. All the time I (and others) spent, creating and improving articles, would be lost. I'm forced to decide which is a bigger waste: time in AFD or loosing the time spent creating/editing school articles. You on the other hand, have no need to waste any time, whatsoever. --rob 23:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Municipalities, townships, towns, etc. are kept on WP even if they have zero residents - that is settled concensus. Your statement shows your clear willingness (manifest in this very debate) to defy concensus in favour of your own opinion (which is the problem in the first place). As to wasting time, there are a number of areas where your argument is nonsense. First, by deleting articles about schools that are created by editors in good faith, you are wasting those editors' time (there are many of us that have a good faith intention to create verifiable, well-written articles about schools for Wikipedia) and waging a war against those who wish to participate in Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools in good-faith on the basis that you (and others "who routinely nominate and vote to delete schools") subjectively find such schools non-notable. The next waste of time, is crying foul everytime someone (like me) who has explained their reasoning on schools a thousand times (ok, a hundred times) to explain and justify every vote on every school. Some of us are tired of screaming at the brick wall that is "those who routinely nominate and vote to delete school articles" and just vote bicycle. The next waste of time is your own. Nominating school articles that will not be deleted for AfD is an undeniable waste of time that is only perpetuated in order to make a point. I have asked repeatedly for some justification why nominations and voting and arguing to delete school articles persists, when if nothing else can be agreed upon, it surely could be that as a matter of precedent, school articles are not deleted on WP on the basis of "non-notability".--Nicodemus75 01:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I realize this is a contentious subject, but stating that an argument is weak is not a personal attack. (Sorry for the gratuitous italics, but this is very important.) "Your argument is stupid" is uncivil, but it's not a personal attack. "Your argument is weak" isn't even uncivil; it's a strongly-stated disagreement. Everyone needs to distance themselves a bit, and realize that an attack on the position that they hold, however strongly, is not an attack on the person that holds it. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 23:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep WP:CIVIL in mind please Makenji-san 22:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per schools argument keep chowells 19:19, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Zhatt 20:32, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete none of the keep arguments ring true --redstucco 08:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. -- DS1953 15:05, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 18:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeti Photography

[edit]

Appears to be advertising for a small photographic company. Unencyclopedic. Alex.tan 01:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is the most popular photographic company in Smithers, the article was intended as a stub to the Smithers article. --J7 01:39, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It may well be the most popular photographic company in Smithers, British Columbia but that town has a population of only 4500 according to the article. If an article about this company is encyclopedic for just this one reason, there will be millions of articles about companies in all sorts of small towns around the world soon. Alex.tan 05:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See also David Jennings, Yeti's owner, AfDed below, and Nancy Simister, for whom I'm suggesting a speedy. --Dvyost 06:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. Linuxbeak | Talk 00:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your Fly is Open

[edit]

Seems to be original research. Complete nonsense if you ask me. Here's where it belongs: BJAODN. FireSpike 20:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 22:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Youth_Against_Poverty

[edit]

Unencyclopaedic. Not a significant group. pfctdayelise 13:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 18:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Kaplan

[edit]

Zach Kaplan + Al Roker = delete. [edit] 01:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedied. Wikibofh 15:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ziad

[edit]

Appears to be spam promoting a (possibly nonexistent) company/person. Created by User:211.30.179.139, then marked by User:Robchurch as needing "cleanup-importance", but that flag was then removed by User:211.30.179.139 (and at the same time adding some seemingly irrelevant text). I could find nothing about this person/company on Google, so I suspect that it doesn't exist. We don't seem to have any content to keep, or sources from which to create such content. Erik Demaine 02:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Kewp (t) 06:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I cannot find any information on him on the internet. The name of the article isn't even the name mentioned in the text. As to Mawassi, I guess it would be more notable to put up pages on Al Mawassi in tha Gaza strip or on a certain successfull scientist from Isreal. Karol 06:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is legitimate information. Ziad Mawassi is a real person and a local hero who lends his valuable time to many people in the community. He has helped many troubled teenagers by giving them a knowledge and experience in the automotive industry. Ziad Mawassi improved the quality of my life when he transformed my classic Ford into a show winner, as he has to many others.

I can also attest to Ziads quality of work. Previously having bad experiences with another restorator, i had a meeting with Ziad to discuss my options with my vehicle. Noting his professional behaviour and vast knowledge of the industry, i decided to trust him with my pride and joy. The final results were unimaginable. Even i couldnt envision such a quality job!

I would also like to state how much Ziad has contributed to our community. Realising that his success has been hugely a result of our community, he now strives to give back what he can. Quite often he has been a part of charity fundraising. From simple ordeals, to larger-scale projects, such as restoring cars to be sold off to raise funds.

I can not stress enough the faith i have in Ziad Mawassi, and his level of character.

I can and will definately hold my flag up high and show support that Ziad Mawassi as a genuine person. I can surely solemly swear that he singlehandedly "tricked up" my show winning Datsun Fairlady roadster. 2 Cheers for ziad!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hooray!!

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

The result of the debate was Speedy keep --Angr/tɔk tə mi 10:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zohar

[edit]

This article purposefully ignores a large amount of documented, historical data, regarding the non-authenticity and non-acceptance of the Zohar that does (and did) exist within the current and previous generations of the observant, Jewish world. Also, the article minimalizes the truth by using many emotive words, that display a terrible level of bias, and assume the truth and acceptance of the Zohar (from the start), while totally ignoring many strong and real arguments that have been made since its inception. Objective words like "claim" and "purport to" are totally left out of the discussion, when they rightfully should be the terms of choice. In addition, the author picks and chooses from an extremely limited level of chosen arguments (against his own position), which he/she then immediately answers in an extremely non-scholarly fashion, that leaves out the true complexities of the original objections that have been made over the past 1,000 years. In short, this reads more like an advertisement for book publishers of the Zohar than it does for an encyclopedic article. And whoever this author is, he is lightning quick to replace a copy of his original article back on line, after edits have been attempted. This just is not fair!

--Concepts (such as the position of the Zohar in Jewish Law) are totally glossed over, without any serious attention to it at all. The author makes it appear that the Zohar was universally accepted. Any old, legitimate, and dissenting opinions appear totally insignificant in selling of this article. Nor does he/she mention these specific objections. Only his/her own, which he/she is able to answer.

--The four main legitimate positions in today's observant Jewish world are ignored -- which are:

  1. - Partial acceptance: (portions of the work may be old and midrashic but not written by rabbi Shimon ben Yohai)
  2. - Some may may have been written by him, and some was not.
  3. - All was written by him
  4. - None was written by him

--No dogmatic (docrine oriented) criticism is permitted.

--No editing of this article is allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.76.154 (talk • contribs) 10:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

  • These are criticisms which belong more in the article's talk page; you could even request that it be protected. It's hardly reason to suggest that the article be deleted. Keep - in fact, I'd vote speedy keep as a nomination in bad faith, except that the nominator is clearly new to WP. DS 13:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as a nomination without basis under the criteria for deletion (even if made in good faith). Notable concept, criticisms should be addressed by attaining consensus on the article's talk page by providing evidence of the above points there.  BD2412 talk 13:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
    • The only good reason not to speedy, wonderful BD :), is to give the nominator time to learn from our comments, which are more likely to be seen while the deletion page is conspicuous. Xoloz 15:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. There is simply no reason to delete it.
  • Keep as per above. Dlyons493 Talk 15:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Friend nominator, please edit the article to reflect your concerns, or discuss changes at its discussion page. As policy, WP does not delete an article because of content disagreement. Xoloz 15:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per consensus, though it appears to have a history of POV problems; current version seems OK though (but I'm just skimming it). Still, nothing that can't be solved with POV tags and edit locking.--Isotope23 16:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_October_10&oldid=1234127275"