From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 14 November 16 >

Purge server cache

November 15

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

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

24601

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

  • COMMENT I actually nominated this a few days ago, but in putting it on this page, I accidently erased all the other nominations. Someone saw what I did and reverted, assuming that I was a vandal. Consequentially, this has not been listed for over a few minutes. I am putting it back up. Descendall 08:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • ’Twas I who did the revert with the comment about vandalism. My apologies for the remark, but it did look like vandalism. When you post anything to a page, please use the preview button before posting, or at least read your post after saving. ♠ DanMS 18:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, not every number can be notable simply because it's been used somewhere. Les Miserables#Cultural references covers the extent of its use in this context adequately. Bobet 13:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Bobet. Minor points in books and plays need to be covered in their context. - Mgm| (talk) 15:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete — Inconsequential factoid. — RJH 17:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • I don't understand why everyone's voting delete, because no one has suggested why a merge to Les Miserables would be unsatisfactory. Jacqui ★ 00:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The info is already included in the page for Les Miserables so there's no need to keep this page around. -- Bachrach44 01:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Prisoner 24601 might be a good redirect, but not this. By naming conventions, I guess this should be a year, and that year certainly does not warrant an article. Likewise the number or the zip code (just out of idle curisoity, anyone know what town's zip code that is?). - R. fiend 04:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per R. fiend. (By the way, 24601 is Amonate, VA per Google Maps.) MCB 06:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This is an extraordinary use of an encyclopedia page. encephalon 09:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - possibly the biggest waste of server space ever :) Akamad 09:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I've added the 24601 reference to the Plot of Les Misérables page. -- Frekja 10:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • It's a marginally interesting number in that it's been given references in a number of other works ( System Shock, for example). But that's "marginal" with a lower-case "m", and the appropriate place for references like this is in the pages for individual works, so I don't think we gain anything by having this article here. Delete. — Haeleth Talk 18:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Les Mis. -- SCZenz 04:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:25, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse (no pictures)

Prior debates: 18 Nov 2004, 17 Dec 2004, 29 Dec 2004

Totally absurd. There are pictures several pictures in this article, one wikipedian has taken it upon himself to determine which photos are "offensive" and which are not. Descendall 07:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete this and all other censorship forks. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 07:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Clarification: delete entirely without leaving a redirect, per MacGyverMagic/Mgm. Make this a protected {{ deletedpage}} if deemed necessary. Delete inbound links or point them to the original article as appropriate. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 11:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the censorship. The photographs are important for the integrity/impartiality of the article. -- Frekja 10:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Speedily redirect Strong delete the actual article, and lock the redlink. I was sure this had been deleted, as WP:NOT censored. - A Man In Black ( conspire | past ops) 10:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • speedy Redirect Indeed. Delete per above. Dottore So 11:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Abstain. Whatlinkshere for the article also links to 2 debates that led to a keep and a no consensus decision on the then Votes for deletion. Some pictures are included in an article which explicitly states in its title it doesn't have pictures? That's just plain stupid. Either we delete the article entirely or we keep it. Don't make some misleading version with pictures when they shouldn't be in this specific article. It's only gonna open a can of worms to people who'll be offended by images they weren't expecting. Don't redirect as that would be misleading to anyone looking for the censored version. - Mgm| (talk) 11:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, without even looking at the article. It's survived three vfds already. Time to let it go. — Cryptic (talk) 14:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Speaking of those VFDs, the first one is a nearly unanimous vote to delete, and it was deleted. It was only allowed to be recreated on a technicality; while the article had the same content, it updated itself automatically instead of by hand. All three of those VFDs had a majority to delete. It was last listed on VFD almost a year ago. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 14:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
      • That's part of the reason I VFD'd it again. In the year that has passed, everyone who voted to delete has seen their fears born out: though the entry is named "no pictures," there are pictures, which creates a situation where you have one person claiming the authority to decide what is offensive and what is not. Personally, I think photos of a guy getting punched, someone being threatened with a dog, and a man with electric wires hooked up to his hands are just as "offensive" as anything else, but that's neither here nor there. A concensus was never really reached, and I think we can now reach a clear one: this article was a bad idea. Descendall 16:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or redirect-and-protect and protect deleted page if necessary. POV fork. Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. I think there is at least possibility of unending more-of-the-same if this is kept, although it hasn't happened yet. If we need image suppression at all, it should be a technical feature in which users can specify, as a preference, that they do not wish to see images. This has been discussed interminably and the conclusion has always been to reaffirm community consensus that Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: Good idea, Dpbsmith. I would support an "all images on/off" feature in the "Files" tab of Special:Preferences. Whether or not to view images should be based on a user's bandwidth concerns (load pages faster on dial-up) or printing needs (use less ink making paper copy) but NOT on the subjective basis of the images' content. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 17:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fork as above. -- InShaneee 19:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This page is laughable, as it actually contains pictures. This page should not exist for the same reasons that Toby should not exist. For those of you who haven't met Toby, he did the exact same thing that this article is trying to do: unverifiably, subjectively, censor pages. This shouldn't be happening here. Wikipedia is not censored. -- Blackcap | talk 22:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • If images are suppressed and the entire code is copied from the main article. Then who included the images in there and how did they do it? - Mgm| (talk) 23:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete. Censorship and Wikipedia is like walruses and babies. They just don't mix. - Silence 23:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • delete - should have been deleted a long time ago. Jooler 13:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete. This is a POV fork of a valid page, and ought to be speedyable. Tuf-Kat 21:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

ADISI

Advert. Alr

  • Delete spam. And is it just me, or is every article which starts with the company or organisation name embedded in a weblink invariably spam? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] (W) AfD? 21:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 17:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect to Demographics of the Dominican Republic. - Mailer Diablo 01:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Afro-Dominican

Unverifiable neologism - under 1000 Google hits, and under 100 when paired wiht "moreno," its alleged synonym, and most of those hits are using Moreno as a surname. Dicdef. Likely perma-stub. Phil Sandifer 06:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Akta Angkasa

NN band. They're in Malaysia, but still only get a few Google hits for them. Fails WP:MUSIC. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 23:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, even though it's an educational read. Could be speedied as nonsense. - Bobet 02:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This is just a babelfished bio, and as such may even qualify for a nonsense speedy. Mo0[ talk] 03:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete although that was really fun to read!-- Alhutch 08:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

All Aspectz Music

Non-notable record label that gets 4 Google results that aren't duplicates or Wikipedia related. It is unclear if they have produced any music at all. -- Kjkolb 09:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Looks like advertising to me. -- Frekja 10:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete nn, promo, advertising. They have a website, why cut and paste it here? Dottore So 11:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. TheMadBaron 14:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. I don't feel minded to extend this debate since the problems the nominator and first participator cite are extreme. - Splash talk 01:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Aluin Levitation

Text taken directly from the U.S. Patent Office website for some sort of levitation machine for magic shows. -- Kjkolb 10:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • The intro doesn't mention the subject, the illustrations mentioned aren't included, there is insufficient context to demonstrate that the device even exists, and the whole thing reads like original research, probable copyvio and a load of crystal balls. Delete. TheMadBaron 14:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: according to the patent office, patents are public domain. -- Kjkolb 00:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

American media figures who have wished for massive destruction in America

Inheiritly unencyclopediac and POV, a useless list. I can't imagine how this could be salvaged.-- Sean| Bla ck 04:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, as nominator.-- Sean| Bla ck 04:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. This article has a couple of problems. (1) It is inherently POV and probably could not be made NPOV. (2) The title is highly misleading if not flat wrong. It is extremely unlikely that the people who made these statement were actually “wishing” for massive destruction in America. These were hyperbolic remarks expressing extreme disdain for certain segments, institutions, or people of America. It’s pretty much the same as all those Hollywood personalities who swore that they would leave the United States if Bush won the election. How many of them actually did so? ♠ DanMS 05:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Inherently POV topic that can do nothing but take quotes out of context to make a political point. Andrew Levine 05:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Andrew Levine, though I fear the author may add me to Editors who have voted to delete Lists of American media figures who have wished for massive destruction in America. -- W.marsh 05:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I agree with the comments above as well as the points I made made on the article talk page. -- JJay 05:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete.. Start a blog. Durova 06:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This seems to be a list of quotations, which is specifically called out in WP:NOT. - A Man In Black ( conspire | past ops) 10:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete subjective, and unmaintanable. Hal Lindsey has little in common with others on the list. -- MacRusgail 13:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete XYaAsehShalomX 14:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Makes the internet suck more :) Youngamerican 16:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, unless we add They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we. -- Doc ask? 18:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • I'd say BJAODN for the title alone, but since the actual article doesn't amuse me, delete. -- InShaneee 19:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete; there are tons of idiots saying things like this all over the place. That doesn't make it encyclopedic. SchrödingersRoot 20:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Quite POV.-- Dakota t e 20:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per problems mentioned above. Punkmorten 20:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per all. -- Blackcap | talk 22:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete... but... if the quotes are all true and verifiable, they are indeed notable and should be mentioned on the article of those who said them. Not a topic for its own article though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • I disagree. Quotes should be kept to a minimum in articles. The articles should indicate that the individual is acerbic, and reference the comment if it actually caused significant controversy, but as SchrödingersR said above, lots of people say stuff like that. -- DDerby- (talk) 08:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Andrew Clarke (stuntman)

IMDB [1] shows a number of other people with that name, but we already have an article about the most notable one: Andrew Clarke (actor). This is not the same one (born in 1984, the other one was already active in 1982). I could not find an Andrew Clarke having worked in Gladiator there. Paolo Liberatore ( Talk) 12:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. If this one were in SAG he'd have to work professionally under a different name (such as using a middle initial) to distinguish himself from the other actor. Not notable enough to merge with stunt: bio does not claim to have stood in for the lead actor during memorable and technically difficult scenes. I wish him well. Durova 14:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This Andrew Clarke is too young to have been a stuntman on the movies claimed. Being a stuntman isn't inherently notable anyway. -- A D Monroe III 14:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Not notable. TheMadBaron 14:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Problems with verifiability as the other people on IMDb are not him. The other parts of the biography are doubtful such as working on Gladiator at 16 as a stuntman and becoming an aircraft engineer before starting a stunt career. Even if he were verifiable, he would be of dubious notability. Capitalistroadster 16:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete a particularly pointless hoax. Why link the "IMDB entry" when it clearly omits any mention of the purported subject? Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] (W) AfD? 21:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unverifiable and possibly a hoax. Young stuntmen exist, but I don't think one can be an aeronautical engineer at 16. Either way, the IMDB listings for the film don't list any Andrew Clarke in the stunt crew of the project. - Mgm| (talk) 23:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Ne pas delete I have done extensive research into Andrew Clarke and I assure you he is most definately notable and this is most definately not a hoax. I apologise profusely, however, for mistyping '8' instead of '6' in 1964. I am currently updating the page with other interesting facts of a man who has lead an interesting and noteworthy career.
unsigned edit by User:129.234.4.76 05:54, 16 November 2005
The 1984 date is confirmed by your edit of 1984. -- A D Monroe III 14:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Assless chaps

Original research/essay. Any relevant material is already at Chaps. -- Blackcap | talk 18:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

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

The result of the debate was Merge and redirect. Rx StrangeLove 21:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Atriopore

It is a one line entry that has already been transwikied to wiktionary (claimed on Talk:Atriopore). -- Gurubrahma 11:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • If not expanded in next two days, delete -- MacRusgail 14:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect to Lancelet based on the definition in the article (unless expanded). - Mgm| (talk) 23:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

AussieTorrents

Yet another NN web forum. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 23:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply


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

The result of the debate was DELETE, copyvio, afd, whichever. - Splash talk 01:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Basong

Copyvio from [3], and non-notable, with no hits in Wall St Journal in past ten years. | Keithlaw (talk) (contribs) 00:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • This is Articles for deletion. Wikipedia:Copyright problems is across the quad. Uncle G 00:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Thanks, although as you can see in my summary, it's quite deletable on NN itself. I've blanked the article w/a copyvio notice. | Keithlaw [[User_talk:Keithlaw|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Keithlaw|(contribs)]] 03:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: If nobody claims permission in 7 days on the copyright problems page, it is just deleted without the need for the discussion required on AfD. Most articles are deleted without challenge. Since it is easier to delete the article this way, copyvios are only sent to AfD if someone claims to have permission and we don't want the article. -- Kjkolb 04:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Blatant copyvio advert. Even if they have permission, I don't think we'd want the article. Let's do AFD anyway. It'll be gone 2 days earlier. - Mgm| (talk) 09:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Handling it as a copyright violation means that it is gone now. See the article. This is why one should use Copyright Judo against copyrighted advertisements. Uncle G 16:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
      • So what has to happen for the article to be deleted? Obviously the text is gone, but other than listing in on Wikipedia:Copyright problems, is there something else to be done? | Keithlaw 18:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
        • Discuss the case if it is claimed that the text is GFDL licensed, and wait for the normal copyright problems closure process to deal with the article. (If one is an administrator, one can help with that process, once the lag time has passed.) Uncle G 19:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete completely, instead of having a page that the original is a copyvio ad. HGB 19:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Psycho. - Splash talk 01:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Bates Motel

The only possible source of notability of this hotel comes from incidentally having the same name of the hotel of the movie Psycho. Other than this, I have not found anything else on the web [4] that tells why this hotel is different from the other millions of hotels/motels around the world. I say Delete unless someone finds a sensible place to merge it into. Paolo Liberatore ( Talk) 15:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Beguiling

Dicdef. Already exists in Wiktionary. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 17:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. — Cleared as filed. 13:11, 24 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Belgian Blogosphere

See also Blogosphere ( AfD discussion) and Canadian blogosphere ( AfD discussion).

Not notable, should we also have Latvian Blogosphere? Skrewler 01:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Keep, we are supposed to be providing users with the sum of human knowledge, why shouldn't we have Latvian blogosphere if there is enough content? Kappa 02:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Wikipedia is NOT supposed to be providing users with the sum of human knowledge. There is a great deal of information that does not have a place in this encyclopedia. Andrew Levine 04:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
      • If information is part of the sum of human knowledge, it obviously belongs here or in some other wikimedia project. Kappa 05:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
        • No, it does not "obviously" belong anywhere. Tell me, to which Wikimedia project should I add the complete cast and crew of the school play I was in when I was in 4th Grade? Or the full list of official guests received by President Clinton during the month of February 1996? Or the complete texts of the dozens of love letters that my great-grandfather wrote to my great-grandmother a century ago? All of this stuff is verifiable human knowledge. But in terms of notability, none of it rises beyond being subtrivial. Andrew Levine 22:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
          • Wow. Please add that latter two to wikisource as valuable historic records. We can probably live without the first one. Kappa 01:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
            • What's wrong with the first one, it's factual human knowledge isn't it? The fact is, we can agree that it belongs nowhere on Wikimedia. As for the correspondence between my zayda and bubbe, I should point out that they were nobody famous at all. Mash notes between a seamstress and a tobacco shop owner hardly constitute "historical documents." Andrew Levine 04:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
              • I don't object to the inclusion of the cast list, but I think it's unlikely to be of use to anyone. I strongly disagree about the value of the "mash notes", why would you take that resource away from future researchers into 20th century culture and language? Kappa 10:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, I would don't see any evidence that the Belgian blogosphere lacks notability. - SimonP 02:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Request for clarification. I could understand a Flemish blogosphere. How would French-speaking Belgians inhabit a distinct part of cyberspace from Parisians or Quebecois? Durova 02:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nominator. I would support merging any useful info on French or Dutch blogs to pages on Francophone blogosphere or Dutch-language blogosphere (or something like that) if someone felt they were worthwhile enough to create. Andrew Levine 04:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete One article on blogs is enough. 65.34.232.136 05:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep discussing the blogosphere of all the countries in the world would create a horrendously long article. And if we have Canadian blogosphere, I don't see the use in splitting the Belgian one. There's both French and English speaking Canadians and that one isn't split either. - Mgm| (talk) 09:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • The only problem with that logic is you assume articles for "each country blogosphere" are needed. They aren't. Bloggers are bloggers. It's same scum no matter what country you are from. -- Timecop 02:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete we don't need individual national blogosphere articles. Dottore So 10:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: There is no such thing as a Belgian Blogosphere, or an American one, or a Canadian one. The Internet is global. Contributors to the Moravian blog might be Japanese. Extending national borders or, worse, ethnic identifications, into the Internet and then claiming that there is some extension of this into a content designation, is silly, counter-productive, and the fruit of boredom or malevolence. Geogre 11:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep - there is such a thing as a Belgian blogosphere. How many Americans are interested in Belgian matters, or speak Flemish? It's naive to claim that just because there's international interest, that there are no national blocs on the internet. -- MacRusgail 13:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Non-Belgians can write Flemish, and many can write French. The point is that there is no "there" in the Internet except for the URL. In this case, it's not an article about a URL, nor is it an article that describes a distinction of difference. This is an article not about a specific place, nor specific site, nor a collection of sites that have anything in common than that they are assumed to be from the nation-state of Belgium. The article makes no effort at establishing what that means. Once we get away from actual space and into virtual space, how is the Belgian designation greater than some micronation's? Geogre 18:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete because the article has nothing to say other than "there are bloggers in Belgium too". It makes no claims of particular notability for any Belgian bloggers, and completely fails to identify any points that distinguish blogging in Belgium from blogging anywhere else in the world. Remove the words "Belgian" and "Flemish", and it would be impossible to distinguish this from a generic article on blogs. What next - an article on Belgian rabbits ("The common rabbit lives all over the world, including in Belgium. It is a small mammal...")? — Haeleth Talk 16:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Article appears to have verifiable information, is NPOV, and notable enough for me FRS 18:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. -- Femmina 22:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete. -- Why is this even close to relevant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.91.19 ( talk • contribs)
  • Strong Delete. How on Gods green earth is this notable or relevant in any way? -- Impi.za 00:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Thi is the user's 7th edit. The user has edited only AfD discusssions. - Hapsiainen 00:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, it is notable. The article covers local things that can't be moved to the blogosphere article. I also have nothing against the article on Latvian blogosphere. - Hapsiainen 00:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep; there's so much crap on wikipedia already, why delete potentially useful information? Matt Yeager 01:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • If you believe something is crap on wikipedia, please AfD it. That is really an inane argument for keeping a worthless article. Skrewler 04:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Keep There appears to be a war on blogs going on. The Canadian blogosphere article has also been targetted. Editors should be aware of the systemic bias that has been identified in Wikipedia against non-American, non-Anglophone entries, of which this is one.-- Simon.Pole 08:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. More stupid blogging crap. Enough already. -- 86.2.56.178 12:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete This doesn't deserve a whole article written about it, absolutely ridiculous. Delete. -- Depakote 12:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The internet reduced the importance of nationality, but it doesn't come close to eliminating it. Carina22 12:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This is silliness. As rightly pointed out above, blogs are global, like everything on the internet. Also, I don't see anything verifiable here, insofar as anything useful can be said about Belgian blogs, it's probably original research. Friday 19:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, notable. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Please note: It has been determined the mass deletion of blog-related entries at Wikipedia is being organized by the notorious internet troll group the GNAA. User:Timecop, who has the list of targetted entires here, is actually is actually the "President" of the GNAA, as you can see in this "press release" from their website. This whole vfd is a farce.-- Simon.Pole 10:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete- Haeleth summed it up perfectly. Reyk 01:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Organized deletion vandalism merits banning. -- FOo 05:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Please discount this vote on the pretext that the user is not evaluating VfDs on the basis of validity but on accusations of vandalism. -- Veew 13:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete blogcruft.  Grue  18:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep notable. mennonot 11:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Fight against undiscriminated deletion of all blog-related material in WP. __earth 03:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Big Boards

NN forum website. No incoming links. Google search for "site:" and "link:" produce zero results. Sounds like an ad. Can someone find the alexa rating, too? --  Perfecto  Canada 00:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, as per WP:WEB. --  Perfecto  Canada 00:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, Alexa rank says 15723. link:big-boards.com with google actually gives 27400 results. - Bobet 00:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, article fails to assert significance. Ashibaka ( tock) 00:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Reyk 01:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not a web guide, and it's certainly not a place looking for who's got the biggest ones. Geogre 01:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- djrobgordon 02:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. I hate ads. Ifnord 04:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete nn and per above. NSLE ( 讨论+ extra) 09:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB. HGB 18:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete' nn site. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] (W) AfD? 22:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, article doesn't tell us why we should care about this site, and serves only as an advertisement. — Fudoreaper 22:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was that not even the nominator wants this page deleted, hence Speedy Keep. Controversial page moves ought to be hashed out on the article's talk page (and there is an ongoing discussion), and the edit warring ought not to spill over to AfD. Pilatus 00:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Bissap

Rename to Roselle (Plant):
1. Roselle is the English term for this plant (see African source, Britannica) Vizcarra 19:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
2. Roselle is a more common term for Hibiscus sabdariffa than Bissap:



  • Please note, nominator removed content prior to nominating article. Guettarda 21:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • The content was merged without consensus. The information has no bearing on whether to name it "Bissap" or "Roselle" as it pertains to "Jamaica" (a third term, used in Spanish language countries). Either way, not wanting to get involved in a revert war. I will wait until this nomination ends. -- Vizcarra 21:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Yes it is, follow the link above and read the first paragraph: "Articles for Deletion... is where Wikipedians decide whether problematic articles should be... Renamed/Moved to another title". -- Vizcarra 21:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Nice example of selective quotation. "Rename/move" is a valid vote. It is not the purpose of this section of the site, as the sentence you partially quoted makes amply clear: "Articles for Deletion ... is where Wikipedians decide whether problematic articles should be deleted or kept" (emphasis mine). The place to request a page move is, believe it or not, Wikipedia:Requested moves. — Haeleth Talk 23:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep I used to drink Bissap when I lived in Mali! I don't see a good reason why it should be renamed.-- Alhutch 20:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Rename with redirect. Googlefight gives it to Roselle hands down. Swegner 20:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but rename to roselle (plant) WormRunner | [[User talk:WormRunner|Talk]] 23:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply


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

The result of the debate was revert to previous version.  Grue  13:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Blaze

This article is nearly identical to Blaze (Mortal Kombat). Suggest merging any different content from this article into Blaze (Mortal Kombat) and deleting this article. -- Locke Cole 12:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply


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

The result of the debate was delete. — Cleared as filed. 13:22, 24 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Note: The closing admin determined that they had read the deletion debate wrong, and that their initial close was inaccurate. As such, the article has been undeleted. Phil Sandifer 17:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Blogging Tories

This article was marked for AfD by an anon for reasons that seems to be making a point, but then blanked (apparently the anony thought better of it). But the AfD tag was still on the page when I went over to see if it was worthy of being deleted, and I think it is. So I'll save the anonymous guy the trouble of being branded a point'er and nominate it myself. It's a not extraordinary blog group, and though it has some interesting members it doesn't make the group notable in of itself. Delete. Lord Bob 22:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Strong Keep. Blogging Tories is an invaluable resource for Conservatives and politically active Canadians, this is not just some random personal blog; it is a huge online community with thousands of readers and contributors.
  • Keep. How can one "new media" delete references to another "new media". Blogs are useless? As opposed to anything that has been posted to the internet dating back to bulletin boards? Blogging is part of the future of the internet, get use to it.
  • Keep. Both Progressive Bloggers and Blogging Tories are notable by any definition other than a US-is-the-centre-of-the-universe one. I'm personally a little tired of the deletists around here. User:Dr.Dawg17:25 15 November 2005 [DST]
    vote actually by 209.217.124.169 ( talk · contribs), has eleven edits, ten to AfDs, one to this article. Lord Bob 22:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Has notable members and has a reasonable level of readership. Capitalistroadster 22:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep notable in Canada. Please be aware of systemic bias that has been identified in Wikipedia against non-American entries.-- Simon.Pole 23:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This, as well as Progressive Bloggers is not notable, this is no conspiracy theory, these don't belong on wikipedia. - Skrewler 23:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete. not notable, vanity advertisement. -- Timecop 23:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not notable. Incognito 23:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete. Not notable whatsoever. -- Impi.za 00:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Systemic bias in favor of all things internet-related has been identified on Wikipedia also. Countless flash movies, personal websites, blogs and myspace users get articles written about them, when they generally shouldn't. Individual politicans may be encyclopedic, but their blogs rarely are. This article is about a website that aggregates content from a bunch of different blogs. Surely the "notability" of a few noteworhty politicans does not automagically transfer that far up the chain? What's next, an article about the physical server that this website runs on?
  • For those that care about verifiability (which I believe we frequently lose sight of), this article has no references. If anyone can find references to make this verifiable, please put them in the article, not on the Afd page. People reading the article need to be able to see why this website, out of the millions, appears in an encyclopedia. Friday 00:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Surely we don't have articles on myspace users? Just for being myspace users? - R. fiend 01:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
      • Well, we shouldn't. They get deleted easily when they get noticed. Of course, sometimes junk articles don't get noticed... Friday 03:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. -- Femmina 00:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep Nascent group in Canadian politics, particularly with elections imminent. Jtmichcock 00:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, American or Canadian, they aren't notable. -- Kjkolb 00:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as blogcruft, and I say this as neither an American or a Canadian. I'm leaning towards individual country "blogosphere" (shudder) articles as weak keeps, but any subset NO unless there's a damn good reason. - Randwicked 01:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Unless someone can convince me why not to, I'm going to vote delete. Don't we have a policy on self-published authors? - R. fiend 01:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Notable right-wing blogging site, counterpart to Progressive Bloggers. Luigizanasi 02:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Needs to be treated equivalently to Progressive Bloggers. Though my own vote is personally to keep, they either need to both be kept or both be deleted. Any final result which saw one kept and the other deleted would be entirely unacceptable. Accordingly, they should really both be considered in a single vote. Bearcat 02:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Comment. I completely support what Bearcat is suggesting. Anything else would amount to Wikipedia taking sides. Luigizanasi 02:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
That does sound reasonable, yes. My only qualm is a vague uneasiness about adding an article to an AfD well into a vote, but it does seem to be the most fair way in this case. Lord Bob 03:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete 65.34.232.136 02:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    user has just nineteen edits, fifteen of which are to AfDs. Bearcat 03:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Non-notable. *drew 03:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. One of Wikipedia's recognised strengths is that it is up-to-date, especially on recent phenomena. We have articles on every single imaginable video game, most music albums you care to mention, practically every single piece of software out there, a number of usenet newsgroups, Wikipedia did better than the regular news media on recent events such as the London bombings and Hurricane Katrina, and so on. Where else but Wikipedia can people find hopefully neutral information on the recent and increasingly important phenomenon of blogging, especially political blogs, which are not neutral by their very nature. NPOV articles on Blogging groups (not necessarily individual blogs, mind you), perform a vital service to the world at large. Luigizanasi 04:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Nope, sorry, "blogs" are not worth a shit in the real world. JacksonBrown 05:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Commet Please note that User:Timecop has proclaimed a "War on Blogs" on his user page. His user page also says that he is a leader of the Gay Nigger Association of America. The GNAA is a notorious group of organzied trolls on the internet, who actually forced Slashdot to go their original karma system because of unrelenting spam. Looks like they're targetting Wikipedia now. Great. -- Simon.Pole 09:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Comment This definately a GNAA exercise. User:JacksonBrown who voted delete above had a huge GNAA slogan on his user page that was removed by administators (you can see it here). I don't know what else to say. The GNAA is organizing a mass deletion of blog-related entries. All blog-relate vfd's should be stopped immediately.-- Simon.Pole 09:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply

You know, I thought it was a bit odd how many sockpuppets were kicking around with nothing but AFD votes on blog articles to their names. I really should've been digging harder. All votes which are identifiably GNAA sockpuppets are to be considered struck from this debate at once. Bearcat 10:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. No systematic bias, we should delete all pointless American blogs too. — Cleared as filed. 11:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Keep. Notable. Also encyclopedic by viture of its having notable participants and by virtue of its being a subject that many people would want to learn about. 11:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete blogs are not generally worth encyclopedic treatment. Dottore So 11:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Who cares about crappy blogs? Waste of bandwidth. -- 86.2.56.178 12:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Soft Delete The article wasn't worth mentioning from the beginning -- and I don't think much encyclopediac use will ever come of it. -- Depakote 12:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete blogcruft — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 14:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • sockpuppet Dawg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.217.124.14 ( talk • contribs) 09:34, November 16, 2005
      • Comment: Who is Dawg? Above IP address has 4 edits, 3 of them to this AFD page, yet calls me a sockpuppet. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 15:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
        • Perhaps he's saying he's a sock-puppet. Honesty is the best policy... Lord Bob 18:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
        • Judging from his edit history, he's an overzealous newbie who thinks he's helping. Dawg/John/whatever your name is, would you please not do this? A contributor's edit history has to be reviewed before they can be tagged as a sockpuppet; you can't just jump to conclusions or tag people just because they disagreed with your vote. Leave it to the experienced contributors to make that call, okay? (Also, please don't sign your posts with a username you haven't registered; either register a username and stick with it, or sign your posts ~~~~ so we can see your IP number.) Bearcat 20:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • You got the "newbie" thing right. Dr.Dawg is my usual blog-handle--I put my real name in here out of reflex once or twice, but I've voted only once, so "sockpuppet" is a little strong, since no deception was meant. If I can register "Dr.Dawg," I'll do it, but I'm pink enough to have to admit I don't know how! Honest enough?
      • There should be a "Create account/login" link in the top right corner of your screen. Click on that and follow the process there. Bearcat 22:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
        • Thank you. All is now correct. Now, where were we? Dr.Dawg 17:39, 16 November 2005 (DST)
  • Strong Keep. The point of an online encyclopedia is to be a resource for more than just the things you would find in a regular encyclopedia. I checked out the website, and they have a sizable readership, so it seems they aren't some small group that is just wasting space on the Wiki - this belongs here. Keep it. John Hawke 19:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    vote actually by 134.153.184.163 ( talk · contribs). Lord Bob 19:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep.These bloggers are committed to exposing information omitted by the Candian main stream media. Many of the members of the blog roll are Members of Parliament. These citizens are on the forefront of the new age of democracy in Canada. Slider!
    unsigned vote by 24.57.81.147 ( talk · contribs); no edit history prior to this AFD. Bearcat 21:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply

16 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep.An important part of the political landscape - just see the number of users - Davey
  • Strong Keep. This blogroll is important to Canadians. User:'Expert' Tom12:56 16 November 2005 [DST]
    user's first edit. Lord Bob 00:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Not notable. More importantly, I just wanted to point to this post on a blog, which, in my view, contravenes Wikipedia's no sock puppet policy. It may be unfairly influencing the balance of this conversation.
    unsigned vote by Dbarefoot, his ninth edit, even if he's right about the potential meatpuppet storm. Lord Bob 00:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • KEEP! - Important site to represent the Canadian Political Blogging world. It's very significant in how it effects the Canadian Political Atmosphere!-- Frank TML93 01:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    user's first edit Bearcat 01:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep. First thing, I can’t understand how someone can say the Blogging Tories are “not notable” when there are prominent Members of Canadian Parliament as part of the group. I think those people are grossly mischaracterizing the Blogging Tories or wrongly mistaking them as only being two or three random blogs. Blogging is fast becoming an important medium in politics and the Blogging Tories have become one of the largest forces in the Canadian political blogosphere. There are even numerous examples where they have had a direct impact in Canadian politics. There is no reason why an important website like the Blogging Tories shouldn’t be on Wikipedia.-- Esto 02:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • I think I know why people don't find the membership to be convincing. These people could be members of a local supper club too, right? Does that make the club significant? The blogging torries is a website who aggregrates content from people's blogs. Couldn't there be any number of such websites? What makes this one special? I could make a website tomorrow that aggregates content from these people's blogs. Their best claim to fame seems to be when newsworthy events happened which were leaked on the Internet. By having a connection to that leak, they claim they're significant. This is crazy. If I ran into Dick Cheney with my car and got my name in the news, do I deserve an encyclopedia article? Certainly not, and neither do the Blogging Tories. No disrepect meant to them or their politics; I'm strictly speaking about what does or does not belong in an encyclopedia. Friday (talk) 02:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Ok, you asked. Here: 227,000 vs 7,750,000 vs 595,000 google results for each respective group you listed. Which is precisely why they were NOT put up for AFD when I was scanning Category:Blogs for useless cruft. -- Timecop 04:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
What part of "a bigger country can inherently generate more Google links than a smaller one can" implies that smaller countries should therefore be less entitled to Wikipedia coverage? Bearcat 04:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Actually, I lied. Rottweiler wasn't in [[:Category::Blogs]] which is why I missed it. -- Timecop 04:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Other articles are not the concern here. Web stuff is overrepresented here at Wikipedia, so it's not surprising that unverifiable and insignificant websites sometimes have articles about them. Let's judge each article on its own merits, or maybe use the WP:WEB guideline for websites. To answer your specific question, Daily Kos appears to have significant traffic compared to the other ones, even if adjusted by a factor of 5 for the populartion difference between US and Canada. Friday (talk) 04:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
"A factor of 5" does not account for the population difference between the US and Canada. And the WP:WEB guideline quite specifically states that notability can be defined by Alexa rank OR other criteria of the type that have already been proven here, not Alexa AND other criteria. Bearcat 04:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Sorry, you're right. Call it a factor of 10 then. It still doesn't compare. I don't see how other criteria have "already been proven", per my above objections which have not been answered. Friday (talk) 04:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
For starters, as I've stated before, a larger country by definition generates a higher volume of Internet traffic than a smaller one, which is precisely why the notability of a website has to be defined by its own context. Argument by Internet traffic alone, by definition, is an assertion that Canadian stuff has less notability just because it's Canadian — the arguments are inseparable from each other, because Canada's smaller size means a site of Canadian-specific interest inherently can't generate the traffic to compete on raw numbers. And statistically, simply multiplying the lesser site's traffic volume by the population differential isn't a mathematically reliable comparison of influence. The questions of the site's influence in Canadian politics, its notable members, its media presence, etc. have already been answered numerous times. The only valid measure of influence is whether this and ProgBlog are as notable within Canadian politics as Daily Kos is within American politics. The contextual relationship has to be taken into account. Bearcat 04:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with Canadian blogosphere, since I went through all of the links provided above, and I could not find any evidence that this site had any overwhelming influence in Canadian politics. That said, I believe the content does deserve a mention in the overall blogosphere site, since as a whole, it does possess more influence than in other countries. Tito xd( ?!?) 04:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • I'm willing for my suggestion to count as a merge as well if it helps build consensus. I don't believe this should have its own article, but it's possible it could be mentioned elsewhere. However, the article you've suggested as a merge target is on Afd also, and I believe it's original research. I wonder if Politics of Canada or Political Culture of Canada is a good place for this stuff. I still think whatever's used should be verifiable, though. Friday (talk) 05:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Organized deletion vandalism merits banning. -- FOo 05:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)' reply
    • Comment Please discount this vote on the pretext that the user is not evaluating VfDs on the basis of validity but on accusations of vandalism. -- Veew 14:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. It's notable for anyone who's interested in Canadian blogging. -- The Invisible Hand 08:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    user's seventh edit. Lord Bob 08:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply

WARNING - A cry for help was posted on a blog, requesting sockpuppets to vote keep on this article. This goes against Wikipedia's no sock puppet policy. It may be unfairly inhttp://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Blogging_Tories&action=edit&section=1fluencing the balance of this conversation. And User:Timecop/The war on blogs is doing the same thing on the other side of the debate, marshalling a concerted group of unestablished Wikipedia users to bloc vote delete on blog-related articles in contravention of the same policy.

  • Cry for help has been removed to keep in accordance with Wikipedia's no sock puppet policy.
  • Its ridiculous to say that large blog groups like the Blogging Tories are not notable. Take this recent quote from the globe and mail talking about the upcoming election, "there are some who think the Internet and Internet blogs may play a bigger role." Blogging Tories is the biggest force there is in the Canadian political blogosphere, so at the very least, we should wait and see before we say it isn't notable.-- Esto 19:45, 18 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep notable. mennonot 11:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I was in great doubt on this one, but it seems useful to me. Usually I vote for deletion on this kind of things, but if they actually achieved something (however left-wing I am), this may be kept. Nazgjunk - - Signing is for Whimps 20:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply


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

The result of the debate was Redirect to Blog. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 09:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Blogsite

Not encylopedic, this is a dicdef. Skrewler 06:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect to blog, just like most of the links within this article. - Mgm| (talk) 11:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Yes, but, there is already List_of_blogging_terms. This can just be deleted. - Skrewler 11:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
      • Not deleted, redirected. Then people who enter "Blogsite" in the Search box and click "Go" will end up at blog, which is where they probably want to be, right? — Haeleth Talk 17:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • I suppose redirect doesn't hurt. And merge if possible. Punkmorten 20:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per MacGyver. Andrew Levine 23:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. -- Femmina 00:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per Haeleth. -- Quiddity 02:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. 65.34.232.136 02:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Nope, sorry, "blogs" are not worth a shit in the real world. JacksonBrown 05:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Blog. — Cleared as filed. 11:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per above. Dottore So 11:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Worthless. -- 86.2.56.178 12:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • If someone can write an encyclopedic article about blogsites, let them do so. This isn't one, so delete. Tito xd( ?!?) 04:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect. Organized deletion vandalism merits banning. -- FOo 05:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect. to blog for reasons stated above. -- Veew 08:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, recreate, make redirect, and protect aka salt the earth. The bar for blogging terms (and blogs themselves) is just the same as for anything else: make yourself encyclopedic by being on the cover of the New York Times or something. - brenneman (t) (c) 10:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Not notable, wikipedia isnt the place for blogtards. Incognito 12:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Blogstream

Dicdef Skrewler 09:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as per nominator and as part of " War on Portmanteaux" -- MacRusgail 14:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Dicdef. TheMadBaron 15:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Yay, more neolojizzums. "Clearly in evidence during the 9/11 disaster as weblogs became a valuable source of up to the minute information, images and personal experiences." Well, I guess I'm an old cranky Luddite (at the tender age of 20), but I use the news for the former two and the pub for the latter. Sigh, I mean, blogsigh. -- Bloglast Blogthusian 19:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- Femmina 22:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect to List of blogging terms. - Mgm| (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not notable. -- Impi.za 00:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. 65.34.232.136 02:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. Dottore So 11:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete More shitty blog terms. I'll tell you where you can stick them. -- 86.2.56.178 12:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I find this to be a blogging term. -- Depakote 12:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Adamn 15:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This is Wikipedia, not Wikimadeupwords. Reyk 01:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. As above - Incognito 13:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

BLT crew

A group of non-notable phreakers (as if there was such a thing as notable ones). -- Kjkolb 09:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Bojack

Fairly elaborate hoax (probably patent nonsense too but I'm listing it here instead of speedy tagging as the page has a fairly substatial edit history). Google shows no hits at all for "Bojack and Rex" - looks like this article has been around for a couple of months but has managed to slip through the net. Kurt Shaped Box 19:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, Per nom. -- Kurt Shaped Box 19:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete looks like a hoax, this is the handle of some guy Out There and I reckon it's a spoof. But since I would burn all fancruft anyway I may not be the best person to judge... Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] (W) AfD? 19:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • It speaks of a dog which has "been genetically altered with both human and chimpanzee DNA. The ability to speak was given to him following an amazing 47 hour operation in which part of a human brain was implanted." It tells us "Bojack was imprisoned in the heart of a star by the Kais as punishment for his despicable ways." It says "nothing seen on screen is fake or staged".... but I must admit, I'm just a little bit sceptical about all this. Delete. TheMadBaron 21:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, hoax, a long one. feydey 21:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, per TheMadBaron's skepticism. Dragonfiend 21:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Jasmol 23:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, this hoax just won't go away. It needs to be prevented from being re-created yet again, though. NotSuper 01:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete It's amusing, but it's got nothing to do with reality. It needs to be stopped before it regenerates. Alderson Disc 01:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE ALL. Redlinked user discounted with ~18 edits at this point. - Splash talk 01:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Bridges Hall, Childs Hall, Wessex Hall, Whiteknights Hall

Delete. University residences for University of Reading. No notability asserted. They all get a mention on the page for their campus, Whiteknights Park. Perhaps expand that, but these four are unneeded. Wessex Hall is more than a stub, but there is nothing notable. Just another building with beds. Note Windsor Hall is listed above and thus I'm listing all these here. Marskell 08:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete dormcruft. Dottore So 11:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. -- MacRusgail 14:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect all to Whiteknights Park (cf. List of Harvard dormitories). u p p l a n d 16:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC). reply
    • I think this is the best idea ( Oberon2001 19:45, 17 November 2005)
  • Delete all these without redirecting: the names are so generic that there will be hundreds of other buildings by these names, so there really isn't any point in keeping them here even as redirects. — Haeleth Talk 18:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete them all per nominator. unsigned by User:Pilatus
  • Move to less generic title and move and redirect per above once moved. - Mgm| (talk) 23:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Bridges, Childs and Whiteknights - no sources. Keep Wessex - sourced -- redstucco 10:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 20:15, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. - Mailer Diablo 01:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Bruce Xiangji Brewington

Extremely non-notable. Nothing turns up on Google for this person. Recommend that it be deleted per WP:BIO. -- Martin Osterman 11:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete with extreme prejudice. Avalon 12:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Vanity, and mostly nonsense, now tagged for speedy delete. TheMadBaron 14:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Budapest in Danger

suspected cut-and-paste; already an article on obesity Bjones 19:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Bush-Rove rat list

Listed as CSD but meets no speedy deletion criteria I know of. Deserves a review here—listing to prevent later speedy deletion. No vote. — Phil Welch 20:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete not even the cited source includes the term "rat list". This is original research, or at least it would be if there were anything there other than a one-liner. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] (W) AfD? 20:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete speculative sub-stub citing spurious source. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 20:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - OR/speculation. - Satori (talk) 20:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Any sentence in an encyclopedia that contains the phrase "probable but unproven" should be deleted. In this case, that would leave nothing else. - Willmcw 22:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. At this stage, this is unverifiable. Capitalistroadster 23:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - ditto Willmcw. BD2412 T 02:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Willmcw said it better than I ever could. Mo0[ talk] 03:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep (I vote in protest). First off, this page was not finished. I've been having trouble with my Linksys router for the last few days, and this has been severely impeding my ability to collect the remaining data together to make a full article. Secondly, I do not take kindly to User:Kilo-Lima accusing me of treason for creating the article. And thirdly, I posted enough information on that first day for anyone who cares to do so could research it for himself and thereby perhaps speed-up the process of writing a complete article. Grrr...! Fourth: "probably but unproven" is most assuredly valid--analize those words for yourselves--because even though this list has not been proven to exist per se, it is highly unlikely that any presidency so able in the art of undermining opponents could do so without a systematic method of compiling dossiers. I protest to this treatment. Sweetfreek 06:33, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Not exactly you I was accusing of treason! But the article's content. What is the law for treason in the United States?! -- Kilo-Lima 18:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
      • Actively making war against the United States, or giving aid and comfort to its enemies, is the legal definition of treason. A conviction can only come with two witnesses to the same alleged act, or by confession. — Phil Welch 19:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
        • Moreover, 1st Amendment cases have generally ruled that speech and print alone do not by themselves constitue treason. Michael Savage on the other hand doesn't care about details like that (!), but I think most people... screw it--I long ago lost faith in humanity. Sweetfreek 20:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
          • Speaking out against the government would be sedition. However, there is a marked difference between opposing the state itself, and simply opposing a single individual's holding of or actions in a given political office, or any given government decision. — Phil Welch 21:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
            • Unless I am much mistaken, I believe it was Theodore Roosevelt who said that there is a difference between supporting one's country and supporting one's president... or something to that effect. Sweetfreek 05:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Someone's getting sued in Trenton tonight, and it certainly won't be me. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 21:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Cannibal Isle

Article is about a non-notable website (no Alexa rank, no incoming links per Google). Creator vandalized Daniel Watts to replace it with his own biography. - squibix 14:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Cleared as filed. 13:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Charles E. H. Lucy

Vanity article created by subject Justinc 00:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Note that it was split out of great great grandfather ( Charles Lucy) which just about is ok as a stub, but orginally created by an anon IP who clearly really is User:Lucytune whos talk page User talk:Lucytune is basically a copy of the article. Clear vanity, not notable, writing about himself. Justinc 00:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • This has been userfied. This just about gets over the line for mine. The information about working with James Sanger who has produced work by Dido and Keane. Two albums of Lucytuned Lullabies which are versions of third world lullabies see [5] and are available commercially. Keep. Capitalistroadster 01:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
What do you mean "Userfied"? Justinc 01:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Put on the user page Descendall 12:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
What difference does that make? Can someone just verify if this falls within WP:MUSIC guidelines and whether the information is externally verifiable. The article is clearly created by the person in question so there is probable bias. Justinc 02:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Vanity. NN. Ifnord 04:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. nn. mikka (t) 06:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Keep. Sorry. My lazy recearch. He is also referred to as simply "Charles Lucy", and he was even mentioned, e.g., by BBC, hence verifiably notable. mikka (t) 07:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete nn. NSLE ( 讨论+ extra) 09:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as vanity. Dottore So 10:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, borderline passes WP:Bio, the two CDs appear to pass WP:Music, there also seem to be a few thousand downloads of songs from the CDs on some of the music download sites. Also, person is mentioned as the main proponent of Lucy tuning, which seems significant enough. HGB 18:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Merge any non-duplicated content back into Lucy tuning and redirect. MCB 02:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC) reply


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. There is, I think, a single countable keeper. - Splash talk 01:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Charlie_Wenzel

Originally I thought this was an attack page, so I went and tracked down the links. Unfortunately the authoritative sites listed require a login. I think that makes it somewhat unverifiable-ish. Kim Bruning 04:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply


  • Comment Could someone please sort the voting below into sockpuppets and non? Ashibaka ( tock) 03:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • KEEP IT I'm a big thief and a liar, but I'm never gonna Wenzel anyone again now that I know what can happen. Thanks to Pirate 4x4 for scaring me straight. This just proves that the free market can solve all its own problems without government intervention. --Barry
  • KEEP IT If the term wenzeled becomes a popular internet word (such as lol or owned), then it would be beneficial to have an entry about how it came into being. The 'wenzeled' phenomena could prove to be useful to the world of academia and helps us understand how the use of language in society can be altered by the internet, especially to the fields of sociology and linguistics. ~James
  • Delete nn underground Internet celebrity. Ashibaka ( tock) 05:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • KEEP IT It Only requires registration due to it's popularity

    they did not require log in until 900,000 plus people had viewed the threads. and that number is still climbing... we are at 925,576 as of this posting.

    to give you an idea... Alexa has some impressive stats on the matter

    • 120 out of every million pages viewed on the internet in the last 3 days are Pirate4x4.com
    • Pirate4x4 is currently #5,219 most popular site on the net... that doesn't sound high until you remember that there are roughly 46,500,000 sites on the internet.
give it a few days till google spiders all the pages linking to that thread and all the pages talking about charlie wenzel(this one included) and it's going to be pretty obvious how big this thing is.

really that is irrelevant as the actual thread does nothing to illustrate Mr. Wenzel's fame... the other sites do that quite well.

I see no reason why anyone would even suggest to delete this page, it is not an attack page.

If need be i can copy out some of it and re-post it here... or to verify you can register(it is free)

there was an attack page add4ed to the wikionary as "to wenzel" and it was rightfully deleted, however i created the charlie wenzel wikipedia entry specifically as a documentation of the phenomenon and charlies involvement not as an attack.

others who have contributed have even deleted the couple attacks(his reported steroid use) that did exist.

this is now the second attempt to delete it... how many times do we need to go through this?

as for Ashibaka's silly assertion that it is a no name internet celeb... remember that the thread only got publicized outside of its home forum on Friday... in 72 hours the thread had 900,000 views... not too shabby... tell me of anyone else that went from "nobody" to 900,000 viewers, hundreds of sites and multiple t-shirts and bumper stickers and bonafide slang terms in such a short time and i will agree that Mr. Wenzel is no big deal.

this is no different then the Flying Spaghetti Monster in that it started as a joke but caught on.

This should definitely stay

Todrick 06:45:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • keep Registration was only added as a means to stem the MASSIVE amounts of traffic that pirate4x4 was receiving from all over the globe. 900,000 views in just a few days is an internet sensation of ridiculous proportions. This should definitely stay as a testament to the event that happened. I see nothing defamatory about the wikipedia post, all it states is fact. -xenoturkey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.61.224 ( talk • contribs) 2005-11-15 06:49:24 UTC
  • Keep It.

    In addition to the above stated facts, this entry also shows that individuals that one would consider luddites to be more internet savvy than previously given credit for. . . This alone makes this instances rather unique. Individuals that normally we chuckle at for having raised 4x4's and lowered IQ's, 'owned' a nineteen yrld kid who should have known better!

    And it should also be noted that these hits were generated in such a short amount of time without the help of 'normal' media outlets and that this phenonemum also show the dynamic nature of the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.215.191 ( talk • contribs) 2005-11-15 08:00:42 UTC

  • Keep It. This term isn't going to disappear. It is already too big. It has become a signature tune for the detection and 'education' of all internet scammers of which there are already too many. Sooner or later the term WILL become household slang and kids are going to be on here searching for the answer. Why deny them that knowledge? Paul
  • Wenzel this and Delete. Dottore So 11:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete - I'll have forgotten him tomorrow. -- MacRusgail 13:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: non-notable and non-interesting ephemeral phenomenon. - squibix 14:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as NN. Turnstep 14:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • This should stay, at least for the time being. If the term catches on, or people are still talking about this in a month, then it has more than earned it's keep. If in a month's time one can't new material posted which references 'To Wenzel,' then indeed it was just a blip on the radar. However, I don't think that's going to be the case.
  • Speedy delete. Possibly slander. A juvenile vendetta over a $25 dispute that threatens to disclose street address, telephone number, and other highly personal information. Durova 17:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete as attack page. The rampant sockpuppetry here and the begging notice at the bottom of the article earn it two more black marks. — Haeleth Talk 17:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. NN. BD2412 T 17:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
    • ... and send all sockpuppets to Wiki-Hell! BD2412 T 14:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • comment - RE: Haeleth "as attack page." i see no attack anywhere on the page. "The rampant sockpuppetry here"... where? i obviously edit this thing more than anyone else and make no attempt to hide that.

"and the begging notice at the bottom of the article" that is there because it was already nominated for speedy delete... however it violates none of wiklipedia rules to justify a speedy delete.... i can understand you thinking its no big deal... that is why i said wait a few days to see how big it is on google... also there is now an internet scam prevention and awareness site named wenzeled.com... this is a term that will stick... but since "to wenzel" was already deleted from the dictionary due to what i originaly thought was attacks(something i have gone out of my way to prevent here) i made this factual non attacking page... I do wonder now if it was simpyl deleted becasue users here were not framiliar with the term... i understand that it is a new term.

to Durova: i was not even a member of pirate4x4 until i found out about this event so i have no reason to want to attack Charlie. I make no threat to disclose any of charlie's information... in fact i don't think that act was right, but since the term "to wenzel" was deleted from the dictionary it became obvious that you all needed the entire story in order to understand the meaning of the term... so i provided the story... nothing more, nothing less.

if any of you want to read the original thread to verify that everything stated is factual... why not just use bugmenot... that's right... because you have no interest in finding out about things you don't know.

since I appear to be the only one who wants to discuss this. Here is an expert of the wikipedia page on notability:

Obscure content isn't harmful Wikipedia is not paper and (theoretically) has no size limits, and so should include "everything" that fits within its other criteria. There is room for articles on any and every verifiable subject. There is no harm in including an obscure topic, because if it is truly non-notable, people simply won't search for it or link to it. It will not create a significant server load as such.



Deletion reform is necessary A policy of "delete if and only if the article is not verifiable in a reliable source" would make it far easier to decide borderline cases and would turn AfD into a more constructive process, which would make articles Wikipedia more reliable by adding references where possible. The problem with writing "Delete, non-notable" is not about whether the articles should be in Wikipedia, but that it is a quick phrase that does not tell another person why the article is non-notable.

to all those calling for Speedy Delete we have already been down that road and this article passes with flying colors any criteria for speedy deletion

Todrick 18:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Keep

-As for this: Speedy delete. Possibly slander. A juvenile vendetta over a $25 dispute that threatens to disclose street address, telephone number, and other highly personal information. Durova 17:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC) NONE of the information released on Pirate4X4, with the exception of perhaps his yearbook photo, was private information. It was all gathered through postings Charlie made freely and of his own accord to other sites - EVEN the part about banking info. If Charlie did NOT want that information public, he should not have posted it in the first place. This is just another reason why the article should stay - it shows not only the flamewar that can start due to dishonesty (which in reality, matters very little) but the very REAL repercussions of handing out personal information and photos willy-nilly. reply
-- As for Slander - all of the information posted on Wikipedia is verifiable, most of it simply by reading the threads, and the rest by visiting the linked sites. The origional post for $100 has been saved since the begining by Pirate4X4, and Charlie himself owned up to the fact that the parts were actually used. Therefore, though statements made on the forums are certainly bound to contain some exageration and slander, this Wikipedia entry, which simply discusses the documented events, does not.
-- As a side note, Charlie had the option of preventing his public information from being given out by appoligizing and releasing the tracking number of the shipment he claimed to have made. He was prompted to comply by releasing one digit at a time, but instead he chose to continue with his previous course of behavior.

  • Keep: notable, encyclopedic &#10149;the Epopt 22:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete There are already enough flash-in-the-pan jokes here. Jasmol 22:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete with extreme prejudice. Godawful article, completely non-notable incident too that no one will remember next year - or tomorrow, for that matter. And extra points for the most hideous sockpuppetry I've seen in recent times. -- Wwwwolf 00:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • comment i know it's bad form to keep replying, but tell me Wwwwwolf, where is the sockpuppetry?... I see none, I do see a few Wenzelites who don't know the procedures here(i was one until yesterday). I would also love for someone to explain to me why this is non-notable. If you are using the google test then I understand that you don't realize that this JUST happened and google takes a little bit of time to spider pages. I'm assuming you are basing the NN statement on your opinion... but opinions don't count here... an encyclopedia has no opinions. So lets look at the facts we have. It passes the Alexa test with flying colors... The spike is undeniable

that aside... why, if it is non-notable, should it be deleted? Wikipedia's own documentation states(as i posted above) that non-notable is no grounds for deletion if the information is verifiable and non-POV... interest in the subject will determine how many page views the article gets and thus it's inclusion, if it is in fact... fact, has no impact on wikipedia if it is non-notable.... which, of coarse, I have just shown(through Alexa) is not the case anyway. Todrick 02:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • COMMENT I have noticed that everyone calling for deletion seems to be making assumptions, Slander, attack, non-notable, joke, private forum.... I would suggest that anyone who has an opinion on this, either for or against do a bit of research. I am going to modify the article a bit to reflect the private forum issue. Also... what was the reason for this articles nomination... thew original post said she "Originaly though it was an attack page" then she continues with the asumption that it is a unverifiable because of free registration that was only added do to the amazing amount of traffic... nevermind the listr of sites at the bottom discussing Charlies actions. It does not qualify as violating Verifiability and is clearly not an attack but a documentation of actual events. So what was the reason?

Todrick 02:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Oops... looks like Google is starting to find it... and look at that, there is even a link to the Urban Dictionary for the term "Wenzeled".... yes there are some links to non-related sites, but with 5 days before this deletion proposal gets decided... I think this article is going to be sticking around.

Todrick 04:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Keep: The first two pages of a Google search on 'Charlie Wenzel' are in reference to HIM and this event! Come on, keep it. --Sean
  • This is bigger then Star Wars Kid, this needs to stay!!! -Lugburz
  • comment The original thread just passed 1,000,000 views(1,003,511 to be exact) ... I would most certainly call that notable

Todrick 19:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Okay, here's a few thoughts for the article-keep-vote supporters. The real reason people want the thing dead is that the article regards a rather new "internet phenomenon", and the article is pretty awful and in dire need of cleanup and style improvement. Further, it's pushing a neologism - people don't like neologisms too much unless they have been around and there's actual evidence of their use (and no, UrbanDictionary.com doesn't count as evidence, or so I've seen). So unless you gain something other than "underground" fame, or get people organised to fix the article really well, I don't think people will take this article seriously at all. Here's a really big issue, for example. And looks to me the grassroots notability isn't very much established either, not really. Of course we would like to have the article, but the thing is, is this "net phenomenon" really going to be as big as allyerbase? There's no article for this guy either, and he was "bigger than the Star Wars kid" a few years ago, the was picked up by respectable (?) IT media like Slashdot and The Register... and now few people even remember him. In conclusion: Is this thing really important, will it ever become really big? -- wwwwolf ( barks/ growls) 23:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment thanks wolf, just wanted to hear someone lay it out like that. I claim full responsibility for th earticle being laid out badly, and would greatly appreciate others fix it as needed(and no don't just leave it blank like has happened already) I think one hting that will add to the staying power her eis the Scam awareness database being built at wenzeled.com, what i really see happeneing is this gets deleted (because the 5 day window is not long enough for google to catch all the pages and also too short for wenzeled.com to get off the ground), so it gets deleted and down the road, a year or so, people will add an entry to the wikitionary for "wenzeled" but i for one wont be putting in the time to rebuild this page. Todrick 02:33, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Yeah, but remember if this gets deleted, you may add a reference to the wenzeled.com site to external links of some other appropriate article, and if there's some article that covers related incidents, it may be worth of mentioning there. It may just be that this isn't ever going to be big enough thing to get an article of its own. -- wwwwolf ( barks/ growls) 10:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Keep It This is absolutely priceless. At no time should anyone be allowed to act in the manner that Charlie Wenzel did on the web. A lesson earned is a lesson learned. Mad Cat Omni
Keep It This is a good demonstration of how vulnerable anyone is on the internet, and how we should all be honest and courteous in how we act towards each other. CTG 17:50, 17 November 2005
Keep it!! As far as I know being a member of ar15.com, what was written is totally true and a good example of what could happen to scamers!

  • Keep: definitely a phenomenon judging by the scale of views, a cautionary tale on the dangers of swindling and very, VERY funny.
  • comment Here's a really big issue, for example. And looks to me the grassroots notability isn't very much established either, not really.-- wwwwolf
    • Wwwolf, it appears to me that 2 of your 3 links now say otherwise . . . as to 'sockpuppetry' run amuck here, that is probably the fault of my wife and I to some degree, since we are new to 'Wikipedia' and I would like to offer our sincere apologies for not following or understanding proper protocals and etiquette in this discussion. There really are TWO people at this IP address. Really. Sean & Jill
      • Erm, for the sake of clarity, please don't copy old comments over. And no, the two latter searches don't particularly disagree. Google Blog Search gives six hits. Technorati gives nine. Those are not big numbers. Those are small numbers. Everyone and their monkey has a weblog these days and tend to write about weirdnesses in the web; if only nine people bother commenting about this even briefly, it's not really all that widespread. -- wwwwolf ( barks/ growls) 10:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply

[b] Keep it [/b- If such entries as googly eyes can exist, then I see not why this cannot.

  • comment wwwwolf... you need to be more focused on your search... charlie wenzel is known because of the term wenzeled... google thatand you get a much better representation of the reach... also you are still ignoring the alexa spike that shows the reach of this item... and that doesnt even count the second hand tales... it seems obvious that "wenzeled" is the new "pwn3d" Todrick 08:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Ah, but remember what I said about people not liking neologisms? If this article gets nuked, by all means, try creating a "wenzeled" article again in a couple of months if you can find more than 300-some occurences of the word (which, in my opinion, isn't really evidence of particularly widespread use of the term. -- wwwwolf ( barks/ growls) 10:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete : Nonsense and not notable as per squibix. Manik Raina 16:02, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete a not-notable lame forum dispute (over $25!) that, while it's currently 'making the rounds' on forums and blogs, is highly unlikely to be widely remembered even a month from now, much less a decade or century. This could also be said to be unverifiable, as well as possible Speedy delete material as an attack page and/or A7/NN-Bio. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:44, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. There seems to be one or two users who are attempting to dominate this VfD (and possibly edit-spam the whole thing to make it harder to sort out), but I am highly unimpressed by both the article, which is borderline slanderous, and the notability of the subject, which has not yet been established as far as the eye can see. -- TexasDex 01:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • TOAST. Non-notable attack page that deals with ONE action on ONE webpage. -- Martin Osterman 03:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep, 19 keep, 5 delete, 1 merge (counted as keep) Jtkiefer T | C | @ ---- 01:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply


Checkerboard Nightmare

Delete this non-notable webcomic. Article itself gives no indication of notability, listing only plot summaries and character descriptions. The comic concluded days ago (November 11, 2005) after five years without ever finding a large audience. Its current Alexa ranking of 292,426 [6] is either 3 to 30 times the maximum per proposed guidelines at WP:WEB. There appears to be very little demand for a print collection; Amazon.com lists its sales rank as "none" and it has no reviews. [7] A google search turns up 214 [unique site] results [8]. An early vesion of the comic was apparently printed in UCLA's student newspaper in 1999 [9], but not every college student's comic that appears in a student newspaper with a circulation of 17,000 [10] is encyclopedic. This looks like just another non-notable webcomic, and WP:NOT a web directory. Ironically, "Chex's weekly exploits usually involve some sort of harebrained scheme to increase his readership." Dragonfiend 21:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Merge (without the crap) to Kristofer Straub, and note I think this AfD is rather distasteful for a variety of reasons, not the least of which being that the comic JUST ENDED. I will, however, concede that the comic in question is largely an entity within the webcomics spectrum, rather than having any influence outside it (and, largely, that seems to be WHY it ended). Nifboy 04:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. I don't find the nomination distasteful. Direct, maybe, but the points are well-made and well-taken. I think noting it has just ended is relevant: as an already unotable webcomic, it is likely to sink lower. That's a fair point to make in a nomination. Dottore So 14:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Comment: Just a minor point, but unnotable, not unotable. -- Dd42 01:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. - Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 21:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC) The webcomic itself is probably unique in the fact that it is entirely, functionally self-aware. A side effect with this is how many othe comics it references. This makes it something of a meta-comic within the webcomic community. reply
Comment: Webcomics that are self-aware are far from unique. According the article on the webcomic No 4th Wall to Break, "the technique of breaking the 4th wall is a common attribute of webcomics." A Modest Destiny "occasionally breaks the fourth wall," Road Waffles has been "effectively shattering the fourth wall," and Framed! "is a metafictional webcomic." Comixpedia.org's article on Fourth Wall gives five other examples without mentioning this one. Webcomics referencing each other is also far from unique -- there have been countless webcomic cross-overs, cameos, homages, guest strips and parodies of other webcomics. Dragonfiend 01:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
What about the crossover/meme (unsure of how to categorize it) with Queen of Wands and Something Positive? (Kestrel from Queen of Wands, is shown in Something Positive, hit by a red car, which is shown in Checkerboard Nightmare to be by Vaporware. Following the end of Checkerboard Nightmare, Chex was later shown in Lost & Found being hit by a red car himself. Furthermore, Chex *did* attack Piro from Megatokyo as well as several others with a shovel during a story arc, and had a friendly adspace battle with Sore Thumbs, causing some controversy (mostly from the former event). It's also linked to by several other pages. - Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 10:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
We've already established that webcomic cross-overs are plentiful and that this comic "usually involve[s] some sort of harebrained scheme to increase his readership." What we haven't seen is anything to suggest any of these schemes actually worked, that is, anything to dispute Nifboy's assertion that "the comic in question is largely an entity within the webcomics spectrum, rather than having any influence outside it." Following your link to the webcomics blog "Websnark" only confirms this: One of the comments off the home page is from the creator of Checkerboard Nightmare saying "I gave it five years and it plain old didn't do enough to justify me continuing it." I'll respectfully suggest that you reconsider your vote while trying to apply the same standard that you would for other media. A self-published book filled with numerous literary allusions that only attracts a handful of readers is un-encyclopedic. An un-signed band that attracts only a very small audience while playing numerous cover songs is un-encyclopedic. A webcomic whose only claim to fame is that it did numerous cross-overs and cameos but never attracted a large audience is also un-encyclopedic. Dragonfiend 20:29, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Dragonfiend, I find it a testament to the strip's pervasive how you have fallen for every single meta-property Checkerboard Nightmare purported to be, in its effort to deconstruct the nature of webcomics themselves. Checkerboard Nightmare should not be deleted by virtue of it being the only webcomic that used its self-aware nature as a means to further exploration of success and failure on the internet. All other webcomics you have referred to simply use it as an excuse for lack of a punchline. Straub is being playful (as he often is) in his "admission" that the strip failed. He has been invited to speak on webcomics panels with Gabe and Tycho from Penny Arcade, Scott Kurtz from PVP, and many other popular webcartoonists. His strip has been referenced as THE standard for metahumor in webcomics by many webcartoonists and readers. Straub himself has said that if the strip did become popular, it would sort of have failed at its own mission, which is why I believe he decided to end it. He had said all that was needed to say about webcomics as a search for internet fame. If Checkerboard Nightmare is deleted, so should the equally "unsuccessful" strips Road Waffles, Framed!!! A Modest Destiny, No 4th Wall to Break and Queen of Wands. DrHot 22:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Allow me to add that the above panel was at the San Diego Comic-Con. Which, I believe, is the largest comic convention in the U.S. if not the world. Somebody, obviously, thinks CxN is notable. King Nerd

*Keep. A far more valid example of webcomics metahumor than any other webcomic mentioned in this AfD. The author, Kristopher Straub, has been invited to speak on many panels at conventions at the same table with web giants Penny Arcade, PVP and Bob the Angry Flower. It is the quinessential example of metahumor, to the point where the original requester for deletion missed its nuance entirely. DrHot 22:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Vote discounted by closing admin Jtkiefer T | C | @ ---- 00:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply

*Keep. This is a joke, right? It would be hard to consider a more notable webcomic within the webcomics community outside from absolute top tier webcomics like PvP or Penny Arcade. It was significant news and of significant impact when Straub left Keenspot to connect with Blank Label Comics (after several years on said Keenspot and significant time as one of the top webcomics on Keenspace, both of which would on their own indicate automatic inclusion over here). Clearly, whoever put this up for deletion doesn't understand even the most cursory elements of the artistic field he's trying to 'edit.' I would recommend he or she not muck around with the webcomics entries without significantly more exposure to webcomics in general and the community in particular. Eric Burns 23:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Vote discounted by closing admin Jtkiefer T | C | @ ---- 00:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply

*Keep. I have to agree with the Websnark here. Perhaps CN may not be "notable" or "important" to your little circle, but to the general webcomics community CN has become a rather important strip, even if only for Straub's personal effects on the community through the strip.-- Plaid Phantom 23:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Vote discounted by closing admin Jtkiefer T | C | @ ---- 00:59, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply

*Keep, as per Eric Burns. Nobody 23:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Vote discounted by closing admin Jtkiefer T | C | @ ---- 00:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply

*Keep: The reasons given for deletion seem spurious and show a lack of understanding of the material. And the phrasing of the statement "The comic concluded days ago" simply speaks to the increasing ridiculous of intenert time where a week is the equivilant of five or ten real years. Nedlum 23:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Vote discounted by closing admin Jtkiefer T | C | @ ---- 00:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply

*Keep, as per the other keeps. -- Meeowth 23:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Vote discounted by closing admin Jtkiefer T | C | @ ---- 00:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply

*Keep, as above. Comment that it's pretty important to see the person suggesting is blatantly lying: the google search he links to which he claims "gives up only 212 results [11] " actually gives up about 53,800. [Apologies if this is too much bold, but this is a point which is pretty bloody important to note. Given this guy's link is evidence for the opposite of his point, don't forget this]. 00:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC) —preceding unsigned comment by 138.251.224.11 ( talk •  contribs)

Vote discounted by closing admin Jtkiefer T | C | @ ---- 00:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply

*Keep. Notability is something beyond Alexa rankings and currency. I would certainly consider a critically regarded webcomic to be more notable than Alien 5.2 in Star Trek, Episode X. Dismissing CN on notablity grounds is both spurious and grossly uninformed. -- Catnik 00:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Vote discounted by closing admin Jtkiefer T | C | @ ---- 00:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply

*Keep, also as per Eric Burns. samd 00:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Vote discounted by closing admin Jtkiefer T | C | @ ---- 00:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply

*Keep: Checkerboard Nightmare is one of the most brilliant and noteable webcomics in the artform's history. A vote to delete the entry betrays a complete lack of understanding of the artform -- some may say that it's just another fourth-wall-breaking strip, but that's because they haven't actually read it. Checkerboard Nightmare actually parodies these conventions and others. Its sharp, penetrating satire will continue to be relevant as long as webcomics exist. —preceding unsigned comment by 68.249.220.249 ( talk •  contribs)

Vote discounted by closing admin Jtkiefer T | C | @ ---- 00:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply

*Strong keep. Checkerboard Nightmare has been a fixture on the web comics scene for years, and is definitely notable. RMG 01:19, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Vote discounted by closing admin Jtkiefer T | C | @ ---- 00:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply

*Keep: Checkerboard Nightmare was and is an entertaining engine for parody and analysis of webcomics and our society at large, and is easily worth note. —preceding unsigned comment by 128.135.98.55 ( talk •  contribs)

Vote discounted by closing admin Jtkiefer T | C | @ ---- 00:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply

*Strong keep. Kristofer Straub is an extremely respected artist, who has, besides Checkerboard Nightmare, participated in many guest strips, conferences and has supported other webcomic artists. he is also one of the key founders of Blank Label. He DOES NOT deserve to see his first creation to be forgotten. The comic ended only a short while ago: deleting the enntry is plain ridiculous. —preceding unsigned comment by Psyclone ( talk •  contribs)

Vote discounted by closing admin Jtkiefer T | C | @ ---- 00:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This webcomic is quite well known. Yes, it's well known in the area of webcomics, but how many people other than Geologists care about Creedite? Or Joseph Robbie, how many people other than lifetime fans of the dolphins could say who he is? Wikipedia has always been important for fringe groups. - Fuzzy 02:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

*Keep I'm neither a fan of Straub nor his comic, but to imply that it is not a major influence in the webcomics community, or that it is 'unnotable' due to spurious statistics or because it is ended is to ignore all the discussions inspired, the events chronicled and the concepts explored by this very, very well known strip and by Straub. I would recommend that if you want to consider whether or not an entry concerning webcomics be deleted in the future that you actually consult with someone with at least a passing familiarity with them. For future reference, a strip ending does not always mean failure, and after a number of years, such as this, it almost never does. It just means that the author has said what he/she needed to say.-- Blackbyrd2 02:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC) —preceding unsigned comment by 216.134.160.149 ( talk •  contribs) reply

Vote discounted by closing admin Jtkiefer T | C | @ ---- 00:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Suggest politely that Dragonfiend stop nominating webcomics for deletion, as he is very obviously not capable of making reasonable judgments of notability if he is nominating this. Phil Sandifer 02:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Ravenswood 03:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC) EDIT: Also, Alexa is not a very good indicator of popular opinion, since it can only be used to poll people who are dumb enough to install Alexa. Smart people, therefore, are underrepresented. Ravenswood 04:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • User has over 250 edits. Ravenswood ( talk •  contribs)
      • I appear to have 272 edits. How do you put that link on there? Is there a macro or something? Ravenswood 07:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

*Keep, as per above. 149.169.88.9 03:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Vote discounted by closing admin Jtkiefer T | C | @ ---- 00:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply

*Keep What is wrong with some of you people? Do you even read webcomics? And its aleady pretty much a given that a sites Alexa ranking is by no means a proper test of its "worthiness" for inclusion in the Wiki. - Donny !—preceding unsigned comment by 69.170.218.57 ( talk •  contribs) **User has seven edits. 69.170.218.57 ( talk •  contribs)

      • Edit: Evidence? What evidence has been shown that it ISN'T relevent other than ignorance of the comic and conjecture by the person who put it up for deletion? Evidence? How about being recognized as a voice for webcomics by the likes of PVP and Penny Arcade? Helping to start Blank Label Comics? Being a top comic on Keenspace for years? And as other users have stated, Kris has been a speaker at major panels for webcomics.
        Edit edit: Oh nos! Seven edits? That totally invalidates my and other's opinions!—preceding unsigned comment by 69.170.218.57 ( talk •  contribs)
      • Please provide some way for participants to verify that this is "recognized as a voice for webcomics".
      • Please provide some way for participants to verify that "Kris has been a speaker at major panels"
      • It's all very well to claim such things, but unless it can be confirmed, the deletion decision will progress as if such claims had not been made. Something like mentions in newspapers, weblinks to media, anything other than simply "it's so because I say it is."
        brenneman (t) (c) 05:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply
        • And yet you're not holding yourselves to those standards. All your arguments for deletion are "because I say so". By your own admissions you don't even READ the comics you're putting up so how would you know their value? And have you ever considered simply asking Kris about some of this stuff? I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be difficult to get confirmation that he goes to the San Diego Comic Con or that he's been a speaker there. And if you're looking for a recent link at a major site, Blank Label Comics (Kris included) just got done a shortwhile ago with a guest week at PVP. - Donny (who doesn't give a flip how many edits he has)
          • I think you're a bit confused. I don't read webcomics? Regardless, the burden is upon the person who makes a claim to support it. If you cannot ot will not provide refernces per WP:CITE than it must be assumed that such references do not exist. - brenneman (t) (c) 06:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply
            • Fine. Here you go. [13] The San Diego Comic-Con's program. "Is Newspaper Syndication Dead? The Future of the American Comic Strip". Bobulus 07:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply
              • Here is one of the Comic-Con 2005 panels. Straub spoke on two. [14] DrHot 09:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply
        • I think its clear that anyone speaking in favor of deleting this comic's entry doesn't read webcomics. Is that specific enough for you Brennemen? And whether you like to admit or not the people who submitted it for deletion are the ones who shoulder the burden of proving their point. Like I said, its as simple as asking Straub about the cons and a look into PVP's and Penny Arcade's archives show that Kris is linked by them not simply because they like his comic, but because they view him as a peer, as an equal voice in webcomics. I'm tempted to say that the shit-storm you guys unleashed simply by nominating this comic is enough to prove its worth but you're likely to question that as well. - Donny.
Vote discounted by closing admin Jtkiefer T | C | @ ---- 00:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply

*Keep: As stated above, a great contribution to the field of webcomics. Take the requirements Dragonfiend linked to; Checkerboard Nightmare qualfies for, at the very least, two of them. By his own standards, it should remain. That aside, Checkerboard Nightmare was a pioneer in the metahumor of mocking the flaws common to the thousands of terrible webcomics out there. Bobulus 05:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Since, while I was spellchecking my writing, a warning about ensuring citing appear, let me list more directly why Checkerboard Nightmare should continue it's listing:
  • It is a part of both Keenspot (retired) and Blank Label Comics, two places the WP:WEB lists as large enough Webcomic Syndicates to count. [15] [16]
  • As mentioned above, a Google search turns up 53,000 hits, not the 212 listed by Dragonfiend. His link: [17]
  • If I'm understanding the WP:NOT Directory argument correctly, it only applies if the wikipedia article is being used to provide only, say constantly updating information or scheduling. This is not the case with this article.
  • The fact that the comic is based around the quest for popularity does not mean that is lacking in popularity. Rather, it is entirely based on mocking the average webcomic's quest for fame and glory. All the various cheap 'tricks' that a webcomic will try to gain viewers are pulled out and mocked, a field that is not exactly deeply covered in webcomics. Bobulus 05:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • The criterion in question was actually added as a result of this discussion, is now being used in support of this discussion, and has very little support outside that of the person who added it to WP:WEB.
  • Searching for ""checkerboard nightmare" webcomic" yields 17,400 hits, but nothing impressive [18]. Compare that to Megatokyo's 50K+ and Penny Arcade's 130K+.
    brenneman (t) (c) 05:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • I'm not sure I understand what you mean. According to [19], that criteria was added on October 24th to that page, and therefore was added a couple weeks before the motion to delete for this topic appeared. I would argue that if the original poster uses it as evidence for a deletion, then the people opposed to said deletion should then be able to use it to help their case, should it apply.
  • While it's not as popular as Penny-Arcade or Megatokyo, I was mainly pointing out that 53k was actual number of results for the search linked to in the original objecting post, when he had incorrectly stated it was 212. Bobulus 06:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • That guideline had been removed as not compatible with one of the five pillars of wikipedia, which requires external verification from independant sources. "Syndication" in this instance is only very loosely aligned with readership, notability, or profitability, and thus had been excluded by the majority if participants in the the discussion. It was only added back in the last few days, purportedly based upon this discussion. - brenneman (t) (c) 06:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Vote discounted by closing admin Jtkiefer T | C | @ ---- 01:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete no evidence provided that this is encyclopedic. - brenneman (t) (c) 05:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Could you provide evidence that it isn't encyclopediac? Offer some criteria in determining if it is encyclopediac? -- John Lynch 08:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: It gets about one-fifth as many search hits as Leeroy Jenkins. Clarification: by my count it's 309,000 to 63,800. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 06:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Why is this a reason to delete??? Scix 06:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Really? By my count it's 86,400 [20] to [21] 53,800. And you're ignoring the fact that by WP:WEB CxN is notable by being a [founding] member of Blank Label [22] and a former memeber of Keenspot [23] both of which are listed as examples of syndicates which being a member of should immediately constitute notability. While it has not actually won any of the awards listed, it's useful to note it won an honourable mention this year [24]. J•A•K 06:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC) - I commented before but have just created this account reply
  • Keep I never cared for the strip much, but as an avid webcomic reader, I am willing to assert (though adittedly too lazy to calidate with links) that this comic and its creator are often referenced, and quite infulential, within the webcomic community. -- WikidSmaht ( talk) 06:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • As nicely as possible, that really doesn't help. This is not a vote so unless you do provide the links, how are we supposed to check the facts? - brenneman (t) (c) 06:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply
      • Google finds 53,900 hits for the full-length title alone. The community is as active as any I've seen, barring the superstars of the genre. What more is needed? I don't even understand why this is up for debate. Scix 06:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

*Keep Since when has being mildly obscure been a reason to not have a Wikipedia article? In fact, I read somewhere that we were 'encouraged' to create articles on obscure and little-known things.
And within its field this is NOT obscure and little-known. Do not take at face value the angst of the protagonist. It's fictional, y'see. 'Further' -- don't you think this much discussion might be evidence 'in and of itself' that the comic is not insignificant? I say keep the article, but call for a rewrite Scix 06:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Vote discounted by closing admin Jtkiefer T | C | @ ---- 01:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I find the original argument compelling. I also want to add, as I always do, the importance of guarding against a bias in favor of internet trivia while excluding things that are more notable in the real world. We need to apply consistent standards. Everyking 06:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • I'm sorry, I don't understand this argument -- is there a shortage I don't know about, where keeping an article means another article doesn't get space? Scix 06:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply
      • No, I just won't go along with the inconsistency. I've seen articles I've written deleted even though their subjects were far more notable than this trivial webcomic. If it was a genuinely notable webcomic that succeeds in meeting the general guidelines for giving websites articles, then I would vote to keep. But the original argument suggests the opposite. Everyking 07:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply
        • Thanks for explaining. I'm don't know whether CxN is more or less important than the stuff you've seen deleted, but I'd hate to see something removed that someone might actually find useful one day. I am admittedly new here -- I'm not sure WHY anyone would delete ANY article that wasn't specious or damaging. Consistency is important, but isn't it better to err on the side of inclusion? And mightn't it be a bad precedent to fight to delete something because something else was deleted unfairly? I'm just curious aobut this whole process. Scix 07:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply
        • Please. There's articles for every single railway station in England in Wikipedia. If we started applying "consistant standards" of notability, half of Wikipedia would disappear overnight. ALSO: What makes you think this comic is obscure? Just because you've never heard of it? Come on. Ravenswood 07:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply
        • That seems just a little biased, don't you think? The original poster has at least one of his facts wrong, and if you don't investigate yourself, or at least read an opposing viewpoint, how would you know? Plus, comparing the rate of deletion in a different topic area doesn't really seem fair. Bobulus 07:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: In regards my original Google search, 212 was the number of unique sites Google turned up when I created this AfD. Looking at the number of unique sites is commonly used to avoid over-counting sites which have multiple pages with the same keyword. For example, right now when I go to the last page of a Google search for "Checkerboard Nightmare," [25] I see "Results 221 - 223 of about 53,900." That means that 223 sites mention Checkerboard Nightmare. The 53,900 figure isn't statistically useful because it includes, for example, all 640 pages on checkerboardnightmare.com [26], all 941 pages on nightlightpress.com [27], 444 pages on keenspot.com [28], etc. What is important when judging the reach of this comic is that around 200 sites have mentioned it, not that some of those sites mentioned the comic many hundreds of times. I have edited my nomination to clearly say "unique sites" and apologize for any confusion. Dragonfiend 07:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply
This isn't quite right. When you perform a google search, it collects a sample of 1000 pages (based on pagerank). What you are seeing is the total number of unique pages per the thousand collected. A rough extrapolation requires therefore that you take the total number of unique hits x the total# of pages, divided by a thousand. It's far from scientific, but it gives you a rough idea of the overall web presence, compensating for Google's search return system. This, btw, is why the number of duplicates frequently changes, even over several minutes or hours. Google is returning a slightly different sample. A quick verification of this is using wikipedia itself on google. You will see that WP only generates a few hundred 'unique hits,' despite millions of returns. That is the duplication within the 1000 sampled result. In this case, based on your link above, the 53,900 google hits should be multiplied by a fifth - or roughly 10,000 unique hits. This organised forum voting notwithstanding, a defunct nn webcomic with a few rabid fans is still a defunct nn webcomic. Eusebeus 13:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Then I still don't understand your system. A search for "Checkerboard Nightmare", take to the "last page" [29], shows 336 unique hits, by your system. Megatokyo, a counter-example given above and obviously a lot bigger, under the same system, only goes to 439. [30]That system doesn't seem to provide very reliable results, if I'm understanding it correctly. Bobulus 07:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply
      • It seems to imply that Megatokyo is only 1/3 more popular than CxN. Which is interesting, really. Not that this is a popularity contest. Scix 07:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Reading [List of ways to verify notability of articles] suggests the number of backlinks is a way of guaging notability: for the current domain name which I believe has been in use for under a year we get 713 results, 99 of which aren't similiar [31]. Is this appropriate? J•A•K 10:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply
        • It's official. I thought my respect for the webcomics coverage at Wikipedia crumbled when certain Wikipedians outright REFUSED to accept any form of a coverage within the webcomics community clause in the new guidelines for webcomics inclusion. No matter how carefully worded Under the new guidelines, I'd say even Megatokyo deserves to be deleted for goodness sake. The webcomics community at Wikipedia has been commandeered by a few loud voices. Forget this encyclopedia. Tedzsee 07:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • How many edits does Dragonfiend have? Or Nifboy? Let's get everybody's edit count out in the open. It's unfair otherwise. Ravenswood 07:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC) ( Ravenswood has 250+ edits) reply
  • Keep. For the comic to have continued for five years seems significant. More important to me, however, is that several of the editors who have previously edited articles in the comix area believe it is notable. I see no reason to delete it. -- DS1953 07:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Keep - Doesn't break any of the official Wikipedia guidelines. References to WP:WEB are pointless at this stage as it is only a proposed guideline. It's quite possible it will never be an official Wikipedia guideline. I could make a proposed guideline tomorrow saying all articles have to include the word hallelujah or else be deleted. Doesn't mean articles have to follow it. Notability - point to me where this an official wikipedia guidelines states it is a requirement for articles to only be about notable topics. I've searched and found no such reference. Why should articles have to meet a non-existent requirement? Any logical person would say they shouldn't have to. Also comments that Wikipedia isn't a web directory are dishonest at best. The article WP:NOT merely says that an article shouldn't be just a collection of links. The Checkerboard Nightmare article is definitely NOT a collection of links. To say it is is ridiculous. I also find that stating how many edits people have is antagonistic and will only serve to further drive even more people away from Wikipedia. Oh and I've only got 200 edits, so I suppose my opinion is equally meaningless.-- John Lynch 08:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Whatever happened to Wikipedia is not paper??? Even if CxN was "non-notable" (which I disagree with), there would still be grounds to include it. Dragonfiend, I think you're being a bit too eager to delete things, there. (My opinion) Ravenswood 09:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • I'd also like to add: One of the things Dragonfiend mentioned was, "Article itself gives no indication of notability, listing only plot summaries and character descriptions." -- In other words, the article is badly written. The cure for that is fixing up the article, not deleting it. The Wikipedia guidelines agree with me on this. Ravenswood 10:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Vote discounted by closing admin Jtkiefer T | C | @ ---- 01:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: nominating an article about a successful webcomic on the grounds that it has "finished" is like saying that Bleak House shouldn't have an article because Dickens finished writing it ages ago. This stupid conflict about webcomics has gone on long enough; maybe those nominating these articles should go and write something themselves for a change. — Phil | Talk 09:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

* Keep: The only reasons given for deletion is it wasn't popular and it already ended. In a few minutes I've found three wikis that fit those requirements: the nintendo Power Glove wasn't popular, the cartoon Swat Cats only lasted two years, and the cartoon Sonic Underground lasted but one year. Yet all three of those have pages. So it seems the strongest argument for deletion has NO CHANCE unless you plan on deleting ALOT of other pages. — Captainhero 04:40, 21 November 2005 (CT)

Vote discounted by closing admin Jtkiefer T | C | @ ---- 01:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The notability criteria is going insane. We need to bear in mind the INTENT behind wikipedia's guidelines, and there is no way that this deletion would enhance wikipedia. The people putting up articles for deletion for 'non-notability' need to take a long hard look at their reasons for doing so. You can't just expect to alienate one small community after another, and get a good project out of it. If in doubt, don't delete. The fact that a community exists around a topic which can protest its deletion at all is a proof of notability that overwhelms statements confessing personal ignorance from any other number of outsiders.-- Fangz 12:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • I'd like to add that I don't think comparing the edit counts of voters is at all useful here. Edit counts are only needed if you suspect sockpuppeting or attempts by vandals to sabotage the process. Every indication in this case, and many such cases is of the opposite - that the low edit votes amount to popular action by those outside wikipedia who are unhappy with this deletion. I do not believe that there is a credible argument that their voice is worth less in deciding notability than established wikipedians. Turning away newcomers, dividing readers from editors and elevating the existing cabal is precisely opposed to the stated mission of wikipedia, and is an assumption of bad faith.-- Fangz 12:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • No vote, but delete the ugly orange banner from the top of the page, per Fangz and his mention of 'the assumption of bad faith'. - squibix 13:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This comic may not exactly meet any one of the proposed guidelines, but it comes close on enough of them that it shouldn't be removed. I also agree with the sentiment that it's influential. – Abe Dashiell ( t/ c) 14:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep well-known comic by well-known author, often referenced by webcomic commentators. (And I have >500 edits.) DenisMoskowitz 14:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

*Keep I'm not sure I see why this would even be seriously considered a candidate for deletion. The article could stand improvement but does present information that those seeking it would want to get. The topic is popular enough that it should be included in an encyclopedia with 800,000 plus articles. I think someone has a bit of a vendetta against webcomics, or at least is giving that appearance with these actions. I agree with the poster that pointed out that many UK railway stations have a lot less relevance... To me Wikipedia should be what its authors want to make of it, and if several editors have been contributing content that seems good enough to me. Further, I'm not sure what the relevance of posting edit counts is, but go ahead and post mine, I'm curious, I can never get the tool to work for me to find out where exactly I stand... ++ Lar 15:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Vote discounted by closing admin Jtkiefer T | C | @ ---- 01:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply

*Keep First of all, I'm not sure how many "edits" I'll have, as I'm on a rotating IP address, since I sign on from various locations at my college. And secondly, I'm disgusted that it matters. If someone cares about the content of this encyclopedia, even in this one case, then by the founding principles of Wikipedia their voice counts as much as anyone else's. If someone has three edits--all on Webcomics--why should their voice be less than one with 350 edits all on, say, United States politics? It's artificial elitism, and it's disgusting. Next, this is a ridiculous candidate for deletion. The rules were designed to prevent vanity posts. This is not a vanity article. CxN may not have gained a huge readership, but it was exceedingly influential in the webcomics community. Mr. Straub has spoken alongside lumanaries such as PvP and PA repeatedly. It is by nature a webcomic about webcomics, and as such is a humor parallel to a webcomics trade journal. Finally, this discussion should not be taking place. Remember: Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Rules are not applied regardless of applicability. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. There is no limit to what may be covered. Dragonfiend, you are nothing but a loudmouth and a bully, and your attack on this page is nothing short of reprehensible.

    • Um ... WP:NPA anyone? I know I'm not exactly in the best position to do this, but it does seem like Dragonfiend has made a mistake, been somewhat abrupt, but all he's been doing is trying to make wikipedia better, for his view. Which is what we all should be doing, really. I think there seems to be a consensus that no one still thinks there's justification for deletion, as policy stands. Chill. And wonder about the deletion policy that means no one noticed for almost long enough for the deletion to go ahead. J•A•K 17:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • No vote Despite being a CxN fanboy, I can find no compelling reason why it absolutely needs a WP article; I think it would be somewhat remiss to let it pass without any mention at all, but the exact details of the strip are probably not of great importance (and are readily available on the strip's own site). However, I can't help but think that this deletion proposal is an arbitrary one; it's based on proposed guidelines that could potentially exclude a majority of the items on the List of webcomics (depending on how strictly the fuzzier ones are interpreted), yet I don't see anything else up for deletion and it's not like CxN falls outside of those guidelines by an especially flagrant margin. Unless someone's willing to bring out the pruning shears (or more likely, the chainsaw) on Wikipedia's webcomic section, I think this debate would have been more appropriate as part of the discussion on the guidelines for webcomic inclusion. Given the broader discussion that's taking place on webcomics policy, I think that it should be examined not only why CxN should or shouldn't be deleted on its own merits but also what makes it more or less worthy of deletion than any other questionable webcomic entry. I certainly assume Dragonfiend had no ulterior motives in moving this for deletion, but the only unique qualification CxN seems to have compared to other entries for non-major webcomics is that the series just ended. Is active update status going to be a consideration for future deletion policy, then? In the absence of any other visible reason why CxN in particular should be moved for deletion, it seems like its update status is the deciding criterion for this proposal. Either some deciding factor (whether the strip's recent ending or some other reason which I have missed) that's been applied for the consideration of this page's deletion should be brought to the talk page on websites, or it's time to take an axe to the webcomics section. 137.48.20.136 18:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC) (I have a grand total of 2 edits, as I fixed a typo once a couple months ago. Make of that what you will.)
Vote discounted by closing admin Jtkiefer T | C | @ ---- 00:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - looks like a factual, verifiable and neutral article can be written here. Certainly no valid reason for deletion is given. Trollderella 18:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

*Keep - Wikipedia's job is to archive and categorize information. not to decide which information is "good enough".

Vote discounted by closing admin Jtkiefer T | C | @ ---- 00:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - It's a fairly well-known webcomic... *shrug* An argument could certainly be advanced for it's deletion, but I don't think it's a good argument. Fox1 (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Notable Webcomic. Whats with the rush for AfD? Dominick [[User_talk:dominick|<sup>(ŤαĿĶ)</sup>]] 20:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Very notable webcomic. Factitious 21:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. (At the very least, minor) notability established. El_C 23:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This seems to be popular in the webcomic community, and I see no reason to be deletionist about anything that's not blatant vanity or nonsense. Some people on other sites are badmouthing Wikipedia because we're even considering deleting this; while I don't favor caving in to outside pressure on any issue here, this is one where there just isn't any reasonable justification to delete compared to the justification to keep. *Dan T.* 00:09, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply

*Keep. Not only is the comic notable, but I don't think Wikipedia is in any way helped by removing the article. neongrey 00:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Pre-emptive note: user has ~20 (non-webcomic-related) edits. To new users and/or those user with very low edit count: your votes will never count as high (if at all) as those of more established editors. This is simply a precuation to prevent self-promotion. You are, of course, welcome to vote and comment. But expect such notices as the above. The best suggestion I could offer these users is to provide sources which help establish the given subject's notability. That carries infinitely more weight than voting keep & commenting. El_C 00:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Vote discounted by closing admin Jtkiefer T | C | @ ---- 00:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for many reasons! NSR ( talk) 00:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I'm fascinated how lack of coverage in Websnark is being used as reason to delete, and when Eric Burns, the writer of Websnark, votes to keep, his vote is discounted because of a low edit count. If the President of the United States voted "Keep" by announcing that Checkerboard Nightmare was America's Official Webcomic, the Wikipedia admins would cross it out: "only one edit." I imagine a good way to build an edit count is to nominate as many things as possible for deletion. DrHot 01:03, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Wow. Discounting votes bewcause of low edit counts seems a bit ... odd. Especially as I tohught this was pretty clearly stated as NOT a vote! (and for the record, I have more edits than recorded, because it took me a while to register. What do you suppose the cutoff count is?) At leastt he comments are still fairly legible, as I think some good points have been made entirely separate from "voting." Scix 01:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply


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

The result of the debate was Userfied by Friday.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 09:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Chess and Harry Potter/ User:Al pearson

POV essay. WP:NOR. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 18:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. PJM 18:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NOR and WP:No more fancruft. Oh, I made that up. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] (W) AfD? 19:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • I've been bold and speedily userfied this. It's quite clearly not an encyclopedia article. Friday [[User_talk:Friday|(talk)]] 22:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, user has no other contributions. Don't allow essays, spam and adverts to hang around on userpages of people who will likely never return. - Mgm| (talk) 23:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Chreastermas

Neologism / Hoax Saint Midge 00:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Nonsense Alr 01:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Neologism and hoax. We call that time the Ides of March, and we go off and stab tyrants then. Geogre 02:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - non notable neologism, funny, but not noteworthy. -- malo ( talk- myedits) 02:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Beware, article, for it is the Ides of March and thou art a neologistic hoax! Ifnord 04:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this joke. Marskell 07:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, this is mentioned on The Swiss Knight and related hoax pages. Descendall 12:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete nonsense. HGB 19:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete due to being completely bogus. Mo0[ talk] 02:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Closetized

"Closetize" isn't a word, only has 3 google hits, and could never be more than a definition, anyway. -- Frekja 09:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. Jtmichcock 11:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination. I used to be in the fortunate position of never having heard that word. Avalon 12:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Dicdef, neogolism. TheMadBaron 14:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. "'We better closetize this information, I am going to closetize my feelings'" actually made me laugh. Descendall 06:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Colt (comics)

  • Delete - This was created by a user who was vandalizing, do not know if this comic even exists. LifeStar 15:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete there are a couple of possible contenders for a comic book called Colt, but neither of them matches this incoherent nonsense. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] (W) AfD? 21:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 19:38, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Counter-Strike DL

Seems like an advertisement. Alexa ranking here: [32] Also, look at all these redirects that point to it: Coutner Strike Podcast Most popular cs skins website Most popular cs skin site Most popular cs site Popular cs site Popular cs skin site Most popular cs skins site Popular skins site Ashibaka ( tock) 00:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Anytime someone tries to do keyword spamming it shows what their intent is. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 01:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete You may want to take those rdeirects to RfD if you haven't already, too. <font color="#663366">Jacqui</font><sup> [[User_talk:Jacqui M Schedler|★</sup>]] 01:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • I found the article via RfD, they should be gone in a few days. Ashibaka ( tock) 01:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete article and all related redirects. Advertising. Saberwyn 09:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • No idea about the site itself, but the spam redirects need to go. http://www.counter-strike.net/ is far more popular according to Alexa and since it's the official site for the game, I have little doubt, they're right. - Mgm| (talk) 09:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all. Spam. Dottore So 10:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, keyword spamming. HGB 19:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • UE, D ComCat 02:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Been playing CS since early betas, have heard of most CS sites out there. This however, is on no ones radar. - Hahnchen 02:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Time for Explaining - The original article was created by one of the site owners as a joke. (a member called theendless). Upon finding it, I decided to change the wikipedia entry to be more informative and accurate. I was completely unaware of these redirects, please delete the redirects. (I am aware of how stupid redirect spam is). Many people have found the article useful though, I've received mail asking about the LAMP setup the site uses. If you look at the first version of the article, you'll be able to see how it did look (way too promotional). I've made it informational now, not promotive. So, delete the redirects, but not the article itself. (And I'll be having words with the member who ceated the redirects. -- Elliothaughin 01:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Coveo

Blatant spam, makes not even a token effort to be encyclopaedic or to establish whether it passes WP:CORP - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] (W) AfD?

  • Delete — Advertising. — RJH 20:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and blatant advertising. Ifnord 20:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. Strange.... you'd think if you were going to use Wikipedia to host an advert for a computer technology company, you'd make a better job of the formatting.... TheMadBaron 21:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, too many external links make baby Jesus cry i.e. per nom. feydey 21:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep (12/1).--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 09:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Cytherea (erotic actress)

Does not establish the notability of the subject per [{WP:BIO]], and I submit that this person is unknown to those why routinely type with both hands. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] (W) AfD? 19:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Wikipedia is not for squirt womans or sex movies. I keep deleting that link to her official webpage since it's a commercial website. See TOS of Wikipedia. I also got some kind of warning about this but once again, no linking to commercial websites. Besides, I can also come up with a name flower and add my naked pics and thos things to the category flower. So delete. This girl has nothing to do with the greek mythology. -- (Preceding unsigned comment made by 83.160.38.218 on 19:23, 17 November 2005)
    • Comment Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We cover everything from mass murders to fictional characters to sciences -- in essence the entire human spectrum, per se, no matter what moral judgments people hold. Given your edit history on the article in question, your point of not inserting commercial websites into Wikipedia strikes a bit as hypocrisy, don't you think? And, just for future information, articles for deletion votes are not about you -- it is about the subject at hand, which is the pornographic actress and not your potential ability to "come up with a name flower and add my naked pics and thos things to the category flower"... which, to be honest, doesn't seem to make sense to me on some level... -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 01:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC) reply
      • Comment Just to make it clear to innocent bystanders what Joe Beaudoin is referring to, for a time 83.160.38.218 kept changing the link in Cytherea's article from her own website to one called onlygonzo dot com (I'm not going to give this user the pleasure of allowing even accidental click-thrus). Presumably 83.160.38.218 has an interest in this website, which is clearly a commercial entity given that you have to have made a payment to "Deluxe Pass" to gain entrance to it. As Joe says, blatant hypocrisy. Besides, if Wikipedia were to block links to "commercial websites", does that mean we should remove all links to websites that have a commercial aspect to it, even those that have ads on them for whatever? If so, there goes all of the links from Wikipedia to pages at the IMDB, TV.com, Amazon ... Tabercil 23:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep according to WP:BIO. Over 900,000 hits most of which aren't relevant to Greek mythology. [33]

Apparently well-known for her ejaculations. Our article states she won AVN award. Clearly notable in her field. Capitalistroadster 19:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. Her listing at IMDB confirms notability. BTW - I'm typing this with one hand because the other one's holding my nose...porn related articles have a certain stench about them, but are obviously admissible if notable. PJM 19:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I don't think I've ever disagreed with JzG,yk? but this "actress" has almost 150 titles to her credit. Ifnord 20:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • comment: nopbody's perfect :-) See, it's my fault for typing the name (using both hands) instead of copying & pasting. Obviously I should be able to remember the name, being a geek and all... oh, but wait, I'm the stereotype-busting geek-with-wife-kids-and-mortgage. Ah well. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] (W) AfD? 21:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as per PJM and Ifnord. The JPS 21:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Won an AVN award as capitalistroadster stated. Notable in her "field" of having sex on camera... -- J. Nguyen 22:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Notable in her genre. 23skidoo 22:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, per Capitalistroadster. BD2412 T 02:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Not wishing to seem argumentative, but I really do feel that we should consign porn "stars" who have not crossed into the mainstream to a separate namespace. Pornucopia? I bet that's taken. Anyway, I know there is a thriving "adult entertainment" industry, but honestly, few of those figures get anywhere close to the wider notability of minor political figures who we delete like a shot. Lolo Ferrari got a lot of notice outside the adult movie wankwatching community due to Eurotrash, which was (sort of) mainstream, but for most of us these articles are no more verifiable than, say, an underground band. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] (W) AfD? 12:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Porn notability seems no different from pokemon notability. Award-winning within your field (and the AVN awards are the standard in the industry) seems to be an okay standard, no? Otherwise I'd suggest cult following, and widely recognized entertainmnet personality as hittongthe WP:BIO standards. Jessamyn 17:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep You want to argue that certain porn stars out there don't deserve article, OK, but this one seems to be more deserving than any of them. She even won an AVN Award (equal to an oscar in the porn world. 67.186.145.68 20:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Ditto. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 21:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I agree in that Cytherea seems to have a higher level of prominence than most stars, as evidenced by the AVN award. Besides, it'd leave a sour taste in my mouth to see the ongoing censorship/vandalism being done by 83.160.38.218 rewarded with the article disappearing altogether (check the history of the Cytherea article since the start of the month). Tabercil 22:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Wikipedia is supposed to cover the good and the bad...I think she's famous enough to deserve a spot.-- Spydermonkie 03:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Dean Faiello

Doctor cited for malpractice. I think I remember hearing about this in the news a few years back, but really, does that count for notability anymore? This is still just one crime. 376 Google hits doesn't say much, either. Delete as non-notable.-- InShaneee 02:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete I ran an all English-language news Lexis search on "dean faiello" "maria cruz" over the past 3 years and got 6 hits. George 11:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as NN. Turnstep 14:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep--if it made the news, it was notable; she was a budding prominent New York Filipina-American businesswoman (banker). I just checked Google and got 908 hits! Thanks!! Karas [email protected] 19:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Forgive me, but I don't think I'd ever use the terms 'budding' or 'prominent' in conjunction with 'banker'. Additionally, 908 Google hits is still pretty small for the purpose of establishing notability, and either way, a lot of those hits don't seem to be the correct person, anyway.
    • Which Google are you using? With quotes (the proper way) there are 385 hits, without quotes, 585. Turnstep 03:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Note that the victim gets the hits. Any in-the-news item will get a great many archaic hits for when it was in the news, and this is especially true for any person in the news in New York City. However, there were no lasting effects of the crisis that make this a lasting topic. WP is not the police blotter nor a news wire. Geogre 22:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, no evidence of particular notability. Tuf-Kat 21:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[ talk] 03:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Department of Information and Communication...

Advertisement, and individual university departments do not generally get their own articles. Chick Bowen 16:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete G7, requested by author and only editor. — Cryptic (talk) 06:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Dick and skibba

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. — Crypticbot (operator) 14:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Does an eclipse influence human beings?

Personal essay? I'd speedy-- -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 05:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. "Original research"/personal opinions. Doesn't quite meet speedy criteria. (What csd does it meet?) ERcheck 05:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I'd say merge to Eclipse but this info is already there... in a less personal-essay-ish form. -- W.marsh 05:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, total nonsense.
  • Delete per nom. Not the only article like this that the user has created, either. Indium 08:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, already covered elsewhere in suitable encyclopedic tone. Not a useful redirect. - Mgm| (talk) 11:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Does a delete influence articles? R adiant _>|< 11:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete - bad title, interesting idea. There are lots of traditions concerning eclipses, as well as prophecies etc. -- MacRusgail 14:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Per nomination. encephalon 15:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom SchrödingersRoot 20:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. -- Blackcap | talk 22:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Dr. strangle-glove

Band claiming two releases, but do not specify the label (if any). Nothing on allmusic.com, and only what seems to be a set of self-created pages on Google [34]. Delete per WP:MUSIC. Paolo Liberatore ( Talk) 12:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - Vanity Skrewler 12:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • This band can be heard at www.myspace.com/drstrangleglove — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.202.234.248 ( talk • contribs) 13:47, 15 November 2005
  • Delete. This band is so obscure that even the article's author doubts their existence. TheMadBaron 14:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Strangle, I mean Delete -- MacRusgail 14:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The intersection of notable bands and bands giving away their music free via myspace web pages is, I suspect, a null set. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] (W) AfD? 21:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Dragon Chronicles

Non-notable, no appropriate Google hits with authors name or author's name with "dragon". Suspect vanity. Ifnord 04:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete (A4). Physchim62 04:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply

DragonBall (2006 film)

Looks like wishful thinking on the part of a fan. There is no IMDb info; unusual for a movie with this amount of "detail" available. There are no relevant mentions on Google for the film and various purportedly "confirmed" cast members ( example). In short, there are no credible or verifiable sources for any of this information, and the article should be deleted. — HorsePunchKid→ 龜 20:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as unverifiable. The JPS 21:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. PTSE 21:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Dragonfiend 21:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, Speedy if possible. Totally unverifiable and unsourced. -- Locke Cole 01:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • The rumour concerning a live action DBZ movie has been circulating since the anime's dub release in the U.S. and other Western audiences. A similar article claimed a 2007 release, and was deleted after this discussion. Delete as crystal ball and unverifiable, and if possible speedy delete as recreated content. Saberwyn 01:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The day that anything about this movie is confirmed, which would confirm that it is, in fact, in production, would be the day that my soul died. Mo0[ talk] 03:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Dramamine pathway

Was tagged {{ db-g3}}. Hoax, nonsense, and claimed original research on talk. Delete, including the image. Lupo 11:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • I was about to speedy delete it. Don't AfD obvious G3 (look at the image). Rd232 talk 11:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Last time I looked, even obvious hoaxes were not candidates for speedy deletion. If that has changed, all the better, but then make it clear on WP:CSD. G3 refers to vandalism, and while I do agree that hoaxes are a form of vandalism, I was under the impression that the general consensus was that hoaxes should not be speedied but brought to WP:AFD. Lupo 13:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete per above. PJM 12:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Unless good, easily verifiable source citations are presented prior to expiration of AfD discussion. Reads like an obvious hoax or joke, particularly the illustration. If it isn't, the onus is on the contributor to provide citations. No Google hits on exact phrase "Dramamine pathway". I have no objection at all to speedy deleting as vandalism, and if speedied and sources are subsequently provided I'll gladly take it to deletion review myself. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:25, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Dssr network radio

Delete Unverified info about a supposed Florida-based internet radio station, and the only thing I could find by googling for the title was a German internet radio station. With no link, this doesn't count as advertising. Caerwine 19:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Duck of minerva

NN blog that's just like countless other blogs. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 21:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, Or would it be possible to speedy under {{ db-a3}}? Indium 00:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 19:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Duets With The Voice

Seems to be part of a pattern of vandalism of John Farnham see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voice Covered. -- Martyman- (talk) 02:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Interestingly John Farnham did sing Playing to win with Lleyton at Lleyton's wedding, though I doubt very much it has been released. -- Martyman- (talk) 03:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
You live and learn. By the way, neither this or the other bogus Farnham release listed yesterday is mentioned on his website see [36]. Capitalistroadster 05:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Unverifiable. Probably hoax. Cnwb 03:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unless verifiable info forthcoming (and properly wikified). -- MacRusgail 13:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, clearly a hoax. If Farnsey actually had an album with this name, he'd tell people. -- bainer ( talk) 03:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Ambi 03:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 01:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply

EgoPHobia

Seems to be an advert/vanity page for a nn mostly-non-English website. Alexa ranking over 2 million. Indium 23:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

This is not an advertisement, it's informative! And it is about a cultural site, not some shop or something. Moreover, there is also an English section of the site and it brings important information about today's Romanian young literature. When one searches on google for "egophobia" gets as the first two results the two url's of this site. Therefore I am against the deletion! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smg ( talk • contribs)

  • Delete per nom. Reyk 01:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per the nominator. Mo0[ talk] 03:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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: Using a little bit of discretion... Redirect. - brenneman (t) (c) 11:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Ellen Joyce Loo

Not notable. Member of a band, at 17 which was nominated for AfD but survived with "No consensus" (discussion archive here: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/At17. If this material goes anywhere it should go in the band's article. Also is only article in category "Canadian-born HongKongers" which should also go. Herostratus 21:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. Member of a notable 2-persons music group. — Insta ntnood 06:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect There's plenty of precedent for redirecting band members that are not notable by themselves to their respective band articles. As for the category, please take that to WP:CFD. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 17:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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.


Nomination withdrawn. This AFD is hereby closed. encephalon 10:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Eric Anderson

The person who is the title of the article is not notable enough to have an article about him, and the rest of the article is advertising. User:Zoe| (talk) 04:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Keep--there's justified precedent for keeping all winners of the Victoria Cross. Meelar [[User talk:Meelar|(talk)]] 04:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Never mind. The version I afd'd was vandalism. User:Zoe| (talk) 04:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

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

The result of the debate was going to merge and redirect. Rx StrangeLove 21:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC) Something wrong with your math here, my friend. One and half for redirect. The rest (i.e., 4.5) is for delete Even 2:4 still for delete. mikka (t) 01:24, 26 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Eurotophobia

Wikipedia is not a dictionary (the word is real though [37]) - Akamad 01:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. Alr 01:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Having changed the sentence it should be transwikied to wikitionary. Marskell 08:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • wiktionary:Eurotophobia is empty. Transwiki. NSLE ( 讨论+ extra) 09:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Transwiki per above. - Mgm| (talk) 09:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Merge and redirect to -phobia where it appears to not yet be listed. Break out once it reaches a sufficient size. - Mgm| (talk) 22:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - dicdef. -- MacRusgail 13:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or redirect to -phobia. The list of possible phobias is practically endless, here's a list of a few, for example. HGB 19:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Exbox

Dictdef for slang term. Moreover, the Urban Dictionary def disagrees. Deco 07:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as per nominator. Dicdef (no pun intended). -- MacRusgail 14:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. SchrödingersRoot 20:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • '"Don't Delete'" Dicdef is is lacking in it's description on the Urban Dictionary site. Also, Urban Dictionary is quite ineffective, incomplete, and dated. --Alex Johnson 20:02 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • delete neologism Pete.Hurd 20:33, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Fabherdie

Seems like a hoax, I can't find any confirming google hits [38]. --best, kevin ··· Kzollman | Talk··· 19:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. Rx StrangeLove 21:50, 25 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Fewell

Non-notable Scottish surname MacRusgail 13:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Comment I'd said that, if we keep one article on a family name, we keep them all, regardless of notability. I mean, a person or even a family may be notable, but they do not make the history of the family name more notable than another. Currently, I think that there are short summaries of the origin of family names in disambigation pages of people, but I may be wrong. By the way, the article is good. Paolo Liberatore ( Talk) 20:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep genuine name in Scottishland, not a bad article, and frankly I'd rather have more of these articles and a lot fewer porn "stars". Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] (W) AfD? 21:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Not a notable name in Scotland at all. I live here, and have never come across it. It says "Southern Ports", but what does that mean? It could mean Dumfries and Galloway, East Lothian, Lowland ports etc. I'm also not keen on the porn stars (some do look good (some also don't), but not as article subjects) -- MacRusgail 16:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • There's an extension of wiktionary for names if it can't be kept here. - Mgm| (talk) 23:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, unencyclopedic articles should not be kept, even if well written. Also, this would set a bad precedent for future articles. -- Kjkolb 00:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: Is there precent for deleting surnames? I know there is for keeping them. And no, I don't adhere to the view that cruft justifies more cruft, I just want to know. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] (W) AfD? 12:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
      • Yes there is a precedent. There are thousands of non-notable surnames. Every family researcher will be posting their ancestry back to Adam if we're not careful. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moesman (apparently a troll, the Moseman article was deleted). -- MacRusgail 16:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment yesterday I wanted to investigate that, but had no time. Here is what I have found (actually, what Google has found):
  • In the one for Rifai, the nominator RickK says “Precedent is not to keep articles about non-notable family names.”. Note also that the article Conlon is actually a disambiguation page. Paolo Liberatore ( Talk) 15:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Found something interesting, finally: Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Policy_consensus/Conclusions#Names. The point is now whether there is a “significant history” connected to the name. I do not think so. Transwiki to Wiktionary Appendix:Surnames. Paolo Liberatore ( Talk) 15:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Fighting Dreamers

According to the article, the phrase is a lyric from an anime theme song and the name of a group of friends who collaborate in making online manga fanfic. Possible redirect to Flow (band), which mentions the single the lyric comes from. -- Tabor 19:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Rx StrangeLove 05:59, 26 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Flirt!

This article does not establish the importance of the subject per the usual guidelines, and reads like (very amateurish) advertising. I suppose it might be folded into National Union of Students, on the other hand a "brand" for student clubs? Please! - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] (W) AfD? 19:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Not a brand for student clubs, but a brand for NUS organised club nights. It seems sufficiently notable (if it's a student night in 40 UK Student Unions, Flirt! nights will probably be attended by hundreds of thousands) and it doesn't read like advertising, or need it. The article just needs a bit of a polish. Keep. TheMadBaron 21:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Does that mean you're withdrawing your nomination? :) The appropriate merge would be to National Union of Students of the United Kingdom. I thing that would just mess up the NUS page. TheMadBaron 23:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Flushdraw.ca

Clear adverts still aren't a CSD, but in any case, fails WP:WEB and has an Alexa ranking of 4,898,203. Indium 06:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete all advertising. Indium 06:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep It's in Canada so Alexa data is completely meaningless sorry... long day. Delete obvious advert/vanity, fails WP:WEB per nom. -- W.marsh 06:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete advertising. Regardless of how international Alexa rankings are, topics like sex and gambling should have higher ratings whatever its bias is. - Mgm| (talk) 11:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was ¡ Soviet, Delete!. - Mailer Diablo 00:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

¡Forward, Russia!

del. nonnotable. ""Forward, Russia" + leeds + band" gives only 268 unique google hits, looks like no albums. mikka (t)

  • Delete self-promotion. -- Ghirlandajo 08:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete nn. Dottore So 11:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Uh... KNewman 12:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. huh– Gnomz 007( ?) 17:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nom abakharev 20:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Murder all band vanity. Blackcap | talk 22:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The above obviously aren't up on the UK music scene. The band have had UK chart singles and will have another when 'Twelve' is released Nov 28th. The album is out next year. The above people would have probably deleted Bloc Party's entry from Wiki this time last year... Nli10 19:29, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Not notable, self publicity Mediawhizz 17:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 01:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Frank Owen Smith

Not notable enough.

  • ...one television appearance? One? If I recall the episode correctly, this guy is almost a glorified extra (although I haven't seen it in a number of years). Delete. Lord Bob 20:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I was going to say "until the watch in Ben Hur gets an article" but that would be tempting fate... Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] (W) AfD? 20:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Lord Bob.-- Alhutch 20:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • I'm a bit dubious about this being his only acting appearance. No theater? No minor film roles? How do you get to start your acting career with Deep Space Nine, of all things? Other than that, there's nothing actually wrong with the article; it's factual, it's not doing any harm, and I'd consider Curzon Dax to be a somewhat notable role (and no, I'm not a trekkie), so I vote to keep. TheMadBaron 20:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • The lack of other acting experience is odd, yes, but IMDb agrees with the article on the subject. He certainly doesn't seem to have something very noteworthy through the rest of his career, at any rate...it is a trifle weird, though. Lord Bob 20:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
      • TV and film aren't the only working venues for actors, but they tend to be off the Google and/or pop-culture radar. I used to attend plays fairly frequently, and I always found it odd to read the credits in the programs, which for the actor bios had long lists of major roles in major theater companies -- Richard III, Hamlet, etc -- along with bit parts like "Police sniper #2" in an Eddie Murphy movie. As an example, take Joe Vincent (presumably red-linked) -- thirty years as a classically trained actor, artistic director of the California Shakespeare Festival for four years, worked on Broadway, etc -- yet all IMDB has for him are two bit parts seven years apart, one a TV-movie. That's the ephemeral nature of theater for you, I guess. -- Calton | Talk 05:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I think it just showed him dying on a table for a few seconds when they were transplanting the slug. -- Kjkolb 00:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Trek-cruft. -- Calton | Talk 05:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Lord Bob. Dottore So 15:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Free will man/woman

Duplicate content already covered in Person#Personhood theory. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 00:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete; unnecessary given coverage elsewhere. *Dan T.* 00:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Someone removed the AFD tag on the page; I reverted it. ♠ DanMS 00:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Original research and theorizing, plus a little rant at the end. (Corporations got defined as persons in US business law. It's absurd, but it's true.) Geogre 01:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above NSLE ( 讨论+ extra) 09:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete bad nonsense dressed up in fanciful language, and "dignified" by references to Kant. -- MacRusgail 13:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete violates WP:NOR policy. HGB 18:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. - Splash talk 01:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Fullmetal Alchemist: Carnival of Dreams

WP:ISNOT a crystal ball. "Not much information is known at the moment." Then write the article when the information is available, please. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 20:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Keep It is already out in Japan since last year so it can't be a crystal ball. I'm not a fan of this series or anime. Just need to do a simple search to figure out this. Metacritic listing and GameFAQs' has a FAQ/walkthrough for this game since last year which pretty has a lot of info regarding about the game. If keep redirect it to: Fullmetal Alchemist: Dream Carnival as its main title. -- J. Nguyen 22:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Cleaned up the article to provide information. -- J. Nguyen 02:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete non-notable game. Note that the Japanese Wikipedia's coverage of this game is apparently limited to the inclusion of its title in a list in the main FMA article. — Haeleth Talk 23:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: The game was published by a huge video game company, Bandai which is in part a company within the third largest Japanese video game company, Namco-Bandai. Fullmetal Alchemist is a trademark of one largest Japanese video game publishers, Square Enix which is known to own the Final Fantasy property. Fullmetal Alchemist is a popular cartoon and manga which will spawn some fans that will create this article again in the future. Wikipedia already has a lot of video game articles including games about Fullmetal Alchemsit. -- J. Nguyen 00:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, commercially produced PS2 game. Kappa 02:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I'd say merge it to the first PS2 game's article for the time being (as is typical for upcoming sequels), but it's going to be released in the US in a couple of months, so this article will inevitably be expanded in the near future. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 15:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Gamer house

I don't think it should be deleted. It's informative and I know of a few friends that use the term. It's a term most common amongst gamers, so one who isn't a gamer doesn't really hear of this term. - Travis :)

Doesn't seem encyclopedia worthy, possibly a hoax Akamad 09:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete nonsense. Dottore So 11:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nominator. Dicdef anyway. -- MacRusgail 14:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Little better than a dicdef (with nothing to indicate that the term is even in common use), accompanied with an irrelevant picture of an uninteresting building. Delete. TheMadBaron 02:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply

This entry is very much relevant and commonly used amongst video gamers. Obviously it is not a part of everyone's vernacular.

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

The result of the debate was move to User:Geir Smith and invite him to use talk pages. -- RHaworth 19:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Geir Smith

A mix of Vanity and text that belong on a discussion page. Delete or move to proppet discussion page. Oyvind 09:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Geir wrote :

Well, the Jonang article has been corrected and they put my (site's)name in on it. I'm righting that here with this Geir Smith page.

I've retrieved the uncorrected page from "Changes" and kept it for refrence on my site.

I insist on the truth being said and not letting frauds write false things at "Jonang".

I'm prefectly knowledgeable about Jonang and the people on the other side have "agendas". They're not reliable sources at all.

Oyvind. PS. How do you fit in at Wiki ? Some post ? G.

  • Delete obviously. Dottore So 11:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nominator. Most of the Buddhist-speak is unintelligible to people outside that grouping. -- MacRusgail 14:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • The only thing resembling a claim to notability is "Geir Smith is the lineal successor of Taranatha, that is banned in Tibet, and forbidden to study by Tibetans. Geir Smith is the only person in the world, to thus have studied Taranatha in depth". This is is both unverifiable and, as MacRusgail says, entirely unintelligible to most of us. As such, I'm calling this is a vanity bio of a non-notable subject, and have tagged it tagged for speedy deletion. TheMadBaron 14:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Hi, The Jonang page has a case of vandalism carried out against me. They put in corrections, with my site's name quoted. Now I wanted to make the page here, so as to make it out that the page they vandalised is being used to plagiarize me. And this for the reason that I've been writing on Internet, using the Jonang page as reference, to prove something that is typically Buddhist-speak, which is "the Kalachakra is Sakyapa". Maybe I could write about the vandalism on the Geir Smith page, and about the fact that that vandalism is caused by my speaking about that page on Internet.... and the vivid controversy around it.

The debate concerns the Dalaï-Lama school of the Gelugpas, that want to have this school of Jonang, kept banned, while people like me want to get it's 500-year ban lifted. By making the ban hold, they want to suppress my school from it's freedom of speech and expressing itself. Their agenda is to utterly gag me by vandalizing the source that I use, of Jonang-Wikipedia. (But I've safeguarded the uncorrected, previous version thanks to Wiki's service of that) Maybe you can tell me what the best manner of presenting it is because I'm thinking about correcting the page tonight (French time.). I could present myself as the person making this whole page and topic, go crazy, because big interests, like the big school around the Dalaï, want to guard it's power and interests. I know this all sounds sectarian and like that, but you must all know that there is no Paradise-Lost... and there are these very down-to-earth human problems in any human entreprise, be it political, religious or other. Thanks for your times and considerations. Hope this can still find some checking for better form and content. You're sure tough bosses. Ha ha ha ! That's good too, for sure.... Geir Smith Geiremann 19:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Gigabus

NN company. Article reads like a hoax ("Jerry, a well to do man", "Mr Christopher Fudge"). Absolutely no google results [39] PTSE

  • Delete PTSE 13:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Maybe not a hoax, but with just four drivers, definitely not notable. Delete. TheMadBaron 14:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nominator. Minor rural bus company in England. -- MacRusgail 14:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all small independent bus companies. Or at least those in the Cotswolds. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] (W) AfD? 21:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Gnomolando

Hoax, delete. — Phil Welch 20:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Obvious hoax. It is an altered version of Republic of Moldova. Punkmorten 21:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I'm the guy that spotted it and nominated it for speedy. It seems peculiar we should have to vote on this. Bill 15:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
I'll also add that the images and other links in there need to be purged as well. The "Gnomolando currency" pictured, for example, is an Uzbek note — see the image's Talk page — proving the hoax. That image should be kept but retitled as Uzbek, and might legitimately be used in the Uzbekistan article. Bill 12:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. The editor giving an option puts delete first, and BD2412 unusually doesn't actually give a target, so that's not a very useful recommendation. - Splash talk 01:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Goofy Goober's Ice Cream Party Boat

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. — Crypticbot (operator) 14:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Grimlick

NN ROM Hacker. Article created by same author of RyanVG, also up for deletion. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 18:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

See also Joust More, Tag Team Transformer Pretenders (games by this ROM hacker).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Ham and bell

Seems to be a forthcoming webcomic. "The Ham and Bell website is currently under construction and set to be launched in December 2005. Story lines and characters may be changed when the site is launched". Unverifiable. Kappa 02:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nominator. -- Joel7687 02:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Kappa. ;) encephalon 04:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nominator. -- Merovingian 04:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. PTSE 04:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Kappa, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Tito xd( ?!?) 04:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete but with no prejudice to having an article once the site is launched and becomes popular, if it does. —Morven 07:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, advert and crystal ball gazing. - Mgm| (talk) 09:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Anytime Kappa votes delete, you know it's gotta go. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 20:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Harry's_place

Archive of previous VFD (how did this pass?) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry's Place2

Obvious vanity/advertisement, not notable Skrewler 09:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Harry's what? -- Timecop 14:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. No attempt has been made to establish notability. TheMadBaron 15:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Blatant vanity, advertisement, non-noteable. -- KirkJohnson
  • Delete -- Femmina 22:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. According to Alexa, my personal homepage has almost twice as many page views. Without details on how its founders may be notable outside of this blog or on how it might influence other people and/or websites, I don’t think its sole existence is notable enough. Just another opinion website. Sam Hocevar 22:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, not notable. -- supers 23:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic. Incognito 23:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Waste of time. -- Impi.za 00:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. 65.34.232.136 02:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Non-notable blog. — Cleared as filed. 11:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I've never heard of this 'Harry's Place' shit, and nor do I ever want to again. Non-notable, worthless garbage. -- 86.2.56.178 12:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose listing. This was only removed from AfD 6 days ago. Angela . 12:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • There were only 2 votes last time, I can't tell but it may have been ended early also. - Skrewler 12:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Angela, it certainly falls within administrator discretion to relist nominations with extremely low participation. Tito xd( ?!?) 04:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not notable, I don't think it will be a few days from now either. Vanity. -- Depakote 12:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete nn blog. Dottore So 13:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete How the hell did this survive its previous AfD listing? Someone tell me, please. Whoever voted keep last time should hang their heads in shame. Reyk 01:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I hate jumped-up-charlie, "look at me, I'm on Wikipedia", self-referential blogshite as much as the next guy... nay, much more than the next guy. Unfortunately, a very little internet research shows: Alexa is 110,806, which isn't great but isn't bad, Google shows that it's made it into the gaurdian um , twice and was even nominated by them for the Backbencher's political weblog awards. Thus, as this is not a vote every entry with "not notable" is just a waste of photons, methink. - brenneman (t) (c) 10:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, ok guys, had your fun yet? -- Daniel11 02:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Highlords Assains

Non-notable guild. Delete. — Phil Welch 21:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Looks like some sort RPG fan creation or forum vanity. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete NN fancruft. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 17:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • delete NN gamecruft. Pete.Hurd 19:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete both articles. - Mailer Diablo 00:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Hip To The Javabean and Clown Circus

Not notable, another CD by this artist was deleted in AfD a few days ago as well. Delete. -- Locke Cole 02:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete doesn't meet WP:MUSIC... hmm, not that page specifically, but whereever the album standards are. Ashibaka ( tock) 05:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Yeah, I know the one you're talking about but can't seem to find it either. Which is really strange because I had no trouble finding it last week. :P -- Locke Cole (talk) 04:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom -- JiFish( Talk/ Contrib) 14:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Okay! Fine! I wish that a CERTAIN SOMEONE would think about all the other articles that should be deleted before deleting a decent one. This means all links to this article will be removed.
THERE, LOCKE COLE. ARE YOU FREAKIN' HAPPY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.99.51 ( talk • contribs) 22:35, 16 November 2005
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


This article was speedily deleted by User:Fuzheado with the summary "obvious vandalism". This AFD is hereby closed. encephalon 04:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply


How to poo at work

Wikipedia isn't a joke book, but this isn't quite speedy-material. BJAODN. Tito xd( ?!?) 00:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete I'm baffled that this page doesn't fall under WP:CSD, but so be it. -- malo (talk) 00:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Note that a lot of this content was already in toilet humor. Uncle G 00:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: It seems to have been speedy deleted now. *Dan T.* 04:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Human ethology

Marked as a speedy for original research, which however is not a ground for speedy. Appears original research and a copy of [40] (uncertain copyright status). No vote. Paolo Liberatore ( Talk) 17:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • The work on Human Ethology, belongs to me and I am fine with the inclusion of the article here. I am a logged in user. You may email me for further information -- Lorlarson ( Lorlarson ( talk · contribs) 17:47, 15 November 2005)
  • Comment; thanks for the information about the copyright. The problem is explained in WP:NOR. Please let us know if you think this article fits. Paolo Liberatore ( Talk) 17:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete clearly original research. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] (W) AfD? 19:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • The work is established neo-Piagetian cognitive developmental theory, recast in the only way possible if one wants to take an ethological view of learning. It really is as simple as that. It should cause no controversy. If you just want to hear what you already know, there may be a problem. Otherwise no rational ethologist who takes an ethological perspective on Piagetian theory and on learning could have any problem with it. Nothing contradicts the perspective. It may help you to know that this paper was published in the official EDITED newsletter of the International Society for Human Ethology. The point of view is scientific and is testable. Human Ethology is a relatively new area and you really cannot expect much better than this if you really want an overview of a major aspect of this field.
Please provide a citation (volume/number/pages), and please indicate what you mean by "edited." Is this "edited newsletter" a peer-reviewed journal? WP:NOR means that Wikipedia articles must be summaries of well-established, generally accepted knowledge.
I am troubled by your statement that "If you just want to hear what you already know, there may be a problem." From an encyclopedia, I do not necessarily want to hear what I already know, but I very definitely want to hear what is generally known and accepted. Wikipedia is not suitable for publishing essay that presents fresh, original ideas on a topic, even if they are sensible, valid, likely to become generally adopted, well founded in established knowledge and buttressed by references. Wikipedia is not for dissemination of original ideas. We have nothing against original ideas, but the mission of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia, not a journal.
The style and content of the article also suggest original research. In fact the phrase "This outlook, I believe..." suggests that the whole point of the article is to present a point of view. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Provisionally: delete The topic itself is definitely encyclopedic. The style and presentation are not; encyclopedia articles are supposed to teach and at least the introductory paragraphs should be accessible to the general reader. It is not appropriate for them to be written in the first person. However, there's no point in worrying yet about style. As nearly as I can tell so far, this is in fact a personal essay. It's said that it has been published, but no citation has yet been provided, and it's not clear to me whether the newsletter of the International Society for Human Ethology is peer-reviewed journal. I'm prepared to change my vote if I'm convinced that this does not fall under our no original research policy. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • The Newsletter for the International Society for Human Ethology is edited, meaning the editor selects from a range of essays and articles which to publish. The editor at the time the essay under discussion was published was Frans X. PLOOIJ You can email him at [email protected] . Ask him about this very article -- which was very well-received. I also am a colleague of I. Eibl-Ebesfeldt and reviewed his book on Human Ethology is that same Newsletter. I am also published (in a rare FIRST "Letter to the Editor") in the journal, Ethology and Sociobiology. That article was on classical ethology and its application to human study and was well reviewed. Anyhow, you can consult with any authoritative writer in the Human Ethology area and get an authoritative opinion. Otherwise, my opinion may well be the most authoritative opinion you have. Go ahead and have nothing instead or some amateur write some off-the-mark simplistic and inaccurate piece.

I am also a student and colleague of William Charlesworth (now a retired professor, University of MN). You may contact him for an opinion on my paper. He was one of the founders of the International Society for Human Ethology. I can argue no more for my article except to say that it is appropriately general and basic to be indeed be an appropriate opening article on human ethology. By the way, my real name is B.L. Jesness (Lorlarson is just my 'handle') -- Lorlarson


I'm impressed that you're a colleague of Iräneus Eibl-Eibesfeldt. You may well be an authority, but no Wikipedia article stands on the authority of its contributor, so it's still necessary to cite sources, and still necessary to help non-authorities verify things. The article is still a problem, though. It would be better if it were an overview of human ethology, history, relation to animal ethology, etc. Will be doing some more checking and will email F. Plooij as you suggest.
We could also use an article on Eibl-Eibesfeldt, which apparently we don't have (unless I'm not spelling the name the same way the article does...) Dpbsmith (talk) 00:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The point is not whether you are an authority, because Wikipedia is intended to stand or fall without appeal to the authority of its contributors, but whether you can convince us that the material present in this article is generally accepted current knowledge. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Copyright status of the article is resolved, but still the article appears to be original research. Summarizing, WP:NOR says that regardless of the quality and importance of the contribution, wikipedia is not the appropriate place for publishing original research. Delete. Paolo Liberatore ( Talk) 14:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • I basically agree. However, if someone could show Dr. Jesness' publication in the Newsletter for the International Society for Human Ethology has been cited somewhere important, in a book by Eibl-Eibesfeldt for example, then I'd consider keep-and-cleanup.
  • delete I'm surprised we don't have a WP entry for human ethology the topic certainly ought to be covered. While the title of this piece is human ethology, the topic of the article is actually Human Cognitive-Developmental Ethology: an ethological theory of human learning: a cognitive-developmental, neo-Piagetian, ethological theory -- based on the methods of classical ethology. I remain to be convinced that the thesis of this essay constitutes a tradition of thought which exists apart from this essay. If this piece is influential enough to establish the topic for inclusion in an encyclopedia, then I would like to see confirmation (eg. entry in the Science Citation Index demonstrating action). The piece as it is is entirely inappropriate for WP. The ALL CAPS for emphasis, the lack of structure (headings subheadings wikilinks) could all be fixed, but this is clearly the work of a single author and intended to remain unedited by others (note use of first person eg. " I will try to outline what I see as the basic types of processes..." and this footer "For MUCH MORE on this method, perspective and approach see my larger papers Click THIS LINK http://cyberper.cnc.net/myLargePapers.htm to find out how to obtain them. (This web page is my page, as is all the content on http://cyberper.cnc.net) All works above and linked to are mine." raises a bunch of WP compatibility problems. In summary, I vote delete for OR reasons, and I see little hope for remedy of topic a cognitive-developmental, neo-Piagetian, ethological theory -- based on the methods of classical ethology Pete.Hurd 19:29, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Comment: Status update After some considerable work scrolling through slow-scrolling bitmapped PDF files, I've found the paper, which can be downloaded from the HEB 1986-1987 link on [this page], and the citation would appear to be:
Jesness, Bradley (1987): An ethological conceptualization of learning: Learning in terms of the interrelated development of basic capacities, Human Ethology Newsletter (ISSN 0739-2036), 5(3) pp. 4-6.
It is described as a "Mini Communication" and the author is identified as "Bradley Jesness" with a Minneapolis street address (no institutional affiliation mentioned).
The PDF consists of bitmapped images and is unsearchable and very unpleasant to scroll through; scroll just about halfway down to get to volume 5 number 3.
Not that it matters, as there would seem to be no copyright problem, but interestingly enough the journal does not seem to have a copyright notice anywhere. The use of ALL CAPS emphasis is a faithful copy of the paper as originally published.
I continue to agree with Pete.Hurd and others that this article falls under the no original research policy but that could change if it were to turn out that it has been widely cited and generally accepted. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

IGARB

A neologism on one internet forum. — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 10:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, please. - Bobet 16:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, non-encyclopedic dicdef. Punkmorten 21:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • I've got a raging Delete Pete.Hurd 20:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Igor Goldkind

This page claims Goldkind was "one of the UK's first evangelists for the Internet", among other things, but there is remarkably little evidence to back this up. Google certainly finds him, but not in the glowing terms mentioned, and anyone as influential as this piece makes out is hardly likely to be working for an Oxfordshire ICT company (i.e. education computers, the best known in Oxfordshire being Research Machines). For that matter, I was promoting the Internet as a mainstream medium back then, along with Eric Peacock, former CEO of Babygro. Anyway, this might be a {{cleanup}} candidate, but actually it looks to me like plain old-fashioned vanity. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] (W) AfD? 18:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. Ifnord 20:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 17:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • delete vanity, NN Pete.Hurd 19:12, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Janine de Swardt

NN writer who turns up 9 unique Google hits. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 01:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete I don't believe this author is notable enough just yet to entitle her to an encyclopedia article. -- malo ( talk- myedits) 01:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Smells like vanity. Ifnord 04:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • delete Wrote a book somewhere. Ashibaka ( tock) 05:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete nn NSLE ( 讨论+ extra) 09:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, subject has written a novel at fantasy-writers.org, but it's not published and fails WP:Bio. HGB 19:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per nom. Jasmol 22:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was userfied and deleted, per below. It was userfied before this Afd, and the deletes have been unanimous. Also, since people want to have an article about another person by the same name, and this article's history is not useful in that regard, it seems a delete is quite reasonable without waiting the traditional 5 days. Friday 15:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Joe Johnston

"Joe Johnston" was previously userfied, to its creator User:Rotundgrappler, as a vanity ( history), though had previously been a semi-attack page for Robert De Niro [41]. Rotundgrappler was advised not to create vanity pages, yet he blanked his user page and created this, a duplicate of the old page. One administrator has determined this shouldn't be speedy deleted, so let's have a show of hands. My vote is Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 23:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - but it's still not a speedy candidate. :) Phil Sandifer 00:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete or re-userfy. I see no need to apply Afd to this. Friday 00:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, and I don't think it's a speedy either. (Rule of thumb: if you have to doublecheck on google, it's not an A7.) "Joe Johnston" "Russian Prince" gets 6 hits; only the first is relevant, and its the site where the "documentary" is available for download. Playing football for your university doesn't get you an article, either. — Cryptic (talk) 00:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete as A6 attack page as it claims that its subject is a chronic alcoholic and that the film was supposedly named after a brand of vodka. There is a notable director named Joe Johnson who directed "Honey I Shrunk the Kids" and "Jumanji" see [42]. Capitalistroadster 00:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. It wasnt a bloody robert de niro attack page you sensitive pricks. it was an error on my part to get the formatting down. quit being so sensitive. -- 24.72.117.8 2005-11-16 04:45:22
    • I at least recognised that. But why do you describe us as sensitive? -- RHaworth 05:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: "sensitive pricks"? Me and who, CSD-bot? Once again, (I assume you are Rotundgrappler) spare the personal attacks. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 05:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete since he does not want to be userfied. But this is definitely a wanted article about the other Joe Johnston. -- RHaworth 05:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete nn, nn, nn. Per CR: I suspect that the so-called attack aspects of the page are in fact self-applied descriptions as part of a misguided hipster image. Hope I'm wrong. Dottore So 14:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as attack page and nn director. Once it's deleted, we could use an article about the other Joe Johnston, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 15:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Jon Day

Hoax. No Google hits. ➨ ❝ REDVERS ❞ 17:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Google doesn't know everything - check the archives at John's — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.63.165 ( talk • contribs) 17:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC
  • Delete Google indeed doesn't know everything... but unless this can be verified, I see to reason to keep this probably hoax. The way it's written, it's either an attempt at a joke or this guy had a ungodly bizarre life. Note that the author is adding several articles like this today... he really needs to cite an (online or offline) source, otherwise this stuff is unverifiable. -- W.marsh 17:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as hoax. Even it is wasn't, I don't see where it meets WP:BIO. PJM 19:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per PJM Swegner 20:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as unverifiable. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] (W) AfD? 20:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. "Jonhinius"? Give us a break. — Haeleth Talk 22:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • I'm not too sure, wait on sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.63.165 ( talk • contribs) 23:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Genuine, he is a cult figure in Canonbury. A little statue of him can be found to this day by the waterfall on Jodpurs Way. Sadly it is a reconstruction, the original was destroyed by a bomb in WW2, although legend has it that the statue dived in the bomb's path in order to save young girl from certain obliteration. Hope this helps, Ethel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.62.245 ( talk • contribs) 20:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC
Thank you... but no...it doesn't really help. PJM 21:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply

¤Deletion of this entry would be near heresy: records show that fractions of Jonhinius's skull were treated as relics, and traded among Franciscan monks during the latter phases of the seventeenth century. Gillian Sitch, Canonbury Archeological Foundation, 2005. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.235.148.39 ( talk • contribs) 10:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Comment Thanks for that information, Ms Sitch. Oddly, I can't find the Canonbury Archeological Foundation in the phone book, nor any presence for it online - even with the misspelling of the name corrected. Perhaps you could leave details of how to join on my talk page? I'd be very interested. ➨ ❝ REDVERS ❞ 16:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. There might be a mention of this guy (If his name's "Johannes" and not "Jonhinius"; the latter is farcical) in the SJC Library records; most biographical details unverifiable. It'd need to be severely reduced to justify keeping it TheBasis Talk14:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • keep? If it is Johannes, this guy sounds pretty interesting, even without all the rubbish about cats and stuff. 'thebasis' any more info on your guy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finn_McCool ( talk • contribs) 17:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC) This is this user's first edit. ➨ ❝ REDVERS ❞ reply

indeed it is, sorry didn't know how to put my sig in. now I do. hello everyone. ( 129.67.61.197 17:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)) reply


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. - Doc ask? 18:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Jonathan Foote

This page is clearly (amusing) nonsense, and is nonencyclopedic to boot. Cmdrjameson 02:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Per nom, except the part of it being amusing - I disagree there. Ifnord 04:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Ha, Ha, Ha! Now Delete. ♠ DanMS 05:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Private joke/graffiti. Geogre 11:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete There is no amusing part. Avalon 12:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete - vanity/nonsense. -- MacRusgail 13:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • speedy delete as above (G3/A7). Rd232 talk 14:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was boldly redirected to Juba (sniper). BD2412 T 02:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Jubasniper

Looks like urban legend, with sub-stub description and one questionable source. Some garbage in article itself (though that could be cleaned up). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Keith Bates

Non-notable vanity page. Only one google hit. Plus someone related to this Bates has been spam linking the k-type.com website associated with this person - Contributions for 86.133.157.7 -- Solipsist 20:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Rx StrangeLove 06:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Kent Labour Students

This body is entirley non-notable, and in fact was deleted through VfD a while back.

It was deleted before? Really? Why isn't there any mention of this in the article history? When referring to previously deleted articles, it's nice if you can link to the previous debate, or at least to the deletion log. — Haeleth Talk 22:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Yes, it really was, in May 2004. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kent Labour Students/old. I don't know why that doesn't appear in the article history, someone with more knowledge of how VfD worked might be able to tell us. The Land 10:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply

The first comment I posted was to say I wrote this article and hadn't realised a previous version had been deleted. I've never seen it before. - Author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.12.200.50 ( talk • contribs) 23:51, November 15, 2005


  • Delete, per nomination. The Land 10:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for not being notable. -- Frekja 10:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Don't Delete because other similar articles are allowed to remain. (I am the author and only bothered to write it when I saw a similar one for another society. I hadn't realised that there had been a previous version deleted - I've never seen it before)
  • Delete. The group has a wopping 60 members on it's mailing list? As non-notable as they come. Ifnord 14:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • No, that would probably be something like Noodlesoc or the Varsity Trainspotting team. 60 active members isn't bad: it's larger than any of the societies I was involved with in my uni days. — Haeleth Talk 22:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

No need to be nasty, just delete it if you have to. Like I say, I assumed it is equally as "notable" as ones for other uni societies of similar subject and size. Just make sure you demonstrate consistancy. - Author — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.12.200.50 ( talk • contribs) 10:11, 15 November 2005

Incidentally I clicked a link saying "Kent Labour Studnets" and it said there isn't an article, but I could write one. Make sure you turn this feature off if you decide to delete - that will stop others possibly wasting their effort. - Author — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.12.200.50 ( talk • contribs) 10:17, 15 November 2005

  • Comment. Of course the author is correct. If I type “qwertyuiop1234567890” into the search box, the Wikipedia will respond with a page that practically encourages me to write an article with such a title. ♠ DanMS 19:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Merge a summary into University of Kent; it and the Tory equivalent have a couple of sentences in the "trivia" section, which could easily be expanded into a paragraph on student politics without unbalancing the article. — Haeleth Talk 22:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • This is a very good idea. All I ask for is consistancy. I wasn't going to name names, but "the Tory equivalent" has already been mentioned by Haeleth. If you delete Kent Labour Students you have to delete Kent Universaity Conservative Association as well. How, exactly, do I go about changing the article as suggested above? Do I have to implicate myself in petitioning for KUCA to be deleted? I appreciate any help - negativity not so much. - Author — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.12.200.50 ( talk • contribs) 23:46, November 15, 2005
      • UPDATE I have just revisited University of Kent and discovered KUCA has already been removed. Since it had no deletion discussion, I presume the chairman removed it. What should I do now? - Author
  • Merge a summary as per Haeleth, only weakly sourced -- redstucco 10:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Coment. ...nearly 15 members on the mailing list. Wow! When I was a student at Kent ( 1998- 2002) a society needed at least 20 paid-up members just to qualify for financial support! Timrollpickering 23:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Note LOL! I don't know who edited it but it's truely sad!! I assume it was you, Tim? Anyway, whoever it was, it's certainly a KUCA activist and that just goes to show what lengths tories have to go to to win an argument. I've already suggested this article can be deleted, but it's still here: yet yours got deleted! Must be gutting for you. I have the original still on disk but I'm not THAT bothered that I'm going to re-post it.
    • The only edit I have made to the article is to put in the University of Kent category as part of a wider building up of both that and several other University categories. I don't know who wrote what about the numbers on the mailing list, but perhaps the number of paid-up members would be a better statistic to use. That the KUCA article got deleted is not gutting for me - it had been VfDed before. Timrollpickering 05:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. As Chair of Kent Labour Students, I can say with some authority that this page is entirely pointless. For the record, we have over 40 paid up members (plus 100 more on the mailing list), but if people are going to edit articles out of spite or some childish attempt at "politics", then the whole thing is even more pointless. We are a Labour Club at a University; one of hundreds in the UK and no one in the world cares about us apart from our loyal members. If anyone is interested in finding out more about us then they can visit our quite extensive website. Therefore I see no reason for there to be a Wikipedia page at all. Markleach 23:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep after Capitalistroadster's rewrite.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 09:15, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Keurboomstrand, Western Cape

NN + advertising. Is this even a real place? GeeCee 05:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Article title seems to have no relation to content, which is a blurb for a web portal. Saberwyn 05:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Rewrite if Keurboomstrand exists, and delete if it doesn't. -- MacRusgail 14:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • CR has made a proper article of it, keep -- MacRusgail 15:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Keurboomstrand exists: it's a real place on the Plettenberg Bay in South Africa. However, the present article is just an advert, and Google is unable to provide any useful information on the place to build a stub from - there is simply too much Googlespam to sift through. Get rid of this for now, unless someone else has better luck salvaging it. — Haeleth Talk 17:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    Keep now that it's a proper article about the place. Nice rescue job. — Haeleth Talk 22:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Article has been rewritten as a South African geo stub. Real resort with archaeological site of significance nearby. Capitalistroadster 19:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as of Capitalistroadster's rewrite. I'm unsure what I should do as the article nominator at this point. Should I remove the nomination from the AFD list, or just let it run its course? GeeCee 23:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply


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

The result of the debate was keep. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Lady Bardales

Scandals towards Lady Bardales may be considered controversial issue in Peru, but to create an article about this person is non suitable on Wikipedia according to its policies about, what is encyclopedic and what is not and the article itself is more likely to be Vanity page. HappyApple 20:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. Article asserts sufficient notability. KeithD [[User_talk:KeithD|(talk)]] 20:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per above and expand. Numerous pages of relevant Google matches. PJM 20:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. We need more articles that are chiefly significant to other countries and not to English-speaking ones, not less. Stuff like this is the entire way to slowly fight the systemic bias of the English Wikipedia. And if we can have dozens of pages on Monica Lewinsky... - Silence 23:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Messhermit's argument (that she had minimal impact and quickly disappeared from public memory even in Peru) is vastly more convincing than HappyApple's argument (that she's controversial, and thus noteworthy, in Peru, but not here). Just as importantly, this article doesn't seem to exist on the Spanish Wikipedia, which contradicts my earlier assumption that an Anglocentric bias was the reason behind this VfD nomination. If this article shouldn't exist in the Spanish Wikipedia, it certainly shouldn't exist here. - Silence 04:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral. Changing my opinion makes me hot. - Silence 05:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I am disturbed that this article has no citations whatsoever. With a reference, it is easy to judge whether an article is verifiable. Without it, the burden of research is being inappropriately placed on the reader rather than the contributor. Now, a quick Google on "Lady Bardales" yields many hits, mostly in Spanish, so providing them shouldn't be all that hard. No vote yet. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • keep-per Silence. DVD+ R/W 22:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The impact that she had was not the same that with Monica Lewinsky, and she quickly dissapeared from public memory. I see no point in creating an article for this person. Messhermit 01:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Notable friend to Peruvian president. Could be an issue in upcoming elections, so why delete now? Oh, and our Monica Lewinsky article is really not all that long. -- JJay 04:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply


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


There is a unanimous call to keep this article, including two votes to speedily keep. The article describes an important Supreme Court case from 1984; however, it is entirely unreferenced. From a brief search of law websites, the documentation available on this case is of such volume and notability that I cannot see how it might be termed "non-notable." However, it does appear that the article has been mistakenly titled. The case in question appears to be UNITED STATES v. LEON, 468 U.S. 897 (1984), argued January 17, 1984, decided July 5, 1984, with Justice J White delivering the Opinion of the Court. This is not the same as LEON v. UNITED STATES, 384 U.S. 882, a 1966 petition for a writ of certiorari. Therefore, I will move this article to United States v. Leon, and source the article to references.

Finally, if I may be so bold as to suggest it, this underscores yet once more the importance of paying attention to WP:V. The verifiability policy is a central pillar of Wikipedia article policy, and I hope we pay more attention to it than we currently do. This AFD is closed. encephalon 11:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Leon v. United States

NN. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 04:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • KEEP. This is a notable 1984 case dealing with our 4th Amendment rights, in particular concerning Search & Seizure. See Cornell Law School summary.   (I do note that this page reads as if it were taken from a reference work.)   ERcheck 04:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as per ERcheck abakharev 04:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per ERcheck. A quick Google test of a few phrases doesn't indicate that this is a copyvio, but it could use some cleaning up. I've done very minor cleanup. -- W.marsh 04:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I don't think Wikipedia should be a legal library but the really important cases will likely be searched for and read. Ifnord 05:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as important US case. Capitalistroadster 05:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep please! Ashibaka ( tock) 05:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep, annoying abbreviated nomination. Kappa 07:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for obvious reasons Descendall 07:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, absolutely no reason given for this supreme court case being "NN". Plenty of reasons given for it being "N" though. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Seriously. Reyk 10:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. SCOTUS cases are national news in the US when they're in progress, often have prominent places in even general history books when complete, and are heavily analyzed and discussed in both law and general circles. I would support a merge of this article to an article on evidence procedure (or even an article about the "good faith" evidence principle) in the US, but right now this article is fine as it is. - A Man In Black ( conspire | past ops) 10:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I find it very odd that an administrator nominated this for deletion. This seems like it would be a very obvious keep to anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of wikipedia. Descendall 11:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I can understand the nomination since as it is written, the article doesn't do a great job explaining the significance of the judgment. I could provide a much clearer expostulation of its significance. Dottore So 11:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply


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

The result of the debate was keep after rewrite.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 09:45, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Lesson plan

Dicdef plus collection of external links. Wikipedia is not the place for either. — Haeleth Talk 13:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Keep and Expand, a notable subject in the field of education, potentially a rich article. Bjones 13:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Transwiki to Wikitionary per nomination. A two line description of a common term is not encyclopedic. The "collection of external links" is exactly three items long. Durova 14:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nominator. Dicdef. -- MacRusgail 14:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, cleanup, expand. BD2412 T 17:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but tag for cleanup. A lot of cleanup. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] (W) AfD? 21:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Since all but one sentence of the original article was flat-out wrong, I have rewritten it to describe the flow of a typical lesson. D e nni ☯ 04:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • comment well done, much better :-) Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] (W) AfD? 11:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep improved article. Joyous | Talk 03:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply


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

The result of the debate was keep. (No consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Lex and Terry

Two unemployed radio jockeys in Jacksonville. They don’t seem very notable. Let the panel decide. ♠ DanMS 04:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep and cleanup; subject shows some notability according to Google. -- Merovingian 05:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep these guys were on in many national markets, actually, not just Jacksonville. 25 major cities according to their website. 150k hits on Google... I think that's notability. Current article has Crystal ball issues, but that can be cleaned up. -- W.marsh 05:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - not notable, and of no international interest. -- MacRusgail 13:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as non-notable. I don't think you need international interest, but you certainly need more than these two has-beens garner. Ifnord 14:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep. These guys are notable morning DJs on many American radio markets. Youngamerican 16:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Notable - many more markets than just Jacksonville. Turnstep 01:55, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep . - Mailer Diablo 00:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

List of songs that have been considered among the worst ever

The major problem with this article is that it's original research. Rather than a reproduction of a published list of bad songs, this article is made up of some titles taken from such lists with no apparent methodology. Since there are no set standards for inclusion, the article could be expanded indefinitely. Some sources are cited, but many are not. This results in significant NPOV and verifiability issues. If someone has a suggestion as to how this article could be brought up to wikipedia standards, please share it. djrobgordon 02:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Take note of the following past VfDs for articles nearly identical to this one: - Silence 22:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep. It does provide citations for each of the entries, and it does mention Shatner's LSD, which has definitely earned its place on any such list.-- SarekOfVulcan 02:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Among the entries without citations: She's Having My Baby, I Love You, She Bangs -- djrobgordon 02:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep but delete all entries that are not sourced. State strict criteria requiring sources be cited, and not just someone's opinion. Also there's quite a bit of POV comment needs to be trimmed. I gave the "She Bangs" listing a rewrite to not only remove POV but also to better cite why it's considered one of the worst songs. Suggest, actually, that this be renamed "List of RECORDINGS that have been considered among the worst ever." 23skidoo 02:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Tag for cleanup and weak keep as above. Ben Aveling 03:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep. It is not original research to write an article that isn't a copy-paste of a pre-existing article. "Original research" would be saying "x song is bad" when no one significant has said that before; listing various songs that have been especially noteworthy for a source saying that they are bad is not "original research", it's combining old research into a new, easily-accessible way. In fact, I'd be more tempted to delete this article if it was a "published list of bad songs", since it'd very likely be a copyvio and in any case would be 100% useless (since an external link or "further reading" mention would suffice just as well). If there are POV or verifiability problems, be constructive rather than destructive: make them NPOV and verify them. - Silence 03:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The current article is cited. It's just the talk page where speculation runs rampant. As long as that stuff doesn't get to the article page, we should be fine. I promise to keep an eye on this one and revert if that does happen. <font color="#663366">Jacqui</font> [[User_talk:Jacqui M Schedler|<sup>★</sup>]] 03:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, of course! Trollderella 04:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, seems to be based on major polls and reputable sources. Now I can't get "Disco Duck" out of my mind. Durova 04:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - by its very subjective nature, how could POV ever be removed? Ifnord 04:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • See WP:NPOV. Kappa 07:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • NPOV doesn't mean not publishing opinions; it means not publishing original opinions, the opinions of the authors. It's appropriate to describe a song as "This song has been described as one of the worst songs ever," as long as you cite who described it as the worst ever and when. - A Man In Black ( conspire | past ops) 10:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep. It's true.-- Dakota t e 05:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, all the entries in the article appear to be cited and the subject is as valid as the list over the worst movies and games, etc. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, do a major POV-ectomy, remove unsourced entries and rename to a more manageable title. - Mgm| (talk) 09:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I am missing something: how can this ever be properly referenced and NPOV'd? I don't understand the response to Ifnord's objection which I think is reasonable. After reviewing the back and forth, I am changing to Delete. Dottore So 11:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete - entirely subjective, some people's worst song is another's favourite. I know people who love "We built this city" and "Achy breaky heart" (there's no accounting for taste, but the dislike is not universal, otherwise they'd never have got anywhere.). -- MacRusgail 13:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • "entirely subjective, some people's worst song is another's favourite." - Hm. You clearly don't understand Wikipedia lists, or at least this one. The article is not about songs that everyone thinks are the worst ever, it's about songs that a powerful majority have said are the worst ever in various polls. Since nothing in the entire world is agreed upon 100% by anyone, I'm surprised that you'd make such a bizarre demand as to only allow this article to exist if it was somehow fancifully possible to magically see what songs everyone hates (as though such a song could exist). It makes no more sense than expanding "no original research" to "no research", as some on this vote seem to be arguing for. As long as it's not Wikipedia's opinion that's being expressed, but rather various third parties, the article is completely NPOV, and just needs some polishing up and expansion to reach an acceptable level of quality. Hopefully you will regret your delete votes if this page ever reaches the level of quality of, say, List of films that have been considered the worst ever; if not, there's probably no chance of reasoning with you. - Silence 22:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Lists like this are quite possible to maintain and keep NPOV, the important thing is to have cites for each listing. Turnstep 14:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. "Considered among the worst ever"? By whom? Why should we care? Even if every entry on here was cited from some publication, it's still pointless. People's opinions vary; one man's trash is another man's treasure and vice versa. There is no coherent connection between entries on this list. It makes no more sense than List of songs that have been widely enjoyed. flowersofnight (talk) 15:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • "By whom?" - By any noteworthy, major source.
  • "Why should we care?" - Not caring about an article's topic is not sufficient rationale for deletion. Plenty of people do care about this topic, because they're interested in major popular opinions and their reaction to various songs. I don't care about Albert I, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg, but you don't see me putting him up for VfD. And this article will benefit, inform, and interest substantially more people than Albert I, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg.
  • "People's opinions vary; one man's trash is another man's treasure and vice versa." - You don't seem to comprehend the significant other aspect of that saying: yes, there is no unanimity in what is or isn't "treasure", but there is certainly a strong majority! Most people who see an unearthed trunk full of gold coins, for example, would call it "treasure", even though some wouldn't; the fact that there is dissenters no more means that we can't discuss what people consider "treasure" than that we can't discuss what people consider "terrible songs", as long as we cite sources. You fail to draw the line between "every song is liked by someone" (which is as true as it is irrelevant) and "it's impossible to call any song widely disliked because there are always dissenters" (which is patent nonsense; unanimity is not a requirement for majority): the whole idea of these articles is to base it on majority and widespread opinions that have been documented by major polls, lists, reviewers, etc. It's not to find any song "unanimously hated"; since such a notion is inherently impossible, I'm surprised that you even considered that as a possible goal for this article, or for any other article. All articles on Wikipedia focus solely on the most noteworthy, relevant, and significant bits of information related to the topics they encompass. If not, we'd have a 10,000-page article called History of the Yosemite area instead of a 16-page one. The minor details are always assumed to be excluded from any page; this one is in absolutely no way different.
  • "There is no coherent connection between entries on this list." - Sure there is. "Songs that have been considered among the worst ever by noteworthy sources". You'll have a hard time getting more coherent than that.
  • "It makes no more sense than List of songs that have been widely enjoyed" - It makes more sense because there are hundreds of ways to try to determine people's favorite songs; album sales, polls, etc. And we already host numerous ones of those on Wikipedia. This is the only page which attempts to address in a general way the opposite: songs that are very widely (or very noteworthy for being) disliked, according to the numerous attempts that have been made to study this. It's an interesting article on a nice subject that has a lot of potential. That's good enough for me. - Silence 22:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Intrinsically POV – Shoaler ( talk) 16:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • keep I'm not exactly sure, but this may have been the article that brought me to Wikipedia in the first place. It helps make the internet not suck, which is my primary wikiprinciple, I suppose. Youngamerican 16:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - generally sourceable, and well sourced. BD2412 T 17:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, lovely little article. Remove unsourced or dubious entries. Punkmorten 20:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep with TLC (criteria, etc.) The JPS 21:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Subjective list bollocks of the worst sort. Since it is now obvious that this will be kept, at least change the name to reflect what it is: a list of Pop Songs in English. Otherwise, most French songs would qualify, as well as every Eurovision song contest winner starting with Abba. -- JJay 21:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • POV is not a valid reason, on its own, to delete any article. It's a reason to put an NPOV tag on the page so people can focus on improving it. In fact, there's a tag specifically created for this purpose: Template:Limitedgeographicscope. If the article doesn't have a global perspective yet, then, doi: add songs that have been widely considered among the worst ever in other parts of the world! What's so hard about that, that you think deletion is a better solution? Would you delete all the other articles that don't yet have a sufficiently international perspective, like Constitution, Actor, Civil rights, Fox hunting, Massage, Freedom of speech, Middle East, Cordless telephone? Why waste people's past and future efforts like that? - Silence 22:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I did not use the word POV. I did use subjective and bollocks, which is what I think about the article. The songs may be cited from lists that various people/magazine readerships/pundits/hacks have devised. Those lists are inherently subjective and yes POV now that you mention it. I am not in the business of wasting "people's past and future efforts". I was voting. As this article will be retained, I intend to take up your suggestion and waste some of my future efforts in scanning the horizon for a list of the worst foreign songs that I might humbly contribute. -- JJay 01:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Fair enough. I certainly wouldn't be so quick to judge that this article won't be deleted, though. It's only been one day and the delete votes are increasing rapidly. Out of 29 votes, there are currently 11 Delete (including 2 Strong Delete) and 18 Keep (including 4 Weak Keep and 1 Strong Keep), making the percentage for keeping the article currently only 62%. Could change easily. Anyway, I apologize for putting any words into your mouth which you didn't intend; I didn't mean to. And I'm glad you're willing to help improve the article even though you don't think it should exist—excellent attitude for Wikipedia in general. Though I still must disagree with you entirely—reproducing POVed lists on Wikipedia is completely in keeping with NPOV policy, which only states that we can't put our POV on Wikipedia; every noteworthy source's POV is absolutely fair game. That's how we can write any article at all: by representing all noteworthy POVs, not trying to pick and choose which ones are more or less "subjective" than others. If it's an external, significant POV, than we can mention it, no matter how distorted its views are. And if there are significant rebuttals, of course, we should include those too! - Silence 10:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: "Have been considered?" Excuse me? That's every song, ever. This is a ridiculously inherently POV, ridiculously unverifiable, ridiculously purposeless article. Geogre 21:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • That's what we have a shiny "move" button for. To move articles to a more appropriate title, but read the comment below. - Mgm| (talk) 22:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • All lists on Wikipedia are automatically assumed to only have the most noteworthy examples of possible things that could be listed on them. That's why we don't have "famous" or "noteworthy" or "widely" in every single list on Wikipedia: it's pointless. Just think about it. List of people believed to have epilepsy, List of Europeans, List of Eagle Scouts, List of people who were cremated, List of people who have disappeared, List of virgins, List of World War I veterans, List of Christians, List of deaf people, List of sculptors, List of suicides, List of people by name, List of Cubans, and hundreds more—think about it. These lists aren't meant to have every item imaginable, just the most noteworthy one: it's assumed that a "list of Muslims" or similar will only cover especially noteworthy Muslims (i.e. ones who would have their own Wikipedia article, generally), not every Muslim in the world! That's just much more efficient than having "famous" in every article on Wikipedia. In the same way as People speculated to have been autistic only deals with noteworthy speculation, "List of songs that have been considered among the worst ever", for obvious reasons, and quite clearly to anyone looking at the page, deals exclusively with major, widely-publicized polls and other noteworthy sources for various people's opinions on the subject. It's not meant to be an objective list of the worst songs in the world, which is why it's called "list of songs that have been considered among the worst ever", not "list of the worst songs ever". "Considered" assumes "considered by a noteworthy amount of people" and possibly "considered by especially noteworthy individuals" (like perhaps if Bob Dylan consistently labeled a certain song as the "worst ever"; though that might not be within the scope of this page). Arguing that an article should be deleted because a literal interpretation of its title would make it unmaintainable, even though it's actual topic, dealing, as it does, with only the most noteworthy and well-known "songs that have been considered among the worst ever", is quite maintainable indeed, is arguing for the deletion of tens of thousands of Wikipedia articles. - Silence 22:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Geogre and as fully, utterly, unmaintainable. -- Blackcap | talk 22:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Infinitely more maintainable than any of the lists I mentioned just above. Do you really think it's harder to have a relatively comprehensive list of songs that have been widely considered the worst ever than to have a relatively comprehensive list of noteworthy Christians? - Silence 22:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete as original research and inherently POV. Plus it's listcruft. Plus all the songs I consider "the worst ever" seem to be No. 1 in the charts. This is an unsalvageable concept. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] (W) AfD? 22:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. A well-written, thoroughly referenced article. I found no evidence of original research. When I browse Wikipedia for fun and education, this is exactly the kind of stuff I look for. Owen× ☎ 23:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as intrinsically POV. Nandesuka 23:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Because of the references to many lists of 'worst songs ever', even though Im not happy that We Built this City is up there. Astrokey44 23:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I like the comment about how "this helps the internet not suck." Well put. Jtmichcock 01:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Most entries are properly cited; those that are not can be removed. D e nni ☯ 03:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Utterly Neutral. I hope this article doesn't give anyone the wrong impression about Wikipedia, because it seems at first to be inherently POV. And it will need to be constantly monitored for vandalism. Of course, every item on the list will need to be referenced. Yet despite all its setbacks, I think it has the potential to grow into an informative, helpful article. -- TantalumTelluride 05:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I love looking at lists like this -- but not on Wikipedia. The person who wrote this article should put it on the web. They probably put it here either 1) to get more eyes -- which it is not Wikipedia's job to provide -- and/or 2) lazy. It IS a good article, but that's not the point -- is the article concept good for Wikipedia? Also articles like this will be maintenance problems. On the other hand, since Wikipedia kept the Worst Films list, its hard to justify deleting this one. Herostratus
  • Comment - Would anyone object to my linking to this VfD on the Talk page of List of films that have been considered the worst ever? Effectively, this vote is a vote on whether or not to delete the entire series of "X that have been considered the worst ever", since there's absolutely no significant difference I can see between a list of movies that significant sources have called "the worst" and a list of songs that significant sources have called "the worst". Therefore, this VfD is equally as significant to the editors of those other pages as it is to those of the much-less-frequented and significantly-lower-quality List of songs that have been considered among the worst ever, if not more significant. So, shall I provide the link for any interested editors? I don't think they'll be happy to see an article that's gotten over 1550 edits since August 2003 get deleted without their being given a chance to vote too. For that matter, this VfD probably applies equally to Films that have been considered the greatest ever, Computer and video games that have been considered the greatest ever, etc. I'll link to this vote there, too, if no one has any problems with letting all the editors most informed and experienced in this topic and very specific type of article have their say. - Silence 10:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • On the movie article, they police it pretty well and remove movies to a separate page [43] which dont qualify as the 'worst' with a big notice on the talk page - I think if this article did the same thing there wouldnt be a problem --- Astrokey44 11:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • I think this article already does a pretty good job of policing its entries and making sure they all have sources. I agree that a separate list of "removed songs" could be interesting, to avoid having people re-add songs that have already been rejected and to keep tabs on them. Not vital, though, and could be more of a hassle than simple removing anything that isn't properly sourced and explained. I did link to some of the above pages to help people get suggestions for various ways to improve this article, though; some images would help spice it up, and it might not be a bad idea to broaden the perspective to include other determiners for being considered "worst song" (like if an especially noteworthy critic, musician, celebrity, organization, etc. called it the "worst song", not just various polls and such). - Silence 11:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Isn't the deletion review page for articles that were deleted in a previous AfD? (Since the section was previously called "Votes for Undeletion" and was recently changed.) Or have they expanded it? - Silence 20:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete per nom, A Man In Black, flowersofnight, and others. This is inherently POV and unmaintainable. Side question: Does Trollderella ever vote Delete? Ever? Did I miss it? KillerChihuahua 16:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
A. Occasionally - you have to keep your eye on the ball if you want to see it! ;) Trollderella 16:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Smerdis of Tlön 20:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete In this case it's just way too subjective. Although there have been magazine polls of worst song. A list of what "won" in those would be acceptable.-- T. Anthony 17:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • This is such a list. Look through the actual page: it's all magazine polls and so on, all cited sources that have claimed "X is the worst movie ever". If you disagree with the name rather than the subject matter, vote for renaming rather than for deletion. - Silence 18:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Agree with Silence. As long as it adhere to the NPOV, it seems encyclopedic. -- Andylkl 18:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. For reasons given above. For persons who argue that list is POV and unmaintainable have not checked the list of worst movies, which is excellent. -- Reflex Reaction ( talk)• 23:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, looks like a very nice list and well-maintained. Tuf-Kat 21:18, 18 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep, well sourced and not just being pulled out of nowhere, every song was deemed the "worst" by professional reviewer(s) and publications

-- Fallout boy 04:54, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply

* Comment. Unfortunately not very true. The article claims to be a list of songs that have:
achieved a notable level of infamy, through critical and popular consensus... based on specific mentions by music critics, producers, promoters, or other industry-related individuals or groups who have presented their informed opinions.
Sources viewed as noteworthy and major (to quote Silence) include www.Bestandworse.com [ [44]], a site with an alexa of 106,000 that features voting on topics like How would Jesus Drive? or Least likely place to find a Nun?; unsourced citations from local DJs; non-industry humorists Dave Barry and Mad Magazine; humor site www.popculturemadness.com (Alexa 96,000), which doesn't explain how it came up with its list except to say that it was voted on by visitors [ [45]]; so-called BBC online polls, that had a very low sampling and were apparently not conducted either by or for the BBC. More reputable sources include VH1 (but no link is provided and I haven't found the polls online), maybe WFMU (a small local radio station) and Blender magazine, for which wiki already has an article that could be expanded- Blender Magazine's 50 Worst Songs Ever!. Now maybe I've left off a few valid sources, but I fail to see the notable level of infamy or the critical and popular consensus. I do see a list drawn from a seemingly random selection of ad hoc sources, largely geared to humor, without any real criteria in terms of polling validity, industry knowledge, or informed opinions. -- JJay 06:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This is a subject on which people will inevitably have POVs; this is not the same, as some erroneously assume, as being inherently POV. To point out that something needs work does not demonstrate that it needs deletion. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:54, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

List of songs with only one word in their title

  • Delete. Not useful, who would need such a list? - splot 02:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Alot of lists may be subtrivial, but subtrivial value is separate from degree of public interest, not to mention, not too many songs are only one word long. (unsigned comment from anon)
  • Delete. Listcruft run amok. This not only serves no useful purpose, but is so broad a definition the list could run into the thousands of titles. 23skidoo 02:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I'm surprised there are so few songs listed. I think I could easily grab a few hundred from my iTunes library, but I just don't see the point. Mrtea 03:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, I suppose. Unless they're really notable one-word songs for some reason, there's too many to just add. Case in point: From my near-700 MP3 collection, I found 120 songs with only one word, which totalled up to nearly 8-and-a-half-hours. There's just too many, and there's not enough rules (what about nonsense words? Words with numbers? Names?). Sillstaw 03:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete what could the use of such a list possibly be? -- W.marsh 03:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - one word, six letters. Edwardian 04:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Question. Is this the same jolly contributor who brought us List of Songs with an Adverb in the Title and List of Songs with a Fraction or Non-Integer in the Title? ♠ DanMS 05:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, have no problem with lists, but can't really see a use for this one. - Mgm| (talk) 09:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Arbitrary criteria, no unifying theme or subject, and a hopelessly broad scope mean that this list will never be a useful navigation aid. - A Man In Black ( conspire | past ops) 10:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Listcrust. I hate listcruft. Reyk 10:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete junk list. Dottore So 10:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per many of the comments above. Unmaintainable. Thousands of songs have only one title, and I don't think Imagine or One (U2 or Metallica - take your pick) are on it. -- MacRusgail 13:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, and I'm a big supporter of lists. Now we just have to wait for List of songs with more than one word in their title... Turnstep 14:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I am probably one of the more inclusionist AfD voters in regard to lists, but this does not meet even my loose standard of whorthwhileness. Youngamerican 16:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, deplorable liscruft. Punkmorten 20:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete does not seem well thought out -- TimPope 20:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Help!: I mean delete. (Distinction without difference.) Geogre 21:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete listcruft -- Jaranda( watz sup) 22:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. May not be very useful but someone might be needing to use this list. This list needs to be expanded.
  • delete listcruft run amok Pete.Hurd 23:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Liverpool (NY) Public Library

WP:ISNOT the Yellow Pages. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 18:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete until they prove the building's architectural significance, or something like that. Anville 22:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Nothing in this article could not be got by asking the janitor. D e nni ☯ 04:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unless notability is established in some way, any way. I'd love to see Wikipedia have more entries for libraries, but not like this. Jessamyn 17:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete no independent sources -- 62.25.106.209 11:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • delete per nom and all the above! UkPaolo 14:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Lobster man from mars

Looks like patent nonsense to me. Speedy deletion recommended.   Denelson 83  08:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

It appears to be a copyright violation (see: [46]) so I've listed it on copyright problems - Akamad 09:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. WP:ISNOT a forum for reviews. As the page is ill-suited for WP anyway, irrespective of copyright status, a delete consensus will relieve the WP:CP backlog by one entry. Incidentally, this is not patent nonsense, which has a very specific meaning on WP. encephalon 15:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • delete pointless UkPaolo 14:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC) reply


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Love Puddi

Non-notable band. Fails google test. Haakon 13:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

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

The result of the debate was move to Lucky Cow. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Lucky cow

Article for a comic strip that doesn't seem to exist. No Google hits. I've never heard of it, either. Wikipedians, do your duty. Bumm13 04:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Macarburettors

Not notable, doesn't meet WP:MUSIC criteria - Akamad 06:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Super Smash Bros. Melee. - Mailer Diablo 04:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Male Wire Frame

The article is duplicated in the Super Smash Bros. Melee entry. -- Frekja 10:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Malveaux

Biography of a moderator for a handful of online forums. Fails WP:BIO as far as I can tell. Saberwyn 05:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

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

The result of the debate was speedied -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Michael Shadduck

Alleged hoax. — Phil Welch 21:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Mike chambers

Non-notable vanity page, and promotional to boot. A quick jaunt through Google shows no mentions of Mike Chambers in the stated context aside from blog pages. → Ξxtreme Unction { yakł blah} 11:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Do not delete this article. I am scouring the web to find more links and references about Mike Chambers. Give me a few days and you will see plenty more references and more information. Thanks!

  • Well, this discussion will continue for five days. Until some evidence is produced I'm voting delete. The Land 11:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

I would like to add, I am NOT Mike Chambers. I am just another programmer who has benefitted greatly from some of his stuff. Particularly his QuickBasic sockets interface! I understand the "promotional" thing you mentioned though, and thus deleted the download.com link! Sorry. There are a lot of other coders on forums who thank him in huge numbers for his works!

If you can provide examples of his work and evidence its importance to a significant group of people (preferably numbering in the hundreds of thousands), then I'll happily change my vote. The Land 12:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • The link isn't the only problem. You're using overly praising language when Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view ( WP:NPOV). Calling Chambers "the greatest Visual Basic programmers of the 1990's and into this decade" and saying "He has written numerous amounts of software, all of which is top-notch." are both examples of not being neutral. - Mgm| (talk) 12:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Question Is that a picture of Jack Black? Descendall 12:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • The caption for the picture at the bottom of the page now reads "Mike Chambers high on cough syrup." I'm changing my vote to speedy delete since this page now has the whiff of harassment about it. → Ξxtreme Unction { yakł blah} 12:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
User:209.163.126.240 has been vandalising the page... why does that make it a speedy candidate?
  • Delete. I can't see any substantiated claims of importance, here. - A Man In Bl☭ck ( conspire | past ops) 12:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and WP:BIO. No convincing evidence of notability. No source citations for encomia. Possibly verifiable, but the onus is on the contributor to provide the citations that would make verification easy. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Ifnord 14:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 20:14, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Mirthful Mind

Band vanity / promo. No relevant hits on Google and the band hasn't released any records. – Mysid 10:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Vanity. -- Frekja 10:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • The article says the band "are about to record their first EP." Non-notability is thus established. Delete. TheMadBaron 14:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, not notable, reads like a newspaper article. - Bobet 15:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Note:Reverted vandalism (blanking) by 59.167.21.196 at this point. - Bobet 22:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Reverted blanking of the vote (again), this time done by 203.51.65.118. - Bobet 16:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • delete once as per nom, and then again once more for vandalizing AfD Pete.Hurd 20:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Moesman

Wikipedia is not a geneaology resource (did I spell that correctly?). Written by IP that also commited sneaky vandalism to Culture of New Zealand and possibly others. Delete. - Mgm| (talk) 11:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as per nominator. nn -- MacRusgail 14:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Is this related to Moseman (speedied below)? howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 17:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 20:14, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as definite hoax and possible attack page. - Mgm| (talk) 23:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Moseman

Appears to be utter nonsense, could not find sources to back this up. Written by user who also commited sneaky vandalism to Culture of New Zealand. Very much like to speedy, but bringing it here, just to be sure it is as nonsensical as I believe it to be. - Mgm| (talk) 11:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Had I been in a bad mood I would have marked this as speedy for being patent nonsense. As it stands, delete. The Land 11:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for reasons above. Lame name for a demon anyway. PJM 12:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nominator. Possible personal attack. -- MacRusgail 14:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Most Impactual men of the millenia

Not encyclopedic list. feydey 21:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, though I'll have to remember the word impactual for future use. — HorsePunchKid→ 龜 21:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, though I'm glad to see that AfD can embiggen the vocabulary with all sorts of perfectly cromulent terminology! Anville 22:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect to UltraSPARC T1.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 09:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Niagara (chip)

This page is both incorrect and a duplicate. It is not a chip, it's a microprocessor. "chip" is slang for microprocessor. Additionally, this article is talking about the UltraSPARC T1 processor, which has its own article. The original author linked this page from Niagara, a disambig page, and ignored the already created Niagara Processor link, which is now a redirect to UltraSPARC T1. The only contributor is anonymous. In summany, this page is misleading and a duplicate, and does not serve to enhance wikipedia. — Fudoreaper 22:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect to UltraSPARC T1. Dragonfiend 22:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per Dragonfiend. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. No need for a redirect. The chip is already on the Niagara disambiguation page. I doubt anyone is going to type “Niagara (chip)” into the search box. It is much more likely that a person would just type “Niagara” and thus be sent to the disambig page. ♠ DanMS 01:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per Dragonfiend. Redirects are cheap. I can see how someone might link to it from an article. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 17:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Nimo family

Wikipedia is not a geneaology resource (did I spell that correctly?). Written by IP that also commited sneaky vandalism to Culture of New Zealand and possibly others. Delete. - Mgm| (talk) 11:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

    • Delete as per nominator. Not one of Germany's largest families - I think "Mueller" would have that honour.-- MacRusgail 14:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 17:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 20:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Nodewar

Hoax, vanity, etc. Delete. — Phil Welch 21:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete I doubt it's a hoax, but it's just an IRC channel like millions of others. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 17:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • delete NN IRC channel Pete.Hurd 19:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Nullium

Non-existent element. It's been speedied before (sans infobox), but I don't think it quite qualifies. — Cryptic (talk) 23:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Should Neutronium also be nominated? The only real difference is that Neutronium makes it clear that it is fictional. But Nullium could be edited to do the same. Descendall 00:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Neutronium, it's a widly (and generally consistently) used concept in sci-fi, also has some limited scientific credability although I'm too lazy to look up the references Astaroth5 08:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. The difference between neutronium and nullium is that the former has actually been used in some science fiction works, The Atom comic book comes immediately to mind. Jtmichcock 00:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, fiction, andjavascript:closeafd("delete", "")

Delete the article doesn't assert any notability. - Bobet 02:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Keep: this article is new, give it a chance to be added to for its notability to be asserted. It is not fiction: everything in the article is true, including the decay rate (see Free neutron). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.120.73 ( talk • contribs) 17:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • comment the only thing I've encountered in fiction with a name like nullium having 0 neutrons, 0 protons, 0 electrons, is "null matter" from the cartoon Shadow Raiders. 132.205.45.110 20:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Fiction? Pseudoscience? Nonsense? Original research? In any case, unencyclopedic. MCB 07:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC) reply


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

The result of the debate was Transwiki. Rx StrangeLove 06:54, 26 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Numpty

Dictionary entry. (and is it really true?) -- Aleph4 20:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. This doesn't belong here.-- Alhutch 20:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Move to Wiktionary. It's a real word. It may be slang, but it'sfairly widely used, primarily in Scotland but also throughout the rest of the UK. KeithD [[User_talk:KeithD|(talk)]] 20:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete it's common in the UK generally (especially the uk.rec.* Usenet hierarchy) but it's a dicdef for all that. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] (W) AfD? 20:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Rewrite and move to Wiktionary Term is definatly real and in moderatly common usage. Astaroth5 22:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Transwiki per KeithD and Astaroth5. Certainly not a common term throughout the UK, given that I've never heard it anywhere in the country in my life, but the more modest claims the article makes appear to be true and appropriate for Wiktionary. — Haeleth Talk 23:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Always check Wiktionary first, before suggesting transwikification. Uncle G 07:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • The wikipedia article contains a more complete definition, (well, apart from meaning (a)) so merge/transwiki is still relavent Astaroth5 08:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
      • Wrong. You yourself said immediately above that the article should be rewritten. There's no point in rewriting an article here and then transwikifying it. If the article needs to be written afresh, as you state, then anything that is to be written should be written in the dictionary directly. Uncle G 09:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply
        • Rewrite then move, copy and paste the content, new (similar) content to wikitionary, what does it matter so long as the relavent content moves to the proper place? Astaroth5 10:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply
          • It matters in that it is sheer laziness and a knowing and deliberate imposition on the editors who transwikify articles. If the article needs rewriting, then the right thing to do is to write the content in the actual place that one wants the content to end up, not to write it somewhere else entirely and then ask other editors to perform the complex process of copying what one has written to the place that one desires it to be. Uncle G 11:59, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or move to Wiktionary. It is a common term of mild abuse in Scotland but is not encyclopedic. Keresaspa 13:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • move to wiktionary UkPaolo 14:25, 18 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Certainly a word. Used as slang, heard on Radio 2 Terry Wogan show and in chat rooms in UK in past 2 weeks (20 Nov 05)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted under G4 recreation of previously created content and A1 short page with little or no context. Capitalistroadster 16:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Oberin

NN ad for RPG. "Is still in beta so I can not go into great detail". jnothman talk

  • delete per nom jnothman talk 16:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete as devoid of content, merely a link to a web site. Ifnord 16:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply


Oberin

This is a computer game that is still in its beta test version and not available to the public. No Google hits for its developer, Creative Vision Interactive. Delete. — Brim 08:58, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not a part of an established franchise so this article is a tad premature, rewrite if it ever gets released -- nixie 12:45, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Four year old private beta. -- Longhair 13:56, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As a private beta, it is too early to be in Wikipedia. Zzyzx11 19:29, 20 Feb 200 (UTC)
  • Comment Drizzt2"- Four year old private beta. -- " Longhair
  • Wrong, its been private beta for 1 year and a half, nice try tho.


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Omj

Dicdef. Also seems to be a neologism, couldn't find any uses in a quick google search. Thue | talk 22:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Ove von Spaeth

Advertisement for one guy's fringe theory. See Talk:Ove von Spaeth for more info. Delete tin foil hattery ad. Lupo 13:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep after radical editing, and POV editing. -- MacRusgail 14:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as vanity. One minor journal article does not a notable person make. However, there may be a page - List of Crackpot Egyptologists or similar - that we can merge it to. The Land 15:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Overcoming procrastination

How-to self-help guide. Original research. An HTML comment in the article correctly says Wikipedia articles are descriptive rather than prescriptive however this article is irretreivably prescriptive. -- RHaworth 22:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • It's purdy. Could we make it a Wikibook ? Kim Bruning 23:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or transwiki. Wikipedia is WP:NOT an instruction manual. Indium 23:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
I'll also add that there's also a similar section in the main procrastination article added by the same user. Whatever is done to this article should be done to it as well. Indium 23:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

it's importent subject. but it needs improvment. li — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.80.0.52 ( talk • contribs) 23:41, November 15, 2005

The user's only edit. Indium 23:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
(but since it's a comment, that's ok :-) Kim Bruning 01:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC) ) reply
  • Delete or transwiki. as per Indium Bwithh 00:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Ironically, I am procrastinating right now. Descendall 00:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a self-help guide. I just made that one up and it’s not in WP:NOT, but maybe it should be. We get such articles occasionally. (I am procrastinating about adding that to WP:NOT.) ♠ DanMS 01:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete ...when you get around to it, that is. BD2412 T 02:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I'll vote to delete it later. 23skidoo 03:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:03, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Paul Loughton

NN-bio. Only 8 Google hits for "Glasgow's number 1 quizmaster" and only 4 of them are him. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 23:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Pcidata

A program written by (apparently) an undergraduate at the University of Wisconsin Madison. No evidence of notability. dbenbenn | talk 19:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • It's used by people, I know that much, but is it commonly used? Gee whiz, I don't know about this one...weak delete for now since it doesn't seem to be in very common usage but I'm open to change. Lord Bob 20:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. As is, I don't even think it's even good enough to be a dictionary definition. Ifnord 20:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Some Google hits point at the developers site, Wikipedia and its mirrors., and some are obscure, but most seem to point at bug reports. My impression is of flawed software in early stages of development. Anyway, the article sucks, so delete per Ifnord. TheMadBaron 21:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted under categories G1,G2, G3, G4 and A1. Capitalistroadster 16:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Pew pew

nonsense nonattempt at an onomatopoeia dicdef Davidrowe 13:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Speedily delete per G3 and G4 – vandalism, previously deleted as nonsense. – Mysid 13:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Speedily delete, I added a template. -- Aleph4 13:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Speedily delete, total nonsense. Descendall 14:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Pierre Shepherd

If I understand this article correctly then he is not notable. Thue | talk 23:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy delete Head of halls of residence is not a claim of notability and there's no other. Now my comment is longer than the "article". Dlyons493 Talk 01:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete A7 howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 16:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • delete NN, very NN, good grief. Pete.Hurd 18:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was I wouldn't normally close an AfD in which I had participated, but since I didn't actually state an opinion about this article and it is a slam-dunk... Keep - brenneman (t) (c) 06:43, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Pierrot Lunaire (band)

You know the drill; fails WP:MUSIC but sadly can't be speedied under CSD A7. Deltabeignet 23:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Keep, albums in 1974 and 1976. Kappa 02:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Kappa, also listed on allmusic. — Wahoofive ( talk) 04:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • It's nice to go ahead an include the link when making statements of this nature. Also, simply having an allmusic entry isn't the criterion. - brenneman (t) (c) 06:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • weak keep, Note: the entire WP article is three (very short) sentence long, which is three sentences longer than their write-up on AMG. Yhe albums were released on BMG, so I'll go with notability... Pete.Hurd 18:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Pinkzilla

Not notable, fails WP:MUSIC criteria. - Akamad 06:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. Page admits little-known. Marskell 07:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Dottore So 11:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 20:25, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Progressive Bloggers

Old VfD is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Progressive Bloggers2

Not notable Skrewler 01:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Alexa ranking is 760,324. -- Joel7687 02:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - There was an acrimonious debate over this entry just a few months ago, I see no good reason to revisit the subject. - SimonP 02:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete vote pending further review (see below) Despite claims that they're important in the political scene (on the talk page) in Canada, I find no actual media coverage to that effect. If they're as important as the New York Times (again a claim from the talk page) you'd think there'd be at least ONE reference to them on Google News... but alas, nothing. Doesn't really seem to be many comments at all to blog entries, suggesting not a large community. Low Alexa rank. Nothing to suggest there's a reason to have an article. -- W.marsh 03:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • If someone can verify the claim of their importance, then I'd quite possibly change my vote. But claims alone != proof. -- W.marsh 03:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Oh god, not this again. What a pain in the ass this debate was last time. All sorts of newbies and anons and arguments and name calling. Someone even claimed that deleting the article would harm polticial debate in Canada. Anyway, nominal delete, because that's how I voted last time, and I don't think anyone ever convinced me otherwise. - R. fiend 04:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Please keep in mind non-American systemic bias identified in Wikipedia. Using Alexa ranks to support deletion of non-American entries is a biased situation, because of the low national populations of other countries compared to the US (Canada has 1/10th the population).-- Simon.Pole 05:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Then divide the rank by 10 (or even 50) and it doesn't meet the proposed guidelines of WP:WEB. By your logic any non-US site, no matter how trivial, should be included. -- W.marsh 05:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
      • Should Alexa rankings even be applied to websites outside the United States? It seems that the criteria for Alexa "notability" is based on the U.S. experience. This in itself should exclude its application to non-US sites.-- Simon.Pole 06:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
        • This is largely a discussion for elsewhere... but I don't think Alexa is just U.S. thing. Maybe an english-speaking thing, but I think it's a pretty valid barometer of the popularity of english-language sites. At any rate the site being in Canada doesn't account for it having a rank 50 times lower than the WP:WEB guideline. But traffic is just one part of the decision here... I was just a bit bothered that it's unreliability was the only reason you cited for keeping. The lack of any real verification of this blog's importance is much more at issue, I think. -- W.marsh 06:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
        • Alexa is a self-selected sample, suffering from selection bias and the results are highly suspicious to someone with my statistical training. I can think of all kinds of reason why Canadian leftie blogger audiences would be more likely to chose not to install spyware on their computer. Luigizanasi 06:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
          • The bottom line is that it's a valid ballpark estimate of traffic... not accurate enough for most statistical purposes, but enough to estimate popularity. Even Slashdot, the poster site for the anti-IE/Anti-spyware mentality, gets a high rank and has double digits of IE/Windows-using readers. But this is an argument beyond the scope of this AfD I think. -- W.marsh 06:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete. -- As notable as my mother. (she's not unless you have a list of porn stars with huge tits) 65.34.232.136 05:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Do we really need to list every blogging group on wikipedia? And if you start saying that there's a lot of American blogger groups entries in wikipedia, please point them out so I can VFD them as well. -- Timecop 05:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Notable blogging group in Canada. Simon.Pole made it quite evident in the last AfD discussion that this site is politically notable in Canada with a fairly large number of media citations, notable memebers, etc. Luigizanasi 06:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Can you provide a link to any of those media citations? I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm just trying to be informed. I can't find the references, I've looked. -- W.marsh 06:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
      • Alot of the references were in the last vfd, and are actually collected in the Progressive Bloggers entry. I'll list some of them here though:
        • Role of Canadian blogging groups, including Progressive Bloggers on the Gurmant Grewal national political controversy discussed on [ CTV
        • Progressive Blogger member Dominion Daily weblog entered in the Parliamentary record during a constitutional debate by Seantor Anne Cools.
        • Columnist Antonia Zerbisias at Canada's highest circulation paper the Toronto Star regularly cites Progressive Bloggers as a source of news and ideas eg. 1, 2
        • Progressive Bloggers includes notable Canadians as members. These include pop star Matthew Good, Young Liberal Executive Co-Chair Jason Cherniak, and candiates for Parliament from the national parties including NDP member Crystal Leblanc.
        • The Progressive Bloggers "opposite number" the Blogging Tories, has almost the same qualities, including national public figures members like Adam Dafallah, national party candidates like Stephen Taylor and a good number of sitting MPs like Monte Solberg, Jeremy Harrison, Steven Fletcher, Jeff Watson and Andrew Scheer. Blogging groups, both left and right-wing, have national political signicance in Canada, something, judging by the reactions of non-Canadians, does not exist elsewhere -- Simon.Pole 07:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
          • Thank you for that information, I've retracted my vote for now and will review those further when I get time tomorrow. -- W.marsh 07:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This is a no-brainer in the Canadian media; this site is used as part of any good barometer of Canadian public opinion. Deleting this article would be a mistake, and I think significantly demonstrates an offhand US systemic bias on Wikipedia. It *is* tantamount to saying that Canadian political debate (which naturally contains a lot of debate about US policy, for reasons any Canadian would see as obvious) is irrelevant. As a Canadian, I'm inclined to object to that. References to PB or 'Canadian Blogosphere' as 'non-notable' here seem to be offhand and poorly informed. I don't hesitate to say that an American isn't going to be naturally inclined to make an informed choice about this. There are, after all, only 30 million Canadians. . . for US perspective, that's NYC and surrounding areas, and we're a pretty politically splintered group. That said, the Alexa rankings make perfect sense, and actually don't justify deletion based on overall popularity. Overall popularity among whom? Americans interested in Canadian political scandals? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.129.117 ( talk • contribs)
  • Weak keep for the above reasons. -- Merovingian 07:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Anybody who seriously wants to base a deletion argument on Alexa ranking alone needs to ponder these numbers very carefully. Every one of these is a legitimately notable and important Canadian media outlet or blogger whose actual importance within Canada is completely unreflected by its Alexa rank:
Rabble - Alexa ranking 112,658
The Tyee - Alexa ranking 114,045
Colby Cosh's blog - Alexa ranking 263,925
Andrew Coyne's blog - Alexa ranking 360,265
This Magazine - Alexa ranking 818,198
  • And hey, let's save the funniest for last, shall we? Rick Mercer's blog gets an Alexa ranking of 3,439,915. RICK MERCER, one of the most influential Canadian media personalities in existence, only ranks in the 3,000,000 range? Excuse me?
    Any metric which ranks all websites on a single scale is inherently going to favour American website traffic to the expense of other countries, and can quite easily misrepresent the actual importance of a non-American site to its own national context. Alexa is simply not a reliable gauge of a Canadian website's importance within Canada -- it's a reliable gauge of how many Americans visit a Canadian website. If a site as undeniably important as Rabble can't even meet the stated guidelines, then there's something seriously wrong with the guidelines. Every Canadian voter in this debate has clearly stated that Progressive Bloggers are notable enough. If our actual experience doesn't overrule the obviously flawed metric of a website whose statistical method isn't even regarded as valid by professional statisticians, then why don't we just let Alexa ranking stand as a speedy criterion and save everybody the trouble of thinking their opinion actually mattered or something? Notable enough within Canada to keep. Bearcat 07:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Just because something is supposedly notable in Canada and not in the rest of the world doesn't mean it deserves it's own article. Should a country of similar importance, say.. Christmas Csland had a blog group be notable because everyone on christmas island reads it.. of course not. Also, because blogs are webcentric, Alexa is a good metric for their notability. Of course using Alexa as a metric for Time Magazine doesn't make any sense. Skrewler 09:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
      • Comment - This is ludicrous. User: Skrewler, who put this article in Vfd in the first place, has just admitted that the criteria for notability is the United State of America. What a joke. Are non-American to be treated as second class citizens on Wikipedia?-- Simon.Pole 16:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
      • Christmas Island is hardly a country "of similar importance" to Canada. And Alexa is only a good metric of how many Americans read a website. Citing Alexa without context is essentially endorsing an "American stuff is automatically more notable than any other country's stuff just because it's American" policy. Bearcat 17:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - not notable/trash Adamn 08:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the first two sources cited by W.Marsh. Include them in the article if they're not there yet. (If Alexa doesn't show the notability of a website, one should not complain about US bias, but find alternative means to back up its inclusion) - Mgm| (talk) 09:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as blogcruft and canuckcruft. Dottore So 10:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Whatever else we have is always an argument by analogy. Looking at this article, we get unverifiable claims and, essentially, an ad for a particular blog. Blug. If there is a systemic bias, it's the bias created by slashdotted votes whenever a forum/blog/website comes up for deletion. Geogre 11:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete nn.  Grue  13:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: I'm sick of these far-right yahoos trying to crush the opposition with dirty-pool tactics like this. Dawg9:10, 15 November 2005 [DST]
    • This is not a war. I could care less if you're left or right, frankly I don't even know the difference. This is a not notable article promoting a blog. That's why it's on VFD.
      • Right. Which is why you've moved to delete Blogging Tories too. I must have missed that.
  • Delete, not notable. Fer real. I don't care what country you're in, if nobody reads your website even adjusted for population, your website's not notable. Although, I dunno, maybe I'm just ruthlessly promoting systemic bias against the country I'm from. Lord Bob 17:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • And how exactly do you propose to judge that "nobody reads the website even adjusted for population"? Bearcat 17:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
      • There are no certain measurements at hand, of course, but the evidence listed above by others is circumstantial but, in the situation, persuasive. I choose not to assume that, lacking evidence, this blogger group is notable because they say so. Lord Bob 17:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
        • Lacking evidence? The evidence already presented in the article is fairly substantial; if you can't see it, Simon.Pole summarized some of it above. Do you seriously find anybody else's argument-by-Alexa-rank persuasive in light of the fact that a blog as widely read and talked about as Rick Mercer's doesn't even manage to rank in the top 3,000,000 according to Alexa? Or were you just asleep during the whole Gurmant Grewal thing? Bearcat 18:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
          • I've read the article, and the "evidence" does not impress me. And as for Mr. Mercer's blog doing so poorly...guess what? As a blogger, Rick Mercer is not notable. As an actor, he is. Just because a famous person's blog isn't notable doesn't mean that all traffic rankings are crap. Lord Bob 18:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
            • "Not impressing you" is not generally my bottom-line metric of notability. Its role in the Grewal affair spells notability whether that personally interests you or not. Citations by Antonia Zerbisias spell notability whether that personally interests you or not. And I'm most certainly not conflating Mercer's significance as an actor with his significance as a blogger; his blog, specifically, is one of the most-talked-about Canadian blogs on the web. Unless you're proposing that it's somehow possible for people to talk about Rick Mercer's blog as much as they do without anybody ever actually reading it, the dichotomy just doesn't do Alexa any favours. Bearcat 18:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
              • Well, if my reasons for deletion don't impress you, then that's too bad, one fewer 'delete' vote on this AfD. But I stand by them, and we'll just have to agree to disagree, I suppose. Clearly, neither one of us is going to convince the other. Lord Bob 18:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
                • I'd be more impressed if you were actually attempting to address and/or refute the stated facts — how does PB's role in the Grewal affair not equal notability? how do regular citations by Antonia Zerbisias not equal notability? how does citation in the Parliamentary debate record by Anne Cools not equal notability? etc. — instead of relying on the "because I said so" school of assertion. But whatever floats your boat, I suppose. Bearcat 18:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
          • (So much for me agreeing to disagree!) Anyway, regarding citations: in my opinion notable people citing you does not automatically confer notability onto you. Said citations are not mentioned on the Wikipedia article on Progressive Bloggers, incidentally. And their role in the Grewal thing seems, to me, almost trivial. As in, the only mention of Grewal in their article is in the 'trivia' section. Actually investigating what role they seem to have played bears this out...ooh, look out, one of them made what amounted to a diff. Notability is a subjective issue, we all know that. And I do not think these guys meet it. Lord Bob 19:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Both Blogging Torries and Progressive Bloggers enable Canadian web users to access blogging communities of like minded individual. These communities enable anyone to engage in a common forum across Canada where ideas and politics can be shared and critiqued. Without these blogs, Canadians from the grassroots to the top would not have a central online source to measure what other like minded individuals think on topics important to them. This in my opinion makes them notable. -- Jtorgers 19:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    user's second edit, has only editted this AfD. Lord Bob 19:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I have a feeling this might not be the only new user we're tagging today, since they're calling out the vote on us. Lord Bob 19:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Yeah this really is getting needlessly nasty. While I think the site is probably notable at this point, the attitudes and actions of the people supporting it (who all appear to be connected to the site) really don't make me want to vote to keep. Trolling for votes, acting like it's some big conspiracy against Canada, labeling critics as "The Vile Syndicate" in various places... that's not going to endear many people to your blog. I guess some don't care though. -- W.marsh 19:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Yeah, I really don't care what you Americans think. Trying to impress upon you what is notable in the other countries of the world is up there with taking out the garbage in my book. You can bomb the shit out of other countries, and destroy what they've made -- but that doesn't mean you have to bring that attitude on Wikipedia.-- Simon.Pole 20:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
      • Case in point right there... geeeeeeeeeeze. I'm trying to agree with you and still just get abuse. -- W.marsh 20:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
      • The nastiness is being perpetrated by this "Lord Bob" guy, a self-admitted supporter of the Canadian Conservative Party, who has crawled out of the woodwork in the midst of election fever in Canada, and is doing his party-hack thing right here. Nothing from "Lord Bob" about the notability of the Blogging Tories entry. This kind of thing is another reason to fear the election of Stephen Harper: rabid intolerance, intellectual dishonesty and a love of censorship. Don't take my word for it: read "Lord Bob." John Baglow 15:11, 15 November 2005 (DST)
        • ...riiiiiiiight. Lord Bob 20:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
        • John and Simon, would you both please tone down the rhetoric and keep this discussion on topic? This isn't about bombing or war, and it's not a nefarious Tory plot to sideline progressive discussion. It's just a debate about whether or not the article is notable enough on its own merits; the argument is easily made without resorting to ad hominem attacks. And while it is true that a single contextless Alexa-rank cutoff can distort the notability of a non-American site, it's not a conscious and intentional plot to institute American bias; it's just an accidental side effect of a policy that wasn't designed carefully enough. So would you guys cut out the conspiracy theories and stay on topic, please? Bearcat 21:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
          • Well said! Lord Bob 22:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
          • Thank you for saying that, seriously. -- W.marsh 22:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
            • Thanks. I needed that. What is Blogging Tories' Alexa rating, btw? John Baglow 17:44, 15 November 2005 (DST)
              • Sorry. W.marsh called me out. He was actually citing my user page in this vfd, which I took as a personal attack. So I replied in spirit. I'll keep it professional in the future.-- Simon.Pole 23:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
                • I'm sorry you took my quoting you that way... that wasn't my intent. I was just responding to how I perceived this discussion/situation. -- W.marsh 02:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Per nom. Non-notable except to the people who write in it. And the puppets? Eeeww. Ifnord 21:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • If this goes, Daily Kos -- which is directly comparable to this in both purpose and level of influence within its specific political context -- will have to be considered deletable per precedent. Bearcat 21:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
      • I agree, bearcat, maybe you should VfD Daily Kos yourself, you have my vote! Skrewler 00:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
        • You're the one who thinks these things aren't notable, not me. Sarcasm duly noted, though; can you actually explain to me why Daily Kos is notable enough for an article but a site serving the exact same function in another country isn't? Bearcat 02:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. -- Femmina
  • Keep - Notable group of Canadian bloggers. Bloggers are becoming increasingly influential and Wikipedia should maintain a comprehensive coverage of significant bloggers and groups. Capitalistroadster 23:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Not notable. 86.139.205.160 23:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    User:86.139.205.160's first edit. Two other edits on another political blog AFD. Luigizanasi 03:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This is clearly NOT notable. -- Impi.za 00:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    user's eleventh edit, has only edited AfDs. Lord Bob 00:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep it real
    vote by 207.200.116.66 ( talk · contribs). Lord Bob 00:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as blogcruft, and I say this as neither an American or a Canadian. I'm leaning towards individual country "blogosphere" (shudder) articles as weak keeps, but any subset NO unless there's a damn good reason. (CC of my Blogging Tories vote cos I don't want to sound biased) - Randwicked 01:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I don't believe much of the opinion that goes on there, but I don't see that as a reason to delete it. Semperf 02:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. One of Wikipedia's recognised strengths is that it is up-to-date, especially on recent phenomena. We have articles on every single imaginable video game, most music albums you care to mention, practically every single piece of software out there, a number of usenet newsgroups, Wikipedia did better than the regular news media on recent events such as the London bombings and Hurricane Katrina, and so on. Where else but Wikipedia can people find hopefully neutral information on the recent and increasingly important phenomenon of blogging, especially political blogs, which are not neutral by their very nature. NPOV articles on Blogging groups (not necessarily individual blogs, mind you), perform a vital service to the world at large. Luigizanasi 04:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Nope, sorry, "blogs" are not worth a shit in the real world. JacksonBrown 05:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The deletion of this entry appears to be part of an organized effort among several users to erase all blog-related entries from Wikipedia. The organizing list is here. I've noted elsewhere that they even put J.D. Lasica's entry up for deletion. If that alone doesn't show a profound ignorance about what is actually happening in the world, well, they must be in high demand for jury duty.-- Simon.Pole 08:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Please note that User:Timecop has proclaimed a "War on Blogs" on his user page. His user page also says that he is a leader of the Gay Nigger Association of America. The GNAA is a notorious group of organzied trolls on the internet, who actually forced Slashdot to go their original karma system because of unrelenting spam. Looks like they're targetting Wikipedia now. Great. -- Simon.Pole 09:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Comment This definately a GNAA exercise. User:JacksonBrown who voted delete above had a huge GNAA slogan on his user page that was removed by administators (you can see it here). I don't know what else to say. The GNAA is organizing a mass deletion of blog-related entries. All blog-relate vfd's should be stopped immediately.-- Simon.Pole 09:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
      • Comment Whats with the systemic bias of the GNAA? Skrewler 09:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • You know, I thought it was a bit odd how many sockpuppets were kicking around with nothing but AFD votes on blog articles to their names. I really should've been digging harder. All votes which are identifiably GNAA sockpuppets are to be considered struck from this debate at once. Bearcat 10:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • As this is a discussion all "votes" which do not provide a rational are to be considered... oh, wait a second, isn't that the job of the closing admin to decide? Gee, maybe I'd better keep the commands to myself then.
      brenneman (t) (c) 23:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. More stupid blogging crap. Enough already. -- 86.2.56.178 12:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete Every political blogger out there wants it's 5 minutes of fame, and wikipedia really isn't a grounds for that. Google's cache is all you really need, not worth writing about, or reading for that matter. -- Depakote 12:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Simply not notable. Incognito 13:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • sockpuppet Dawg (yep) Bearcat 19:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
      • Excuse me? im a sock puppet simply because I agree with the deletion of this article? Can we atleast see some proof of your inane childish accusation? Thank you. - Incognito 13:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
      • Same with this one, what criteria are you using? Skrewler 09:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Anybody calls me a sock... will, um... get socked. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 14:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • sockpuppet Dawg (nope...freakofnurture = legit user) Bearcat 19:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Blogcruft. Reyk 01:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • I'm still waiting for somebody to explain to me how this would be inherently less notable than Daily Kos in the absence of a "Canadian automatically equals unimportant" criterion. Bearcat 01:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Stop using the "better than the worst article" argument, since pages fall and stand on their own merits, not as a group. If you really think that article does not belong in Wikipedia, nominate it for deletion. Wikipedia is not Everything2. Tito xd( ?!?) 04:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
      • This is not a "better than the worst article" argument. If you think it is, you might want to read a bit more carefully. (Hint: it would be absolutely impossible to even begin formulating a claim that Daily Kos was anything less than an instant keep; I'm asking what makes this different.) Bearcat 05:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with Canadian blogosphere, since I went through all of the links provided above, and I could not find any evidence that this site had any overwhelming influence in Canadian politics. That said, I believe the content does deserve a mention in the overall blogosphere site, since as a whole, it does possess more influence than in other countries. Tito xd( ?!?) 04:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, Organized deletion vandalism merits banning. -- FOo 05:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. It's notable for anyone who's interested in Canadian blogging, same as Blogging Tories. -- The Invisible Hand 08:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    user's eighth edit. Lord Bob 08:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with Canadian blogosphere. Slartoff 03:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Rhobite 03:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Clearly more notable than GNAA, which we have an article on. - Nunh-huh 04:14, 18 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • How so? According to Alexa, GNAA is 400,000 while progressive bloggers is 800,000. On top of that, in contrast to progressivebloggers.ca, gnaa's claim to fame is not running their website. Skrewler 05:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC) reply
      • Perhaps it is because being constructive, or being serious, brings notability, or because teenage pranks don't bring notability. Or all three. - Nunh-huh 05:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Canadians seem to be in agreement that this plays a significant role in Canadian politics. That seems sufficien§t to keep. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:35, 18 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. If every Conservative had their way the only things posted on Wikipedia, or any other site for that matter, would be Conservative propaganda. HisHighness420
  • Keep Because, as discussed above, this is part of an organised campaign by known trolls. mennonot 17:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Failing that, Merge with Canadian blogosphere. Because, as discussed above, this is part of Progressive Blogger's war on wikipedia. Thank Bob that this is a discussion and not a vote. That means that since there has been no evidence presented that this is important to anyone outside the rabidly incestuous blogging community, it will probably be deleted. - brenneman (t) (c) 06:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    I choose to believe that you're thanking me. You're welcome! :P Lord Bob 06:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • There's no war on Wikipedia being waged by Progressive Bloggers. There is a war on Wikipedia being waged by a bunch of deletionist trolls called GNAA, which isn't the same thing. Bearcat 17:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
      • Next time I'll use </sarcasm> to make sure that you understand. It's usually the sign of a weak argument to attack the person rather than simply presenting a compelling reason that they are wrong. Anyone who wants to keep this based upon a "campaign" instead of the evidence should have their recomendation completely discounted, as they are not adressing the issue of this article. I don't care if the GNAA are sodomizing nuns in the name of Cthullu, they have their facts correct - this is a non notable blog zealously defended. The fact that we aren't having a calm and measured discussion about facts speaks volumes, but that instead the arguments seem to be "because canadians say so". Both this and the previous AfD are examples of special interest groups shouting down common sense. Be proud, be very proud.
        brenneman (t) (c) 23:11, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
        • I think you should go back and read the comments in chronology. It was the GNAA who introduced the irrationality into these discussions by calling arguments "bullshit" and wikipedia entries "retarded."-- Simon.Pole 01:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply
          • Sorry, the first really irrational entry I see is - Yeah, I really don't care what you Americans think. Trying to impress upon you what is notable in the other countries of the world is up there with taking out the garbage in my book. You can bomb the shit out of other countries, and destroy what they've made -- but that doesn't mean you have to bring that attitude on Wikipedia.--Simon.Pole 20:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
            And you still have failed to adress the basic issues of WP:V and WP:CITE. brenneman (t) (c) 01:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply
            • Actually, there's nothing irrational about that statement. American bombing is a fact, producing many dead facts. Furthermore, when I am accused of seeing "conspiracies against Canada" (the statement this quote responds to) when Wikipedia has clearly identified a systemic bias against non-American entries, I am not the one being irrational. I did not mince words about how unsavoury it is to have to respond to foreigners saying Canadian entries are not notable. Only from an American point of view would this be seen as "irrational." Just as the view that Iraqis might not want Americans occupying their country is "irrational."-- Simon.Pole 02:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Racho Hiley

Nonsense. Borderline to speedy. Delete Paolo Liberatore ( Talk) 17:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Raging Ranter

Not notable, advertisement/vanity Skrewler 09:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Advertising each insignificant blog on here makes no sense. If you insist, create a List of blogs and put a url + one-liner for each one. But then, why make Wikipedia a blog index? -- Timecop 13:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- Femmina 22:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- Impi.za 00:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. 65.34.232.136 02:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Non notable, vanity page. -- 86.2.56.178 12:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Agreed with above. -- Depakote 12:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Reyk 01:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Fails to assert notability. "Conservative blog that some other conservative bloggers think is pretty cool"? Sorry. - Randwicked 07:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Vanity. Incognito 13:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Regulator 7

I can't find much information about this band. It appears to fail the music guidelines. NSR ( talk) 14:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as per nominator. NN -- MacRusgail 14:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and rest easy knowing that Bristol is apparently in no imminent danger of losing its housing department to the world of rock & roll. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] (W) AfD? 21:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 20:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Relenter

NN band. Fails WP:MUSIC. -- howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 00:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: Gigging band, unsigned and undistributed, not yet notable enough for an encyclopedia entry. Geogre 01:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. I have heard it suggested that we make it easier to delete NN bands. Has this gone anywhere? Ifnord 04:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete nn. mikka (t) 06:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete nn. NSLE ( 讨论+ extra) 09:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nomination Avalon 12:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, fails WP:Music. HGB 18:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Repairmanual.com

Advertising for a website/service. ERcheck 04:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Revelation 4:11

I believe there is (but am too lazy to find) precedent for deleting specific biblical verses. Nothing "Links Here." Boxclocke "!" 22:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Strong delete. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Malachi 2:3. Indium 00:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • There is certainly not a precident for deleting Bible verses mearly for being Bible verses. (Attempts to establish one spectacularly failed.) Good, referenced, NPOV Bible verse articles have always survived AfD. However this is mearly the text with a POV commentary - so it should be deleted unless somone has the time to write something worthwile. -- Doc ask? 00:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete There is a Revelations topic that deals with the whole thing. Jtmichcock 00:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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. mikka (t) 02:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Rew

Nonsense, but not exactly in the Wikipedia sense (npi). And it even tries to assert the signifigance of the great h4x0r in question. – Mysid (talk) 08:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

The chronicles the life of the infamous AOL Instant Messenger hacker "Rews." It's informative, and I think it should stay. -- 12.111.153.194 08:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, the style is stolen from Real Ultimate Power.
  • Delete. I laughed, though. NatusRoma 08:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Speedily delete. This qualifies under G3. See also silly or joke vandalism under WP:VAND. encephalon 09:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete as same IP created Operation Redux, with content "Operation Redux was the act of the president trying to arrest Rew. Rew ended up punching everyone's soul out of their ass, then having sex with all of their girlfriends/moms/female cousins/and sisters." Rd232 talk 10:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete, as per the above comments. -- PeruvianLlama( spit) 02:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Rock Hard Anims (RHA)

Non notable. Vanity. Advertising. User keeps deleting various advisory tags placed on it. ➨ ❝ REDVERS ❞ 20:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. I'd normally re-run this, but the final edit (though by an anon) seems to confirm the hoax. - Splash talk 03:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Sandile Basuthwe

This page is a hoax. Such a person has never existed.

The idea of this person being non-notable is a paradox, since the article proclaims his supposed "notoriety". However, a quick way to assess this article's falseness is by the mention of a "South Park Hospital". This is clearly a joke, and such a hospital does not nor ever did exist in Johannesburg, South Africa.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Sashikanth Chandrasekharan

Looks like a corporate website bio, nn-bio? Weak Delete or Cleanup, but figured I'd see what others feel.-- Syrthiss 20:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as per nom. Not notable. Dlyons493 Talk 01:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete Yegads, this is A7 material. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 17:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • delete non encyclopedic, nn =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:44, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. - Splash talk 03:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Scientific Community Metaphor

This is an acticle about a non-notable paper1 written by it's author. I could live with that (being an inclusionist) if it wasn't for the fact that he links from a lot of inappropriate places to this article, overcategorizes it and reverts any changes not made by him. -- R.Koot 14:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

1 The author has removed the fact that this is a paper from the article after it was listed on AfD. -- R.Koot 20:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The particular reference in question mentioned above is a journal article on the Scientific Community Metaphor that is cited in the following publications (among others):
  • Tad Hogg and Bernardo A. Huberman "Better Than The Best: The Power of Cooperation" Lectures in Complex Systems. CSSS: 1989 Lectures in Complex Systems. The Proceedings of the 1989 Complex Systems Summer School.
  • L. E. Hall and N. M. Avouris. "Methodological Issues of DAI Applications Interface Design: Transparency Analysis" (1992)
  • L. Moreau and C. Queinnec. "Distributed and Multi-Type Resource Management" (2002)
  • David Fitoussi and Moshe Tennenholtz "Choosing Social Laws for Multi-Agent Systems: Minimality and Simplicity" (2000)
  • Dejan S. Milojicic and Gul Agha and Philippe Bernadat and Deepika Chauhan and Shai Guday and Nadeem Jamali and Dan Lambright and Franco Travostino "Case Studies in Security and Resource Management for Mobile Object Systems" AAMAS 2002
  • Gul Agha, Ian A. Mason, Scott F. Smith and Carolyn L. Talcott "A Foundation for Actor Computation", Journal of Functional Programming Vol 7. No 1. 1997.
  • S. Labidi and W. Lejouad "De l'intelligence artificielle distribu'ee aux syst`emes multi-agents" Rapport de recherche INRIA SOPHIA-ANTIPOLIS 1993.
  • Luc Moreau and Christian Queinnec "Distributed Computations Driven by Resource Consumption" International Conference on Computer Languages. 1998
  • P. Moscato and F. Tinetti "Blending Heuristics with a Population-Based Approach" R.Rep.: Universidad Nacional de La Plata, 1994.
  • S. Laufmann "Toward Agent-Based Software Engineering for Information-Dependent Enterprise Applications" Journal of Software Engineering 1996
  • Michel Coriat "Formal Specification Using Agents Conceptualization" Labo MASI, Universite PARIS VI
  • R. M. Turner "The Tragedy of the Commons and Distributed AI Systems" Proceedings of the 12th International Workshop on Distributed Artificial Intelligence. Hidden Valley, Pennsylvania. 1993.
  • Gerhard Weiss "Some studies in distributed machine learning and organizational design" Technical Report FKI-189-94, Institut f¨ur Informatik, TU München 1994.
  • J. Euzenat "Building consensual knowledge bases: context and architecture" Towards very large knowledge bases. Knowledge Building and Knowledge Sharing 1995, pages 143--155. IOS Press, Amsterdam. 1995.
  • Keith Decker "Environment Centered Analysis and Design of Coordination Mechanisms" UM-CS-1995-069. 1995.
  • Shaw Green, Leon Hurst, Brenda Nangle, Pádraig Cunningham, Fergal Somers and Richard Evans "Software Agents: A Review" TCS-CS-1997-06 Dublin. 1997
  • Nadeem Jamali and Gul Agha and Indratmo and Xinghui Zhao "Decentralized Resource Control for Multi-Agent Systems" AAMAS 2004.
  • L. Gasser and J. P. Briot "Object-based Concurrent Programming and Distributed Artificial Intelligence" Distributed Artificial Intelligence: Theory and Praxis Kluwer Academic publishers. 1992.
-- Carl Hewitt 21:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. -- R.Koot 14:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep and Rewrite. Charles Steward and Fastfission convinced me this is just notable enough not to be original research. As this AfD seems to be going to a no-consensus I will start an RfC against User:CarlHewitt, so this article can be rewritten. -- R.Koot 23:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • A google search turns up references to the paper, and plenty of encyclopedia links, showing Carl Hewitt's linking handiwork, but little to substantiate its presence beyond the confines of this paper and the power of WP. This looks like self-promotion by other means. Delete pending demonstration of wider significance. To the point about the user's inappropriate behaviour, that is clearly no reason to strike down an article if it is otherwise noteworthy. If he persists with such violations, there are measures that should be taken and other editors can go in and excise the cruft. Dottore So 17:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The article lists 4 publications directly on the subject matter.-- Carl Hewitt 17:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
So all the other references are not on the SCM (as I suspected)? -- R.Koot 20:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
As in many encyclopedia articles, references are cited for material that is relevant to the article.-- Carl Hewitt 20:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Just for the record the article to which you are referring was published in IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics SMC-11. 1981.-- Carl Hewitt 21:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Original research it is, then. Thanks for clearing that up. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] (W) AfD? 21:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Are you familiar with Wikipedia:No original research?-- Carl Hewitt 22:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Yup. Are you familiar with the old saw "when you're in a hole, stop digging"? I'd say all you are doing right now is pissing people off. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] (W) AfD? 22:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
On the Wikipedia, nobody can tell if you are a <pause> jokester;-)-- Carl Hewitt 05:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Bringing it up for deletion before a paper trail of arguments for and against content has been made seems overly agressive. Does not appear to be original because at least four articles have been published on it, and many more, and very notable people, reference it, making it seminal. It can't be just vanity because the prime author of the the concept is Kornfeld, not Hewitt. You can't delete articles just because the primary contributer is pissing people off. I think Hewitt can be persuaded to be more cooperative. Take your differences out on the Talk page first where it's more appropriate.
Montalvo 02:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  1. Non-notability and (therefore) being extremely close to original research are reasons enough.
The area discussed by the Wikipedia article is notable as evidenced by the 18 citations listed at the beginning of this page.-- Carl Hewitt 15:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  1. From the references section in the acticle, I can only find one article which is directly about the SCM. That another paper cites this one doesn't mean they are about it or even related to it, just that the authors felt inspired by parts of it. Also Carl Hewitt is trying to make this paper seem like a methodoly of constructing distributed systems. He claims that it is notable now but refuses to give a satisfactable proof. Adn that it is becoming increasingly important, on which I can only reply that Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball.
The Wikipedia article cites the following publications on the subject matter:
  • William Kornfeld and Carl Hewitt. "The Scientific Community Metaphor" IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, SMC-11. 1981
  • Bill Kornfeld. "The Use of Parallelism to Implement a Heuristic Search" IJCAI 1981.
  • Bill Kornfeld. Parallelism in Problem Solving MIT EECS Doctoral Dissertation. August 1981.
  • Bill Kornfeld. "Combinatorially Implosive Algorithms" CACM. 1982.
-- Carl Hewitt 15:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  1. Check again [49]. Carl Hewitt seems to be as much the prime author as Kornfeld.
  2. Then please help me persuade him.
  3. Have already done so and I don't feel like putting more effort in it if the article ends up getting deleted. -- R.Koot 10:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Recuse. I am withdrawing from this discussion. I am not able to comment intelligently on the topic, and I can no longer deal with this editor’s antics with a neutral attitude. That no constructive work can be on any article that he has had a hand in without that article being under the interdiction of an AfC is disgraceful and is an indicia of the contempt that he holds this community and the values that it strives to uphold. DV8 2XL 16:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I don't think a delete outcome is appropriate for this article: the topic is notable as Carl Hewitt has amply documented, and as I am aware of from colleagues who are working in AI. There are problems with leaving the article as it stands, as CH is using the article to push his ideas in an inappropriate manner. I'll make an alternative suggestion that instead the article is merged into a broader article, where the SCM ideas are seen side-by-side with rival theories and a more balanced picture of the history emerges. The currently stub-like Intelligent agent article might be a better home. --- Charles Stewart 15:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: The topic has notability, agreed. Nevertheless, the position and importance of this idea in the network of sociological and philosophical concepts is still unclear. Carl Hewitt who appears to be one of the proponents this idea and the article, has extensively linked this article to other articles, (see [50]) thus possibly establishing for it a position in the network that it might not have had otherwise. This is damaging to WP. More seriously, I also regret that I need to mention the following: This action makes Hewitt suscepible to the charge that he is not acting in good faith, trying to use WP to distort the importance of his work. This is aggravated by similar behaviour in other places: see for instance Denotational semantics, which in my view should be rewritten from scratch, with only relatively minor mention of the actor model. I would urge Hewitt to stop this activity which is widely seen as pushing his own agenda. He can usefully contribute with his knowledge and experience to WP, but does not need to mention the actor model and other work of his at every turn.-- CSTAR 19:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: This article is really an advertisment of Carl Hewitt's work, with its proper title being "Carl Hewitt's personal scietific community metaphor". It starts out OK, but quickly degenerates into a combination of discussion of this Ether thing and references to Carl Hewitt's other work. When he makes references to physics, I find this article to be erroneous. The comments of Charles Stewart and CSTAR above also demonstate the inappropriateness of this article. Even if the subject of this article is notable, it should be documented by someone who can do so in an impartial manner and focussed on the concept itself. Until then, Wikipedia is better off without an article on this "scientific community metaphor" than with keeping the current article. -- EMS | Talk 19:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    I should emphasise that I do find encyclopedic value to this article, and an article on this topic could hardly fail to put CH in a prominent place. The problem is with the role this article is playing within WP. --- Charles Stewart 20:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
I hope that most abstracts of scientific papers have some sort of encyplopedic value. The question that is interesting is when it stops being original research and start being and mainstream scientific knowledge. A second point, the article start with The Scientific Community Metaphor is an approach to understanding scientific communities by extending pattern directed invocation programming languages that invoke high level procedural plans on the basis of messages.... Shouldn't that be the other way around? E.g. patern directed invocation programming languages modelled according to scientific communities? Carl? -- R.Koot 20:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Historically, it was the other way around. The pattern-directed invocation programming languages came first and the Scientific Community Metaphor was developed afterwards. However, you are correct that at this point the pattern-directed invocation languages should be developed according to the Scientific Community Metaphor which is in fact the way that research is currently proceeding. However, the results have not yet been published.-- Carl Hewitt 07:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • I don't fully agree that the only problem is the role this article plays in WP. The fact of the matter is that for or better or worse, concepts and links of concepts created within WP have a tendency to diffuse outward; this tendency is in fact one of the best arguments against wikipedia . For example, the relations between Latour and SCM or Popper and SCM I believe are tenuous. I don't dispute that associations have not been made, but does this really justify the following statement in the 4th or 5th graf of the Bruno Latour article?:
In computer science there are interesting parallels with Latour's work on science in action and the Scientific Community Metaphor. Subsequent work by Latour and others in the sociology and philsophy of science have deepened this connection.
If such statements are placed in articles, they should be thoroughly vetted. They have not been.-- CSTAR 20:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Try it, and time how long it takes before Carl puts it back in. -- R.Koot 20:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • I have conceded the point that the topic after which this article in entitled is probably encyclopedic. However, the article itself seems meander all over the place, bringing in the Turing test at one point and special relativity and the software paradigm of class inheritance at another. If this article is wholely rewritten by someone else I will happily change my vote. However, the only reason that I am not recusing myself is beacuse I know enough about software, relativity, and proper article flow to identify this article as the poor excuse of an article that it is. I cannot in good conscience allow it to stand as-is. -- EMS | Talk 04:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC) reply
This suggests the possibility of shortening (drastically) the article and removing most of the links into it as an acceptable compromise (although there is nothing to compromise, not with me at least, because I'm not voting to keep). -- CSTAR 05:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Recuse per DV8 2XL above. I have already had too many unpleasant interactions with Carl Hewitt and am not interested in engaging in yet more. I agree with almost every statement made above that wasn't made by Carl: the topic is probably sufficiently notable for some mention, somewhere; this article almost certainly needs editing and revision; it will be impossible to revise due to endless edits wars and lack of civility from Carl. There is a broader problem here: Carl is repeatedly engaging in behaviour that violates the spirit if not the letter of Wikipedia policy, and he seems immune to criticism and unable to reform. I am at a loss for what to do in such a situation. Its easy enough to vote delete but that hardly seems fair, and I certainly don't have the energy to do more than to ask Carl to, once again, take the criticism of others to heart and try to react to that criticism in a positive, constructive fashion. linas 02:45, 18 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as vanity and bordering with OR. I sympathise with Linas, as I have not had the will to indulge in discussion with Carl, which is generally a bad thing, but probably good for my nerves. Karol 10:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep. I'll admit, Hewitt is a bit abrasive and overly expansive in his additions, but this is a development of his actor model, which was important for Scheme's development. Let's not make this a referendum on Hewitt himself. -- Maru (talk) Contribs 20:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    I personally think that the content is as important as the topic in a case like this. So if you want to moot this action, then please do the rewrite. [I can't. Although I am a sotware engineer by trade, I have not dealt with this side of computer science. Instead I do much better in areas involving physics (in which I majored), especially relativity (in which I do independent research). So I know enough to see this article as written as invalid, but not enough to fix it.] To me, this is about the article, and it's being as written a significant part of Carl Hewitt's egregious self-promotion campaign. After all, the article talks more about Ether and physics than about the "Metaphor". -- EMS | Talk 15:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Thanks for your comments. What parts of this article strike you as "invalid"? If you could be more explicit, it would help to improve the article. The article is constrained to talk about Ether because it is reporting on published work. Also it would be helpful if you could say a little more about what you would like to know about the "Metaphor". Regards,-- Carl Hewitt 18:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and Re-Write - A neutral party should rewrite this from scratch. 86.3.213.128 20:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Comment: Your opinion may carry more weight if you log in, as per this graf in the AfD page:
Unregistered and new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons).
-- CSTAR 00:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Google Print indicates that this term and paper by Hewitt are referenced over forty separate books. I think that is sufficient evidence that it is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. I don't know anything about the guy himself or his tactics but this basic question seems beyond dispute. Whether the author himself wrote it means it should be parsed over for NPOV, but it doesn't violate NOR at all (it is published in a mainstream, peer-reviewed source). The place to discuss the behavior of the editor/author in question is RfC, not AfD. -- Fastfission 22:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or re-write - as is, the article is little more than a POV advertisement: it doesn't make clear exactly what the metaphor is or why it is relevant. It should either be deleted or completely rewritten by a neutral party. zowie 04:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Sconsing

Wikipedia is not a dictionary ➨ ❝ REDVERS ❞ 17:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • This is not a dictionary definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.63.165 ( talk • contribs) 2005-11-15 17:32:26 UTC
  • Delete. per-Redvers. also adding, it seems fratcruft.-- Dakota t e 17:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • "Fratcruft"? How can it be "fratcruft" when it is a tradition of a university where there is no such thing as a "fraternity" in the exclusively American sense? — Haeleth Talk 23:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • The word is sconcing and it has the simple meaning of the imposition of a fine, a forfeit, or a mulct. Uncle G 18:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
no, in the Oxford context it is specific act of forcing a drink on others. long heritage, banned in many colleges since a student died at (Balliol? Brasenose?) in the 80's. And it's sconcing:
[ [51]
  • Delete as dicdef or bogus dicdef...whichever. PJM 18:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete although genuine as defined (but spelled sconcing per above) , this is still a dicdef. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] (W) AfD? 20:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, clean up, and expand, like we have done for other dicdefs with growth potential. Notable and ancient tradition (albeit one more honoured in the breach than the remembrance). — Haeleth Talk 23:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Scott Chuss

Complete and obvious hoax; if anyone has a reason to speedy, please speedy. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Serendipity County

Not actually a football club, even in a lowly league, but a Fantasy Football team. Not notable. DJ Clayworth 17:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

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

This page has been recreated. Propose to delete agin, and perhaps action to be taken against the creator, User:Roserex57. See also Serenity Park Grunners 18:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result of the debate was Merge with Shakespeare on screen. - brenneman (t) (c) 06:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Shakespeare on DVD

I hope I don't come across as if I'm accusing User:Rick Norwood of spamming films.com, since he is apparently not doing it intentionally (either here or anywhere else he linked to that site), but this article does seem rather spammish and I don't see what the point is otherwise. Adam Bishop 17:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Article is biased, and somewhat poor in condition but I feel it is salvagable. The end product shouldnt look anything like articles current state tho.... :P -- Cool Cat Talk 17:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • De-POV-ify the article and Merge it with Shakespeare's plays Shakespeare on screen. Doesn't warrant its own article. → Ξxtreme Unction { yakł blah} 17:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with Shakespeare on screen or delete. What next - sister articles on Shakespeare on VHS and a stub at Shakespeare on betamax? The productions are notable, the format on which they are currently available is not. -- Doc ask? 18:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Merge Per Doc. Durova 18:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Merge Per Doc and redirect in case the term is searched. Youngamerican 18:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Agreed, Merge Per Doc and redirect. PKtm 19:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • 'merge per doc and Extreme, if there is anything whihch isn't already there (which kind of assumes the existence of straight-toDVD notable Shakespeare productions, but that way madness lies) - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] (W) AfD? 21:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per above. Worthy subject matter but should be grouped under one general theme like Shakespeare on screen. 23skidoo 22:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Merge There seems to be a consensus. I will attempt the merge, and also attempt to improve the article and remove POV. Rick Norwood 14:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I wrote the article without knowing about the article Shakespeare on screen. All of the information from Shakespeare on DVD has now been moved to Shakespeare on screen, and this article can be deleted. Rick Norwood 00:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep and use WP:RfD next time. - brenneman (t) (c) 06:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Shal Khichi

Shal Khichi was the former drummer for the Bouncing Souls. Shal Khichi is almost certainly linked only by Bouncing Souls, and it simply redirects back to Bouncing Souls. As Khichi has since quit the band and long longer is involved in music, this isn't going anywhere. Descendall 08:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. This is true, however, redirects are cheap, and someone who looks him up may be glad to be pointed to relevant info about him on Bouncing Souls. As it's a potentially useful redirect, I think this should stay. Descendall, for future reference, please list redirects for deletion on Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion and not AfD. Hope that helps. -- Blackcap | talk 08:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep. I agree with Blackcap. This is a useful redirect. Now that this AFD has been listed, I don't suppose there's harm in letting it run, but for future reference do note that RfD is the right venue for this. Kind regards encephalon 09:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete bu Jni as nn-bio. -- GraemeL (talk) 17:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Sian maynard

student bio-- Davidrowe 13:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Slam off

Dictdef. Also can't find any evidence that this slang term exists - if it does it's probably localised to a small group and so non-notable. My guess is that it's just an invented term intended to be offensive. But if anyone can find evidence to the contrary I'll take it back. Deco 07:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. WP:ISNOT a dictionary, even of established words. encephalon 09:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, dic def. Appears to be hoaxy too. Very few man can orgasm without penile stimulation, so this won't work unless you punch you-know-where and then only for a very select few. - Mgm| (talk) 11:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • delete patent nonsense Pete.Hurd 20:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Snigbug

Google declares: "No standard web pages containing all your search terms were found. Your search - snigbug - did not match any documents." I smell a hoax. → Ξxtreme Unction { yakł blah} 11:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Purposely introducing errors of this kind exist, but they don't appear to be called snigbugs. Unless someone can rename it, delete. - Mgm| (talk) 12:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, pretty clever hoax, however. Descendall 12:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per the above. The Oxford English Dictionary lists "snig (n)" as a "young or small eel", a "covetous or avaricious person" and a "slight projection or process". "snig (v)" is "to drag ... by means of ropes", "to steal" Pilatus 12:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as hoax. PJM 12:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete either a hoax or a non-notable neologism or a dicdef. Feel free to pick any one. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] (W) AfD? 21:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 05:59, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Spider-Man 3 (video game)

WP:ISNOT a crystal ball. We'll need an article on the game eventually, but this ain't it. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 20:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. While information that is "Most likely," "will probablly," etc. puts this article in definite crystal ball territory, I must agree that we all need to "Be prepared for it's kick ass graphics!" Dragonfiend 21:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 19:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply


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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted. The deed was done by RHaworth. I hereby decree this AfD closed. Blackcap | talk 22:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

St_Margaretsbury_F.C.

link advertising 212.63.55.77 10:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. No attempt has been made to write an encyclopedia article. TheMadBaron 14:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete. I've tagged it with {{ db-a3}}. Punkmorten 20:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. This is on the two-thirds level if I include the very very new editor (and above it if I don't). Since at least one editor has revisited the debate after the comment without changing their mind, and an additional deleter also turned up, there would seem little reason to look for a significantly higher than two-thirds level, and the requests for meeting WP:MUSIC don't seem to have satisfied those making them. - Splash talk 03:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Stacy Vance, Jr.

NN singer. Only 25 Google results and no AMG entry. Fails WP:MUSIC. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 20:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete since if he hasn't made it yet, he probably ain't going to. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] (W) AfD? 20:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, apparently one self-release [52], doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Also probably a copyvio. feydey 21:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep No copyvio since research paraphrased from multiple sources [53] [54] [55] [56] [www.indiemusic.com/cgi-bin/band_links.cgi], Published songwriter with ASCAP affiliation and credits [57] Bluesclues 02:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Bluesclues, could you please clarify what if any relationship you have with the subject? I note that this article is your sole edit on WP, which tends to invite scepticism. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] (W) AfD? 12:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Reply: Compiling bios on Baltimore-based blues singers, past and present, including Vance, Ethel Ennis, Paul Harrison, etc. As for this being my sole edit, one has to start somewhere, but since skepticism seems to reign supreme, I get the impression that posting any info on regional musicians is an exercise in futility. Wonder if there might be some bias against Baltimore blues, since other genres seem to be represented by what might be deemed lesser known musicians in other regions. Not taking any of your comments personally, mind you. Just trying to gauge the content of the rest of the site, yet be bold at the same time. Just a thought: Rather than treat a newcomer with skepticim, perhaps a word of welcome might be encouraging.
  • I think you might be overly sensitive here. If you scan the AfD archives you will see a lot of band vanities. Yes, everyone must start somewhere - and if you are a local expert on this music scene you could be very valuable in helping to separate the vanity articles from the genuinely significant. In this specific case you might be able to tell us which criteria of WP:MUSIC covers the subject. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] (W) AfD? 09:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • delete per above. Dottore So 14:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, regional notability and media interest demonstrated. Kappa 12:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Vance is a talented song-writer. It's only his first released album. Give the man a break.

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Star and stripe

Political/website promotion ERcheck 05:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine. This is a humorous political statement; but, does not fall within the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. ERcheck 05:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nom. -- Merovingian 05:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Do Not Delete Why is there a Wikipedia entry for the fictional character Jean Luc Picard and a link at the bottom to the www.startrek.com website? Why is that allowed, but an entry for the fictional characters 'star and stripe' with a link to their site is not allowed? It's the same exact situation. -- Wiki046 05:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Delete. The differences are: (1) Jean-Luc Picard is a fictional character from a long-running television series and several major movies, who was seen by millions of people, while Star and stripe are fictional characters from a web comic that apparently just started this month. (2) The article Jean-Luc Picard clearly identifies the character as fictional in the first sentence, while Star and stripe portrays the fictional events in the comic strip as factual information albeit of the kind nobody would take literally. (Problem #2 can be fixed easily, but problem #1 can't. See WP:WEB for proposed criteria that would determine whether the comic Star and Stripe would be notable enough for a Wikipedia article.) -- Metropolitan90 07:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Understood. Star and stripe don't want to stay where they aren't wanted. They will continue to travel the world and gather support, and will return to Wikiland, with their friend Alexa, when they are much more famous and popular. -- Wiki046 06:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete as the sole contibuter has conceeded to the deletion. Descendall 12:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


This article was speedily deleted by User:Doc glasgow with the summary "patent nonsense". This AFD is hereby closed. encephalon 09:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Tababtab

Silly article, unlikely to ever become encyclopedic. Wolfychan 06:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy Delete as nonsense. There are no results for the title on google. Indium 06:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete as nonsense. Akamad 06:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 05:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Tacos Sinaloa and Mariscos Sinaloa on the corner of East 14th and 22nd Ave.

nn restarant Delete -- Jaranda( watz sup) 23:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Two taco trucks? I don't think so. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 16:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • delete advertising for taco stands Pete.Hurd 18:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 05:59, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Tara Stewart

Unverifiable musician stub - only claim to fame is opening for Lucky Dube - no Google results on "Tara Stewart" "Lucky Dube". No album as of yet. Phil Sandifer 22:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete non-notable per nom. Dragonfiend 23:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Now now - I never said "notable" one way or another. She has a claim to fame - just not one that seems verifiable. Phil Sandifer 23:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: She appears to be getting a fair bit of interest from what I can tell, but probably isn't worth an article just yet. However, deletion of this one should not mean a future article could not be created - David Gerard 00:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and protect against re-creati... oh wait. Dottore So 14:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 05:58, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Teenage Plus

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. — Crypticbot (operator) 14:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Merge to Endsleigh Insurance. The Land 14:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete spam. I'd say merge, but Endsleigh are a student insurer so of course they do insurance for teenagers! - this will be out of date at all times, and frankly anyone who's interested can find it on Endsleigh's website. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] (W) AfD? 21:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Just zis Guy. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 17:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Very minimal debate, but it is blatantly a copyvio from the first link in the article (I spotted that instantly, somebody else should have, too, from the 'we' mode of writing). So I'll delete it since it's plainly being promotional in addition to the discussion here. - Splash talk 03:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC) reply

TEKSYSTEMS

This article claims notability for its subject ("Ranked number one in the industry by IT Services Business Report and as the nation's largest IT staffing firm") but I was unable to find any independant confirmation of the company's importance; that, combined with the fact that the article is written in the first person and largely copied from promotional text used elsewhere leads me to suggest deleting the whole thing as advertising. If the company is in fact important, of course, a complete rewrite would be fine. - squibix 14:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Comment - The page's author removed the AfD notice; I've reverted that edit. - squibix 19:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
And then he removed it a second time... - squibix 20:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete it is then. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] (W) AfD? 22:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • REVISED - how about reading the webpage itself. Obviously none of us are going to spend the fee of $500 for organization cost to prove them wrong or a manual of $40 for a magazine to do any type confirming of this and only this - josephrussell 09:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 05:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply

The Adventures Of Hao

Hoax. No such books according to Google and Amazon. And kinda coincidental that it would win the "Haobread" Award? howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 20:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy delete per nom - ryan-d 12:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • delete as per nom, "Baoders" obvious hoax X2. Pete.Hurd 19:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

The Allied Republic national soccer team

Hoax. -- Curps 22:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. What on Earth is "The Allied Republic"? Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Bad joke Keresaspa 13:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete NN/Vanity/hoax, not sure, but it's at least one. Pete.Hurd 19:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

The Clown God

  • Delete - Vanity/not notable - history before blanking shows that it was made up by a single group - Tεx τ urε 14:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Since this is apparently a Chinese parody religion, Google hits will not accurately represent its significance. The best course of action, in my view, is to go to the Chinese Wikipedia, and if this article is approved of there, it may be noteworthy enough to be here too. - Silence 16:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete since it's now blank anyway :-) Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] (W) AfD? 21:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

The death of the red clown

Hoax / Vandalism. Was previously speedied with different content. (Wonder if it's a coincidence that the article creator has 'Vfd' in his/her name?) HollyAm 02:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete or Speedy Delete as nonsense. ...More than 3 internets? Indium 06:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete, blatant nonsense. - Mgm| (talk) 10:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete apparent hoax. -- MacRusgail 13:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as hoax/nonsense. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Obvious hoax from someone with a limited imagination. Geogre 22:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this article. Fast.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete both articles. - Mailer Diablo 23:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply

The imperium, Sa-fora

NN forums and their founder. Searching "The imperium BDSM" brings up a whole lot of blogspam that happens to include some sort of sci-fi reference. -- howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 00:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 05:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply

The Real Al-Qaeda

Minimally verifiable garage band. http://www.google.com/search?q=%22The+Real+Al-Qaeda%22+grindcore gets 16 hits, 15 of them on Myspace. Ashibaka ( tock) 17:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply


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

The result of the debate was delete all 3 pages. - Mailer Diablo 23:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

The Reserve, J.T. Jester, Ace Destro

This is a collective AfD for the band The Reserve and two of its members. With one self-published album the band does not fulfill the criteria laid out in WP:MUSIC. Pilatus 19:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Yes, they only have one album, but what you are all forgetting is that anyone who doesn't like The Reserve is gay. -mx9

  • delete no claims to WP:MUSIC notability (and their defenders appear to be frat boys, sad what's become of punk) Pete.Hurd 19:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply

That was a joke, Pete. Nothing gets by you, does it?

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

The result of the debate was The Sexy Delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

The Sexy Fears

No entry on Allmusic.com, 0 google results does not appear to meet criteria of WP:MUSIC. -- malo ( talk- myedits) 06:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as per nominator. -- Merovingian 06:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nominator. -- MacRusgail 14:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Terminate with extreme prejudice. I hate vanity band articles. -- Blackcap | talk 22:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Userfy. Bishonen| talk 18:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply

The Swiss Knight

Vanity page, utter nonsense, no real claim to notability, elaborate hoax, extensive joke, pick your favorite reason. -- malo (talk) 00:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Not funny. Ashibaka ( tock) 00:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, this isn't the place for creating random fiction. - Bobet 00:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

*Don't Delete it should be known that all of the events written of did actually happen, with a couple minor adjustments to make them more spectacular. Gentlemen, if you kill this article, 1000 more shall spring up in its place, I beg of you to save the Knight and the justice he stands for. AshJW 00:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Don't Delete For saving the long hard work and dedication that went into this very true, and very interesting page. Opals25 20:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC) User's only edits are this AFD nom and user page. reply
  • Delete. If not any of the above, certainly an extremely elaborate inside joke. -- howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 01:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Don't Delete This article deserves to be here, not only as an entertaining read but as a lesson to all those who behold this story. It is indeed true, for I have paid witness to its events, and therefore there is no reason for this to be deleted unless you aspire to be a menace to all those who could benefit from this masterful article. What harm has this done to you, I ask? Silver Mobius 01:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC) Silver Mobius ( talk · contribs) has two edits, both to this AfD. reply
  • Whoa. Don't delete, userfy. Obviously inappropriate in the article namespace, but have you no humanity? Frutti di Mare 01:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Please note: I wish you hadn't just moved the page like that. If anything you have only made it more confusing for admins to settles this afd. -- malo (talk) 01:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
      • Comment. Sorry, I was being bold. I have indeed moved the article to User:AshJW/The Swiss Knight, and ask that an admin will kindly delete the redirect The Swiss Knight, as redirects from article space to userspace are improper. I'm sorry that the AFD template on the article consequently no longer links to this discussion. OTOH, the discussion has become kinda moot, why not just close it? Just my opinion. Frutti di Mare 01:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
        • The AfD template now works once again, since I've moved the article back from userspace. Userfication is one possible option open to us for resolving inappropriate material put into the article namespace. It is not an end run where you can just say "oh, maybe I shouldn't have done that but now that I have it's moot so don't worry your pretty little head over it." -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
          • ...? Oh. No, quite. Nice friendly place you've got here. :-( It won't happen again. Frutti di Mare 18:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Userify if possible otherwise Delete. I found it funny but utterly pointless. -- W.marsh 01:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Don't DeleteThe legend of the Swiss Knight is not fiction(though embellished for drama) and should have a place here, as it hails some of the older myths present. If indeed wikipedia is a centre of knowledge then it would do well to host such a genre of thought that AshJW has put forth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M1thrand1r ( talk • contribs) 20:24, 14 November 2005 This is M1thrand1r ( talk · contribs)'s only edit.
  • Delete as not-notable fiction. Put this on a blog, guys, not on Wikipedia. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not encyclopedic. Reyk 01:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Move Wikipedia has an appropriate place for the creation of group fictional projects. I suggested this placement last month on The Swiss Knight's discussion page. See below. WBardwin 01:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Better yet -- why not transfer the Swiss Knight and associated pages into Wikipedia:Once upon a time... - a project designed for writing "creative work" or "fiction." That quiet site has never really gotten off the ground, and your fine effort might create a spark there as well. Best Wishes. WBardwin 02:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete probably funny, but utterly UE FRS 01:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, but the user can keep it in user space, a la the ancient European toilet paper holder hoax. Geogre 02:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete If the Swiss Knight we're alive he wouldn't want his image corrupting this bastion of knowledge. Do with this article what you wish. AshJW 02:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Too long for BJAODN and unverifiable. Capitalistroadster 02:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Don't delete Whilst not complete truth, what other entry will occupy where 'The Swiss Knight'? The events are actually truth-based, and i'm sure this page holds a very special place in the writer's heart. 8:03 P.M., 14 November 2005 (UTC) Taylor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.23.190 ( talk • contribs) 22:04, 14 November 2005
  • Don't delete I think it needs to be moved somewhere where this kid's creative genius could be better used. It's mostly true, but it's not really a reference page. 68.145.239.14 02:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC) Dan reply
  • Delete, Wikipedia not a place for original fiction. Andrew Levine 03:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, and encourage it to be reposted in some more appropriate place, like on a fiction site. Nothing against the creativity in the heart and soul of the author, but it's not an encyclopedic entry about a factual entity. *Dan T.* 04:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I would have suggested userfy if it weren't for the bad faith votes for keep. User:Zoe| (talk) 04:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Ifnord 04:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete hoax. NSLE ( 讨论+ extra) 09:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Total garbage, and I suggest that his user page be a copy of electoral fraud. Descendall 12:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete, probably should be speedy for patent nonsense per anyone else who said "delete". By the way, it appears that this AfD has attracted meatpuppets -- which can only mean that this article really shouldn't be here. Wcquidditch | [[User talk:Wcquidditch|Talk]] 12:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This article commits the only unforgiveable comedic sin - it's not funny. (It's also unencyclopaedic drivel.)
  • Delete. Just not an encyclopedia entry. To the writer: copy and move elsewhere with my best wishes. Durova 14:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, just some private joke only funny to the coworkers who created it, completely unencyclopedic. HGB 19:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete Worthless to anyone not in on the joke. Jasmol 22:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete because it's just poppycock, and I really can't stand people who make a buttload of sockpuppets in a futile effort to get the article non-deleted. Mo0[ talk] 02:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Userfy if appropriate; delete otherwise. Bearcat 05:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or Userfy, as per above, and the puppetry is very annoying. If only contributors would devote that kind of obsessive energy to real articles... Sigh. MCB 02:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC) reply


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

The Warden of Glasswall

Vanity page, no real claim to notability, elaborate hoax, extensive joke, pick your favorite reason. -- malo (talk) 00:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as above. Ashibaka ( tock) 00:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete along with the previous article. - Bobet 01:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as not-notable fiction. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Don't Delete if there is any good in you... save this brilliant peice of writing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AshJW ( talk • contribs) 20:53, 14 November 2005
  • Dont Delete If indeed wikipedia is a centre of knowledge then it should do well to host such myth so that we may broaden our minds — Preceding unsigned comment added by M1thrand1r ( talk • contribs) 20:56, 14 November 2005
  • Move Wikipedia has an appropriate place for the creation of group fictional projects. I suggested this placement last month on The Swiss Knight's discussion page. See below. WBardwin 01:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Better yet -- why not transfer the Swiss Knight and associated pages into Wikipedia:Once upon a time... - a project designed for writing "creative work" or "fiction." That quiet site has never really gotten off the ground, and your fine effort might create a spark there as well. Best Wishes. WBardwin 02:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Jokes are fine in user space, but not article space. Geogre 02:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • I will join the ranks of Dave the Malevolent and Chad the Scornful by voting Delete. Capitalistroadster 02:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Sweet mother of pearl! I mean, really... Ifnord 04:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete per above. Dottore So 10:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Same garbage as The Swiss Knight. Descendall 12:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete for same reasons as The Swiss Knight. Smaller meatpuppet problem here, but still... Wcquidditch | [[User talk:Wcquidditch|Talk]] 12:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, continuation of The Swiss Knight nonsense above. HGB 19:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete Long-winded dumb jokes don't belong on Wikipedia. Jasmol 22:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This is good stuff, just not Wikipedia-worthy. Mo0[ talk] 02:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply

In My Defense Ill have all of you know, the swiss knight's legend merely crosses the path my own (and inspired its record) this is a tale unto its own. I lament for the knight as he laments for me. Alas that we should see such days where the legends of the old are burnt as heresy and nonsense.

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 05:53, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply

The X-Files Timeline

This article has been around for three months now, and is basically just an external link. Delete CLW 10:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. Akamad 11:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to X-files and include the link in the external links section if not there already. - Mgm| (talk) 11:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete after possibly placing link elsewhere. -- Doc ask? 18:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Link is already included at main X-files article. D e nni ☯ 03:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply


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

The result of the debate was keep (16/5).--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 09:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Thum Ping Tjin

This page is about me. I didn't write it or ask for it, but it's here. I was fine with it until someone made a personal attack on me on this page, and I don't like it. 163.1.231.147 14:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. — Crypticbot (operator) 14:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Yes, being the first Singaporean to swim the channel is encyclopedic. Yes, the information provided is verifiable [58] [59]. Yes, Wikipedia has mechanisms to deal with libellous or inaccurate content on it and AfD is not one of these mechanisms. The Land 14:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep" Enyclopedic and interesting. - squibix 15:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per The Land's comments. Ifnord 15:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The activity of Channel swimming is encyclopedic but individuals who participate in it generally aren't. Delete and maybe add a mention in the English Channel article under "Notable Channel crossings". flowersofnight (talk) 15:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Not just the channel swim, he was also olympic athelete and Rhodes scholar. Individually they may not be encyclopedic but combined indicates a notable person - at least to me. Ifnord 16:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
PJ have became a person with significant note in Singapore, courageous in a sense for the course of charity. He is the sort of person we need once in awhile, just to make sure that at least we pursue for dreams - not merely contrite over our losses. Slivester 06:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure that's reading too much into one activity of channel swimming. Either case it makes Singapore sounds really dreadful (a place where people don't care to pursue their dreams - eek) Mandel 06:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per flowersofnight Descendall 16:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per flowersofnight Ashibaka ( tock) 17:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I think too many people have swum the English channel for this one person to be encyclopedic. I'm not sure if this numbers up to hundreds of thousands. Mandel 18:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete As per flowersofnight. Marcus22 18:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, among all the other things listed on the page (all of which google can verify) being an Olympic athlete should be notable enough by itself. - Bobet 18:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep per Bobet Swegner 20:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Ifnord. Reyk 21:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and cleanup. Probably. Not a strong keep, though. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] (W) AfD? 21:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Olympian athletes who swim the channel. If there's attacks on the page, they can be fixed. It doesn't warrant deletion. - Mgm| (talk) 23:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, member of the Signapore national swim team. Kappa 02:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep,famous swimmer. Tan Ding Xiang 陈鼎翔 03:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - As stated above, my response to User:flowersofnight. Slivester 06:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep First person to swim the English Channel plus a member of the Singapore Swim Team. Terenceong1992 08:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - ryan-d 12:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - achievements are notable and encyclopaedic Singopo 14:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Mailer Diablo 17:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - as per Singopo. Kimchi.sg | Talk 11:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC) reply


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

The result of the debate was Keep (5/1).--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 09:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Tony Porter

Found while cleaning out speedies. No vote Tito xd( ?!?) 06:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as nn person from nn church. Indium 06:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - how could English bishop be nn? Budgiekiller 07:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Current rector, future bishop. Indium 07:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Downing St. has anounced his appointment, so for all intents and purposes he's Bishop of Sherwood. Article should be expanded. Dottore So 11:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per above. Dottore, could you cite the place where Downing Street is referred to? - Mgm| (talk) 11:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
here you go Dottore So 12:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply


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

The result of the debate was Redirect to Toyota Motor Manufacturing North America brenneman (t) (c) 06:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Toyota Motor Manufacturing Kentucky

stub article, merged into (euqally short) Toyota Motor Manufacturing North America (which might be a candidate for merging into Toyota). I submit that a redirect is unnecessary, as this is an unlikely search term (more likely to use Toyota Kentucky) - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] (W) AfD? 18:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

These manufacturing plants are generally pretty huge, and employ a great number of workers. I'm certain a decent article could be written on it. For the American car makers we seem to have articles on most of the major facilities, see for instance Category:General Motors factories. I'll thus vote keep and cleanup. - SimonP 18:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Definite merge -chaz171 nov05

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

The result of the debate was speedied by Ingoolemo. Ingoolemo  talk 01:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Troublesome five

Vanity and nonsense. SGBailey 23:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as above. (I've twice put a speedy on this page and both times it has been promptly removed, it would appear, by the author(s). -- SGBailey 23:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete for nonsense. - Satori (talk) 23:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, nonsense. — Cleared as filed. 05:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - this is really nonsense JoJan 21:18, 18 November 2005 (UTC) reply

--- I can't find a proper place to report this, so here will do. The folk who created this page are also constantly removing the AfD notice. They are also constantly adding Afd to my User and talk pages. The users may need monitoring for other inappropriate actions. -- SGBailey 09:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 05:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Typhoon Longwang (disambiguation)

This page should be deleted because it is an unnecessary disambiguation page. It is general practice with articles on tropical cyclones that if there are two storms in a basin with the same name, and one has an article, a link at the top of the article pointing at the season for the storm without an article is added. The precedents of Juan and Klaus do just that. I have made that very change to the Typhoon Longwang article. In addition, if the name Longwang is not retired, it will very likely be several years before there is another one. For both of these reasons, this article is unnecessary. Nominate and vote for Deletion Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 22:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. The first link describes a tropical storm anyway, not a typhoon. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 17:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Ukraine Brain

Neologism, Inflamatory. Delete abakharev 05:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete; as a descendant of some Ukrainians, I am officially insulted. -- Merovingian 05:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete — Michael  Z. 2005-11-15 06:01 Z
  • Delete. Nonsense. -- Irpen 08:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Additionally, Google finds this only in general sense Ilya K 09:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Don't be, Mero. This is tripe. encephalon 10:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete; insulting, trivial, nn. And stupid, to boot. SchrödingersRoot 20:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Sadly, Encephalon, you're mistaken. One shouldn't be so insulting to tripe. -- Blackcap | talk 22:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 05:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Ungame

Is this real? Progress Quest is real but i dont think there are any other similar things in this "genre". Niz 22:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: Ungame is the name of a real commercial board game which has been around since the 1970s - for example see [60] (Amazon). Perhaps this article should be about this game instead. Sheldrake 23:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Actually there is one other (older?) similar game Stat Builder (StatBuilder?) where you just clicked a single button but the term itself is a neologism made up by the author. See [61] for proof. Indium 23:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete an useless neologism. There are other such games besides Progress Quest, for example, my own game Miller's Quest. But I don't call it an "ungame". I use the proper, established term for this kind of things. But then again, I'm just a theory guy. =) -- Wwwwolf 00:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and recreate as article about board game — Wahoofive ( talk) 04:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I think this article might also include robotfindskitten, but this neologism has no currency. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 15:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:25, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Unintelligent Design Theory

An unencyclopedic joke - or, if you prefer, original "research". CDC 17:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Vigo Bai Lin

Fan fic Star Wars character, completely non notable. See Google [62] and this forum post [63]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 05:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Windsor_Hall

Residence hall, nothing more. Please add the others in Category:University_of_Reading. ∴ here… ♠ 06:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. This gets a mention on Whiteknights Park, its campus. Any expansion can occur there. Marskell 08:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. Dottore So 11:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Whiteknights Park so people who want to do expansion or find info about it can find it easily. - Mgm| (talk) 11:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete & redirect as above. R adiant _>|< 11:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nominator. -- MacRusgail 14:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Whiteknights Park. u p p l a n d 16:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete without redirecting, far too ambiguous. There are identically-named halls of residence at the University of Florida, Mount Allison University in Canada, and somewhere called Bay State College; there is a Windsor Hall hotel in Illinois, and there was formerly one in Montreal; there is a conference hall of the same name in Bournemouth... and those are just from the first page of Google hits, which does not mention the University of Reading at all. None of these are notable enough to deserve articles, so there's no point in putting a disambiguation page in, either. — Haeleth Talk 18:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • If that's true it can be turned into a disambiguation to all the different Windsor Halls. - Mgm| (talk) 22:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
      • Oh, good god, no. ;-) We shouldn't have disambiguation for residence halls that aren't important enough for articles. Just delete it with no redirect or disambiguation page. -- Kjkolb 00:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete no sources -- redstucco 09:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete without redirect or disambiguation. Turnstep 01:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Wintermoon

Not yet released album. ERcheck 05:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball." Album has not yet been released. Not notable enough to warrant inclusion in advance of release. ERcheck 05:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete not a notable band anyway (fails WP:Music for example), as far as I can tell. -- W.marsh 05:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. -- MacRusgail 14:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Yamamoto Yuji

_ _ Nom & vote Del on this 1999 U of Chicago MA Humanities graduate with "263 of 515" Google hits on

"Yamamoto Yuji" -"Yuji Katsui" -"Yuji Matsumoto" -golf -actor

and (due to apparent high prevalence of both surname & given name, so that combinations give false hits) very few possibly relevant hits among the first few dozen.
_ _ Initial edit of

6 English words,
4 Japanese characters (name), and
2 lks to lists

was 22 February 2003 with summary "Takubot" by IP that now rdr's to the very prolific User:TakuyaMurata; that puts it in the first 2 months of their editing.
_ _ The rest of the CV-style body text was contributed 14 months later in 6 edits in a 33-minute window by a different IP with, entirely in one 1.25 hour window, these & 9 other edits to 3 other articles and a Dab, all with apparently Japanese-language names.
_ _ IMO, this should be presumed to be a stub near the edge of speedy deletion, converted (probably in good faith!) into a n-n autobio by its subject, pending evidence to the contrary.
-- Jerzy• t 02:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete no assertion of notability. Edit history is suspicious. Dottore So 10:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Dottore So. -- MacRusgail 13:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I was initially suspicious about the likely accuracy of searching in English for a Japanese author who writes in Japanese, particularly given that the romanisation issues mean that the guy's name could also be spelt "Yuuji", "Yuuzi", "Yuzi", or half a dozen other ways, but it turns out that Japanese searches actually produce fewer hits (about 100, though they all seem to be about the right person). He has released a number of translations of authors like O. Henry, Kipling, and Conan Doyle, but they have all been published only as free e-texts, so I don't think they count for WP:BIO purposes. — Haeleth Talk 17:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 05:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply

ZARUM

I have just reviewed the article in question having come across the deletion notice while searching for the artist. I am familiar with his works and while the other gentleman is not, this does not seem to me to be a reason to delete. This artist may not be as notable as Miro or Picasso, but is important for a new generation. A simple internet search using the main engines yields enough information and comments by others who see the importance of the artist.


Appears to be self promotion / autobiography of an artist who is not yet notable. The article provides a link to a review of a recent artshow, but this review appears to be also self authored or written by a friend. Solipsist 07:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as per nominator. Vanity.-- MacRusgail 14:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Puppet vanity. Ifnord 14:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Article copied in part from artist's website -the remainder appears elsewhere on the net as a "statement from the artist". This is clearly self-authored and non-notable. Swegner 19:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_15&oldid=1081093064"