Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 November 1

< October 31	November 2 >

Purge server cache

November 1[edit]

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Gun politics. --Cel e stianpower ^háblame 14:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gun ban[edit]

Is there any truth to what it says in this article? Is it useful? If not then delete. CarDepot 20:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gun politics (which is where gun control already points). I have taken liberty of doing exactly that. - Mike Rosoft 21:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It should not be done while the article is still on VFD though. CarDepot 21:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an article on making it illegal to buy and sell guns sounds useful to me. Earthling37 21:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Redirect, already covered under Gun Politics. IMHO, previous redirect by Mike Rosoft is simply being bold and has no bearing on AfD.--Isotope23 21:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly where does it tell in the Gun Politics article about the idea of making it illegal to buy, sell and make guns. Earthling37 22:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment, I think "many countries have an outright ban on full-automatic weapons, and some countries ban nearly all kinds of firearms..." under Degrees of Gun Control seems to cover that. If that is not sufficient, then by all means expand the Gun Politics article.--Isotope23 01:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Redirect. I would have simply have done it rather than bring this to AfD. MCB 22:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 64.200.124.189 22:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Expand. An article about gun banning which is a part of Gun Politics would be very useful, but the article needs expansion. Science3456 22:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with gun politics (as I had proposed on WP:DA). Aecis 23:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Expand. As far as I've read, the idea about the illegalization of guns is not mentioned in the Gun Politics article. FireTracks 23:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Three edits to Wikipedia, 2 of them to this page. --Calton | Talk
Speedy Redirect. --Calton | Talk 00:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Expand. Garr 02:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Redirect. - All of the gun topics on wiki could use work. It has been hard enough to keep "gun control" and "gun rights" under the neutral topic "gun politics". This current article adds no value, and I can't conceive of anything it could add that doesn't either belong in "gun politics" or in one of the nation specific articles. O^O 04:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect --Alynna 06:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 169.157.229.87 17:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Gun politics. This article is just silly. Why spread the discussion out over more articles?

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good is Good[edit]

Song, Crowcruft substub. She deserves better than this. Delete or redirect to the Album or artist page if it isn't expanded. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 23:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any useful information to album article, preserving redirect, per WP:ALBUM. Jkelly 00:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, single from notable artist. Kappa 00:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Jkelly... -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 01:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if someone can expand it, or merge. Either way, no deletion required, as usual. Trollderella 01:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Sheryl Crow. This doesn't need its own page. - Sensor 01:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into whatever the album is, then Delete the page with no redirect. Johntex\^talk 01:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to appropriate album article.--Isotope23 02:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above --jnothman ^talk 07:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Wildflower Minor hit in the US reaching #64 in Billboard Hot 100. While it has received some airplay, it hasn't had much impact elsewhere. Capitalistroadster 08:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the Sheryl Crow album. — JIP | Talk 08:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into album. Didn't make top 10 => doesn't need a separate article. — Haeleth Talk 18:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Garr 00:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per everybody else.--Sean|Bla ck 00:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, reasons stated. zellin t / c 04:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:11, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My Favorite Mistake[edit]

Song fancruft substub. Can be easily merged with the album or simply just deleted Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 23:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hit song by notable performer. Capitalistroadster 00:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any useful information to album article, preserving redirect, per WP:ALBUM Keep expanded version. Jkelly 00:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CapitalistRoadster. Kappa 00:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 01:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hit song, notable artist. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Jkelly. This article, as written, doesn't provide much more information beyond the fact that it was a hit. - Sensor 01:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Veriable song. Trollderella 01:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep made the top 10 on a major top40 list. Johntex\^talk 01:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep rather than merge. We have plenty of other articles for hit songs. -- Captain Disdain 03:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. I recall there was a lot of media speculation at the time about who this song was addressed to (with Mick Jagger being a popular candidate. Perodicticus 13:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Almost no content. -R. fiend 16:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - What?! This is a very notable Sheryl Crow song. OmegaWikipedia 18:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if expandable: notable as a single, not as part of an album. — Haeleth Talk 18:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have expanded this article greatly. This song was nominated for a Grammy for Best Pop Vocal Performance of 1998 losing out to Celine Dion. This song was written about an unfaithful lover who is rumored to be Eric Clapton. No change of vote from keep.Capitalistroadster 04:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, especially after CR's rewrite, but I would have voted keep anyway. Jacqui ^★ 04:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Preaky 04:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan (American singer/songwriter)[edit]

Delete can't find anything significant on google about Ryan Palermo Arniep 00:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Jkelly 00:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 01:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC and as unverifiable nonsense. User has apparently done several vanity edits today involving the name "Ryan". - Sensor 01:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC. Johntex\^talk 01:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete jnothman ^talk 07:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Deleet, not notable. -- Foofy 13:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no album = no article. — Haeleth Talk 18:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:15, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vic Fieger[edit]

Non notable bio, claims to make freeware fonts and a webcomic, Dubmarine, also up for deletion - Hahnchen 00:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 01:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7 - nn - no claim to notability. Johntex\^talk 01:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't think it is speedy material, but the claims of notability fall short.--Isotope23 02:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a nice collection of fonts, but not all artisans belong in encyclopaedias. Comics are nn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnothman (talk • contribs) 2005-11-01 08:04:02 (UTC)
Delete; we don't have any guidelines on notability for typographers, but I'd suggest as a first consideration that notability in this regard should probably involve your typefaces having been used by multiple mainstream presses at the very least. — Haeleth Talk 18:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Responsive Software Ledger[edit]

Essentially an ad for Responsive Software.

Delete Dlyons493 Talk 00:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete adv -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 01:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Sensor 01:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable link spam. Johntex\^talk 01:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising. -- Captain Disdain 03:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ad
Delete per nom wangi 15:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising. Carioca 21:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam--Requiem18th
Delete Preaky 04:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We99 18:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ferbalize[edit]

Made up and unused. 11 Googles - many relating to Al Queida coincidentally.

Delete Dlyons493 Talk 00:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nn neogloism. -[[User:Mys e kurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]}_{01:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)}[reply]
Delete -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 01:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense. - Sensor 01:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete either nonsense or non-notable neologism. Johntex\^talk 01:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neologism.--Isotope23 02:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete made up and for wiktionary jnothman ^talk 08:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per wtf?? --Requiem ^{the 18th} 01:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Preaky 04:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. We99 18:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 11:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Syntagmaworld[edit]

Not notable 17 Googles.

Delete Dlyons493 Talk 00:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Vanity cruft. - Sensor 01:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable Vanity cruft. Let's not forget to delete the orphaned image if the article gets deleted. Johntex\^talk 01:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete biography? games mentioned not verifiable. (article also a mess) jnothman ^talk 08:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity. Good call on the image, John. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We99 18:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (defaulting to keep). --Cel e stianpower ^háblame 14:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Enda Marren[edit]

An anonymous user has posted at Wikipedia:Help desk claiming to be the creator of this and several other articles and that these articles are hoaxes that should now be deleted. [1]. Unfortunately, the person asking for deletion is at a different IP address than the original creator, and the articles have been edited by other people. I believe most of these articles are probably speediable under G1 - hoax because not enough factual context is provided to allow anyone turn the article into something real. However, "Enda Marren" has survived VfD and "Enda Marren" + "Dublin" gets one Google hit, therefore, I will list this one for AfD. Johntex\^talk 00:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Several of the other articles are more clearly hoaxes. This one may not be, so I listed here. However, even if this article is about the person found by Google, I see nothing to show that the person is notable enough for inclusion, so I would vote to delte under A7 for lack of notability. Johntex\^talk 01:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He certainly exists and is active in Irish politics. Since he survived a recent Afd I don't feel he should be re-submit right now [2] Dlyons493 Talk 01:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- the AfD had only 2 votes. Therefore, I don't think the prior AfD should cary much weight Johntex\^talk 01:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is "Enda Marren" the same person as "Martin Enda Marren"? I can't find any source for MEM being his name.--Isotope23 03:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, stubbify. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 01:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep what can be verified. Trollderella 01:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Enda Marren" is verifiable [3], but "Martin Enda Marren" is not. Can someone source that this person's name is indeed "Martin Enda Marren"? I would change my vote if this person is indeed named Martin, but as it stands I recommend the text of this article be moved to Enda Marren (dropping the Martin of course) which currently is a redirect here and delete the version under this name. as far as I can tell, this person does not exist and the article text actually refers to Enda Marren.--Isotope23 03:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Short of 'phoning Fine Gael I can't see if Martin Enda Marren exists and/or is the same as Enda Marren. The latter does exist and I suggest I expand that entry slightly (see eg info from his old school in the link). That names his practice as Enda E Marren which argues a little against Martin Enda Marren as being his full name, but it's not conclusive (could be his father or something). Then Martin Enda Marren can be put to rest. If anyone wants to search add Fine Gael which is his political party to the search string! [4] Dlyons493 Talk 05:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Martin Enda Marren was the name used in the first sentence of the article by the anonymous poster who created the article. That is why I moved the page to that name and made the redirect. The person who claimed it was a hoax mentioned several other articles [[5] that have checked out as hoaxes, such as the claim that the Marren surname is tied to the "Earl of Kensington", which turns out not to exist. Johntex\^talk 16:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete Martin Enda Marren; keep Enda Marren. All sources seem to indicate that the name is only the latter. Martin may have been added by a misreading of lists in which he follows or precedes Senator Martin Mansergh as an Irish presidential appointment, and may well be a hoax. I also seem to not find support for his being a barrister, but rather a solicitor. jnothman ^talk 08:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Enda Marren, and cleanup/expand. - Mike Rosoft 12:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Since a much better article has been created at Enda Marren, delete (and possibly redirect). - Mike Rosoft 16:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Martin Enda Marren and Keep Enda Marren. I've now added what's verifiable into the latter. Dlyons493 Talk 12:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Easy solution to possible hoax or likely non-notable real person Bwithh 03:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 05:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angry Asian Man[edit]

Non-notable topic; no legitimate sources support the article, sources are made up by personal websites and blogs, violating WP:OR and WP:NOT#BLOG. Chris! _{my talk} 21:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also nominate this redirect for deletion.Chris! _{my talk} 06:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a directory of slang or neologisms. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 21:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It appears to be quite a well known sterotype, including a article about the blog at the Washington Post, see the links. It turned up over two million ghits, I know I know, WP:GHITS, however I say it should be kept, but sourced more so. --Тhεいぷしろん Rαあるふぁnδでるたom Eδでるたιいおたτたうor 23:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You know, blogs are not reliable sources according to WP:RS. And if you know about WP:GHITS, why would you support it? I don't understand. Chris! _{my talk} 23:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO, WP:RS, WP:CITE, and WP:OR. Possibly WP:NOT#BLOG. The article simply violates too many policies. Chris! _{my talk} 23:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete = WP:NEO says it all. --Markdsgraham 00:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't about a stereotype of angry Asian men -- it's about one Asian man, angry about stereotypes, and attempts to WP:COATRACK, or something, their self-chosen labels into a stereotype of its own. None of the sources really supports this. --Dhartung | Talk 01:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete this is also in violation of the no advertising category, it does not meet notability standards, NPOV and violates pretty much everyother basic principles of WP, i agree with every other delete comment and why, grossly violates the no OR rule.Cholga^talK! 02:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep' I think this should be kept. Angry Asian Man is pretty well known webpage and specially asian people know about it. This article is well developed though. Keep it or otherwise someone is going to create it again, so this point is moot. 75.166.55.118 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 03:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment well known to whom? it doubt it has significant enough traffic to merritt an article. It has to be proven its well known, have any sources? I could write a well developed article on my blog too, it would also and should also be deleted, because its not notable enough. Articles which are deleted are always easily and quickly redleted again and again, so that is not a problem. This has happened before and theres ways of dealing with it. In fact if it is recreated too often, it can be disabled from recreation entirely. I think its a subltle threat from you over recreation of the article. The burden of proof lies with anyone which wants to save this article. I suggest the creator of that blog try to attract more readers if he wants an article on wikipedia or that he begin a wikia project or find some other encyclopedia to become a part of.Cholga^talK! 05:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Cholga is right. Also we can prevent an article from recreation by banning the article name in case you didn't know. So try recreate it after it is deleted, and see what happen. Chris! _{my talk} 06:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, borders on WP:ATTACK. --Evb-wiki 13:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a serious article.--Bedivere 19:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Anyone wants to close this. I think we have a consensus. Chris! _ct 01:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Cel e stianpower ^háblame 14:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

YouThink.com[edit]

Advertisement. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-1 01:04

Delete as ad -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 01:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Alexa ranking of 21,166. - Sensor 01:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advertisement for non-notable website. Johntex\^talk 01:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ... advertising for website. ERcheck 02:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs a little rewriting but hardly a blatant ad by AfD standards. Site clearly has a very active forum and meets a guideline of Wikipedia:Websites... millions of posts (seems some are blog posts or something) and well over 5000 members. Alexa rank is around 20,000. --W.marsh 03:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alexa rank. Kappa 03:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Alexa rank still too low --JAranda | watz sup 04:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete according to WP:WEB. Note that the Alexa rank needs to be below 10,000 -- Rune Welsh | τたうαあるふぁλらむだκかっぱ | Esperanza 10:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It only has to meet one of the three critera to pass that guideline... there are clearly enough unique forum members. --W.marsh 15:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just a forum. -- Foofy 13:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's a forum, and nothing in the article is verifiable. Friday (talk) 16:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Forumcruft.--Isotope23 17:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't believe this forum is particularly notable. --Scimitar ^parley 17:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Dottore So 22:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advertisement. *drew 02:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not an ad, fits the requirements, notable website. Also note that i-am-bored.com,. ranked in the 4000s on Alexa, is just the YouThink links section copied over. psychoman364 04:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Only needs to fit one of the Wikipedia:Websites guidelines, and it clearly does, with well over 5000 unique members.--burnt in effigy 01:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup & keep getcrunk juice 20:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup & keep because I prefer things I like to have articles, but the article isn't very good. billybobfred 04:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 11:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Macin-Talk Networks[edit]

Advertisement that actually admits it doesn't exist yet. WP:NOT a crystal ball, and it's still an advertisement. Wcquidditch | Talk 01:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Wcquidditch | Talk 01:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 05:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ad, presented as ad. jnothman ^talk 11:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advertising and not yet notable. -- Foofy 13:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination wangi 15:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Jkelly 21:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chase_Weeks[edit]

Joke page, not encyclopedic, involves homophobia 131.252.243.153 01:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. suggest speedy delete for nonsense. ERcheck 02:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete probable hoax, not WP:V, possibly an attack page.--Isotope23 02:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. -- Foofy 13:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Nonsense. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 17:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Closing early with clear consensus, to reduce backlog. Friday (talk) 04:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rockstar (drink)[edit]

Advertisement. BrainyBroad 02:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Advertising. Nothing in article to distinguish it from any energy drink. ERcheck 02:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not advertising. 3 varieties implies some commercial success. Kappa 03:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Doesn't look like any more of an ad than Coca-Cola does... -- Grev -- Talk 04:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I've seen this drink around the store a lot. If you delete this, then delete Red Bull, as well. --WikiFanatic^{Talk Contribs 00:06, 1 Nov 2005 (CDT)}
Keep. Looks like a valid encyclopedia article on a fairly popular brand of energy drink. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As above. Staxringold 11:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am probably only one of three people on my campus that doesn't drink this crap, so in my opinion it's highly notable. If it still sounds ad-like to you, feel free to change it. Jacqui ^★ 12:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If it's an advertisement, fix it. AfD is not a cleanup crew.--Nicodemus75 12:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup any advert language. notable energy drink. Youngamerican 14:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is a notable drink. Carioca 21:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This Product is huge. Not only is it the first energy drink in a large can, but numerous companies have copied the product. Rockstar has done so well that even Coke began to distribute the beverage last spring.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. - ulayiti (talk) 23:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Goldencloud Weiner[edit]

Non-encyclopedic huckster whose creation (Rockstar) is also up for deletion. Oh, and he has a famous (?) daddy. BrainyBroad 02:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note—The primary definition of "huckster" at dictionary.com [6] is "a peddler or hawker." I suspect this article exists only in relation to the Rockstar advertisement, leading to my use of the word. No other meaning was intended. However, since we're throwing around wiki rules, how about WP:AGF?? BrainyBroad 03:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing notable about subject. (However, nothing in the article to suggest that creator is a huckster.) ERcheck 02:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete... no reason to attack the guy in your nom (see WP:CIVIL). Creator of an energy drink, and not an especially popular one at that. Having a famous parent does not confer notability in my opinion either. I'd say delete, or possibly merge into the energy drink article. Drink article is up for AfD too, but I have no opinion on that. A stronger case could be made for the notability of the creation than for the creator though.--Isotope23 02:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any notable information (there isn't any, really) with Rockstar (drink). Once again, Rockstar is a valid drink. --WikiFanatic^{Talk Special:Contributions/WikiFanatic 00:09, 1 Nov 2005 (CDT)}
Delete, there isn't really much to merge with Rockstar (drink) except his name as creator. -- Foofy 13:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Rockstar (drink) which I agree is notable. Factoid that Weiner is the son of Michael Savage (commentator), is too interesting to be lost to posterity (actually, I see its already noted on Savage's page)--FRS 20:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect after merging to Rockstar (drink) as per FRS, no need to disparage the subject during nomination. Hall Monitor 23:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, period. --Calton | Talk 01:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Any notable info is already in the article for the drink, which has survived AfD. No real need for redirect. Youngamerican 16:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per FRS. I don't even drink energy drinks and I've heard of Rockstar. - Pasiphae 07:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (defaulting to keep). --Cel e stianpower ^háblame 14:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Athalite[edit]

Previous nom. No one voted except nominator (me), so I'm reposting this. -R. fiend 02:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No possibility of expanding to an encyclopedic article—unless the creator wants to divulge the proprietary, patented formula :) BrainyBroad 02:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 05:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment have a look at Review: A 'Cold' Soldering Iron. Fg2 07:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Appears to be new notable material if this MSNBC article is any guide see [7]. The product seems to have been widely advertised according to the article although there are only 700 Google pages for Athalite see [8]

Capitalistroadster 08:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I'm not convinced it's that notable. I see only 70 Googles (not 700) and some are wiki mirrors. [9] is one of them and it's sceptical - thinks that is just two-pieces of carbon that short-circuit. Since we're dealing with a commercial product which has an advertising budget dedicated to getting it coverage I'd err on the side of caution and delete. If it's really notable it will appear from third parties. Dlyons493 Talk 14:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See my comments in previous AfD. -- Rune Welsh | τたうαあるふぁλらむだκかっぱ | Esperanza 10:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to be notable enough for a stub at least. -- Foofy 13:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thought, I'm not really sure. Abstain. -- Foofy 13:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- perhaps it could be merged into an article on soldering? Does it fit in any of those? - Dandelions 18:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. This is a coined, purportedly Trademarked, name (i.e, a neologism) for a component or material used in a nn commercial product. Nothing verifiable about this component or material is known, except that it is not, contrary to the current text of the article, patented (at least in the US). Arguably,the founder of the company who does have two patents and two pending patent applications relative to cordless soldering irons is notable, and maybe the company itself, but NOT this neologism--FRS 21:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 by Friday.--Scimitar ^parley 21:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anders J. Nielsen[edit]

Vanity page for a high school comedian.

Delete per nomination. —BrianSmithson 02:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to actuality and relevance of facts despite apparent blatant vanity (72.224.175.89)
Delete, not notable yet.--Isotope23 02:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just becuase he exists doesn't mean he's notable. --W.marsh 03:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Define Notable (72.224.175.89)
Delete, notability not established. -- DS1953 ^talk 04:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn jnothman ^talk 11:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable Marcus22 15:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7. Have tagged as such. --howcheng [ talk  contribs  web ] 17:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the article does make claims to notability (ones I don't think are strong enough, mind you, but they're there). So I'm not sure A7 applies. It seems moot, though, as the article is currently destined for deletion anyway. —BrianSmithson 19:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speddily deleted by JoJan.--Scimitar ^parley 21:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

William Stewart[edit]

Unencyclopedic academic. Request for explanation of importance has been ignored for over a month. BrainyBroad 02:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Community college prof, and therefore unlikely to be notable. Isomorphic 02:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article does not assert any notability. Unable to find any publications by subject; only find was faculty listing (one of two in the department.) db-bio. ERcheck 02:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and actually this could go speedy CSD:A7 because there isn't even an assertion made.--Isotope23 03:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete Community College 'philosophers' who appear to not have done anything of note don't belong. Dxco 05:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under A7. -- Captain Disdain 06:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete
Redirect to William G. Stewart. Proto t c 15:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7. Have tagged as such. --howcheng [ talk  contribs  web ] 17:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7 then redirect per Proto. AndyJones 17:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have speedied it under A7. A redirect to William G. Stewart is not necessary, since there is already a redirect from William G Stewart. besides these are two different persons. JoJan 20:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I don't really follow JoJan's reasoning here, at all. I've created the redirect. Seems obvious to me that someone searching for the presenter of Fifteen to One might well type "William Stewart" into a search. Feel free to reverse this if you think I'm missing something. AndyJones 22:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 14:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Insanity peppers[edit]

NN, far too specific and particular

Delete per nom. Impaciente 02:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, or redirect to the appropriate Simpsons episode article.--Isotope23 02:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, should be in a Simpsons article and doesn't need its own article. Catamorphism 03:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge, verifiable fictional spice. Kappa 03:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We don't need an article about the fictional asylum that harvested them either. Gazpacho 05:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / Merge with appropriate Simpson's episode. Ok, I finally figured out what the heck this article is: Homer eats these peppers in a Simpson episode, and hallucinates. So: I dont think this is worth it's own article, but perhaps the author of the episode article would want to include this in it. Dxco 05:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom jnothman ^talk 09:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Megre to appropriate episode. Jacqui ^★ 12:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / Merge per Dxco. Youngamerican 14:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dottore So 22:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 11:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shivani Kak[edit]

Unencyclopedic athlete. Majority of google hits are mirror sites. No google news hits. BrainyBroad 02:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN. Dxco 05:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not even notable enough for a stub. --Foofy 13:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn Tintin 14:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7. Have tagged as such. --howcheng [ talk  contribs  web ] 17:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 by Wayward.

Short Biography of Albert Einstein[edit]

Obvious joke page. I think this is BJAODN country. -- Captain Disdain 02:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BJAODN per nomination. Or delete it. I don't really care, as long as it goes away from the actual encyclopedia... -- Captain Disdain 02:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - nonsense!! (A comprehensive articles exists on Einstein; this nonsense should be deleted quickly) ERcheck 03:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:CSD G1 (no meaningful content or history, text unsalvageably incoherent). - Sensor 03:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid that's not going to fly. G1 clearly states: This does not include: copyvios, bad writing, partisan screeds, religious excogitations, immature material, flame bait, obscene remarks, vandalism (although pure vandalism is speediable under CSD G3), badly translated material, hoaxes, or fancruft, unless the material is actually unsalvageably incoherent. Which this isn't. (And don't get me wrong, I would love it if this could just be deleted right away since it's painfully obvious that it's not a serious article, cannot be salvaged and even the article title cannot really be used for anything else, but the fact remains that it's not eligible for speedy deletion.) -- Captain Disdain 04:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete immediately (note I did not use the word speedy). There is no point in leaving this here for 5 days. -- DS1953 ^talk 04:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete jnothman ^talk 11:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate of Albert Einstein article. Content is verifiably incorrect. Complete bullshit. Delete with all haste. Saberwyn 11:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to make sense of it" is also classified as patent nonsense. See Wikipedia:Patent nonsense. Delete and move to BJAODN. Candidate for speedy deletion as patent nonsense and/or silly vandalism. - Mike Rosoft 12:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Cel e stianpower ^háblame 14:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chemsoc[edit]

This is almost a dictionary definition - at British universities Chemsoc means a social society for Chemistry students. Pilatus 02:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep in some form. Probably move to Chemistry student society and make more useful, eg. list of such societies. jnothman ^talk 09:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, could be mentioned in an article about Chemistry societies if one actually existed.-- Foofy 13:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP! Comment left by User:131.227.185.60 (contributions), an IP address registered to the Chemistry department at the University of Surrey
Delete little more than a dicdef.--Isotope23 17:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it could potentially be usefully expanded. Bondegezou 20:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Abbreviation for a type of student society about which nothing needs be said except that it's a kind of student society. If anyone can usefully expand it I'll reconsider. --Mel Etitis (Μみゅーεいぷしろんλらむだ Ετητης) 21:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Mel Etitis. MCB 22:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MCB and Mel Etitis -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 09:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. -- Necrothesp 02:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 11:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sh-[edit]

It may be slang, or it may be a joke, but it's not encyclopedic. BrainyBroad 03:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this sharticle as non-encyclopedic. -- DS1953 ^talk 04:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Dxco 05:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Shdelete. -- Captain Disdain 06:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree. may be true somewhere, but does not specify --jnothman ^talk 08:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Southern UK - the reference to Birmingham makes that clear enough. I remember this as a pretty brief fad in the late 90s, though I always thought it was a Yiddish reference and spelt "sch-". — Haeleth Talk
Redirect without merging to Shibboleth --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete schdicdef of obsolete schlang. — Haeleth Talk 18:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unencyclopedic. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 09:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Garr 00:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as stated. zellin t / c 04:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by Wayward as nn-bio. --GraemeL ^(talk) 17:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Casaula[edit]

Non-notable.-- Luigi30 (Τたうαあるふぁλらむだκかっぱ) 03:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy A7 - No assertion of notability. Dlyons493 Talk 05:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN, vanity. Dxco 05:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy as dlyons. jnothman ^talk 09:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 11:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The man with the smallest penis in existence and the microscope technician who loved him[edit]

Non-notable. Luigi30 (Τたうαあるふぁλらむだκかっぱ) 03:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are Flash movies typically on IMDB? --SPUI (talk) 03:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move to The Man with the Smallest Penis in Existence and the Electron Microscope Technician Who Loved Him. Rampart 03:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment if it's that small, surely it shouldn't be captalised. Dlyons493 Talk 14:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move and keep. Verifiable film. CanadianCaesar 03:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only a short flash film. -- Kjkolb 07:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. List on IMDB isn't a bar for notability; you can get pretty much anything on IMDB if you want to. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 13:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just a tiny bit... Short film that falls below the threshhold of notability.--Isotope23 15:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, verifiable != encyclopaedic. Proto t c 15:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reported gross earnings or release beyond one small film festival 2 years ago. Basically a home movie. -R. fiend 17:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN. - Sensor 23:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 09:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Holderca1 02:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hoss (album)[edit]

Non-notable, doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Luigi30 (Τたうαあるふぁλらむだκかっぱ) 03:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, album by a group with an article. Kappa 03:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep? Rotten article. I had to search around a lot with google to find out which band this album is for ("Lagwagon")!. However, does appear to be an existing and established band (3 albums). Dxco 05:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- "What links here" usually works. Kappa 19:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep band well known in punk-rock world jnothman ^talk 09:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and slap a cleanup tag on it.--Isotope23 15:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable album by very notable group. Aecis 19:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and cleanup. Jkelly 22:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, usually regarded as the best album by the first band to be signed on to Fat Wreck Chords

Keep, I have heard of this band and am not into music that much. zellin t / c 04:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 11:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hook-up[edit]

This article isn't noteworthy. The expresion is clearly straight forward English --Requiem18th 03:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article doesn't seem to provide any new or notable informaition about the phrase. -- Foofy 13:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or transwiki to Wiktionary. BrianSmithson 21:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 11:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bob James (actor)[edit]

Delete. There is no "Bob James" in IMDB with the listed birthdate or anywhere close to it, the only film cited in the article likewise has no IMDB citation, and the article is a stub written in an incomplete style. RGTraynor 04:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Googling leads to a composer, not to this man. However, because his child actor status and movie are from so long ago, relatively early in the last century, Google may not be the best place to look. Jacqui ^★ 12:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Despite a lot of searching, I can find no mentions of this particular guy. I'm an old movie buff but I never heard of this guy. Since there are no sources to prove he even existed, this shouldn't even be a stub. -- Foofy 13:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unverifiable. Proto t c 15:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator. Hall Monitor 22:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. --Metropolitan90 01:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 11:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lydia Bethany-Rose Rupp[edit]

A girl who was kidnapped, and then found. There was extremely little coverage of her disappearance when it happened, and nobody outside of her family will care about her 5 years from now, much less 100. NatusRoma 04:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable --Dglynch 05:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is sad to say that in this day and age, this is not notable. Also, article contains link to pay version of CNN. Happy to see the girl has been reunited with her family. Dxco 05:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, no assertion of notability. No, being kidnapped does not make one notable. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 08:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Angr. Proto t c 15:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7. Have tagged it as such. --howcheng [ talk  contribs  web ] 17:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not really a speedy candidate; being kidnapped may not be notable, but it is an assertion of notability. That said, given the votes so far, it does seem unlikely that a full AfD process is going to lead to any other result... — Haeleth Talk 18:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7. Sadly, yes, just being kidnapped is not notable, nor is an assertion of being kidnapped an assertion of notability. If not speedy-eligible, then plain old delete as NN. Fortunately, she was found. - Sensor 23:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 11:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Recalled Audio Sequence ( R.A.S.)[edit]

The title of the article is a neologism, and it is therefore original research. Dglynch 04:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. - Dglynch 04:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dglynch -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 09:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 11:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Auronix[edit]

appears to be advertising. Does not meet criteria in WP:CORP. Gsd97jks 04:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nomination. Gsd97jks 04:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable --Dglynch 04:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, Dlyons493 Talk 05:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- not notable - BeteNoir 07:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 09:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Garr 00:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 to New Zealand English. - ulayiti (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand slang[edit]

WP:NOT a slang dictonary Transwiki to Wikinaries (spelling) and Delete --JAranda | watz sup 04:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. But maybe change category to New Zealand Dialect. [Amake]-Annon User only has 3 edits 2 from this article --JAranda | watz sup 08:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and verify. Sources would be nice but article with potential to be very useful. Capitalistroadster 08:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all the uniquely New Zealand terms here are already covered at New Zealand English. The rest are slang terms used in a lot of countries. Merge any other NZ-specific ones to New Zealand English, delete the rest, and use as a redirect. Grutness...wha? 09:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with New Zealand English#Vocabulary and New Zealand English#Unique New Zealand English vocabulary into new article New Zealand vocabulary or New Zealand words, similar to Australian words. --jnothman ^talk 10:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

also, in response to Grutness, terms shared with Australian English should be given as an example in a separate section of this article on common slang shared between the two countries. Those shared with more general English should probably be removed. jnothman

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. Capitalistroadster 08:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]
Merge What Grutness/Jnothman said. JPD (talk) 10:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Interesting topic. - Sensor 23:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per jnothman --Requiem ^{the 18th} 01:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Jnothman --ElectricRay 18:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Jkelly 22:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Torbert[edit]

It's not technically a vanity page as Mr. Torbert didn't create it, but it's still not appropriate for Wikipedia. Kuciwalker 04:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

D Nonnotable high school teacher. Fawcett5 04:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. --Dglynch 04:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, no assertion of notability. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 05:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. This is A7 country. -- Captain Disdain 06:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7. Have tagged it as such. --howcheng [ talk  contribs  web ] 17:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 11:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tools for CVS[edit]

Wikipedia articles are not mere collections of external links. —Cryptic (talk) 04:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete This article very poorly replicates excellent resources already found on the web. Wikipedia is not intended to tool list resource. Dxco 05:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete as Dxco. Besides, most programmers looking for CVS tools will (and should) look elsewhere first. --jnothman ^talk 10:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This belongs in a category, and not an article....maybe I'll create it sometime later tonight. Bjelleklang - talk 20:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd agree if we had more than a single article listed on the page. I in fact found this by following whatlinkshere for CVS Suite (AfD discussion). —Cryptic (talk) 02:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Holderca1 02:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

707 (band)[edit]

Seems to be a pretty-much unknown band. (Does that make it a candidate for speedy deletion, or a VfD?) --jnothman ^talk 03:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 05:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. They do have an AllMusic entry, and apparently their single Mega Force made it to US Top Ten. They're not hugely notable, but they are notable enough. -- Captain Disdain 06:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

change to keep: I didn't find this information when I did a brief search. Should the afd be removed? --jnothman ^talk 07:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you declare that you withdraw the nomination, and no one comes in demanding that the article be deleted, I'm sure an admin type will come along fairly soon and just quietly close the AfD, remove the AfD tag and we'll be done with it... I think that as a matter of principle, it's best to let an AfD be officially closed once it's been officially opened. In the meantime, I added the {{cleanup-date|October 2005}} and {{band-stub}} templates to the article. -- Captain Disdain 08:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep according to WP:NMG. Allmusic.com notes that they have made five albums including a couple on Casablanca Records, a notable record label see Allmusic page [10].

A couple of albums charted in the early 1980s. The sing "I Could Be Good For You" reached #52 on the Billboard Hot 100. Capitalistroadster 09:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, nomination withdrawn and no "delete" votes cast. — Haeleth Talk 18:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Garr 00:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Preaky 04:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 11:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

C.R. Taylor[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 05:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable musician - BeteNoir 07:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. jnothman ^talk 10:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at best, redirect to Pray for the Soul of Betty. A 1 minute segment on American Idol is not notable enough for inclusion. The band itself gets slight notability from the lead singer's involvment with AI, but I don't think that confers to the individual band members.--Isotope23 15:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 09:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. --User:Lehla 02:42, 3 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joao Joya[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 05:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- not a notable musician - BeteNoir 07:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. 10 google hits... jnothman ^talk 10:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at best, redirect to Pray for the Soul of Betty. A 1 minute segment on American Idol is not notable enough for inclusion. The band itself gets slight notability from the lead singer's involvment with AI, but I don't think that confers to the individual band members.--Isotope23 15:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 09:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. --User:Lehla 02:43, 3 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hamboussi[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 05:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- not a notable musician - BeteNoir 07:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. jnothman ^talk 10:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at best, redirect to Pray for the Soul of Betty. A 1 minute segment on American Idol is not notable enough for inclusion. The band itself gets slight notability from the lead singer's involvment with AI, but I don't think that confers to the individual band members.--Isotope23 15:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. PJM 03:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 09:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. --User:Lehla 02:43, 3 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 Speedy deleted. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 08:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nrgetik[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 05:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under A7. -- Captain Disdain 06:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Doh. You're right, of course; I was still in possibly-nn-band-member mode when I saw this. I'll go tag it. —Cryptic (talk) 06:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete BeteNoir 07:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Rd232 ^talk 11:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paulin Tay Straughan[edit]

This article is about my mother, a prominent sociologist, and I have written it recently. It contains personal information about my family which I regret placing on the internet. Thus, I strongly believe in the deletion of my article. Please consider my appeal. Thank you for your attention. 203.124.2.18 15:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 05:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the article doesn't actually establish notability at all; this is a classic "average professor" situation, and it's obvious that she's no more notable than any other professor out there. I propose that the article is speedily deleted under A7. -- Captain Disdain 06:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Captain Disdain. --Metropolitan90 07:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. -- Kjkolb 07:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The "average professor" case is not one where we should apply A7 speedy delete. That is applicable when the article makes no claim of notability about its subject. The article states :"Paulin Tay Straughan is a sociologist working at the National University of Singapore (NUS). She is the vice-dean of the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences(FASS), and also serves as the deputy head of the sociology department at FASS. She has a PhD in sociology and is an associate professor." That is an assertion of notability. It does not establish notability but that is a different case. I would vote to delete as the article does not state what Ms Straughan has contrbuted to the discipline but it is not a speedy. Further, my vote could easily change if someone could refer to her research. ~~Delete~~
Speedy Delete It is ~~almost~~not an A7/nn-bio. More signficantly, per G7, the user requested its speedy deletion *before* anybody else edited it. Even after that point, there's been little revision. Logic dictates we let people speedy delete their self-admitted mistakes. If this person is really notable (I doubt) then somebody will likely create a fresh new article. --rob 10:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article is eligible for a G7 speedy. However, it does not come within a bull's roar of an A7 non-notable deletion and should not be considered to be a precedent for any other "average professor" articles. As always, we should be very careful not to delete notable people because their current article isn't up to scratch. Speedy Delete under G7. Capitalistroadster 10:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete jnothman ^talk 10:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Holderca1 03:01, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Riblets[edit]

There is no good reason to delete this. They are a real product and the information about them seems to be accurate. It should possibly be marked a stub but certainly not removed.

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 05:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep and expand ~~but delete any advertising language.~~ as rewritten. Youngamerican 14:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I did a quick rewrite to remove adspeak and POV.--Isotope23 15:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, thanks for the rewrite. Kappa 19:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it is notable. Carioca 21:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Riblets are notable (and tasty). - Sensor 00:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- comment but those little bone shavings are like the same size and shape as a windpipe. Youngamerican 02:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. zellin t / c 04:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep tastey meat. Riblets are just pork ribs that have have been sawed down to 1 1/4 inch pieces and then covered/marinated in sauce. Klonimus 14:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 by User:FCYTravis. —HorsePunchKid→龜かめ 06:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer forman[edit]

I doubt that Spencer Forman merits his own article, even with the links to his (also dubiously noteworthy website). Delete as vanity. —HorsePunchKid→龜かめ 05:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer himself agrees that I do not merit my own link. However, I strongly argue that www.trikepilot.com does. If one is interested in learning about ultralight trike flying, there is not one other single source on the internet sharing as much information about the sport or as much multimedia for free. Please feel free to suggest how one could otherwise provide this information to the wikipedia without uploading 5Gb or more of videos and content to the wikipedia server? As far as the link is concerned for Spencer Forman, feel free to kill it... that was a sandbox mistake that got out into the wild and I cannot figure out how to get rid of it. —Spineight→龜かめ 05:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on your talk page, since this has already been speedily deleted. —HorsePunchKid→龜かめ 06:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 11:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bahoots[edit]

If this article really, truly is a dicdef, then transwiki to Wiktionary. If not, then just plain Delete. --WikiFanatic^{Talk Contribs 00:02, 1 Nov 2005 (CDT)}

Delete, dictdef. Zero relevant google or google print hits. Doesn't meet wikt:WS:CFI. (And please remember to tag the article {{afd}}.) —Cryptic (talk) 06:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Cryptic. Google gives some other interesting meanings... --jnothman ^talk 10:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not urban dictionary. Delete. Friday (talk) 04:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by RHaworth as attack page (in Swedish). --GraemeL ^(talk) 17:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Areskog[edit]

Page consists only of Swedish, use of words such as "noob", "hobbies ... Warcraft 3", and "ROFL" suggests it's a vanity article. Qutezuce 06:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. - Qutezuce 06:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is an attack page, not vanity. Speedy delete. Uppland 10:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. jnothman ^talk 10:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not in English, no claim of notability, vanity page. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. I am marking the article as such. - Mike Rosoft 12:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 11:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Collibus[edit]

Thoroughly non-notable band, and page appears to be vanity and/or commercial self-promotion. Should be in my opinion a speedy delete.--Nlu 06:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but non-speedily for failure to satisfy any WP:MUSIC criteria. --Metropolitan90 07:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, morally it should be speedy, and one day it will be procedurally permitted. --DDerby-(talk) 07:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete can't find a thing on it. jnothman ^talk 10:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 09:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 11:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Platt[edit]

Vanity page. Absolutely no indication that this person or the band he belongs to is of any significant value to be included in an encyclopedia. Speedy delete is my opinion. --Nlu 06:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but not a speedy, I think. Jdavidb [[talk • contribs]] 06:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Fails WP:MUSIC Big time and not a speedy sadly --JAranda | watz sup 07:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just like Collibus --DDerby-(talk) 07:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete can't find a thing on him, or the band jnothman ^talk 10:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 09:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is this the same Stephen Platt who's a notable comic book artist? If so, keep after expanding article. Otherwise delete. DS 13:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not, based on the contents of the article. --Nlu 16:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 11:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stone Rule[edit]

Neologism with 12 unique Google hits, including Wikipedia. Only 3, really. GTBacchus 06:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. BlankVerse 10:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of significant use. JPD (talk) 10:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense neologism, and borderline POV attack on Christianity (see stub). - Sensor 00:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As the guy who did the stub sorting, I can say with absolute certainty that calling it a {{christianity-stub}} was my best good-faith effort to categorize it correctly, and not at all an attack on Christianity. If you follow the link, you will see that the idea of the "Stone Rule" is originated and circulated by Christians, in the context of clarifying and discussing the Golden Rule vis-a-vis other, not so good, rules, which they reject. I'm very sorry for that misinterpretation, and invite anyone with questions about why I sorted the article the way I did to my talk page. -GTBacchus 04:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 09:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as nn-bio. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rsmaniak[edit]

Vanity page of mere nickname BeteNoir 07:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. - BeteNoir 07:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. This is plain old {{nn-bio}} territory; see WP:CSD if you're interested in the "speedy" process. —HorsePunchKid→龜かめ 07:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per above.--Alhutch 07:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per HorsePunchKid. Thelb ⁴ 08:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleted under criterion A7 (no assertion of notability) in WP:CSD. Technically the article is about the nickname of a nonnotable person, but that does not make any real difference. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 11:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Savior mary[edit]

vanity advertisement for non-notable book BeteNoir 07:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. - BeteNoir 07:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Alhutch 07:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Thelb ⁴ 08:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn book; nn author. jnothman ^talk 10:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: vanity article on book published by vanity press. - Sensor 00:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 11:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stripped art[edit]

Ad for nn company Delete --JAranda | watz sup 08:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This complaint states that the entry in question is an "advertisement for a non-notable company."

To address this I have demonstrated below::

(1)What an advertisment is...

(2)How this article is no different from similar, existing articles which could under the definition applied also be construed as advertisements.

(3)What makes something notable...

(4)How the subject of this entry is "notable."

(5)Therefore, this entry should be approved and included in Wikipedia.

(1)WHAT IS AN ADVERTISEMENT?

source:: www.dictionary.com

Advertise: To make public announcement of, especially to proclaim the qualities or advantages of (a product or business) so as to increase sales.

(2) Does this article aim only to "proclaim the qualities or advantages of 'stripped art' so as to increase sales"? No.

It describes an organization objectively, but does not promote the organization.

It describes the organization in a manner similar to that in which Wikipedia describes Playboy. How can one then allow Playboy to have a Wikipedia entry, but not Stripped Art?

(3) Notability?

WHAT MAKES SOMETHING NOTABLE?

source:: www.dictionary.com

adj Notable: Worthy of note or notice; remarkable:: notable beauty; sled dogs that are notable for their stamina.

This definition does not say that something is "notable" only because thousands of people know about it already...

But it does say the thing must be "worthy of notice."

Now, the fact that thousands of people already know about something could make it notable. But not necessarily. Millions of people are aware that Brad Pitt left Jennifer Anniston. Is it notable? Is it worthy of putting in Wikipedia? No.

Then we need a different test. Let's look to the definition of notable, then.

Worthy of notice. What makes something worthy of notice? Well, why do we have Wikipedia in the first place? To educate through informing.

What does this article do? It informs people about a unique business and a unique business concept that yes, thousands of people do already know about. But that shouldn't make it notable.

Then why is it notable? Because the business model can be applied to funding other kinds charities. There is a method, and method can be adopted by others. That is "worthy of notice." And a lot worthier than a great deal of the content already on this site.

-----james.j@consortiumbank.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.130.160 (talk • contribs) 2005-11-01 10:27:52 UTC

Delete, nonnotable. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 08::36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
- Please advise as to the location of the wikipedia policy on "notability." -----james.j@consortiumbank.com
  - Policy on notability
  - Wikipedia:Companies, corporations and economic information/Notability and inclusion guidelines
Delete nn ad. Created by one persistent user, who argues against non-definition of notability, but does not give evidence of notability, see Talk:Stripped art. --jnothman ^talk 08:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-evaluate your positions based on the arguments above. -----james.j@consortiumbank.com
- Done. Position not changed. jnothman ^talk 10:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable and advertising. Nothing to reconsider - simply stating the dictionary definitions of notable and advertising doesn't change the matter at hand - that the article is about something not the former and is definitely the latter. ●R EDVERS ^{HELLO●EMAIL●DOINGS} 09:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I have not simply stated dictionary definitions. I have applied the meaning of the definitions to the situation at hand. How have you done the same? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.130.160 (talk • contribs) 2005-11-01 10:27:52 UTC
  - Okay then. My vote remains delete, because simply stating the dictionary definitions of notable and advertising doesn't change the matter at hand and neither does applying those meanings selectively to the text. Happy now? ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 16:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete my criteria for notability are increasingly liberal - but this is nowhere close. No alexa rating - no evidence of exteral discussion/review or media interest. AFAICS no neutral information available - outside the website. Thus the significance is unverifiable (even minor schools have ofsted reports) --Doc (?) 10:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The jury has found that this article needs to be deleted. -- Rune Welsh | τたうαあるふぁλらむだκかっぱ | Esperanza 10:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no evidence I can find for this thing's importance, interest or even existence, except for a website. Wikipedia Is Not a Links Directory. As well as being non-notable, the subject is barely verifiable. The Land 10:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Research turns up no published works whatsoever by independent sources (no newspaper features, no corporate histories or biographies, no consumer reports) on the subject of this company. The WP:CORP criteria for inclusion of companies are not satisfied. Delete. Uncle G 11:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and border line advert per the author's (?) notability argument above that "Because the business model can be applied to funding other kinds charities. There is a method, and method can be adopted by others...". This would appear to be a clear indication that the article is at least in part intended to be an advertisement for the company's business model.

forgot to sign my comment--Isotope23 15:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. Marcus22 15:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn ad. AndyJones 17:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN spam, remove before it makes it to Google's cache. --Madchester 21:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of existence outside of one website, and creators argument for 'original business model' is more likely to get this to qualify for original research than notability without wider reporting. Average Earthman 22:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of verifiability, notability, and as advertising. MCB 22:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I appreciate the author's contribution and his/her arguments for keeping the article, but it doesn't meet Wikipedia standards. The article is an ad as written. If it were rewritten to assert notability, and it could be proven, perhaps my vote would be different. - Sensor 00:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 11:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tracie Cullum[edit]

Article is on a non-notable UK murder victim, one of several created by an anon with a racist agenda (See Talk:Anthony Walker). ●R EDVERS ^{HELLO●EMAIL●DOINGS} 09:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. - ●R EDVERS ^{HELLO●EMAIL●DOINGS} 09:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Rd232 ^talk 10:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom jnothman ^talk 10:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Qwghlm 11:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I wonder whether this is a candidate for speedy deletion per A7. Is an assertion that someone was murdered an assertion of notability? Food for thought. - Sensor 00:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 11:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Yates[edit]

Article is on a non-notable UK murder victim, one of several created by an anon with a racist agenda (See Talk:Anthony Walker) ●R EDVERS ^{HELLO●EMAIL●DOINGS} 09:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. - ●R EDVERS ^{HELLO●EMAIL●DOINGS} 09:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. jnothman ^talk 10:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - unlike the other two (Tracie Cullum, Daniel McGann), Yates may actually have been a racist murder; I'm not sure if this justifies Yates himself having an entry. If the murder itself is notable, maybe it should be mentioned somewhere else, not in an article about Yates, who is otherwise non-notable. Not sure where that somewhere else would be - some UK race-relations article? Not sure either whether it is notable. It may be too recent to say. Rd232 ^talk 11:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A Google suggests he died a year ago this week. BBC News Online has just two entries, both on local pages, nothing national. I'd say that a year with no more news, plus the lack of a national story on the UK's most comprehensive news site suggests that the story is over and the unfortunate Mr Yates is a non-notable - just another statistic, sadly. ●R EDVERS ^{HELLO●EMAIL●DOINGS} 11:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's an October 2005 court case. [11]. Rd232 ^talk 14:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Qwghlm 11:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Sensor 00:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Holderca1 03:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Organizing vision[edit]

nonsense with no meaningful content BeteNoir 10:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. - BeteNoir 10:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps there is actual encyclopedic content here, but just needs cleanup or rewrite BeteNoir 18:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not nonsense, has meaningful content. A description of a term referring to information systems, complete with a reference. --TM ^(talk) 10:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TM. Term used by research institutions, eg [12], [13]. jnothman ^talk 11:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is has meaningful content. Carioca 21:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 09:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 11:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Hancock (other)[edit]

Delete nn vanity, was an audience member of a show, self-described keen drinker etc. I thought some might argue the article claims notability if I put a nnbio tag so I brought it here, but speedy if you think it qualifies. TM ^(talk) 10:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable as per WP:BIO, A7 CSD candidate,audience member of a TV show. Capitalistroadster 10:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had thought that some of these personal notes may have been comedy routine. Have decided is nn. jnothman ^talk 11:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 09:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was SP DELETE A7. -Doc (?) 14:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Michael Mahon[edit]

nnbio BeteNoir 10:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SpeedyDelete per nomination. - BeteNoir 10:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete jnothman ^talk 11:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 11:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New Oscland[edit]

An online community of 50 people. Wikipedia Is Not A Links Directory. The Land 10:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Land 10:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete jnothman ^talk 11:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
del --MarSch 15:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. This borders on patent nonsense. - Sensor 00:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 11:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Montana and The Bar Association[edit]

musicians who are not notable BeteNoir 11:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. - BeteNoir 11:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn local band; no albums. jnothman ^talk 11:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 09:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable yet. BrianSmithson 21:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 CLEAN UP. — JIP | Talk 20:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge debate[edit]

Keep and cleanup - I've been following this debate for a couple of years and will help clean up the page. APologies if I edited this page wrong but I didn't see any way to do it an add the time stamp.Tracy White
Nominate and ~~Delete~~ - Crazily non-encyclopedic, nowhere near the quality of conspiracy articles like Kennedy assassination theories. Staxringold 11:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup well-known debate. Low quality is a reason to edit, not delete. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup I have to agree, well-known debate. Low quality is a reason to edit, not delete. MaddMaxx 16:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC) Madd Maxx MaddMaxx 16:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Good grief - Admiral Husband Kimmel got scapegoated over unpreparedness/advance knowledge issues. This is definitely a notable subject about which lots has been written. Needs bigtime cleanup/expert attention and I have tagged it as such. - Sensor 00:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup. My mistake, sorry, vote amended as it still DEFINETLY needs a clean-up. Staxringold 01:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup, per Wahoofive and MaddMaxx. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 09:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion - Delete it entirely as it damages the spirit and intent of Wikipedia. Our group's interest is not well served here; this is the wrong forum for this now multi-generational squabble. Note that there are no totally agreed upon "experts" on this topic; a balanced pro/con view has not been abided. Various of the materials as shown even today are objectively incorrect as can be easily shown to be erroneous by simple fact checking.

This is not what a free, open, and insightful information sharing communities' encyclopedia should be about.

Merge with Attack on Pearl Harbor. -- Necrothesp 02:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, cleanup, merge with Attack on Pearl Harbor. Even though the article requires a lot of work, there are enough documents, research results and most of all academical comments to support an ongoing debate, which should not be swept under the carpet simply because some countries are a little sensitive about the issue. aeris 00:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 11:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Korean crime syndicate: 신속한 물고기 (black tiger)[edit]

A google search for "black tiger" Korea crime found nothing relevant. This, together with the article's contents, led me to believe that it is either a hoax or a fiction. (There exists a movie "Tears of the Black Tiger"; if this is what the article is about, it should be rewritten to make that clear and also moved to a more reasonable title.) Delete ~~unless verified/rewritten~~. - Mike Rosoft 11:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment could someone who knows Korean please Google this in the Korean language? There may be information on it that isn't in English. Thanks. Jacqui ^★ 12:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Haeleth's translation. Thanks. Jacqui ^★ 02:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unverifiable see Lizard People also on Afd. Dlyons493 Talk 14:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax; 신속한 물고기 means something like "quick fish", not "black tiger", and - incidentally - gets precisely 0 hits on Google in Korean. — Haeleth Talk 18:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 09:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 per author's request. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 19:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Midwest Lakes Policy Center[edit]

This appears to be advertising. Article doesn't establish notability. Martg76 12:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is not adveritsing, this is giving people a chance to research lakes and watersheds at a deeper level than Wikipedia can allow. (Unsigned comment by 24.180.186.74, creator of the article in question)
Delete per nomination. Website does not mention any notability and contains little research information. A Google search doesn't turn up much more than links to the site. --mdd4696 13:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable institution. Watch out for vandalism by article author, he already blanked this nomination once. jni 14:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am just trying to delete the article if people object to it, thanks. This way we can just end this now instead of waiting.(Unsigned comment by 24.180.186.74).
Speedy Delete per author request.--Isotope23 18:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(and don't bite the newbies... author appears to be fairly new and not familiar with deletion process)--Isotope23 18:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 by author's request. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 19:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Midwest lakes policy center[edit]

NN, copy of Midwest Lakes Policy Center --mdd4696 14:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. See AFD dicussion for Midwest Lakes Policy Center --mdd4696 14:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Martg76 16:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per author request at Midwest Lakes Policy Center afd.--Isotope23 18:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 14:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Morrissey[edit]

nn musician Isolani 12:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy nn-bio. PJM 12:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --mdd4696 13:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, national and international touring passes WP:MUSIC. Kappa 19:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dottore So 22:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Borderline case. The Mason Jennings Band has recorded five albums and is recording its sixth. However, Morrissey has been part of the band for only one album see Allmusic.com credits [14] and is recording with the band on its sixth see Billboard report [15]

He has also toured with the band notably on a tour supporting Modest Mouse see [16]. Capitalistroadster 01:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Drinking game. --Cel e stianpower ^háblame 14:38, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I Drink, You Drink[edit]

Was at one stage marked as speedy, but does not meet the criteria. However, appears to be unverifiable - Google searching finds only different, unrelated drinking games. Probably original research. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 12:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 12:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom --Isolani 12:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. PJM 12:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to either drinking game or pub. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to drinking game. CarDepot 21:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 64.200.124.189 22:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC) Suspected sockpuppet - see user page. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 11:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Garr 02:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC) User's 15th and 16th edits to Wikipedia. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 09:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well written article about the game. Science3456 02:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC) Suspected sockpuppet - see user page. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 11:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, redirect per fuddlemark if needed. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 09:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 169.157.229.87 17:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC) Suspected sockpuppet - see user page. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 11:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- O^O
Keep. Earthling37 19:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC) Suspected sockpuppet - see user page. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 11:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. FireTracks 19:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC) Suspected sockpuppet - see user page. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 11:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GuardDog 02:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC) Suspected sockpuppet - see user page. O^O[reply]
Delete per nom -GTBacchus 19:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 11:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Omega (fiction)[edit]

NN short story by NN student writer. Delete PJM 12:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --mdd4696 13:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete. The Land 18:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Carioca 21:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 09:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 baldness. - Mailer Diablo 11:32, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Allopecia[edit]

Near-blatant dicdef. Not even sure it is even appropriate for Wiktionary... Wcquidditch | Talk 12:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Wcquidditch | Talk 12:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. PJM 12:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to baldness, like alopecia does. Pilatus 14:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As per Pilatus, it's a mis-spelling of alopecia, which redirects to baldness and so should this. Although alopecia should really have its own article. Proto t c 15:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to baldness. - Sensor 00:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Baldness as a common misspelling of alopecia. -- DS1953 ^talk 01:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect but the Alopecia page is already complete and this page adds nothing to it. Also the 'balding in spots' Alopecia areata that the article mentions already has a full page. So this could just be deleted. Prashanthns 07:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Redirects are cheap, and prevent recreation as well as confusion. Xoloz 22:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 11:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Extraprotential[edit]

If this were a real word, it should go to wiktionary, but there are no google results, and it's not in the dictionary. — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 12:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --mdd4696 13:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete nonsense jnothman ^talk 14:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G1 patent nonsense. "Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to make sense of it" fits the bill here. If not, then delete as just plain nonsense. - Sensor 00:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 11:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Lefrancois[edit]

NN Vanity Page --mdd4696 13:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. This was a tough call for me, since I am not familiar with the illustrator, but ultimately I chose to put the article up for deletion since I could not find any professional reviews of his work. --mdd4696 13:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I did find samples of his art, but they seem a step below Napoleon Dynamite's efforts. Stu 15:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 09:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 11:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SiteKreator[edit]

Non-notable advertising. Alexa rank is over 90,000 with only one incoming link.

Delete as per nom, and thanks for taking care of the AFD work for me (I was about to nominate this myself). — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 13:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as ad and not notable. -- Foofy 13:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. — ceejayoz ^talk 13:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Its an ad. Stu 15:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete adv. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 09:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. I count 12 keep votes and 7 delete votes, with "strong" qualifiers on both sides. That is too narrow a margin for consensus. — JIP | Talk 20:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural references in Pokémon[edit]

This is still a list of random historical or pop-culture "references" in Pokémon, and is a collection of indiscriminate trivia. There's no good place to merge it, and no real use for it as a standalone article. The Pokémon Wikiproject, as far as I can tell, hasn't shown much interest in fiddling with this list of trivia, and other than some vandalism patrol and bot changes, it hasn't been touched since the last AFD.

Please note that this is not a merge target, and deleting it will not result in a bunch of Pokémon stubs popping up.

For those interested, this has been on AFD twice before. The previous AFDs are here and here. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 13:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Speedy Keep You have attempted to VfD this article twice in the past two months. Both times it was kept. Do not attempt to delete articles through attrition. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I listed this for AFD a month and a half ago; Apostrophe listed it a second time a week later, and I would have advised him not to. Both times it has received a majority of delete votes; the last AFD had a 2d:1k ratio, with several of the keeps because of the too-quick relist.
  Note that it has been a month since any non-vandal, non-bot edit of this article, despite being listed on the Pokémon Wikiproject's talk page. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 14:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Going a month without a major edit is hardly a reason to delete a substantial article which survived two very recent deletion attempts. If you really want it deleted, unlist it and try again in 6 months. 3 AfDs in two months is completely unacceptable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Both times it barely survived AFD for reasons unrelated to the quality of the article (a mistaken belief that it was a merge target, a much-too-soon relist). Both times it received a majority of delete votes. The only relevant Wikiproject has no interest in doing anything with this. Had I just redirected this to Pokémon (anime), I'm doubtful anyone would have noticed.
      Don't be so hung up on process, especially when there aren't any applicable formal rules. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 14:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - There aren't any applicable formal rules?! Surely you've read and are familiar with Wikipedia:Deletion policy, which explicitly states: "In some cases, repeated attempts to have an article deleted may even be considered disruptive. If in doubt, don't delete!" No applicable rules indeed! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm curious what this AFD is disrupting, exactly. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 15:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Here's two for a start: (a) AfD now averages some 150+ entries a day, and is more than bloated enough without re-noms of things twice kept in less than two months (b) repeatedly re-nominating an article hurts its chance for natural development and cleanup, as editors are unlikely to work extensively to cleanup something that gets an AfD nomination every couple weeks. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Andrew on this - leave it at least 3 and preferably 6 months. However pointless the article is! Dlyons493 Talk 14:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If you feel the article is pointless, why do you want to keep it for three months? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 14:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article will not get improved untill possible contributors to the article believe that their contributions will be kept. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unreferenced Original Research Cruft. I've not seen the "I Feel Skitty" episode, but does Meowth really kick someone in the style of Chun Li? Was this an actual cultural reference, or someone picking up the merest coincidence with something else? Meowth's ability to speak is reminiscent of Garfield? Even if the script writers confirmed these things, I still don't think Pokemon episodes should have every facet which deals with real life in a article. I mean, one of the episodes contains a samurai? Is this a notable event in the Pokemon world, do people sit up and think, "Wow, Samurai were mentioned, that's an important cultural reference in my favourite show!" - Hahnchen 16:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. Have any of the reflexive "keep" voters actually read the article? User:A Man In Black is right, Despite the title, which might lead one to believe that it contains references to popular culture this is a unsalvageable grab-bag of trivia. Delete. Pilatus 16:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a job for cleanup, not for AFD. Keep, keep, keep, a thousand times keep. ~~I want to be careful to avoid personal attacks, but I feel that this is verging on a bad-faith nomination.~~ -- Plutor 16:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - You've made a fairly serious accusation. Do you have any evidence to back it up? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 17:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're right. I apologize, I didn't really mean bad-faith. I really should have just agreed with Starblind that this is getting a bit repetitive and possibly disrupting. Based on your other edits and votes and whatnot, I'm sure that you do have the best of intentions. I withdraw my accusation. (But not my vote) -- Plutor 17:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Cleanup has failed since mid-August. No one on the Pokémon Wikiproject, who are a pretty active bunch, has ever wanted to touch the mess up. Can't blame them for it. Pilatus 18:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge somewhere (I'm not sure what the best target would be). In any case, I've trimmed the article down to less than half its former size and rewrote the lead; it should be somewhat more viable (aside from the choice of topic) now. Kirill Lokshin 18:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this. It is no longer a bad article, IMHO. Well done Kirill. AndyJones 18:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As the other two AfDs, I have no idea what on earth to do with this. Its a garbled mess. I could do with splitting and merging between various articles but I don't want to do it. Despite this however, the fact that it's been on AfD twice before and kept twice makes me lean towards keep. --Cel e stianpower ^háblame 18:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am a bit concerned it's a form of original research, but not very. The Land 18:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While it has scraped through by the skin of its teeth twice, it has improved beyond being a list of "references to general human culture in Pokemon"! I will however pop it on my watchlist and if any edits I consider blatently ridiculous come up again I will delete them with haste. Lets face it, before the edits half of it was complete rubbish and I fear the article may well attract the same kind of blatently obvious and pointless trivia it contained before... I mean the prunes comment... bloody hell! *sigh* Jezze 18:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Sorry, but this is just inherently unencyclopedic triviacruft. Even in the cleaned-up version, it's mostly nonsense: half the "cultural references" are just phrases like "all's well that ends well" and "another one bites the dust" that are simply everyday cliches! There is nothing here remotely notable. Nothing at all. — Haeleth Talk 19:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, quickly. Kappa 19:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverifiable. Jkelly 22:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete echoing above. Dottore So 22:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unverifiable, inherently POV, unmaintainable, fancruft. MCB 22:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic fancruft magnet. --Calton | Talk 01:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- "Even in the cleaned-up version, it's mostly nonsense" To be honest I wish the article had never existed! However it has been through AFD twice and got through, once with myself voting against it. 'All's well that ends well'? Considering that two sub-characters are called Romeo and Juliet, this could be easily seen as a cultural reference! See the article on cruft for one which is of equal merit to this (and yet it has been used in various offensive ways to the English language throughout this AFD)! Jezze 04:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Again, this is the third nomination, and the reasons given to keep still stand. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've read much better articles, and I'll admit that it's not particularly well implemented, but it's not inherently outside the scope of Wikipedia. It could use some cleanup by fans, but it's not delete-worthy even as it stands. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 23:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no basis for deletion. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- OR, indiscriminate trivia, covering a subject better covered by Pokémon (anime)...take your pick. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 16:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think at the page is original research fundamentally, although it may need a rewrite/cleanup to better align to what we can reasonably say from the sources we have. It's not indiscriminate trivia. Your third point is not a basis for deletion. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - The problem is that we have no sources whatsoever, other than the primary source (the anime itself). You have a number of fansites with disparate speculation, but varied, inconsistent speculation on fansite forums isn't an encyclopedic topic. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 04:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY KEEP IT RIGHT NOW I can't believe you're trying this sh*t again, AMIB. You've tried before, and you failed. Give up already! CoolKatt number 99999 02:56, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and if the result is keep, I want an admin to make sure that no one can ever put this on AFD ever again CoolKatt number 99999 02:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is unlikely to happen. That said, I won't relist this again (ever) if there's a bonafide consensus to keep. I only renominated after two AFDs that closed no consensus with a majority of delete votes.
    As for the rest, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, eh? I'd rather not see a repeat of the original debacle. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 04:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, plainly unencyclopedic; it not only an arbitrary list, but an arbitrary list based entirely on the interpretations, readings, and original research of a few editors. Relisting a deletion because new information has come up or because the original vote was based on errors strikes me as entirely approprate; but if deletion fails because its relisting was too soon, please do remember to list it again as soon as enough time has passed to dispel that concern. --Aquillion 04:06, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was SP DELETE A7. -Doc (?) 14:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jostein henriksen[edit]

Delete - Non-notable norwegian. Article created by what looks like his wife. Bjelleklang - talk 13:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete vanity jnothman ^talk 14:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Cel e stianpower ^háblame 23:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Real Big Prawn[edit]

Speedy Delete per nomination. Creator removed db-nonsense tag I placed on page. It appears to be nothing but "unfinished" nonsense - if the non-verifiability with Google is not enough to go by, then surely the title of the page is. LichYoshi 13:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dendrobranchiata. Bjelleklang - talk 13:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete nonsense jnothman ^talk 14:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY DELETE Stu 15:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Delete for all reasons above. PJM 15:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, per nom. -Andrew 16:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dendrobranchiata, per User:Bjelleklang. Maybe a neologism, maybe a hoax, but certainly not nonsense. Not speedyable. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Dendrobranchiata is a serious look at the species. Really big prawns is nonsense however you look at it. Not even a redirect. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 17:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under category A1 - an article with little or no context. A Google search shows that it is not a term in regular use see [17]. Capitalistroadster 17:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. . Capitalistroadster 18:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, just because author removed speedy tag is no reason to AfD it instead... it's still speedy for nonsense IMO.--Isotope23 22:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 PlanetSide. - Mailer Diablo 14:15, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merger has been succesful, time for deletion Eirek 00:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After merging, there has to be a redirect to preserve the history. I've done that. -- Kjkolb 03:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PlanetSide Tanks[edit]

I've been playing this game since closed beta testing and I still love it. Even I don't think that this article needs to exist. The trivia of speed, armor values, and weapon type are better served by the PlanetSide wiki anyway. Whatever is left can be merged into the PlanetSide article. You can call me Al 13:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with PlanetSide, per nom. -Andrew 16:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Merge. Bit concerned that someon's included all that information and it's worht keeping it. The Land 18:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, do not merge with PlanetSide, please, think of the users. Kappa 19:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge clearly. Dottore So 22:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 11:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

6.001 (MIT)[edit]

Individual class; not notable Gerrit ^CUTEDH 14:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. - Gerrit ^CUTEDH 14:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Please let us not start down this road. -R. fiend 17:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Crikey! --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think "Individual class; not notable" is a statement of fact followed by an assumption; the assumption might be a natural one but I think it may be mistaken in this case. 6.001 is not just a class but a particular course design and as the article mentions, the design of this specific course has been actually copied by other universities. I think voters should be careful to make sure they are assessing the notability of this core class at this highly famous and influential university, and not the notability of a generic class at a generic university. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply