Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 October 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 3 October 5 >

Purge server cache

October 4[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete carried out by User:Doc glasgow Ryan Norton T | @ | C 07:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not Even Wrong[edit]

blog vanity. POV pushing at the end. Minor claim to notability: his blog is mentioned in a Guardian article. — brighterorange (talk) 00:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Major POV problems and not notable. If a true "religous" belief held by some, might be expandable into a true article. However, I lack the knowledge of the topic to do this myself. will381796 01:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity. NNShelburne Kismaayo 02:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity (as everyone else has said), and a mess to boot. – Seancdaug 03:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, so it's not vanity. I'm still not convinced that it's notable, nor am I sold that Wikipedia is suited to be blog index. So I apologize for misunderstanding the situation, but my vote stands. – Seancdaug 19:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity. utcursch | talk 11:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity CLW 12:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • First problem I have with this article is that the current incarnation is not an encyclopdic article, it is a blub about the blog and then some random poem. Not a deletable offense, but poorly written. Looking back at the history, it was more POV to start. Again, not a deletable offense... just a bad article. I'm not convinced this is vanity per se as it looks like others edited and added some of the material. It is however an article about a blog. It's not notable in the least and that is deletable in my book. There is no good reason that a blog by a physicist of dubious notability needs it's own wiki entry. It's already listed on his wiki page; no reason to spam wikipedia with more useless blog articles. Delete.--Isotope23 15:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, please note Guardian article link was added by me (Nigel Cook), because the article said "YOU CAN HELP BY EXPANDING THIS STUB" or some such. Just trying to help!!! Since I've already been suppressed by Wikipedia on the gravity entry for requesting an update on something of my own, it is just weird if I can't contribute the Guardian newspaper link to this page which was created by Dr Lubos Motl, a string theorist - for proof see http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=271 . Therefore, the arguments - all of them - about vanity below look a bit bogus. So many people can't all be wrong? So string theory and the majority must be right? Anyone below feeling a touch paranoid? I don't have more than a few moments access to the edit now and then so haven't had a chance to join wikipedia as a 'User' yet. Best wishes, Nigel. -- unsigned comment by 62.253.48.69 (talk · contribs), whose only edit this is.
    • Nigel: This discussion isn't about the guardian link (which actually works in the article's favor, so thank you for adding it), but whether a Wikipedia article about this blog meets the encyclopedia's standards for inclusion. It also isn't about quashing controversy over string theory—we want to provide information from a neutral point of view, which often means reporting multiple perspectives. You'll notice that the article on string theory already contains a large section on the theory's problems and criticisms. If you'd like to expand the discussion, that might be a good place to start. Thanks for trying to help! — brighterorange (talk) 15:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not blog vanity, as it was created by someone (Dr Motl) who is on the other side to the moderator Woit, who has nothing to do with this page. I don't know why my view was deleted, but this entry is essential to establishing an independent index of the blog pages by people excluding Woit. The blog itself is not self-promotion, it includes valuable discussions but these are scattered around and hard to locate on Google, so Wikipedia should have a user-friendly index. The string theory discussions elsewhere are always bogged down with technical trivia, and this is the one blog which distinguishes the wood from the trees. ALL of these 'objections' say 'vanity' which is a lie, unless you think Dr Motl and Dr Woit are one and the same, like Dr Jekyl and Mr Hyde! Best wishes, Nigel -- unsigned comment by 80.47.24.202 (talk · contribs), whose third edit this is.
    • In regards to your contention that "this entry is essential to establishing an independent index of the blog pages by people excluding Woit", I would argue that the last thing wikipedia needs is articles about people's blogs regardless of what the subject matter is.--Isotope23 20:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No notability established for the blog. Slightly more notability for the meme but not to the point where the claims made for it here can be verified (compare "considered harmful" for a meme which did reach that level.) Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC) Vote changed to Abstain. The evidence presented by Betsy and Kevin is not enough for me to be sure the blog is notable, but enough to be unsure that it's not. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve, though I agree the un-encyclopedic puffery should go. This blog, despite its provocative title, is not just string-bashing. It's a well-respected source for interesting science bloggery. Its posts often get chosen for Physics Comments, and a Google search for woit blog gives 35,000 results. betsythedevine 20:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A lot of people are worried about this entry being on a Blog. While this is a concern I think we should be willing to include some under very special circumstances. I am a philosophy graduate student and on more than one occasion I have heard a particular philosopher's blog mentioned during a professional talk. In fact a recent paper by a professor at Berkeley was inspired by a comment on said blog. I think this means that blogs are becoming part of academic life, and notable ones are as worthy of an entry here as a book (and probably more worthy). With respect to this case, I count 125 references in at the site provided by betsy [1]. This is a lot. In addition, the guardian article helps. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 02:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity. It's... Thelb4! 20:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pemberton Avenue[edit]

THis road survived a VFD with a group of a few more notable roads in a group nomination. This one isn't notable just a three block street with alot of red links and should have been deleted see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toronto-area roads (group 2) so Im relisting this one again but without the others Delete --JAranda | yeah 00:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, article spends more time discussing the location than the street. Streets are not places, they are pieces of infrastructure created for the purpose of transportation. If you want to acknowledge the existence of a street then do so in an article about the infrastructure network or local transportation, not in an article about a single piece of that system. This only fragments better articles into a bunch of pieces here and there. --maclean25 01:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; unimportant residential street. Bearcat 02:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge into an article about the infrastructure network or local transportation. Kappa 02:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really? It's not even a significant part of those topics... Bearcat 04:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ok, now I admittedly only lived in Toronto for a 18 months, but I can't even find this as I sit here looking on a map. Xoloz 06:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I entirely agree that it's deletable (I already voted so above), but I think it's problematic to use "but I can't find it on the map" as the primary grounds for a deletion vote; it potentially opens the door to somebody pointing out its map location as a priori grounds for a keep vote. I'm not going to do that, because I agree that it's non-notable, but I for one do know where it is on the map. Bearcat 17:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn avenue --redstucco 09:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Gamaliel 11:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable street. I have enough faith in Xoloz's eyesight to accept his lack-of-finding-on-a-map, especially since Google Maps has a hard time finding it too and a Google search says that there's nothing notable about it. Good enough for me. Lord Bob 14:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, roadcruft.Gateman1997 18:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I originally nominated this in that group deletion. Mindmatrix 19:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Hermione1980My RfA 22:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hilton Beach, Ontario[edit]

This article is obviously about a city with no historical or social significance. Wikipedia is not a travel guide and this article does not belong. It is also not significant enough to merit merging into another article. Neutral point of view is not maintained in this article. will381796 00:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The place exists, it's not just a housing development or anything. BTW, the page really needs some work. If I'm missing some locality notability guidelines, i'll reconsider. --CastAStone 00:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't "keep all real places", as shown by the various featureless rocks in the sea that have come to AFD (and the fact that my back garden still doesn't have an article), but we do tend to employ the rationale outlined by Capitalistroadster below. See the User:Rambot discussions as well. Uncle G 00:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you. With that as the basic guideline, my vote remains the same. --CastAStone 00:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup as real place with real communities of interest see website [2]. Capitalistroadster 00:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all real communities. CalJW 00:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's not so much whether or not this is a real community. It's whether or not the encyclopedia gains anything from this article. I could write an article about every tiny town in West Texas, but that doesn't mean that I should. If an article's topic is not important in some way, then why keep a stub when you can go pick up an atlas and get more information. If someone has some more information regarding this place, then please, add more information. But the main thing is that Wikipedia has a policy to not let the articles turn into tourist guides, and that is exactly what this is. will381796 00:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you feel it is a tourist guide, change the content, not the existance. --CastAStone 00:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • (For the nominator) Please see my note on your talk page. Thanks.--Sean Jelly Baby? 01:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepReal Place Newbie Mistake Will Cleanup--JAranda | yeah 01:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The encyclopedic reason for articles about named places, at least at the level of recognized communities (towns and cities) is to identify, locate, and disambiguate them from similarly-named places or things. It's not a tourist guide, but functions more like a gazetteer. (To which someone will undoubtedly reply, Wikipedia is not a gazetteer, but that argument has not yet, to my knowledge, been asserted as policy.) MCB 01:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It needs cleanup, but towns are notable. --Sean Jelly Baby? 01:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just Cleaned it Up Just looking for a way to expand this and thats it --JAranda | yeah 01:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see that my attempt to have this article deleted was unwarranted, due to Wiki Precedent. Sorry. will381796 01:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am changing my vote to Speedy Keep as per comment directly above, posted by nominator. --CastAStone 01:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep I'm with CastAStone on this one--Sean Jelly Baby? 01:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it is an incorporated village. Which one of the editors who voted 'clean-up' above will actually clean it up? --maclean25 01:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as per CastAStone. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 02:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm down with the keep crew. It may not be explicitly written out as policy, but the established VfD precedent is that real incorporated communities merit articles regardless of size. Bearcat 02:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Needs to be destubified, but I worry that setting the precendent of deleting city/town articles for being nn is going to open up a huge can of worms, and lead to a lot of unneccessary and ultimately damaging arguing over what towns are and are not encyclopedia-worthy. – Seancdaug 03:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all communities. Xoloz 06:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all real towns and villages. That has been community consensus even the most ardent deletionists I think. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Municipalities are bread and butter. Marskell 09:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. utcursch | talk 11:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per established consensus... at least it isn't an elementary school.--Isotope23 15:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Jord 17:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - You can never have enough keeps for an incorporated village. --rob 17:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'keep this of course can we speedy keep it instead it does not need to be on here really Yuckfoo 18:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and de-list. Punkmorten 20:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. It's wiki precedent to have entries for cities and towns, and none of the arguments above convince me that this should change. --Jacquelyn Marie 15:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What makes an incorporated village of 220 people any less valid then a town of 5000 people or a city of a million people. --Cloveious 15:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Hermione1980 00:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cresserons[edit]

Information is unencyclopedic in nature. I could write this information about any small town anywhere and that does not make it worthy of an article. will381796 00:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and expand. I have categorised it. All of the communes of France should have articles and somewhere in the region of 2,000 of them already have. It is established practice that all articles about real political subdivisions should be kept. CalJW 00:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep My attempt to delete was unwarranted due to Wiki Precedent for deletions, which I just read. Sorry. will381796 01:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand and Keep --JAranda | yeah 18:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC) if not Delete I understand but it is Still Badly Written and mostly empty Better off for A new Page to form later on that the version we have now. Will Change My vote if its expanded --JAranda | yeah 01:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, real place, useful stub. Kappa 02:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. -- Kjkolb 07:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. French communes are valid topics, as are all other administrative divisions of a country. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. utcursch | talk 11:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep French communes. Plus, this helps address regional bias CLW 12:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per wiki precendent and also CLW. --Jacquelyn Marie 15:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Hermione1980My RfA 22:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yamato-Yagi Station[edit]

Unencyclopedic information concerning and unimportant train station. We do not need an article about every single busy train station across the globe will381796 00:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Now I agree with you will. Google only returns 189 hits, nearly all if not all of which are directions to random places. --CastAStone 01:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn Train Station --JAranda | yeah 01:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, like everything in Category:London Underground stations. Kappa 02:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn't you say there is a difference between a major transportation system in a metropolitan area as compared to a single train station in Japan. Perhaps if there were an entire article related to Japanese train stations in relation to their transportation system. However, that I think would fall under the category of travel guide. will381796 02:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, like every station article. If you are not interested they do no harm. Secretlondon 05:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Railway stations are every bit as notable as subway stations, and if you see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents#Cities_and_villages you will find that those are generally sufficiently notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No harm, and having the stub should encourage more users to contribute in areas that they are familiar with. Neier 08:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We keep train stations. CalJW 08:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per previous. -feydey 09:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. utcursch | talk 11:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep train stations regardless of number of Google hits (this one gets twenty-four thousand in Japanese). There are no criteria for notability of train stations, and non-notable is not a criterion for deletion of them. Fg2 11:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep stations. NSR (talk) 12:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep stations. Plus, this helps address regional bias CLW 12:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep this please it is notable just like a school we are getting better at avoiding systemic bias which is a good thing Yuckfoo 18:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep my fault earlier, I didn't remember the precident. change vote. --CastAStone 22:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NetTest[edit]

Blatant advertisement. — brighterorange (talk) 00:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • "We empower you..." How could it be contested that this is an ad? DeleteCastAStone 01:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Advertisements have no place in Wikipedia. will381796 00:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advert/nn/vanity. Empower this, baby! MCB 01:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Definite advertisement.
  • Also, is it a copyright violation if it is taken from their website? I'm new, wouldn't know. It is taken verbatim from the Google Cache of their site Cpaliga 01:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a straight copy of the corporate blurb published by the company itself, which is of course copyrighted and not GFDL licenced. Copyright Judo has been applied. I haven't looked to see whether the company meets the WP:CORP criteria. Uncle G 01:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't think it does, so delete.
      -- Миборовский U|T|C|E 01:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete copyvio and advert. -feydey 09:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arnis Bumaril[edit]

Appears to be an article created primarily to support his other article Marvin "Knife" Sotelo which is also marked for deletion. Not Notable. Minimal Wikipedia value.All other internet references appear to be created by author. Cpaliga 00:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Persistent guy. NN. Xoloz 06:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. utcursch | talk 11:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologistic term and as pointed out by nom, all references seem to be from Marvin "Knife" Sotelo. I'm about to make up my own neologism... "sotelocruft".--Isotope23 15:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Doc (?) 00:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CommandN[edit]

Not notable. Delete. brenneman(t)(c) 01:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As is my custom with net-related items, I test with Google Groups rather than Google Web, because a) anything important on the Internet is likely to be discussed in USENET, and b) Google Groups is much less subject to distortion by deliberate self-promotion and "search-engine optimization." In this case, a search on "commandN vidcast" (two separate words, not exact phrase) yields no hits at all. Nobody on Usenet has mentioned "commandN" and "vidcast" in the same article. It is impossible to believe this would be true of a notable Internet phenomenon. Compare 19 hits for "al franken podcast" and 160,000 hits for "Wikipedia." Dpbsmith (talk) 01:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. OK, you obviously don't have a clue what commandN is. They are one of the biggest and most popular technology vidcasts on the web. They have approximately 50,000 downloads of their video per week. The hosts have featured on many other popular technology shows such as Call For Help and have also featured on the extremely popular podcast This Week in Tech. Google, Google Groups and Usenet have nothing to do with determining if a wikipedia article should be deleted. btw, I posted almost this entire article and I have no affiliation with commandN at all (considering I'm actually from Australia). Yes the article currently does sound a little promotitive, but over time others will/can edit it and it will become less so. btw, do you know what a backlink is? As if you have a look here and here, you will see that many other sites have linked to the commandN site as they are very popular. cheers, Treelovinhippie 02:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course I don't have a clue as to what commandN is, so I'm trying to do due diligence by checking it out for myself. Wikipedia is based on the whole idea that you do not need credentials in a specific field in order to apply basic scholarship. You're saying that it is fantastically popular... but not one single person on USENET has ever seen fit to mention it? Something does not jibe here. You need to give me something I can accept as neutral and check out for myself. The sort of links you mention are unimpressive, because sites link to each other all the time in attempts to mutually raise their Google pageranks, and because there are sites that are just trying track every podcast or whatnot. OK, I'm going to propose three tests. I don't know the outcome of any of them yet. You tell me which you think I should try.
  1. Do a search to see whether Wired has ever mentioned it
  2. Do an online search of The New York Times, available to me courtesy of my public library, to see whether The New York Times has ever mentioned it
  3. Join the vidcast.org forums and post a query asking people whether commandN is notable.
Which of these would you like me to try? Dpbsmith (talk) 12:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I would agree that a weekly audience of 50,000 would be notable for a downloadable videocast, but I would like to see some sort of independent verification of that. Where did the number come from? Also, the Google (web) search yielded fewer than 400 hits, which is rather small, and Alexa rank is 619,000. I'd be leaning toward delete unless the audience is confirmed. MCB 04:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, count my vote as delete, based on lack of verification of audience (sole source is subject of article relayed via a comment here). MCB 22:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. They don't specifically release how many downloads they receive, since they often use bittorrent to distribute their content and other sources like www.odeo.com and many others. But Amber Mac stated on the recent episode of TWIT that their downloads were around 50,000 oer episode (i.e. per week). This idiot User:Aaron Brenneman is simply going around to all the articles I've done and tagging them for deletion. If you have a look at his talk section you will see that he has been warned on numerous occasions. Can someone please ban him for good as he is being a real arsehole. Just have a look at his user page and he has a book labelled 'Dispute Resolution', so he obviously gets a kick out of pissing people off.
  • To Admins: Please take note that the user who has tagged this article for deletion has surprising done so with many of the other articles I have created/editted. He obviously likes the conflict it causes (as can be seen in the 'dispute box' which is on his user page). Treelovinhippie 05:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think it goes without saying that Treelovinhippie's comments here and on his user page (both exhibiting ignorance of wikipedia policy and community norms, and an insulting lack of respect for his fellow wikipedians) warrants more attention from administrators than a perfectly reasonable AfD. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are we using to gauge a vidcast's notability? - brenneman(t)(c) 05:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The information is all right as far as I can tell and it is something that people would be looking on Wikipedia about if they wanted to know some information that they cannot find on the actual vidcasts. It isn't a small thing either. I knew nothing about either of the hosts, nothing of the show and I started watching at show 1 way back in June with only a Digg link to lead me to the show. It certainly deserves its own page with a description on Wikipedia.
    • Doesn't count without a signature! Marskell 09:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless some source other than the creators/cast can be cited as evidence of popularity. Right now, there's no evidence whatsoever that this is popular, and a fair amount of evidence that it isn't. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 06:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Evidence. For those of you people who don't have a clue as to the popularity of commandN....
    • Now as I have stated before, it is often difficult to state exact figures on the number of downloads per podcast, as often these are distributed via bittorrent (which is very difficult to track) and the podcasts end up all over the net with various other sources distributing it.
    • As I have said, also, the host/s of this show have featured on TWiT at least once (and in most cases more). TWiT is the number one podcast on the internet and has been at the top of the iTunes charts for a long time. They are a technology podcast and only feature people who are interesting and are well-known (i.e. this podcasts' host). That in itself should be enough to justify its popularity.
    • http://thisweekintech.com/24
    • Another thing I'll post is a link to a post on http://www.digg.com (a social bookmarking site). Basically the number of 'diggs' is how many people have clicked to 'digg' it and is an indication of its popularity. See an example of a digg article posted for this podcast here: http://www.digg.com/technology/commandN_Episode_10_Up.
  • Delete per ManInBlack. Also half-advert: "so be sure to subscribe to one of the many commandN feeds to be notified when a new episode is released." Marskell 09:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then edit it if you think it's an advert... isn't that the point of wikipedia?
  • Delete. Encyclopedic notability not established by the article, which looks like advertising. Gamaliel 11:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable podcast. android79 13:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable per A Man in Black and dpbsmith, despite the best efforts of the author to convince us otherwise. Seriously, this thing is supposed to be a popular Internet phenomenon and draws no Usenet discussion. I'm not sure that's ever happened before. And I doubt it's happened now. Lord Bob 14:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The fact that the hosts of CommandN have featured on TWiT is meaningless. Because they have appeared on a more notable podcast and were previously featured on a cable show that automatically confers notability on their current project? That's specious logic. In my opinion a podcast is like a blog; there has to be excellent evidence of overwhelming popularity before it can be considered notable enough to merit a standalone article. At this point simply referencing CommandN in the hosts own wiki articles would be sufficient. For due dilligence sake, I followed the links provided as evidence. [3] came up with a "That item was not found" message. I went to [4] and did a search on CommandN. Average "diggs" for an episode were around 450 with a max of 510 for ep10. So 510 people voted for it, compared to 1900+ for a story on Google Office that has been there for a mere 14 hours. That's not overwhelming evidence of the popularity/notability of CommmandN. Looking around [5] I can't find any information on how they tally votes. Do they only count unique votes or is every click counted? After taking a look at this, I'm voting Delete based on my research and the research done by Dpbsmith.--Isotope23 15:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable, probably self-advertisement. --Isolani 16:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually no, I created the entire article (pretty much) and I have absolutely no affiliation with them at all. Treelovinhippie 00:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete not convinced this is notable; poor article. — brighterorange (talk) 16:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then edit it! The article was even poorer before than it is now. Give it time and people will create a better article.
  • Keep - You Ppl are mean, not like its hurting anyone being here? Whats the problem?
  • Keep - CommandN is in the top 100 in the podcast section of the canadian iTunes music store and it's one of the first canadian vidcast.
  • Weak Keep Having just said not convinced I now find 55,000 hits on Yahoo. (OK, so I know it's not Google but 55,000!). How many of these are more than repeat directory entries or the like I don't know. Don't like the article either. Please rewrite and make it less of an ad. Marcus22 19:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, what did you search on? commandN by itself is a problem, because it gets hundreds of irrelevant hits due to its frequent use in programs, e.g. here. When I try "commandN vidcast" on Yahoo I get less than 400 hits. How would you interpret commandN vidcast getting ZERO hits in Google Groups (USENET?) (Come to think of it, I'm a little surprised that nobody advocating for keeping this article has bothered to make a USENET posting about it just to prove me wrong). Dpbsmith (talk) 20:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi Dpb. The Yahoo search was just a straight search for CommandN. As the greater part of the hits seem to include reference to vidcasting - but by no means all! - I left it at that. 55,000 is an impressive figure but I am by no means convinced. Hence the weak bit of the keep. As to USENET, I have no idea about that. (ie. I have no idea about USENET). You are right, however, that "CommandN vidcast" draws less than 400 hits. And Google offers no lifeline! Marcus22 12:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dpbsmith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is blocked for 24 seconds for spilling the beans.
        brenneman(t)(c) 00:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - commandN offers a unique view on technology from 3 hosts who know there tech. While the article may need improving it should be kept. Vidcast aside the two main host work on a technology TV show and sometimes have an inside line on what is new and notable in the tech world. Other podcasts such as TWIT www.twit.tv and diggnation www.diggnation.com have a wikipedia pages and are same type of podcast as commandN.

Keep - This is a nice and very informative program

  • Keep - Heard about commandN tonight on the popular Podcast TWiT and was wanting more information, and found it here. Am amused by this Aaron guys rants, but nevertheless, he should be ignored and this should be kept. For those that are complaining about it being an ad, or messy...just clean it up. --Underdog 06:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very popular canadian vidcast.
  • Keep - First of all, you guys seem unusually bent on deleting this page. Secondly, Google is a suitable test if you use it properly. If you've ever taken Statistics, you'll learn that survey results can easily be biased by the wording of the question. Your criteria include the term "vidcast", which doesn't appear anywhere on the CommandN wiki, nor anywhere on commandn.tv, the official website. Biased, don't you think? If a simple search for "CommandN" doesn't satisfy you because the popularity of commandn.net (an artist group in Tokyo) is interfering with results, all you need to do is include conventional terms--"commandn podcast OR vidcast OR videoblogging" returns 53,400 hits. If you're *still* not convinced, a simple paging through the results to view contexts should help. It has only 2 Google Groups hits, but if you know anything about the unquestionably popular podcast This Week In Tech (or TWiT), that podcast gets only 44 hits, with the benefit of a dozen former US television personalities.
  • Keep. Popular vidcast
  • Keep. Excellent vidcast. Very informative and funny. MacGeek 00:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete by User:Doc glasgow Ryan Norton T | @ | C 23:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Open Alpha[edit]

Not notable. Delete. brenneman(t)(c) 01:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is so borderline. Those TV show mentions are legit, and the Alexa rank has improved from the 600000 to the 300000s...I reserve the right to vote later....--CastAStone 01:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. Open Alpha is one of the biggest and most popular technology vidcasts on the web. The host has featured on many other popular technology shows such as the extremely popular podcast This Week in Tech. All technically and gaming interested people know what Open Alpha is and it has received many downloads per episode. Have a look at the backlinks to see how popular the video and site are: here. cheers, Treelovinhippie 02:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • To Admins: Please take note that the user who has tagged this article for deletion has surprising done so with many of the other articles I have created/editted. He obviously likes the conflict it causes (as can be seen in the 'dispute box' which is on his user page). Treelovinhippie 05:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think it goes without saying that Treelovinhippie's comments here and on his user page (both exhibiting ignorance of wikipedia policy and community norms, and an insulting lack of respect for his fellow wikipedians) warrants more attention from administrators than a perfectly reasonable AfD. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable television series.--Nicodemus75 05:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a TV series. But if it were, how are we gauging notability, so I can verify. Thanks - brenneman(t)(c) 05:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sure you'll come up with some subjective standard.--Nicodemus75 05:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm left to interpret that as "It's notable because I say so, and I won't present any evidence to support my claim".
        brenneman(t)(c) 07:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only claim of notability seems to be that the host has appeared on This Week In Tech and Call For Help. I don't see any legitimate evidence of popularity or newsworthiness. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 06:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Evidence. For those of you people who don't have a clue as to the popularity of Open Alpha....
    • Now as I have stated before, it is often difficult to state exact figures on the number of downloads per podcast, as often these are distributed via bittorrent (which is very difficult to track) and the podcasts end up all over the net with various other sources distributing it.
    • As I have said, also, the host of this show has featured on TWiT at least once (and in most cases more). TWiT is the number one podcast on the internet and has been at the top of the iTunes charts for a long time. They are a technology podcast and only feature people who are interesting and are well-known (i.e. this podcasts' host). That in itself should be enough to justify its popularity.
    • Another thing I'll post is a link to a post on http://www.digg.com (a social bookmarking site). Basically the number of 'diggs' is how many people have clicked to 'digg' it and is an indication of its popularity. See an example of a digg article posted for this podcast here: http://www.digg.com/technology/OpenAlpha.tv_Episode_1
  • Delete. Encyclopedic notability not established by the article, which looks like advertising. Gamaliel 11:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable podcast. android79 13:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete deja vu. BTW, I'm a "technically and gaming interested person" but have never heard of this. — brighterorange (talk) 16:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, that claim is patently absurd. android79 16:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I'll admit I was tempted to cut and paste my comments from the CommandN debate here... Only thing I'll add to my statements there is that the "diggs" on this cast are around 300 per episode, making it even less viewed than the non-notable CommandN. As a hardcore gamer who works in IT, I second brighterorange's comments.--Isotope23 19:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The number of 'diggs' is a very, very rough guide as to the popularity of this podcast. digg.com is only one site (out of the many hundreds of other sites this podcast is backlinked from) and many people may not have clicked the digg button, but simply gone straight to the link.
      • And so based on your description, digg.com is basically worthless as a measure of this podcast's popularity.--Isotope23 13:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why is this non-notable? What is the criteria to determine this? I notice that some people write that this podcast doesn't have enough viewers to be notable -- but how many viewers does a podcast need to be notable? And why that number? Please try to come up with substantial reasons for deleting articles. -- llywrch 00:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • See my comments under the AfD for TechPhile... No reason to have this coversation twice  :)--Isotope23 13:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. much like self-published authors and public-access TV. -R. fiend 18:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep (No consensus). --Doc (?) 18:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TechPhile[edit]

Not notable. Delete. brenneman(t)(c) 01:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply. techPhile is one of the biggest and most popular technology podcasts on the web. The podcast is very well-known in the technology internet community and receieves many thousands of downloads per episode. Have a look at the backlinks to see how popular the podcast and site are: here and here. cheers, Treelovinhippie 03:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • To Admins: Please take note that the user who has tagged this article for deletion has surprising done so with many of the other articles I have created/editted. He obviously likes the conflict it causes (as can be seen in the 'dispute box' which is on his user page). Treelovinhippie 05:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think it goes without saying that Treelovinhippie's comments here and on his user page (both exhibiting ignorance of wikipedia policy and community norms, and an insulting lack of respect for his fellow wikipedians) warrants more attention from administrators than a perfectly reasonable AfD. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to see that argument quantified: notable based upon what? Thanks. - brenneman(t)(c) 05:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Informative and popular podcast.--Aardwolf204 04:23, 4 October 2005 (EST)
  • Evidence. For those of you people who don't have a clue as to the popularity of techPhile....
    • Now as I have stated before, it is often difficult to state exact figures on the number of downloads per podcast, as often these are distributed via bittorrent (which is very difficult to track) and the podcasts end up all over the net with various other sources distributing it.
    • Another thing I'll post is a link to a post on http://www.digg.com (a social bookmarking site). Basically the number of 'diggs' is how many people have clicked to 'digg' it and is an indication of its popularity. See an example of a digg article posted for this podcast here: http://www.digg.com/technology/Techphile_Episode_11_From_the_TechTV_Meetup_in_Toronto
  • Delete. Encyclopedic notability not established by the article, which looks like advertising. Gamaliel 11:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable podcast. android79 13:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't seem to be notable despite the best efforts of its defenders to convince it otherwise. Lord Bob 14:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, very notable podcast. It's a quality podcast that's updated on a regular basis. Which is more than I can say for most of the podcasts today. Even my own. Not to mention the work Frank has done for the Canadian podcasting community. MacGeek 17:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete yet another non-notable podcast. As before, in reference to the evidence provided, "diggs" are around 500. The biggest hit on the provided site is 1000 and that is only because that particular episode was about diggs.com. There are blogs out there that get that many hits a day... and I don't consider them notable.--Isotope23 19:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The number of 'diggs' is a very, very rough guide as to the popularity of this podcast. digg.com is only one site (out of the many hundreds of other sites this podcast is backlinked from) and many people may not have clicked the digg button, but simply gone straight to the link.
      • OK... then it is completely worthless as evidence of the popularity of this podcast...--Isotope23 13:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep(with provisions) It is a notable podacast that has been recommended on both professional broadcast and print media. It is an Amateur production, in the sense of for the love of it, and this does initially put off some listeners that are used to and prefer professional or professional grade production. Once you get past that and listen for the quality of the content, it is far greater than the large majority of free podcasts. The only provision I have to keeping it is if the actual entry is improved because of its not quite "ready for prime time" entry. I do not have the time currently to do this myself, or I would. WolvenSpectre 00:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please provide citations for these recommendation, so that we may verify. - brenneman(t)(c) 00:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why is this non-notable? What is the criteria to determine this? I notice that some people write that this podcast doesn't have enough viewers to be notable -- but how many viewers does a podcast need to be notable? And why that number? Please try to come up with substantial reasons for deleting articles. -- llywrch 00:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me turn this around for a second llywrch... why is it notable? Where is the evidence that this is a popular podcast that is generating alot of buzz? Podcasts are like blogs; inherently non-notable for the simple fact that they are basically vanity projects. Anyone can start a podcast and spam it all over the internet. They can even charge to view it, but that doesn't make it notable or important. I would strongly argue that in reference to any non-traditional media of this sort the burden of proof is on those arguing keep as there is not as clear and concise of a method of establishing notability as exists with traditional media. One could certainly argue that this is simply an example of "old media" like magazines, television, etc. ignoring the "new media" of podcasts, but the complete lack of ANY coverage of techPhile by independant, 3rd party sources makes it impossible to verify any of the claims of popularity. I would therefore turn this around and ask you and those voting keep to come up with substantial reasons to retain this article beyond it being listed in some podcast guides and the contention of the random wiki user that it is indeed "notable".--Isotope23 13:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • So are you saying that podcasts & blogs should both be considered non-notable on the basis of vanity? I disagree: while many blogs are obviously vanity projects, it requires only a little work to determine whether their notability is "yes" "no" or "maybe". I would think that the same could be said of podcasting; I assume that there are notable podcasts out there that are not connected with established broadcasting companies. I freely admit that you could write a book for O'Reilly on what I don't know about podcasting, however, instead of providing the information needed by those of us who are ignorant about podcasting, all Brenneman said above is "not notable. Delete." Some kind of comparative information on audience size & reach is one possible argument for his opinion, but so far from what I've seen I could easily conclude he wants to delete this article out of animosity for this podcast -- not that I do here, but more information than those three words would not only make his intent clear, it would be a kindness to the contributor, who must wonder if such a terse criticism is indended to make him stop contributing. And until it can be shown that this article is non notable, we should keep it. Assume good faith. -- llywrch 19:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not saying all blogs and podcasts are non-notable... what I'm saying is that due to the nature of podcasting (and blogging) they are intristically in a weaker position of notability than more established media, primarily because there is a lack of verifiable data out there to support their claims of notibility if nobody from established media sources is paying any mind to these podcasts & blogs. There are notable podcasts out there. Daily Source Code is a good example based on it's "trailblazing" status. But here is where it we get into a philosophical debate that could go on ad infinitum: you want the burden of proof on the nominator... I put it on the author. I assume good faith in the creation of this article, but that doesn't mean the author has in any way indicated notability. Based on my own research, I've seen nothing that would indicate that TechPhile is in any way notable. the evidence posted for keeping it is unconvincing. As way of evidence for deletion, I can offer you in the complete lack of any coverage of TechPhile on any major IT media outlets, be it web, magazine, etc. It's primary return in a Google search is numerous podcast list sites where it is one of 100 other non-notable casts; not that I think that will convince you... Point is that in the end llywrch, you and I have a completely different viewpoint of where the burden of proof is... which would explain our differing votes.--Isotope23 20:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, Isotope, you & I agree at least that we disagree; I'm satisfied to leave the matter there. I would like to point out (at the risk of repeating myself), that had Brennerman originally wrote a more satisfactory & detailed nomination & touched on some of the points you had done, we would not be having this conversation -- a thought for everyone who found this discussion more tedious than informative, & would want to avoid repeating the exercise. -- llywrch 17:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Nice free kick. Articles for deletion is intended as a discussion. While, as a courtesy, I often provide links to the digging I've done, I often do not. If contributors to the discussion cannot take the trouble to do a little research themselves then perhaps they'd do well to not voice an uninformed opinion. - brenneman(t)(c) 23:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Google search turns up lots of links, and not to directories, Wikipedia mirrors and link farms. Seems like people are really listening to their podcasts. Notable enough for me. -- DS1953 03:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - How many pictures are there of notable radio shows? I'm not arguing with your other points, but the Google Images reference is just reaching and makes you look too eager to have all these podcast entries removed.
    • You're right, I violated WP:DICK there. Smartass comment stricken. Frustration with process no excuse, sorry. - brenneman(t)(c) 23:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Truthkill[edit]

Non notable band, a Google search for "Truthkill" yields only 63 results [6], some of which are not about this band. Ben D. 02:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. -- As per nomination. Ben D. 02:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. -- I put this article up for deletion on 02:59, 3 October 2005, but forgot to list it on the log. Ben D. 01:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity page. -- Corvus 02:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. utcursch | talk 11:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't satisfy WP:MUSIC criteria.--Isotope23 19:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN band vanity. Cnwb 01:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I hate to vote delete on this, especially after visiting the band's website and listening to "I accidentally cut off part of my finger" on mp3, but you gotta draw a line somehwhere...--Daniel Lotspeich 08:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Unsigned votes have been discounted, but after looking at the legitimate votes there appears to be a consensus to let this article stay. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Revision3 Studios[edit]

Not notable. Considered carefully after looking at old Afd. Still nominated. Delete. brenneman(t)(c) 01:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ATTENTION!
If you came to this page because this posting on digg.com told you to come and "tell this idiot off" and to vandalize the nominator's user page, please don't. Despite what you may have been told, it is not true that everyone who shows up to a deletion discussion gets an automatic vote just for showing up. The deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or any contributions to the project, including those who sign up for accounts after the discussion started, and especially those whose only contributions are vandalism, are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely. You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made purely upon weight of numbers.
  • KEEP, please? Truly notable- you see & read about all related items to Rev3- everywhere, it seems? It appears there is some sort of personal issue here with individual(s) having a personal grudge/agenda against the creators of Rev3? I hope to see all info presented to me online- not just what someone with a grudge wants/doesn't want me to see (based on thier own bias)?
  • KEEP IT!!!
  • OMFG!. Dude, you are messing in places that ought not to be messed in. Revision3 Studios creates, I would say, the most popular technology vidcasts and podcasts anywhere. They created http://www.digg.com which is up there, if not greater than slashdot. Their podcasts and other technology shows are the most downloaded anywhere and would easily get over 100,000 downloads oer episode. You will have every single geek screaming at you in the next few hours, enjoy :D Treelovinhippie 04:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...http://www.digg.com which is up there, if not greater than slashdot. - LOL, I would love to see a source for that hyperbolic claim.--Isotope23 19:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well it definately looks better than slashdot and actually has an exponentially growing audience and member following
  • To Admins: Please take note that the user who has tagged this article for deletion has surprising done so with many of the other articles I have created/editted. He obviously likes the conflict it causes (as can be seen in the 'dispute box' which is on his user page). Treelovinhippie 05:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think it goes without saying that Treelovinhippie's comments here and on his user page (both exhibiting ignorance of wikipedia policy and community norms, and an insulting lack of respect for his fellow wikipedians) warrants more attention from administrators than a perfectly reasonable AfD. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly, for his direct suggestion to others that they come to Wikipedia and vandalize user page, I don't think it would be too inappropriate for Treelovinhippie to get a time-out to think about how to play nicely with others. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Despite qualification by nominator, obvious bad faith nomination. Overwhelming keep vote last time. AfD does not exist in order to keep voting on articles until you get the result you want.--Nicodemus75 05:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)Insert non-formatted text here[reply]
  • Not bad faith, I promise. And I agree that AfD shouldn't just be recycled. I'd simply hoped for a cleaner discussion of the facts:
  • The previous AfD starts with one fact. Then a slew of votes. No part of the discussion there convinced me that this article was about something encyclopedic. If this discussion can do better, if someone has evidence that this has encyclopedic value, I'll be happy. - brenneman(t)(c) 06:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Revision3 is very notable, they produce some of the most widely followed online technology-related video content, run by noteworthy people with a large following. They are heavily referenced and linked to on many blogs and news sites; even recieving some broadcast television mentions during news programs, often used as a high-profile example of the podcasting craze. --Kyelewis 06:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hate to be repetitive, but links? Citations? Where can we see that it's "widely followed"? What television shows, and how can we confirm that? Thanks. - brenneman(t)(c) 06:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Google for "Revision3" and you'll find many hits. The blog page at http://alexalbrecht.typepad.com/alex/2005/08/abc_news_video_.html from Alex Albrecht's website (Co-host of the Revision3 show "diggnation") has a link to ABC News's small news bit of 'podcasting', uses the show and video of the Revision3 show. Revision3 now has Jay Adelson as a CEO (Apparently Fouder and Chief Technology Officer of Equinix, Inc. according to http://krose.typepad.com/kevinrose/2005/05/revision3_systm.html). Revision3 is also mentioned in this CNET News article by the CNET News editor Tom Merritt, "Web makes TV a medium for the masses" at http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-3000-6268102-1.html --Kyelewis 10:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To add to that, a google search for Revision3 should be for the keyword "Revision3". It is not fair to google search for "Revision3 Studios" when it is not the commonly used form. A search for "Microsoft Corporation" brings up 10% of the results that "Microsoft" does, for example.
  • Keep notable company. Google test returns 216,000 hits for "Revision3" I don't see how this is "not notable". -- Malo 07:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - also, the old AfD you to posted, well that was back 4 months ago, and honestly I would have voted to delete it back then, because back then it was unheard of, going from 0 google hits to 149 by the time the AfD ended. Now it has over 200,000 hits. hence the main reason I voted to keep. -- Malo 07:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I used a slightly tighter search and get 109 hits, or even less than last time. - brenneman(t)(c) 08:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Evidence. For those of you people who don't have a clue as to the popularity of Revision3 Studios....
    • http://www.podcastalley.com/podcast_details.php?pod_id=5622
    • Diggnation (one of their weekly podcasts) is currently #12 on iTunes - screenshot
    • Now as I have stated before, it is often difficult to state exact figures on the number of downloads per podcast, as often these are distributed via bittorrent (which is very difficult to track) and the podcasts end up all over the net with various other sources distributing it.
    • As I have said, also, the host/s of this show have featured on TWiT at least once (and in most cases more). TWiT is the number one podcast on the internet and has been at the top of the iTunes charts for a long time. They are a technology podcast and only feature people who are interesting and are well-known (i.e. this podcasts' host). That in itself should be enough to justify its popularity.
    • Another thing I'll post is a link to a post on http://www.digg.com (a social bookmarking site). Basically the number of 'diggs' is how many people have clicked to 'digg' it and is an indication of its popularity. See an example of a digg article posted for this podcast here: http://www.digg.com/links/Diggnation_Episode_12_-_September_15,_2005
  • Keep, the company has created Systm and thebroken both known in the internet technology circles. Also the previous nom. was clearly a keep. feydey 09:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per results of original AfD, especially as Aaron Brenneman has given no new information to warrant the re-AfDing. — ceejayoz ★ 15:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • People Think that if an article survived VFD it Stays for Good and can't be nominated again but still any article could be nominated again if the user thinks it should be. Im voting Delete just to cansel out another vote --JAranda | yeah 18:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I presume you're talking about me. I'm fine with re-AfDing an article, but not without a reason to do so. Saying "yeah, I know it survived earlier, but I'm putting it up again anyways" is silly without more explanation. — ceejayoz ★ 20:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • There was no evidence it was encyclopedic then, there does not seem to be any now. It's not a vote, it's a discussion. It's about logic as much an consensus. - brenneman(t)(c) 06:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. I have yet to see good evidence of notability posted here. Diggs.com "diggs" should be discounted here as it is Revision3's site and can't be taken as impartial. The fact that some of the principles on this site have been featured on TWiT is totally irrelevant. Looking at the google hits, by and large the results returned are either mentions on sites owned and run by Revision3 or various blogs and message boards. A mention of an ABC news story on a website run by a Revision3 affiliated person isn't very compelling evidence either. I listened to a whole segment about 419eater.com on NPR one morning but I don't see anyone citing that as a reason for them to have their own wiki article. Kevin Roses' blog entry is just that... a blog entry. Not good evidence of notability. The CNET article is the only piece of decent evidence that has been provided showing anyone in technology is independently writing about this company... but one article does not establish notability. Diggnation seems to have a moderate level of popularity, but are you trying to argue that the notability of the product confers notability back on the company, everyone involved, and the company's other auxillary products? I think that is a rather tenuous argument and that doesn't support inclusion of 90% of the material in the article, even if one accepts it. Looking back at the previous AfD, it appears there were quite a few first time voters who have not been very active outside of that vote. Rather than vote on this based on the previous AfD, I'd ask editors to look at this AfD based on the merits of the arguments and evidence for and against deletion.--Isotope23 20:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should be noted that digg.com is not a Revision3 site, although to make it clear, Kevin Rose is a common party involved in both some running of the digg website as well as some running of Revision3. He is not a whole part of either. "Diggs" are an indicator of popularity voted by internet users, rather than the people who run the site.
    • Mentions on 'various blogs and noticeboards' immediately serve to show the popularity of the company in the eyes of the internet public, which is what is being measured here.
    • Diggnation, Systm and thebroken all have a large amount of popularity. If they are all produced by the same group of people under the same umbrella, it makes sense to post them under the one umbrella on wikipedia rather than clutter the namespace unnecessarily. --Kyelewis 07:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Digg.com isn't owned by Revision3, so I've stricken that part of my statement above. It still can't be seen as totally impartial though as KR is involved in both. I understand that how the voting works, but there is an obvious potential for conflict of interest via cross promotion, vote stuffing, etc. I'm not saying these things have happened, but the potential is there and it is enough that I'd discount this as a piece of evidence.
I don't accept your argument that mentions on various blogs and notice boards serve to show the popularity of the company in the eyes of the internet public. It simply shows the popularity among a subset of people that frequent these particular message boards and blogs. Scanning through google hits it appeared that where the result was relevent to this actual company, many entries were repeats of threads from the same message board. There are lots of topics that get this sort of chatter among a subset of the internet, but that doesn't make them notable to the general public or even to the larger subculture.
Finally, are you suggesting then that the thebroken article should be deleted and replaced with a redirect to the Revision3 article so it appears under the same umbrella? I would disagree with that. In fact, I would argue that thebroken is the only article that should stay (as it is the only product that appears to have a true level of notability and Revision3 should be contained to a one sentence mention in that article as the producing company.--Isotope23 13:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Which is interesting, because I would probably see thebroken as the least notable of the Revision3 in terms of overall internet popularity, given it's limited run of 3 episodes and slightly more niche programming content. I'm going to have to leave my argument there, because I unfortunately don't have time to continue to find more evidence and arguments. At one point, people didn't think of "Revision3" or "Rev3", they instead thought about the specific content, "Systm", "thebroken" and later "diggnation". It probably was not until Revision3 started taking major sponsors and memberships that people were thinking about the company name itself. You can't buy a "systm" or "thebroken" membership, you buy a "Revision3" membership to see early content. Obviously, I have no numbers to confirm quite how many people have done so. In this way, I would see Revision3 as popular for systm and thebroken in the same way I would see Rooster Teeth Productions as popular for Red Vs Blue and The Strangerhood --Kyelewis 20:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The #12 iTunes podcast is notability, whether some anti-Revision3 crusader likes it or not. These nominations are getting more and more rediculous.--CastAStone 01:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- notable per evidence given above. Ben D. 02:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The evidence presented here convinces me that the company is notable. -- DS1953 03:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You mean the screeenshot of one of their shows? At number 12? Is that the evidence you're refering to? - brenneman(t)(c) 06:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Why don't you consider it notable based on the screenshot? The others there include NPR, iTunes, CBS, Al Franken, FOX and ESPN, all notable enough for Wikipedia. #12 in iTunes is pretty notable, considering some of the more obscure stuff WP carries. — ceejayoz ★ 19:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Verifiable. That's actually a requirement. Is there a link that shows this #12 listing?
          brenneman(t)(c) 22:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Think outside the square you retard! Go and have a look YOURSELF at how 'NOTABLE' all these shows/podcasts are that you're trying to delete from wikipedia
        • In order to verify the iTunes ranking you'll have to see it for yourself in the iTunes program. There doesn't appear to be an offical apple listing of podcast rankings. However, some more popular podcast sites rate diggnation as #2 on Odeo and #19 on podcastalley. Sure these aren't official and they are likely always changing, but thats as best as I can verify it without using iTunes. -- Malo 23:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, as per above evidence and previous afd. Wandering oojah 19:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, leaning towards delete. It seems quasi-notable. I'd be tempted to vote delete just from the attitude shown by some of its supporters, but that probably wouldn't be too accurate. Bushytails 06:57, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As per above, the people behind it are notable (and hence have Wikipedia entries) and the shows produced are notable, and have a large viewership. Also, note that the previous VfD ended with the majority voting to keep the article. — Peter McGinley 12:38, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a separate entity and should have its own page. AyrtonSenna
  • KEEP! To remove this is like removing the This Week in Tech page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splashtalk 18:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Olean Lumber Company & Olean Lumber[edit]

Two nearly identical articles exist for this business that appears to be non-notable outside the local community (also possible copyvio on the images) --Daedalus-Prime 01:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm From Buffalo, Olean is a rural suburb, and I've never heard of this company. The tone of the article makes it seem the company is too cheap for a webpage of their own. Delete CastAStone 01:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Research turns up exactly one independently sourced news article (now listed in the article) that mentions the company. Everything else is corporate directory or employment directory listings. The company thus just barely satisfies the WP:CORP criteria, although it is a borderline case and I would have preferred at least two separate sources. The bigger problem with this article is that it doesn't cite any sources whatsoever. CastAStone is, ironically, right about the company not having a web page of its own. Not only has no-one else written a corporate biography, but the company itself doesn't have an autobiography as far as I can tell. This article thus has a distinct verifiability problem, as there are no sources cited for its content, and no sources to be found. The lack of sources and the other contributions by the original author strongly indicate that this article is primary source material supplied by someone directly associated with the company itself, and is in fact not stuff that humans already know, but original research, a corporate history being first published on Wikipedia. However, because there are (a scant few) sources to be had, and becase the WP:CORP criteria are (just barely) satisfied, this is a matter for cleanup, to cite sources and to excise the unverifiable content leaving the (far smaller amount of) content that is verifiable. Weak Keep. Uncle G 02:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Uncle G and thanks for the research. Kappa 02:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think that this should just be struck down as not notable and unverifiable. Also, I was reading WP:CORP criteria, and I don't see how this could be said to be even close to allowable for entry. I was under the understanding that original research is not allowed on here. So if this is a primary source based on someone who is directly involved with the company, then it would not be allowed because it violates the first WP:CORP guideline. As for the newly added source, it does prove the company exists, but it states little else, and none of the other information in the article is cited. The guidelines call for "multiple" independent sources. One source is hardly "multiple." It obviously does not meet any of the other guildlines, so I call for deletion. will381796 02:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Multiple sources is good journalism. It is good encyclopaedism, too. I'm currently at "weak keep" because I'm allowing for the remote possibility that this content might not be original research, but simply sourced from a source that my research didn't turn up. It's unlikely, but it might have been sourced from a printed book written about the history of the company, for example. If the original author comes along and cites such a book, then the article isn't original research.

      On the other hand: In the (more probable) event that no such source is cited, we don't have to delete the article to fix the problem that the sources that we can find don't cover the article content as it currently stands. We can (and should) heavily modify the article, in the way that I outlined above, getting rid of the original research whilst keeping the article.

      On the gripping hand: I don't predict there being much more than two sentences that can be sourced about this company, though. That, and the lack of multiple sources, are other reasons that I'm at "weak keep". It could be argued that this article, in verifiable form, would be a perpetual {{corp-stub}} with no possibility for expansion, given the paucity of the sources. A perpetual stub with no possibility for expansion is deletable. As I said, this is a borderline case. Uncle G 23:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Multiple published works in WP:CORP is just too amorphous for me, and is otherwise NN. IIRC there is a new CSD criteron for NN companies under consideration.--inksT 02:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's the very same criterion that we use for people, for bands, and for web sites, simply phrased more generally. WP:BIO talks about newspaper coverage and independent biographies. WP:MUSIC talks about coverage in music magazines. WP:WEB talks about media attention. The WP:CORP criterion for companies is simply the same idea in generalized form. The fact that it is amorphous is a good thing. The WP:CORP criterion doesn't restrict itself to specific, explicitly denoted, forms of published works as the other criteria do. The WP:CORP criterion includes newspapers, magazines, and books, under a single umbrella of "published works". (There's a case to be made that WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, and WP:WEB should in fact be this general, too.) Uncle G 23:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It was more of a problem with the word multiple...which can be interpreted to mean "more than 1".--inksT 01:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This looks like unverifiable original research. Gamaliel 11:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. utcursch | talk 11:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep for the reasons stated by Uncle G. An 80 year old company, a reasonably written article and a type of large local business that in this age of Home Depot and Lowes that is becoming less common, all tip the scale for me to vote keep. -- DS1953 03:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Uncle G. Also, may I suggest a merge of the first article into the second, which does have a bit of reference at the end, thank goodness. --Jacquelyn Marie 15:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Uncle G. Denni☯ 00:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted and redirected to Fish Police, already done. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fishpolice[edit]

Incoherent, Not Notable, Probable Joke Cpaliga 01:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ali'Sha[edit]

Unverifiable. Both me and Jon Hart have never heard of this character, there are no Google hits for canon references, and neither the Star Wars databank nor Wookiepedia know of her. In addition, the entire article was uploaded by an anonymous user, supporting the hypothesis that this is fanfiction. Delete. --Maru (talk) 02:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Alisha. That's real subtle. Nufy8 00:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --W.marsh 02:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Were this a true piece of Star Wars lore, it would certainly be verifiable in one way or another. will381796 02:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -- MMORPG charcter, a Google search for Keiran Freemoon, this character's father, leads to a cached page [7] and from that to the author [8]. Ben D. 02:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All Fancruft.--Isotope23 17:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without canon source.-LtNOWIS 19:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Optichan 19:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-canon character Saberwyn 00:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Transwiki to Wikitravel is not possible since GFDL is incompatible with the Creative Commons license used at Wikitravel. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of natural gas filling stations in Germany[edit]

This was originally posted here in German with the sad message (in English): this is a German article which is persecuted by some German admins. They are trying to reduce the freedom of Wikipedia by deleting articles they dislike. So please secure this article out of their range. Thanks to those who translated and tidied it but (and here I write as a user not an admin) this English user is going to take up where the Germans left off. Un-encyclopedic. Move to Wikitravel. (Previous AfD debate.) -- RHaworth 02:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, if there are only two of them in Berlin, they are notable enough to be worth mentioning. Kappa 02:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The German AfD tells us there are 600 in the country, and this website lists a dozen in Berlin. Pilatus 08:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The list is probably incomplete; the German text included a plea to add more entries, which I didn't translate. Also, if someone wants to speedy delete this using a combination of A4 and A7 I – the only significant contributor of non-reposted content – request its deletion. Otherwise, I abstain. – FJG 08:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC) (originally placed under the wrong vote)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a travel guide used to list the location of all natural gas and petrol stations in Europe. WikiTravel can be used for these types of posts. Perhaps the author should be directed there? will381796 02:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not going to go so far as to say "delete", but if there are only two and that makes them notable, then perhaps this is a better article topic than list topic? — mendel ☎ 02:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikitravel and then delete. It's very useful to know where one can get natural gas for automobiles in Germany, but it's not encyclopedic. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This isn't a grab-bag of data and unmaintainable to boot. Pilatus 08:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete indiscriminate collections of information --redstucco 09:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikitravel and then delete per Angr. feydey 09:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just no. Gamaliel 11:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. utcursch | talk 11:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwikification to Wikitravel (by anyone other than the original author xemself) is not legally permissible, because of Wikitravel's choice of GFDL-incompatible copyright licence. To all of the editors arguing for transwikification: Please choose another course of action. Uncle G 12:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure a list like this can really be copyrighted. Kappa 15:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic. android79 13:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Useful? Possibly. Content that belongs in an encyclopedia? No. This would be like making a List of stores that sell cherry soda article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information --JAranda | yeah 18:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm. Perhaps useful to someone, but not to us. Since transwiki apparently isn't an option, I say... Delete --Optichan 19:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikitravel (perhaps a link to the Wikitravel article under transport in Germany could be acceptable) unless there are enough notable stations to justify a list on Wikipedia. — Instantnood 21:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Pilatus. It's significant if there are only two; 600 makes it indiscriminate information. Ziggurat 22:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'd be far more interested in seing a List of unnatural gas filling stations in Germany anyway. Grutness...wha? 00:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete collection original; no Transwiki per Uncle G, however recommend author recreate article in Wikitravel from scratch. --Kgf0 20:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It belongs in Wikitravel if anyplace, and since transwiki is not option, just simply delete. Caerwine 03:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Doc (?) 18:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trás-trás[edit]

Nonsense: "What does it mean ? Not even the ones who do it know it." —Seselwa 02:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It's not nonsense, just useless. CastAStone 02:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJOADN - got a chuckle out of the sheer meaninglessness of it. -- BD2412 talk 02:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • BJOADN for sure. "Is it a dance movement ? No." --W.marsh 02:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nonsense. utcursch | talk 11:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - and do it quickly before this wildfire craze spreads beyond Portugal to infiltrate nightclubs worldwide... CLW 12:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Junk --JAranda | yeah 19:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It sounds like it's too late to help the Portuguese, but if we delete this now, maybe we can save the rest of the planet! Grutness...wha? 12:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Doc (?) 18:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Www.linuxhoorn.nl[edit]

Text is in Dutch Avalon 02:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Avalon 02:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable website, sure has been up long enough. --W.marsh 02:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable website. utcursch | talk 11:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to the dutch wikipedia and see if they want it. Can this be speedied under A2? --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 20:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as website vanity. [edit] 05:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Doc (?) 18:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Core-fusion[edit]

Advertise of a self-admitted non-notable company. BorgQueen 02:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:19, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copyfair[edit]

This article appears to be some sort of essay which consitutes it as original research. Solarusdude 02:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Interesting, but not encyclopedic. Pburka 02:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as OR and POV essay. MCB 04:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV essay, not for WP. -feydey 09:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-encyclopedic. utcursch | talk 11:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MCB. --Jacquelyn Marie 15:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. With the research done after the initial participators, and the discounting of the redlinked user, this is a keep rather than a no consensus. -Splashtalk 23:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Iturf[edit]

Article created clearly to advertise the MSN Group and to be honest I don't believe all the history about the web site being changed over to an MSN Group. Not enough effort put into article either, so in my opinion it should be deleted.  Thorpe talk 22:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relisted on October 4, no votes other than the nominator. No vote. Ral315 WS 02:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Is this really notable enough to be listed? If it was a failed company then it obviously was not notable enough in the eyes of the public to remain in business. will381796 03:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not only is this real - see[9] - but it played an incredibly major role in the creation of SparkNotes - see [10] - one of the most notable internet creations. It in and of itself is also notable due to it's status as a remnant of one of the more notable internet ventures, from which remnants never come - it's alwyas hit or miss. CastAStone 03:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it failed because not many people used it. Flops typically have to be spectacular and very expensive to be notable, like Battlefield Earth. -- Kjkolb 04:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not accurate. It failed because it didn't make it's parent company, dElias clothing, any money. It continued to exist, however, because of its popularity. --] CastAStone17:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure that some of the users moving to MSN groups would count as surviving. Anyway, they were only getting 65,000 visitors a month when they were at their original site. What do they get now? Also, how many members do they have? -- Kjkolb 07:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ad. utcursch | talk 11:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, media coverage indicates adequate notability. Kappa 14:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep though I'd like to see the article cleaned up to focus more on it's actual subject instead of the memorial group that followed it. As it is currently it's just as silly as having an article on Jim Morrison with two pages about his tombstone but only a paragraph about his life. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Kappa PMLF 20:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kappa and CastAStone, but certainly clean up. --Jacquelyn Marie 15:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete and Redirect to "Poetry of Mao Zedong" (I'm pretty sure this is what everyone wanted from the conversation here... let me know if that's not the case) Ryan Norton T | @ | C 23:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Snow"[edit]

Not sure but I don't think all of Mao's poems deserve an article... not sure about this one as I have never heard of it for sure. Anyways, it's also POV saying "Mao [is] a first-rate poet" and not sure about the copyright status of the translation. Neutral but should be at least moved to Snow (poem)-- Sasquatcht|c 03:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just as a further note, there is also "Mount Liupan" Loushan Pass Three Short Poems "The Double Ninth" "Yellow Crane Tower" "Changsha" all made by this user and all pertaining to Mao's poems. Again, I'm not too sure all of them are that notable, would suggest merging information now that I see that there's that much to, say a page like Mao Zedong's poetry or something rather than leaving seperate stubs that may or may not be copyvios... Sasquatcht|c 03:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's a good idea to merge all Mao's poems to a seperate page. And I will do it. But please don't delete it just because you " never heard of it". I am sure there are huge amount of poetry in the world you never heard of. Again, copyright is not a problem.


Well, it's your opinion that Mao's poem doesn't deserve an article, but your never heard of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. This only means you lack basic knowledge of Chinese history and literture. As I have said in the article, it's considered by many Chinese to be a first-rated classic in literature. The copyright has no problem, since all Mao's work's translation are done by Chinese government and has no copyright.

By the way, I think your deletion of this article is too arbitrary. Please tell me where I can complain about this kind of behavior.


Yiyu Shen

  • A couple of things, since it isn't copyvio, it should probably be over at Wikisource rather in an encyclopedia, also, it hasn't been deleted yet, I am not completely for deletion in fact and I even said that I would rather them be merged. And I never said it didn't exist and I read plenty of Chinese literature because I am Chinese but we also have some policy on Wikipedia that should be followed. Again, source material should not be on Wikipedia and should be transwikied and these stubs should be merged into a general article about Mao's poetry or in the very least moved to the proper naming conventions. If you truly wish to complain, you can do so here, on the talk page of the pages you created, but I doubt you'll find that people will be that much against me. Sasquatcht|c 03:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and move to Wikisource as per nominator.--inksT 03:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Better idea: move to Wikisource under the main banner of Poetry of Mao Zedong, then create an article detailing Mao's Poetry at Poetry of Mao Zedong then link to the source poems. Best of both worlds, you have the article detailing his style and influence then you have source documents that are linked to. How does that sound? I'd be happy to help finish that up. Sasquatcht|c 03:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it could be better that I move all Mao's works to Wikisource and create a link under Mao's entry. But it just amazes me each movie, or TV series, no matter how trashy it is, can have an entry in Wikipedia, while a piece of poem with huge influences cannot. What's the guideline for you do deal with movies, and poems, or novels, differently?

  • I think the difference is that the articles for movies and TV series are articles about the movie or show. This article is basically just the text of the poem. (Possible because the text of a poem is much shorter than the script of a movie or even the text of an entire book.) I think if the article instead consisted of a discussion of the poem and why it is important, it would not have been nominated to be moved to Wikisource.
  • Keep, a poem which is far more notable than "Hungry, Hungry Homer" for example. Kappa 06:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did a cursory search on Wikipedia and find these poems having full texts: Charge of the Light Brigade, Mariana, Ame ni mo Makezu, this is just a small sample and I believe there are much more. Now I wonder what the policy is. In my opinion, you justification of deleting my entry on Mao's poetry can only be one of the following four:

1) The rule is no full text of poems can be entered into Wikipedia, this has been proved false by above examples.<br\> 2) You think Mao's poetry have no high literature value, but this is just your personal opinion and is very arbitrary. The fact is Mao's poems are highly regarded by millions of Chinese people like me, and his quotes are often cited in daily conversations and in many other novels, poems, movies, etc. The truth is ordinary Chinese people enjoy his poetry very much, and trust me, they don't have to.<br\> 3) You don't like Mao, again, this is just your personal opinion, and it should has nothing with the literature value of his poetry.<br\> 4) You are afraid it will be a violation of copyright, for this as I have said, Mao's works has no copyright. It's available everywhere on the internet.<br\>

For above reasons, though transfering all Mao's poems to Wikisource may be a better idea, I don't think it's a violation of Wikipedia policy to create individual entries for some of Mao's best poems.

Yiyu Shen 09:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, actually, the rule is "no full text of poems, please". If you do find an article that has the full text of a poem, it shouldn't (and, in fact, of the three you mentioned, two of them actually don't, and I'm going to look into the problem of the third). Wikipedia is managed by volunteers who are always trying to make it better; but sometimes we don't know about a problem until someone mentions it. That said, I too support a) the move to Wikisource, and b) the creation of Poetry of Mao Zedong. DS 11:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I will move Mao's poems to Wikisource as you suggested and create Poetry of Mao Zedong. Thank you all for the kind suggestions and sorry for the trouble.

Yiyu Shen 12:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Definitely the best solution. I look forward to reading the Poetry of Mao Zedong article... I wasn't even aware he wrote poetry.--Isotope23 18:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I have moved all Mao's poems to Wikisource and created Poetry of Mao Zedong, it's not completed yet. If you are interested please take a look at it and help me to improve it.

Thanks

Yiyu 20:29, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was MERGE to Rail transport in Hong Kong. I will add a tag, but leave another editor to action it. -Splashtalk 18:39, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rail gauges and power supply of Hong Kong rails[edit]

This small article does not appear to have much room to grow when it all does is to list rail gauges and the power supply of railway lines in Hong Kong. The amount of content does not justify having its own article. This information can easily be merged into any of the relevant articles, such as in Trains on the MTR, KCR, Transport in Hong Kong etc, unless it can be demonstrated that it has room to be expanded into a full-length article? --Huaiwei 03:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Feel free to boldly merge - this is not a matter requiring resolution in AfD. -- BD2412 talk 03:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Useful information and encyclopædic. Length is not always relevant. If the consensus is to merge, move the content to a separate section under rail transport in Hong Kong, and keep as a redirect. — Instantnood 05:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC) (modified 08:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep Don't merge. CalJW 08:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Rail transport in Hong Kong. Valid info, but not really worthy of a separate article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Sjakkalle's suggestion. utcursch | talk 11:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer keep to merge, doesn't look like something you'd want on a main page like Transport in Hong Kong. Kappa 14:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment But I doubt people will be typing "Rail gauges and power supply of Hong Kong rails" to get this information. Articles like these are usually helper articles which need to be split off either because the main article is too long, or this suplementary info is too detailed to fit into the main page. This article do not fit into either scenario. While I agree redirecting to Transport in Hong Kong may be far too general, having this information incorporated into MTR, KRC and/or Trains on the MTR should be specific and relevant enough, expecially when it all takes is an additional paragraph or even a single line in those articles.--Huaiwei 14:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • If I was looking for this information (which I'll admit is unlikely) I would probably start with Rail transport in Hong Kong. At the current state of that article, a merge wouldn't hurt, but if it grows into a full article these technical details will be clutter. I would certainly not appreciate having to load all of MTR, KTC Peak Tram etc if the information was split into single sentences. Kappa 15:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. This article does not seem to stand alone. Putting it in context of the rail system would improve the usability of the information. Vegaswikian 06:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the main topic Rail transport in Hong Kong. *drew 20:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Sjakkalle and *drew --Kgf0 21:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Hermione1980My RfA 22:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grady Avenell[edit]

Don't think he meets minimum requirements for musician listing 66.68.187.101 03:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete Ryan Norton T | @ | C 23:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cup_(game)[edit]

Original Research, Hoax?--inksT 03:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, LOTR-Cruft! :) Nice find --inksT 03:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A few other references from Google. Admittedly, those aren't great sources, but there are a lot of them. --Imagist 04:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The difficulty with proving the legitimacy of this is that any combination of "cup" with "play" or "game" turns up hundreds of pages on soccer and rugby, which are obviously more popular games. --Imagist 04:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I attest that Cup is in fact a game. In fact, the "few" in the links that Imagist gave was written by me. I made a mention of cup playing in the blog post, and the Cup (game) article seems factual and fairly accurate to me. --Mikexstudios 04:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Mikexstudios, I believe you. Clearly this game exists. But as it stands now, this whole topic fails to meet Wikipedia:No Original Research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Without citations to reasonable sources, there is no way I or other editors can ever know whether the descriptions in the article are accurate or not. As it stands, the Wikipedia page on Cup (game) may well be the single most authoritative source on this game in the world. Unintuitively, that is not a good thing - it means someone, probably, has put together some nice, well-meaning original research. Which needs to be published somewhere other than Wikipedia. Bunchofgrapes 18:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment let me make a friendly clarification of what Bunch said. Its fine for wikipedia to be the single most authoritative source, if it is by combining single bits of information from many different sources. The problem is if the page is the single most authoritative source because it contains information not found anywhere else in the world. Sorry if this was obvious, I didn't want Mike to get the wrong impression. :) --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 20:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: I can't decide if I agree that Wikipedia pages can or should be considered "authoritative" or not, and it probably doesn't matter. The clarification Kzollman makes is correct in spirit. Bunchofgrapes 21:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was del. mikka (t) 06:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neanderthal theory of the autism spectrum and copy at "Wikisource/Neanderthal Theory of Autism"[edit]

Previous Afd. unsigned, added by user User:RN

"The theory has not yet been accepted by scientists or published in scientific journals." In other words, this is original research, which contradicts the policy of Wikipedia:No original research (Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a scientific journal). -- Curps 03:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm, I was not aware that there had been a prior Afd (under a slightly different article title) that ended two weeks ago. -- Curps 04:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Note that the author of this article has written in the article talk page: I will save a copy of this article before the decision to delete, and reintroduce it again at a later date in case it gets deleted. --Woggly 08:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Of course. I will reintroduce it as the results of the Aspie-quiz are published in a peer-reviewed journal. --Rdos 13:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then it will be speedy deleted, and I will smile. Might I suggest you review WP:POINT? But, then, since you've already proudly announced your intention to break Wikipedia policy if you don't get your way, I'm not sure what good reading it will do. Lord Bob 14:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It will not break Wikipedia policy. If I reintroduce an article that cannot be considered original research, because it is published in a peer-reviewed journal, it cannot be deleted or speedy deleted. I suggest you familiarize yourself with WP policy. Besides, the decision to launch a new AfD on this article only two weeks after the first one was closed, clearly is a violation of policy. Somebody that is good at statistics probably can confirm that if you AfD an article every three weeks, it will inevitably be deleted sooner or later. --Rdos 14:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Very simple. - brenneman(t)(c) 03:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, synthesis of an original theory developed (but not tested or published) by the articles primary contributor.--nixie 03:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete see the talk page too. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 03:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because every autism related article is terribly biased and this article is the *only* alternative model that doesn't define autism as a disorder --Rdos 04:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research/personal essay - Nunh-huh 04:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "The theory has not yet been accepted by scientists or published in scientific journals." Anetode 05:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep based not so much on the merits of the article (which I would vote keep on as such), but because of the result of the closed AfD less than a month ago. Unless something major has changed, it is usually thought to be improper to renominate an article. (Apparently nominator didn't see the previous AfD, it must have not been in the article's Talk page; I missed the changed "The" in the article title too.) MCB 05:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't look at the talk page, I would have expected this Afd page to already exist if there had been a prior Afd page, but the rename of the article prevented this. -- Curps 06:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was a close decision. I would have waited longer. It's still a delete. - brenneman(t)(c) 05:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The theory has not yet been accepted by scientists or published in scientific journals. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because all attempts to find any way to rewrite the article encyclopedically have failed, given that there is no encyclopedic context to the purported theory. Article creator admits he created the theory himself in 2001. FCYTravis 06:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This article is in need of a massive rewrite (which I'm just gearing up to start on), but despite it's scant scientific weight there's 650 results for a google search for "neanderthal theory" and "autism" (a rather unlikely combination outside the context of this theory). I think it's a potentially encyclopedic topic in need of lots and lots of editing for NPOV. — Laura Scudder | Talk 06:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Its likely because it was here on wikipedia a long time ago and thus has propagated to practically every existing wikipedia mirror. See the talk page of the article and reconsider your vote, please! Ryan Norton T | @ | C 06:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is likely not. Most of the links that FCYTravis deleted a couple of days ago were independent sources. Also, there are two distinct web-pages about it, and a number of indepedent articles. The whole concept of "aliens" and the "wrong planet" site, aspergia has associations with this theory --Rdos 08:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ninety-nine percent of those results have absolutely nothing to do with any purported theory. Get past the first two pages of search results and Neanderthal and autism are common enough words that they'll pop up in a search like this: "Democrats.com Archive: Bill Frist Frist is a Prime Suspect in Autism Lawsuit Exemption for Eli Lilly ... And despite his less than Neanderthal appearance, NARAL says Frist is "very much an ..." FCYTravis 06:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think not. On the 9:th page (of 9730 for autism neanderthal on yahoo), I found Neanderthal - free encyclopedia, Wrongplanet.net, http://www.masterliness.com/a/Aspies.htm . I just took the 9:th page as a random page. --Rdos 08:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note: I tweaked my search during edit conflict with this edit. — Laura Scudder | Talk 06:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, now please look closer at your results Laura - the first result from google is what looks like a mailing list thread, with neanderthal first being mentioned by "Leif Ekblad ", a.k.a. Rdos, a.k.a. the creator of this "theory". Pretty much every site there is either something like this or a wikipedia mirror. This has been a travesty on wikipedia for a while now and it needs to go. Please reconsider! Ryan Norton T | @ | C 06:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • What Ryan means is that he is defending the non-NPOV in the autism article. At the talk page I've challenged why historical and illogical autism theories are still kept there. I've also challenged why the opinion of many people in the autistic community has been placed in the sociology section, and isn't mentioned at all in central parts like causes, models etc. Obviously, Ryan wants this article to go so he can continue the POV in the autism article without any challenges. --Rdos 09:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • That sounds more like it. 650 results, most of which are Wikimirrors with this guy's personal Web page link everywhere. It boils down to this: there is not a single shred of actual scientific research that the author can present to support his purported theory. One man's original research, no matter how well-intentioned, is not encyclopedic and so does not belong on Wikipedia. FCYTravis 06:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of 650 Google results that Laura Scudder found, 452 of them also contain the word "Rdos" somewhere. Single source personal Web site "theory." FCYTravis 06:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is it that it is single source when 200 (30%) didn't contain the words? --Rdos 09:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Okay okay, I normally have a pretty low bar for inclusion, but you've made a good point. I just got excited at a good NPOV challenge. — Laura Scudder | Talk 07:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unquestionable original research. mikka (t) 07:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research. Usrnme h8er 07:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research. --G Rutter 10:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The pages that Rdos is citing here as purportedly independent sources are no more than Wikipedia mirrors, as Ryan says. The masterliness.com article is no more than an out-of-date (and non-GFDL-conformant) copy of our own Asperger's syndrome article. (It's the version from around July 2005.) That site is already on our Wikipedia:mirrors and forks list, in fact. As for "Neanderthal - free encyclopedia", wherever that is: The words "free encyclopedia" in the title are a dead giveaway. It will be a mirror of our Neanderthal article (which was edited by Rdos to mention xyr theory). Uncle G 12:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really? The following links have nothing to do with wikipedia:Niburu A psychologist talk about the theory at mindpixel.com Autistics.org library article AS-IF Site, Causes Research section Neurodiversity site Indepedent two-ancestor hypothesis Autism / Asperger info ADHD and autism portal L-carnosine - a possible utility of the theory Link on swedish "Neuronätet". I'm sure there are other examples of this as well, if nothing else at various personal homepages, livejournal pages and not to mention discussion forums. This is because the theory is well-known, not because it was featured at wikipedia --Rdos 13:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • As stated by Bikeable when this this list was presented in the previous AFD discussion, this is a very misleading set of links. Of those 10 sites: 5 are bare link directories that simply link to your rdos.net web page, 1 is non-existent page, 1 is a web log posting that comments upon a restatement of your rdos.net web page but does not provide any real scientific peer review of the hypothesis, 1 makes no mention of autism at all, and 1 mentions the hypothesis tangentially in a footnote and similarly provides no peer review. Only 1 site even touches upon Neanderthals and autism directly, and even then does not propound the hypothesis described in the article under discussion here. Uncle G 20:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I suppose you must be yoking. I don't know which one you regard to touch upon Neanderthals and autism directly, but clearly 3 sites do this. The Indepedent two-ancestor hypothesis clearly is a paralell to this article, that has been invented independently (hint: search for Neanderthal in the article). The article at mindpixel.com also deals with Neanderthals and autism. It seems like the autistics.org site is temporarily unavailable, but it also deals directly with Neanderthals, elves and autism. --Rdos 20:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • False. Only 1 does. As I stated, it does not propound the hypothesis described in the article under discussion here. The article at mindpixel is the web log posting that, as I also said, does not provide any real scientific peer review of the hypothesis. Uncle G 00:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unpopular pseudoscience, I still don't know how this survived AfD last time. Lord Bob 14:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was 10-5 delete. Close. Marskell 16:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original research. Sliggy 15:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original research and pseudoscience to boot. — ceejayoz ★ 15:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable original research. Bikeable 16:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the nominator. Anville 17:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. --Isotope23 18:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This may well be original research/personal essay, however there is something to the fact that Neanderthal had larger brain volume than humans and that Autistic people also have larger brain volume, both counterintuitive and as is predicted in my own hypergeometric hypothesis. I was not aware that anyone else was thinking this way until I discovered this unpublished theory. Deleting this article may prove to be a mistake. I think it is an example of the Internet, and Wikipedia doing science a service. - Mindpixel 04:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC) (Actually 20:44:39, according to edit history. Uncle G 23:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
    • Unfortunately, whether or not it's a wonderful theory that could revolutionise everything we know about the brain and some of its disorders, original research is expressly and strictly forbidden by Wikipedia policy. Original research belongs in a journal or a book, not an encyclopaedia. Lord Bob 21:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research. Unverifiable outside of mirrorworld. Ziggurat 22:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only sources for this article are Rdos xyrself, either directly via contributions here or from other web pages elsewhere that xe has written (hyperlinks to which have been distributed liberally to directory sites and to wikis). The author cites Wikipedia mirrors as independent sources and web logs where the hypothesis is not reviewed at all as peer review. Clearly they are not. Discussion with the author, both here and in the previous AFD discussion, produces nothing but claimed independent sources that turn out not to be anything of the sort, and that in all but one or two cases don't even address this article's subject at all. This hypothesis has undergone no peer review, and is original research, forbidden by our no original research policy. Supporting arguments from Mindpixel, the web log's owner, are contrary to our Wikipedia is not a soapbox policy. I suggest to both Rdos and Mindpixel that they expend their efforts on getting a paper published in a scientific journal, rather than on trying to use Wikipedia to perform an end-run. Delete. Uncle G 00:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. First of all, this is OR. But secondly, it should be obvious that this article is highly ableist. Would we allow an article on Wikipedia that says African American people are Neanderthals? --Jacquelyn Marie 15:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huh? Where does it say African American people are Neanderthals? It has just the opposite position, it is Eurasians that are part Neanderthal and these genes are concentrated in autism and Asperger's syndrome. --Rdos 17:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe that was intended to be an example. "Allowing an article on x would be like allowing an article on y." Lord Bob 17:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Short answer: yes. --Jacquelyn Marie 18:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • In that case a bad example. The article clearly doesn't agree with the stereotypical picture of Neanderthals. It in fact sees Neanderthals as superior to modern humans on various accounts. The only thing that modern humans contributed to us was the social system, the same system that autistics cannot handle very well. --Rdos 19:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, that privileges the social system instead of the autistics. It says that autistics are deficient, instead of "modern humans," and that they are like Neanderthals, no? --Jacquelyn Marie 20:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • The social system is only privileged if there is something it can spread. Innovations and creativity is the domain of Neanderthals and autistics. Without these traits, 'modern humans' wouldn't be very modern at all. So, with your reasoning, all the social types would also be deficient in innovative & persistence abilities, no? Why do we not invent psychiatric diagnosis for this to? (look here for a clue: [11] --Rdos 04:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • Dude, I love isnt.autistics.com. I've been there myself. My whole point is: no one is/should be considered "deficient," in either direction. And by the way, I don't fall on the autistic spectrum, and I resent the implication that "innovation and creativity" can't be my domain too. (By the way, I won't call myself neurotypical because I am not: I have an autonomic disorder, so my nervous system is anything but typical.) --Jacquelyn Marie 15:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • You probably wouldn't enjoy isnt.autistics.com if it weren't explicitly telling you it is a parody. The "research" presented about autism is not a parody AFAIK, and thus must be dealt with as severe discrimination. You were earlier very concerned with blacks being called Neanderthals, so I guess you would be concerned by discrimination issues? Why then aren't you concerned about discrimination of autistics? --Rdos 15:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I am concerned about discrimination. Of autistics, or of anyone else. That's why I am here, debating this. By the way, please mind your wikiquette. --Jacquelyn Marie 22:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • I am not going to argue "is this ableism" or "is this not ableism" here anymore, as that doesn't change my vote, because it is still original research, as shown below! --Jacquelyn Marie 20:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • By the way, RDOS, would this be proof that you in fact authored this theory? [12] That mightn't be your home page that it links to, does it? --Jacquelyn Marie 20:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • The link you presented isn't my home-page. It is a independent site about the theory --Rdos 04:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Of course it isn't your homepage. It's another page with a link to your home page, stating that you are the person to have creaed the theory! --Jacquelyn Marie 15:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I suggest you study the page again. It references my theory (yes, I invented it, and this is common knowledge here). The author of this page has done his own research in order to validate it. --Rdos 15:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Actually, that's precisely what I was trying to get across. Thanks for rewording it in a way that's better for you to understand. So, by what you just said, this article is OR. Yours. --Jacquelyn Marie 22:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. See also my comments on the article’s talkpage. As far as Wikipedia protocol goes: this is classic OR, and sets a dangerous precedent: one passionate individual attempting to use Wikipedia and its various mirrors, and private newsgroups, in order to create an illusory buzz about a personal theory. This theory is unknown in the scientific community, it is unknown to anyone who has not come across Rdos' own writing on the topic here on Wikipedia, on his webpage or on newsgroups. Rdos has all but admitted that he is trying to use wikipedia to propogate his personal theory. Perhaps he hopes that if he continues stirring things up on wikipedia and the mirrors, his theory will no longer be unknown. If Rdos can cite the buzz he himself has created as support for his claim that this is a significant theory, what's to stop any other devoted individual from promoting their pet theory in likewise fashion? Also please note that at the same time Rdos has been attempting to eliminate a well-established theory on Autism that he personally disagrees with; see Rdos’ RfD for Sensory Integration Dysfunction, and his attempted changes to the main article on Autism. However open and tolerant we’d like to be, Wikipedia should strive to give a picture of reality, not one individual’s wishful thinking about the reality he’d like to see.--Woggly 06:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So Sensory Integration Disorder is a well established theory? Among whom, and who supports it? In the VfD discussion nobody could prove it was "well-established". It wasn't part of DSM, it had no support in MEDLINE and so on. It did have some backing up in a book by a professional. However, the question is if we should accept that professionals with a clear agenda to make money on drugs, treatments and group-homes should be allowed to monopolize the truhth about autism? --Rdos 13:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
SID is not up for debate here. You've just proved my point, and shot yourself in the foot. --Woggly 15:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you are talking about. My point was that why should we accept a theory without support because a professional have written a book about it? That does not make it properly referenced. SID was only retained because it had been there for several years --Rdos 15:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete let me count the ways: "It references my theory (yes, I invented it, and this is common knowledge here). The author of this page has done his own research in order to validate it. --Rdos 15:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)" (emphasis mine) Rdos authored the theory; Rdos authored the article; therefore it is OR, vanity and a soapbox. No matter how valuable the information itself, at best it is a source text and should move to Wikisource with a soft redirect. Who knows, the scientific method may die in a flurry of feelgooditis and Christian Evangelism, and the theory may come to be widely adopted, at which point Rdos can say "I told you so." Until that happens Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Kgf0 22:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • In all fairness, I think that the "author of this page" mentioned in the quote above refers not to the WP article but to the page Jacquelyn Marie referenced above, which Rdos did not write ([13]). That doesn't change the fact, of course, that Rdos authored both the theory and the article up for deletion. Bikeable 23:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, Bikeable is correct. I referred to the indepedendent article. I followed Kgf0 advice and moved the article to wikisource Wikisource/Neanderthal_Theory_of_Autism. It seems like this AfD is a lost case. --Rdos 15:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, (A) citing a source that cites yourself is hardly independent; (B) I did not advise you to move to a new directory, but rather that the text as a whole be moved to the project described at Wikisource which is actually located at wikisource.org; and (C) having now reviewed their contribution guidelines, your article will not be appropriate for submission there until you have first published it elsewhere, assuming that even that modicum of success garners you "notability." Therefore, I reiterate my delete vote, and extend it to include the malformed Wikisource/Neanderthal Theory of Autism as well. --Kgf0 23:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sounds like a bunch of poorly substantiated quasi-science that would be better talked about somewhere else, if at all...--Daniel Lotspeich 09:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, original research, vanity, and now also attempting to circumvent the AfD process. Along with this article, we should also delete its copy at Wikisource/Neanderthal Theory of Autism (which is still on Wikipedia, contrary to what the poster believes.) Wikisource should not be a dumping ground for deleted Wikipedia articles. -- The Anome 09:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not only does this nomination violate AfD policy, but now you've violated policy again. This VfD is *nor* appropriate for WikiSource. The votes here cannot be used in your deletion campaign at WikiSource. You are free to nominate it for deletion at WikiSource as well, but surely the votes cast here are not applicable. The rules at vWikiSource are different. I've reverted your changes. --Rdos 04:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't do that. Strike out the addition if you want, but removing things from a discussion is bad form in the highest.
        brenneman(t)(c) 04:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your duplicate page is not at Wikisource, regardless of what you might wish to believe. Creating another article in Wikipedia with a page name that starts with "Wikisource/" is not the same thing as moving an article to Wikisource. I find it interesting that you wish to cite the Wikisource rules at us. If you had actually read them [14], you would already know that one of the criteria for inclusion of an article is that it not be "Original writings by a contributor to the project". -- The Anome 06:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- clear case of OR. There's just no question about it. ManekiNeko | Talk 10:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep: It is difficult to reconcile the many delete votes above with the basic idea that the Wiki should further the advance of knowledge. Given the substantial amount of discussion and acceptance of the Neanderthal theory (especially within the autism community), it is impossible to conclude the article is irrelevant or unworthy. The real question begging to be answered here is just why is there so much visceral antipathy toward the subject? Perhaps it is because, for generations, the term Neanderthal has been used deliberately (often by the media) to promote bigotry, intolerance and hostility? Or perhaps the VfD process has attracted a disproportionate number of deletionists, bent on advancing thought stopping objectives? A new article stub was being prepared for the Neanderthal theory of autism, which then seemed unnecessary with a redirect to this article; in light of the above, however, perhaps it'd be best to submit it anyhow, rather than leaving a redirect to this mess. Ombudsman 23:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed possible to conclude that this article is irrelevant and unworthy, this is the very basis of afd. Also, have you ever taken a glance at the logical fallacy page? Begging the question and Argumentum_ad_hominem#Ad_hominem_circumstantial both seem to creep in to your defense of this article. --Anetode 03:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Storms in the Negev[edit]

I can't find any evidence on Google that this term is used in the manner stated, "The collective name of the pogroms against Jews in imperial Russia during 1881-1884." The few results are about actual storms. -- Kjkolb 03:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom CLW 12:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone cites sources.--Isotope23 18:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy redirect. Four similar articles have been redirected without AfD (see list). This one was no better - the fact that it has a few more what links here's makes little difference - it was still a pretty pointless article. -- RHaworth 19:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Femtillion[edit]

Not very notable, possible OR?

  • Abstain for the moment as nominator (but leaning delete); I want to see what others have to say. --Trovatore 04:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite and Keep - Top three hits in google are Other names of large numbers, a Wiki mirror as Other names of large numbers and An AOL site. The article is fairly obtuse to anyone other than a mathematician I think. CambridgeBayWeather 04:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, thanks. My vote is Redirect to Other names of large numbers. I think that should close the issue; pro forma am I supposed to wait for the seven days or whatever? --Trovatore 04:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Other names of large numbers... I wouldn't even bother to wait 7 days based on the general shambles the article is in.--Isotope23 18:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, that's what I should have done from the start, but there are specific warnings not to convert an article under AfD to a redir. Not sure how much common sense to use here. Can I ask an admin for a speedy redirect? --Trovatore 20:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your guess is as good as mine... I wasn't aware there was a protocol against redirects during an AFD, since I've seen it done, but perhaps it was an admin who did it.--Isotope23 21:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think it's too late now to make it into a redirect as the article has been given other tags. However, I found an article this evening that was tagged as AfD by it's creator due to misspelling. I changed it to a redirect and of course overwrote the delete tag. I then put a note on the AfD page saying what I'd done. I've done the same with articles that have been tagged as speedy but in that case I usually notify the user that put the speedy on it. No one has ever complained. CambridgeBayWeather 11:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well you can do most anything, and often no one will complain. But as AndyJones says below, it is good wiki-practice, and established wiki-policy to let AfDs run their course. Paul August ☎ 13:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification!--Isotope23 14:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you guys have totally the right idea. It could have been redirected rather than brought to AfD: but now it's here, IMHO it's good wiki-practice to let it have its five days. It's doing no harm where it is. If anyone else wants to vote, or the author wants to defend a separate article, this page is a forum. AndyJones 00:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Trovatore. Paul August ☎ 01:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect article to Other names of large numbers; redirect author to ESL. ;-P --Kgf0 21:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adversary process[edit]

No meaningful text, although "Adversary process" is a valid term for lawyers. ReyBrujo 04:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This insertion on wikipedia is excellent. It does have meaningful text and i nominate to keep it on the site as it is the only attempt at defining the adversary process. It is acurrate in its definition of a adversary opinion which is a large process of the adversary process, i mean its the end result. (preceding unsigned comment by 24.154.72.93 (talk · contribs) 04:38, 4 October 2005)

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Pride of Eastside Marching Band[edit]

An undistinguished school marching band.

  • Delete Fawcett5 04:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing special about the band mentioned --rob 05:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no reason why it is worthy of an entry Neier 08:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above arguments --redstucco 09:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per sanity. Gamaliel 11:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. utcursch | talk 11:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn CLW 12:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or move to wikihighschoolmarchingband when that gets up and running.--Daniel Lotspeich 20:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merged and redirected by Bushytails Ryan Norton T | @ | C 07:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Self destruct button[edit]

Not expandable beyond a stub

  • Delete --Trovatore 04:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: could an article be written at self-destruct that would cover this? Besides the button, it could include other self destruct mechanisms, like those used on rockets that go out of control. -- Kjkolb 04:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge self-destruct has a "Use in fiction" heading that this could fit under - Anetode 04:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge with "use in fiction" as suggested by Anetode. This could be better written and slightly expanded. Crypticfirefly 04:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to self-destruct. I'm skeptical that there's much expansion to be done, but have at it... --Trovatore 05:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect, there is already an article at self-destruct, I linked to self destruct, which didn't have a redirect. It does now. -- Kjkolb 07:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Kjkolb. --Apyule 07:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Redirect per above Ryan Norton T | @ | C 09:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, per above. Information is happiest when it is most completely in context! -- BD2412 talk 16:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect, as the material's tone isn't that suitable to a merge. This is a pretty big concept in fiction, and we should have something on it, though.--Scimitar parley 16:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Push self-destruct button. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trovatore (talk • contribs) 04:31, 4 October 2005
  • Merge as per above. Regarding the tone, I think an article of this tone is okay on its own given the subject matter, but if the stuff it's being merged with is written in a more serious manner, then signifiacntly rewrite. --Jacquelyn Marie 15:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be bold... Merged and redirected. Bushytails 07:04, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Ryan Norton T | @ | C 23:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Alpiri Project[edit]

This project doesn't seem notable. It only gets 8 unique Google results. -- Kjkolb 04:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - as per nom. Article doesn't even mention the project name or much in the way of detail. CLW 12:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - TAP also is part of the security for OpenVPN [15] so they need to be made seperate articles. All it needs is some more information and links to Symantic Web. Add it to the computer stubs section Cokehabit 14:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 18:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Iwr[edit]

Fancruft/advertising. The user page (User:IWRwrestling along with IWR wrestling and Independent wrestling revolution are identical. I've mad the last two redirects to the Iwr page. CambridgeBayWeather 04:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

N-next[edit]

Non-notable website advertising Secretlondon 05:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable fansite --Nv8200p (talk)`

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted and rewritten. — JIP | Talk 07:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Riley[edit]

I suspect this article is a hoax because I can't find anything about his participation in the Boer Wars or his medals. However, he died eight years before he was born, which, if true, is extremely notable. -- Kjkolb 05:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmmm. I suspect the article is a hoax because the Boer War finished in 1902 and he was supposedly born in 1932 eight years after his death in 1924. Delete. Capitalistroadster 05:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax, unverified, and otherwise looks like a joke. -- Malo 07:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. utcursch | talk 11:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per nom CLW 12:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom Syrthiss 12:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator. Hall Monitor 18:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy as A7. Take out the war he didn't participate in because it happened before he was born and the fact he was stabbed to death before he was born (which would be notable if it wasn't a hoax) and you have a great A7 candidate!--Isotope23 20:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite as article on well-known folk song. Grutness...wha? 00:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article. Userfied; deleted main namespace

Madhuri Mehta[edit]

Vanity and lack of verifiable sources. This is an article written by User:Nirav.maurya about his grandmother, as he pointed out at User_talk:Bhadani#Your_Father's_Page. Not too surprisingly, it goes on at unnecessary length about Mrs. Mehta's family life. Moreover, the name "Madhuri Mehta" gets only 52 hits on google and 8 on Yahoo!search, the vast majority of which, maybe all of them, do not refer to the same person described in this article. Her maiden name gets one hit on google and none on Yahoo!. A request for sources on the article's talk page went unanswered, and it seems likely the source is simply Nirav Maurya's personal knowledge of his family, which would be original research. Actually, I had failed to notice that, while the request for cites was not answered on the talk page itself, an anon account added one source to the article: "Mid-Day article Is This What We Fought For by Vrunda Rahatekar and Suresh K.K. (1997)" In addition to the difficulty of checking an eight-year-old Indian newspaper article, it's not clear which pieces of information are sourced there and which are not. In any event, the article is still vanity, and so I'm leaving it up for deletion. - Nat Krause 06:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC

  • Delete, family vanity. She sounds like a great woman, but not an especially notable one. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. utcursch | talk 11:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn. Almost a shame, since so much work seems to have gone into it... CLW 12:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy Tintin 13:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. If someone went to this much trouble to write about their grandmother, it shouldn't just disappear. I agree it's not article material, but cut the guy a small break and let him hold on to his work! --Jacquelyn Marie 15:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Virtual reality in tourism, Virtual Reality in Tourism[edit]

Two identical articles (except for the caps), that appear to be advertising for "Archeoguide". The articles have been tagged for cleanup for almost a year now, and haven't been touched in that time. The images are unsourced, and the original contributor hasn't been active since 14 November of last year. --Carnildo 06:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both unless de-adverted. Marskell 11:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both as pernomination. utcursch | talk 11:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Catalina Fish Kitchen[edit]

Single, non-notable restaurant in Costa Mesa. -- Kjkolb 07:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Neier 07:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above --redstucco 09:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. utcursch | talk 11:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn, and no claims to notability CLW 12:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- nn restarant --JAranda | yeah 19:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exporting a .dif from 3D World Studio[edit]

Wikipedia is not a software manual or collection of howtos. Delete. jni 07:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exporting a .b3d from 3D World Studio[edit]

Wikipedia is not a software manual or collection of howtos. Delete. jni 07:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wisteria: The Story of Albert Fish[edit]

Blatant advert Secretlondon 07:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per secret Anetode 07:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per secret Neier 08:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. utcursch | talk 11:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom CLW 12:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom.--Isotope23 17:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delusions of Grandeur[edit]

Non-notable film. Possible vanity article. No entry on IMDB. See also AfDs for Mike Sajecki (this AfD was vandalised) and Something/Anything. KeithD (talk) 07:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Delusions of Grandeur and Mike Sajecki, and anything else related to this non-notable Mike and his - probably self added - filmography -- SoothingR 07:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, looks like mike has delusions of grandeur. nn. Usrnme h8er 07:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepMike Sajecki is notable. His productions have been submitted to Imdb. Mike Sajecki did not self-add anything on wikipedia. This comes from a third party. -- unsigned comment by 24.51.37.205, the article's creator.
  • Delete. Non-notable. utcursch | talk 11:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn CLW 12:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - non-notable film.--Isotope23 17:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Film cannot be distributed due to music licencing issues, therefore cannot be notable. Cnwb 01:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:05, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Something/Anything[edit]

Non-notable film. No entry at IMDB. See also AfDs for Mike Sajecki and Delusions of Grandeur (the Mike Sajecki AfD has previously been vandalised). KeithD (talk) 07:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rosa Shafigulina[edit]

Although the story is slightly humorous, including its background at Novosibirsk State University, I don't think that this article belongs at Wikipedia..non-notable -- SoothingR 08:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - nn CLW 12:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed - delete, and unpick the links. DS 16:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencyclopedic personal POV essay (or republication of same authored by another). MCB 22:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Savvas Yiros[edit]

Article is about a "small takeaway" store. I'm sure such stores are great, and I hope business is good, but it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Un-encyclopedic vanity page.--Exir KamalabadiEsperanza 12:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn CLW 12:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I love me some Yiros, but this article is little more than a shameless plug for this particular shop.--RicardoC 06:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's My Life (Talk Talk)[edit]

It is a duplicate of It's My Life. A Wikipedian did a cut and paste move from the original article to a new location. There is another controversy, too. Should "It's My Life" be about that album, or a disambiguation page between the album and a No Doubt song? The another Wikipedian wants it to be a disambiguation page, I think it should be for the album. Come on, No Doubt did just a cover version! And the original version isn't totally unknown. And the album article would have more text than about just a one track. -Hapsiainen 09:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is totally surplus to requirements so Delete. For what it's worth, the article for It's My Life should refer to the album by Talk Talk while the song is sufficiently notable to warrant an article known as It's My Life (song) referring to both the Talk Talk and No Doubt versions. Capitalistroadster 09:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I second the comments of Capitalistroadster. I'd also support an It's My Life disambiguous page that maps to It's My Life (album) and It's My Life (song) with references to both songs (and hell even the Bon Jovi song of the same name if anyone wanted to add it). The current title of this article is an odd usage and is not in line with the way most albums are listed.--Isotope23 20:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, what Isotope23 said. --Jacquelyn Marie 15:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 1965 classic "It's My Life" by The Animals is more notable than the 1984 album or song of the same name by Talk Talk or the cover by No Doubt. There's also a Monkees song by that name, so a disambig is probably warranted. Quale 07:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the info. I was looking for such, when I told about the problem here. So It's My Life should be a disambiguation page. Then there should be pages like "It's My Life (x album)". But the song pages are trickier to order. There can't be "It's My Life (song)", because there are several such songs. If the No Doubt version and the original song had the same article, what could be an appropriate, intuitive name for it? I don't know. Does it make sense to divide all the song articles by performer? -Hapsiainen 11:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it's the same song, then I think that there should be one article, with details of different recordings. If it's just the same name name, then the usual approach is to name them Song Title (Jane Smith song), Song Title (The Musical Group song), etc. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (and treat in line with Quale's comments). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this duplicate article. I don't feel any urgency to disambig It's My Life until some new article requires it. This can be taken as a hint that I'm not clear that a No Doubt cover requires its own article. Jkelly 21:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Murphyism[edit]

No Google hits for Murphyism -wikipedia "dylan murphy". No relevant Google hits for "dylan murphy" -wikipedia protestant. Unless it's astonishingly successful at being a secretive sect, I spy a hoax. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 09:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - assume hoax, unless any sources identified. CLW 12:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per CLW Dlyons493 Talk 22:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I found two sources, see article for details. DirkNiblick 16:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment With all due respect to DirkNiblick this is his only edit and the one online source he references doesn't contain the word Murphyism. I wouldn't dream of suggesting he's a sock-puppet though. Dlyons493 Talk 21:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 12:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer wiss[edit]

Not notable person. Ashenai 10:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why? It is about the main person in the UK dealing with this type of litigation, no less notable than you surely?
I am also non-notable, which is why there's no article on me. :)
You claim she is "well known", and "the main person in the UK dealing with this type of litigation", yet Google is very silent on her. +
Please understand that this isn't meant to be any sort of personal criticism; just trying to keep Wikipedia encyclopedic. I mean no harm, and no offense. Cheers. :) --Ashenai 10:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. utcursch | talk 10:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - just like Daddy's page: nn, vanity. Is she even less notable than her papa, seeing as she doesn't have a capital W in her surname? CLW 12:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! I couldn't work out how to fix the capital afterwards (sarcasm??). Thanks for the message Ashenai, have made my user page now! So delete away!

    • Do I take it this is the author's comment above? Could go Speedy as author's request then.--Isotope23 21:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Same IP, in any case. The comment came just after I left her a note welcoming her and explaining user pages on her talk page, so I'm pretty sure it'd be OK to speedy, yep. --Ashenai (talk) 21:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn. -- DS1953 03:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. "Associate Law Lecturer" would not meet the professor test of WP:PROF, and being a lawyer specializing in a particular tye of case is, well, not notable. MCB 22:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as all above, plus the Ms Wiss now has indeed copied this to her user page, as Baby Jenga. No harm done, methinks. Budgiekiller 18:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Renewal Christian Centre[edit]

This is advertising, albeit not commercial. Delete . jmd 10:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, assuming the information is true and verifiable. A church with 2300 members is notable. The article obviously needs a lot of attention, but it's enough for stub status (which I've added). --Ashenai 10:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article does not establish encyclopedic notability. Gamaliel 11:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2300-strong megachurches are not at all common in Britain. Keep and send to cleanup. Pilatus 14:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

* delete this 'article' does not convey basic information ; there is not even a location given for this 'centre'. --Isolani 14:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC) (Isolani rescinds below, so I strike this one. Xoloz 15:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]

  • Keep notable for size in a UK context, and I've added links that verify and could give more information for expansion. --Doc (?) 16:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, established church. Kappa 17:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please agree with ashenai that this is important Yuckfoo 18:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I rescind my delete vote as the article has now evolved to a an absolute minimum standard --Isolani 19:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Established church with verifiable information available will381796 20:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You may wish to reference vote below on David Carr & Richard Taylor Dlyons493 Talk 22:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm no supporter of churches generally, but mammoth membership equals notability. Xoloz 15:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, churchcruft and bad poorly written article about a non-notable church.Gateman1997 18:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 12:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Loser (person)[edit]

Extended dicdef with added personal attacks. Delete CLW 12:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, notable concept in popular culture. Kappa 14:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep,, I agree w/ Kappa, this is a concept that's become important in terms of social status. It's often used and different than using the word "Dork" or "nerd" as a derogatory term, it has a deeper conotation.
  • careful deleting the examples section Kappa, you might just get added to it. ;) Cleanup and keep as per Kappa CastAStone 14:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not encyclopedic. Extended definition with a note that it's extensively used in pop culture is not encyclopedia-worthy content, even without list of examples. —Wahoofive (talk) 15:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as essentially unverifiable material that is either dead obvious or original research. Show me some citations that demonstrate how this topic can be researched and not just made up off the top of one's head and I may change my mind. Bunchofgrapes 17:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Broadly speaking, I agree with Bunchofgrapes's sentiments. Anville 17:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep' this too please it is more than a dictionary definition and it should be expanded Yuckfoo 19:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Is nothing more than a definition and I don't see how this could be expanded into an actual article of any relevance. will381796 20:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bunchofgrapes. I too fail to see how this can ever be more than a dicdef with a gaggle of OR or POV examples.--Isotope23 21:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm thinking the same thing as everyone else who's said delete so far. And I can only imagine how many times a list of losers would be added. - Mirage5000 21:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless expanded substantially. Dlyons493 Talk 22:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Kappa. The concept of "loser" is important and common in our culture. I've certainly seen articles which are less deserving of Wikispace. Blizzard1 22:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as it's a dic-def with twirly bits; I cannot see how it can be verified or expanded into a worthwhile article. Sliggy 22:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BunchofGrapes --JAranda | yeah 23:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Kappa. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-10-5 T 00:02:05 Z
  • Userfy, no? --maclean25 00:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable phrase within popular culture. Possible attractiveness to vandals is not a reason for deletion on its own. Xoloz 15:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep expand. This could become one of those lovely pop-culture articles that Wikipedia is good at (see, for example, Inherently funny word). --Jacquelyn Marie 16:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, even though the article itself is a loser. Was it Alicia Silverstone who first showed us the forefinger-thumb "L" to the forehead? This term will be a part of our era's heritage. Denni☯ 00:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Only a loser would want to delete this article ;) Roman Soldier 01:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 12:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ronses[edit]

It's a blog/messageboard with no claim to notability The Land 12:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per nomination. The Land 12:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn CLW 12:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Its a popular message board, There should be no problem with this article unsigned contribution by 213.121.151.174 (talk · contribs). Lord Bob 15:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ronses are red, violets are blue. Deleting this article is a good thing to do. (non-notable, advertising, forum has a whopping 39 members although they do seem to talk a lot). Also see chebs, a CSD candidate that these 39 people happily gloat tes files here.

Moderator Raven 202 4339 Wed Oct 05, 2005 7:07 am hrudey How do I?about putting up on Wikipedia. It's probably not patent nonsense anymore, so much as forumcruft, but I'm not sure enough to do anything about it. Lord Bob 15:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • To be fair I also CSD'd 'chebs', which was possibly overstepping myself. The Land 15:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would also mention that ronses (as now posted) is also a slang word in Bolton, England UK. Yes the forum is fairly small in numbers but is a tight knit community. Yes we have no form of Advertising. Thanks for you time

  • Delete nn. Marcus22 20:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, POV issues, and unencyclopedic in nature will381796 20:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ronses is also a term I am voting to Delete as non-notable.--Isotope23 21:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


don't delete ronses or i will get AIDS :(

    • Ahh, this is hilarious. Ronses discussion of the AfD - my favourite quote is "If you want the article to stay, do not write 'you love the cock' ". Can we add that to policy? The Land 10:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd support it. Not that there's anything wrong with loving the cock, it's just, well, non-notable vanity fancruft. Or something. Lord Bob 14:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete you love the cock... er, non-notable. Xoloz 15:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ostensible[edit]

Non-notable. I couldn't find a reference to this publication in Writer's Market or on Google. Checking the website listed here only led to a giant "O." Dvyost 12:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - nn CLW 12:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the so called website is just an image. Completely nn Keresaspa 13:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of verifiability and significance. Friday (talk) 14:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - totally non-notable.--Isotope23 21:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Non-notable.--Sean Jelly Baby? 23:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy-deleted under criterion A7

Zachary Hines[edit]

non-notable, lack of meaningful content, possibly should be userfied Dvyost 12:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just delete - nn CLW 12:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of verifiability and significance. Friday (talk) 14:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete quickly as a borderline speedy deletion candidate. Hall Monitor 18:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy per CSD:A7--Isotope23 21:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. Color it gone. - Lucky 6.9 21:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Greenspoon[edit]

Non-notable, lack of meaningful content (possibly should be userfied) Dvyost 12:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just delete - nn CLW 12:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no verifiability or significance. Friday (talk) 14:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as per WP:CSD A7. Hall Monitor 18:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy per CSD:A7--Isotope23 21:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per CSD A7.--Sean Jelly Baby? 22:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've speedied this per the consensus of votes AND because Mr. Greenspoon's two partners in his endevor have already been speedied as CSD:A7.--Isotope23 00:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Greenspoon, Round Two This article has been recreated, still non-notably; a request to have it speedied was declined, so I'm reposting it here. The film "Milk" gets no Google hits when combined with Greenspoon's name, nor does the Ogden-Nash film festival. Unverifiable, non-notable. I'd still suggest speedy but at the very least delete. --Dvyost 17:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I originaly rejected this as a speedy - the article states that he's the co-editor of a magazine and stared in a film. Those claims may well be bogus, or notabilty may not be established by them, but can someone explain to me how that is not an assertion of notability per WP:CSD? --Doc (?) 18:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'd argue that without any explanation of why this magazine or film is notable, there's still no explanation of notability; many of us have worked on small college publications or starred in a friend's film for a local film festival, and that's really not notability. Still, since I suspect you know the guidelines better than me, I've followed your advice and am perfectly happy to wait it out here. For clarity's sake I'll set this discussion off from the previous one.--Dvyost 19:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable enough for Wikipedia. Johntex\talk 19:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Not going to userfy, since the author hasn't requested it, and hasn't edited in nearly 2 weeks. -Splashtalk 00:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Sauer[edit]

Appears to be non-notable, possibly vanity. Ashenai (talk) 12:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 12:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Effect of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake on Norway[edit]

A similar article on the effect of the earthquake on Hong Kong was nominated for deletion, on the ground that Hong Kong was not directly affected. Since Norway was not directly affected either, the two articles share substantial similarities. This nomination was done to facilitate a better discussion, and possibly, similar actions may be taken. — Instantnood 12:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. What the purpose of this vote? Smells like a WP:POINT violation to me. Each article should be kept or deleted on it's own merits, not wether or not simmilar aritcles exist. Effect of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake on Hong Kong is extremely short compared to this article. I'm a little supriced Germany or Sweden doesn't have such articles as they lost a lot of people, but all that's beside the point. Each article are dealth with seperately unless a general overall consensus exist to do otherwise (like with Pokemon stubs). And nominating articles you think should be kept is not the way to build a consensus IMHO. --Sherool 14:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Length of an article may or may not be relevant in deciding whether an article should be deleted. If the two articles share substantial similarities, and if the arguments mentioned in this page are readily applicable other similar articles, it would be better to assess them together, although the outcome can still be different. How much similarities do they share is to be determined by the community. — Instantnood 14:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC) (modified 07:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep. Precisely as I pointed out in [16], and as per Sherool, this does appear to be a clear-cut case of WP:POINT. Also, instantnood has been the only person I know who actually nominates articles/categories to be kept, and this is not the first time he did this [17].--Huaiwei 14:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note also, that instantnood added a notification of this nomination in the Wikipedia:Norway-related topics notice board [18], in what appears to be an attempt in garnering local support for this article, and hence hoping there will be a trickle-down effect to the article he is fighting to keep.--Huaiwei 14:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's just sort of etiquette to have nominations be notified on the relevant notice boards. — Instantnood 15:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Information would be of an encyclopedic nature and comes from multiple, verifiable sources. Does need to be worked on to update accuracy. Also, perhaps the creation of an article about the effect that this earthquake had on non-directly affected locales could be created and articles such as this one merged into it? Just a thought. will381796 20:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Fair amount of detail specific to Norway. --Calton | Talk 08:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect either way nominator needs to tarred and feathered for WP:POINT, you'd think repeated occurrences of things like this would end up in front of the ArbCom SchmuckyTheCat 17:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Many of the reasons mentioned by other Wikipedians in the other nomination are applicable to this article as well, and that's the reason why I nominate this article, to facilitate a better discussion. Both articles are devolved from the main articles on the earthquake, and both are about the effect on a country not directly affected. Contents in both articles can be merged into the other articles for the earthquake. — Instantnood 18:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect: most of the content is generic, and the Norwegian specific details are non encyclopedic. GhePeU 10:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep Ryan Norton T | @ | C 23:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Li-Xing-dao[edit]

Is this real? "What links here" brings up a reference to a 13th century playwright by this name, but addicted to opium? Prostitute? Is someone pulling our leg here? Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, couldn't find anything on google, possible leg-pulling. Kappa 14:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand and reference or delete. Li Xingdao seems to be a more usual spelling and he was a playwright of the time (see Brecht's The Chalk Circle). His private life isn't Googleable but may not have been impeccable for all I know. Any Chinese literature people on Afd? Dlyons493 Talk 22:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand I would be interested in reading more about Li Xingdao having read the reference to his work from the Caucasian Chalk Circle article 83.104.41.104 22:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now I've rewritten it, I couldn't expand it very much but it's reasonably accurate now. Kappa 22:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Thanks for rewriting it, the last version was completely discardable but this one looks OK. Nomination withdrawn. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:01, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UbuWeb[edit]

Appears to be a not-very-notable site with Alexa rank around 250,000. — ceejayoz ★ 15:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. — ceejayoz ★ 15:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. It's a very nice site though, I've been browsing it from time to time and they have great stuff. — mark ✎ 15:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Expand they have notable partners "WFMU, PennSound, The Center for Literary Computing, and Artmob" and host a fair amount of original content. It's well known in poetics circles and their outsiders section is particulary well-linked/respected. Jessamyn 15:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Expand as above. Very notable website and worthy of an article. Just curious, is there a Wikipolicy that demands a site get a certain Alexa rating in order to be eligible for an article? I'm not aware of such a rule, myself. 23skidoo 04:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above. --Jacquelyn Marie 16:05, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedily Redirected by User:DragonflySixtyseven Ryan Norton T | @ | C 23:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redpanda[edit]

Quality article already exists at Red Panda. This adds no real content --Aranae 15:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. -- Aranae 15:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been bold and redirected to Red Panda as a not-implausible misspelling. DS 15:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirecting as above has my full support. Jkelly 15:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's perfect. I'm withdrawing my nomination. --Aranae 17:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bending light[edit]

Original research. DS 15:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. This is quite obviously not an article. Friday (talk) 16:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Unverifiable. Dlyons493 Talk 21:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedily deleted as the recreation of an AfDed article. --fvw* 23:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Systemwars.com[edit]

  • I created this new stub on the subject of a website that had earlier been deleted. The content is new and the circumstances have changed, but the article has been speedied under the "deleteagain" template. I therefore place it for discussion on this forum.
  • Keep and expand or merge useful content from editing history with GameSpot. The website has grown in popularity since the first debate in June. --Tony SidawayTalk 15:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Content is Identical in substance to a subset of the original article deleted by VfD vote - Recreation is a Speedy delete candidate and relisting violates the opinions of all who voted to delete the article. - Tεxτurε 15:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is simply incorrect. I wrote the article myself, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the original content. The people who voted to delete the original article are entitled to their opinions, but listing a completely different article for deletion can hardly be held to violate their opinions; nor is disagreement per se any form of violation. --Tony SidawayTalk 15:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Facts:
        • 1st line (first two lines of original): Started by two guys from Gamespot.
        • 2nd line (first and second paragraph of original): For banned users form Gamespot.
        • 3rd line (Only sentence in third paragraph of original): Expanded in summer 2005.
        • Last line (Remaining two paragraphs of original): Now features...
      • This is a recreation of the original - down to the order of the information presented. - Tεxτurε 15:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fact: I wrote the current article. I did not read the previous article. Please stop falsely claiming that the article is a recreation. It is not. --Tony SidawayTalk 21:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have no opinion on whether the content is the same as the old article or not. However, based on current content, I see no significance or verifiability. Friday (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB, previous VfD, and ongoing VfU discussion, which are nearly unanimous delete/keep deleted. Content is "new" in the sense that it's a summarization of the previously-deleted content (whether it was intended that way by Tony or not), and I fail to see which circumstances have changed – Alexa of 470,884 doesn't indicate any significant increase in popularity. android79 15:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, resonably popular gaming website, similar to IGN and Gamespot which are both accorded entries.Gateman1997 16:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alexa comparisons for systemwars.com vs. gamespot.com and vs. ign.com. android79 16:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for the information. My vote stands as I don't use Alexa when choosing "keep" or "delete", but if you want to you'll notice it has gone up over 250,000 Alexa points since the last VFD.Gateman1997 16:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Which still makes it around 366,000 notches lower than ChampCarFanatics.com, an auto racing forum with 2,200 users that is not encyclopedic either. FCYTravis 21:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • ChampCarFanatics.com is a forum, not a website. There is a difference.Gateman1997 21:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Wrong, it's also a "racing news" Web site. But it's still not notable. FCYTravis 22:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - first it was blue, then redlink, now blue again. Admins on delete/undelete wars again - bad, bad, bad, bad, bad. Leave it here for processing - or delete and send to VfU - I don't care. But knock it off! --Doc (?) 18:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedily delete via G4. If the recreation is as similar to the original as Texture suggests, Geogre's action in speedily deleting the recreation is appropriate per the deletion policy and the criteria for speedy deletion. It should be noted that to overcome the "substantially identical copy" clause of G4, a recreation must address those features of the original that were felt to be in contravention of WP policies and guidelines in the first place. The original version of this article was validly deleted via VfD principally because it so lacked notability (to use that much-maligned word) that it did not have independent sources that would adequately meet the verifiability requirements of this encyclopedia. WP:V, the heart and soul of an encyclopedia and one of WP's great trinity, regretably also appears to be the most ignored WP policy. To quote from that repository of good sense:
One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher...
For an encyclopedia, sources should be unimpeachable. An encyclopedia is not primary source material. Its authors do not conduct interviews or perform original research. Therefore, anything we include should have been published in the records, reportage, research, or studies of other reputable sources...
Subjects which have never been written about in published sources, or which have only been written about in sources of doubtful credibility should not be included in Wikipedia. One of the reasons for this policy is the difficulty of verifying the information.
Not only does this article lack any such sources, no reason is given for us to believe that such sources might be available. It is useful to ask the following questions whenever one contemplates writing a WP article. Has someone written a paper on this subject (ie. in this case, the website "Systemwars.com")? Has it been the focus of a thesis or newspaper or journal or magazine report (even an online one)? Is it the subject of a book or a book chapter? If it is, the source should be provided and the contents of the article should state (only) what is verifiable per that source. But, if there are no sources, the article goes. WP:ISNOT a receptacle for unverified claims. It is not a collection of weblinks appended to blurbs. It is not the place for original research and claims. It is an encyclopedia.—encephalon 18:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • NB. It has sometimes been suggested to me that linking a website which is the subject of the article will suffice for WP:V. This represents a profound misunderstanding of WP:V and WP:NOR. The reason that one is required to have independent, reputable sources for WP articles is that these sources represent the primary research and peer review that WP simply cannot do on its own. WP cannot conduct interviews. It cannot perform investigations to determine whether the claims people make on websites are true. It has no body of professional experts to peer-review and endorse its articles. It relies for all this on what is already published by organizations that can do all this. One cannot write the claim "Systemwars.com quickly grew its board to include 1000 members, and provide no source for it except a link to that very website. That would be like me claiming "My pet dog is the smartest dog on earth", and providing a link to my website which says "my pet dog is the smartest dog on earth." Now it may very well be true that the website has 1000 members and that my pet dog really is the smartest dog on earth, but to determine that without independent sources, WP would have to engage in original research—which we cannot do. That is why we need independent sources, whether we're writing about William Shakespeare, asthma, or quantum mechanics. Or Systemwars.com.—encephalon 18:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. verifiability problem. No third-party reputable references to reviews provided, i.e., looks like original research, insufficient to espablish notability. mikka (t) 18:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unverifiable and non-notable. Forums with 1,000 users and Alexa rankings with six digits are not notable. FCYTravis 18:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as re-creation (per Texture's research). Protect from re-creation per overwhelming consensus on VfU to keep this deleted. The VfU debate is still current, by the way: Wikipedia:Votes_for_undeletion#Systemwars.com and this article should not have been re-created. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not nearly as popular as Gamespot and IGN Pilatus 19:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete and keep deleted. Well-written but totally non-notable. The version that I had deleted was a bunch of blathering "leet-speak." Other similar and equally non-notable versions followed. Changing to abstain, leaning toward keep. I was unaware that a respected user was responsible for the current edit. Sorry, 'bout that, Tony (blush). - Lucky 6.9 20:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • So if I, as a "respected user" and administrator create an article on My Sock Collection, you would judge its notability differently than you would an article on an anonymous user's sock collection? Someone's length of service to Wikipedia should have no bearing whatsoever on judgements of notability, verifiability and encyclopedicity. FCYTravis 21:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have to agree with FCYTravis. The contributor's status has nothing to do with the article in question being 1) currently discussed on VfU 2) a recreation of content deleted by consensus on VfD and 3) not notable in its own right. Have you retracted your opinion that it is "totally non-notable" based on finding that the target of your blush recreated the original content? - Tεxτurε 21:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still delete. Frankly, it should have been deleted the first time... Sasquatcht|c 22:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was deleted the first time. So Delete. Again. And this time, when Deletion Review says, "Endorse decision, keep deleted," bloody well keep deleted unless it is actually a new article. - brenneman(t)(c) 23:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Demonic "Fantasy"[edit]

To me, this looks like a common sense speedy. This is a POV rant who's purpose is to disparage a couple of books. However it's been tagged a couple times as such, and not yet been deleted. Possibly due to the author repeatedly removing the delete tag. Anyway, I'll bring it here just to be thorough. Friday (talk) 16:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - having read the article, I would tend to agree with your appraisal. This comes under my definition of original research, and as you rightly said, appears to be intentionally disparaging of the things it cites as examples, not to mention being very POV too. Rob Church Talk 16:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, obviously. Marskell 16:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete cannot be made NPOV. "...things that true Christians should stay away from." sounds very judgmental. Also includes accusation of author being "a practicer of demonology". Only edits by unregistered user. WCFrancis 16:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy as page creation vandalism.--Isotope23 17:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hopelessly POV. TexasAndroid 20:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as inherently POV and OR. MCB 22:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Ryan Norton T | @ | C 23:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Hawkins[edit]

Tagged as an nn-bio speedy, but it has a claim of notability of sorts (whether it's true is another matter) no vote. --Doc (?) 16:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please beware, this afd has been subject to vote tampering. --Doc (?) 21:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Google doesn't seem very interested in him. From what I can see, a non-notable actor. --Ashenai (talk) 16:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity. Friday (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (pref. speedy, I flagged such as the "mayor emeritus of centrewhatever" is patently false w/ 0 google hits) — Lomn | Talk / RfC 17:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not speediable, by my reading of the WP:CSD. There is some kind of assertion of notability here. It may well be false, but it is not 'patently false' (on the level of 'is the King of Europe') - it requires some research, and the place for that is here. --Doc (?) 17:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, evidence has not been provided for the claims in the article. --Metropolitan90 18:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is actually speedyable as patent nonsense: there is no such place as "Forestnbushes, Ontario", and there is no such institution as "Low-Grade Carleton University"; both of those are sarcastic putdowns of the actual locations. This part is skirting the edge of reading like an attack: "He admires the wonders of communism and collectivism and at the same time he refuses to give up his pro-capitalism job at the second largest national bank or to move to a country that supports such ideology." I suppose it's possible that Deep River has Canada's only unionized Scotiabank, but it's not easily verifiable. I'll let the Ottawa contingent weigh in on whether there's any such thing as "Mayor Emeritus of Centretown", but I find it hard to believe that anyone needs Centretown News to explain that Centretown has a large LGBT community; Wikipedia's own Bank Street article does that just fine. Bearcat 19:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the article is rubbish, and should be deleted. But it is not even close to the patent nonsense criterion (and I'm not adverse to interpreting CSD fairly liberaly). Is this article one of no meaningful content or history, text unsalvageably incoherent (e.g., random characters)? No! 'Patent' means 'blindingly obvious' - not 'obvious to somone with some knowledge of the subject/area' or 'obvious after a little googling'. (And attack criteron requires short articles that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject, it is hardly that. --Doc (?) 21:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd consider it blindingly obvious that no Canadian university has "Low-Grade" in its name, but YMMV, I suppose. Bearcat 23:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, article is of zero value whatsoever. Mayor emeritus of Centretown? Please. Looks to me like he wrote it himself. -Joshuapaquin 01:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, looks like content was tampered with, have done modifications
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. There are extremely many unsigned votes by users with very new accounts. Because of this I suspect sockpuppetry intended at casting multiple votes. AFD voters should be aware that such votes are usually discounted as done here. Among the legitimate votes, there is a clear consensus to delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Able and Baker[edit]

A page for Able and Baker, the first 2 animals to survive space flight? Up for deletion? No. A webcomic of the same name, found here. Alexa gives back a rank of over 1 million for the website on which it is hosted. And a google search shows up no assertion of notability for the website. - Hahnchen 16:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Able and Baker has nearly 400 comics and updates nearly daily. Wikipedia can serve as a guide for attracting and educating new readers. Without wide support for the arts, they are destine to fail. MokangoShabantu
    • Wikipedia is not guide for attracting and educating new readers. Longevity does not equal notability. - Hahnchen 16:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • MokangoShabantu has 6 edits, all but one on this AfD page. -- SCZenz 00:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn webcomic. MCB 22:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, again, as a webcomic of little impact and importance. If a webcomic is going to fail because it's not on Wikipedia, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia: Wikipedia is not the place to advertise or evangelize webcomics. Might I suggest Comixpedia if you want to do that? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 23:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What purpose does it serve to delete this entry? Able and Baker's entry was not made to plug the webcomic, nor was it made out of sheer fandom.The article was not made to help the webcomic from failing, in fact quite the contrary is true. Able and Baker's entry was made to provide information on a webcomic that is beginning to become very popular. It is completely informative in nature and should stay. SenatorVidal
    • SenatorVidal has 3 edits, all on this AfD page. -- SCZenz 00:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn webcomic. Dragonfiend 12:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Belongs to a major webcomic group and is gaining great popularity. Relevant and informative. Jim Burgess is a respectable webcomic artist and an esteemed member of Dayfree Press.
    • Unsigned. -- SCZenz 00:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Contrary to what Hahnchen says, a Google search does not dictate life. Keep the entry.
    • Unsigned. -- SCZenz 00:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a big-time strip, which shows that Alexa really is no judge for notability. And before someone brings out that 'sockpuppet' garbage again, there is no evidence of that here. Jim has not mentioned this page at all, so all the votes should count. -- Hijamiefans
  • Keep Contrary to what Hahnchen says, a Google search does not dictate life (if it did I would be a famous cricketer/painter/writer). Keep the entry. MrDaveS
    • User has 4 edits! -- SCZenz 01:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Actually, if you do a Google Search for Able and Baker, the first search result is Jim Burgess's site, so I don't know why you try to argue that "a google search shows up no assertion of notability for the website." SenatorVidal
    • SenatorVidal's second vote. User has only 3 edits, all on this page. -- SCZenz 01:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This page is supplmental information to the existing Dayfree Press page.
  • Keep Size is no assertion of quality, the cartoon is well written adn thought out, generally quite high-brow. It is unique amongst web comics for its style and content. I take it you wish to delete Betamax from the Wikipedia for not being as big as VHS? It does suprise me how small minded some people are? Are comics not a work of expressive art? I read a lot of Webcomics regularly, but this is the only one I can get friends and family to read or be interested in. Sport Monkey (www.sport-monkey.com)
    • We've had our fair amount of analogies on these threads, and that is by far the worst. What about this? "I take it you wish to delete Thimbleberry Drive, because it's not as wide or as well travelled as the M1?" Yes! - Hahnchen 14:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I'm not making an analogy of such ilk. And for you to think you are somehow better than me is offensive. We are not talking about comparing roads, but art, shoud I say delete Damien Hurst because I just don't get it? You are a little child who wants his own way and I don't see why starting an argument on this is fair to anyone. Grow up son.
        • How have I offended you? Have I claimed that I am a whole lot "better" than someone I don't know. Just as you have no idea who I am? Comparing roads to art? You compared art to betamax, I was just drawing a parallel with your broken argument. I don't get a lot of stuff that Tracey Emin does, by don't get, I mean, I think it's crap. I'm not going to delete that though, just because I don't like it. I nominated Able and Baker, because I don't think its notable. So far, the only establishment of notability, is that it is on the Dayfree Press network, is google rank number 1 for its own name (how is this notable?) and is mentioned once by the creator of dayfree press. To me, this isn't notability. Just as a local artist being mentioned in the local Hammersmith Daily News is not notability. - Hahnchen 17:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The keep vote above isn't actually signed! -- SCZenz 01:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC) <--Actually, it is signed by 'Sport Monkey'.--Tedzsee 07:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks Tedzsee, not really sure how this works Sport Monkey
        • User:Sport Monkey appears to be a new/non-existent account, with zero edits. I know you're not really sure how this works, but I don't know what to tell you except that a contentious Vote for Deletion is a very, very difficult place to start learning Wikipedia procedures. Wikipedia is a community, with its own ways of doing things; please see Wikipedia:Welcome if you want some suggestions on how to get going here. -- SCZenz 23:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Honestly, does this give you your excitement for the day? The comic Able & Baker is well known, intelligent and informative. And neither is the article an attempt to draw attention to the comic, it is simply contributing to the store of information that is Wikipedia. Now leave it alone, I'm sure you can get your malicious enjoyment in your generally boring life elsewhere. -Tao
    • Not actually signed! -- SCZenz 01:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Wikipedia page was developed by the FANS of Able and Baker- a lot of them. I think that gives the web comic a lot of worth and credibility. Besides, it's intelligent and hilarious! (The page was NOT put up as advertisement by the creator.)
    • Unsigned. -- SCZenz 01:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Able and Baker is a well known comic as it is part of the Dayfree Press. What more evidence do you need?
    • Unsigned. -- SCZenz 01:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well known comic and very active member of Dayfree Press - if not kept as a seperate article then should be combined with the Dayfree Press entry
    • Unsigned. -- SCZenz 01:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Regardless of the comic's artistic merit, which is obviously subjective, how does this article meet the criteria for deletion? I have yet to see someone make an actual case for deletion other than itisawebcomicwebcomicsbad. -Rehj
    • Not actually signed! -- SCZenz 01:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Comics are just as important as a bunch of other things that are on this site. Just because you don't know anything about it doesn't mean it's not important enough to belong.
    • Unsigned. -- SCZenz 01:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just because it is a web comic does not mean that it isn't notable enough to be on wikipedia, give up on your crusade -Chickendude
  • Keep Good comic and it is nice to have information on it - CC
    • Not actually signed! -- SCZenz 01:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a good comic, and, unless it is in imminent danger ofstopping production of new comics, I see no reason to remove it. - Rabek Jeris
    • User has 3 edits. -- SCZenz 01:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Great comic. One of the best.
    • Unsigned. -- SCZenz 01:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Freedom of speech. Its a non profit making well written cartoon. Does Jim Burgess have to be part of the controlled press to be worthy of a mention? Mind you then he wouldn't be able to speak his mind because papers censor even the cartoons.
    • Unsigned. -- SCZenz 01:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Funny, didn't we just have this argument over at this page? Seems like Hahnchen is just going around and flagging a bunch of comics he's never heard of but a lot of other people have... unfortunately, in the former case, the author of the comic seems to have made a PR error by posting a link to the AfD and generated a backlash from the Wikipedian community... wait a second! So has Burgess! I quoth from the Able and Baker website:
Also: Wikipedia is trying to destroy your hard work! Readers put together such a badass page and now it is up for deletion! Go tell them what you think.
Now, why is it that one comic creator can do this and have no wikipedian backlash while another cannot? I'm going to propose a few thoughts:
  1. both these AfDs prove the utter uselessness of Alexa in determining a comic's popularity.
  2. both of these comics have been around for a long time and have rather huge archives. They both unquestioningly meet proposal B and their non-compliance with the regular proposal is questionable at best.
  3. I'm not going to use this page to refight another comic's AfD, but I will say this: Hahnchen, why don't you just lay off with the deletion votes? You obviously don't really know what you're talking about. Both this comic and the previous one have connections with Dayfree Press which, if you are unaware, is a rather large comic-publishing page. Both have readers who have been spamming their votes for deletion pages. But guess what? That means that they're both well-read. What's next?

EDIT: I FORGOT TO SIGN MY COMMENT: --Tedzsee 18:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - As said plenty of times before: part of a major Web comic organization (Dayfree Press), Updates every day, and if someone types in "Able and Baker" in Google and clicks on "I'm feeling lucky" they will be directed to the Website with the comic. And Alex rank is determined by users who choose to install a piece of spyware onto their machine. — Kjammer ⌂ 23:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Who IS Hahnchen, and what does he have against good comics? P.S. Stop using Alexa. Also, STOP USING ALEXA. --SuperHappy 02:37, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What he has a desire to have a uniform standard of what is "encyclopediac material" on Wikipedia. We don't have articles about every band, and likewise we shouldn't have articles on every comic. -- SCZenz 01:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - What I wanna know is - if A&B go, will QC go? (because it's smutty and has gay references, obviously.) White Ninja? (Because that's obviously not art) What about all the other Dayfree Press comics, will they go? (Because what is art, when you really think about it...) The entry on Dayfree Press itself? I mean, if I stumbled accross the page on Dayfree, I'd want to see what each of their comics are about - if one isn't there, then it's obviously not Dayfree, right?

PS I'm not a huge fan of A&B, I just don't see the point in having deadlinks and confused people all over Wikipedia. - Opinionated. 16:20, 9 October 2005 (GMT+12)

    • Not actually signed! -- SCZenz 01:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - why dont we go a step further and delete every single webcomic out there, because, if it isint on paper it CAN'T POSSIBLY be notable. </sarcasim> -Chickendude
  • Comment - "This webcomic is good!" is not an argument to keep. These webcomics are not being nominated for deletion because anyone thinks they suck or because of any other judgement call based on quality; they are being nominated for deletion because they are not encyclopedic subjects. If you're coming here because of a link from Jamie or this webcomic's creator (hey, Josh, surprised to see you here), instead of "voting" (and I assure you, this isn't a democratic election) I suggest you please establish newsworthiness or notability, or become resigned to the fact that this article is probably going to be transfered from Wikipedia to Comixpedia, where this sort of article belongs in the first place. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 03:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 1) Jamie did not send people here. This is not Jamie's comic so the above comment is unwarrented. 2) Why does this article belong on Comixpedia and not Wikipedia? That is what I don't understand. If a comic meets all the Proposal 2 definitions and is not compliant with Alexa, does that mean it gets the boot automatically? Case and Point: Let me show you how flawed Alexa rankings are!!!
My own comic, "8 1/2 by Eleven" publishes at http://www.lucastds.com/webcomic. According to Alexa, my site ranking is 334,578. That's actually pretty close to my comic being accepted as a noteworthy article by Wikipedia!! How deceiving is that ranking? Hmm... let's see! I'd venture to guess that Most People have not even ever heard of my comic. I've got about 500 readers a week. I'd bet anything that Able and Baker, which is WAY more respected in the webcartooning community than I am and is a member of Dayfree Press for goodness sake (which most people admit they must have heard of) has more readers than me. And yet, with a few more American Internet Explorer users reading my comic, I could warrant an entry in Wikipedia while Able and Baker can't. Able and Baker is SOMEHOW way farther down on the Alexa rankings. Who knows why? And you're wondering why this system is absurd to me? Please, someone create an encyclopedia entry about my comic!! The AfD would be hard to prove on that one, even though no one in the webcomic community has even heard of my comic. If my unknown comic could make it into Wikipedia, and Hahnchen couldn't pull a delete on it because my glorious-all-bow-to-the-worshipfullness-Alexa-rating... oh man, that would make my day. *shakes head in disgust and walks away* --Tedzsee 04:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commentin reply to a ma in black's comment, Since when is it up to you and the five people you ask to vote for it to be deleted to say something isin't noteable? how is it that you are warrented to say that something isint encyclopedic?

in my opinion something like the messed up landing gear on that jet bue flight isin't encyclopedic, or noteable, but it's not up to me now is it? -[chickendude]

  • Keep I say keep the article. I don't see how it's advertising itself or violating any criteria for deletion. Bravado 06:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Establishing Notability... just reread A Man in Blacks "comment"... which in fact wasn't a comment at all, but a derisive note about how much he thinks this comic is non-notable. He might as well have placed a vote against the comic with that comment. Apparently, being a Dayfree Press member isn't notable enough for him... just as Built for Comfort wasn't notable despite being mentioned on Phil Kahn's reading list etc etc.

What counts as notability in the case of Able and Baker, then? Just an Alexa rating? Does being mentioned on Comixpedia's List of 25 people in webcomics 2004 give Able and Baker notability? Who knows. Apparently Alexa is the only thing that counts for notability around here. But then again, apparently Wikipedia editors don't consider rational arguments at all, and instead make derisive comments about comics despite a huge public outpour against deletion and several repeated comments establishing the notability of these comics that Hahnchen seems to enjoy putting up for deletion so much. You all smirk and say that Comixpedia.org is where these articles "belong" despite having tonnes of people coming here to say contrary. I'll agree that the Able and Baker article needs to be fleshed out a bit more. But give these articles a chance to grow... deleting them is not the answer.--Tedzsee 07:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • A one line mention by the dayfree press creator in a list of 25 people in 2004 is not notable. Huge public outpoor, how many websites out there cannot manage a "huge" public outpoor. Any forum with what 30 active members could contribute to a huge public outpoor. And a reply to some other posts made about me above, since when have any of my arguments been, this webcomic is rubbish, let's delete it because I don't like it. The reason for the my nomination is lack of notability, I don't just nominate randomly. For example, I didn't nominate Venus Envy a keenspace comic, because Google shows up some mention in the outside world. But in my eyes, just being part of a online comics group just isn't notable enough. And I've been accused of an over reliance on Alexa. You're right Tedzsee, I wouldn't nominate a comic with your ranking, because I know Alexa to be inaccurate. But I also know, that a reasonably popular website, no matter what kind, would have an Alexa ranking less than 1 million. I wouldn't put it past me, for some lame webcomic readers to install Alexa just to rank up their comic now :( - Hahnchen 17:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The entry serves as an educational point for those who want to know what "Able and Baker" is. There is no use in deleting it, apart from removing knowledge from the wikipedia (which is contrary to the wikipedia cause)
    • Unsigned! -- SCZenz 01:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no reason why this should be deleted. It's a long running, consistently put out webcomic that is growing in size and stature every day.
  • Gosh, that's a lot of unsigned votes. Delete: does not meet notability guidelines. -Sean Curtin 19:16, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you are saying that we as Wikipedia Users must have an account to have an opinion counted? Plus it meets both alternative guidelines.
      • Actually, if that weren't the case, we couldn't have any sort of accurate reflection of votes, unsigned user. -- SCZenz 00:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no reason to get rid of this article. Even if it were smaller than it is and had only two readers, then removing the article from Wiki would serve no purpose other than to take knowledge away. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such a place to gather knowledge, not to remove it. --Awash With Blood 22:18, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • User's first edit. -- SCZenz 00:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, it is my first edit. That makes no difference. Go read the policy on not biting the newcomers and stop being an elitist --69.175.129.113 05:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • It makes a difference, in that all of the users who arrived just because of this AfD are impossible to tell apart from sockpuppets. I noted all the "first edit" stuff before I realized you were all likely separate people, sent straight from the comic. But the information is still useful to whoever closes this AfD and has to decide whether it's appropriate to count votes of users who have shown up only for this vote (I'm not quite sure myself). I am mindful of WP:BITE, and have gone to great lengths to explain myself and wikipedia practices below. -- SCZenz 07:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN. Many of the votes are unsigned, and at least some of the redlinked users have no edits except on this article and this AfD. I hope somebody sorts this out! -- SCZenz 23:50, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've tried to do so, for the use of whoever closes this vote. -- SCZenz 01:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • deleting all the comments is not sorting it out, also, the unsigned votes represents the fanbase that hasent botherd to sign up. or, in my case, may just be their first edit with an account(on the bfc afd page). btw, i did sign it. i am a user, unlike what you stated above
      • i'm going to leave this unsigned just to piss you off
        • Hi Chickendude. I figured out what was going on only after I did all the sorting. The trouble is that many fans, sent to personally secure the future of their webcomic's article, are impossible to tell from a bunch of sock puppets. Since we are editing an encyclopedia, we usually require people to have a general involvement in Wikipedia (as evidenced by having made edits aside from narrow, recent interest in one article) in order to make decisions about what is and isn't encyclopediac. Please understand we are not attacking you or the comic, we're just trying to be consistent about what websites are and are not going to be included in the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a catalogue of webcomics, or any other kind of website. You might look also at the comment I wrote on User_talk:SuperHappy, and consider the invitation for further discussion to extend to you as well. -- SCZenz 04:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • As for you being a user, I stand corrected and have noted it above. To sign your name, please write: ~~~~ at the end of your entry. -- SCZenz 04:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reply "A one line mention by the dayfree press creator in a list of 25 people in 2004 is not notable" <-- How is it not notable? Do you realize the source I am quoting is Comixpedia? Comixpedia is one of the most respected SOURCES of webcomic's journalism... Along with Digital Strips, Phil Kahn, the Webcomics Examiner and Websnark, it is basically the pillar of webcomics journalism. If you don't know that, and don't realize that being mentioned in an article by them is enough to make the comic notable, than I suggest you don't even bother voting in debates like this! As for Hahnchen's remark that an article about my comic wouldn't be deleted because my Alexa number is respectable, I can only laugh now! Someone please create an article about my comic. What a riot! Let's delete Able and Baker and throw up articles about purely random subjects with good Alexa ratings! Tedzsee 05:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the preview button to make sure your comments fit into the flow of the page. The situation here is getting quite confusing! -- SCZenz 05:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Today, Able and Baker was linked to by Questionable Content in a completely unrelated-to-this-deletion-debate link. I still don't understand what constitutes this mysterious "notability" in the eyes of Wikipedia editors...
  1. This comic has a dedicated fan base.
  2. This comic is mentioned by a top webcomic journal.
  3. This comic has huge archives and has been updating for several years.
  4. This comic is a member of Dayfree Press, which is represented at every major webcomic convention.
  5. This comic is linked to by a site with an Alexa rating of under 20,000.
However, because this comic does not have an Alexa rating of under 200,000 itself, it is seen as non-notable. I don't understand the logic!! Tedzsee 05:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Some possible responses to think about:
  1. Doesn't it matter how big the fan base is? How can we tell that? (I'm asking the latter literally--can you suggest a good way to tell, besides Alexa?)
  2. Top webcomic journal? That's not quite a newspaper, is it? It's about webcomics, so of course it will discuss many webcomics; more even, perhaps, than Wikipedia should have.
  3. Lots of people have been doing lots of things for several years. I respect all of them, especially those who do things like writing a comic that require skills I'll never have. But still, is this notable in and of itself?
  4. Dayfree Press might be notable on its own; that doesn't necessarily mean all its members should have separate articles.
  5. Again, having a link from a notable site doesn't mean notability. It ought to depend on context, I think?
To use an analogy, let me talk about something that doesn't deserve a Wikipedia article: me. However, I can say:
  1. My name appears on the National Science Foundation website, and the Annals of Improbable Research website, both of which I'm confident have excellent webtraffic ratings.
  2. I have done physics research, day in and day out, for a number of years. All of this is documented and verifiable.
  3. I am a member of the A Toroidal LHC ApparatuS collaboration, which is funded by several dozen countries to the tune of at least $500 Million.
But still, I'm not notable at all! Should the standards for inclusion of webcomics be more lenient than those for people? Or those for music?
Perhaps the issue is that "notable for a webcomic" is a different standard than "notable for a general encyclopedia"--which is why there's a wiki site just for comics now. Please understand none of this is an attack on this comic in particular, it is part of a larger discussion on how many webcomics should be documented in the encyclopedia. (See WP:COMIC.) -- SCZenz 06:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See, this is part of the problem. Being NOTABLE FOR A WEBCOMIC doesn't require that much. Webcomicking is a pretty small community. And, unfortunately for staunch Wikipedians, as their popularity picks up, I think that Wikipedia is going to face an increasing challenge regarding what sort of comics are seen as noteworthy. The main problem, however, is that Wikipedia's policy concerning webcomics is REALLY REALLY REALLY iffy. Able and Baker definitely meets both Alternate Proposals no prob. By association and notability in the webcomics community, it could be argued that the comic meets Proposal A as well, in a way. Really, the problem is with Wikipedia's policy. And I figure, until the policy gets sorted out in a firm manner, a campaign to simply oust every webcomic article deemed to be hangnails should be stopped. I'm not saying that you're attacking any particular comic, but I am saying that what is going on here really, in a way, contravenes the spirit of Wikipedia. As found on the talk page of webcomics, inclusion in NOTABLE collectives such as Dayfree Press and winners of awards and such are probably a good place to start with expanding Notability to something "based on something other than popularity or longevity". In the meantime, deleting possibly-notable comics while such bickering is going on seems to be rather sketch.
Also, it should be noted that mention in Websnark or Digital Strips or Comixpedia.com is rather like being mentioned in a top music mag in comparison. In terms of webcomic notability, it definitely a big plus. Whether this counts for anything in a "general encyclopedia" is what is in question. However, as I said, if this encyclopedia is going to include webcomics at all, then it should include webcomics that are deemed noteworthy by the webcomicking community. And I think there's no question that this one is. --Tedzsee 07:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One other thing... the argument about YOU being non-notable is an interesting one. See the above discussion with Hahnchen comparing MY comic to the Able and Baker article to see the futility of using an Alexa-based system to verify the importance of a webcomic. According to Hahnchen, an article on my comic would be difficult to delete because of its Alexa ranking despite my comic not being notable at all in the webcomic community. It should be noted that if enough people undertook to write an article about your scientific research and work, and could back it up and connect you to the top names in the scientific community and you were working with those top names in some sort of collective, you might very well be notable if you had an effect on the small area of study that you were researching. Certainly, if you were cited by a top scientist (the way, say Able and Baker was linked to today by QC and mentioned in a list of 25 notables last year on Comixpedia and working with a collective such as Dayfree, I'm sure the argument could be made that you were notable in your community. This is essentially the argument that I am making. If that makes sense... --Tedzsee 07:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it isn't obvious, but the criteria at WP:COMIC are proposed, and the "alternate proposals" are not generally recognized as being workable by the community as a whole--see, for comparison, WP:MUSIC. The main proposal is no good either, because of problems with Alexa, but it aknowledges the important fact that a webcomic must have a verifiably exceptional readership base (if no other verifiable assertion of notability is given). Anyway, there are some regular wikipedia editors who feel that the most lenient proposals are appropriate, and they're the ones who work (and write their views) on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics. Consensus on this issue is still being built, though, so you can't take what anyone says as authority.
I do have to say that being in the top webcomic mag is a very different thing from being in a top music mag, based on basic things like total readership--my point is precisely that only the most notable webcomics meet the general Wikipedia notability criteria.
As for criteria based on things other than popularity or longevity, I'd love to hear them! What I've thought of so far is at User:SCZenz/Webcomics; if you have more ideas please tell me on mytalk page. -- SCZenz 07:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC) (above written before "one more thing", posted after due to edit conflict)[reply]
We need to work to figure out the relationship between notability in the webcomic community, and notability in the broader wikipedia--it seems clear that we disagree at the moment. -- SCZenz 07:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow...you know, I never thought it would be possible for an AfD to be more untidy than the BFC one. Then I saw this.
    • Yes, amazing isn't it. Tedszee mentioned it up above, but one of Able and Baker's claim to fame is being mentioned in a top 25 list. Can I clarify that it was mentioned once in passing, and the actual top 25 list was referring to the founder of the Dayfree Press, who just said that Able and Baker was a new cartoon. It has been compared to being mentioned in a music magazine, that does not make it notable. How many bands have been mentioned in music magazines that no one will ever hear about, and no one will be influenced by? How many bands have had their recordings played once or twice on the late John Peel's show at 1am in the morning? What about all the unsigned bands which get a song or 2 onto XFM? Being a member of the Dayfree Press does not mean instant notability, the comics should be assessed one by one, and assert it's own notability. Just as a band on the same record label as Moby doesn't mean it's instantly notable, and a book published by the same company which publishes Harry Potter isn't notable. - Hahnchen 14:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hanchen's attempt to get another point in nonwithstanding, what happened is that the comic in question linked directly to this AfD page, and told everyone to "come tell them what you think." Thus we had a bunch of newbies who looked like sockpuppets to me, so I noted them. Then, when I realized my "mistake" (I still think the info is useful), I tried to explain what was going on to the newbies actively editing the page. I've done the best I could... :P -- SCZenz 14:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn, and in any case websites and webcomics shouldn't be given the slightest hope that they get their own ego-boosting articles on Wikipedia kept by rounding up all their supporters and sending them directly to vote the VfD--it shouldn't even come up. --Aquillion 21:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gravenhurst (webcomic)[edit]

I can't speedy this can I? Non notable webcomic, all of 4 pages can be found here. No alexa rank. Author and "host" can be found below. - Hahnchen 16:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for lack of significance and verifiablity. Friday (talk) 16:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per above. — brighterorange (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's superbly illustrated and will clearly be gaining in popularity. Maybe I jumped the gun, but it'll need a page soon enough. Osgoodelawyer 17:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete When it needs a page, let's give it a page. Until then WP is not a crystal ball. Dlyons493 Talk 21:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Dragonfiend 13:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Markle[edit]

Author of webcomic, above. - Hahnchen 16:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Inkz[edit]

Digital "community" of which the only thing seemingly hosted is the 4 page webcomic 2 entries above. - Hahnchen 16:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. MCB 22:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dragonfiend 12:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted --Doc (?) 21:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kelsey Frenk[edit]

Vanity page Bob Palin 16:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - as the nominator says. Rob Church Talk 17:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless there's some kind of media coverage of her invention, which seems unlikely. Kappa 17:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - as A7 JoJan 18:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as per WP:CSD A7 and nominator. Hall Monitor 18:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A7 (no claim on notability of person) doesn't apply due to the silly claim she "... invented tissue for handicapped children". Maybe G1(nonsense) though. Anyhow, as long as it's deleted, that's what counts. --rob 20:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedied - nn-bio, per WP:CSD the only claim to notability here was patently nonsensical --Doc (?) 21:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (thus keep). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Klickibunti[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary of German neologisms. Rob Church Talk 17:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since there's a parallel article which appears to have more cultural context than a simple dictionary entry, I thought that this computer jargon loan word might be a worthy article. *shrug* RickScott 17:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, If the Germans think it's an encylopedic concept I'll trust their judgement. Kappa 21:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or move to dictionary. For it to be a loan word, someone must have borrowed it in the first place and I don't see any evidence that English has. Also a linguistics stub is inappropriate and I'm going to remove that. If someone wants to transwiki the cultural context it might then become an article. Dlyons493 Talk 21:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:09, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What do you do with a Drunken Sailor[edit]

Doesn't really say anything about the song other than "it's a cool old song", and the lyrics are given as being a copyvio, except I don't think they're actually copyright of anyone. DS 17:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC) Impressive work by Capitalistroadster - vote changed to keep, and thus I think we can now close this debate. DS 12:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and clean up. Notable Sea shanty referred to in our article as "Drunken Sailor". Doubt if its a copyvio as this is a traditional song. Capitalistroadster 20:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the Roadster. Kappa 21:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The lyrics to "Drunken Sailor" are solidly in the public domain, there is no copyright violation. If that was the reason they were removed, they should be put back.
    • I think that the lyrics go to Wikisource, and a nice template box gets added to this article. Jkelly 21:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Capitalistroadster. Maybe move → Drunken Sailor. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-10-5 T 00:09:45 Z
  • Keep but move to Drunken Sailor. Many variations on the first line/title exist (I've always known it as "What shall we do with the...") Grutness...wha? 01:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to Drunken Sailor. Crypticfirefly 04:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move as above. Notable song with a long history, lyrics are unlikely to be copyvio (though it might not hurt to double-check this - Happy Birthday is still copyrighted for example). 23skidoo 04:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Have cleaned up the article. Should be moved to Drunken Sailor with redirect from "What shall we do with the Drunken Sailor" as per Grutness. Capitalistroadster 11:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Failing that, perhaps merge to sea shanty. --Jacquelyn Marie 16:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep (and move to Drunken Sailor). Weak, because the world is full of old songs, and because they're old they've picked up lots of performances, recordings, etc. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Move to Drunken Sailor, preserving the redirect. Jkelly 21:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move. Very famous song. The original was certainly deletable though (I love how anything having to do with old ships is automatically called "pirate" somethign or other). -R. fiend 18:28, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Tub With Eddie Trunk[edit]

Probable hoax. Search of Google as well as the VH1 Classic website finds no listing for this show. --Allen3 talk 17:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - if not a hoax, then it is non-notable JoJan 18:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if not verified. Merge to Eddie Trunk if it is real. Friday (talk) 22:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (thus keep). A merge might be in order, but it would make a fairly long article already. Anyway, this is a normal editorial decision that does not need action from an administrator. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Time Squad Episodes[edit]

That was a fun show... but not relevant enough to all its episodes have a page. Currently: Eli Whitney's Flesh Eating Mistake,Never Look a Trojan in the Gift Horse,The Island of Doctor Freud,Killing Time (Time Squad) and Day of the Larrys. igordebraga ≠ 17:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, per m:wiki is not paper. Kappa 21:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another show that havent last long and has episodes written about them in here. This is not TV.Com --JAranda | yeah 23:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a possibility, merge all the episodes into a single article, ie List of Time Squad Episodes. A brief description of each episode (1 or 2 small paragraphs) could be included, aling with the episode list from the main article. Saberwyn 00:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep episodes, as per precedent. Merge is also acceptable, depending on number of articles, but anyone would be welcome to split the merge if they added episodes and/or episodic content. Xoloz 15:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete as a combination of vanity and patent nonsense. Hall Monitor 18:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Siegel[edit]

vanity nonsense Uucp 17:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - as A1 JoJan 18:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken Out Rotisserie[edit]

advertizing

  • Delete - per nomination JoJan 17:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The topic itself strikes me as being notable enough for inclusion, so I'm inclined to give it a chance. But it needs to be rewritten and destubbed, pronto. – Seancdaug 19:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not advertising, 24 branches is enough for me. Kappa 20:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, fine stub, about a chain (not one location), no advertising-like information given. Xoloz 15:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as per Seancdaug. MCB 22:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

Ashida Kim[edit]

The result was keep. The actual discussion has been hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page..
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (thus keep). It seems sensible to me to merge the article with that of the band, Man in Gray, but I don't know the procedures for music in Wikipedia, and nobody mentioned this option. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No Day No Night[edit]

This is a relist of an article included in a lot of cleaup I was doing. Apparently I missed adding it on 9/23. -Ras

nn bandcruft. Delete. Finishing a cleanup of user's nn contribs.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 13:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Strong Keep Although I am not familiar with this band or this album, reviewing their links quickly demonstrates that they are verifiable and noted band with reviews in numerous alt-indie rock journals. The page could use some cleanup and I have added it to the Wiki Albums project. --Daniel Lotspeich 08:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete on 5 October 2005. Steel1943 (talk) 00:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doopa Yeah[edit]

The article doesn't seem to be about anything in particular (vandalism?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.240.188.192 (talk) 18:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Andrew Lenahan. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

M00nblade[edit]

Delete: nn forumcruft [[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] [[additions | e-mail]] 18:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And an insult page besides (now blanked by the original poster), already speedied once today. I'd suggest another speedy. --Dvyost 20:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have speedied it, as it actually met at least 3 different speedy criteria. It was an attack page, A7/nn and was blanked by its author. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Piss Drunx[edit]

Article does not establish notability. A group of friends that include some professional skaters (most of whom are not notable enought to have their own articles)? If this was a competative skating crew, or a producer of skating videos I'd leave it be, but based on the info in the article and the few references I was able to scrounge up, I'm nominating this for a Delete--Isotope23 19:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I see nothing verifiable here. Looks like vanity to me. Friday (talk) 22:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with above. After they publish the book of their exploits or get a pbs documentary (at least an NPR interview) lets talk...--Daniel Lotspeich 08:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete. Piss Drunx are world famous, they have produced the baker videos and recieved coverage worldwide in the skateboarding scene. All the skateboarders involved dont release/discuss piss drunx to the public much.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hawk-mo[edit]

Imaginary Haircut. I was very close to speedying under nonsense or nn, but I wanted to see what you all think. Karmafist 19:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete at normal speed This in no way fits any CSD criterion. It is, however, a dicdef, which wiki is not WP:ISNOT --CastAStone 20:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is referred to in the mohawk hairstyle as a "reverse mohawk". "Hawk-mo" is just silly. Punkmorten 20:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
-Punkmorten: I didn't see it in there, but I didn't check the article history.
-CastAStone: I disagree with you there, Websters barely put in "Chick Flick". Hawk-Mo is a neologism at best, jibberish at worst. Karmafist 22:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neologism, dicdef. And not imaginary: I shaved a strip front-to-back through my Afro when I was a hippie living in a house full of hardcore punks with traditional mohawks. Barno 18:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The haircut might have existed before, but did the phrase exist before? That's what I meant by imaginary -- i've heard it been called a "reverse mohawk" before. Karmafist 20:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, my friends used the terms "no-hawk" and "reverse mohawk", but never "hawk-mo". The term is imaginary, as is the need for this article, but the hairstyle itself is real (albeit non-notable). Barno 19:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DERI[edit]

First person advertising that reads like it was copied directly from a mission statement, with all the buzzwording and incomprehensibility that entails. Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete if it is nn, cleanup otherwise. it says "our", which for my money should never appear in an encyclopedia. --CastAStone 20:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyvio from [19]. I'd have put that on the article except for all the tags it already has. Dlyons493 Talk 21:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. I'm interpreting Jacquelyn's vote (merge with another wiki) as "delete from this wiki". Transwiki could perhaps be a possible if it had been specified where to transfer it to. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of key items in Final Fantasy[edit]

Article was created several months ago, out of the basically non-notable stub that comprises the sole entry to this day. In the intervening time, nothing has been added to the page, and nothing has emerged as deserving mention that wouldn't immediate set off even the most inclusive Wikipedian's fancruft alarm. There's no logical place to redirect the thing, and the only thing linking to it is the Slave Crown article it was created from. – Seancdaug 20:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, harmless, will be a place to merge any other key items that turn up. Kappa 20:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a place to list random information. Having a list of important video game items is not encyclopedic information and should be deleted. will381796 20:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not GameFAQs with wiki-abilities. --J. Nguyen 21:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 21:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the appropriate Final Fantasy game wikis. --Jacquelyn Marie 16:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If we really needed this, we could put it on the game's page. Kidicarus222 23:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Not sure that this should be usefied. If the author wants it, they can always just let me know. -Splashtalk 00:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jakal's Den[edit]

Delete - Podcast, no attempt to establish notability.--Isotope23 20:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not notable. Especially given that it is a high school student's pet project, and I am aware of hardly any notable high school students...or college students for that matter. will381796 21:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't DeleteI am a repected podcaster, and my post should not be deleted! User:Jakalsden 14:17, 5 October 2005
  • Userfy; this belongs on User:Jakalsden's personal User page, not in Article space. MCB 23:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 12:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"california driver"[edit]

Probably nonsense. A bit iffy 20:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely a neologism, and the internal references like "hollywood stop" are neologisms -- or at least they're generic across geographic areas (I might characterize Michigan drivers or Atlanta drivers in the same way). All that said, I think there's a potentially useful core in here for a bad driving article, which we don't seem to have. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 21:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Bad title. Here we call them "Calgary drivers", and it's an "Alberta stop". There's nothing unique to California here; this is pretty universal. Denni☯ 00:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete here we call them "Spokane drivers" - only difference is they drive half the speed limit for no good reason!!!!!!!11four *ducks* Ryan Norton T | @ | C 09:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nonesense. Bad drivers are in everystate.Rhetoricalwater 23:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Better to just have a bad driver article and mention that drivers from place 'a' call drivers from place 'b' "bad drivers." I've lived in CA, OR, OH, MD and everywhere I go there are bad drivers...--Daniel Lotspeich 08:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    * and we always called it a "california stop"
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Dulin[edit]

Vanity entry. The Daily Cougar is just University of Houston's student-run newspaper. What is next? We have to have bios for the present/pasteditors of the Texas college student newspapers, The Daily Texan, The Battalion, etc., J. Nguyen 20:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete Matt Dulin may well have an illustrious and notable career ahead of him, warranting a place in an encyclopedia. But this is not much of a claim to fame. Not crystal ball.--Daniel Lotspeich 08:45, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wiki is not a crystal ballMasterhatch 04:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Hermione1980My RfA 22:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pig 'N' Whistle[edit]

Not intended to be an article A bit iffy 20:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC) (PS: if you're the creator of the article, see Reference desk to ask a question.)--A bit iffy 21:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)In view of the rewrite by User:23skidoo, I now recommend keep, (or move to better-named article if more appropriate). --A bit iffy 04:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, expand, and cleanup a lot. If the NBC show Jesse gets a page, than this show does too. --CastAStone 22:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Legitimate TV show and no less worthy of an article than eTalk Daily. I'll expand it a bit. 24.71.223.140 01:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC) (vote actually by User:23skidoo - for some reason I got logged out).[reply]
    • Followup comment: I have rewritten the article to remove the first person content and make it a proper TV stub. Still needs to be categorized, plus it needs to be moved to The Pig and Whistle after the AFD is resolved (I don't know if we're allowed to move articles once they begin AFD). 23skidoo 02:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • We can, as long as we point the AFD to the new title. Bearcat 18:05, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; valid article topic. Kudos to 23skidoo for the cleanup. Bearcat 18:05, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep rewritten article. Mindmatrix 19:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (thus keep). Borderline case, two delete votes by well-established WPians (Willmcw and Friday) plus the implied by the nominator (also well established) plus ones by WinOne4TheGipper and anonymous contributors, against two weak keep votes. Keeping because of "when in doubt, don't delete". -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Burch[edit]

Vanity article, either delete or merge with USER:BenBurchuser page for Mr. Burch. Wikipedia:Vanity_page Dominick 18:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - seems to be a notable person, and notable people are eligible for articles. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 18:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see any real notability. Further, this page seems to be an attack page rather than a vanity. Either way, it serves little useful purpose. -Willmcw 19:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • !!!Delete it!!! - Ben is an admitted attention whore. Let him get his attention on DU and not waste Wikipedia's bandwidth on him.
    • What the heck is DU? --Daniel C. Boyer 20:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Democratic Underground where apparently Burch is a participant according to the article. --Metropolitan90 21:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • The history of this article contains text that expands upon who this person is, and I Googled some of that info to confirm. He's "notable enough" for an article, IMHO. He's not merely a DU participant. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 21:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The person is an unknown. It serves no purpose.
  • Very weak keep. Webmaster position barely, barely could provide excuse for notability. But I make this vote quite reluctantly, and article is in desperate need of expansion. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Little known person of zero importance. User:WinOne4TheGipper
  • Speedy as CSD:A7.Delete No assertion of notability that goes past what 10,000 other people have done with their lives.--Isotope23 21:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do not speedy because the article at least makes a claim of notability, and hence does not fall under A7.CastAStone 22:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Who the hell is this guy? His article seems to be simply a bunch of sentences on a prostitute enthusiast. I didn't realize paying for sex made someone notable...
      • Current version at least tries to establish notability. changing my vote.--Isotope23 00:05, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I reverted the article to a slightly better version, but it still offers little claim of notability. According to Alexa, the "traffic Rank for whiterosesociety.org: 118,696".[20] -Willmcw 22:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I see no real assertion of notability. There's also nothing verifiable. Friday (talk) 22:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE! The guy is a total perv and an attention whore....
  • Comment - Note please that I did not create this entry myself. This was created by somebody attempting to smear Democratic Underground by pointing out my sexworker's rights activism (which was written about in Salon long ago) and very "out" bisexuality. I have no opinion about whether this ought to be kept or not. Decide that on whatever you think the merits are. BenBurch 16:49, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mr. Burch, this also isn't directed at you. Most people would take it an insult to be told they are NOT notable. Thanks for not taking this personally, most people can see it is not. Dominick 13:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm about the least notable person I know, Dominick. I just try to get other people's voices heard. BenBurch 16:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Ryan Norton T | @ | C 00:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

St. Stephen's Society[edit]

Potentially notable organization (difficult to find in the press but seems sometimes referred to on Christian sites/webgroups}, but the article now is extremely POV and probably vanity, with few verifiable facts to pull out Dvyost 21:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no google news hits: [21] or [22]. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 02:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article does need rewrite, but it is a noteworthy organization.--Nicodemus75 20:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Hermione1980My RfA 22:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Durutti Column[edit]

Does this group meet the minimum requirements for listing? Nv8200p (talk) 21:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a good starting point would be for you to indicate what you think those minimum requirements are, and which of the "Problems that may require deletion" on Wikipedia:Deletion_policy you think apply in this case. The Durutti Column were, as the article says, an early act on a notable record label, associates of Joy Division and New Order, and have released recordings regularly over the last quarter-century, many of them on major record labels. Vini Reilly appeared in the film 24 Hour Party People, and was also portrayed in the film by an actor. The article could do with filling out, but not deleting. So that's a keep from me. --  ajn (talk) 22:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well-known music project, have many releases on significant record label (Factory). And just to be POV for a moment - fantastic music. What "minimum requirements" are you questioning? If it's WP:MUSIC, then Durutti Column most certainly meet these requirements. Cnwb 23:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - significant and widely regarded recording artist. Extraordinary nomination. Terwilliger 23:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per WP:music. According to the Allmusic.com article on this band [23] Vini Reilly worked with Morrissey on his 1988 album Viva Hate. Chris Joyce and Tony Bowers of the band later went on to play with Simply Red. Capitalistroadster 00:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does this group meet the minimum requirements - most definitely. Keep. Grutness...wha? 01:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Anything associated with early Factory Records meets "minimum requirements". Edwardian 02:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per everyone else. The Land 10:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, very well-known and historically significant band. Assuming good faith, I can only assume nomination was in error. MCB 23:05, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I obviously made a big mistake. Can we delist this one and call it a day? --Nv8200p (talk) 02:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Ryan Norton T | @ | C 07:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Carr & Richard Taylor[edit]

Aside from the peculiar title, and the fact that only one of the two people seems to be mentioned, there's nothing in the article to indicate why this person is (these people are) notable — or very much else (thought there's a vague but PoV encomium). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — to keep things clear. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. No encyclopedic value.Cpaliga 21:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Borderline Speedy for CSD:A7 as there is no real contention of notability in the article.--Isotope23 21:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete They're leaders of the Renewal Christian Centre in Solihull. While it may be marginally notable I don't see that they are. Article is unencyclopedaic anyway. Dlyons493 Talk 21:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if it had been searchable, I'd say redirect, but it's not. --Doc (?) 22:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can we at least wait a few more days to see if any information about Mr. Carr goes up to find out if he is notable? I doubt that he is, but it seems we should at least find out. Articles often take more than one post to put up in full. --CastAStone 22:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's got 5 days - --Doc (?) 22:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Current article is an unverifiable hagiography, plus a (broken) link. -- Sliggy 23:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(link now working) -- Sliggy 18:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Note: There was also consensus to delete Doeba, Preben Horhaest and bosseism. Carbonite | Talk 14:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Boozeboken[edit]

plus Doeba, Preben Horhaest and bosseism (last not yet written but likely to appear!). -- RHaworth 00:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Problem: Doesn't at all appear notable. Molotov (talk) 21:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Only one google hit: [24]Molotov (talk) 21:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And that one looks like a false positive. Ilmari Karonen 00:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all three/four. Hoax. -- RHaworth 00:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, unverifiable original research / hoax. Ilmari Karonen 00:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as per nomination. utcursch | talk 07:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Carbonite | Talk 14:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Norbu[edit]

Problem: Foreign dic def. Molotov (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dog Thesis Foundation[edit]

Non-notable and not verifiable. Delete.--Isotope23 21:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete Ryan Norton T | @ | C 00:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Octagon cyber cafe[edit]

plus two redirects.

non-notable local internet charity. DS 21:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Gentle delete. I live about 5 km from this cafe and I have to say it is not particularly notable in Croydon, let alone the rest of the world. -- RHaworth 11:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

The project seems to be a hub for the local community as it contributes to regeneration

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dustin Leggans[edit]

Another vanity article related to Ostensible, also up for deletion. Friday (talk) 22:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I object. Ostensible Magazine is a real magazine with a distribution of over 2,000. It has featured interviews with prominent musicians, scholars and artists. It has a website and it has even won the Aiko Underground Press award for best new publication in Tokyo in 2004. Though it is a sort of "vanity" to put in entries linking it's creators to it's main entry, certainly they all have a purpose together and certainly Ostensible deserves it's own page.

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Yanker[edit]

Either a hoax or an insult page. Joyous (talk) 22:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • speedy why didnt you use a nonsense tag? Dominick 22:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the author of America's Greatest Walks deserves better than this. User:Dlyons493|Dlyons493]] Talk 22:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as dicdef but not under G1. --CastAStone 22:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who speedied this and under what CSD?--CastAStone 22:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as an attack page. Why the **** is this still here?? Ilmari Karonen 23:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy deleted. Attack page. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Ryan Norton T | @ | C 00:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Alda[edit]

The source citation says that this material is taken from Francis Bacon's The New Atlantis. A search of an online edition of the work fails to find the words "Alda" or "Ramzez." I believe this to be a hoax, or the first recorded instance of Francis Bacon fanfic. Joyous (talk) 22:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete hoax. In addition to not finding it in Bacon. Google turns up 2 hits for "lord alda" [25], zero for "ramzez alda" [26], and zero for "ramzez of the alda" [27] --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 23:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Hakapu[edit]

Neologism whose only Google hits are because it's also a word in Maori. DS 22:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, definately a neologism. Good to be first I think - certainly it's a word I'll be taking on. Manley 08:28, 5 October 2005

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

The result of the debate was Delete Ryan Norton T | @ | C 08:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gamewreck[edit]

Delete: Fails WP:WEB. Alexa rank 4,907,400. No forum. No news entries on news.google.com. --Durin 22:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are welcome to continue to contribute to the article. --Durin 23:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: After 6 days this page is no more than an ad. -- Corvus 23:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with corvus and durin. --Daniel Lotspeich 08:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Durin. Zhatt 21:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep (No consensus). --Ryan Delaney talk 04:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ad Fontes[edit]

transwikied to wiktionary as ad fontes Mark Yen 23:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete (2d/0k/1dis) Ryan Norton T | @ | C 08:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars Uprising[edit]

I'm familiar with the MUSH community, and I've played this game, and it's not notable in the least. It's quite recent, not even done, and frequently has connection numbers in the single digits. It's also fairly fun, but that's not good enough for Wikipedia. Lord Bob 23:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete until completion and notability occur. Marskell 00:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Not sure who added it this time around, though this article was actually deleted once before for pretty much the same reasons. I'm the original creator of this particular MUSH, and don't really think it deserves to be here. It's not particularly recent (older than Wikipedia), but the other points stand. (Check previous delete page to see why this should be expediated) Tarison 03:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete (A7 speedy too) Ryan Norton T | @ | C 08:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don Hutson, motivational speaker[edit]

It's not an article Dlyons493 Talk 23:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Twelve children seems somewhat unlikely - especially with that unfortunate taste in neckties Dlyons493 Talk 23:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • [28]
  • The guy seems notable enough to merit an article, but none of the versions so far are salvageable. Delete and let some serious contributor recreate it. Ilmari Karonen 23:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete should have been speedied, just some huckster with some books and a fancy website if the article was good, but this is garbage(both the wife version and the vandalized version). Karmafist 20:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Does he also "live in a VAN down by the RIVER"? (R.I.P. Chris Farley). MCB 23:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems rather an unfortunate series of events rather than an article. I vote delete and let somebody else have a go at a better article if truly warranted.--Daniel Lotspeich 08:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Ryan Norton T | @ | C 08:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

La Ballade d' O[edit]

Apparently a review of a song, unrecoverable content - CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Agree. Poorly written. Cannot tell significance of song at all from reading this. --Daniel Lotspeich 18:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete (3d/0k/4dis) Ryan Norton T | @ | C 08:05, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Web2.1[edit]

Possible original research, only cite is a vague reference to Crossing the Chasm. Also Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Ilmari Karonen 23:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this actually reads as a subtle hoax. Marskell 00:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Google on article title shows results that are either totally unrelated to the content of the page, or amateur speculation. -Joshuapaquin 01:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You guys have gotta be kidding me, this guy goes and starts a counter conference for folks that can't afford to get their startups into Web2.0, get's linked from a whole bunch of well respected industry sites, gains a following, and you want to delete him? (preceding unsigned comment by 83.94.130.101 (talk · contribs) 01:56, 7 October 2005)
  • Delete The web 2.1 concept is interesting, and the conference is a great idea, but Wikipedia is not the place for proposals or speculation. This entry reads like a manifesto, not an encyclopedic article. If/when Web 2.1 becomes a generally accepted term, there will be a place for defining it in Wikipedia. Tertulia 13:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Without a widely accepted definition of what Web 2.0 was/is, that entry has existed quite a long time. I think the 65 or so people who will be attending the event and the sponsors who have put up thousands of dollars might think this was worthwhile of an entry. It allows for the domain experts to create a definitive place for the material on this subject matter. It may one day read that this was an idea whose time was soon eclipsed by Web 3.0, but for now it is the center of the discussion on what is next. Who decides when it becomes a generally accepted term? What level of domain expertise do those who want it deleted have in this area? (preceding unsigned comment by 64.172.63.164 (talk · contribs) 19:08, 7 October 2005)
  • Keep Web 2.1 is about people. It's a clearly distinct term from Web 2.0 which is primarily about technology and the tools that enable greater user control of content. Web 2.1 is the essential conversation that takes the tools the geeks of the world produce and makes them accessable to ordinary people, to let your grandmother enjoy the same ability to participate in this user-enabled world as her geek granddaughter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.10.38.190 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus (6d/4k/2dis) Ryan Norton T | @ | C 07:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Goth slang[edit]

POV; NOT dict 1, 2 & 3

  • Keep: I think slang terms fit in to wikipedia nicely. If someone searches for something they don't know what is, they at least get an awnser. But anyway: Don't delete, this article just need some work.
  • Delete: per talk page, also noting Wikipedia is neither a dictionary, lists of definitions, nor a slang guide. I will concede, however, that some of the terms should perhaps have pages of their own (subject to verifiability and NPOV) or be described directly in the Goth article, which is the only one pointing to the nominee. --Kgf0 23:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
addendum delete also for original research per principle anonymous contributer on Talk: "It is almost completely original research, drawn from thread topics on Goth Forums, where goths added their opinions." --Kgf0 19:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Most of what you list are articles about slang, and thus they belong, even if they include examples - the articles have meat beyond their lists. Drug slang and Hip hop slang are double redirects and should be fixed. Of the ones that are not articles, but are simply lists of slang terms, none have been up more than 7 months, and only Boston slang and Singapore gay terminology have been up more than 3 months - this leads me to believe that they simply have not yet been AfD'd. The latter I will AfD myself, since it wouldn't belong in an English language encyclopedia even if there was no list-of-slang policy. Of the remainder, Catholic Street slang (which, if kept, should be moved to Catholic street slang unless it is the slang used on Catholic Street), Baseball slang, Military slang, and Professional wrestling slang are the ones with short article histories that could conceivably be cleaned up enough to salvage as articles; there should be numerous sources on each of the last three, and a potential sociological angle on the first (remains to be seen if that can be done without violating WP:NOR. Canadian slang, Gay slang, Sexual slang (redir to List of sexual slang), and Body parts slang are all less than 2 months old, and should not live to see 3.
In short, for these reasons, I don't think your examples support your argument, especially given your stated position on list cruft. The existence of violations of policy does not negate the policy, any more than the continued existence of criminality negates the law. This seems particularly applicable in this case given the probability that the "police" have simply not caught wind of the "crimes" in question yet. For this list, IMHO, even if the WP:NOR and WP:NPOV issues can be cleaned (assuming anyone is even interested in doing the work) it will still fail WP:V and WP:NOT. --Kgf0 23:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sorry, too late. Wikipedia is already a slang dictionary. I say add this one to the list. Besides, goth isn't about to leave and I'm sure it will leave a mark on our language somewhere. Denni☯ 00:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If this list re-appears on a website somewhere, list it as an external link in Goth. Jkelly 22:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG POLICY. This is against wikipedia's official policy stated at WP:NOT. Some of the entries pointed by MCB should have been gone a long time ago anyway. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 03:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above — Wackymacs 17:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for two reasons. As noted above, Wikipedia is full of lists of slang phrases.
Secondly, the article now has two main sources for the material listed at the bottom.
Deathlibrarian 09:57, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Those aren't published sources, those are chat logs; it's still original research ("Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources") and in violation of WP:NOT regardless how many other pages are also in violation. Also, the other slang pages that are lists rather than articles will be AfD'd in good time. See London slang for an example of what an article about slang should look like (and note that the example terms have Wictionary entries of their own). --Kgf0 21:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep very interesting, it's information afterall. --Mateusc 17:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article could be improved, certainly: NPOV, it's a bit too Melbourne-centric at the moment (the reference to the Megabar is just too obscure), a better introductory paragraph explaining the derisory nature of many terms, better references (there are plenty of books which could be used - see main Goth article, forum logs just won't do). Needs a lot of work, and healthy debate like this. It is against official Wikipedia policy unfortunately. Canley 01:06, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep (3k/1d) Ryan Norton T | @ | C 08:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

River 94.9[edit]

Non-notable. Comes close to being advertising. --PacknCanes 23:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as per the approx 9 billion other wiki articles on radio stations. --CastAStone 00:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Understand the nom but verifiable radio stations are pretty straightforward keeps. Marskell 00:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Marskell. Grutness...wha? 01:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Philosphy of everything[edit]

Essay, nn. vanity ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 00:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete vanity deep thoughts. Gazpacho 01:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. "What's so amazing about really deep thoughts?" (Tori Amos) Also OR. --Jacquelyn Marie 16:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 02:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, vanity, OR, etc... and for not spelling the word "philosophy" correctly in the title, to boot. -- DS1953 03:05, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity, nn, atrocious prose.--RicardoC 06:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity, nn, title mispelled, ummm...nothing more to say.--Daniel Lotspeich 03:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete (4d/1k/2dis) Ryan Norton T | @ | C 07:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Burke Gibson[edit]

Various formating, & italicized annotations relevant to vote, by Jerzy•t 07:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Nom & vote Del. (Copyvio now mostly resolved & presumably fully resolvable.) Apparently lovable but apparently non-notable "philosopher". * Only Google hits on full name are WP and a personal site apparently connected with the same on-line pub (Contrary Magazine) that did the obit that was the source of the initial article. * First relevant hit of 153 Google non-dupes on

"Christopher Gibson" philosopher

is #9, <Pop-up alert> local paper whose most notability-suggestive content is

On Tuesday, friends of Gibson described him as a self-taught scholar and storyteller with a "voracious love of knowledge."
"What was remarkable about Chris was that he was an extraordinarily astute communicator," said Peter K. Kardel, who had known Gibson for 15 years. "When he would tell a story, it was hypnotizing to listen to."

_* Nothing else that looks relvant thru the 40th hit. * He's described as a writer; the only item listed under "Original works" [Did he do unoriginal works, but nevermind] is apparently now published posthumously, bcz after urging him "for years" to submit, the publisher lost the file for 3 years and the author chose not to keep copies of what he wrote.
--Jerzy•t 19:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I will assert that he was a notable philosopher. That his obituary contains description of being "the most intense person that I have ever met," written by notable thinker and commentator on society and technology, Langdon Winner, lends credence to this. Jerzy's comments regarding "unorginal works" do not add anything constructive to this discussion. That Gibson's only item listed under Original Works--since changed to Publications-- was published posthumously is irrelevant. Chris Gibson was an important figure on the modern American literary and philosophical scene. A walking encyclopedia in his own right, meeting the definition of polyhistor if not polymath, he certainly belongs in wikipedia. The "notability" of his life is already attested to by the numerous external links, containing references to his life and work from publications in New York, Chicago, Portland, OR and San Luis Obispo, CA. I also do not understand how copyvio now only mostly resolved, as the original publisher granted permission on the articles talk page. And in any case, although the initial template for this article was based on his obituary, significant revisions have already been undertaken. Granted, it may require further additions and clarifications. That Google does not produce many hits on his full name could be due to the fact that he often did not go by his full name.
    -Daniel Lotspeich, MD.
    --Daniel Lotspeich 20:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)    [reply]
    First of 53 edits.
    • I risk distraction by several red herrings, in addressing them:
      _ _ To quote without the misspelling you introduced, and with relevant context, i said, parenthetically, "... unoriginal works, but nevermind]", bcz i thot the point too minor to make in a way that would invite effort to respond to it; as to "[nothing] constructive", i suppose you are free to regard anything you disagree with as unconstructive. Since you have taken issue with that throw-away thot, i point out its relevance to the air of vagueness and the bizarre that pervades the assertions of Gibson's notability. You quote "the most intense person that I [the eulogist] have ever met", and i have two reactions. One is to recall the description of Spinal Tap's status among the English heavy-metal bands: "certainly the [skipped beat] loudest", and to wonder whether the eulogist was conscious of damning with faint praise. The other is to wonder whether the eulogist was deficient in experience with under-medicated schizophrenics, or whether Gibson, who ended arguements by screaming obscenities, said he wanted to die, and did so by drowning in the dark, perhaps was an under-medicated schizophrenic. I hasten to add that schizophrenia, even under-medicated, doesn't preclude notability; still, it can interfere with attaining it, and a brilliant schizophrenic IMO can attract a sympathy that makes it hard to keep clear the distinction between achieving notability and being brilliant enough to deserve a notability that the schizophrenia denies them.
      _ _ Your being non-plussed by my other parenthetical (tho i would hope it made clear that the subject as not germane to the purpose of this page) is understandable, as i was intentionally terse. I needed to mention it as being no longer germane, since an unresolved Copyvio problem precludes consideration under AfD; i thought this one might still be technically unresolved, since i had read an instruction earlier this week that permissions (i.e., placings of works under GFDL by a copyright holder who did not perform the relevant edit) should be directed to the WP publicity dept, rather than e.g. being placed on the talk page. I did not feel at liberty to give the impression that everything was taken care of, when there was no indication of that step being taken. (FWIW, i've since seen suggestions to put permissions on the corresponding talk pages, without mention of Pub Dept., so my scruple may have been unnecessary. [shrug]).
      --Jerzy•t 11:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition, Jerzy's references regarding the events which kept Chris Gibson's work from being published before his death are misleading, if not inaccurate. Reviewing the available information in the refereces shows that the article was not lost, but the publisher's computer crashed and all files were unreachable. Gibson was approached prior to his death for an additional copy, but stated "I don't save things because it increases my natural tendency towards self-deleteriousness." This is very much in keeping with his philosophy revealed on even a superficial reading of his text Wages of Insomnia, which coins the phrase "Profligate Metaphysic." The text was later recovered using software that could salvage material on the hard-drive. Admittedly this article is overly detailed. However deletion is too harsh a penalty for the long-windedness of the submitter.
    --Daniel Lotspeich 05:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)    [reply]
    • The only relevance of the content or its long-windedness (i doubt i mentioned that) is as evidence on the issue in this process:
    Is it reasonable to hope that this article, or some other, with Christopher Burke Gibson as its topic, could turn into an asset to WP.
    Attention to the relevant pages in the Wikipedia: ("project") namespace, and to other AfD discussions on bios claimed to be non-notable, will arguing relevantly on question, than will going with your gut in responding.
    --Jerzy•t 11:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • _ _ (It's time for me to risk rubbing salt in a wound by calling a spade a spade: If he ever published anything else, one of you should have bloody well said so before now. I assume he did not. ... Yet, you also should have been gracious enough to say explicitly "While it's true that he never published anything, ...", and i may be trusting something obvious but false. But the first full calendar day is almost half gone, so time is a-wasting. Onward.)
      _ _ Well. I actually made a fool of myself by consulting my dictionary to be sure that lost has verifiable senses like "ruined or destroyed" and "no longer possessed", before re-reading Chris Gibson, philosopher, 1954-2005. Congratulations, you sucker-punched me: he says "I lost [emphasis added by Jerzy•t] the file when I transferred data from the old computer on which I'd received his essay to the new one on which we built the magazine." Now, i'm not going to beat you up with a technical discussion about what it takes to lose sectors without scraping the oxide off the platter, and the claims that Apple software protects you against what MS carelessly doesn't, and how i've read and altered raw sectors on an IBM PC long before this file got lost. Our Spotlight (software) feature list may be out of date, and i admit "unindexed bowels of the hard drive" would be more accurately used to mean "lost sectors" than (what i inferred at my first reading) "cryptically named files that you can only locate in a content search". Nor do we need the missing contemporaneous accounts of whether he "grimaced for three years at the loss."
      _ _ That's bcz we have what we need at hand: There was a time when he had no way of recovering the essay. Then there came a time when he had "the penetrating vision of a new search technology", but did not use it. Then, the day he got word, "suppos[ing] the irony appropriate" would no longer wash, and the same day, it stopped being lost. If your belief is that the period of not using the available technology was insignificant in length compared to a day, you should cite something more convincing than this eulogy as evidence.
      _ _ Because here's the picture i find most plausible: [Repeat N times, on N visits:] "Gibson, you should really write some of this down." "- - - ". [Visit N+1:] " ... and now I can be your publisher." "OK, you asked for it." "Oop, send another copy." "Sorry, no gots." [Some selection from the following:] "It was good, give me more of whatever catches your fancy." "Why don't i publish me interviewing you on the same subject?" "I wish i'd read more than the first and the final 'graphs, so i could interview you on the same subject." "Why don't i publish me interviewing you on the another subject of your choosing?" "Here's a tape recorder, do some raconting and i'll be your editor." [One selection from the following, for each of the preceding:] "No." "Maybe." "Not now." [Repetition of these exchanges, with decreasing frequency.] "Grimace." [Once only:] "Regret to inform you..." [Whatever:] "Gosh, he's dead, why him and not me?" "Could I have been more helpful in pulling together something publishable?" "Could I have made his death less likely?" "Well, at least i can get off my ass and try to recover the file again." In a line, there's been no evidence that his intellect was stunning enuf to produce another essay, or a fistful of aphorisms, or to motivate recovery of the essay a week, a month, or a year before grief or survivor guilt had an opportunity to change the subjective situation, where the objective situation was on a clear track toward him either dying, in a "timely" or untimely fashion, but in any case unpublished.
      _ _ So it appears he impressed a bunch of first-hand acquaintances -- something loads of physicians, and pastors, and community-theater actors, and really cool mail carriers do, without becoming notable -- and produced an essay that has not yet had a chance to get evaluated in the cold light of day. In the unlikely event that a single essay is compelling enough to develop him a following, or that one of the first-hand acquaintances can produce a memoir that develops him (rather than the memoirist) a following, that will not be clear until others, less willing than i to speak ill of the recently dead, have their chance to mull and then speak. In a world where a million people amount to small change, the claim that acquaintances can make you notable does little more than impeach the credibility of those who present it.
      --Jerzy•t 11:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although this man is not amazingly well-known, and although the article is over-detailed, it is definitely solvable. Google isn't the best metric of the notability of philosophers, because they generally don't have a huge internet presence.
    Grobertson 09:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a new editor: 59th and 60th edits. First 25 in 2004 Nov; two in two sessions, 2004 Dec; one each in April & June; 19 in 8 or 9 sessions in Sept.; 14 in 5 sessions, Oct. 3-6.
    • Of course it doesn't. Google is only the best metric that has been presented. We start by assuming non-notability. Failure of a straight forward Google test merely assures voters that verifying notability is not a trivial task. Come up with a better metric that does verify notability.
      --Jerzy•t 11:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. First of all, he went by "Chris Gibson." Try googling ["Chris Gibson" philosopher]. He was more than simply a philosopher. Raconteur is a title he wore just as well. It is true that Mr. Gibson is not yet widely known nor widely published, but the same facts were true of Vincent van Gogh when he died. It is a consequence of Mr. Gibson's embodiment of his philosophy that he did not participate in the culture nor the orthodoxies of philosophy, academia, publishing, nor much else in society. Nonetheless, the brilliance and originality of his mind is recognized by a select few and by all accounts an increasing number. Check with Langdon Winner, professor of humanities at Rensselaer University. http://www.langdonwinner.org/index.html This is a good opportunity for Wikipedia to rise above the tyranny of the mundane order that decides who gets famous, instead of appealing to it as a justification for reproducing it. By these rules, you would have excluded Emily Dickinson early in her posthumous career. Jeff McMahon.
    5th thru 7th edits by IP.
    • Indeed we would exclude those two figures, and without apology. Magazines can discover unappreciated geniuses; encyclopedias consolidate established knowledge.
      --Jerzy•t 11:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point Taken, and it's your encyclopedia after all. I'm sorry to be a "meat puppet," if that's what I am; I only entered the conversation because I was asked to clear the copyright, which I was happy to do for Wikipedia. And I confess to misunderstanding the mission of Wikipedia. I thought it meant to be larger and more inclusive and not necessarily to conform to the confines of the standard paper versions. Because it would be easier to just scan in the Brittanica after all. I'll mind my own business. Jeff McMahon
    • I like this...I suppose it forces me to take a step back and consider whether or not I should have any interest whatsoever in Wikipedia's mission. Apparently, this place is unwilling to admit anything that is not already widely accepted. What is its purpose then, really, other than to satisfy the needs of amateurs and hobbyists who find pleasure in cataloging and arranging articles and facts? I put up another couple of articles, out of boredom one evening (just that hobbyist's inclination to catalog something). I stuck in an article on John Brombaugh and another organ builder (Hendrik Niehoff, 16th century Dutch) than I learned about by studying Chris Gibson's life and work. I stuck in another couple of articles as well: one on an artist whose works I admire and another on an interesting, but somewhat unknown song by Woody Guthrie. But truthfully, if Wikipedia is stictly the province of mirroring accepted dogma, my time may well be best spent pursuing other, more fruitful endeavors.
      --Daniel Lotspeich 02:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)      [reply]
      • _ _ At the risk of rudely appearing to respond to two people as if i thot they were of one mind, i'm going to address some common threads between DL & JM'M. And worse yet, compare their situation to my own, vaguely similar, initial response.
      _ _ My reaction was "Nice that i found what i needed, but i don't need a WiccaPedia." -- falsely assuming that "Wiki" was just a cognate of "wicca" and "witchcraft". I had to stumble on WP a few more times before i realized anything about what it is, and edit for months before beginning to suspect its significance.
      _ _ The WP issues that you each are raising are ripples on an ocean. While such numbers prove nothing important, something about that ocean is hinted at by Alexa rankings: IMDb tied WP on only 3 days in the last 3 weeks, and can be expected to drop increasingly far behind; WP's starting to contend w/ Craigslist. Those are (depending on the timescale you look at) 40th to 43rd and 32 to 34 on the whole Web, and 23 and 18 among English-language sites. (Compare with caution: WP is 40% foreign languages.) I usually can stop myself before i say "a new force of nature", but WP is certainly a phenomenon sui generis; while i have only suspicions about what it means, i feel confident that you two have so far almost nothing but misconceptions about it; my guess is that even if you walk away at this point, it's going to tap you on the shoulder sooner rather than later.
      _ _ I'm gonna shut up quickly, but the last things i need to say are
      1. the issues you are raising are so far from central that if WP's approach started changing in that respect tomorrow (started, bcz WP changes course like a supertanker), i'd go "tsk; too bad", shrug, and carry on with my work here;
      2. almost no decision affects the big picture, except the choice of MediaWiki as infrastructure, GFDL, and NPoV;
      3. this all has to have a lot to do with information "wanting" to be true and free (tho i am no expert on those theories).
      And IMO explaining in any detail why i believe that would be an arrogant waste of our time. I dunno if they get it in Peoria, but the points you raise convince me you're going discover it for yourself before too long, with >90% probability.
      --Jerzy•t 20:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • BTW, abt the "meatpuppet" thing (mentioned in JM'M's first sentence, above), the term itself is IMO a more offensive one than "sock puppet", applied to a less offensive behavior, and i wish i had promptly objected to an editor raising their "annoy[ance]" (below) as being contrary to our policy of "not biting the newcomers" (whether or not i may have strayed into that as well). It suppose it annoys me somewhat too, but i'm opposed to complaining about it, bcz it's part of the "cost of doing business" rather than being the result of bad behavior, and there's no point in complaining about it as if the newcomers were in the wrong.
        --Jerzy•t 20:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article on non-notable figure. And meatpuppets annoy me. Ambi 11:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The following contrib is restored, but struck thru, after deletion by its original contributor; this avoids changing the meaning of my response by removing it from its context. Hopefully the strike-thru captures the intent of removing it, presumably withdrawl of the request.
  • Request to JerzyJerzy, please move comments above that you are placing in the middle on mine and others requests that the article on writer Chris Gibson be kept. They would be better placed at the bottom of the page They create an unnecessary disctraction from the points that I and others make, which stifles discussion. Your comments would be less disruptive, though should still able to be reviewed if listed at the bottom of the discussion, giving everyone an opportunity to make their point in turn. Thanks! --Daniel Lotspeich 15:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm afraid your expectations are badly out of synch with WP practice, & i've already over-invested in responding to you. In lieu of my going into detail, WP:AfD should be a reasonably efficient starting point for self-orientation.
      --Jerzy•t 19:03, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following was used to replace the entire text except for the section hdg:
I have blanked the discussion for the following reason: as the original submitter of this article, I would like for this article to be removed from wikipedia. --Daniel Lotspeich 21:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the less than flattering conjectural remarks regarding Christopher Burke Gibson (who was in fact a living member of a real--not virtual or abstract) community, I repeat my request:

I have blanked the discussion for the following reason: as the original submitter of this article, I would like for this article to be removed from wikipedia

Those wishing to review the history of this article may do so, but out of respect for Chris' memory and regards for his family & friends, I request the article not appear here any longer. --PooterCobb 05:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Changing my vote. Strong Delete or Speedy or whatever. Abstain. The guy was a close personal friend of mine and the article is clearly not written from a neutral point of view. Additionally, his notability hinges on a few scraps gathered from internet blogs and local press (one article from an alternative newspaper). The page would be better placed on a personal website. Daniel Lotspeich 15:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)PooterCobb 06:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sounds like a fascinating man but doesn't pass WP:BIO. The entry, of course, is far from encylcopedic. And what the hell is going on with above verbiage and subsequent cross-outs? Marskell 17:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - seems like he may have been an interesting fellow to know - but not notable enough for this encyclopedia. Like someone above said, magazines are free to discover unknown people or the "next best thing" - encyclopedias, even one that is not paper, should stick to subjects that are notbale before we write about them. We can and do have broader inclusiveness than a paper encyclopedia, but we still need to keep a threshold of notability. Johntex\talk 20:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_October_4&oldid=1227387187"