Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 October 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 2 October 4 >

Purge server cache

October 3

[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. Neutralitytalk 13:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sea of Insanity

[edit]

A webcomic, hosted on keenspace, found here. Article makes no assertion of notability, it is not mentioned on the alexa report for keenspace suggesting it is not one of the well read webcomics. A google search shows up nothing which would lift this from every other website out there. Hahnchen 00:08, 3 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. Neutralitytalk 13:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vevega

[edit]

no-brainer vanity protologism. — brighterorange (talk) 00:12, 3 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. Neutralitytalk 13:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ektron CMS400.NET

[edit]

copyvioesque advertisement. — brighterorange (talk) 00:09, 3 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 CSD G4 (done by User:Bogdangiusca) — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 20:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ektron CMS400.NET

[edit]

Advertorial article on a content management system which is written by a user whose name is all over the manufacturer's website. Just zis Guy you know? 17:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Neutralitytalk 13:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled!

[edit]

A non-notable webcomic hosted on a keenspace domain here. The alexa rank for the comicgen.com domain is around 150,000. But if we look at the traffic report, Untitled! doesn't even feature on the list, suggesting a tiny readership. Entry already exists at comixPedia, where it should belong for the time being. - Hahnchen 00:17, 3 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. Neutralitytalk 13:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Syzygy of Idiocy

[edit]

A long-dead webcomic, which I can not find online, anywhere. Bar a cafepress shop, which I'm guessing hasn't been used for a long time. WP is not a memorial, especially not a memorial for a website which shut down because its hosting was terminated (surely, if its notable, it would have carried on regardless due to popularity and demand?). - Hahnchen 00:20, 3 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. — JIP | Talk 07:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Miskovic

[edit]

self-referential vanity, almost A7. — brighterorange (talk) 00:20, 3 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. Neutralitytalk 13:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome Consumer

[edit]

Another non notable webcomic with an alexa rank of almost 4 million which can be found here. The article was written by a user named Urabob, which just happens to the author's alias on their sub 50 member forum, here. The articles for the authors are listed below. - Hahnchen 00:28, 3 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. Neutralitytalk 13:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Colin

[edit]

Non-notable webcomic author for the comic listed above. - Hahnchen 00:30, 3 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. Neutralitytalk 13:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Toni Patrick

[edit]

Non-notable webcomic author for the comic listed 2 places above. - Hahnchen 00:30, 3 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. Neutralitytalk 13:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vermont Group

[edit]

This is a non-notable group of Diplomacy (game) players. It has only 107 unique Google results in English. The founder's article is listed below. -- Kjkolb 00:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, and that raises the question of whether the community is itself of note then, and deserving of an independent, encyclopedic article (which in this case I don't think is the case). Dottore So 23:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Diplomacy community definitely is notable and article-worthy. First play-by-mail historical game, first game hobby to spawn hundreds of fanzines published nationally and internationally, championships in nearly twenty nations, a long-established world championship convention (not just an online tourney calling itself "world championship"), organizations that provide real functions and not just chat forums, coverage in mainstream media, and so forth. Favorite game of Walter Cronkite, John F. Kennedy, and Henry Kissinger, although that might not be so notable a point. It's far more notable than most of the MMORPGs whose adherents think they should have their clans and forums and hacker-groups listed in WP. Barno 17:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting. I think I would include all that in the Diplomacy (game) article, though, instead of a separate Diplomacy Community article. That's just my preference though. I certainly am in total agreement concerning your sentiments about the plethora of insignficant MMORPGs. Dottore So 12:15, 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. Neutralitytalk 13:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Massey

[edit]

Founder of the non-notable Vermont Group of Diplomacy (game) players, which is listed above. -- Kjkolb 00:31, 3 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. Neutralitytalk 14:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MOJD

[edit]

Vanity article. --WikiFanaticTalk Contribs 19:35, 2 October 2005 (CDT)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. Neutralitytalk 14:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Www.animateclay.com

[edit]

Non-notable, Alexa rank of 583,606 and appears to be a vanity page. — ceejayoz ★ 00:38, 3 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 17:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Star 2

[edit]

It is a non-notable 96-foot ferry. -- Kjkolb 00:42, 3 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!) 07:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zombie High

[edit]

A none notable webcomic with found here with no alexa rank. It's hardly ever updated and the archives are a bit bare. No mention of notability anywhere. Stillborn webcomic. - Hahnchen 00:40, 3 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. – Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:09, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Montrose Academy

[edit]

This is NOT a school. This is a brother/sister "web studio". The top google hit for this, is a porn site. Other google hits also show nothing to do with what the article is actually about. - Hahnchen 00:52, 3 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!) 07:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Jar

[edit]

None notable webcomic made by Montrose Academy, above. Shows no assertion of notability and I can't find it or its archives on Google. - Hahnchen 00:58, 3 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!) 07:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Sidecar Brotherhood

[edit]

Zero relevent Google hits for this nn three month old cult. No mention of the number of members or any notability. Not enough to even be a hoax. Delete. Owen× ☎ 00:58, 3 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 17:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Spiders

[edit]

A none notable webcomic, found here. The site hasn't been updated it like 2 years, with the next installment of the comic due to arrive Autumn 2004. The site it is hosted on, has been defunct for a long while and the alexa rank shows this, with a 600k+ figure. None notable part of a none notable website. - Hahnchen 01:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I still think it's insignificant per the nominator, but I appreciate your response. Dottore So 23:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean you think we shouldn't mention it just because it's over two years old, or is there something I'm not getting? Factitious 00:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe if the author himself thought it was significant, he would have finished the thing. He's abanadoned it along with Electric Sheep Comix, just because it's been reviewed by webcomic enquirer or what webcomic? or webcomics r us, doesn't make it notable. Technical merits? I thought infinte canvas would be a massive flowing page, but it's just a horizontal slideshow. - Hahnchen 13:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I've already shown, it has been reviewed in publications which are not focused on webcomics. If you're interested in learning more about what makes it technically interesting, I suggest that you read some of the critical reactions, as you should have done before trying to delete this article. Factitious 05:11, 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. — JIP | Talk 17:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Electric Sheep Comix

[edit]

None notable website with an alexa ranking of 600k+ as discussed in the nomination above. I have not nominated the author for deletion Patrick Farley, as there is one small claim of notability there, but I don't think his personal website warrants an article. He has a livejournal blog too. Does that deserve an entry? - Hahnchen 01:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Professional webcomic. Certainly notable. Cnwb 06:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a pretty bare stub, but Farley's work has received a fair amount of critical attention, both online and in print. I don't see how someone who's researched the topic could think it isn't notable. Factitious 14:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think you could have nom'd the author as well. Authoring a few web comics and a blog just doesn't quite make it to notability in my book.--Isotope23 16:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with Hahnchen. I also agree with Isotope. Dottore So 21:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He is noted in print and in Web reviews for his experimentation in Web comics. ELectric sheep is his dedicated Art site and not his "personal" Web site. He has another site for that. --AlainV 08:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question - This is an art site that has not been updated for a few years. It is a website. An article for Patrick Farley already exists. Would an article on David Hockney's website be deleted? What about The Chapman Brothers official site? Yes, because, like this one they are none notable sites and would fair better as part of the artist's article. What about Goldfrapp, their website has been through several iterations and has been given an MTV award. I've read articles in music magazines talking about their website. But if I listed www.goldfrapp.co.uk on wikipedia, it would be deleted, stating that Goldfrapp already exists. This is the same, but because it has been classed as a webcomic, the guidelines on websites becomes putty. - Hahnchen 12:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Answer. The electric sheep site is an Art site completely dedicated to the Art of web comics and it was last updated January 20th 2005. The fact that the last time a comic on it was updated was in 2003 does not make it less relevant. It is the repository of all of Farley's Web comics that were praised by Web and print sources, which you can check by googling Patrick Farley and electric sheep and by reading Scott McCloud's book and other publications. --AlainV 04:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per Factitious and AlainV -Abe Dashiell 13:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep See Factious, plus Rush Limbaugh Eats Everything. This is a seminal early webcomic, and a damn good illustration of what you can do with the web's infinite canvas. Philip Taron 10:06, 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 delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aberdeen Street

[edit]

A road that has only 2 blocks and made 'international headlines' for a car burning WOW! but Still a non notable road Delete --JAranda | yeah 01:22, 3 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!) 07:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin "Knife" Sotelo

[edit]

Probable vanity page; Minimal community benefit Cpaliga 01:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is important to note that he does have a self-published book seems to be a leader in a religous organization. I do not however think that every person who leads a church deserves a Wikipedia Page.Cpaliga
  • Also, Please go to the Cultural Reference articles, many of them have been marked for deletion.Cpaliga 14:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it up... DO NOT DELETE!!!

  • Why does this article want to be deleted?, its actually pretty good. Leave it up why not!
  • If you'd like to know "why not," look at all of the previous comments explaining the reasons. Cpaliga

awesome article

it passes in my book

WHOA O.O VERY INTERESTING READ

  • nice just needs a little more info
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 Delete on Wikipedia, Transwiki to Comixpedia Karmafist 16:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shit Happens Webcomic

[edit]

Effort has been put into this article, that is true. But this webcomic, found here is just none notable, with an alexa rank of over 2 million. Alexa can be a red herring, but for a rank so low, it can be safe to say that this webcomic is not popular. A google search did not bring up anything which would make this website more notable than the others. Another note, is that the main contributor to the article is User:Joellevand, author of the comic. Also, check the newpost on the front page of their site, asking viewers to click on webcomic toplists. If this were notable, they wouldn't need it. This article does not belong on wikipedia, but on comixPedia where it does not yet exist. Sigh. - Hahnchen 01:47, 3 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 NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 05:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bindows

[edit]

This article was undeleted after a supported request at VfU. It was previously deleted in accordance with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bindows, but the VfU debate was happy to restore the article given the lack of participation and the promise from the original editor that he would de-advertify the article. As part of that request, the article was reverted to its original state. This is a procedural relisting. No comment from me. -Splashtalk 02:04, 3 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. Robert 01:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wisconsin land

[edit]

How-to guide about buying land in Wisconsin -- Kjkolb 02:10, 3 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 05:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Knunder

[edit]

This article was speedily deleted several times (see Special:Undelete/Knunder, relevant parts available to all editors), but undeleted as not-a-speedy by VfU. So it comes here instead for a full investigation. No comment from me. (PS: I have arbitrarily reverted to what I think is a version the authors would want you to see: the later versions are recreations of protestations.) -Splashtalk 02:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, this bet I'm having is going pretty well, and I like to thank people for going on the site and (possibly) using the word occasionally. Perhaps one day, this article will exist, and it will tell the story about how I managed to force a word into the language. It'll be quite a story to tell in years to come. I'm going to ask politely if you would like to keep this "nonsense neologism" on Wikipedia. I know it won't help me in any way, shape or form, but it'll be proof that the word is being recognised. Proof that it is being used.
I shall leave now, and await what the future of knunder looks like on this wiki. Thank you. -- Friz

  • Delete. All the uses of the word "knunder" in print seem to be about the creation of the word "knunder" as a neologism; I don't see evidence that it is being used on its own as a regular word. --Metropolitan90 19:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I'm putting a report together with all the emails I'm getting from people using the word across the country. From Primary Schools in Scotland to a workhouse in Australia. At my least count, over 5,000 people were using knunder (and that's just a guess from the facts I've collected through emails). -- Friz
  • Hello, Pro-Knunderers and Anti-Knunderers! Wordsmith Friz here; just a short note to say that primary school teachers all over Britain are telling their young pupils to "put their chairs in the knunder". I'm warping a generation of 4-year-olds! Also, the word is going to be used- in context- by a few D C Thompson publications (such as The Weekly News and The Beano). At my lastest count, there are now 30 ways to use the word knunder, either as a noun, verb, preposition or adverb, and there are over 6,000 people who know of the word, or are using the word. Watch this space! -- Friz
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 delete as hoax. Hall Monitor 18:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Antipope Sixtus XVI

[edit]

del nonverifiable. nonnotable. mikka (t) 02:35, 3 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 05:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Boss Ross

[edit]

Probable vanity/self-promotion page, Minimal community value Cpaliga 02:56, 3 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. — JIP | Talk 07:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Young

[edit]

NN/ Vanity ≈ jossi ≈ 03:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, vanity. -- ReyBrujo 04:00, 3 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 keep as a patently invalid nomination. FCYTravis 03:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Three's Company

[edit]

No educational value. Not everyone in the whole wide world are familiar to that show, and it is limited to the G8 nations. My parents are from Mexico which also indicates that they are not familiar with Three's Company. Furthermore, it does not belong in an encyclopedia because it is not something thought in school. It belongs to tvguide.com not wikipedia.152.163.101.13 03:05, 3 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!) 07:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Group_Data_Scheme_Society

[edit]

The organization disbanded and no longer exists; nothing links to this page and the organization's fate is not notable enough to be encyclopaedic. Note that the link to the website goes nowhere. Evertype 03:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Keep Marskell 11:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Tripper

[edit]

No educational value. It does not belong in an encyclopedia. It is also fancruft.152.163.100.202 03:12, 3 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.

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judy McCauley/old

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 performed by Andrew Lenahan. Hall Monitor 22:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Judy McCauley

[edit]

A Google search brings up nothing noteworthy about this person. The list of her film contributions, which makes up almost all of the article, is factually inaccurate. Melesse 03:18, 3 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 00:20, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WKIT

[edit]

The content is this: 'WKIT, a rock radio station licensed to Brewer, Maine with studios and offices in Bangor, Maine, is owned by authors Tabitha and Stephen King.' Ingoolemo talk 03:21, 3 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 05:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Socceresque

[edit]

Obscure nelogism, dicdef NeilN 03:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Could never be more than a dicdef. Quale 04:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The concept of being "almost as beautiful as soccer" is close enough to succeeding in acheiving the meaningless ness of "colorless green ideas sleep furiously" without having any of the significance of Chomsky's sentence. This is a neologism, but worse: the -def part of this dicdef is hardly something encyclopedic. Not to mention it's the sort of neologism some people (myself included) make up twenty-dozen times a day because we like tacking derivational morphemes onto words to create our own words instead of using everybody else's. And not one such word (socceresque, ironage, stenchify, etceterize, etc.) is deserving of a Wikipedia article. The Literate Engineer 05:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy keep Marskell 11:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chrissy Snow

[edit]

No educational value. Not everyone in the world is familiar with her.152.163.100.203 03:36, 3 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 05:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Vold

[edit]

This article was originally tagged for speedy deletion by Kpjas, but I believe that it should be brought before AfD for discussion instead. No vote. Hall Monitor 18:26, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Star Trek

[edit]

Also nominating two other associated pages: Star Trek: Star's End and Star Trek: Renaissance. They are about a fan site; there are no links to them from outside the set and they seem like ads. At least merge the articles. Jason McHuff 03:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Alexa rank is 1,306,006 --Jason McHuff 03:44, 3 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. Rx StrangeLove 05:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chum Bucket

[edit]

Contextless jibberjabber without geographical information that is also apparently advertising non-notable eateries.Need I say anything other than Delete? Eddie.willers 03:44, 3 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 05:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Think tanks the game

[edit]

non notable fan game --SoothingR 16:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete Relisting didn't exactly draw a crowd, but enough is enough. Rx StrangeLove 05:35, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Silentfriend

[edit]

Not notable blog/concept. feydey 17:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE and tell the 11-year-old to wash his mouth with soap. Why, back in my time... — JIP | Talk 05:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cushtie

[edit]

Is it advertising? Is it a dicdef? Is it slang? Is it even notable? No, no, no and again, no. Delete Eddie.willers 04:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. Quale 04:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Take out the non-neutral first-person content, and one is left with practically zero content, except for a vague indication that this is some form of cushion. A Google Web search told me what this was. The article certainly didn't. But then that's because it was copied from the advertising blurb in a product catalogue, where the catalogue itself had accompanying pictures to explain what the item was. Copyvio. Uncle G 05:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My 11-year-old son added this page because he had just been given a Cushtie. He did not, repeat not, copy anything from any advertising blurb, he wrote it entirely himself. I accept that it may not be appropriate for Wikipedia (I am a fan) but please don't judge so harshly. He was attempting to reproduce the type of article he has seen in Wikepedia, he was unaware that Cushtie is not a "real" thing. If you choose to delete so be it! -- unsigned comment by 82.35.131.115

  • Delete as a non-notable item. Not to nitpick, but while it is not a direct cut & paste job, it's fairly obvious that the text of the first sentence was taken from the link Uncle G posted in the copyvio message. Still, not a bad first effort for an 11 year old.--Isotope23 18:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey- FUCK OFF. I dont know about wikipedia yet- im only 11. I thought since ive seen so much info anout saying how classy other items were i thought id share with the world what i thought. YOU PRICKS WONT GIVE ME THE CHANCE. DO WHAT YOU WISH.-- unsigned comment by 82.35.131.115

Hey im sorry the way i acted- it wasnt your fault. I shouldnt of swore at you. Please forgive me and ill try to make a better article :)

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

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

Andrew & Shawn Brooks

[edit]

To start, the title is wrong for an encyclopedia article. The entire text is two sentences: "Andrew & Shawn Brooks' first published novel was the sci-fi thriller The Peoples Yard written in 1988. While not critically acclaimed, it did gather a strong fan base that lead them to write The Octagon fantasy saga." Can't find them or their novels on amazon. Vanity. Quale 04:04, 3 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 05:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

D (2010 film)

[edit]

crystal ballism. similar previous afds include Robots 2 (2010 film) and 2010 in film. Nateji77 04:52, 3 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, several of the votes offered rewrite as an options which was done, so along with the 2 keep votes makes this stuck in the middle. I'd suggest keeping an eye on this though. Rx StrangeLove 05:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Early

[edit]

Created by Maryearly75 (talk · contribs). I userfied it, but it was re-created in article namespace. This reads like a CV and not an encyclopedic article. -- Curps 04:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to rewrite the entry per suggestions; I created the entry because it came to my attention that my name was included in the text of the Bennington College entry, and studied the other artist, literature links and it seemed appropriate.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. Rx StrangeLove 05:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Calpoly Demographics

[edit]
Well, as the standard deletion procedure, it will stay for 5 days while a consensus is built on if it should be deleted. If you need to make pages like this, it's best not to do it in the main article space but to make your own user account then create it as a subpage from there. If you want any help, let me know. --Apyule 06:53, 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 05:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jah Acid Dub

[edit]

Doesn't seem particularly notable, 1020 google hits.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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, I'm moving it to Annie L. Gaetz School, Red Deer, Alberta though. Rx StrangeLove 06:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Annie_L._Gatez_School

[edit]

No context, vanity Stillnotelf 05:11, 3 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. Rx StrangeLove 06:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Future of Humanity Institute

[edit]

Looks like vanity or advertisement, and apparently incomplete and/or vandalized. Wapoo 05:14, 3 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 05:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gacne

[edit]

Neologism at best, no Wikitionary or Dictionary entry, and Google search shows sites in foreign languages. Article is nothing but a dic def anyway. — Kjammer ⌂ 05:19, 3 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 · Katefan0(scribble) 20:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sequel trilogy (Star Wars)

[edit]

This article is speculation about movies that are not going to be made, based largely on conjecture from expanded universe (licensed) Star Wars works. Only one source is cited, and that source, as far as I can tell, only confirms an incidental fact (in which year the movies would be set). - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 05:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Based on further revelations, I'm changing my vote to Keep, with an eye to possibly merging it somewhere. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 10:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support the idea of a sequel trilogy. Originally, Lucas decided to stop making Star Wars films after Return of the Jedi. Contrary to what the media says, there is still a chance for a sequel trilogy. The sequel trilogy would star Ben Skywalker as an adult. It would take place about a decade after the Dark Nest trilogy. There can be up to three sequel trilogies. If there are to be 15 episodes total, Episode XV would take place in 203 ABY. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 08:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Contrary to what the media says, there is still a chance for a sequel trilogy.
      Unless and until someone adds some sort of proof of this claim to the article, it's unverified speculation. (Plus, given Lucas's track record, I think it's exceedingly unlikely he'd make a trilogy of movies based on EU canon.) - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 09:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The sequel trilogy does not necessarily have to be based on Expanded Universe canon. The earlier facts state that it would take place after all Expanded Universe canon, ranging from 40 ABY to 203 ABY. The Dark Nest trilogy, the latest in the Expanded Universe canon, takes place in 35-36 ABY. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 06:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE. This is not a bloody crystal ball for Lucaszoids and basement Jedi. --80.222.69.104 09:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. This is not really speculation. It is based on early facts from George Lucas and on possibility. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 09:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. First off, I am the author of this article, I wrote this article based on actual facts. Actually, this is based on facts from Lucas himself in the 80's. I would never believe that damn Supershadow for a second. The information contained in that page is based on factual information in The Star Wars Timeline Gold by Nathan Butler, which can be found here. The Wookieepedian 10:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You say "facts" twice, but the only source you have cited is a dubious secondary source that doesn't cite primary sources for this speculation, as far as I can tell. If there are primary sources that can be cited, particularly ones I missed from that timeline, please add them to the article. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 10:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Check the new reference I added to the page. The other sources the timeline used I cannot locate.. It found its facts in an old issue of Time magazine, and other off-hand comments Lucas made to the media. The Wookieepedian 10:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wow, that's insanely obscure, but it looks like it's there. (Page 141 of the appendices PDF from the linked timeline page, for anyone who wants to check the timeline page). Well, in that case, the speculation/conjecture needs to be trimmed, primary sources need to be tracked down and cited, and this probably needs to be merged (Star Wars speculation seems like a logical merge target). I've amended my vote in respect of this revelation. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 10:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah, the guy who wrote that knows obscurity very well, as his timeline shows. I believe this page needs to be here to let everyone know that Lucas has in fact, based on his own former statements, planned to do such a trilogy, or triloggies at one point. Since he now denies he even considered such a thing, I thought it might be interesting to create a page using his own words against him. I don't knoiw if this would be considered speculation, except for the part about the name of Luke's son. This is more of construcing a basic storyline, based on Lucas' words. The Wookieepedian 11:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Conjectural. Not a crystal ball. I find the fact Lucas mentioned it irrelevant. It doesn't exist until it exists. Marskell 11:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The enitre purpose of the article is to give the reader a good idea of what he had in mind and let people know that he lies when he says he never even considered doing such a trilogy. The purpose of this article is not to say that he is going to make it, or speculate, just show what it would have basically been like, had he made one. It is notable. The Wookieepedian 11:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem is that the only facts here (as opposed to conjecture) are that Lucas was planning to make some sequels (the number varying, depending on the source and the time he was interviewed), and that he broached the subject of having Mark Hamill play an "Obi-Wan-type character." Other than that, nothing is verifiable (and a chunk of it was borderline fanfic and copyvio, and has been removed), so there's no real verifiable claim about what such movies would have been like if they had existed. Don't make this article out to be more than it is. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 14:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Here's basically what I want to do with this article: I want it to tell only the confirmed, verifyable facts first, in a section of its own. Then, based on these facts, I want to, along with help from others, construct the logical story based on these facts, noting that it isn't the actual story, just an approximation of what it would have been. The only time I will bring in the EU is when mentioning Luke's son, which I will use the name, "Ben," which has been established in The New Jedi Order. I will have a section showing proof of other sequels he has had in mind, but don't need their own page to be mentioned. I will then have one mentioning what many fans have considered the sequel trilogy in their minds (The Thrawn Trilogy for example). Finally, I will need to move the page, in order for its name to be consistant with the original trilogy and prequel trilogy articles. I hope this explains to you and everyone that votes and is involved with this issue what exactly I plan to do. The way it is in its current form isn't nearly what I had in mind. It was just a quick thing I created last night, without expanding it. If it survives deletion, though, I will expand it, becuase I strongly feel the subject is notable.
          • I'm sorry if you have serious plans on this one. "What he had in mind" is absolutely not a criteria for inclusion even if verifiable. Think about it. Every script that makes it to the talking stage of studio consideration could be included. Every plan or future desire of a notable person, subsequently scrapped, could be included. Every agreed upon role for an actor, declined at the last minute, could be included.
          • "Construct(ing) the logical story based on these facts, noting that it isn't the actual story, just an approximation of what it would have been" is absolutely a no go. I—and I'm sure not just I—would delete it in a second. It would actually constitute OR for one thing and the criticism about speculation would only be stronger. Marskell 17:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I haven't got time to disentangle all of this. I will say only this. I'm not much of a Star Wars fan. I saw the first movie, then entitled simply "Star Wars," in 1977 on its first run in Boston and walked out before the end because I was getting just too irritated with winged spacecraft developing lift forces in a vacuum. Anyway, I certainly read interviews at the time, and in fairly mainstream places, possibly Time Magazine?, explaining that it was actually the fourth in a projected series of nine films. I've recently wondered when the seventh, eighth, and ninth will be coming out. Apparently Lucas has now backpedalled on this. Information on what has been said when about this third trilogy is legitimate, and ought to be included somewhere. This is a legitimate topic. I can't speak to whether the information currently in the article is well-researched or not. The article cannot be a reconstruction by a Wikipedia editor of what the third trilogy might have been. However, if a series of well-sourced, verifiable quotations from Lucas and others can be put together in such a way that the reader can construct a plausible storyline for him- or herself, that would be IMHO perfectly legitimate. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's exactly what my goal is. And in response to another editors comments that every author's screenplay or failed production should be listed if this one is, well, that's not exactly so. The talk of a sequel trilogy to Star Wars has been around since the late 70's. The talk of such a thing happening really habven't ceased. That is what makes it notable, the fact that people have known and discussed it for so long. I suppose I couldn't construct the story, but maybe explain, based only on what he has said, what was going to happen in these movies. And, by the way, the man who created the star wars timeline I list as a source is certainly not dubiou, as one said. His timeline is over 1,000 pages, as seen in the PDF, and he has worked it constantly, since 1997. He is sort of a Star Wars historian. Things he has in the timeline, are likely to be true. Also, he happens to be a high school history teacher with a intense interest in chronology. So his project is a pretty trustworthy source. Now, I won't actually construct a story, as in a plot summary, like the movie articles do, just basically what were to happen. I hope to do it in a similar format to the articles for the prequel trilogy and the original trilogy articles. The Wookieepedian 19:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excellent summary by Dpbsmith. Following that logic, my vote would be to keep, rename as Sequel trilogy (Star Wars), and ruthlessly edit out any "reconstruction" that can't be traced back to things Lucas actually said or wrote. It is therefore likely to remain a very small article or a stub, but that seems appropriate. Bikeable 19:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but retitle, maybe to Star Wars Third Trilogy or something a bit more useful. The fact Lucas planned a third trilogy is an historical fact dating back to around 1977-78 if not earlier, and considering the cultural significance of the Star Wars films, I think it's worthy of its own article. Any speculation regarding plot, etc. should be restricted to statements made by Lucas, though. 23skidoo 21:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The fact that Lucas planned a third trilogy is an historical fact"—hey sure. But there is no third trilogy and likely never will be. How are people dropping the logic ball so completely on this one? If you want to rename it go for: Speculation on the Star Wars Sequel Trilogy. That's all it can ever be. Marskell 21:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, by all means rename it if it needs renaming. And... just being argumentative here, not serious... incomplete works are frequently completed by others, when there is good evidence of the author's intention. Many unfinished symphonies have been finished or reconstructed; Jack London's half-completed novel The Assassination Bureau, Ltd. was completed by Robert L. Fish; Raymond Chandler's novel Poodle Springs was completed by Robert B. Parker; various stories referred to within the Sherlock Holmes stories but never written by Arthur Conan Doyle have been written by others, and it goes on and on and on. If Lucas never makes episodes 7, 8, and 9, I think it is a virtual certainly that someone else will, someday, e.g. after he dies if his heirs see money in it. Of course it would require a crystal ball to write an article on that basis now, but the article could conceivably be more than speculation... someday. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • And when somebody else does create them then add the page. My goodness. From Not A Crystall Ball: "Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate." Simple stuff.Marskell 09:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Star Wars speculation. With the merged material, remove the conjecture and keep it to just the evidence. Saberwyn 22:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't want to write this article in the form of a crystal ball. In its final form, I want it to basically be a place that tells only the story which is based off of facts from Lucas. At the beginning, I tell that these haven't been made, and I never try to speculate what they would be about. I don't want this to be redirected to the speculation page, I'm not speculating on what these films would be like if they were made, just telling what they could have been, according to Lucas. The Wookieepedian 01:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Telling what they could have been" IS BY DEFINITION SPECULATION. Marskell 19:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • As in could, I am referring to what they were going to be if he made them, not what I or others think they were going to be about. I was not using could to mean speculation, I was using it to mean what they were to be. The Wookieepedian 11:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • "I am referring to what they were going to be if he made them" You don't know what they would've been if he made them—it's as simple as that. "I'm not speculating on what these films would be like if they were made, just telling what they could have been" makes as much as sense as "It's not raining, there's just water falling from the sky." Marskell 14:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are actually more sources than listed above or in the article: the Annotated Screenplays, for one. --Maru (talk) 03:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep, per The Wookiepedian -LtNOWIS 19:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it's an important part of the Star Wars history - deleting it smacks of a cover-up!
    • Of course it's a coverup! Didn't you see my username? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 13:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Any speculation in this article will be stated in a way where it is presented as the opinion of an outsider, and will be clearly labeled as their opinion or contribution. For this, I will, of course, use the remarks of notable sources (Steve Sansweet, Lucas emploiyees, The Star Wars Timeline Gold). Any information like this will be there for informative purposes only, stating only what those in the know speculate the story would have been, based on their inside jknowledge and actual facts. THIS WILL NOT BE AN ARTICLE TO SPECULATE, ANY SPECULATION WILL BE A RECORD OF WHAT OTHERS HAVE SAID. The Wookieepedian 13:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep - This can be an article of vifiable information on an encyclopedic topic. As long as sources are cited and there is no speculation nobody should have a problem. The assertion that "It doesn't exist until it exists." has absoultly nothing to do with the validity of the topic. There are many things that were planned but did not come to frutiton because of a vairety of reasons. Should we not inculde an article about Copland because there was no released product? As far as the public was concerned there was never a project so it does not exist. I'm sure that there are numerous articles about failed government or NASA projects that never got off the ground, should those be deleted too? Of course not. Assuming the information in this article is not merely speculation there is no reason to delete it. --Ctachme 16:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If someone else have nominated this and I had voted after this, my entry would have been "per Ctachme." These are my exact feelings. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 17:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looking at your example I don't see it as analogous given that it was an up and running project for two years. Granted, "It doesn't exist until it exists" is a touch didactic but it does have something to do with the validity of the topic: Copland "exists" as a scrapped project that reached a significant level of development, which is not the case here. "The Star Wars Sequel Trilogy was a film trilogy originally to be made by George Lucas" is arguably inaccurate. "The Star Wars Sequel Trilogy was a twinkle in the eye of George Lucas that fans really want to be made and really want to speculate about here on Wiki" has more truth. I can think of very few cases where we've opened the door to things that were never or are not now extant, and I think the bar should be high (i.e., World War III makes sense). Marskell 17:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • A sequel trilogy was not sprung from fan fantasies, Lucas said on multiple occasions to several sources in the late 70's abd early 80's that he had plans for such a trilogy. No, it will never be made. On numerous occasions he has firmly stated he will never do another trilogy after this prequel trilogy he just finished. I'm arguing that since he did at once confirm such plans, and people like Gary Kurts have claimed that he even saw outlines for the stories, it is farely notable to eb put on here. We can't forget Lucas' statements in the 1994 release of Splinter of the Mind's Eye where he said "I reallized my story would take a total of nine films to tell." The Wookieepedian 18:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. per The Wookieepedian, Ctachme. This is a very well known part of Star Wars history/lore/whatever, the original plan was for Lucas to make 3 trilogies. This isn't knowledge just limited to Star Wars fans. --Kewp (t) 19:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. speculation. Basing speculation on "facts" doesn't mean it's not speculation. Ctachme's points are valid, but "removing speculation" would leave very little verifiable encyclopedic content, and what's left is best merged, along with Star Wars speculation into Star Wars#Conception, and whichever "expanded universe" topics might be appropriate, and mostly offloaded to the Star Wars Wiki. Dystopos 23:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect/or Expand As far as I can tell, there's nothing wrong with the facts of the article. Currently though, I feel that it either needs to be merged with the Star Wars speculation or expanded to cover more information.--FDIS 00:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I plan on adding all known facts about the sequel trilogy to the article, with the help of others, of course. Like the prequel and original trilogies, I feel this needs an article of its own, since you can't really list a group of related facts as speculation, can you? Expand is the option I prefer, merging with the speculation article doesn't do the topic justice. It iswell known, as another user said, beyond the star wars fans. As I have said, it is something that has been known for almost 30 years, by both the fans and the general public. The Wookieepedian 00:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why do bees get in bonnets? I don't know but I can't seem to get rid of this bee. "It is something that has been known for almost 30 years." No: "It is something that has been speculated about for almost 30 years" Marskell 01:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Many facts are not encyclopedic. Reporting that someone speculated is not encyclopedic without some other context. Lucas' statements about the number of films are marginally notable (and already covered in Star Wars#Conception). Fan speculation (even second-hand) about the content of any such films is trivia unbecoming to WP. How many "known facts" do you propose that there might be about these non-existent productions? Dystopos 01:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP: I found this page useful in uncovering needed info...even if it was just speculation.
  • KeepI think this is relevant because the sequel trilogy has been a constant thought of people whether or not they are Star Wars fans. I'm sure there are many people out there who would like to learn about the prospects of Episodes VII to IX, and would like to learn about that here. (Jamandell (d69) 22:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep. It is an interesting article, but it needs to be expanded and need more sources. Carioca 22:32, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and expand if only to prevent SuperShadow nonsense from taking over SW articles. Add a paragraph explaining that SuperShadow's claims on a sequel trilogy are entirely false. - Sikon 10:47, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. I made a section linking to his article and explaining that his own words have shown him to be a fraud. I have a bad feeling, though, that I will have to constantly revert SuperShadow editors who come by here and were "inspired" by his "revelations." The Wookieepedian 17:20, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:41, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Super atallia

[edit]

Non notable band (with 10 songs) failing WP:MUSIC. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 05:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also lookup The Denizens and End of Days (Band)which curiously have the exact same members and content. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

JUST TELL ME HOW TO MAKE IT ACCEPTABLE FOR YOU GUYS! END OF DAYS IS IN THE SAME SITUATION AS US AND THEY GET A WIKIPEDIA LISTING! WHAT DO I NEED TO DO? [email protected] KEN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.133.108 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 3 October 2005

EOD changed their name to the denizens like a week ago We have a website _KEN_ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superatallia (talk • contribs) 06:22, 3 October 2005

How do you all you fools have so much time as to look for sites on wikipedia to be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.14.33 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 6 October 2005 ouch... taste it wikipedia

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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!) 07:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

End of Days (Band)

[edit]

another non notbale band failing WP:MUSIC. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let be noted that End of Days (Band) and The Denizensare both bands with the same members and both articles have the same content. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:09, 3 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!) 07:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Denizens

[edit]

yet another garage band failing WP:MUSIC. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let be noted that End of Days (Band) and The Denizensare both bands with the same members and both articles have the same content. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:10, 3 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!) 07:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Span (band)

[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC ? Abstain. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:17, 3 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. Robert 23:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Belvedere (band)

[edit]

fails to assert notability Delete per WP:MUSIC. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:18, 3 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 07:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kurios

[edit]

Non notable band failing WP:MUSIC. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:20, 3 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 07:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Ordinary Summer

[edit]

another band that does not assert notability and fails WP:MUSIC. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:21, 3 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 07:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nineteen Ninety-Now

[edit]

band that has only released 1 song, non notable -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:26, 3 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 07:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Nancys

[edit]

another nn band. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:23, 3 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 17:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Symmetry Breaking

[edit]

band which hasn't released anything yet, per WP:MUSIC. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:24, 3 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 09:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Elevenses (band)

[edit]

yet another non notable band failing WP:MUSIC. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


How is this page hurting anyone or irrelevant? It isn't a joke entry or offensive, it's just an unobtrusive bit of information about an actual band.

Wikipedia has many pages about non-professional websites, so why should a band be disqualified? I've regularly tried to find information on unsigned bands, that I've seen play, and it would have been useful if there were on Wikipedia. Surely the more information available to people the better.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 09:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brennan's Grin

[edit]

From the article: "The band has yet to release any material (and it has been suggested that little has even been recorded)", non notable. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:28, 3 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 09:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To Live A Lie Records

[edit]

"a new and upcomming small thrash" which sadly fails WP:MUSIC. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Merge and redirect. Rx StrangeLove 17:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter Revenge

[edit]

another music project failing WP:MUSIC [7]. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Hunter Burgan per FuriousFreddy below -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:53, 3 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 (6 keep, 1 delete, 5 merge). Robert 23:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Billie Frank

[edit]

See also Julian "Dice" Black, Timothy Walker, Rafael (Glitter character), and Sylk. All apparently characters from Mariah Carey's film Glitter. Since the film itself is of marginal notability (it is probably most notable for being a critical and commercial failure), its characters are certainly not notable enough for their own articles. I informed the author that he should do something about them (my suggestion, which I still recommend, condense to a paragraph each and add to the main article or one on Characters in the film Glitter or something similar). If that is not an option, I would vote for an outright deletion, lest someone think it's neccessary to write several articles on every character from The Five Heartbeats or something similar. FuriousFreddy 06:31, 3 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 (6 keep, 1 delete, 4 merge). Robert 23:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Julian "Dice" Black

[edit]

See discussion above. FuriousFreddy 06:30, 3 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 (6 keep, 1 delete, 3 merge). Robert 23:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Walker

[edit]

See discussion above. FuriousFreddy 06:30, 3 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 (6 keep, 1 delete, 3 merge). Robert 00:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael (Glitter character)

[edit]

See discussion above. FuriousFreddy 06:30, 3 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 (6 keep, 1 delete, 3 merge). Robert 00:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sylk

[edit]

See discussion above. FuriousFreddy 06:30, 3 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 09:05, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eyeball Skeleton

[edit]

This one I liked, but sadly, nonnotable failing WP:MUSIC. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete This one marks a bit of a milestone for me: Of the hundreds of bandity articles I've looked at here at WP, this was the first time that one of them has been interesting enough for me to check out their website in search of more info out of interest rather than just verifying facts. It does seem, alas, that they don't quite pass WP:MUSIC yet... they've been signed to a micro-indie label and released one album so far. As a side note, congratulations to this guy for doing something truly creative with his kids, and I wish him and the band the best. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:MUSIC, sadly nn, if sweet. Mallocks 13:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failing WP:MUSIC... and I too wish them success. Cool idea.--Isotope23 20:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Okay, I surrender. After looking at all the facts, it seems Eyeball Skeleton are non notable and don't pass YET. *Sigh*. I guess after they release another album and it gets a second review from a a notable site such as All Music Guide, this article can come back, right? In the meantime, I guess the article will have to go for now. Fanficgurl 3:45 December 1 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 · Katefan0(scribble) 20:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Effect of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake on Hong Kong

[edit]

Most importantly, neither the earthquake nor the tsunami actually hit Hong Kong. Information about affected Hongkongers is already in Countries affected by the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, and all information about relief is already in Humanitarian response to the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. Coffee 06:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Countries affected by the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above. 23skidoo 21:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If we are justifying an article by whether the place was hit by the earthquake or the tsunami, the articles on some other countries have to be deleted too. The rationale mentioned above failed to justify deletion. — Instantnood 05:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Conversely, articles would have to be created for many other countries/territories which are similarly effected, if not more. This article is the only one existing for an entity not directly affected by the Tsunami, and its singular existance skews the overall perspective of wikipedia too much in one small direction. In addition, some of its statements, such as "The catastrophe had a large psychological impact" appears exaggerated and overly emotive for an encyclopedia article.--Huaiwei 06:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Is " [t]his article is the only one existing for an entity not directly affected by the Tsunami " justified? — Instantnood 06:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Yes, if it clearly has no room for further growth, and no similar articles are likely to be writtern for other entities since the full articles as mentioned by the nominator has served their purposes well and there is no current pressure to expand and split them.--Huaiwei 07:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Alright. May I know if Norway was hit by the tremor or tsunami? And if yes, in what way it was hit? Thanks. (Here's a locator map of Norway.) — Instantnood 07:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh hell yes. The wave slamed into the Indian subcontinent, was uplifted into the air by the Himalayas, and smashed squaringly onto poor Norway. No one could explain why only this particular Scandinavian country was hit, and was indeed a freak chain of events certainly worthy of its own article. Did anything similar happen to HK?--Huaiwei 07:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thanks for telling what'd happened. (So Hong Kong is the only country not directly hit to have such an article, since Norway was directly hit. Am I right?) — Instantnood 08:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • From your declaring that Norway was directly hit by the tremors and/or the tsunami, and therefore it deserves its own article, it's pretty obvious that you're twisting some facts to fulfill your targeting on Hong Kong-related topics on Wikipedia. — Instantnood 10:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • If you wish to use sarcasm/humour in otherwise serious discussions in wikipedia, then others are probably excused for expecting you to be able to accept it too. Once again, your paranoia with regards to others' targeting on certain topics has played a bigger part then it should in your editorial judgement, hence again raising questions on your claimed "fairness" and "maturity" in wikipedia [8]. When I voted in this article, I did so on the simple reason that the earthquakes effect on HK is marginal at best compared to many other countries/territories without seeing a need to create a similar article. What is written for this article can easily be had in others. I did not notice the existance of an article for Norway until you pointed it out, which I found was an unfotunate occurance as I am afraid individuals (like yourself) would then take it as an excuse to create similar articles on every territory on earth no matter how small the effect actually is.--Huaiwei 10:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • You were the only person to have mentioned fairness and maturity over there. — Instantnood 10:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Glad you know this word (a word that I mentioned frequently when saying country and sovereign state have to be distinguished). Could you please kindly tell what are the synonyms of maturity and fairness that I have used to claim myself to be? Thanks. — Instantnood 11:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Just curious, but are you aware what this page is? Do you not feel any sense of shame in displaying this kind of behavior for all to see? If you spent the time to engage in wiki-soap operas on explaining the significance of this article, or adding good content to any other wikipedia article, I would think all will be better off. I refuse to further engage in senseless discussions.--Huaiwei 11:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • All these would not have happened if nobody boldly declared " [t]his article is the only one existing for an entity not directly affected by the Tsunami " [9], and carried on by distorting facts by saying Norway was directly affected [10], then continued to put forward her/his very own point of view that only sovereign states are countries [11]. May I know who's not aware of what? Who's staging "wiki-soap operas"? And who should be feeling shame for her/his behaviour? — Instantnood 12:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • I see. We have (yet another) instance of instantnood refusing to accept any responsiblity whatsoever in any contentious issues concerning wikipedia. All of a sudden, I am now being portrayed as a "troublemaker" who caused the above exchange single-handedly. Suddenly, instantnood's role dissapears completely from view. Do I need to clear my name? Hardly, because I dont attempt to shun responsiblity the way instantnood does, almost like its an inborn habit of his. I am more then willing to say that I felt ashamed that I was participating in this kind of low-level exhange in a page like this. If I hadent felt this sense of shame or guilt, I wont be asking him if he felt the same way. I call this exchange a soap opera, because it reads embarrasingly like one. Who is blaming who for "staging a soap opera", whatever that means? I suppose he dosent seem to feel any remorse based on his ceaseless attempts to be a real pain anywhere in wikipedia, even in a page like this? --Huaiwei 13:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Huaiwei did not express his feeling of shame or guilt when he was asking me that question [12], and I have not said a single word on whether I have shunned any of my responsibility that resulted from my responses to what Huaiwei has said. — Instantnood 14:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • From this response, I could only conclude that either it confirms his chronic inability in accepting responsibility (he practically ignored what I just said and insisted he was still innocent), or he has some difficulty in comprehending the English language. I rest my case.--Huaiwei 14:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No. Gamaliel 11:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI, the similar article for Norway is now nominated. — Instantnood 13:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see. I remember this strategy before. When an article/category which instantnood wants to keep is nominated for deletion, he gets every other related article/category nominated too, in his bid to swing the votes around in his favour, even if other similar pages may be far more deserving to remain. This is becoming yet another example of instantnood's constant manipulation and gaming of wikipedia rules/mechanisms, and I do hope other wikipedians and admins may take note of this.--Huaiwei 13:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • If an article or a category should be deleted, the same reasons would very likely be applicable to other similar articles or categories. How much similarities do the articles share, and whether such similarities merit the same or similar action, are to be decided by the community. Each wikipedian can make her/his own decision, don't think votes can be swung or manipulated. — Instantnood 14:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment IMHO that nomination is very close to violating WP:POINT, wether or not other nations have seperate articles should have no impact on wether or not this article about Hong Kong should be kept. I'm actualy a little supriced Germany or Sweden (and others) doesn't have seperate articles, they lost a lot of people too and probably raised simmilar debate and critisism as we had in Norway about how to handle major disasters involving our citizens abroad. The lack of or exsistence off other articles should have no bearing on wether or not this should be kept or deleted. If it contains information beyond what is in other articles it shouold be kept, otherwise it should be deleted, simple as that. Deleting it just because Hong Kong was not directly hit is just as bad a reason as keeping it just because Norway have a simmilar article. --Sherool 14:09, 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. — Instantnood 14:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Article length is an often-used criterion in deciding whether an article is deleted or not, and it is a relevant criterion in this instance, since its length does not justify its existance when its information could fit into other articles easily.--Huaiwei 14:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, centralizes information that is otherwise buried in other articles. No useful redirect because the information is in more than one place. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sub-trivial subset of larger, more important article. I was in Hong Kong (briefly) a week after the tsunami, and the biggest issue in the local paper seemed to be a) priority treatment of VIPs by Hong Kong authorities; and b) whether Jet Li was safe. --Calton | Talk 07:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I'd be interested to know which papers you read. :-P Were all newspapers, TV and radio news, etc., talking only about VIPs and Jet Li? — Instantnood 15:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: what Calton said could also be partly observed elsewhere. The only time HK was mentioned in the Singaporean media was whether some HK celebrities were alive for being caught in that region, in stark contrast to much more pressing and elaborate discussions related to other countries/territories.--Huaiwei 15:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional information: Many information were removed by user:TheCoffee [13] before the nomination for deletion (see edit history [14]). — Instantnood 15:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article has now been reorganised and expanded. — Instantnood 19:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment on expanded article: The only significant expansion we can see in this article is the "Responses of the government and other organisations" section, which quite unfortunately is simply non-relevant to this article which talks about the effect it has on HK. The only other non-dorectly affected country article, Effect of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake on Norway makes no mention on relief efforts at all, as all these should be in Humanitarian response to the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. As for the section on Impact, which should be the gist of the article, it again suffers from exagerated comments, not surprising since we have members here fighting to keep it around and make it appear "significant" enough. The reduction in travel to the region affects the entire global tourism industry, and there is nothing notably different in this text. The humanitarian response and show of emotional care is to be expected in any civilised society. Anyhow, saying "Thai and Indonesian culture is highly visible in Hong Kong" is itself debatable, besides the question of just what kind of and the extend of its impact it can have on HK itself. To sum up...what has actually been contributed to the article besides the obvious?--Huaiwei 19:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the comments. Agree the article needs further improvement. In fact some of your comments are also applicable to the Norway counterpart. Response are results of the effect. The Norway article talks about impact too. — Instantnood 22:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Humanitarian efforts as a result of the "effect", if any, will have to directly addressed to the reader, or else no one is going to make this assumption. Does the degree of "effect" have on the amount of $$$ donated internationally? Please illustrate. The Norway article talks about impact, and rightfully yes it should, because this is mainly what an effect is all about. It does not, however, devote a sizeable chunk of its text on humanitarian responses thou, and there is no reason for it to.--Huaiwei 23:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • This article talks about impact too. — Instantnood 00:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you actually read what I wrote above, I made quite alot of commends on it. You sound like I want the entire section deleted for being irrelevant, when I was saying it was far from adequate and noteworthy to deserve its own article.--Huaiwei 00:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ummm.. but you failed to justify why Norway is not far from adequate and noteworthy to deserve its own article. — Instantnood 00:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Am I compelled to comment on another article in the first place, and how should that be relevant in this discussion? Clearly, it is not just me who felt the need to delete one and keep the other. Tells you alot on just how irrelevant the two articles are.--Huaiwei 01:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • So far nobody has shown why the reasons to keep that article are not applicable to this one, and the reasons to delete this article not applicable to that one. — Instantnood 09:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 沖洗它喜歡從我的靶垛出來的船尾 or, er, delete SchmuckyTheCat 17:22, 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, as it was transwikied into Wikibooks. Robert 14:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Atmospheric pressure demonstration

[edit]

Delete, a how-to that's already been transwikied to Wikibooks Angr/tɔk tə mi 06:35, 3 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. Presumably Kjkold doesn't object to deletion either. I'm not going to make the redirect myself, though, as I don't think it's useful. -Splashtalk 17:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Viral Lode

[edit]

band created early this year, nn. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:36, 3 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 · Katefan0(scribble) 20:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

School Science Experiment - Demonstrating the properties of waves on an Oscilloscope

[edit]

Delete this how-to that's already been transwikied to Wikibooks. Angr/tɔk tə mi 06:38, 3 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 17:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Farassoo

[edit]

Not notable. brenneman(t)(c) 06:49, 3 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 14:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lawaloca

[edit]

WP:NOT a web directory. Although this weblog claims to be famous, looking at the number of comments on articles on the front page (single digits), I don't think this can be the case. Alexa rank 1.3million+ — brighterorange (talk) 18:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 14:58, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UARM

[edit]

It's a t-shirt company. Enough info so that I couldn't tag it as empty, but still basically just a link to their webpage. Wikipedia is still not a repository of links... Jkelly 06:56, 3 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!) 07:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tee Eff Eff

[edit]

Non-notable band. Delete unless notability can be established. — JIP | Talk 07:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know about them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisandru (talk • contribs) 07:14, 3 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 Speedy delete under criteria A1. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 22:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eleven food stubs

[edit]

These were all recipes that have since been transwikied to the Cookbook at Wikibooks. At the moment they tell us absolutely nothing at all about the item in question except that it is what its name says it is:

If anyone can expand any of these into at least a stub discussing the historical and/or cultural relevance of the food in question, I'll retract my nomination for that item. Otherwise, delete them all. Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd say they'd all be Speedy candidates under A1. There certainly isn't enough here to merge. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 08:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, well I was tempted to speedy them, but I thought I'd let people have a chance at expanding them first. Most if not all of them certainly have potential for encyclopedic growth, but if some doesn't happen soon, they have to go. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 08:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete all as A1. These aren't even stubs. android79 12:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete all as A1. This is what I call "article-creation vanity." They provide no information that isn't in the title. Unlike some other food articles, these are not of any particular cultural significance, and if expanded would probably be no more than cookbook entries, which are not suitable for Wikipedia. If anyone thinks I'm wrong about that, then they should still be speedied but should then be entered as requested articles. That serves the "placeholder" function but keeps them out of the main namespace until someone has the time to write a decent paragraph about them. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete all, contentless. Sheesh, they could at least say, e.g., "Lettuce soup is a soup made with lettuce"; "Ham sauce is a sauce made with ham". -- BD2412 talk 13:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for lack of content. Qaz (talk) 14:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Comment: Remember, the history of these articles is that they used to be recipes, and only after transwikification to the cookbook have they become virtually empty. So complaints about vanity, etc. seem off the mark. I took a serious look at trying to expand Lettuce soup, but didn't have any luck - a lot of recipes for different styles of lettuce soup exist out there, but very little exists on the culture, history, or importance of it. Bunchofgrapes 15:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete all for now. (Unless any get exapanded in the meantime, in which case disregard this vote) Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 15:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bunchofgrapes. A speedy seems inappropriate, due to the fact they started as more the one-liners. A delete is appropriate, since we're not a cook book. --rob 17:09, 3 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. Robert 01:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Progressiveislam.org

[edit]

advertising. Website does also not follow the guidelines set in WP:WEB. -- SoothingR 07:33, 3 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. — JIP | Talk 12:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glasspool, Jeremy-James Edmund Thornton

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

The result of the debate was DELETED by RHaworth after a copyvio rewrite. -Splashtalk 17:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"mavalli tiffin rooms"

[edit]

Notability is not asserted. Appears to be borderline notable. Text reads like an advertisement. The article name is very unorthodox. There seems to be some salvageable content, but there's so much wrong with this article that IMO it would be easier just to delete it than to fix it. I would love to be proven wrong, though. :) Ashenai 08:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I don't see much hope for this. --Merovingian (t) (c) 10:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Research proves that there's plenty of hope, and Ashenai is partially wrong. Deletion is only required because the text is a copyright violation, lifted word-for-word from an article in Chennai Online. If it were not for that, one could simply blank and rewrite from scratch (and I started off by doing exactly that until I reached the fourth source on my list and discovered the copyright violation). This famous Bangalorean restaurant satisfies the WP:CORP notability criteria by a comfortable margin, with plenty of independently sourced material having been published about the institution. See the references listed in the rewrite article at "mavalli tiffin rooms"/Temp for starters. Keep (the rewrite article) and rename to Mavalli Tiffin Rooms. Uncle G 12:42, 3 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. Rx StrangeLove 18:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Animatrick

[edit]

Non-notable. Ashenai 09:08, 3 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 15:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Sajecki

[edit]

Non-notable director, no IMDb entry, 29 unique Google results. His two films, Delusions of Grandeur and Something/Anything, are also not on IMDb. -- Kjkolb 09:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete I checked with the Novim Production company which is involved with Mike Sajecki. Something Anything in fact is available for public sale if you go to the website. It has licensed music and does not violate any copyright issue. Delusions of Grandeur was shown in independent theatres and colleges in the northeast US. However there was difficulty releasing for public sale on home video because of a problem with a licensed song from Peter Frampton. They are working with the artists lawyers to negotiate terms. They do wish to have the DVD available, even if it means omitting that song. On the issue of Imdb.com, they immediately submitted credits for their production. However, they say it will take a few weeks to be processed. Mike Sajecki is a relevant director following in the footsteps of Vincent Gallo. Mike has established a local celebrity in his native Buffalo, as well as pockets of interest in Toronto, New England any many of the college towns of the Northeast. The 2006 film from him will be submitted at several national festivals. He hasn't submitted at the elite festivals yet because he hasnt had the popularity then that he does now. -Rich 3 October 2005 (UTC)(preceding comment by 128.205.238.183 (talk · contribs) )

AfD Tag Deleted? It appears that the IP address that has been editing this article has removed the AfD tag, see comparison between revisions. I didn't want to add it again on my own, as I am new and something benign may have happened to it. Cpaliga 03:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Under most (I can't think of any exceptions) circumstances, if an AfD tag has been removed from a page without the AfD itself having been flagged as closed by an administrator (usually after five days) this is a form of vandalism, usually in a desperate attempt by the page creator to defend the page. Such AfD tags should be replaced. Usrnme h8er 07:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanity page. The praise is unsourced etc. (I've reverted the vandalism of the AfD page). KeithD (talk) 07:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn-bio. There are lots of movies available for public sale, but that doesn't make them or their writers/directors/producers/actors notable. Film is a hard thing to break into and achieve any real measure of success and Mr. Sajecki may be following in Vincent Gallo's footsteps, but until he makes his Buffalo 66 he doesn't deserve an article here.--Isotope23 18:16, 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. -Splashtalk 17:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Methods of Teaching Tennis Groundstrokes

[edit]

A how-to guide for teaching tennis. Transwiki if anything can be salvaged, delete otherwise. -- Kjkolb 09:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Transwiki. Rx StrangeLove 19:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tennis Progressions for Teaching Groundstrokes

[edit]

How-to article, transwiki if possible. -- Kjkolb 09:34, 3 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 15:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Stevens

[edit]

Hoax. No relevant Google hits. Delete Lupo 10:13, 3 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 15:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Will Lewis

[edit]

Probable hoax. Delete unless verified. Lupo 10:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Above vote for do not delete was added by User:217.41.241.254 who created the article. CambridgeBayWeather 09:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've stricken out the fake vote [19]. Lupo 10:11, 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 DELETE. -Splashtalk 17:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Rumours

[edit]

Non-notable student band The Land 10:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looking at their webpage, they've formed and might get signed. But no music in the charts yet. Delete as non-notable (you never know they might be this time next year!). The Land 10:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - I understand your concerns with the article but they are not a student band; they worked full time throughout the past few months and are scheduled to release their debut EP in early 2006 and album in September 2006. The article has relevance to existing articles in the database (including Menswear, Liam Watson (which seems to have been already deleted), producer of number one 2003 album Elephant by The White Stripes). As such, I believe this article should not be considered for deletion. JDW 10:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are guidelines on what is and isn't notable at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Music/Notability_and_Music_Guidelines. While I have nothing against the band, they need to be more famous before they can be included in the Wikipedia. Thye may well be as notable as the White Stripes next year, but not now. Liam Watson was deleted because its sole content was an image; if what you say is true then there's scope for an article about him. The Land 11:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise extremely notable. Their manager Chris Gentry was in Britpop band Menswear who were very famous in the mid-90s. The manager is most definitely a member of the band. Another member of the management team is Howard Gough, manager of Hope Of The States and Komakino. The stuff about Liam Watson is true and was already mentioned on The White Stripes' entry. JDW 11:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • In that case I'd definitely start a new Liam Watson entry, with more content than one photo. I'm personally unconvinced that Menswear count as 'extremely notable' and that they justify having The Rumours in. Howeve,r I'll now wait for the views of others. The Land 11:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I have that Menswear album (Nuisance) and as I remember, Menswear were very famous in 1995ish for being the architypal britpop band - they were signed because they simply looked the part! I'd say Gentry's link to this is enough to warrant this rumours article, but with those links to Watson and the White Stripes I personally don't think there's much doubt this band deserves an wiki-article. --Harlem4 11:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, that's a point of view, but one that would certainly carry more weight with me if you had edited wikipedia before other than to make that point. Please bear in mind that using sock-puppets on these pages is very much frowned upon. The Land 12:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think that's very fair. I read those guidelines you posted above and my interpretation is that there's a case for this. I suppose it is just a matter of interpretation. I have edited Wikipedia before but forgot my sign-in details and had to re-register. My main reason for suggesting the Menswear thing was grounds for it was that I do actually have that album! And I don't have that many albums...--Harlem4 12:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair enough. There's a procedure somewhere for having previous edits attributed to you. I'm sure an administrator will be along in a minute who will let you know what it is. The Land 12:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not convinced of notability or of import of link with Gentry/Menswear. Marcus22 13:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notable producer aside, band still does not meet the WP:MUSIC criteria, based on what is written here. When they meet that criteria I will support their right to have a wiki-article; until then though, delete.--Isotope23 18:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The band doesn't meet the requirements, and Menswear didn't exactly bestride the UK musical scene like a colossus. Extremely notable is the requirement - which to me says Blur levels of britpop standing, not Menswear. Average Earthman 21:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh yes, I'd consider from the description of Q Sheet that a track on the cover is more likely to be promotional advertising than a sign of notability. We're not in the business of predicting which newly promoted bands will achieve wide airplay and commercial success and which ones won't. If we were good at it, we'd be in the music business... Average Earthman 21:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article - although you seem to feel that none of these criteria have been met, I'd say that firstly it's entirely one's opinion that estimates the level of notability (referring to Menswear at the moment). With this in mind, and coupled with the genuine level of integration with existing relevant articles, I feel this is reason enough for the article to remain. Besides which, it's only a matter of months before the guidelines will be unequivocally met. QSheet is not an advertising gimmick, it is simply an indication that the band in question have already had a release into the industry, and with their notable management and production team, there's little question they're going to make a big impression over the coming year. Further, I don't see how the comment concerning the prediction of of wide airplay and commercial success is relevant. If that were the case, I'd have sent in one of their tracks. It's not an audition, it's an encyclopedia article. --Jdwhite 13:34, 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. Rx StrangeLove 19:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RedDot

[edit]

Non notable Exir KamalabadiEsperanza 10:42, 3 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 performed by User:JoJan. Hall Monitor 20:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen La Roche

[edit]

Rnon notable person -- SoothingR 11:13, 3 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. Rx StrangeLove 20:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Media audiences

[edit]

Not much substance to this article, not really informative or encyclopedic. -- Curps 11:44, 3 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. Robert 01:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ClickJobs.com

[edit]

Wow, now thats badversising... Check out the original version, where every time they wrote clickjobs, they made it an external link... Usrnme h8er 11:49, 3 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 REDIRECTED to Alien language by Theresa Knott. Robert 15:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Astrolinguist

[edit]

110 google hits does not a job make... unless there is a reference to where this term has been used seriously, and the community feels it warrants an encyclopaedia entry (rather than just being dicdef)... Delete Usrnme h8er 11:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On closer inspection, that should be 14 unique hits... Isn't it called a xenolinguist anyway? Usrnme h8er 14:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedied. android79 16:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Wyeth

[edit]

Possibly not notable. -- Curps 12:06, 3 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 Keep Mallocks 20:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sascha Spesiwtsew

[edit]

Hoax? I can't find a reference in google to this person except on wikipedia and pages that take information from wikipedia, and I would think that such a recent case would have ganered more interest. I'm perfectly prepared to accept it as real, I just felt it deserved scrutiny. Mallocks 12:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ah, it's a transliteration-from-Cyrillic thing. I tried spelling it "sasha" instead of "sascha", and deleted the last name; searching for sasha + cannibal + siberia -wikipedia led me to [20], which indicates that his name was more often spelled "Sasha Spesivtsev", and googling for that (minus wikipedia) shows that his name was actually Alexander (or Aleksandr, or...) Spesivtsev, with "Sasha" being his nickname. He's also sometimes mentioned in the context of his mother (who was apparently his accomplice), so "Sasha and Ludmilla/Lyudmila/etc Spesivtsev". Definite keep. DS 14:44, 3 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.

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 keep the article. Keep: no consensus

Kalakat Illam

[edit]

Seems to be some kind of personal genealogy or family history page. -- Curps 12:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

bhoothaganangals = demons. Theyyam will give you an idea what these figures look like.
Manthravaadam and Thanthram = sorcery, wizardry
Hope this helps *grin* Tintin 16:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Its not intended to be made a family history, its a piece of valuable information that might get extinct after couple of years, hence getting tailored to the pedia.

  • Comments To Myashu : Please sign your posts with four ~s. The article could do with a lot of cleanup and translation of Malayalam words to English.
I have no clue what to vote for. I am from Kerala;I have heard about the legend of Parasurama mentioned in the article, but haven't heard of this house. But that does not necessarily mean that the subject is not noteworthy. My criteria for voting on articles related to Kerala and Malayalam is whether they are important enough to make it to a Malayalam encyclopaedia. This article would be a borderline case. Tintin 23:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Tintin, Wikipedia entries have to be verifiable. As currently written, I'm afraid I don't even understand much of it. If there is an encyclopedic topic here, the article could perhaps be salvaged with a rewrite. -- Curps 17:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

192.94.94.105 12:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC) Tintin, According to the legend, there are 7 namboothiri manthravaadam family illams that had been created by Lord Parasurama. A few are Kaattumadam, soorya kaladi, kalakat,panthalakkottath, kalloor, pullancheri. Probably you have not heard because of the pronounciation of the word KALAKAT in english(some people read it as the house name of famous kunjan nambiar, probably thats a draw back of english language.) There are treatments for "Baadha Ozhippikkal", "Apasmaaram" etc. Earlier this family had Ayurvedic treatments too. Later down the lane of generations it wasn't getting carried over and it ended with late Sreedharan Thirumump. More stories are still there to be updated. Collecting data. Hopefully this article might be usefull to put light on other namboothiri families who are maintaining the same status. More info can be obtained from the famous book, aithihyamala, the garland of legends...[reply]

  • Translation
"Baadha Ozhippikkal" - exorcism
"Apasmaaram" - epilepsy
Aithihyamala - lit. 'A garland of legends'. A massive book written in early 20th century which contains some 100 essays on the legends and folklore of Kerala. Tintin 20:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have normally abstained from a topic that I know so little about. But since the others are in no better position than me, I guess I have to vote. I have no reason to doubt Myashu's honesty or earnestness but still, since there is no opportunity to verify the contents and as the article needs a lot of rework, I have to go for a userfy.
To Myashu : Userfy is not the same as delete. It means that it will be moved to your userspace, ie, to wiki/User:Myashu/Kalakkat Illam. You can continue working on it. Once you have completed writing, we can make it more encyclopaediac, and translate all the Malayalam words to English. I can do that for you.
As Curps mentioned above, verifiability is critical for articles in Wiki. So see if you can find references to your Illam in encylopaedias like Akhilavijnanakosam, Sarvavijnanakosam or Visvavijnanakosam, Aithihyamala, newspaper articles, or any book on Kerala heritage and add data from there. If Kalakat Illam has an article of its own in any one of these three encyclopaedias, that alone should be sufficient to make it eligible for wikipedia.
Once this is done, we can look at moving it back to its current location. Please don't get disappointed, and do continue to contribute.
Please try to login when you contribute. It is always easier to communicate through your talkpage than posting here. Tintin 20:05, 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. Linuxbeak | Talk 14:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paradigm Associates

[edit]

This is an article on a website with an Alexa ranking of 750000 where "Affordable Life Coach Certificates" are on sale. Pilatus 12:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Linuxbeak | Talk 14:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oddfellows casino

[edit]

The article admits that this band is "little known"; it is therefore not encyclopedia-worthy.--Carabinieri 12:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From wp music guidelines:Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)
Looks like they are a legit band. The indie label has several bands in its roster and lookks like has been around since '97.—Gaff talk 02:15, 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. Hermione1980 00:29, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hengoed railway station

[edit]

No claim to notability--Carabinieri 12:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am indifferent about this deletion - but in its defence, see Valley Lines page which (someone) pointed railway links for many such pages. Plus, there are a lot of railway enthusiasts in this country who might expand this page a lot. --Gedge67 13:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I don't know if railway stations are kept as a matter of form. If they are, then this should of course stay. Otherwise, as stations go, this one appears to be just about as unremarkable as it's possible for a place to be! Unless someone can prove otherwise, I say Delete OK. I'm persuaded. Keep Marcus22 13:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep railway stations. Even though this is a very short stub, I think it is valid since context is provided by specifying which railway it lies on. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Precedents#Cities_and_villages which says that subway stations are inherently notable by precedent, I think railway stations are of comparable notability. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silver Street railway station for another deletion debate on a small railway station. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Railway stations have the potential to become decent articles. When was the station first opened? How many people use it? Who designed the buildings? Have any famous trains passed through it? How often to trains run and where do they go? Have there been any accidents at the station? and so on. There's lots a railway enthusiast could add. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 15:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lack of notability is not a valid deletion criterion for railway stations.--Nicodemus75 18:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per Nicodemus75. Carioca 22:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Theresa Knott — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apyule (talk • contribs) Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I still don't understand what makes every railway station notable. Wouldn't that require us to write thousands of articles in order to have an article about every railway station in English-speaking countries, let alone the whole world? Couldn't the same concept be applied to, e.g., post offices or malls? What sets railway stations apart from other buildings that makes them particularly notable?--Carabinieri 19:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The question of whether we should have an article is different from the question if we can have an article. I don't believe that we need to have articles on every railway station in the world, but when such station articles come, I think we can keep them. Regarding shopping malls and post offices, I think there is some disagreement among Wikipedians, personally I don't find them very notable because what is in them are very mundane, ordinary thing (shops, offices and paperwork). One might argue that a railway station also is mundane, but for some reason there are several rail enthusiasts while there are very few shopping mall enthusiasts (i.e. people interested in the mall itself). Several webpages endeavor to provide info on various stations, which illustrates that there are several people interested in such information. One might also argue that many of these station articles will be little more than stubs and should be merged with the railway line (which I think most would agree, are inherently notable). I have some sympathy with that view, but merging in a railway station which lies on more than one line can be quite awkward. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:13, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merge Karmafist 17:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC) Tally Explanation on Talk Page[reply]

Lutenblag

[edit]

Sure, it's a hilarious book, but this article is completely unecessary - it's just a rip of information on the website. [maestro] 12:55, 3 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Karmafist 17:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC) tally exp. on talk page [reply]

East Los Angeles Chapel of Satan

[edit]

Appears to be an article created primarily to support his other article Marvin "Knife" Sotelo which is also marked for deletion. Minimal Wikipedia value. Cpaliga 13:43, 3 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 DELETED as COPYVIO it's been listed there for >7 days and hasn't been rewritten. -Splashtalk 17:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blood In Blood Out

[edit]

Appears to be an article created primarily to support his other article Marvin "Knife" Sotelo which is also marked for deletion. Minimal Wikipedia value. Cpaliga 13:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite. Popular (enough) movie. Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't make it non-notable.--Myles Long/cDc 15:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Changing vote to Move to Blood In, Blood Out or Bound By Honor ([23]) and rewrite. Popular (enough) movie (250,000 google hits - sure, not all of them relate to the movie, [24] but more than enough do, imo). I have no opinion either way on "Knife" and his supposed connection to the movie, but the movie is notable. --Myles Long/cDc 15:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move and Rewrite. I agree; I was wrong. It seems to be a reasonably popular movie and the purpose of the author should not have caused me to recommend for deletion a possibly valuable entry. I also agree that it should be moved and rewritten. I apologize for my presumption.Cpaliga 16:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No problem on the presumption; I apologize as well, since my "Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't make it non-notable," in retrospect, sounds much harsher than I'd intended. --Myles Long/cDc 17:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep provided it gets a complete rewrite. Also, I cant verify this right now due to a filter, but it appears this text may be a copyvio of [25]. Anyone want to verify and tag the article if this is the case?--Isotope23 17:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Verified and tagged as copyvio. --Myles Long/cDc 18:01, 3 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 04:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

His Story: The True Biography of Anton Szandor LaVey

[edit]

Appears to be an article created primarily to support his other article Marvin "Knife" Sotelo which is also marked for deletion. Minimal Wikipedia value. It is important to note that this is an actual book, although self-published by the article's author. Cpaliga 13:54, 3 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. Robert 15:05, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sinagogue of Satan

[edit]

Appears to be an article created primarily to support his other article Marvin "Knife" Sotelo which is also marked for deletion. Minimal Wikipedia value. Cpaliga 14:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I think you're being generous saying this has even minimal value. Generates a fair amount of chatter on the internet, but it's message board and blog chatter; primarily written by self-professed members or by online christian groups attacking them. They have a website, but all in all, it seems about as notable as OS 012 which just went down in an AfD.--Isotope23 17:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per nom, unencyclopedic, not notable. --Kgf0
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. All keep votes, despite appearing to be by noted Wikipedia users, are by sock puppets. See edit history. — JIP | Talk 04:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lightning War

[edit]

Not notable group with one? release. Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. feydey 14:21, 3 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. Robert 23:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fruitpunch

[edit]

article does not pass WP:music standards Qaz (talk) 14:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedied. android79 16:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Henry_Zellman

[edit]

Vanity Page, Non-notable Person 192.88.212.38 15:01, 3 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!) 11:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Minowitz

[edit]

Possible Hoax. Article claim subject is a fishtorian and ran like the fish with his high sock. Hurricane111 15:07, 3 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 17:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Xboxphreaker

[edit]

Completing an unfinished AfD by an anon user, but also voting Delete. Advertising. KeithD (talk) 15:17, 3 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 04:45, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

World Modeling Agency

[edit]

Doesn't assert notability. KeithD (talk) 15:26, 3 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 17:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Marcin mazur

[edit]

Not english, and more importantly: Subject was deleted at the Polish Wikipedia. Punkmorten 15:42, 3 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 04:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Littl'ans

[edit]

Excerpt: The Littl'ans are an English alternative band who have had marginal success in their short time performing. Punkmorten 15:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Linuxbeak | Talk 14:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rhombus (musical group)

[edit]

Article does not establish notability. Google search for the band Rhombus (the one from New Zealand) gives few hits. They have an allmusic entry [26], but there's nothing of value there. Punkmorten 15:53, 3 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 18:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cypress Ventures

[edit]

Commercial spam, makes no attempt to establish notability. CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:07, 3 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 04:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology alteration

[edit]

"Terminology alteration" appears to be a neologism, unused elswhere in this context, except on Wikipedia mirrors. The article itself is a pure original research essay lacking any credible citation. Jayjg (talk) 16:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Jayjg (talk) 16:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jayjg. Also delete The Holiday, which is only linked (in this context) from this article and is just a redirect back to this article. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 17:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I too can't find anything outside Wikipedia and its mirrors.--A bit iffy 18:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article is informative in regards to the present anti-Christianism, and is proposed to be deleted by the same users who vote to keep neologies such as "Common Era" on Wikipedia. Also these same users propose to delete "The Holiday" article, thus being the only other article (besides this one) in which I have created, and revert every single edit I make in regards to Christianity, therefore I am assuming they propose to delete this article only because I have created it. However, since Wikipedia has sadly equipped morons like those folks as Administrators, there's really nothing that can be done to cease this ludicrous activity. Jordain 18:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]
    A term like "Common Era", which has been in use for a century, and gets over 366,000 Google hits, is hardly a neologism. Jayjg (talk) 18:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • And this article actually includes the Common Era debate, which you have just ADMITTED is not neology. As for the anti-Christmas portion, there has long been hostility against Christmas because it is an exciting holiday in which obviously not everyone can enjoy. Let's not forget that Hanukkah only became popular because of Christmas (it's only a very minor holiday on the Jewish calendar), and Kwanzaa was only created in 1966! to provide an alternate late-December holiday for non-Christians and non-Jews. Jordain 18:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jordain, I see now there's a history of editing disputes between yourself and Jayjg. However, I do honestly believe Jayjg is correct in this case: quite simply, the term "Terminology alteration" is outside the scope of Wikipedia because it is a neologism and original research - unless you can demonstrate otherwise.--A bit iffy 18:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you believe this to be a neologism, would you also classify "Common Era" as a neologism? If not, what exactly is the difference? On the page of Political correctness, there is an sub-article defined as "Religious inclusiveness", which is what the Terminology alteration page was once called. Should it be renamed to this? Or maybe you should also vote to delete the Religious inclusiveness portion of Political Correctness, which Jayjg himself edited, but did not motion to delete. It's the exact same material as here! Jordain 18:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Obviously, every term was a neologism once. However, the point is that Common Era is well-established outside Wikipedia, but there's no evidence that "Terminology alteration" is well-established outside Wikipedia, and makes me think someone's come up with the term for the sole purpose of doing an article. Now, to be honest, Wikipedia's "policy" on Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms is actually just a guideline, but in this case the complete lack of precedent for the use of "Terminology alteration" means the article of this name shouldn't exist.--A bit iffy 18:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This page could be considered as a form of political correctness, but I don't think it should be deleted. Moved or renamed, yes possibly, but not deleted. Jordain 18:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete as neologistic term. Article also appears to contain an element of original research and a POV slant.--Isotope23 20:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Isotope is correct: pure neologism, OR and POV - hence, unencyclopedic. Dottore So 22:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per basically everyone else. WTF does "terminology alteration" really mean, anyway?--chris.lawson 23:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. blatantly pov. ericg ✈ 00:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. Original research, POV. Jesus loves political correctness, because Jesus doesn't like for anyone to use the N word. Seriously, I asked, and He told me last week. Xoloz 05:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original research... or tedious Bible-tapping (like Bible-thumping, but quieter)pseudo-rant, if you prefer. --Last Malthusian 08:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: checking book title links from the Richmal Crompton article and following one called The Holiday (it's a book: why is it redirecting?), I was intrigued to be redirected to this! I can think of many meanings for "terminology alteration", but this is far from the first I would come up with: and Google agrees. Telsa 09:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems a shame to get rid of it because it's hilarious, but sadly not in line with our policies. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the page has been moved by its creator to Religious terminology debate. The AfD notice has been transferred successfully, also by Jordain.--chris.lawson 04:10, 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. -Splashtalk 18:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flora Ogilvy

[edit]

The article tells us nothing about her, only about her relatives; is the fact that there are thirty-four people between her and the throne significant enough to warrant an article? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:33, 3 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 a lot of debate, but this is indeed why we have categories. -Splashtalk 18:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charnel Music catalogue

[edit]

A list of records by the label Charnel Music. JoanneB 17:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • KeepBut tidy up and make a bit more attractive also maybe put in a little paragraph abour Charnel Music becuase if you didnt know what that was you would be a little lost there user:Redconverse
  • Delete, this is what categories are for. --fvw* 17:10, 3 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 18:03, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeshewuawork

[edit]

According to Google, the term doesn't exist outside of Wikipedia. At least not on the internet... JoanneB 17:23, 3 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 18:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Winter pop

[edit]

Is there really such a thing? Deb 17:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional Delete I cannot find any evidence that such a genre exists, so I'm guessing this is a neologism... BUT I don't live in Japan and since the author has stated this is primarily a Japanese phenomenon, I will change my vote if someone can cite sources (preferably in English) that this is an established genre of music in Japan.--Isotope23 18:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: i found a page that is presumably about it, and there is a snowman (?) and snowflakes on it; but I don't know japaneese, so I can only gues what's written there. Karol 18:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The web adress shown below belongs to Konami Gateway on Pop'n Music 7 from where this music genre appared. Please keep the page for the sake of learning something new.
  • Delete. pop'n music has many genres that are made up specifically for the game. Winter pop is just their name for a pop song related to winter. Other bullshit genres include miracle, precious, sunny and des-reggae (death reggae). --SPUI (talk) 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 REDIRECT to Beg for Mercy. — JIP | Talk 04:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beg for mercy

[edit]

Normally, I don't touch band articles as I have very limited knowledge of music. However, I coincidentally happened to come across the guidelines in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Music/Notability_and_Music_Guidelines, and it's clear to me that Beg for mercy meets none of the criteria for notability there. A bit iffy 17:36, 3 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. Robert 23:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zap me

[edit]

Delete - appears to be vanity page and unverifiable at best. MakeRocketGoNow 17:35, 3 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 00:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign born

[edit]

Dicdef. I don't really see anything to do with this at WP (the foreigner page, for instance, just has a link to Wiktionary). Note that the nominated revision is mine, the original was US-centric and I fixed that much regardless of the article's fate. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 17:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Revision looks great, thanks Marskell! — Lomn | Talk / RfC 13:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Expatriate has an article and I don't see that this shouldn't. It could certainly be expanded to include more the than the dicdef. See for instance Second class citizen. Foreign born aren't necessarily foreigners incidentally. Marskell 17:49, 3 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. Robert 23:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Polom

[edit]

Dicdef for an obscure slang neologism used on IRC, with a few links to Google searches at the bottom. Not really an encyclopedia article, IMHO. — Ливай | ☺ 17:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a candidate for moving to wiktionary. This is a dictionary definition, not an encyclopedia article.

  • Delete I wouldn't even move it to wiktionary as it is more urbandictionary slang than a real term. I'd also support retaining the page as a disamgig for the names of the places mentioned at the bottom if someone wanted to watch this article for content and make sure the spurious slang def doesn't work its way back in.--Isotope23 20:09, 3 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 18:05, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of free churches in Germany by dialect area of seat

[edit]

list is just taking up space. also it doesn't make much sense to list churches based upon dialect area. Abstrakt 18:07, 3 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 18:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Charismatic Churches in India

[edit]

Is this list really that necessary? Isn't there already a list of Christian churches in India? And aren't most of these churches on that list as well? I mean most of the churches listed are red links, and the blue links are mostly redirects. Abstrakt 18:10, 3 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. -Splashtalk 18:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Williams Record

[edit]

A small student newspaper, I really don't see the need for an entire article devoted to this. I have taken the time to add it to List_of_college_newspapers. However most of the papers there don't have an article devoted just to themselves. Malo 18:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was redirect to River Club. Linuxbeak | Talk 14:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Riverclub

[edit]

Article already exists, in its properly spelled form, River Club, which is also a larger article 196.2.124.250 18:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Golden mean. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Mean

[edit]

This article is a crime. First it has four long paragraphs saying the golden mean is something in mathematics that is much celebrated, without the slightest attempt to even hint at what it is, even getting into a poet's view of the matter without having attempted to inform the reader of what it is, which would be very easy. A different article, golden ratio, already gives a very clear account of this concept. Then it goes on to a section on the Pythagorean theory of music, which is not even tangentially relevant, but looks (very) superficially related only because it deals with ratios in esthetics. The rest of the article doesn't look as if it informs the reader of what the golden ratio is either. Michael Hardy 23:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment (not actually a vote, since I expressed myself above): Looking at which pages link to this execrable article, I find two entirely distinct topics, both sometimes called the golden mean. Maybe this should become a disambiguation page. Or redirect to golden mean with a lower-case m, now a redirect page to golden ratio, and make golden mean a disambiguation page? Michael Hardy 00:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • So I take it you don't like the article? I'm voting Conditional Keep on the basis that this has been flagged for attention for 1 day (by the AfD nominator) and now is being AfD nom'd. I agree that the article is a complete mess of random topics and is in need of some serious editing, but you cannot expect that to happen in 1 day. If after 30 days this article doesn't get updated into a coherent article with a point, I agree it should be deleted, but for now I'd say let the article have on last chance to be cleaned up.--Isotope23 19:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Well, keep the article title, if only as a redirect, and perhaps after moving it to Golden mean? AFAIK "golden mean" is a legitimate synonym or near-synonym for "golden ratio" and a plausible entry term. The golden ratio article is heavy on math and light on aesthetics, philosophy, etc. The golden mean article is, uh, completely free from math and heavy on rather soft aesthetics and philosophy. I'm not enough of a classicist to judge its quality. And I haven't combed through the rest of Wikipedia to see how much of the material here is adequately treated elsewhere. Phyllotaxis is just a stub! But I don't see deleting all the content in this article. There needs to be some kind of refactoring and redistribution of its content, quite possibly deleting some of it, merging some of it elsewhere, and quite possibly leaving nothing but a redirect. The Pythagorean stuff needs to go elsewhere or just go. What sort of musical interval is 1.618? A minor sixth and change? Mmmm, mmmm, not good. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Try to clarify, see below[reply]

  • Merge with golden ratio. This will require quite a bit of cleanup but I think there is some salvageable information in this article which is not covered in the other. ESkog 20:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to golden ratio. This article is one of WHEELERs leftovers, and doesn't contain much worth merging. - SimonP 21:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the Golden Ratio article is much more concise. I vote to move the few unique bits from the Golden Ratio article to the Golden Mean article. Because the word ratio is more descriptive of its definition, it seems that Golden Ratio should be the title and the alternate names Golden Mean, Divine Proportion, and Golden Section should appear in the first few lines of the article. Tr0gd0rr 21:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to golden ratio per SimonP and Dpbsmith. Dottore So 22:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP. Do not redirect Besides the mathematical definition, there's Horace, the Roman poet, and his use of this term philosophically. This is the sort of thing even Brittanica would have as disamb. for. Kill the current content as you wish, but this needs to be kept for clarification and probable disamb. -- or maybe expansion, since ratio is more precisely mathematically, but mean is exclusive philosophically. Xoloz 05:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with golden ratio. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with golden ratio unless someone knows about the whole Horace useage mentioned by Xoloz and is willing to put it in the article. --Apyule 07:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't merge or redirect: I agree that this article needs substantial improvement. However, most of it deals with the philosophical meaning of golden mean (essentially not too much, not too little), which has nothing to do with the mathematical subject of the golden ratio article; therefore, it should not be merged with that article. The confusion, which is not of our making, is that the outside world uses golden mean ambiguously: sometimes in its philosophical sense (above); other times as a synonym for the golden ratio. Golden ratio, on the other hand, is unambibuous: it refers only to the subject of the golden ratio article, which is another reason that the articles should not be merged. The Wikified solution for dealing an ambiguous term is disambiguation, and that is part of the solution for this article. Indeed Michael Hardy, who made the first post on this page (does that mean he is the one who nominated the article for deletion?) raised much the same point in a comment following his original post. The rest of the solution is (1) to delete from this article all discussion of material that is treated in the golden ratio article (and treated much better there), with an appropriate cross-reference on this page to golden ratio as another meaning of golden mean; and (2) to edit what is left of this article, dealing solely with the philosophical meaning, to improve its quality. Finell 10:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, then redirect to Golden mean and make that into a disambiguation page. -- Egil 13:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, let me see if I can be coherent. Basically: concur with Finell. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep the article title itself, since I think the term really is frequently used with that capitalization.
    • Keep the article Golden mean, which currently happens to be a redirect to Golden ratio.
    • Hope for a quick edit of the article to remove anything obviously erroneous or less useful than Golden ratio, and clarify whatever relationships there are between the Golden Mean and Golden ratio articles. Basically, separate them into a philosophy article and a math article even if there is really some overlap in the respective concepts.
    • Keep a cleanup tag on the article.
    • Copy Finell's comment above to the Talk page as a reasonable program for what needs to be done.
    • Hope for editing of the page by people knowledgable in classics and philosophy
    • Defer all the issues of which pages should be redirects, which should be dabs, etc. as normal editing issues. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (if necessary) and Redirect Golden Ratio is a good article, but I call it the golden mean (or the Golden Section at times. The entry is perfectly valid, but the concept isn't really different from Golden Ratio McKay 17:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As per Finell. It also needs to be moved to "Golden section" a more correct title, IMO . ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 02:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In addition to the above, I know that Aristotle uses the idea of the "golden mean" as the point of virute in his Nicomachean Ethics. One example: He describes courage as the virtue being at golden mean between cowardice and fool-hardiness. David Bergan 04:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There needs to be better disambiguation between this article and Golden Ratio/golden mean. A new introductory paragraph should be put in to make clear the different uses of 'golden mean' (not just mathematical term), and its relationship with 'golden ratio' and perhaps difference from 'golden rule'. I agree with the above comment that more work on the philosophical section needs to be done too. Perhaps some of the sections should be merged with appropriate articles--golden ratio seems a good target for this--but in general, the article still needs work but should be kept. WhiteC 14:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New complication

[edit]

Now there is a new Golden mean article that is solely a redirect to Golden ratio in addition to the present Golden Mean article (note the difference in capitalization) being discussed here (which no one will find in a search now unless they capitalize Mean). Talk about a need for disambiguation! Angela, a Board of Trustees member, apparently created the new Golden mean redirect page. I will leave a note on her Talk page. Finell 20:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't sound like a serious complication. It can all be dealt with as normal editing. But we might as well start tabulating just how many pages should be involved. I just checked and Golden Section and Golden section both redirect to Golden ratio. Good. And Phi is a dab with Golden ratio as the first alternative. Also good.
I think we need about two separate articles, with math in one and philosophy/classics in the other. Not sure which one aesthetics best belongs in. I don't think it much matters whether there's a "central" disambiguation page, or whether each of the two articles has a short, pithy cross-reference to the other. What matters is that a reader searching for any of this stuff should be able to type in any of these terms and find what they're looking for. And that the articles be good.
Phyllotaxis should be woven into this web, too.
Do we have an article on the Goldena medina? Apparently not... Dpbsmith (talk) 22:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Than can be easily fixed after the conclusion of the AfD. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 02:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: Angela responded, on her Talk page, to Finell 20:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC) as follows:[reply]

Sorry, but I don't remember why I moved the page to that title. I have no opinion on whether it needs deleting. Angela 14:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

In view Angela's response, and to reduce confusion of users who search for "golden mean," I edited the Golden mean page to redirect to the Golden Mean article. However, consistent with Wiki capitalization guidelines, Golden Mean should be renamed Golden mean. Because Golden mean already exists, this change requires an Administrator. Finell 04:58, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quagmire Solutions

[edit]

Non-notable web design company. Quale 18:45, 3 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 18:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RB20E

[edit]

Single line (not even a sentence) substub with a cleanup-date tag on it since July 27. "nissan engine producer from the late 80's, single cam 6 cylander, belt drive, 2.0L.". Quale 18:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted by me. Scimitar parley 20:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Anderson

[edit]

The assertions of notability (taco eating, kindness award) look to be hoaxes; I can't find references to either. Without those it's just another nn-bio. Delete. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 18:58, 3 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 04:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Snackmosphere

[edit]

Neologism for the empty air that makes potato chip bags seem full when they're really not. Clever, but not notable. Delete — Lomn | Talk / RfC 19:16, 3 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!) 07:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Smallfort

[edit]

A user-created game level for Half Life created in 2000. Non-notable. Quale 19:20, 3 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!) 07:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Norh

[edit]

Gamecruft neologism. This really isn't necessary. Delete, as I don't think it rates a merge into Stunts (computer game). — Lomn | Talk / RfC 19:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Dover Castle. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dover_castle

[edit]

Badly titled page, it should be called "The Dover Castle" to avoid collision with a page on "Dover Castle" (the castle in Dover, not the pub. I've moved the pub's page to "The Dover Castle" and want to remove the old page PeterArnold 19:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't agree with where the redirect points. I would suggest that a fortification involved in the defence of England for centuries is more important than a pub in Leicester. Average Earthman 20:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • AFD is not the place for this. Deletion is not involved in solving this problem. PeterArnold and Average Earthman both apparently want the redirect to point to Dover Castle instead of to The Dover Castle. The answer is just to edit the redirect, then. No administrator privileges are required. Indeed, one doesn't even need to have a user account to be able to do this. There's not even a disagreement as to where the redirect should point (for which the article's talk page would be the place, not AFD). Uncle G 22:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect both to "Dover Castle" (the castle). The pub is non-notable. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that there are two pages: "Dover_Castle" (the fortification in Kent) and "Dover_castle" (the old page for the pub that currently redirects to the new page for the pub). I feel that it would be cleaner to delete the "Dover_castle" page rather than redirecting it to the fortification page. For the moment I have redirected the "Dover_castle" page to point to the "Dover_Castle" page. PeterArnold 07:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another issue is that a search for "Dover Castle" finds the fortification page but a search for "dover castle" finds the redirection page. I would say this is another reason for deleting it. PeterArnold 07:11, 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 delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Applesquash

[edit]

Hoax veggie. Google shows 23 uniques, nearly all of which are for one Hiram Applesquash. The rest are for apple+squash recipes. Delete — Lomn | Talk / RfC 20:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Linuxbeak | Talk 14:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hardcore Wrestling Federation

[edit]

Completing incomplete AfD. Also voting Delete as non-notable wrestling federation, and probable advert KeithD (talk) 20:34, 3 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 04:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Flor

[edit]

Not notable. There are dozens of young actress just like her in Brazil. Abu Badali 20:21, 3 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 04:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Smith

[edit]

High school rapper, fails WP:MUSIC. Delete — Lomn | Talk / RfC 20:28, 3 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 00:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hanukkah bush

[edit]
Note: This was re-nominated for deletion on 2 October 2005, having previously been nominated on 5 September and kept. Technical errors in the nomination process made it appear that this discussion was closed, possibly discouraging participation. Therefore I have re-listed it in the 3 October log to give people a chance to see the discussion in this revised form, without the "discussion closed" notice. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete immediately It is suggested that this page be either deleted or I will move it to "Jewish Christmas Tree", because of the simple fact that it is a neologism and should be removed in accordance with WP:POINT. It is offensive to both Christians and Jews alike considering that it is a ripoff of the traditionally Christian decoration of a tree at December. Jordain 19:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because none of the nominator's reasons are valid. In detail: Dpbsmith (talk) 20:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It's not a neologism, the term being in widespread and frequent use for decades as shown by the source citations on the page.
  2. The Christmas tree is not "traditionally Christian." As far as I know, Christmas trees are not mentioned in the New Testament. If I'm wrong, please provide a citation. Our article on Christmas trees discusses this in detail and suggests that the practice either originated as a pagan custom, or as a nonreligious celebration originating in 18th-century Germany (which was objected to by at least one priest specifically as not being Christian).
  3. Even if it were considered offensive, the appropriate remedy would not be to delete the article, but make sure the article is neutral, by providing proper, well-sourced material showing to whom it is considered offensive. The article already addresses the differences of opinions between Jews in some detail. I am not aware of any widespread objections by Christians, but if there are, please provide properly sourced commentary for inclusion in the article.
  4. I don't see how WP:POINT applies, because nothing the actions and procedures surrounding this article were disruptive to Wikipedia.
  5. The article was discussed in AfD very recently. In its present form, it received fourteen keep votes and no delete votes. (For some reason Jordain did not vote in the first AfD, even though it is clear he or she was aware of the article.) Dpbsmith (talk) 20:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should not be moved to "Jewish Christmas tree" for the following reasons. Unlike Hanukkah bush, "Jewish Christmas tree" is a neologism. This term is not used to any appreciable extent. Our naming conventions call for the use of the most common term; this is "Hanukkah bush," not "Jewish Christmas tree." This specific question of whether the article should be entitled Talk:Hanukkah bush on whether the article title should be Hanukkah bush or Jewish Christmas Tree resulted in four fairly strong opinions, all to the effect that it should remain at Hanukkah bush, and no dissenting opinions. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


PLEASE POST VOTES ABOVE THE FOLLOWING CLOSED DISCUSSION

Closed discussion from 5 September nomination of Hanukkah bush

[edit]

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.

Vanity / OR / neologism / nonsense (take your pick). - ulayiti (talk) (my RfA) 00:19, 5 September 2005 (UTC) Not any more though, since it's been rewritten. Keep this version. - ulayiti (talk) (my RfA) 16:04, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as rewritten (Jewish version of Christmas tree). My delete vote was on the previous article, which was something unrelated about a mythical drug. Real Hanukkah bushes are somewhat of a cultural tradition and the new article is accurate. MCB
  • Delete Hoax. Jobe6 00:42, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per MCB. (Liberal, assimilationist Jewish families—at least in the New York suburb where I grew up—used to put up and decorate Christmas trees during the holiday season and refer to them as "Hanukkah bushes." This eHow article suggest that it is still common. In my experience this was understood to be a joke. There could conceivably be material on this topic, although I seriously doubt it merits its own article. And it's a tricky matter to discuss, because some Jews would probably not approve of the practice nor of the light-hearted name.) Dpbsmith (talk) 00:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Like Dpbsmith, when I was growing up in Chicago, some Jewish families that I knew also had a "Hanukkah Bush." The term is probably widespread, but I think it is better to delete this until the day someone feels up to writing a serious Hanukkah Bush article. Crypticfirefly 01:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nonsense. Carioca 01:30, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete In Alabama, the Jewish friend I hung out with in High School always had a "Hanukkah bush" as well for the shared festival of the winter solstice (Sun Return). If such an article regarding that were actually created, it would not stand on its own but would need to be included with other holiday/festival articles. (After the passover feast, we dyed eggs, too.) --WCFrancis 01:44, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as rewritten. I stand corrected, as well; it looks like it can stand on its own. --WCFrancis 03:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. Robert 23:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May wah

[edit]

Delete. Appears to be a nn take out restaurant. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 20:33, 3 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 04:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sitespaces

[edit]

Advertisement for nn (16 distinct Googles) site Dlyons493 Talk 20:46, 3 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. Robert 23:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Startpagina

[edit]

Seems totally non-notable, with 1 page linking there (A page of lists), a list on a talk page a list on a users sandbox, and a list on Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress/Long term alerts, which describes them as a "well known, long term, spam linker" which is true, in the past I've taken his advice and searched Wikipedia and found always atleast 5 pages with xxx.pagina.nl links to them. 68.39.174.238 20:49, 3 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.

closed, remove from AfD, debate is longer than 10 days.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 not including the anon or redlinked users in any counting. But counting is less important than the fact that this had a decisive AfD very recently that VfU did not overturn. -Splashtalk 18:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Sanders

[edit]

Based upon my interpretation of WP:CSD, this is not a speedy deletion candidate per se, but it does not readily meet the inclusion standards put forward by WP:BIO. It is my belief that the creator of this article may be mistaking the article namespace for user space. After seeing the {{PotentialVanity}} tag removed three times in the article history, it came to my attention that this was just discussed two weeks ago on AfD, with the article being deleted as the end result, after a thoroughly unanimous consensus to do so. As this article is not an exact recreation of the original, I am relisting it here for discussion. No vote. Hall Monitor 20:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The first discussion of this article can be read here. Hall Monitor 20:51, 3 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 (?) 09:01, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Holden Avestra

[edit]

Probably a bogus article

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted as a hoax. When the article is supported only by blatant sockpuppets, and states that an eatery is connected to the Umbrella Corporation, it isn't a hard choice. Scimitar parley 22:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Daka

[edit]

Are articles about otherwise non-notable dining halls in colleges really needed? Wikipedia is not a list of every single piece of information in the world --W.marsh 21:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. Quicksandish τκ 21:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This phrase has been in use for over a decade and is still in use by at least 3000 people. Much more interesting than many of the articles on people nobody remembers or even heard of except the writer.--Toba 21:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If the dining hall is notable then so's my living room. CambridgeBayWeather 21:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Daka has touched the hearts of many, and the stomachs of many more. To suggest that Daka is a "non-notable" dining hall is ridiculous. For the chocolate-chip cookies alone, Daka will be forever remembered by those who dine there. Until it can be proven that Daka does not have the greatest cookies in the world, it deserves mention in Wikipedia. --Norfty 21:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Thousands are familiar with this, I think that is reason enough to keep it --KazenoKoe 21:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 1. encyclopedia, cyclopedia, encyclopaedia, cyclopaedia -- (a reference work (often in several volumes) containing articles on various topics (often arranged in alphabetical order) dealing with the entire range of human knowledge or with some particular specialty) --Toba 21:45 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep As a current student of WPI, I would like to say the DAKA makes by far, the best chocolate-chip cookies ever. Also, it would be a great help to incoming students if they could read about the dining hall as described by current students, and most will be living on campus, and eating at the dining hall. As to the comment about your living room being notable, I've never heard anything about your house, but there are hundreds of thousands of people who have heard about WPI. I vote to save this page. --KurtWivagg 21:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment All of these people commenting to keep are, not surprisingly, accounts created after I nominated this for deletion, and even identify themselves as students of WPI (freshmen I'm guessing -- sorry couldn't resist) and are obviously biased and just joking around anyway. Per policy that should be taken into consideration. --W.marsh 21:59, 3 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 (?) 08:59, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A Mackle

[edit]

Neologism, WP:ISNOT UrbanDictionary. Delete — Lomn | Talk / RfC 21:49, 3 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 (?) 08:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

367 (number)

[edit]

I thought Atlas Shrugged was a great book, but that doesn't warrant an article about the number. Trovatore 22:19, 3 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 (?) 08:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nanomanager

[edit]

dicdef,neologism,OR, take your pick Trovatore 22:21, 3 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 (?) 08:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Buttslammarama

[edit]

Article assertions suggest that band does not meet WP:MUSIC. CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator. --nixie 06:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as per nominator, additionally, the article is unprofessional, very much in violation of NPOV, and even if the band had met the music standard, the information is mostly speculative and cheesy at best... I mean, c'mon... "They will always remember and love their loyal fans."...my guess own suspicions are that the article is completely fabricated.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 (?) 08:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

HIV clan

[edit]

Vanity & NN ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 22:28, 3 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 (?) 08:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Stockdale

[edit]

Looks like an ad about an unnotable person Jason McHuff 22:58, 3 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 keep the article. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was to keep the article.

Ratchagar

[edit]

This article is about a priest who is not particularly notable, although he is mentioned in some articles about the Indian Ocean tsunami. He has 64 unique Google hits. -- Kjkolb 03:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splashtalk 18:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rino H C Schreuder

[edit]

Schreuder appears to be notable and neither do the organizations he is involved with. However, that might be because the organizations' names are different in Dutch. Only the first couple of pages of search results on "Rino Schreuder", without quotes, appear to be him. If someone cannot verify notability, I'd say delete. -- Kjkolb 03:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Hyperion. Robert 23:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hypherion

[edit]

Unverifiable using any legitimate sources. Ziggurat 23:03, 3 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_3&oldid=1234118755"