Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 September 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NeilN (talk | contribs) at 01:17, 12 September 2005 (Wendy-Ann Antanaitis). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Purge server cache

September 12

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 delete.Woohookitty 09:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Medmania.com

Advertisement. Article does not demonstrate importance of subject Hurricane111 05:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One of plenty on 3rd September that need more participation for a useful decision. -Splash 00:01, 12 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.

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 delete. Woohookitty 09:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NigSek

Fewer than 400 Google results, most not actually relating to this game. I consider myself an inclusionist but really, we don't need this. I even had to remove the AIM contact details of the creator. Soo 11:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn, wikipedia article is the third google hit. -GregAsche (talk) 01:28, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
One of plenty on 3rd September that need more participation for a useful decision. -Splash 00:01, 12 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.

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 delete. Woohookitty 09:52, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Canuck

One of plenty on 3rd September that need more participation for a useful decision. -Splash 00:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Dlyons493 05:08, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nonsense.Voice of All (talk) 06:56, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, combine an internet nickname with website advertising and you have a very deletable article. - Mgm|(talk) 09:00, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's not even an original nickname; dollars to donuts he took it from the Tragically Hip song. (Note that I already thought this before visiting his webpage to discover that the first words in the site intro were "Welcome to the All Canadian Surf Club," which proves my point. I'm psychic, I tell you, psychic! And no, the Hip song was not a notable single, so I'm not proposing that the title be repurposed as an article about the song.) Bearcat 22:52, 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.

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 delete. Woohookitty 09:58, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ladderhall

vfd not listed by nom - fixing - no vote --Doc (?) 16:42, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One of plenty on 3rd September that need more participation for a useful decision. -Splash 00:01, 12 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.

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 delete. Woohookitty 10:00, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned toys

Does not meet WP:MUSIC and notability is not established. CHAIRBOY 17:13, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep Their score for isolationist lovers is one of the best film scores I own.
  • keep It was just posted on a music forum that this article was up for deletion, so I
            thought I would voice my opinion on it.  This is a new side project, by the 
            composer for "The synthetic dream foundation", which is one of the most prominent
            electronic music projects in the industrial and dark ambient worlds.  The fact, 
            that this band has the same composer and member as a major, prominent band, makes
            it follow one of the 5 necessary ingredients for inclusion based on the rules 
            regulating the inclusion of bands for Wikipedia.
  • keep Sorry bad english. Keep band for popular in Venezuela.
  • keep I followed the same link mentioned above, and for the same reasons mentioned above
            this is certainly a notable composer and their work should be represented in
            Wikipedia
  • keep This page needs alot of work, but should definitely be kept to be worked upon. I'm no film score buff, but I own one of the scores by this artist
One of plenty on 3rd September that need more participation for a useful decision. -Splash 00:01, 12 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.

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 Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:54, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:55, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 MERGE to Indrajit. Not going to do the move, because I can't verify for myself which is the correct spelling. -Splashtalk 00:28, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bramhasir

Two Google results, both of which are from this very encyclopedia. Paul 18:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One of plenty on 3rd September that need more participation for a useful decision. -Splash 00:01, 12 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.

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 DELETE. — JIP | Talk 20:51, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pars Monthly

VfD not previously listed - no vote (although I can't verify it either) --Doc (?) 20:23, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

nn. i searched google for 3 minutes with all combinations of keywords "pars, monthly, australia, persian, magazine" and did not obtain a single relevant hit. but since i am not familiar with australian media, i will Abstain for now. -- Bubbachuck 05:58, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One of plenty on 3rd September that need more participation for a useful decision. -Splash 00:01, 12 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.

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 17:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Outboards

Tagged but not listed by User: 138.89.64.126. Listing now. Joyous (talk) 20:40, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

One of plenty on 3rd September that need more participation for a useful decision. -Splash 00:01, 12 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.

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 17:25, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Podigla Me Iz Pepela

VfD not previously listed - no vote---Doc (?) 20:44, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One of plenty on 3rd September that need more participation for a useful decision. -Splash 00:01, 12 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.

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 DELETE. Again, User:Splash asked for more discussion when there was only one delete vote, so there is now a clear consensus. — JIP | Talk 20:53, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Raskin

Completing nomination - no vote--Doc (?) 21:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This article fails the WP:MUSIC test for notability. Icelight July 8, 2005 06:26 (UTC)
One of plenty on 3rd September that need more participation for a useful decision. -Splash 00:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'What the hell? It's a disambiguation page into which someone tossed band vanity (rappanity)? Or is it a bandity article into which someone offered to disambiguate two names that need no disambiguation? Both are wrong. The dab is entirely misapplied, since two people with a given last name do not need to be disambiguated, unless they are known only by that last name, and the band vanity is just plain wrong. Delete all the way around. Geogre 16:38, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the band part at least. Last name disambiguation pages have helped me out, though. People often omit first names and I have no idea who they're talking about when I try to fix it. Delete the disambiguation as well, if it's unnecessary. -- Kjkolb 07:51, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Move my page. tell me. --Sheynhertzגעשׁ״ך 02:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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 NO CONSENSUS but with a suggestion to merge into Girly girl. (2 delete (inc nominator), 1 merge or delete, 1 merge or keep). Thryduulf 12:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Boyish boys

This appears to be a neologism and/or dicdef. Googling provides no evidence of this as a term separate from the definitions of its component parts. Angr/tɔk tə mi 22:00, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One of plenty on 3rd September that need more participation for a useful decision. -Splash 00:01, 12 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.

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 Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:53, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dr numbers

  • Delete nn DJ. Allmusic.com has nothing, and the Google hits on his name are usually other people (or monikers for them). The mixtapes don't turn up anywhere either. Note the Googles for "Assassination Now" are usually just the two words either side of a full stop. -Splash 22:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One of plenty on 3rd September that need more participation for a useful decision. -Splash 00:01, 12 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.

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 DELETE. — JIP | Talk 20:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christian (Smith) Pancorvo

User:WillC put a VfD tag on this article but never completed the nomination. Completing it now. No vote. JYolkowski // talk 22:44, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One of plenty on 3rd September that need more participation for a useful decision. -Splash 00:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyvio of [www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/ Razorlight-Biography/1A303AFFDA41CF3548256EC20027B81A] Dlyons493 05:25, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I've added the above link to Razorlight, but its information is apparently outdated. Most of the band's other members have original biog pages on wikipedia - Christian (Smith) Pancorvo's page neglects to inform readers that he is no longer the band's drummer. Even if he's sufficiently notable to warrant having his own page, this isn't it. TheMadBaron 10:14, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Being the drummer, even if he were, would not justify him for a biography. Instead, it would warrant a single line in the article on the band (if that were even warranted). Thus with all rock band members: If there is no notable biography, then a simple redirect to the band is all that's needed. Geogre 16:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no good reason to keep, many good reasons to delete (garbled, non-notable, et al.) Paul 17:24, 14 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.

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 Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:55, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Raster Group

the group is about to publish a book i dont see how its not a legitimate organization. its an international art group, thats been around since 2001, if this site should be deleted then so should 'deviantart'

Not notable organization/group-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 00:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

INFROMATION IS ALL ABOUT HITS (comment added by anon at IP 220.253.75.168, DSL account at NSW.netspace.net.au, no other edits -- llywrch)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 DELETE. — JIP | Talk 20:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bunnybrains

Tagged for speedy as "vanity self-insertion" which, whilst sounding unpleasant, isn't among the criteria. Bands are always good AfD-fodder though. Abstain. -Splash 00:18, 12 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.

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 DELETE. — JIP | Talk 21:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Caesar St. Augustine de Buonaparte

Tagged for speedy as nn-bio. Whilst sounding ridiculous, Google certainly implies that this nutcase did do these things. AfD gets to decide if these things are enough for an article. Abstain. -Splash 00:21, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn. I don't think it's serious enough to warrant an article. Also, to even think of considering this person, I would have to see proof he not only tried to run for president, but that he actually got on the ballot in at least one state, so he could actually be called a "candidate". Without that, he's just one of countless insignficant crackpots. --rob 03:06, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per rob Dlyons493 05:39, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep in light of this article that proves he did run for the office. There's a mass of other Googleable material on him as well. Vizjim 14:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please check that link; it indicates only that he was a "candidate" affiliated with "The Good Party", which hasn't established notability enough for a WP article of its own. None of that page's links indicate that he ever made it onto a ballot, and I agree with rob. I have several friends who "declared they were running for President" in postal game zines or other sources of entertainment and/or self-publicity. I haven't dug through the links from the Google search mentioned-but-not-linked above, but I would need something more substantial to vote to keep this. Barno 00:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Given the link of Vizjim and some other google, I change my mind. But it should be rewritten, making it clear it is a prank. Cyclopia 15:08, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable crackpot. Simply declaring that you're going to run for president isn't good enough; thousands of people do that. You need to actually get your name on the ballot. --Carnildo 23:12, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. According to the Federal Election Commission's report [2], he didn't get his name on one state's general election ballot, nor a primary ballot, nor even got votes reported as a write-in. User:Vizjim's link proves only that Buonaparte declared himself a candidate, not that he actually made any effort to participate in the election. --Metropolitan90 01:45, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think if notability is asserted solely due to running for public office, the subject has to have made it onto the ballot. MCB 06:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, even if he made it onto a ballet, it wouldn't make him notable enough by itself. That he didn't, makes him even less notable. -- Kjkolb 08:04, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per other delete voters. Quale 01:12, 17 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.

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 NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 18:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Military history of Germany during World War II

Before you start, don't get me wrong, this is a good page in theory and probably in practice. However, it isn't going anywhere. At the moment, it's a useless fork of European theatre of World War II, where all of this info is already available in much greater detail. And it has been given time to grow and develop. Obviously, it's not going anywhere. In it's present form, there is simply no obvious reason to keep it. I argued this point on the talk page a long time ago, but I've no intention of personally writing the article, as I suggested there. If somebody improves this significantly during the voting period, however, I'd be willing to reconsider.--naryathegreat | (talk) 00:30, September 12, 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.

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 KEEP. — JIP | Talk 21:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brooks Laich

Tagged as an A1 speedy "Very short article providing little or no context", but I can just about work out what it means with the help of a quick Google. So it comes here instead; I suspect it just needs cleaning. Abstain. -Splash 00:36, 12 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.

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 DELETE. — JIP | Talk 21:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seattle_Surrealist_Group

  • Delete, Non-notable, article created by user:Daniel C. Boyer to promote non-notable group here on Wikipedia. The only references on this group is two blogs.Classicjupiter2 00:39, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete part of a huge wave of similar stuff, much of which was deleted long ago. 8 unique Google hits. It's worse than I thought, really... on closer inspection, it appaears that this group barely even exists. According to their blog, they have 5 members. Completely non-notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:14, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. -GregAsche (talk) 01:29, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above Dlyons493 05:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN ≈ jossi ≈ 15:44, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and salt the earth: We've been through this before, and through this before, and through this before. It's a clubhouse, not a movement. Geogre 21:04, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nominator. Not a speedy as re-creation of previously deleted material... but apart from changes in the name of the city and the members, it is essentially similar to many others, all voted for deletion. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a total non-argument. There are obviously a number of possibilities: that all these groups are notable, that they are all non-notable, that some are notable and others are not. Making a judgment other than on each on its own merits or the lack thereof is improper. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, sigh; apparently WP policies are one of those bits of reality to which Boyer is trying to avoid conforming. Barno 00:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This article was submitted 11 September of this year; I can't find any trace of this article previously having been submitted. If Boyer is resubmitting content that has been removed thru the usual process, I for one would like to see some evidence. If not, then let's try to be civil about his submissions, whether or not they belong here. -- llywrch 22:04, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you're referring to me, I said that it was "Not a speedy as re-creation of previously deleted material..." perhaps I should have put "not" in bold. I said it was, however, essentially similar to many others, all voted for deletion. Perhaps I should have put "similar" in bold. a) A number of articles that were similar to each other were all voted for deletion; b) therefore, a consensus exists that such articles should be deleted; c) this article is similar to those articles; d) therefore, this article should be deleted. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think that you can go as far as you do in "b". In my opinion the most that one can say is "it seems that a consensus exists that such articles should be deleted", but the way that Articles for deletion is currently done (and I would argue for keeping it this way) the consensuses are reached or not reached on individual articles, not vaguely-defined types of articles. In any case, there are some articles on surrealist groups which have been kept, which suggests in any case that you haven't adequately defined what you mean by "such articles". --Daniel C. Boyer 19:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dpbsmith, I misunderstood. But it would help me (at least) in the future if you linked to this precedent. -- llywrch 19:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. -Sean Curtin 20:58, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Boyer's arguments. Reading this article, I was struck by the lack of any explanation of notability: in blunt English, this article fails to answer the question, "What have they done?" Have they held any exhibits, performances, published any works? Instead of citing examples of these (which would help convince me -- & hopefully others -- to vote to keep), Boyer responds with explaining his own interpretation of the rules, apparently arguing that if the rules do not forbid it then this article should be kept. Sorry, Boyer: that argument does not persuade me. -- llywrch 19:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have argued no such thing. I have not said or argued the article should be kept, I have just argued that it should be judged on its own merits, not lumped together with others, and some other points about what people said. There is nothing to be sorry about as I never said that if "the rules do not forbid it then this article should be kept". --Daniel C. Boyer 23:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, please understand what is being asked of you here. It is very simple: Where we can find information on this group, in regards to publications, gallery exhibits, books, films, anything??? All you gave us was a blog. This really is a clubhouse that you are promoting here and it just gets weaker and weaker every time you challenge a delete vote. I would have supported this article if there was suitable material to go on, but as usual, this is all just promotion. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to promote your friends and their websites and blogs. Daniel, please let me give you some good advice: When you create an article on contemporary surrealism, give us something solid to go on. For example: Nobody that is friends with you and an entity that is notable for their creative ouput. Really Daniel, when it comes to Surrealism as an organized movement, everything kind of goes downhill after 1969. Any university professor will tell you that. These friends of your in Seattle, Portland, Houston, Minnesota, Chicago, London, Leeds, etc. need to accomplish something more solid than cheap attempts at notability by getting their friend Daniel C. Boyer to promote them on Wikipedia. Daniel, with all due respect, you really are a great surrealist artist, yet, where do you find the time to create, lately?Classicjupiter2 01:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nobody in the Seattle Surrealist Group is "friends" with me; I've never met them and have had no contact with any of them whatsoever. I am aware that you have repeatedly defined "friends" to mean those who are my friends, some of my casual correspondents, and some of those who have no connexion to me whatsoever, but have not seen fit to justify this definition in any way whatsoever. Your implication that university professors know more about surrealism than surrealists is in my opinion a questionable position, but it's really a POV and nothing more. This POV could certainly be alluded to in any relevant article(s). The same goes for your opinion that "everything kind of goes downhill after 1969". There are many publications (you're certainly aware of some of these, such as Arsenal, Blue Feathers, &c. -- you may be critical of them, and my bet is, correct me if I'm wrong, you'll express such criticism in your response, but this is once again a POV), exhibitions (you are aware, aren't you, of the 1976 World Surrealist Exhibition?) and other manifestations of surrealism in this period, indeed numerically more than in the pre-1969 period, but any discussion of the quality of those manifestations is, again, POV. An expression of any of these POVs is, again, appropriate in any relevant article(s) so long as (at least in general) the holder(s) are identified. Gratified as I am by your concern about me and whether I am able to create, I am puzzled by its relevance to the article. My bet is that you will not answer any of my concerns here. I challenge you to do so. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really Daniel, I will answer your, "challenge". First, in regards to Arsenal, that is just another publication that your friend Mr.Rosemont SELLS to us all. Remember, Arsenal comes with a pricetag and REVOLUTION has no price! As for that rag being a legit surrealist publication, that is open for debate. Granted, many of Rosemonts friends (like you) will defend it at all costs, because you all share in this scam on the marvelous. If you were so insistent on Arsenal being a real surrealist publication, then why not provide scans of all the issues and put it on the net. Oh, I forgot, according to, "The Surrealist Movement in the United States" website, it comes with a price. As for, "Blue Feathers", that is a total waste of anyone's time. IF I were to go into any musuem with that rag of Dale's and Barrett's, the security guards would throw me out. That is a clubhouse rag. You are promoting a clubhouse here on Wikipedia, Daniel. Lets really be surrealistically real in the surrealist sense. Daniel, you have not once spoken out about Pierre's lame essay. Comrade Richardson did, why not you???Classicjupiter2 03:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • You haven't even come close to addressing my point. You haven't addressed your bizarre and idiosyncratic (to say the least) definition of "friends" and after that it's just one (weak, in my opinion) POV after another. As I anticipated, you do exactly what I predicted, crticising the quality or aspects of the journals and publications rather than addressing my concerns. By your criteria no surrealist journal (La Revolution Surrealiste, La Surrealisme ASDLR &c.) has ever been authentically surrealist; they were all sold. But it is up to Wikipedians how much attention they will pay to what is in my opinion a thoroughly ridiculous charge. As for your theory that everything is either computerised or should be, and that "real publications" are not such unless they are digitized, it is hardly worth the rebuttal. There are things called libraries, they have things called books and journals, and if you don't feel like paying for a journal go to the library and read it or check it out. Another digital-centric (beyond bizarre, in my opinion) POV. And as for your making museum guards the arbiters of surrealism, if you were "surrealistically real" in any sense you would know better than that. It is exceedingly difficult to come to any other conclusion than that you are an anti-surrealist. Finally, the "lameness" of "Pierre's essay" is a POV, and one that has no discernible connexion whatsoever to this deletion discussion. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:57, 21 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.

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 Delete Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 23:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Wendy-Ann Antanaitis

married to minor celebrity, non-notable herself NeilN 01:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Her husband easily qualifies for an article. But she doesn't as she hasn't done anything else to be notable. The marriage occurred well after the burst of fame of the Rollers was over. Also, this is probably another copyvio by the same anon editor, who's been copy/pasting bios related to the Bay City Rollers. --rob 04:21, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per rob Dlyons493 05:45, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. I wish to give the original contributor a chance to clarify the licensing, fix the content, and explain notability. Multiple Roller-related articles are a "work-in-progress" right now, which is in the process of being cleaned up. There's now more evidence that she become something of a notable person, receiving attention herself. See the article and Talk:Wendy-Ann Antanaitis for reasons. I suggest giving the Roller-related articles some time, and see what happens. --rob
I hope I don't get in trouble for putting this here, please remove it if this is a violation for me to do. I have left a note in the discussion page, please read it before deletion. I am working very hard on everything. Thank you.
I don't get it. Why did you think this person would be worthy of an encyclopedia article? I'll abstain, but I think the first rule of writing is to ask yourself whether you can justify writing whatever you just sat down to write.---CH
Thank you for asking, I tried to be as detailed as possible and with the connection to her husband, who I consider a celebrity, I've found their story very interesting, that was it. I thought I did jusitfy what I wrote. That's my opinion and the opinion of others I have asked, but I can respect yours. And I'm glad this's no Eva Braun, Mr. Hillman, I wouldn't have wasted my time on someone like her. Perhaps Christopher Reeve's wife, Dana. I thank Rob for his help and will do better in the future, I'll choose to delete my research, though I thank those who wanted to give me a chance. I want to join this first before I go on with anymore research, so I can seek advise while researching and what is expected. Again, I'm new at this, I thought I was doing a nice, informative job. Thank you.
(talk) 08:53, 12 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_September_12&oldid=23072867"