Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 September 19

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 86.134.135.38 (talk) at 18:09, 19 September 2005. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Purge server cache

September 19

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 relevant information in United Airlines Flight 93 (already there) and delete (biography is already on Wikimemorial). Neutralitytalk 15:19, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Bradshaw

Sad but WP:NOT a memorial Delete --Aranda56 00:02, 19 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Neutralitytalk 15:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bear the Diesel Engine

The page appears to be original research/a personal essay --Mysidia (talk) 00:09, 19 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 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. Neutralitytalk 15:22, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trap17

Ad for a free webhost. --fvw* 00:10, 19 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Neutralitytalk 15:24, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cradossk

Direct quote from my brother the Star Wars fanatic: "I wouldn't even put that guy in a Star Wars character guide, let alone an encyclopedia." Delete. ♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (Contributions) 00:16, 19 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 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. Neutralitytalk 15:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Code of conflict

Non-notable mud. --fvw* 00:22, 19 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 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. Neutralitytalk 15:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pasadena Anarchist Collective

No evidence of notability. --fvw* 00:27, 19 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 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. Neutralitytalk 15:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of cancer patients

This list is accurate but cancer is the most common death and that list names all the cancer patients which is way to many and that list is even probaly a stub.See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of famous pneumonia suffers Delete --Aranda56 01:58, 19 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 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. Neutralitytalk 15:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Davies

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Neutralitytalk 15:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

29A

Non-notable. User:Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 02:20, 19 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 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. Neutralitytalk 15:57, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Stethoscope

  • Delete Does this belong in the UoT article? No. Does it belong in a new article, "Student organizations of University of Toronto"?Ashibaka (tock) 02:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Given that the usual bar for a student group at a university is "5 to 10 people want to make a group", with the occasional condition of "the group is not a porn studio", the notability bar for such groups is a good bit higher than we have a board of directors. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 02:38, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dont Delete We have over 750 undergraduate and graduate members at the University of Toronto St George Campus (the largest life sci student organization in Canada's largest university) , the article sure does need cleaning up but we dont understand why we cant have a wikipedia entry while obscure geek science fiction topics are allowed in. Just look at our website to see that we are a legitimate organization whose membership base exceeds the life sci student enrolment at many universities in the world - Stethoscope Member (who just started using the edit button so i dont know how to add the fancy tags) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.120.30 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 19 September 2005}
  • Delete completely nn. — Phil Welch 02:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with a greater UoT article if possible, otherwise keep, and give the anon a supply of tissues. Mate, keeping or deleting an article is not an insult to whatever the article's about. I'm not notable, and it doesn't bother me in the slightest ;-) --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Student organizations are a dime a dozen, but 750 members at Canada's largest university. Sounds like a (marginal, maybe) keeper to me. — Cory Maylett 03:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.I would vote to Keep if this level of membership could be verified or proof of expansion to other campuses could be provided. I would otherwise vote to merge with a Student organizations at the University of Toronto or similar article as there is verifiable evidence of its existence see [2]. Capitalistroadster 03:28, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. For what it's worth, I don't think a lot of the obscure geek science fiction topics are notable either, but they have a dedicated sockpuppet fan base to come on and vote for their junk. —Cleared as filed. 03:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am another stethoscope member, and all I can say is please examine the merits of the organization by looking at the website, rather than listening to people whose only comment is "non notable" without explaining why it is non notable, considering the size of the organization and their lack of familiarity with even the university of toronto. If all it takes is a sockpuppet fan base to flood this with keep votes, then we can easily get dozens of members to put down some sort of comment on why this should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.100.90.251 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. Unregistered users are not eligible to vote, nor are sockpuppets. Andrew pmk | Talk 21:45, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not really true. The policy is that unregistered and anonymous contributers MAY weigh in on the discussion. All comments should address the issue in regard to Wikipedia's deletion policy and the administrator who closes the discussion is free to disregard votes that appear to have been made without regard to policy, by apparent sockpuppets or meatpuppets, or otherwise in bad faith. Dystopos 01:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Non-notable student organization. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Proposal: student organizations must be more than, let's see, 5 years old to qualify as notable on their own accord. Bunchofgrapes 22:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't think the fact that a student organization has been around 5 years is enough to qualify as notable either. —Cleared as filed. 00:33, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. But certainly the recent formation of this one doesn't help here. Bunchofgrapes 02:25, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 00:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most student organizations that exist at only one university are non-notable. Lots of universities have pre-medical (pre-dental, etc.) organizations, and that's a popular career choice among college students, so it doesn't surprise me that this organization could have 750 members at a campus with about 50,000 undergraduates. However, if this becomes a national pre-med organization, it would probably be notable enough to qualify for Wikipedia in my opinion. --Metropolitan90 01:25, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the organization appears to have footing.DannyZz 00:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am also a Stethoscope member, and we certainly have a lot of footing. We have high profile events and last year in our inaugural year we actually had Tak Mak and the federal minister of public health come and give a talk, and this year the chief medical officer for Toronto is apparently coming as well. If we are some nonsense non notable club with 7-10 members would those high profile personalities actually take the time to go? De Lovely 18:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The Stethoscope could be, and apparently is, completely legitimate and worthwhile for its members without warranting having a Wikipedia article about it. I don't consider it nonsense, but that doesn't mean it's notable. --Metropolitan90 01:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Since Wikipedia contains extensive articles on every Pokemon character and video game in existence (not to mention its growing library of porn star bios), I believe the bar is sufficiently low enough to enable a good-sized academic organization at a major institution of higher learning to easily meet the entry qualifications. I'm not defending dumbing down Wikipedia (in fact, I'm quite opposed to it), but I am saying that an even and consistent set of criteria should apply. If we allow cartoon characters to have their own articles, but deny them to college organizations, we've taken one more step down the road to Wikipedia becoming little more than a repository of insignificant, pop-culture trivia. — C Maylett 17:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: Maybe we should do the appropriate thing and list all of those insignificant cartoon characters for deletion instead? —Cleared as filed. 10:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: We can't plausibly use the same standards in determining whether Pokemon characters, porn stars, and student organizations are worthy of Wikipedia entries; neither Pikachu nor the Stethoscope has ever won an Adult Video News Award. I don't believe there are any official guidelines about student organizations having Wikipedia entries, but I think most of those I have seen on AfD have failed their votes and been deleted. If you can find precedents in your favor among other student organizations, I would take those into consideration. --Metropolitan90 00:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The organization may merit a mention at Faculty of Medicine, U of T (which, by the way, should be renamed, cleaned up and expanded). The contents are unencyclopedic trivia. Dystopos 16:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am also a member and it seems valid to be here when compared to some of the stuff that other people who want to delete it have talked about like obscure anime topic. <--- seems like some comment made by another stethoscope member who didnt know how to use wikipedia, i edited it so it doesnt get unfairly attributed to the danny person above 70.30.120.30 13:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What does the group actually do? Pilatus 10:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: For keeping I am the first stethoscope member who posted above, i made an account but i forgot my log on name so i am signing off with my ip. Someone mentioned student organizations that have been kept, here is one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_Sigma_Phi_Philippines . As far as it seems it doesnt have the same scope as our organization since it comes from two small second rate provincial universities in the philippines. They are a considerably older organization, but is age really the matter for notability, or is it the relevance of the organization to an x number of people? We make no financial gain out of having the stethoscope on wikipedia, since our membership is free and open to all, and we even have logged europeans and australians visiting and returning to our website on a regular basis looking for information on the health care professions admissions criteria in canada. This entire article will probably be deleted, but you people who consider yourselves as guardians of wikipedia should really get priorities straight if the message you are sending is that a pokemon character or 60's porn star has more notability than an organization involved in helping the next generation of a first world country's health care profession. 70.30.120.30 13:38, 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 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 delete. Neutralitytalk 17:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Intensity of Binary Independence

  • Delete. IMO, this criterion is neither useful nor well-known enough to merit a wikipedia article. Hermitage 02:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, the google results all seem to be from wikipedia or descriptions of Saari's book.
    • Also, the criterion implies that the "intensity of preference" between two candidates can be effectively measured by the number of candidates ranked in between them... this is a serious fallacy.
    • A merge with Borda count would be logical, but it should be made clear that this is a POV definition of preference intensity, not a generally accepted one. --Hermitage 22:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not vanity, likely verifiable. Mark for cleanup instead. — Phil Welch 02:46, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Esoteric, but hundreds of Google results. — Cory Maylett 03:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the following reasons: RSpeer 03:58, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those hundreds of Google results are almost all the same two texts! One is, of course, the Wikipedia article itself, on mirror sites. The other is a review of Donald Saari's book "Elections and Decisions" (a book promoting the use of the Borda count), which is the only place this term is actually published. Filtering out wikipedia mirrors and reviews of that book leaves one hit, which is a randomly-generated spam page.
    • "Elections and Decisions" has no Wikipedia article; why should a term that only exists as a small part of that book have an article?
    • The criterion is inherently POV. Criteria are used to promote various voting methods over others based on their mathematical properties, based on the assumption that it is desirable to meet that criterion. This criterion is equivalent to the definition of the Borda count, so the article is simply hiding the statement "The Borda count is good" behind some math.
    • The criterion has not been accepted by any voting theorists except its creator, Donald Saari. The user who created this article is a strong fan of Saari.
    • Therefore, I urge people to reconsider their votes.
  • Merge But I don't know to what - Independence of irrelevant alternatives perhaps could be expanded. I think this belongs in a general article on voting criteria rather than a seperate very specialised article. If nobody finds a useful merge during the vfd then weak delete. Dlyons493 07:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per RSpeer. -- Kjkolb 10:20, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as no one uses this criterion. The creator of the page has already said the page could be merged into another page (e.g. Borda count). KVenzke 20:43, 19 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 speedily deleted -- Francs2000 02:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph thomas

nn, vanity --Rschen7754 02:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • i believe this article is perhaps the most useful on wikipedia. i believe my education would suffer serverly were this to be deleted. god bless america.
Unsigned comment by Jthomas08 (talk · contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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, default to keep 70%+/- to keep. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 04:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Operating System advocacy

This article should be deleted because it is a cesspool of original research, with a near absolute lack of refrences to any of the points and counter points. In fact the authors seem to encourage this more by suggesting in the talk page that this article only talk about current debates about current operating systems, leaving out anything historical, refrenceable, and truely encylopedic. put up for deletion by IP:68.127.144.118

Listing was orphaned, now properly listed on AfD. My vote is below. — Phil Welch 03:29, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for the reasons stated. Atlant 14:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree. Not sure what the point of this article is except for people to make complaints about systems they don't like. Avenger Penguin 16:00, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article has the potential to be an encylopaedic account of the phenomenon of operating system advocacy and some of the most notable debates. The introduction starts off well, infact with the exception of the last line of the introduction everything before the table of contents is of high quality. Unfortunately the same cannot be said of the rest of the article. Weak delete pending a brilliant re-write. Thryduulf 16:44, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Idleguy 09:48, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I think the article provides some valuable "talking points" in the comparison of operating systems. Especially in the Unix sections, I forget what the advantages and disadvantages of the different systems are; and as a Mac zealot I'm reminded of the problems with my favorite system, as well, when I reccommend it to people. Perhaps it should be re-purposed or something; I agree that it's mainly opinion, not historical but I do see it as a useful reference. justfred 09:48, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. but clean up and add references. Pamri • Talk 13:33, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep' The content could do with an awful lot more expanding and NPVing, but I would like to see such an article. Certainly many people feel strongly about the issue, but that's a good reason to have a summary of such opinion. Comparison of operating systems has useful technical overview, but surely there is room for a more userfriendly comparison of strengths and weaknesses that should be kept out of 'Comparison_of_operating_systems' and Operating system; the differences between two is important, and not suited to the article on either.
  • I, at least, was hoping for a reasoned comparison when I clicked the link.
  • The name should probably be changed to something more neutral or merged back into 'Comparison_of_operating_systems', and this be a redirect, or a stub with a discussion of the history of advocacy itself rather than true comparison. --Jack
  • Keep assuming it can be cleaned up. --Shawn K. Quinn 06:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Actual notable phenomenon. Drop the arguments for and against OS's and focus more on the reality of platform zealotry and platform arguments. — Phil Welch 03:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (sort of): — There's interesting information here, but the premise of the page is goofy and unencylopedic. "Operating system advocacy" — a grandiose and somewhat misleading title for what is mostly just a list of pros and cons of various operating systems. I suggest renaming and rewriting the intro paragraphs to something better suited to the content that follows. — Cory Maylett 03:42, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's the cart before the horse somewhat. The content that follows the introduction is a huge chunk of original research without either citations or attributions. Rewriting the introduction to match the rest, essentially refactoring this article as a rewrite of comparison of operating systems, is both basing the article around the original research and pointless. We already have that article. The focus of this article, per the title, is the advocacy, and not the actual features of the various operating systems themselves. There's a possibility of an encyclopaedia article on operating system advocacy. People have written about it.

      The "goofy and unencyclopaedic" title relates to the names of several Usenet newsgroups where such arguments have occurred for the past 20 years, by the way, and is the generally accepted term for what transpires within them. Uncle G 18:01, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak keep. considering theres been quite alot of edits and discussion by different users Astrokey44 04:01, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Sure, the article isn't perfect now, but that's no reason to delete it. After a cleanup and the addition of references this will bee a good and encyclopedic article. --Apyule 07:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This article as put to VfD in January of this year. The result was a decision to keep. --Apyule 07:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Definitely a notable topic among us geeks, gives us some talking points and reasons for why the other sides think the way they do, and it was kept in a previous AfD. --Idont Havaname 14:24, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Needs cleanup, NPOVing and refs, but a worthy article nontheless. ≈ jossi ≈ 21:38, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - double jeopardy, anonymous nomination. Andrew pmk | Talk 21:46, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Contains virtually no information that is not contained in the title. Operating systems advocacy is the practice of advocating an operating system. Followed by a list. An opinionated list of pairs of operating systems, without even a note as to why specific operating systems are paired. A blank page could become an encyclopedic article, too, but we don't keep them. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep subject to heavy cleanup. Shauri 19:40, 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.

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 SPEEDY DELETED. — JIP | Talk 04:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tarik Fayad

not informational content

Speedy delete. they created an article with "OMG TARIK IS SOOOOO HOT!!! I JUST WANNA GREASE HIM UP AND MAKE HIM MINE!!!!!!" in it O_o Astrokey44 03:46, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

edited out...sry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.247.119.40 (talk • contribs) 03:51, 19 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Andrew pmk | Talk 21:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"advanced searchbar"

Not notable and an ad. --WikiFanaticTalk Contribs 22:57, 18 Sep 2005 (CDT)

Delete. Two sentence ad Astrokey44 04:09, 19 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Neutralitytalk 18:19, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah-ni-ku-ta-ni

  • Delete. As the sole author, I want this content removed as I do not wish a site that allows lynch mobs and libel and defacement of information to act as a repository for our culture. There's no guarantee that our information will not be defaced by anonymous internet users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gadugi (talk • contribs) 03:12, 19 September 2005
  • Pleased; I am pleased. This was indeed a great article. 67.177.35.211 06:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A good article. Hopefuly someone else will be interested in expanding it. -- Friedo 07:19, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • User Gadugi, we try not to allow libel or lynch mobs or such problems. Where they happen, you can help us better by reverting the bad changes to restore a previous correct version, and by alerting us at the "Vandalism in progress" page. Welcome, and peace. Barno 08:12, 19 September 2005 (UTC), friend to a former WIC nutritionist to the Northern Cheyenne reservation.[reply]
  • Keep: subject to cleanup and wikification, this looks like a good article. The impression given from this and other nominations is of a user suffering a hissy-fit because of some perceived slight. However, the information has now been released to Wikipedia under the GFDL which is AFAIK irrevocable. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 09:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for Capitalistroadster and others - can anyone verify this information from a printed source? I'm amazed to find nothing online about this ancient syllabary. User:Gadugi's talk page makes interesting reading and his veracity has been challenged. There are no records of an "Ah-ni-ku-ta-ni" online (according to Google) and a couple of the user's other edits have been challenged. It's possible that this request for deletion owes something to a wish to avoid being caught out. There are credited sources for each article - can anyone find them offline to confirm? Please note that in the absence of independent corroboration I do not have an opinion one way or another on either Gadugi or the facts of this article.Vizjim 10:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vizjim, I have checked the ISBN for the book Cherokee cited in the references and Redlightgreen appears to indicate it is a legitimate book. That being said, I am in Australia and will have difficulty in accessing this book within the timeframe. It would be good if someone in the US could check out this and other sources to confirm that this is a verifiable article about a notable topic. Capitalistroadster 10:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • this amazon link shows that the book is real, and does have an index entry for the relevant subject. However, that page is not available online via amazon. DES (talk) 11:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Great research!! (Now why didn't I think of that?) The entry there spells it as "Ani-kutani" and that throws up 461 hits on Google. With that in mind, I'd redirect to Ani-kutani and keep the article.Vizjim 11:19, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've been bold and moved it. Great research, all around. -- Plutor 13:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • The problem is, in the process, you have broken the AfD link. Normally articels on Afd are not supposed to be moved for thsi very reason. I would advise that you either move it back or fix the link. DES (talk) 13:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Here's a little more. Searching www.a9.com and selecting "books" (which is about the same as Amazon's "search inside this book") can be useful. The page in question is this but it really only confirms the existence of the "Ani-kutani priesthood." If that link doesn't work due to Amazon's protection against a single user reading too much, go to the book description in Amazon and do a "search inside this book" for "priesthood." Dpbsmith (talk) 22:47, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • My local library has the book Cherokee (I live within the Cherokee Nation boundries). I will get it this afternoon and see how much of this article I can verify. Dsmdgold 16:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No valid criteria for deletion. TheMadBaron 11:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Bad-faith nomination, WP:POINT, etc. etc. Bhumiya/Talk 12:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable subject. Whether it's factually accurate or not is not a matter for AfD. -- Plutor 13:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - come on, Gadugi, If this is true then it is very important information and should not be covered up. I have had a similar problem with someone else covering up information I added about the ancient Micmac writing script; see Talk:Mi'kmaq hieroglyphic writing... Codex Sinaiticus 16:03, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No valid criteria for nomination. Wikipedia has no concept of an author owning and article, and every edit page says clearly "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it." Where did Gadugi see any "guarantee," express or implied, that contributions would never be defaced? Dpbsmith (talk) 22:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. WP:POINT. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:38, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • phandsvrta keep. Notable Subject : Googling "+written cherokee language" reveals the syllabary, at least the 1820s Sequoyah syllabary, which isn't that ancient. It also reveals a lot of good, learned material on this topic which deserves collation in Wikipedia. Merkey (aka Gadugi) is attempting to suppress already freely available information. Don't allow it.
  • phandsvrta keep There's more, from http://www.neosoft.com/powersource/gallery/people/sequoyah.html

This includes a picture of the syllabary. I'd have pasted it in, but don't know how to use wikipedia for an image yet, and I'm not sure of the copyright status of the source.

  • Speedy Keep I regret my actions here. Please keep this article. Also, Phandsvrta is an SCOX member who has been extremely vocal. Since he does not know anything about our Culture or language, I ask the other editors to heavily scrutinze any edits or defacements he makes to this article. Gadugi 18:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • phandsvrta response

I will second Jeff's sentiment to scrutinize all contributions - mine or otherwise. I have indeed been vocal, and will continue being vocal as long as attempts are made to suppress freedom of information and speech. And, as far as I know, I haven't made any defacements to this article (I'm not adept at using wikipedia, so don't rule out ignorance or finger trouble!).

Jeff, if there is an older syllabary than that of Sequoyah, why isn't it visible elsewhere? There is a LOT of Cherokee information out there, but all references to a written language only get as far as Sequoyah. Surely you woudn't want something as fundamental and precious to wither away in obscurity?

Think of it as adding to the richness found in other, old languages, such as Norn (the ancient language of Orkney), or Ogham (pre-Gaelic Irish), or Kernewek (the direct descendant of the ancient language spoken by Celtic settlers who inhabited Cornwall (Kernow) and most of the British Isles long before the Roman conquest). Many of these were suppressed by later conquerors, and only survived underground. They are now being resurrected and appreciated for their historical and cultural value. I'd want the same for a previously unkown Cherokee written form.

Wouldn't you want to know how to read the Inca Quipus (spelling?)?

I speak as a Scot, living in Ireland. Our native Gaelic was brutally suppressed by the English, only surviving in the Western Isles, including Ireland. As language powerfully shapes a culture, losing languages is, in my opinion, a very bad thing.

  • Keep - and I suppose one of us great [google/A9] researchers could pick up a phone and call the An-ni-yv-wi-ya Religious organization at the number provided in the references section for more verification. Dystopos 16:12, 22 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Neutralitytalk 18:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gadugi

  • Delete. As the sole author, I want this content removed as I do not wish a site that allows lynch mobs and libel and defacement of information to act as a repository for our culture. There's no guarantee that our information will not be defaced by anonymous internet users. I do not consider what goes in on this site to be "gadugi." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gadugi (talk • contribs) 03:14, 19 September 2005
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Neutralitytalk 18:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah-ni-yv-wi-ya

  • Delete. As the sole author, I want this content removed as I do not wish a site that allows lynch mobs and libel and defacement of information to act as a repository for our culture. There's no guarantee that our information will not be defaced by anonymous internet users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gadugi (talk • contribs) 03:15, 19 September 2005
  • Merge into Cherokee or Cherokee language --Icarus 05:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Cherokee. Penelope D 05:56, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No valid criteria for deletion. TheMadBaron 10:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: subject to cleanup and wikification, this looks like a good article. The impression given from this and other nominations is of a user suffering a hissy-fit because of some perceived slight. However, the information has now been released to Wikipedia under the GFDL which is AFAIK irrevocable. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 11:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Of course, this begs the question "Then why did you create the article if you want it removed?" I think it is good and useful encyclopedic information, and I'm glad you added it. There has been no problem with defacement so far. The wiki process is pretty good at dealing with defacement when it occurs, although unfortunately there is no way to prevent it. Plenty of articles dealing with sacred subects do get defamed on occasion here, but this is only a surface phenomenon. What is truly sacred cannot be defamed. Codex Sinaiticus 13:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The answer to that is pretty obvious. The creator got into some rahter nasty disputes with others on wikipedia, mostly if not compeltely unrealted to thsi article. In the course of this, it seems that at least one user posted derogatory language related to the creator's cherokee ethnicity, or at least he took it that way. See the history of the creator's talk page, his user contributions, and jimbo's recent post on WP:AN/I if you want more details. I can see why these events left the article creator very unhappy with wikipedia, although i think he is mistakenly attributing to all of us the acts of a very few. DES (talk) 13:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Galugi is reverting my attempts to clean up the article and is even refusing that it be categorized as an "ethnic group"-stub, claiming that the term is inherently racial [3]. Could we just redirect this to Cherokee already? It has no value on its own and it's certainly not going to be stormed by the deletionist mafia or anything. / Peter Isotalo 06:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Cherokee. Gazpacho 19:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An excellent article in the making. Gadugi: don't despair.... get other editors involved if you are having a hard time with some editors. We are here to help. ≈ jossi ≈ 21:43, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Cherokee. We don't need separate articles on native names. I cleaned up all of the rather chatty linguistic info, but there was nothing to merge. All of the relevant info is already present in Cherokee language. / Peter Isotalo 22:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. WP:POINT. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. I regret my actions here. Also, please remove the term "ethnic group" and do not remove the breakdown of the language constructs. This portion is extremely helpful to those trying to understand how Cherokee verb stems are constructed. Gadugi 18:33, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have reverted the redirect. The convention is that articels are not usually converted to redirects, moved, or blanked while an AfD discusiion is in progress. Moreover, assuming that it is verifiabel, the information here strikes me as relevant and should be kept soemwhere. The precise form of the article is another matter. I woulkd say to Gadugi, most people in the US who are not native americans tend to view "indian tribes" as more ethnic than political, and even though it is true that formal membership is a political act, and people may well be descended from native amaricans but not have any formal tribal membership, is it not true that such membership is generally only open to people with such ancestry? If so, it is not a "pure" political association, but more a combination of political and ethnic/racial identity. Correct me if I am wrong, please. DES (talk) 15:10, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


    • Response to DES This statement is essentially correct. Membership does require membership in a racial group, however, membbership in an Indian tribe is a political relationship with the US government. It is the policy of the TRIBES to restrict ot members of their race, which is an issue of sovereignty. The problem with using ethnic language to describe this is that under US law, the 14th ammendment which prohibits racial discrimination has been used over and over again by non-indians to claim they have the right to posessess eagle feathers, use and distribute drugs like peyote to non-indians, etc. under Laws which protect Native American Culture. The Courts have had to rule that the relationship is political in order to protect our culture from people like these. So public references, like an encycplopedia, could be used as Court exhibit over and over again in this stale and mouldy argument these people use to setup drug distribution businesses run by non-indians who prey off our culture, and bring us into disrepute. So that's why I object to using the word, "ethic". Also, this particular article is about the language. The editor Karmosin tried to change it into an ethnic article by removing the language constructs. The article should stay the way it is, as I created it and intended it as a starting point to teach others our language. Gadugi 22:35, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah I see your points. Thre ought to be a properly nuanced way to indicvate booth the political and the racial/gentic issues involve, but that kind of discusion realy belongs on the talk page of this article, not on this AfD discussion. I also see that an article about language is not the smae as an articel about the peopel who speak that language. Well it looks to me as if the result here will be keep, but there there is the ewndless process of debating and, one hopes, improving the article. I personaly would oppose a change to a simple redirect as things stand. DES (talk)
        • I don't see anything constructive in DES' revert of my redirect. The AfD is effectively over since Gadugi has voted against his own nomination and the article doesn't serve any purpose. We already have Cherokee which is about the exact same thing, except it uses the commonly used name of the tribe as per our naming conventions. Like I pointed out before; we don't keep 日本人 separate from Japanese people for a very good reason. What's there to argue here? / Peter Isotalo 06:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • An AfD is either over or not. The reason for not creating a redirect until the AfD is formally closed is to preserve the two-way link between the discussion and the article being discussed. DES (talk) 14:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • In any case, I think that the linguistc information in the article as it stands is of value, and doing a simple redirect amouts to delting this information. Either the information should be merged into Cherokee, or the article should stand as a separeate articel, with proper links. It is not particualrly urgent to do either, so the matter should be discussed on Talk:Cherokee or on Talk:Ah-ni-yv-wi-ya, or both, an an attempot made to come to a consensus on what do do. there was not a consensus here on a simple redirect without merging the info. Put up {{mergeto}} and {{mergefrom}} if you linke, to advertise a proposed merge. Or propose a simple redir on Talk:Ah-ni-yv-wi-ya and do it if you get something approaching consensus. I will arguie agaisnt such a redir -- unless there is evidence indiacting that the content of the current articel is false to fact, or is unverifiable. I trust that explains my views clearly. DES (talk) 14:42, 22 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Neutralitytalk 18:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stomp Dance

  • Delete. As the sole author, I want this content removed as I do not wish a site that allows lynch mobs and libel and defacement of information to act as a repository for our culture. There's no guarantee that our information will not be defaced by anonymous internet users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gadugi (talk • contribs) 03:16, 19 September 2005
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Neutralitytalk 18:24, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cherokee black drink

  • Delete. As the sole author, I want this content removed as I do not wish a site that allows lynch mobs and libel and defacement of information to act as a repository for our culture. There's no guarantee that our information will not be defaced by anonymous internet users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gadugi (talk • contribs) 03:17, 19 September 2005
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 redirect. Neutralitytalk 18:32, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah-ni-yv-wi-ha

  • Delete. As the sole author, I want this content removed as I do not wish a site that allows lynch mobs and libel and defacement of information to act as a repository for our culture. There's no guarantee that our information will not be defaced by anonymous internet users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gadugi (talk • contribs) 03:18, 19 September 2005
Changed vote: Merge any info not already there to Cherokee language. (I kept my old vote above because other voters have cited it.) --Icarus 17:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing to merge. The article already has a complete phonology which makes it quite obvious that no [r] exists. The same goes for the agglunative nature of the morphology. / Peter Isotalo 20:42, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I change my vote back to Redirect or delete. Redirect if it's likely that someone will search for this misspelling, delete if it's not. I'm not familiar enough with the subject to make that decision. --Icarus 21:10, 19 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Neutralitytalk 18:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BombayBiz India Ltd

Unheard Indian webhosting firm. Seems to be another promotional page. Pamri • Talk 04:43, 19 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 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 Speedied. android79 05:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Swanson

not notable, vanity 68.198.246.166 05:06, 19 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep -R. fiend 15:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cage (enclosure)

dicdef Icarus 05:11, 19 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 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 -R. fiend 14:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Financial Services of Ontario

Advertisement, reads like a corporate brochure. Verifiability, I could not find this in any of several google searches, and no sources are proved. The name implies a Canadian firm, but the text described a Brazilian firm. Not enough context. Delete unless significantly improved, and notability clearly established. DES (talk) 05:17, 19 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 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 delete -R. fiend 15:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile companies

This article is a blatant commercial advert. If anyone wants to speedy it, then go right ahead. jmd 05:31, 19 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was uncertain, but decided to merge/redirect to Notable phrases from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. -R. fiend 15:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strag

Minor term from a work of fiction, alibiet a very popular one. (Minor enough that I don't recall the term, and i have a good memory for such trivia, and yes I read the book, and listened to the radio shows.) I don't see this term as notable on its own, and i don't see any reason for this to be a separate page on wikipedia. Delete. DES (talk) 05:36, 19 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 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. -R. fiend 15:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Albert Award For Outstanding Service To Australian Music

Seems like a parody to me. jmd 05:40, 19 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 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. -R. fiend 15:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment Party

neologism, non-notable. delete. DES (talk) 05:59, 19 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 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 speedily deleted. Friday (talk) 06:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yelpo

Not notable and very little content. -- Mareklug talk 06:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Or merge into the entertainer's page if

anyone can be bothered. Dlyons493 07:24, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - possible vanity, no content of any use. Google search for Oliver Cheah doesn't suggest that he's notable at all, so his nickname is sub-non-notable. CLW 07:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds like this was meant to be a redirect to Oliver Cheah. Of course, such a redirect, having no target article, would be eligible for immediate deletion. Can we save the trouble and speedy delete this instead? Pick one or some combination of nn-bio, empty, or db-attack. Friday (talk) 14:20, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, then. Judging from Yelpo's history, the page oscillates between "infamous gay" and "famous" Swedish entertainer -- a form of nn-bio, almost empty, and db-attack. Mareklug talk 21:21, 19 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep, after rewrite. -R. fiend 15:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this was made as link spam and will attract more (note: I removed original creator's link and only other editors link as well). It's true a good article could in theory be made. I'm open to changing my mind, but I think there are enough other articles, where this could be mentioned. I'm also not sure if it qualifies as a dicdef. rob 07:03, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, difficult to understand is not grounds for deletion. Why not pose your question on the article talk page and/or my talk page (as the rewrite author)? Additionally, not relevant to everybody is applicable to pretty much every article here. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 20:05, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is rather difficult to understand and that's a comment as to the state of the article. The motivation is that it's overly specific professional jargon. It's too technical and obscure to deserve it's own article, just like truck driver shop talk or nursespeak doesn't belong here. "Not relevant to everybody" is your wording, though, not mine. I wouldn't mind a short summary and redirect to hyperlink, though. / Peter Isotalo 06:21, 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 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 -R. fiend 15:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Allis

Vanity type article. Just spam. CambridgeBayWeather 07:08, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal/Request for Non-Deletion

Per the Wikipedia Deletion Policy of who can have a listing, "Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more"

I am a published author with an audience of over 5,000 and send out a monthly newsletter to over 13,000. I also intend to run for President of the U.S. in 2044. I have removed links to commercial sites and am happy to edit/re-write article, however required. I appreciate your consideration and hope to become part of the community.

  • Writing about yourself is a rather poor way to join. It's also going to set up a pretty strong presumption that you don't deserve an article, because if you did, why would you have to write it yourself? This is not a venue for self-promotion, which if your claims are to be believed, is something you obviously don't need Wikipedia for anyway. Postdlf 07:45, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, and I almost forgot—writing and editing content about yourself makes it inherently suspect because of your natural bias and conflict of interest regarding objective description. Cheers. Postdlf 07:47, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite those concerns, I'm going to vote a weak keep because Mr. Allis's book is selling on Amazon, and one of the two websites has a respectable Alexa rating. I'll be watching the discussion to see if anyone can change my mind because I'm on the fence on this one. And everyone should be watching to make sure this article, if kept, is not just part of a PR campaign. Postdlf 07:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Allis's book is on Amazon.com, but anyone can use a vanity publisher and get their book listed for sale on Amazon.com. Who is it published by? A company called Virante Inc. Who are Virante Inc? Their founder and President & CEO are a certain Ryan Allis. The book does have 11 reviews (10 of which are glowing 5 star reviews) on Amazon. But again, do some research. Two of the reviews are identical. All but two of the reviewers have reviewed this book AND THIS BOOK ONLY. Which arouses my suspicions. Of the other two reviewers, one states that he knows the author personally (as do other "one-off" reviewers) and the other (the only reviewer I would trust, i.e. who does not know the author and has reviewed other books on Amazon) gives it the only non-5-star rating... a one-star rating. This all leads me to suspect over-hyping vanity, both on Amazon and here. Hence, delete (and add to watchlist to see if it gets kept and grows in vanity or gets deleted and relisted). CLW 08:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Postdlf, thank you for the feedback. I appreciate your 'weak keep' vote. I have read the full articles on deletion guidelines and vanity guidelines. I agree that the initial version of the article was vanity--I simply was unaware of the guidelines but can assure you I am now. I have registered as a user to remove any anonymity behind any edits. If the article is allowed to be kept I certainly promise not make any edits that encourage any commercial agenda.
  • Delete as per CLW. -- Kjkolb 10:28, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other outside sources:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 Speedied. android79 17:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Davidson Falade

Undergrad vanity, possibly speediable. Only claims to notability are as a columnist to a student newspaper, The Manitoban, and as a chess player "on the national level". I admire his enthusiasm for chess, a game I also love, but the Chess Federation of Canada indicates that he isn't a very strong player, as he has a 1720 rating. (A notably strong Candadian player would have a rating of 2300+.) Quale 07:21, 19 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -R. fiend 15:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Soulad

This seems to be an advertisement for a non-notable software product. It also is very poorly wikified. jmd 07:46, 19 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 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. -R. fiend 15:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MobileChilli.com

pure linkspam. Delete DES (talk) 07:50, 19 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Decided to smerge/redirect to Withnail and I -R. fiend 15:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Withnail and I drinking game

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Rules for a drinking game don't strike me as being particularly encyclopediac. MC MasterChef 08:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because wiki is not paper, and there are 49 articles in the drinking game category. The content of this particular one could at least be merged with Withnail and I because the list is a list of drinks he drinks in the movie. Astrokey44 09:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Withnail and I article already seems to address the existence of a drinking game reasonably effectively to me, is a separate list of necessary? MC MasterChef 22:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Cleanup so that, eg....

  • finger of cider (with ice)
  • finger of cider (with ice)
  • finger of cider (with ice)

reads....

  • finger of cider (with ice) x3

.... or similar. Add link to 'See Also' section of Withnail and I. (Don't add Camberwell carrots to the list. Trying to drink a spliff could kill you.) TheMadBaron 11:16, 19 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus: default to keep. Could probably be merged somewhere, however. -R. fiend 15:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Roxanne (drinking game)

As above, there are probably a number of others from drinking game that could be listed as well. MC MasterChef 08:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back into Drinking game as its only a couple lines. Astrokey44 09:29, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Notable, I just wish there was more about HOW the hell it became notable. Roodog2k (talk) 19:27, 19 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy redirect. -R. fiend 15:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cestoidea

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

The result of the debate was speedied. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Projectro

Article is bizarre gibberish Anetode 09:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was not aware of that option Anetode 10:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
sent to speedy CLW


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. -R. fiend 17:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Darryl Parker

deleted by author.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. -R. fiend 17:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Schalken Fur Kreativitat

plus two images.

Formed in 2005. First album still being recorded. Does this pass the Wiki tests for bands? -- RHaworth 10:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Young aspiring band, with potential, a great insightful page [Anon edit by 144.136.84.147 - the creator of the article!)
Keep! [Another anon edit by 144.136.84.147 - the creator of the article!)

dudes and dudettes, i don't really hate portuguese, i love them, they just have to stop crashing into mclarens, k? don't delete us and be porklits, stay cool

that stuff i said about asians is that i only dont like them when they walk on the wrong side of stairs blocking people from their trains meaning that they get home 1/2 hr later. its keep to the left dammit. otherwise there cool people. please keep this page. we have potential as a band and you know you will regret when we make it. thanks

Uh, no, we will not regret it when you make it. We will then say "Oh, Schalken Fur Kreativitat have now become notable. Now is the time for us to create a Wikipedia article about them." CLW 11:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Delete. nothing links to it & google says: "Your search - "Schalken Fur Kreativitat" - did not match any documents." [7] Astrokey44 11:03, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


This is because the website is still under construction

this page should definitely stay-new bands like this could be the next stones and wiki could say they had them from the beggining


alright you guys crossed the line, you can all have sex with moles, coz you aren't good enough for dog dick. we're already huge turkey gobblers

according to the wiki deletion policy since i have written a book on the band, I am a published author with an audience of over 5,000 and send out a monthly newsletter to over 13,000. I also intend to run for President of the U.S. in 2044

hey turdburgrets, why stop aj from spreading the truth? lets keep this site from being run by mr. hitler, yeah?

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. -R. fiend 17:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Parker Web Developers

NN Vanity - see also fancruft piece on Darryl Parker The curate's egg 10:36, 19 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 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. -R. fiend 17:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reuben Foster

Non-notable. Possible vanity. Biggest claims to notability as student radio DJ and high school actor. 3 likely Google hits: 1 mirrored article on Nationmaster.com and 2 as author of music reviews for student radio website. Gimboid13 10:48, 19 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 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. -R. fiend 17:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sex talk

While Sex talk may well be a notable enough topic for an article, I don't think any of the current content is salvageable. Ashenai 10:49, 19 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 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. -R. fiend 17:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PBD-Medien

Vanity, advertisment. Delete. Lupo 10:54, 19 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 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. -R. fiend 17:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Parhaat kaikessa, Maksatulehdus, Rajoittuneet

Probably a hoax, I don't know of any such band. Delete. — JIP | Talk 11:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) my nomination below:

All three are band-stubs written by a known vandal and hoax maker who has been banned from Finnish Wikipedia. Even if some of these were real, which I very much doubt, they should likely be deleted as obscure and non-notable garage bands. Zero hits from Google when discounting search terms normal Finnish language usage. Delete all. jni 12:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I checked [8], a database of 18 100 rock bands in Finland, these were not found. Wempain 06:02, 20 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 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 redirect. -R. fiend 17:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel knight: blood of the sacred, blood of the damned

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. -R. fiend 17:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Galk

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. A neologism; it should either be deleted or redirected to Google Talk; I haven't looked through the google hits enough to decide which. (There are a lot of false positives.) I have looked through the Google Print hits; none are relevant, so please don't transwiki it. —Cryptic (talk) 12:36, 19 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 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 delete. -R. fiend 17:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glamorous cumbia

Due to the recent discovery of several hoaxes by the same user who did Gauchos Pesados and many other already deleted hoaxes under the IPs 200.73.180.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 200.73.180.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), we should consider deleting Glamorous cumbia, which is a original expresion, as stated in the no original research policy. -Mariano 12:08, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 Speedied. android79 17:09, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gosney Hog

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 and rename. Neutralitytalk 18:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Building

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. -R. fiend 17:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grandma Patada

This is an undergraduate joke entered by a confirmed vandal User:210.8.110.33, all of whose other entries are vandalism or intentionally inconsequential. Delete. --Wetman 22:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. -R. fiend 17:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guest house

Delete. This is a dictionary entry and should be moved to Wiktionary. It provides no useful information about guest houses beyond the definition. What more could be said about guest houses anyway? DanMS 17:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Should be transwikied, as it's a dictdef of an idiom, but no opinion whether it should be kept or deleted afterwards. —Cryptic (talk) 12:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, keep this one. The very concept of a "guest house" has maaad sociological overtones which do not jump out to us because we're so used to the concept. Besides, think of Kato Kaelin - if we delete this article, where's he gonna stay? -- BD2412 talk 13:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and transwiki. I don't see any sociological overtones worth keeping an article for. / Peter Isotalo 13:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there are many famous guest houses and their implications, etc. Versaille under Louis XIV perhaps and its use for political control? I think this has some worth beyond dict.def. gren グレン 20:43, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anything there you can add to the article? -- BD2412 talk 22:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Versailles a guest house? I thought it was the royal palace. Please explain what type of political power you're refering to here. / Peter Isotalo 23:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Versailles might not be the best example since it says "exclusive" conversion into a house for guests. However, what I was pointing out is that during the reign of Louis XIV the nobles were getting powerful and his plan to neutralize them was to let them live in Versailles where he had a greater deal of control, etc. However, I suppose if this is only about free standing houses and not guest-wings, etc. then it doesn't work... although, there are guest houses on the premises of many palaces I believe... like Hampton... I forget the name outside of London that Henry VIII owned. gren グレン 01:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep social significance. I couldn't immediately tell you the difference between Bed and Breakfast, Guesthouse, pension (lodging), etc, so I suppose there is potential for a merge if someone know's what they're doing. Dunc|☺ 21:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A guest house is not a form of hotel service. It's just a house one houses guests in. / Peter Isotalo 23:41, 19 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. -R. fiend 17:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gurudwara Singh Sabha, Carteret

I'm not sure if this facility is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, its quite a local establishment. Unless it differs substantially from other gathering places of worship then it should be removed --Hooperbloob 04:41, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Even though it might be a small facility. But it's a worship house for hundreds of people. People from all over the tri-state area comes to this temple to pray. They even serves free meal daily. It should not be deleted from the Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpabla (talk • contribs) 16:45, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 12:56, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's got a copyvio tag on it. Nothing in the unsigned favorable comment above provides grounds for keeping by WP standards. Once the copyright business is straightened out, I'll weakly favor deletion as not sufficiently noteworthy, unless verifiable evidence otherwise is provided. Barno 15:36, 19 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 Speedied. android79 19:42, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1st Wizard

This appears to be a vanity page, and non-notable (1550 Google hits, the vast majority unrelated). Ashenai 13:04, 19 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete, but making into a redirect to Halve Maen. -R. fiend 17:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Half Moon

Seems to have been created to increase the wiki presence of the village of Grendon. The entry starts off like a dicdef ("Half Moon - noun"). It then says that pubs called the Half Moon often have signs with a half moon on - not very informative. It proceeds to name check Grendon, then gives details of local folklore which is already included in the Grendon article. In summary, I'm not convinced that any of this is encyclopedic. Nor am I convinced that the article could be re-written to be made encyclopedic. CLW 13:26, 19 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 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. -R. fiend 17:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Idiom (band)

Band Vanity (No Allmusic info, no label, no reviews from notable news outlets, no info on notability.) You know the drill. --Quasipalm 13:58, 19 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 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 deleted. Speedily, maybe? -R. fiend 22:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Conservataurus

Band vanity. You'd think that such an obvious portmanteau would have enough Google hits to muddle the issue, but nope. DS 13:52, 19 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 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 delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Elephantoxicosis

Unfunny neologism cloaked in medical jargon. DS 13:55, 19 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dabu

I would like to thank this article's creator for giving me the chance to make the following abominable pun.

ahem

"Dabu" is a word used by one of the fictional races in the online game World of Warcraft. It is a piece of trivia. In other words...

it is CRAFT-CRUFT.

(bows) DS 13:59, 19 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Net newspaper for kids

I am 95% certain that this article was created by someone no more than 11 years old. It's well-intentioned, but it doesn't seem to be saying anything. At most, it's a tautology. I do hope the article creator doesn't get discouraged by this, though. You're welcome to try again. DS 14:18, 19 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 keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Cain (professor)

Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. --DrBat 14:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to note that getting a book published is remarkably easy, for a college professor. My father is a professor, and has authored several books. I would not consider him notable; nor would I consider Dr. Cain notable unless his books had seen significant circulation outside his own university. This does not appear to be the case. --Ashenai 22:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well... "Cyrus Farivar" gets 76,000 hits on Google. I'd say that makes Dr. Cain a whole lot less notable. --Ashenai 00:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is nothing in Google's terms of service which indicate that the web indexing service is intended to be, or functions as a measure of "notability" by any definition other than "gets a lot of Google hits". Certainly notable people have accomplished much without the level of attention the World Wide Web foists upon "American Idol" contestants or "Extended Star Wars Universe" weaponry. Dystopos 16:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is true; because of this, we have to be careful when using Google to "prove" that something or someone is non-notable. However, if something gets, say, 100,000 unique Google hits, that generally means that 100,000 people cared enough about it to put something about it up on the Internet. Whatever our personal opinion of "American Idol" contestants or Star Wars weaponry, it is not for us to decide whether or not they are notable. Google is a good indicator of the amount of public interest in a topic, and enough public interest can make anything notable, regardless of any objective merits it may or may not have. --Ashenai 17:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Or, in the case of Cyrus Farivar, that his name is attached to articles reprinted from MacWorld, and that his hoax and the reaction to it became newsworthy, and was of particular interest to people who actively discuss things online. None of these phenomena make Farivar more intrinsically notable than Cain, they only create a lot of mentions which are indexed by Google. So, I'm not saying that the public interest failed to make something of Farivar, but the lack of Google-indexed public interest should not detract from the achievements of Cain. Kierkegaard is extremely notable, the study of Kierkegaard is quite notable. Individuals prominent in the study of Kierkagaard are, also, sufficiently notable. I'm going to vote now. Keep. Dystopos 19:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but I must say that I have still not seen proof that Dr. Cain is "prominent in the study of Kierkegaard". His primary claim to fame seems the be that he has written three books; as I have pointed out above, this is in no way remarkable or worthy of note for a university professor, unless it is shown that his books achieved at least some degree of circulation, which does not seem to be the case. Basically, I do not believe every university professor is notable, and I have not seen anything to distinguish Dr. Cain from other professors. --Ashenai 19:35, 22 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 Speedied. android79 17:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Fan Club

Self promotion, unencyclopaedic, non-notable. -- Arwel 15:11, 19 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 KEEP, and move per Lomn. It was a copy-paste move, and we appear to be happy retaining the redirect. -Splashtalk 23:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Soopa_Villianz

Article has been moved to Soopa_Villainz, the correct spelling of the group and this page is no longer needed 210.170.98.170 15:15, 19 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 · Katefan0(scribble) 21:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Covert Intelligence Operation

Some dude's band. Notability not improved (musically or otherwise) after addition of music notability stub. Smells like vanity as well.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 nomination withdrawn. --fvw* 16:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hishamuddin Hussein

Entire text is 'His wife is the princess of Negeri Pahang'. I submit that's nn, in any case I can't verify it, see [11]. --Doc (?) 15:34, 19 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 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 Delete. Rx StrangeLove 17:39, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Red Wiki

del. Nonnotble wiki. Only 95 unique google hits of 360 some total. I say, well below the radar for an online community. mikka (t) 15:52, 19 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. Rx StrangeLove 17:53, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dinlow

Non-notable slangdef. --fvw* 16:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Surely Romany language and it's effects on real spoken dialect should be a relevant topic for gathering and disseminating information. The word Dinlow is NOT considered a swear word and is almost exclusively used by children, yet the meaning is so vastly different and more vulgar than most people realise.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. -R. fiend 17:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gloomy Nights and Living Dead

Not notable video game advert.-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 16:09, 19 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 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 NO CONSENSUS. Whichever way I read this, it's a classic no consensus. People can't deicde on whether to keep it, merge it retaining the text, delete it, or keep a little bit of the text in a merge, or just rewrite it altogether. Then there's the whole thing about the title. Given the lack of an explicit support for any particular merge target, I'm not even going to tag it for that. This particular no consensus is a "do nothing because we haven't agreed on what to do". That means that any editor can make the decision for us, boldly as ever. -Splashtalk 00:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

20 minutes on the Tube equals one cigarette

Reporting this allegation would not be O.R., but this essay assesses its validity and thus breaks WP:NOR. If we removed the research, I don't think it would be encyclopedic anyway. --Doc (?) 16:09, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite: — There's some interesting (and referenced) information here, but the title and text read like a magazine article. In general, the article assumes a point of view and is unencylopedic in style, but it could be fixed. Considerable work has gone into this by it sole anonymous user, whom I suspect might be a newbie who hasn't yet developed an appropriate encylopedic writing style. — Cory Maylett 17:08, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: — Look into merging into articles about the Tube (there's a 'Safety, reliability and cost' section on the main London Underground page, for example). It would need severe trimming, though. Lincolnite 18:19, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

rename to something better. The name is awful. It had me thinking along the wrong lines. Roodog2k (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; cleanup. Interesting topic that would just congest whatever page is might be merged into. Bunchofgrapes 23:21, 19 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 Keep --Doc (?) 16:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An Evocation of Kierkegaard

The book's author, David Cain, is already on AfD as non notable. His books seems similarly unnoteworthy - can't find it on Amazon, and searching Google for the ISBN returns only two hits - the review page linked from this article, and one other (a Danish online bookstore which doesn't have the book in stock and has no cover image for it. Could be vanity. Delete CLW 15:44, 19 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Friday (talk) 21:40, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No Need for Bushido

Webcomic with no assertion of notability. Alexa ranking 200K+. Friday (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is an established comic (3 years running) with an average of 1,400 unique visitors per day. It is also one of the more popular webcomics found on BuzzComics --The palantir 17:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, assuming enough information exists to expand the article. I don't buy the whole notable thing, as long as it's verifiable, what will it hurt to keep the article? --Phroziac (talk) 17:56, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per The palantir. Kappa 23:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ^ ditto. (I believe it's current standing on Buzzcomics is #13. That's doing pretty good.) [Loyal NNFB reader] 22:36, 19 September 2005 (CTC)
  • Keep This webcomic is certainly worthy of its own article, it has a long running and previously noted popularity. Misterniceguy7
  • Keep No Need For Bushido has a long running history and is rising on Buzzcomics. Also, the article has been expanded since it was originally posted. Likewise, I can't see a problem with letting it stay.
  • Comment: Looks to me like buzzcomix.net itself has an alexa of just under 200K. I don't see an obvious reason why it's an important website, so this comic being ranked on there doesn't mean much to me. Many websites have loyal readers and are important to those who read them. Personally I think we ought to aim a little higher than that for inclusion. Friday (talk) 16:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While it is true that this comic does not meet the first requirement of the first proposal (Alexa ranking above 200 K,) I believe it does meet the rest of the first proposal, the entire alternate second proposal, and the entire third proposal. Since all other criteria are met, and that the comic is near to the 200 K requirement in the most stringent proposal, I don't see the harm in keeping the article. Unless the comic were to go on hiatus, or loose substantial readership to the point of having an Alexa rating above 250 K.
  • Keep The alexa rating is currently 194,382. Misterniceguy7
  • Keep The Wikiprojects Webcomics page which is a list of all webcomics that have an article on wikipedia has a three point criteria for allowing a comic to be included;

1. A webcomic must be on the web and actively producing strips for a minimum of 33 weeks before being considered for Wikipedia. No Need For Bushido has been online for over 3 years (which also meets one of the more strict criteria they are proposing)

2. A webcomic must have at least 100 strips in its archive before being considered for Wikipedia. No Need For Bushido has almost 200 pages archived.

3. Someone other than the webcartoonist needs to actually write and develop the article in question. The number of people editing/expanding the article so far should show this isn't just an article created by the artists.

The inclusion guidelines conclude that their main concern is new or previously unpopular comics using wikipedia as a launching point to increase popularity for their comic. The length of the comic, the longevity of the comic, and the alexa rating of the comic should be enough to prove this article is worthy. Misterniceguy7 06:16, 23 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 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. -R. fiend 15:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oxide Design Co.

company page, no assertion of notability. Founder of company Drew Davies is also up for deletion, but this article wasn't included, so I'm Afd'ing and listing it now. Friday (talk) 16:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: — Not notable and appears to be a promotional page for a small design firm. Note that the author of both the Oxide Design article and the Drew Davies article has the user name Oxide. — Cory Maylett 17:22, 19 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 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. -R. fiend 16:49, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fax online

Advertising / unknown site. Same user spammed the Vonage article. Site has no Alexa rating [12] and Google PageRank of 3. Rhobite 17:12, 19 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 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 delete · Katefan0(scribble) 21:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kidsfreesouls

Delete. Non-notable website. android79 17:15, 19 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 16:43, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Xiong Wei

non-notable political prisoner. seems like a plea for help for the Falun Gong, obviously non neutral POV, the only sources on this dissident all stem from websites promoting the Falun Gong ie. www.clearwisdom.net. it seems like to me that this is propaganda in order to solicit support for the Falun Gong and Wikipedia is not the proper forum for doing this. 129.2.237.44

Abstain: Is it possible that both the article and its calls for deletion and revision might be motivated by biased viewpoints? This is, after all, a politically charged subject in China. A Google search did turn up a dissident with the name of Xiong Wei, but the Web sites on which the name appeared were all China-related advocacy sites. Hard to say if this person is particularly notable, but I suspect not. — Cory Maylett 17:58, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcelles 06:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment to Sarcelles: Actually in the past you have been got "red handed" for using Wikipedia as a means to promote Falun Gong or have you forgotten the 100+ poorly editted stubs you made on Chinese cities as means to promote Falun Gong? I mean we were able to google your information and get an exact match on pro Falun Gong websites such as www.clearwisdom.net, you were caught copying and pasting sentences from those sites, or have you forgotten about that? Have you forgotten how you were warned on pushing your pro Falun Gong POV? Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chinese_cities#our_good_friend_sarcelles, this is a record of what Sarcelles has done this past summer. Abstrakt 17:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with Abstrakt and Miborovsky. -- ran (talk) 03:24, 27 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 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 DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Macy Sky

Supposedly "one of the most popular models ever to grace the internet", but no evidence of notability cited. Only objective claim is that she was in one movie, which was the "top set of 2004 for Softwood Inc.". dbenbenn | talk 17:44, 19 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. Although there were far more keeps than deletes in total, many were new users. Excluding them, the number of keep and delete votes were quite even. Friday (talk) 16:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Rose

Keep..his books are interesting to the open minded! Gerb

not notable and self-publicising (see sales info) Lincolnite 18:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak delete now that there appears to be a maintainer jumping to fix this, I am willing to be convinced ontherwise. Can someone find some kind of objective evidence (like number of followers, etc.) that he is notable? I must admit a certain bias against enlightened "new age" thinkers, who seem to be a dime a dozen, but I'm happy to vote to keep anyone who is clearly notable. — brighterorange (talk) 18:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, but NPOV is not the only problem here, there is the question of whether this guy is important outside a small circle of fans. I am leaning towards an answer of "no," but willing to be convinced otherwise. — brighterorange (talk) 02:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is the best google search that I can come up with to gauge the notability of this particular Richard Rose. --goethean ॐ 18:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of notability. Comment: FWIW, I searched Amazon for "Richard Rose", and I believe there's more than one author by that name. However the first two books listed were by this guy, so it's entirely possible he's notable as an author. Current article content is bad, yes, but if the subject is notable I'd rather see it fixed than deleted. Friday (talk) 18:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Rewrite: Not notable. Possible self promotion. — Cory Maylett 17:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • After being contacted via e-mail by someone urging me to change my vote, I looked into Richard Rose a little more. The evidence I dug up indicates that he was a legitimate philosopher, spiritual leader and author who managed to attract a significant group of followers and admirers. So from that standpoint, he does seem notable. However, the article is written more like a tribute from one of his disciples than a non-biased statement of simple, straight-forward fact. I'd suggest that someone with an objective viewpoint rewrite and condense the text into something more suitable for a non-biased encyclopedia. — C Maylett 16:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I know several people who have been impressed by his book. In my circle, he is notable. Promotional material should be removed from article. --goethean ॐ 18:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The material in the external links confirms that this man lectured at universities throughout the USA. Rose's books and poems are worthy of distinction. philco2 02:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Notability is a function of what circle you troll around in. If the reference to sales material is what is offensive then cut that part out. For those that troll around in esoteric enlightenment circles, Rose is as notable as Merrell-Wolff. --Algebraicring 22:27 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The presence of the content here is valuable to researchers; the material is profound and is non-sectarian; the author might not be widely known to the public but there is substantial under-the-radar interest in his work. Self-promotion is not an issue as the author devoted his life tirelessly for decades on a strict non-profit basis. The google search listed above also references the title of a book about the author, hence it appears promotional. Here's a wider search: [13] sharnish 23:59 20 September 2005

**This is Sharnish's second contribution to Wikipedia. Welcome to Wikipedia, Sharnish. --goethean ॐ 14:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC) Sharnish does not appear to be a sockpuppet. --goethean ॐ 22:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. He seems like an interesting guy, the article is informative (if a tad hagiographic in style, but that can be fixed) and in view of his having a number of published essays and several books, and the fact that he has a small but loyal following, he is certainly notable.
  • Comment: the academic quality of this page can be enhanced by including references from the relevant books, essays, and weblinks as footnotes in the body of the write up. Also the Publications should, if books, have the year and publisher, and if essays, the journal issue no., year, and page numbers in which they appear M Alan Kazlev 01:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Request: Would someone from the TAT Foundation be willing to provide the publication dates? Thanks. The quotations would be difficult to footnote, as they are mostly often-repeated phrases from Rose's personal vocabulary. All the material was originally self-published via the TAT Foundation. By the way, there remain many unpublished works and transcriptions of lectures, transcribed by volunteers (as usual). "Hagiographic" - what a great word! Steve Harnish 05:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I'm officially changing my opinion to keep, after the rewrite. I'm not saying the article is perfect, but to me the subject looks significant. Yeah, it's hagiographic here and there (I had to look that one up, thanks), but as pointed out, this can be fixed. While not very famous, as authors go, to me the intro paragraph gives me sufficient info about this guy to consider him significant. Friday (talk) 19:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ··gracefool |☺ 18:06, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. 2 legit votes to delete, 1 legit vote to keep, plus lots of comments and anons. -R. fiend 18:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pagan Association

Delete. Biased tone. Advertisment. Vanity. Minor local self-promotional organisation not worthy of note or suitable for mention in Wikipedia. 86.134.135.38 18:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Run as a part-time venture by two people who have 'real jobs', a 'kitchen fitter' and a, 'personal assistant'

- wow an organisation run by two people with full time jobs and charges a small fee to cover costs of newsletter, great reason for removal! Maybe they should charge more and then they wouldn't have to work fulltime jobs. Accounts are fully transparent and available for any member to view.

Comment You miss the point again. It was not an argument about the fact that you charge, but that you are not a 'full-time', professional organisation worthy of note in an encyclopedia but something you do in your spare time as a hobby. This is an encylcopedia page about your hobby.

No individual member has ever seen the books of the p.a.User:Acropolis now

Delete:P.A. is a small group of friends based in Birmingham. Run as a part-time venture by two people who have 'real jobs', a 'kitchen fitter' and a, 'personal assistant' I believe. Likes to give the impression it IS paganism in the Midlands. Charges for membership but the, 'books' are not open for inspection by members. Totally unworthy of mention on Wikipedia: Remove.
Comment: Even after a re-edit the page is still little more than an advert for this group, and by that token an advert for their, 'pay services' such as, 'hand fastings'.
Comment: I hardly think being given expenses of a few pounds to cover fuel costs for handfastings all around the UK counts as a 'pay service'? It's not a commercial venture.
Comment: Regardless of what this couple charge, they and their services should not be advertised on an encyclopedia, especially as the many other organisations who've been offering such a services for decades are not. It's misleading and could give the impression that this is the only organisation offering such a service.

Anyway, if people want a pagan handfasting service, or even to find out about paganism at all, they can look on specifically pagan sites, (easily found through any search engine) or follow the links under paganism

They don't need a misleading promotional advert trying to convince them about the importance of any one organisation on Wikipedia.

A page containing a general description of paganism and links to other groups is all that is needed. A page called, 'Pagan Association' is not.

Comment: There already are two, with links. paganism and neopaganism
  • Comment- how about rename as Pagan Association- Midlands, England as this group only holds any events or has any active prescence in that region? And have a more objective tone as opposed to 'local pagans loved the idea' and such ad nauseam. There are several pagan groups in Birmingham this page could be subsumed under one of that name. Even then, is an analysis of the regional factions of a minority religion worthy of note, when large pagan groups such as the Druid Network only have a stub, and the Pagan Federation, the UK's largest pagan organisation by far and a registered charity, has no page at all.
Comment: Updated to include other pagan organisations - not sure if there are any suggestions as to how it should then be renamed? Perhaps National Pagan organisations within the UK? Incidentally the Pagan Federation was stripped of its charitable status several years ago and is trying to regain it through PEBBLE. --User:RhiannonB 23:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

'And the relevance of that is??'

Comment This is not a pagan information update page -it's to discuss the deletion of an article on Wikipedia. Your 'incidental' comment goes beyond incidental into off-topic.--

There is an entire 'pagan Wiki' where pagan organisations can be described it's http://paganwiki.org/ User:Acropolis now They have a link from paganism

Simply place your URL on the links page of paganism or neopaganism You don't need a seperate Wikipedia article for pagan organisations. If need be you could place a subheading UK there for pagan organisations in the UK.

Then if people are interested, they can go direct to the site, or to the many pagan sites that provide descriptions of available UK and local pagan organisations. This is an encyclopedia not a special interest notice board or even a site solely for those in the UK. User:Acropolis now

Comment: Pagan Association UK is the official name, and as members come from as far afield as Berwick Upon Tweed, London, South Wales, and Cornwall, it's a fair name to use. The contacts of the Pagan Association spread even further afield, and as there are many people who use Wikipedia to find out more about paganism, giving them a safe and known point of contact offline seems to me to be a good use of Wikipedia. If someone from within the Pagan Federation wishes to add to the page then we could share the resource. I believe the Children of Artemis is the biggest pagan organisation in the UK with something like 5,000 members, however this is a commercial organisation. --User:RhiannonB 23:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment at least rename this. "Pagan Association" means "an association of Pagans", not particularly this one. I'd rename it myself at least to "Pagan Association UK" (pending verification) but as it stands this is a completely non-encyclopaedic title. Tonywalton  | Talk 22:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am not voting on this article either way, but I would refer people to the debate on "AfD" for "Martin Williams". I don't know much about this organisation, or whether it's worthy of inclusion, but I felt "Martin Williams" who was a member wasn't. Judge for yourselves... --MacRusgail 20:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He wasn't just a member. You are speaking of THE Martin Williams, the Head and Founder of the Pagan Association (UK) And you think he isn't worthy of an entry. I'm aghast.

  • Comment at least rename this. "Pagan Association" means "an association of Pagans", not particularly this one. I'd rename it myself at least to "Pagan Association UK" (pending verification) but as it stands this is a completely non-encyclopaedic title. Tonywalton  | Talk 22:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

rename to align with current revision, to "paganism in Birmingham."

Requested move=Talk:pagan association — pagan association → paganism in Birmingham – NPOV, place in relevant context, User:Acropolis now 12:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

have put this on talkpage too- i'm new;)

not that parochial goings-on are worthy of an entry, anyway. Where would it end? Every University society has an entry?

[Restored my comment to original I left it at. Alf melmac 21:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC)][reply]
[made edit (strike through: must have been a glitch) I came back to do. Alf melmac 21:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

correction No. The particular pagan association refered to has always been based in Birmingham where the founder and leadership live. You must be mistaking it for another of the same name.

And they don't have a 'headquarters'-unless you count their sitting room.

Having read the article you flagged, I can assure you that this organisation is based in Birmingham, and as for 'first gathering outside London'- they've met in a pub at least once a week in Birmingham for some time. I suspect this is a misprint in the article. At any rate it's wholly misleading. User:Acropolis_now

This is a global encyclopedia, not for things that have been on -a few minute's segment- of a -local- programme on -one- channel in the-UK-.

A channel which a prominent member of this organisation just happens to work for.

Anyone can be on the local news- especially if they ring the media, are holding a pagan ritual, wearing robes or dancing round a fire.

All they need is their URL under pagan or neopagan.

Having their own entry is self-indulgent vanity publishing or an indirect advertisment for themselves and indirectly for those services for which they charge. User:Acropolis_now

  • Comment This discussion is somewhat confusing, because of newcomers who are not familiar with the use of four tildes ~~~~ to sign an entry with a date-timestamp. There also have been edits out of sequential order. However, it appears the only vote from an experienced wikipedian so far is the keep vote from Alf melmac. There is one remove (a very strange way to spell delete) from an anonymous editor using IP 84.69.16.92. The only contributions from this IP are this discussion and the AfD on Martin Williams. --WCFrancis 17:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete verifiability is extremely limited, as is notability. The BBC page is about it. The association page appears to be gone, placeholder there. It appears the Pagan Federation would be much more notable and there is no article for it at present (although this one could be moved and rewritten for that organization since half the article is already about the Federation). -WCFrancis 17:47, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That 'keep' vote was by the creator of the site, by the way.

She is trying to mislead people (as she is with the whole article) into thinking that her organisation is a 'UK pagan organisation' on a par with the Pagan Federation. Which it is not. Anyway she could just add some UK links under paganism or edit that page. But she wouldn't do that as her intention is Vanity and to mislead about her organisation's status, rather than to be in any way useful. Acropolis now 11:23, 23 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 a deletion review). 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_19&oldid=23536681"