Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 September 28

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DragonflySixtyseven (talk | contribs) at 16:59, 28 September 2005. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< September 27 >

Purge server cache

September 28

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 as per discussion --Doc (?) 12:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dibbuns Against Bedtime

After creating this article, I realized it fell under fictional story material (characters, settings, etc. which are only interesting to fans). It could also be considered another advertisement for a site. So Delete is my vote. 69.81.252.232 02:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

unfortunatelly that is far from proof, cant you just make it easier by logging in a prooving it? Usrnme h8er 08:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete (8 deletes, 1 merge, as verification was not provided). Scimitar parley 17:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lifeguard (poker)

Dicdef, can never be expanded, neologism. — Phil Welch 00:46, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete unanimously discounting the sockpuppets. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 04:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

World 44

A conspiracy theory related to the number 44. I don't understand it at all. Delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:58, 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 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. But, please note that this was not patent nonsense. --Phroziac(talk) 00:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Plookie

Yet another non notable neologism. No Google results related to the term at all [1] Shauri Yes babe? 23:57, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re tagging for speedy, coming up! Shauri Yes babe? 00:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete (6 delete, 1 transwiki). Scimitar parley 17:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Snarfle

dictionary definition Delete --JAranda | yeah 00:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete (unanimous). Scimitar parley 17:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

advertisement/vanity for nn local dating business. --MCB 00:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP The Land 12:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Careena Collins

More porncruft. Actress has no claims to notability other than having done porn. Website doesn't exist. Please note that the Google test is of highly limited use in establishing notability for pornographic actors due to linkspamming. Vizjim 00:53, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Only if we remove them (which is a matter for votes, not your humble nominator, to decide!) The idea behind the nomination is that, to judge by the article, this person may have done a fair few films but has not established any kind of notability within the field. I'm not suggesting that porn-only actors should be banned, merely that the same criteria should be applied to them as anyone else. Vizjim 09:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Because originally I stumbled into this area following the controversies on the Jordan Capri and Tawnee Stone articles: I'm now looking through the porn starlets' listings to ensure that the same kind of abuse is deleted from other such articles. A couple of the articles I see don't seem to establish any reason for such a person to be in an encyclopedia: this seemed to be one of them. Judging by the responses this nomination is getting, I got it wrong on this occasion. Vizjim 10:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
From what I understand, Capri and Stone are isolated cases... for most porn stars, their birth names (or their alleged birth names) are nearly impossible to withhold and I don't think most care once the information is out. I'm guessing that Capri and Stone made such a stink (if they even did) because they are very young and hope to completely bury the fact that they were in porn after amassing a few million dollars. -EdgarAllanToe 10:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now that I've looked at the articles you mentioned, I agree with those decisions. They were written with an antagonistic tone ("despite being billed as a teen sensation", etc.) and should at a bare minimum be rewritten to fall more in line with the "typical" porn star page. -EdgarAllanToe 10:57, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm completely resigned to this being kept. Nonetheless, and purely out of interest, I'd like to ask which of the WP:BIO elements you meant? I quote: "Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions. Notability can be determined by: a) Multiple features in popular culture publications such as Vogue, GQ, Elle, FHM or national newspapers b) A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following c)An independent biography d) Name recognition e) Commercial endorsements". Cheers Vizjim 22:25, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus and the article will therefore be kept. DES (talk) 06:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pat's Hubba Hubba

nn restaurant 336 google entries most from phone books etc Delete --JAranda | yeah 00:55, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Verifiable, and just about as notable as your local high school, which always gets kept, so no sense deleting this. — Phil Welch 01:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, I don't consider "well, we have x, and y is as worthless as x" a good reason to keep: less worthless stuff is good in my books. Lord Bob
  • Delete per nominator unless someone can show independent importance. Phil, the WP consensus reasoning has been that high schools (not necessarily schools for younger kids) are a major nontrivial part of people's lives, form large ongoing communities that take an interest in sports teams and budget votes, are verifiable in terms of not just existing but having their issues widely discussed in print, and so forth. The consensus has been that restaurants (and stores, malls, and most other commercial operations) aren't in the same class of importance, and (partly to avoid advertising) WP keeps their articles only if some broad notability is verified. Barno 05:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Kewp 06:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marskell 10:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just because there are useless articles about boring highschools in here, doesn't mean we should keep adding new articles (I'll be taking a look at useless articles about educational institutions which can be merged, i.e. TAFE in australia, if it'll make you feel better). alf 10:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Dottore So 11:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThis place is a landmark and has cult status. Its not just some restaurant. Whats with comment after my post? Im just a guy who edited this page and my name is Tom. I'm not registered because I wanted to provide useful information, unlike "per nom" before an entry gets deleted by people who don't know anything about it. Since when is Google the be all and end all for posts on Wikipedia? If thats the case, then why does Wikipedia even exist? Also, what does "beware of socks" mean? If you have something to say, then say it, or is Wikipedia just about some elite group of insiders who use some kind of WikiSpeak to get rid of entries they simply dont know about or dont like? Like Biermacht mentioned, Pat's has been written upn in the New York Times, as well as commented on on espn.com. I've been to Pat's, I've talked about Pat's. To some people it's legendary. I have no financial gain whatsoever to Pat's being listed on Wikipedia. If you have a valid entry to make, then say it. If you think this should be deleted "per nom" than take the time to support "nom"'s argument, otherwise, shut up. Tom 10:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC) this user has made no edits ... not even to this page?
  • Keep Listen here, college boy. I'll hit you in the balls 336 times, and then you tell me that's not a lot of hits. Pat's is a landmark and a very formative part of my youth and that of many of the people that grew up in the Port Chester community.IkeVandergraaf 10:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)user's only edit[reply]
  • Keep I am the author of this article. It is noteworthy, verifiable and doesn't fall under any of Wikipedia's categories of problems that require deletion. Nom's statment that "It is a restaurant there are hundreds of thousands of those out there Question is does [sic] we want an article on those hundreds of thousands of restaurants" is unhelpful and contrary to Wikipedia's own policies ("Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. This means that there is no practical limit to number of topics we can cover other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page"). Furthermore, any contention that this article is advertising is contradicted by the lack of an address or phone number in the article, and the fact that the business doesn't even operate under the name "Pat's Hubba Hubba" anymore. Any concerns about this article involving a "very small 'garage' compan[y]" is satisfied because the information is third-party verifiable (and reported in the widely circulated New York Times, among others). The NY Times articles describe the cultural phenomanon that is Pat's, and are not simply restaurant reviews. The "broad notability" requirment mentioned above is thus satisfied. And finally, just because commentators like Dr. Alf thinks the information in this article is boring does not mean that one should prevent the information from being posted. Others may not share his sentiment about the content of the article. In short, don't limit readers' access to information by broadening Wikipedia's deletion policy because you yourself aren't interested in the articles contents. Biermacht 10:53, 28 September 2005 (UTC)(All previous edits are to this page)[reply]
  • Delete not notable - and beware of socks. --Doc (?) 15:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Please read the sources before posting that this is not notable. Otherwise your posts are based on your opinion and are not made in good faith. (if you can't link to the sources directly, click on Google's cached version of the page.) It is notable enough for the most respected newspaper in the United States to write two seperate articles about it (one entitled "Everybody Comes to Hubba's. O.K., Maybe Not the Health Food Crowd" (Click here for associated slide show)) Biermacht 15:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Never mind socks, beware of getting hit in the nuts. --fvw* 15:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Famous place to grab some food (unsigned by 65.0.173.127 (talk · contribs) - 3rd edit)
  • Delete. Another local business. -R. fiend 17:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I verified the New York Times article. Port Chester is about 31 miles from New York, so that means something. The article is: "Everybody Comes to Hubba's. O.K., Maybe Not the Health Food Crowd." Peter Applebome, July 10, 2005, p. 25, Column: Our Towns. So this seems to be part of a systematic survey of towns. I conclude that the New York Times vouches for Pat's Hubba Hubba as locally notable in Port Chester. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:13, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep If its a local cult restaurant, I'll buy the authors argument. Roodog2k (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. Marcus22 19:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If you can't write more than 2 letters than please don't bother to become part of a discusssion. I vote to delete this 'comment' as it's utterly worthless. And by the way, the what does someone born in the UK and living in France know about the legitimacy of a an entry for Pat's Hubba Hubba? Have you ever even been there or heard about it? I haven't been or heard about a lot of relevant places in France, does that make them worthless and not notable. Why not take the time to write some kind of opinion besides a cowardly "nn". - Tom
    • I happen to live in a free country Tom. I'm entitled to express an opinion even if it is one you disagree with. I don't need to explain my reasons to you or to anyone else. In this case, given the little I can find out about the place, I consider it a non-notable restaurant and thus not worth keeping. Hence the delete. I'm sorry if you find nn too brief. Perhaps you should try brevity sometime - you may win more friends and stop irritating people so much! Marcus22 20:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • "I'm entitled to express an opinion" Um yeah, thats sort of the point. Express it then and dont just write "nn". "I don't need to explain my reasons to you or to anyone else" If you're posting on Wikipedia, then yes, Marcus22, you do. Read the rules. "I consider it a non-notable restaurant and thus not worth keeping" Again, Not-Notable is not criteria for deletion. How many times does this have to be pointed out to people? - Tom
      • Comment to Marcus22 Biermacht the author here. Actually, you do have to explain your reasons when voting on a listing for deletion. You might want to brush up on the rules for commenting on a listing for deletion before voting again. You might have missed the important stuff in the rules; I mean, it it was only emphasized in italics. "When expressing an opinion, please include your opinion, your reasoning, and sign (with four consecutive tilde characters)." If you don't want to "explain your reasons to anyone else" then I suggest you stop voting, because your votes are unhelpful. Biermacht 14:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Votes with no comments are often counted, never mind votes that simply say "not notable" (which is what "nn" stands for). So don't count on this vote going down on that basis. By the way, Tom, I suggest making an account rather than just linking to the article on Tom all the time. Non-users often get tagged with accusations of being sockpuppets because that's often what they are (not that I'm saying you are). Lord Bob 03:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, thank you Lord Bob, JAranda and Marcus 22 for turning the bold idea of WikiPedia into nothing more than a popularity contest and ego trip for users. Have fun. I won't waste my time making a login as this experience has made it clear that WikiPedia is just another metafilter.com or slashdot.com, and not the impartial, objective resource it was intended to be. I mean some guys in Florida and France actively go after the deletion of an entry for a legendary local restaurant in New York they have never heard of or been to, without offering much, in Marcus22's case, no argument at all. Why? It's just sad really. - Tom
          • Like all of Wikipedia, AfD rests on the assumption that a group of people can come to reasonable judgements on subjects in which they are not experts by the use of due diligence, basic scholarship, and simple research. Your argument that only people with direct knowledge of the restaurant should participate in discussing is like saying that only people with botany degrees should edit articles on trees. For better or for worse, Wikipedia doesn't work that way. You don't need to know Hubba to express a valid opinion on whether a restaurant that is famous in Port Chester, New York and a surrounding area—probably greater than a county but less than state—needs an article of its own. Personally, I think a paragraph in the Port Chester article is probably what is appropriate. What is your compelling case for needed a separate article rather than a section in Port Chester? Dpbsmith (talk) 13:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's not what I'm saying, that's what you're inferring. "participate in discussing", as you put it, is the problem here. Writing "nn" or "per mod" is pretty much the same thing as "trees suck, huh huh huh". I see a lot of "valid opinion" for keeping the article and lot of posting "Delete" so they can get a link up to thier profile page. To me writing "nn" or "per mod" is nothing more than self promotional comment spam. - Tom
  • Me, I'd vote to keep it, despite the writer's best efforts at annoying all and sundry. It does seem to be something of a local landmark, judging by the links. Then again, I'm in England and haven't been to this restaurant, so maybe my vote shouldn't be counted either? Vizjim 13:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to All, and Lord Bob in particular, from the Author - As stated above, lack of notability is NOT a criterion for deletion, nor is it even being considered as a criterion for deletion. I thus call on the administrators to give no weight to the nominators post, and all the posters that parroted him/her. They are per se invalid. Let's stop this nonsense of of using false criteria for deletion right now! Limiting information is a very powerful thing, and to do so arbitrarily or based on made-up rules is completely contrary to Wikipedia's mission. I am very troubled that an accurate, verifiable article that doesn't violate Wikipedia's rules and guidelines is in danger of being deleted because of negative votes that offer no valid discussion and no valid basis for deletion. Comments that the article is worthless, useless, and boring are not helpful in the discussion because they are opinion. Furthermore, regardless of whether notability is a criterion, the subject of the article was reported in widely circulated and well-respected media outlets. The subject is widely known in the largest metropolitan area in North America. It has been called a "landmark" by the New York Times. It's notability is unquestionable. And one more thing, I am the author of the article. Tom is not the author, nor is he my sock puppet. What I think Tom is saying is that if you are from Canada, France, Florida or anywhere outside of the New York City metropolitan area, don't say that the article is not notable without reading the sources first. Otherwise, when you post "nn" you are simply saying "I have not heard of this place, and I don't find it important to me." Take the time to research an article before voting to prevent the information from being published.Biermacht 10:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability has always been and still is a de facto criterion. It has never been formalized as policy because nobody has ever been able to agree on criteria. Therefore, judgements of notability are hashed out case by case in individual discussions, without the benefit of codified policy, leading to contention. Notability is a criterion for some categories of articles, e.g. biographies. You say "I am very troubled that an accurate, verifiable article that doesn't violate Wikipedia's rules and guidelines is in danger of being deleted." However, many items of information that are accurate and verifiable, yet unencyclopedic. And nobody is preventing the information from being published. In fact, nobody is preventing you from using Wikipedia to publish it. This information can go in the Port Chester, New York article, in a suitably abbreviated form, and you are certainly free to put the entire article on your personal user page, which you do not presently seem to be using for anything else. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dpbsmith, I appreciate you taking the time to express your viewpoint in a reasonable and rational manner. I only wish the vast majority of "delete" posters took the time to do the same. If someone believes that the article is not notable, then they should say why it is not notable. I believe that is all the more important because notability is not an official requirement. Taking five minutes to explain one's point of view is not too much to ask when they are voting to delete information from Wikipedia. I do disagree with you about them not preventing information from being published. You are the only person that took the time to offer an alternative method of information distribution. Everyone else voted to shut down the article, period. Censoring the flow of information is a very powerful thing, and voting to to do so deserves more than the glib response that the majority of "delete" voters gave. And once again, I maintain that Pat's Hubba Hubba is notable and deserves its own page. It is a landmark in the largest metropolitan area in North America, as verified by several major media outlets. But thanks for providing me with alternatives.Biermacht 12:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, you want to know why I think this restaurant is not notable? Because it's a restaurant. That's all it is. There are millions of restaurants. What's special about this restaurant? I examine the article, and the closest thing I can see to being special is a glowing endorsement, in passing, of one of its dishes from Bill Simmons. I like Bill Simmons, when he isn't interviewing two-bit authors instead of doing his job. But, in my opinion, this article does not establish that this restaurant is any more special than millions of other restaurants. Having really hot chili and a former chain smoker for a proprietor does not notability make. And why didn't I write this all in my original vote? Because when I say something is "non-notable", I very seldom have to go into considerable detail of why it is so because people can see it for themselves. Perhaps it's notable to people who eat at it, but Wikipedia is not Westchester County, New Yorkpedia. Being a landmark isn't notable, there's a freakin' hill in my hometown that's a landmark. Lord Bob 16:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am guessing that the New York Times, and the Victoria Times Colonist for that matter, never wrote an article on a hill in your hometown. If they did I would say that your hill is obviously noteworthy, since they took the time to note it in their newspapers. BTW, I linked Google's cached version of the NY Times article, so if you have had trouble getting access to it, why not read it? It might change your mind. Also, I am not trying to turn this into New Yorkepedia, but since when is national or international notoriety a requirement? Isn't it more important to put things in Wikipedia that aren't universally known, so that people can learn about them?. Isn't that the point of an encyclopedia that is not bound by paper pages?Biermacht 14:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Everybody's definition of what's notable varies, from my experience. The hill in question has been articled several times, although not in the New York Times (nor the Times-Colonist since I wasn't born in Victoria and the hill isn't there), but I don't think everything in the Times is notable because it was in the Times. There are many people who think that local notice is enough, and as Dpbsmith pointed out below, there are enough people who think this restaurant is notable that it is almost certain it'll still have a Wikipedia article when this AfD closes. I respect people who say that local notability is enough, but I disagree with it, which is why I voted delete, above. Lord Bob 18:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • A hill that's a landmark and has been written about in articles. Now, that really sounds interesting. This must be one special hill. It's too bad there's no WikiPedia entry for it. Seriously. - Tom
        • Biermacht, just in case you aren't aware... I presently see eight keeps and eleven deletes. That means that my personal guess is that the article is probably not going to be deleted. When a sysop "closes" a discussion, he or she looks at the discussion and judges whether there is a "rough consensus for deletion." Barring voting irregularities and special circumstances, most of the time most sysops take a 2/3 majority as a guideline. AfD tends to bring out the very worst in Wikipedians. The reason so many comments are curt is that there's no very good way to decide what should go into Wikipedia and what shouldn't, so anyone who participates in AfD has heard it all dozens of times before and everyone tends to be curt and short-tempered. That's not an excuse, just an explanation. I see someone's added references to the article. That's a Good Thing. I see someone else has edited to tone down the promotional language. That's a Good Thing too. Cheers. How do you like the article on Playland? Dpbsmith (talk) 17:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm.. not sure about the 8 for and 11 against. Some of the votes for (but by no means all) are a little uncertain in origin. All the same, if it stays good for Pats Hubba Hubba. (ie. There's really no need to take it personally Tom). Marcus22 20:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article's with such interesting names must be kept :). Plus, not-notible is not a criterion for deletion. If you see anything that is close like this message me so I can vote to keep. --ShaunMacPherson 08:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems notable enough to get mentioned in the NYT and ESPN.com and anyways notability is not a criterion for deletion! Klonimus 04:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 REDIRECTED. — JIP | Talk 05:43, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

.hack/SIGN

Grammar is abysmal, organization is abysmal, topic already exists under the CORRECT title (.hack//SIGN), and the information given is purely redundant when compared with the actual topic. Merge would be pointless and a waste of time. - Zenithan 01:00, 28 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 Redirect to Al Majdal, withdrawn by nominator. Pilatus 02:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Majdal

Infrastub with no content. Give it expansion or give it death. Grutness...wha? 01:04, 28 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 the rewritten version, withdrawn by nominator. Pilatus 02:20, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scotton

My first thought when I saw this was "Oh, for fxxx's sake." The entire text of this thing which cannot even be dignified with the name "stub" is Scotton is a place. Well, so are the Democratic Republic of Congo, Peoria, and the crater Tycho, but at least someone has written something about them. Grutness...wha? 01:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep the dab page. Thanks Hahnchen. Grutness...wha? 01:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Move and write a new article.. – Rich Farmbrough 14:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Irritability (webcomic) (Moved from Irritability)

Does longevity equal notability? Just because this comic has been running online since 1998, it does not mean it is more notable than any other website which has been running since 1998/9. You can find the website here, its Alexa ranking is over 600,000. A google search for irritability webcomic, without quotes gives 100 links, and nothing which suggests notability. And if we take a look at what links here for irritability, we find that the majority of links are for the medical condition! Looking at this, we must ask ourselves, why does this website deserve an article? What makes this website any more notable than every other website out there? Just because a website has been running for 6 years, does that instantly make it notable? Hahnchen 01:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on whether this should be kept. I only said that if it was it should be moved. - Mgm|(talk) 08:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I meant to convey that I think it should be kept, but altered in the way Mgm|(talk) suggests.ret3 16:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Withdrawn by Nominator. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Subh Milis

This is a non-notable poem by a poet who may not be notable himself. Withdrawn -- Kjkolb 01:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the correct spelling of Séamus Ó Néill. It does not have an apostrophe after the O like the entry originally said. - Mgm|(talk) 08:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Rx StrangeLove 04:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Manga-Gaga

Effort has been put into this article. That can not be denied. But we should not judge whether to delete it because of the quality of the content, but what that content actually refers to. The webcomic, which can be found here, has zero alexa stats. The deadspot forums can be found here. Note that the forum is shared between 3 webcomics, and has less than 100 members. The claim that there have been 150,000 visitors to the site since its inception is due to the shoddy nature of their webcounter, you click refresh and it updates! I have probably added about 5 to it just by browsing around the site, and the none existent alexa numbers back it up. Moderate success on newgrounds? Is the "Daily 4th Place Award - 08/13/2004" moderate success? I could write a great article on the lamppost outside my house, that doesn't mean it's notable. Same for this webcomic, nothing here suggests why its more notable than any other website. - Hahnchen 01:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


So, basically your entire logic for the need for this article’s deletion is because you don’t think that enough people care about the subject matter? That’s completely absurd for an online encyclopedia that exists for the sole purpose of providing information for people on as large of a scale of subjects as possible. I’d agree with you that an article on the lamppost outside your house should be deleted, as it covers a subject that would be just about identical to every single lamppost in existence (other than location, of course). Comparing said lamppost to a webcomic, no matter how small however, is an utterly gross exaggeration of the situation at hand. The purpose of an encyclopedia is not to only make individual articles that will only be popular to as large of a degree as possible; an encyclopedia’s purpose is to provide a plethora of all types of information so as to allow anyone who comes with a reasonable and legitimate interest in a subject matter to learn more on the topic at hand. That’s one of the great things about Wikipedia! The fact that anyone can submit material and create articles on whatever they wish allows for the online material to grow larger and larger and let the amount of possible material to be covered to become more and more complete as time passes. Simply saying that a subject doesn’t deserve coverage because it’s not popular enough goes completely against the essence of Wikipedia at large. Your logic that we should delete article because of the content regardless of the quality is likewise flawed because it suggests that a horribly written article on Star Wars would be on a higher level than a very well-written article on a relatively unknown novel. Sure, more people would be interested in a Star Wars article, but does that immediately discount the people who would have a legitimate interest in a smaller subject matter? If it does, then I’m obviously missing the entire point of an online encyclopedia. – RPH

  • Reply - No, a horrible article on Star Wars would, and should be kept. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The place for very obscure and unnotable webcomics is not wikipedia. The lamppost may be a poor analogy, but judging from the links given above, there is nothing which would lift this website above any other website. I am sure that there will be some teenage girl's livejournal with a larger readership than this. Do you know about comixPedia? It is the place for none notable comics to go. And Manga-Gaga is already there. For those wanting to find out about comics, comixpedia is great, and Manga-Gaga belongs there where those who want to find out about comics can go. If it attains notability beyond other websites and other webcomics, then it would be worthy to import it back to wikipedia. We have to stop wikipedia being used as a web directory, and so standards of notability have to be maintained. - Hahnchen 02:20, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, deletion precedent is on the side of keeping the Manga-Gaga article on Wikipedia. [[3]] The term "notability" is used as the key for keeping webcomic articles on Wikipedia, and Manga-Gaga clearly meets the citeria listed there. The only mention there is of the need for a webcomic to have been updated once a week for at least a year for it to be considered notable. There is no mention of a webcomic's popularity in regards to its notability. As of now, Manga-Gaga has had three full seasons, each one averaging out at one comic a week for a full year. Therefore, using that logic, keeping the article on Wikipedia is in concordance with the regulations and precedent set by past decisions by the site's administrators. - RPH
    • Reply - Please see the talk pages on WP:COMIC, they have been criticised for being overly lax. Compare those guidelines, (guidelines, not policy), to say WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO. The guidelines were not set by administrators, and did not take into account past deletions/decisions. By the webcomic guidelines, every comic with 100 strips would be included. This is clearly wrong, what about bloggers with 100 posts? wikipedians with 100 articles? I still maintain that a webcomic with no alexa rank, no mentions of notability on google and only 98 forum members in a shared forum does not meet common sense notability criteria. - Hahnchen 03:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You may think that if you wish. Heck, you can even try to change the Wikipedia guidelines if that's what you truly believe, but the fact of that matter is that is the policy that has been set by precedent for webcomic articles on this site. In your previous post you even said that "standards of notability had to be maintained," and Manga-Gaga fits the standards laid out by the site itself. It may be different for other types of popular (or unpopular) media, but it's not for the individual users to make arbitrary decisions for the deletion of articles based on what they may or may not see as important by themselves. However, even if we used the guidelines proposed in your link [[4]], they clearly state that a comic that has been regularly updated for three years deserves a place on Wikipedia. Manga-Gaga fits under that guideline, arbitrary though it may be. RPH
      • As much as I enjoy defending webcomics, this one statement:
"the policy that has been set by precedent for webcomic articles on this site."
Is completely false. Never has the "100 comic" rule saved a webcomic from deletion. What it does do is get webcomic articles under 100 deleted really really quickly. Hence my introduction of the "500/3year" rule, which I'm sad to say has never even been discussed. *sniff* Nifboy 04:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, you may be right about that. I really don't know as I've never followed the deletion patterns on Wikipedia. All I know is that the official discussion on the subject matter defends Manga-Gaga's place on the site, so unless there's listed evidence elsewhere, it deserves an article on Wikipedia. RPH
  • Delete per nom. The faulty nature of the hit counter (as in not counting unique hits) and the ambiguity of the forum usage makes their mentions in the article seem POV. Also, the more-than-one-author rule of the alternate proposal of WP:COMIC goes against this article, in this case, so using it to support an argument wouldn't really help (as Nifboy said earlier, the 100-comic rule has never saved a webcomic article). However, in a sense, that is beyond the point, as it isn't even a guideline. What those proposals seem to be are ways to make the deletion of non-notable webcomics easier. The rest is personal, logical judgement. This is mine. -Nameneko 05:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply You said: The deadspot forums can be found here. Note that the forum is shared between 3 webcomics, and has less than 100 members.

The forums have had to be reset several times (IIRC around 3 or 4 times, due to things outside the author's control), its only split between two webcomics,the second webcomic is pretty damn new, and the merger of the forums only occured when Manga Gaga moved servers at the suggestion by the new webcomic author. So citing that as a reason is pretty moot considering the circemstances. Manga Gaga does not have mulitple authors (unless I have mis-read one of the arguements here), and the only time other artists have taken over is during Guest Comics, which nearly every webcomic has periods of. So that arguement is moot. As for the faulty nature of the hit counter - there aren't many hit counters around that provide Unquie vistor stats period. At least none that I know of. And if the comic wasn't popular - why do I seem to see it mentioned in lists about "My Favourite Webcomic" on the many forums I visit? Every time I see the topic, theres around 3 - 4 people mention it. That seems popular to me.

Or how a recent merger and reset of a forum which is ISN'T dead due to the moving of hosts, and has plenty of well posting members, is grounds for deletion? Check your facts first, its a forum for two comics, and as stated above, the one has barely begun its run. If its the POV stuff in an article (I can see some words that aren't very, ahem, neutral), then remove the POV stuff. It's notable enough for me to see it mentioned on many forums. Personally I find your other arguements for deletion moot. Care to convince me otherwise? And ESkog - we're trying to have a serious discussion here, take your stupid comments elsewhere.

  • Sorry, but I really haven't seen that logical of an argument for deletion of the Manga-Gaga article yet. The only legitimate complaint against Manga-Gaga's presence on Wikipedia is the question on it covering too small or specific of a subject, which I don't see as fair or legitimate as the site's servers have changed multiple times over the course of the comic's creation. Simply put, there is no legitimate count of the comic's fanbase or interest level. Sure, there can be no denying the fact that Manga-Gaga has a relatively small fanbase when compared to the titan webcomics (8-Bit Theater and Penny-Arcade, just to name two), but where on Wikipedia is there a stated size limit for websites to be listed as articles? All I've seen covering this matter has been on discussion topics, and this particular comic has fit the requirements listed there. In absence of such a requirement, I believe that a quality argument would be the only legitimate argument against such an article. In regards to Manga-Gaga though, it has already been admitted that the article has had a lot of work done. If people don't believe that it has a neutral POV or should not include the number of visitors to the site, then the logical conclusion would be to merely alter the article, not delete it. What should also be remembered is that the article has existed for almost three full months and has been updated by eleven different people (not including Hahnchen's suggestion for deletion). As many other worthy topics, my own DePauw University being one such example, have received about the same or less attention over a similar time period, I don't believe that one could legitimately claim that this article hasn't been receiving an adequate amount of traffic as well.

.... oh, and I believe that ESkog's and Marcus22's statements for the deletion should be ignored due to a lack of reasoning (which is required on a discussion for the deletion of an article), as should Dottore So's (as it seems heavily biased in favor of Hahnchen, suggesting that they're either close friends or even the same person!). Last time I checked, an "unimpeachable argument" wasn't based on mere arbitrary personal views on what belongs on a site that are contradicted by a discussion that he himself posted. And sorry.... I just realized that I forgot to put the time and date at the end of my previous statements. Sorry about that. RPH 22:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps you should start your own tyranny somewhere? Where I come from a person has the right to vote or express an opinion without having to explain him/herself. However, this once, and just for you, I shall make an exception and expand on my previous 'nn'. NN means not (or non) notable. Thus, in my view, the object of the article is not notable and hence not encylcopedic. What more can I say? It is my view. My opinion. OK now? In any case Delete Marcus22 20:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The fact the visiters of the web site were unwilling and/or unable to install the Alexa toolbar (or just never heard of it), is not a reason to deem the web site non-notable. Alexa is not Neilson. It's a partial count, not a representive sample. Alexa is occasionally useful at confirming/rebutting claims of huge popularity of web sites (like those claiming milliions of visitors). It's useless in a case like this. The comic seems to have a regular following and the content of the article is worthwhile. Also, this will be a good place to re-direct future fictional character articles, without bothering with the AFD. --rob 22:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nonnotable webcomic. --Carnildo 22:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While it's true that Manga-Gaga hardly has a huge fan base like many other web comics, have a look at the list of pages set up there for web comics: Category:Webcomics

Now no one can surely tell me that all of those have been ground-breaking internet cultrial markers like..say Penny Arcade, Chugsworth, Dinosaur Comics etc have been. I also doubt at least a few of these have been running as long as Manga-Gaga. Also, that's not the first hit counter the sites had, I've changed it over the years at least 3 times, and I really don't see why it's so important or such a problem.

I mean, look at this comic's entry for example: IndieTits

"IndieTits is a webcomic by Jeph Jacques. It was first published on April 1, 2005."

I don't quite see why it should be taken down, myself. I doubt it's really taking too much bandwidth up, or something.

Oh, and there's also the fact that issue 100 got sprend about the internet quite a bit. I saw it pop up at such places as 4chan, loads of flash portal/blog sites where they linked to the newgrounds file etc. So people may be wanting to know what it's about. 217.42.9.137 08:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Reply - It's your first post, yes. But let me comment on the Category:Webcomics. Right now, there is a lot of superfluous fluff on there. And I am trying to clean it up, this is going to take a long time to work through them. But I am going to have to start somewhere, hence there are still non notable webcomics on Wikipedia besides this one, does not mean we should keep it. AFD takes time. - Hahnchen 14:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - Someone may of already mencioned this, but in the "Remarks on notability" section of "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents", it clearly states that "Webcomics are notable if they have had frequent (weekly or better) updates for over a year" which it has been doing for at least that long, if not longer. On that matter, your statement on webcomic "superfluous fluff" here does not count for much. 81.152.235.72 17:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hahnchen is trying to reverse the precedent of keeping any webcomic that has been updating for X amount of time, regardless of a claim of actual notability. This is not an influential comic in the webcomic community, and this isn't notable in a newsworthy sense or a historical sense. It's just a generic webcomic of little importance, and, while I'm glad the author is proud of it and the fans are happy with it, Comixpedia is the place to write these sorts of articles about minor webcomics, not Wikipedia. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 05:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete · Katefan0(scribble) 03:40, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FactBites

Previous AfD. Still non notable, or advertising, or not encyclopedic, or whatever we're calling it this week. Delete.
brenneman(t)(c) 01:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Not making a vote yet, but the Alexa rank of 30,000 isn't too shabby. - Hahnchen 01:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alexa uses a biased sampling method and extrapolates. If a lot of people both use the Alexa toolbar and visit a site, it's a good indicator it's a notable site. This would be Alexa ranks of under 5K with confidence, under 10K with some trepidation. If almost no one has the tool bar and visits the site, it's a good indicator that the site is not notable. This would be Alexa ranking of anything from 500K to 2M. Anything between that really means very little. An actual example:[5]
      brenneman(t)(c) 02:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For such a core part of the Internet as a search engine, an Alexa rank of 30,000 is absolutely abysmal. --Carnildo 04:04, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, previous afd ruling was odd, one "crush", one "delete", and one unsigned "leave"... If I had been Tony I would probably have relisted instead for more feedback but nevermind... Usrnme h8er 08:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I really think that this has potential. First, the site is still in testing mode so Alexa rankings will be utterly useless (which they are anyway, a totally biased indicator of the internet). Second, a google search for "factbites.com" gave me 'about 1,770,000' results, with a lot of new stuff from news and tech sites, meaning that the search engine is picking up speed. I'm not sure when the site went online exactly, but it may also be too new to feature on the Alexa rankings.
    alf 10:37, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom: viz, non notable, badvertising, and unencyclopedic. Dottore So 11:37, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per last time. Proto t c 15:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Gyrofrog (talk) 21:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Onfile skinheads

Does not assert notability, wholly fails WP:MUSIC, has only 49 Google hits, and has no Allmusic article. --Blackcap | talk 01:47, 28 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.

Scott emerson

A hoax that now gets its 5 days at AfD. No Google hits for "scott emerson" toothpaste, and the WWW has it that modern-day toothpaste was introduced in 1873 by Colgate. Pilatus 02:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

End Times (webcomic)

A webcomic which can be found here. The article did not even have the web link on until I editted it. Their original domain name either expired or the webmaster just didn' bother paying up. Nothing to assert notability, doesn't even meet the extremely lax criteria at WP:COMIC. - Hahnchen 02:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Redirect, the target page has more detailed information, there was some indication that this term was in use (though not commonly). Rx StrangeLove 19:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prague connection

  • Delete - non-notable in itself; this is part of the Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda timeline, but the phrase "Prague connection" is not commonly used outside of a very small context. The topic is dealt with better on the Saddam/Al Qaeda page than it is here; it's not clear that we need such a page. csloat 02:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with above. Dottore So 11:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • note as the creator of this site I will not vote, I just want to say that this is the key event used to justify the invasion and the "meeting" is still controversial - there are still appearing new information (or new points of view [6]) ....so it could have it´s own site - to enter more points of view -the main page Hussein-Al-Qaeda is yet too long to enter details about it. The term "prague connection" is not used very often, but it is the only used name of this meeting [7]
Thanks for the links - I had not seen the one about the Spanish trial. But I read it and I am not sure what it has to do with the Prague meeting information, other than that the author uses the Prague information as some kind of analogy. Anyway, the google search delivers 720 hits - to me that is not enough to say this is a notable phrase, especially since many of the hits land on copies of this page. A search of the Nexis database of "Major papers" for "all available dates" gives me 26 hits on this phrase, only fourteen of which actually deal with Atta. I think you're right that the alleged meeting belongs on wikipedia, but it is already here on the timeline on Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. I don't think the phrase "Prague connection" is that notable. By the way, I think you can vote, even though you created the page. --csloat 04:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I agree with you. Just the main page is very very long (that´s not good). I remember that time ago the term "prague connection" was used very often in NewsTV (so I used it), bud it´s right that Google should give more results for it...
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Freehold Circle

Here is another nn traffic circle. Roadcruft. Delete --JAranda | yeah 02:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of male personal names that end in A

I've got nothing against lists when they're useful, but this one isn't. Non-encyclopaedic trivia. Ziggurat 03:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suthesan

He's famous for the motorzone.com.my website, which is up for deletion -- Kjkolb 03:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Transwiki. Rx StrangeLove 20:06, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clog (plumbing)

This page is an instruction manual entry Bob Palin 04:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Garfield

Not quite sure but looks like just another blogger.-- Sasquatcht|c 04:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Simonetti

I recommend reading this, the original version of the page. I severely cut it down removing everything I thought was highly POV and you might not agree, so if your vote is on lack of content make sure you look at it in its full glory. gren グレン 04:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete · Katefan0(scribble) 03:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Daniel Engels

Not a very notable researcher. Article leads like a resume. Delete. — JIP | Talk 05:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 05:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Uh...are you sure about this? He's got plenty of Google, and his work in the RFID field alone has taken him afar as New Zealand. Not overly notable to the lay person, but certainly very respected in his field. --inks 09:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Did a google scholar search for his work, found two articles on the first page (which I think is an indication in itself), the first one being cited 17 times and the other 9. Lets hope google scholar did its job and found the most significant articles he's published, if this is true, then his research is nothing but standard, and not desrving enough (IMHO) of an entry in an encyclpaedia. Going as far as New Zealand is no big deal, know quite a few researchers here in Brisbane who frequent Canada and the UK for their universities (conferences and such). However, if someone can prove me wrong (or if i've just mucked up with the google scholar search somehow) and he is notable (i.e. the article is expanded to reflect this) then I'll change my vote to keep, but for now it's delete
    alf 10:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget the textbook chapters he co-authored (somehow Google Scholar found them too), and those have been cited 40+ times each (never thought I'd see a textbook cited in a published paper, but there you go). By your standards, how many publications and/or citations would be required to establish notability? Also, by other measures (eg. Plain old Google), he seems to be a well sought after speaker at computer and RFID-like conferences.--inks 20:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was MERGE to Melbourne tram route 75. Gyrofrog (talk) 21:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable -Nameneko 05:20, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Two-armed hug

Unencyclopedic and unrescuable. Not even a transwikiable dicdef. MCB 05:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Gyrofrog (talk) 22:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

fp code

plus: talk:fp code, fail, outcome, now and fail, now and fail statement, NOW AND FAIL statement, do statement and DO statement. (I think that is all.)

A formal logic system created by pyenos in September 2005. Total nonsense / original research. I tagged this for speedy but the author removed the tag. -- RHaworth 06:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is not important but does it have to be important? Pyenos 07:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hey Pyenos. It is obvious that you have put a LOT of work into that article, however Wikipedia has a policiy on not listing original research (as it is an encyclopaedia, so it has to go with commonly accepted facts). However, if you are able to show real-world/practical applications of Fp code and its advantages/disadvantages to other programming languages, I would be happy to change my vote. It is, however, important that articles in Wikipedia are on notable things so that it does become a research source. I hope you don't get discouraged by all of this, as I'm sure you would be able to contribute to a lot of other articles out there.cheers, alf 11:04, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. OR. Dottore So 11:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete: it's only original research because the author has yet to publish it elsewhere, but it is original. Also slapped wrist to RHaworth for tagging it nonsense: it is not patent nonsense. - mholland 12:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Definitely get rid of the associated cruft articles, though. - mholland 12:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I purposely didn't use jargons and to me, although it is not important, it is consistent and complete. I could elaborate further, especially its application in computation but I thought this is for general audience. MCB, it is incomprehensible to you, probably because I didn't explain it using conventional logic, which was my intention. Why is it a nonsense if it works? It can work with a very simple program and it will automatically reduce to an outcome. Sorry if I made a mistake in writing this article. It seems you guys prefer me being a machine than being a human. I have a tendancy to think like a machine but I thought that was not appropriate. Do what you like with articles, but I could fill twenty or more full articles with the foundation of what I have wrote in Fp code, which I chose not to. My understanding was that this is for general audience and I had an interesting idea so I wanted to share it. I could do much more without being technical, such as to write a decoder program like in Geek Code. That may well happen if I do decide to develop this concept further. Please do understand that it was not my intention to post a garbage article. Bye. Pyenos 23:53, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrozeen

Does not assert notability, and by failing to do so, fails WP:MUSIC. --Blackcap | talk 06:20, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:06, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

San Francisco Giants: All-Time Team

Wikipedia is not a place for original research or personal opinions, and this article can never be anything but original research or personal opinion. Colin M. 06:21, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, for reasons stated above. Colin M. 06:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This article has no sourcing and thus appears to be a personal opinion of the author. This article could be saved if a reliable source was added showing who selected the team and their credentials. I will vote to delete unless a credible source is shown for the claim. If one is provided, I will vote to keep. Please contact me on my talk page if you have tracked down a source. Capitalistroadster 07:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Rx StrangeLove 20:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Qais bin malik

Non-notable figure who gets 4 Google results, not counting Wikipedia mirrors. He's not mentioned in the battle article, so no redirect, just delete. -- Kjkolb 07:57, 28 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 as nn-bio --Doc (?) 11:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Stout

Vanity page, nn Usrnme h8er 08:21, 28 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 to continue the existing deletion discussion that is currently in progress on the original discussion page. Despite the request in the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion not to rename articles without being careful to rename the discussion page in parallel, CalJW (talk · contribs) moved this article from CSLD (AfD discussion) without moving the discussion page in parallel. The existing discussion is still open. Please discuss this article there. Uncle G 16:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge Student Liberal Democrats

This article was either never listed on AfD or was removed out of process. It's been up since September 24, with the two unsigned comments below. Delete as non-notable. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 09:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be plenty of articles on Oxbridge political societies that have produced alumni that have gone on to be famous - such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OUCA , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OULC and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Union - and I used these articles as the template. What are the grounds for deletion? There are quite a few MPs and Peers among the alumni, and it's a long-established society with over 100 members and 2,000 registered supporters on the 'interested' list - both exceptionally large figures for Cambridge, and making it one of the largest and best-known societies in the University. If you want to edit it to conform to a higher standard, by all means do so, and feel free to make suggestions for improvement and expansion, but I can't see this as something needing deletion.

When I find the time in the next few days I was planning to draw up some similar articles on CUCA and CULC, the Tory and Labour societies too - please don't put my efforts to waste! ;0) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.77.112 (talk • contribs) 02:35, September 24, 2005 (UTC)


I've now added http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_University_Labour_Club and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_University_Conservative_Association - together, the three societies with the Union make up the centre of Cambridge politics and have been the first political steps of many 'big names.' If you want to delete all four articles, go ahead, but I wouldn't recommend selectively deleting some, and they do seem important enough for historians/biographers to study in depth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.92.235 (talk • contribs) 16:34, September 24, 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ECIC

Nonsense from the people who brought you Squad7 and the Lice Research Group. Maybe even speedy delete.[maestro] 09:04, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a proxy IP, so it could be different people. It's www.infinity-stuff.com that runs a proxy. You should block it, but the articles are probably from different people. unsigned comment by 67.159.5.159 2005-09-29 06:29:16, author of ECIC, who also deleted the nomination itself here
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. – Rich Farmbrough 21:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greatest Hits (Kenny Chesney album)

Greatest hits albums are inherently non-notable — see Wikipedia:WikiProject Music#Albums, bands, and songs: "Unless there's extenuating circumstances, greatest hits and compilation albums don't need an article". Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy-class star destroyer or republic star destroyer

A similar article about a "Legacy class" was deleted some months ago (see here. Ship is a fan created one. Article should be deleted as per the results of the related VFD. Kross 11:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exact e-Synergy

Based on the external link it's probably worth an article, but in it's current form it's nothing more than a advertisement. Delete. - Mgm|(talk) 11:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is marketing hogwash. Solarusdude 19:53, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Locomotive No. 1. – Rich Farmbrough 17:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Locomovtive No.1

Joke page. Looks to be a spoof-continuation of Locomotion No 1. Delete or BJAODN Syrthiss 12:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ekrōnja

Appears to be a hoax. Ekrōnja doesn't get any Google hits, without the diacratic mark, there's one unrelated hit. Article isn't informative and doesn't help in verifying. Delete. - Mgm|(talk) 12:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Egon

There is a song called Egon by Björn Rosenström according to [12] but the lyrics don't relate to the content of this article. The article claims that the Egon stories detailed "are completely true". Hmm. Delete as hoax. CLW 12:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like you have misunderstood the article. The character Egon is only originally BASED on Egon from that particular song, but has lateron evolved into a completely different person than a 4-year old! The article is all about this person, NOT the Egon in the song!

The two stories told so far are completely true. Again, they happened to the Egon the article is about, and not the boy in the song. Please do not remove this article. (Unsigned comments by 213.89.202.156)

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Darth Cyclonus

Fanfic character who shares a creator with the article. DS 12:43, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 16:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fagbusters

Non-notable forum user and Dustin Diamond fetishist. (Can someone amalgamate these into one entry?) DS 13:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is junk. Dudtz 9/29/05 7:01 PM EST

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 16:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dustin's Rim Goblin

Non-notable forum user and Dustin Diamond fetishist. (Can someone amalgamate these into one entry?) DS 13:13, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 16:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Steinberg

Non-notable forum user and Dustin Diamond fetishist. (Can someone amalgamate these into one entry?) DS 13:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do not Delete Why are you deleting this article? Kurt Steinberg does have a substantial following among Saved By The Bell fans. If you delete this, you might as well delete all the crap I see on this website about video games. While you're at it, why don't you trim down Cindy Sheehan's article - why is she deserving such a voluminous article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.222.125.115 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 29 September 2005
  • Do not delete A central figure in the Dustin Diamond "fetishist" subculture. It's obviously been shown by many major publication that this is a facet of Dustin Diamond's celebrity, and this character is a central part of that. User:Ysolace 1800, 9/29/05. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.169.50.97 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 29 September 2005
  • Delete like all the others listed. --Apyule 01:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Remember When

Non-notable forum user (described as "the Remember When guy") and Dustin Diamond fetishist. (Can someone amalgamate these into one entry?) DS 13:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 16:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rocco

Non-notable forum user and Dustin Diamond fetishist. (Can someone amalgamate these into one entry?) DS 13:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 16:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dustin Diamond Love

Non-notable forum full of Dustin Diamond fetishists. I'll grant that this might deserve a mention in the Dustin Diamond article, though. DS 13:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Petasoft

This is apparently a copy of earlier article Tiger OS which was earlier voted to redirect without merge (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Tiger OS). The same problems as with that article - obscure company that doesn't want to tell too many details until some vague future date - though this time there's nothing to redirect to, really. Wwwwolf 13:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Rx StrangeLove 20:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hypervideo

Appears to be a neologism or attempt to create a term. The word 'hypervideo' brings up a wide variety of matches on google, including many commercial products with the name, yet none of the first page results appear to match the definition given. Possible original research. CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think this page should remain, it seems that any video incorporating hyperlinks and embedded interactivity can be called hypervideo, and there are many sources on the web using this terminology. Of course I think the article should be expanded, but definitely not deleted. What other terms can be used to describe this development?

See http://www.fxpal.com/publications/FXPAL-PR-03-221.pdf and http://www.csdl.tamu.edu/~l0f0954/academic/cpsc610/p-2.htm --69.113.47.203 14:43, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To be an advocate of the devil, does this mean that all linkable content be preceeded with hyper? A clickable image becomes a hyperimage, a clickable filename becomes a hyperdownload, and so on? With respect, perhaps the most telling reason for why this article should be deleted comes from your own post which asks "What other terms can be used to describe this?", a question that seems to cement the suspicion that this is original research. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Originally, a "link" was a "hyperlink", and the "hyper" prefix was abandoned as the short form gained momentum and went mainstream. So I imagine "hypervideo" might end up being "video" if the technology becomes adopted en masse. With respect to the original reserarch and neologism argument, there are dozens of seperate entries that came up in a dogpile search, some academic and some commercial, dating back to 1998. While the definition is not yet standardized, it appears to be a term that is in use, and Wikipedia should offer information to those who seek to learn more about it. "Hotspotting" is also a term used in several articles in the media, though this term is too ambiguous and generic to describe the specific characteristics of this technology. --Maestro44 16:20, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • User's first edit.
Comment what we really need in order to keep it is some evidence that it is a term commonly in use. You refer to Dogpiled articles that demonstrate the use of the term - link to them in the article and verify that the term is not 'original research' or a 'neologism', and you'll have a very good case for the article being kept. I should warn you that when it comes to new terminology Wikipedia usually keeps terms that are very common, and the case you make should reflect this. Ziggurat 22:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I've inserted links to commercial publications, academic papers, several producers of hypervideo software and solutions... I could do this all day, what is the threshold needed to justify the term has been around for many years? Just because you may not have heard of it doesn't mean it's new. It might just mean that you're ignorant. That's why I'm spending the time writing this article, to inform people about something that is becoming very important. Take this deletion notice down.--Maestro44 17:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The deletion notice is there so that people can discuss whether to keep the article or not, and this page is here to debate that. Thank you for adding links, and hopefully this is sufficient to sway people to vote for a keep, but the notice is generally not removed until people have finished discussing it! Ziggurat 23:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep there is evidence that this is a term in use (e.g. [13], [14] ), but also that it is sometimes used as a copyrighted term (e.g. [15]). The article should reflect that it is also used by some companies, but there is sufficient evidence that this is a piece of genuine terminology. Ziggurat 23:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Good point, I clarified that there is a difference between "hypervideo" and "HyperVideo" or "Hyper Video". I also put in some links to the academic papers. --Maestro44 13:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The author advised me of his rewrite and I feel the content now is quite good. My concern above, however, remains: this is an attempt to encyclopedify a commercial neologism, thereby granting it an apparently independent and objective substantiation. As an encyclopedic project, WP needs to be vigilant about reflecting, not helping to define, such concepts and while I note Ziggurat's point that there is evidence that this concept has been used, I think that this is a reflexion of commercial placement. I therefore maintain my vote above to delete, although I think the author should add whatever material s/he feels is relevant to the Hypermedia article, which is currently a stub. When the moderator comes to close this, I might suggest it be relisted for further discussion, seeing as this has attracted less attention (3 votes + author) than it deserves and raises some interesting points. Dottore So 07:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem adding some of this to the Hypermedia stub, even though I think it deserves an entry in its own right. Regarding the "neo" I think 1996 is quite a long time ago. Also, regarding commercial intent, why does Wikipedia have pages such as Windows vista? I see a double standard, since articles such as the one just mentioned are clearly new products, but this term is used by many in academia as well as various commercial entities (not just one as in the MS example). --Maestro44 23:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fourier wave device

Band vanity. No label, no AMG, no evidence of notability. — brighterorange (talk) 14:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Memetic Envisioneering

already transwiki'd to wk, and the article is hardly readable. so, take your pick: nn dicdef, advertising, unintelligible? — brighterorange (talk) 14:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

James seal

Hoax, created by an anon who has had every single other change or page creation reverted/speedied. Originally nominated as a CSD, but as User:Doc glasgow helpfully (and politely; cheers!) pointed out, there is indeed an assertion of notability, incorrect though it is. Google turns up no mentions of this fellow when searching with his name and beatbox/rnb/singing-related search terms. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:31, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Morally corrupt

webcomic vanity. no alexa rank, a "new site" according to the home page. — brighterorange (talk) 14:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was redirect to photographic film. I am trying to guess the intention of the proposer here; I left a message at User talk:Grika to allow feedback. Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Imation (3m)

This page is titled and stubed as a corporate page, but a page for Imation Corporation already exists. Furthermore, this article concerns how to identify 35mm film's OEM by its bar code; I have now merged this information into Photographic film. Grika Ⓣ 14:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mayor Gridlock

To my knowledge this is not an actual term. This appears to be a politically motivated POV page by the vandals who hit the Greg Nickels page DiceDiceBaby 15:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT. Gyrofrog (talk) 22:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strawberry Hill Players

NN It's bad enough that we seem to be headed towards having a Wikipedia article for every high school. Having an article for every student group is unacceptable unless some claim to notoriety beyond that school can be shown. No such claim has been made here. Caerwine 15:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Gyrofrog (talk) 22:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Logan Local School District

Thoroughly unremarkable school district with little context created by an IP that also vandalized pages --Nlu 15:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please don't nominate schools or school districts as it is the most controversial thing you can do on this page and they are almost never deleted. CalJW 16:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
However, please note the context that this request was added; the article was created by a vandal. --Nlu 16:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
May I just say, I don't think this is a reason to nominate at all. First, do you know if the IP is a static IP assigned to a private computer? If its not, this may not be the vandal who created the page. Second, even if we could be sure that the person who created the page was a vandal, why would we want to delete their legitimate contribution? I would think exactly the opposite should be true, we should be more inclined to keep a contribution from a former vandal because we would like to encourage them to change their ways. We can verify it exists [17] and that the information is correct. Who cares who made it?--best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 21:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jdude384

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Junkbait Music

Ad for a non-notable not-yet-up-and-running label. --fvw* 15:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Wolters

Bassist for an nn band. Not sure if that counts as A7, putting it here for the heck of it. --fvw* 15:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Khan

Vocalist for a non-notable band. --fvw* 15:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Harley Band

Non-notable band. --fvw* 15:37, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Strangely enough I was just browsing wikipedia at an idle moment and saw this for deletion ... non-notable band ... interesting ... this year alone they have featured on channel 4, played nokia boardmasters with james blunt, supported the mondays at kfest ... and are currently set top break the world record for the highest gig in the world at base camp everest


I take it your guys arent into the UK blues scene or into surfing ....

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

The result of the debate was very close, so some weighing of arguments here is needed. As far as vote count is concerned, I see seven votes to delete, and three or four votes to keep, depending on whether the anon should be counted or not (I am usually willing to count anon votes if I don't suspect sockpuppetry, and in this case I don't suspect it). In addition we have a comment leaning towards keep but declaring that it is not voting.

The argument for deletion has been that the text is original research, in violation of WP:NOR. A rebuttal to this has been made by pointing to a JROTC link. However, it has also been pointed out, by Barno, that this is only one of several such typologies which exist and that there is nothing special about the typology presented in this article which distinguishes it from the others.

In sum I cannot see a consensus that an article on the subject leadership styles is invalid and should never have an article, but even some of the "keep" voters here have expressed concern with this particular article. Because of that I will close this debate with a delete decision. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Leadership styles

Looks like original research: the four 'archetypes' don't yield any (non-wiki) Google results. No sources. The lists of alternative names are more commonly used, but those are merely mentioned. JoanneB 15:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. But I will correct the spelling and wikify to provide links.. – Rich Farmbrough 20:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moree PlainsShire

A stub already exists at Moree Plains. No point in a redirect as I don't think this would be a common misspelling. Al 15:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. (Final vote was 8 delete, 2 keep. Votes from anonymous contributors and from accounts created after the AFD was initiated were discounted.) --Angr/tɔk tə mi 19:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seduction Community

Delete. Firstly, there is less than 1000 hits on Google for this phrase. The page also has links to questionable sites and that could be construed as promotion. The Seduction article is being visited by the same contributors [19] embedding the same links [20]. PhilipO 16:01, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy explicity states that:-
Communities, message boards and blogs are generally not notable --PhilipO 22:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The page now also includes what could be construed as original research, in violation of policy. --PhilipO 05:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agreed. Whoever added these ideas did it amateurishly. Are the current improvements acceptable? DutchSeduction 06:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The core ideas have been time-tested by thousands of people. They are neither original nor nascent. Unsigned comment by User:70.225.167.229


  • Delete, promotional piece, non-notable. --fvw* 16:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, I think that this is definately a notable topic for wikipedia. For example, look at the number of mainstream media articles about one seduction community guru in the media: http://www.mysterymethod.com/InTheMedia.aspx . This area truely has an extreme danger for promotion however. Essentially, even though for example this mystery person has had a lot of articles about them, the majority of the techniques and lingo of these style organized pickup artists evolved from a ton of community interaction primarily on websites, making the particular notability of any one of them more suspicious. Therefore I propose we merge this and all current and future articles on particular individuals of this community into one article. The only articles I know of in wikipedia on individual members are on David Deangelo, mystery, and Ross Jefferies. Any new articles which crop of for other "gurus" should be merged into the one article. The question is what this one article would be called. As the first person noted, there is not a widely used name for this phenomenon as yet, either by outsiders or by those in the particular groups. I propose that we stick with this article name for now and rename it to whatever seems more apropriate as time goes by. As a final argument, wikipedia voted to keep the seven styles of lightsabre fighting article, which essentially voids all delitions for notability as being hypocritical :). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.127.176.41 (talk • contribs) same IP block as the main contributor to this article. Also, the last redlink makes for a funny complaint, even if it's just using "sabre" instead of "saber" :) — Lomn
  • Delete per fvw — Lomn | Talk / RfC 02:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThis is an underground trend that should be discussed in a balanced way. The few Internet sites mentioned are the most independent ones available and probably most representative of the community being described. Let's discuss how to make the article more informative, as the subject matter is of interest. I agree with the previous comment that the subject matter has a danger for promotion. Individual members such as Deangelo, Mystery, Badboy and Jeffries are commercial interests, and may not merit having their own page. These people are four among the most well known of the commercial seduction coaches. The term "seduction community" is probably the best and most common description used. This is how the community currently describes itself. See the term's use in a recent popular book on the subject (this week THE GAME is number 15 on the NYTimes Bestseller list). This book is being widely reviewed. An alternative title for the page such as "Seduction Strategies for Men" only sounds more promotional. <-- Unsigned comment by DutchSeduction 06:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC), c. 03:30 UTC - this user has edited this article and Seduction and inserted as well as deleted affiliated links. [reply]
  • Delete. A poor attempt at viral marketing that unabashedly abuses Wikipedia's openness. -- Hadal 04:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep PhillipO has articles on Wikipedia about Roches department store, a video game and a fantasy role playing game, which are not considered promotion??! <-- Unsigned comment by 213.148.229.118 (talk · contribs), c. 04:30 UTC - this user has edited this article and Seduction as well, to insert affiliated links.

Hadal, upon what do you base this "viral marketing" charge? If you prefer to remove these links in favor of other, more neutral ones, please suggest them. The subject itself is worthy of an article, although it is true that there are link spammers active in this area. The current version does not contain these links. DutchSeduction 06:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC), c. 04:30 UTC - this user has edited this article and Seduction and inserted as well as deleted affiliated links. [reply]

  • Comment I'm going to quote User: Fubar here: "Wikipedia needs to be able to reflect all verifiable human knowledge." I fail to see how a page describing a big Irish department store or a popular video game called "Ghosts and Goblins" has more interest and value than an article about the seduction community. Suggest criticism be given to help REVISE and avoid deleting information. Everything written on this page is not intended to be promotional, but purely descriptive. Please verify information provided. Here is an excerpt from an article in the NYTimes that provides more background. Please provide suggestions to help revise and improve this article.
  • Comment Those links have been removed at your suggestion. The one site, http://www.fastseduction.com, is the moderated version of the original Usenet group. The other site is created by a nonprofit foundation, and endeavors to be neutral. Both links have been deleted. Please make some suggestions as to what pointers are acceptable. The point is not to keep removing items you personally find objectionable. Please suggest alternatives. DutchSeduction 06:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Compare with David_DeAngelo, an article that is entirely self-promotional. I've tried to improve it, rather than simply deleting it, but most of the external links on that article are pure spam. Shouldn't there be some consistent policy on Wikipedia?
  • Comment What makes subject noteworthy and enclopedic? Compared to various other subjects on Wikipedia? The original author of the page referred to Seven_Forms_of_Lightsaber_Combat as an example, but there are many others. Please provide more guidance on how to keep improving the article for Wikipedia.
  • Delete - Biased and off-kiltered representation. i.e. a bunch of KJ BS Unsigned vote by User:128.104.55.214
  • Keep as separate article. This article is notable and the things these guys practice definitely have an effect on behavior at clubs and in relationships. I dislike the practice immensely, but it's notable nonetheless. However, some parts of it could be cleaned up a little. I don't think this article is self-promotional; it's a trend. --Quintin3265 21:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - inaccurate from the first sentence. Does not warrant a seperate article. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 07:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment RN, every sentence is verifiable and accurate. If not, please give us an example of what you mean so that we can improve the information.
  • Keep Nothing about this article appears to be non-encyclopedic. I strongly suspect that it has only been set as 'considered for deletion' because certain people don't like the subject matter. Unsigned comment by User:24.97.252.34

Improve This Article

  • PLEASE NOTE Unsigned comments and revisions are not likely to be taken seriously.
  • Create an account, and sign all comments and changes.
  • Vote to Keep the article on Wikipedia here OR if you see problems in the article, make suggestions or recommendations.
  • Nominate the article for improvement: this page's entry
  • Comment You really seem to have it in for this article, Phil! The link you cited states, "Please be familiar with the policies of not biting the newcomers..." DutchSeduction 10:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC) Since the article has been nominated for deletion:[reply]
1. Substantial revisions have been done, taking all criticisms into account.
2. All external links have been removed except for links to mainstream books and periodicals and one Usnet Newsgroup.
3. Additional edits have been done to improve NPOV. Any other specific issues that have been clearly noted have been carefully addressed.
4. An extensive reference list has been added.
5. All wording that might be construed as promotional has been removed. The article provides both pros and cons.
In short, Phil, we don't understand what your beef is with the article at this point. Please clarify what needs to be done to improve this piece. DutchSeduction 10:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Subject matter is somewhat controversial. The article needs to be improved and made more balanced. DutchSeduction 06:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC) This user had less then 50 edits, on all this topic or closely related articles[reply]
  • Comment the page was extensively re-written after going up for AfD to remove the spammy elements. Then it was extensively re-written again after discussion on IRC, to make it more like a proper wikipedia article — it's even got an excellent reference section now!. I don't have a stake in it either way (well, I'd prefer it were deleted, just to remove the phrase "seduction community" from my user contribs ;-)) but if you're going to delete it, please delete it on the merits of the article as it stands and the notability of the community, not because it originally looked like spam. --fuddlemark

(fuddle me!) 16:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment DeAngelo is arguably among the most successful of the commercial dating coaches in this community. That article seems promotional is nature, and contains a number of factual errors. Perhaps it also should be marked for improvement/revision.
  • Keep This topic is the main subject of a book on the New York Times bestseller list, "The Game," by Neil Strauss. If that isn't an indicator of worthiness, I don't know what is. Contributors can filter out blatantly commericial links, but the subject should be in. Unsigned comment by User:70.225.167.229
  • Keep I think this article is very intresting but it could be checked for accuaracy. Unsigned comment by User:157.62.105.5
  • Keep It's an interesting subject that I think people will find fascinating to read one way or other. The page should be kept and improved. Puga 08:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC) User:Puga has only two entries, from an account created today, all on this article[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to Kemal Montano. – Rich Farmbrough 11:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sarajevo Love of Mine

Just lyrics, in Bosnian and English JoanneB 16:17, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert 02:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Schismatic Catholic Church

Delete Unless it is verified. Dudtz 9/29/05 5:37 PM EST Keep. This Church is the only TRUE CHURCH. Huhedda Falzon, Secretary to HH Pope Leo XIV

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

The result of the debate was delete · Katefan0(scribble) 03:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Los Bastardos

Band vanity JoanneB 16:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ravihansa Wetakepotha

Article claims notability as a percussionist. Google gives 1 hit - as, yes, a percussionist. DS 16:57, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_September_28&oldid=24244393"